#e61919
Product Manager
12218
0
1
Mar 11, 2017 17:47:30 GMT -8
Matej
This is my status!
17,630
August 2003
wooper
|
Post by Matej on Aug 29, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -8
You say that they shall respect no religion and i agree that this is best but you fail to think about how most of the founders were christian. If you look at the capital half of the inscriptions have something to do with God. The money says "In God we Trust". I don't remember all the other inscriptions but i do remember that on the doors they have the Ten Commandments. This country was made to accept other religions but it was made as a christian nation. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't think this is a totally religious subject. I think it's wrong even without God in it. Most of the founding fathers were running AWAY from religion, establishing a new country where they can express which ever religion they want. The constitution says that no religion shall impose it's beliefs on laws. No matter what religion anyone belongs to, law should be made on an objective basis, not because "the Bible says so". If you think it's wrong even without God, I understand, however, why should beliefs of some infringe on the rights of people? Should the beliefs of white people infringe on the rights of black people again and reenact slavery, because that's how they feel? Should the belief of the "actual" Bible that women are inferior to men be imposed to law?
|
|
inherit
Minister of English Affairs
58572
0
Aug 7, 2012 18:28:52 GMT -8
bagheera
7,535
September 2005
bagheera101
|
Post by bagheera on Aug 29, 2010 16:14:08 GMT -8
Other than that all I can say is in the Bible it was a sin back then and the law remains. Free-will lets people do what they want but will be judged. *shrug* it wasn't okay then and it's not now according to the Bible. Sorry, but you're wrong. Have you actually researched the issue by looking up the Bible scholars who searched for the original meanings of words such as arsenokoitai? Have you actually looked up what arsenokoitai means, and when it got changed to "homosexual"? Until then, please don't say that the Bible says it's wrong without clarifying that revisionists changed the Bible to make it wrong.
|
|
inherit
Dalai Llama Of Proboards
22766
0
Aug 6, 2012 16:35:06 GMT -8
MarvinRules
Be Yourself, Everybody else is taken.
29,805
April 2004
marvinrules
|
Post by MarvinRules on Aug 29, 2010 16:18:25 GMT -8
You say that they shall respect no religion and i agree that this is best but you fail to think about how most of the founders were christian. If you look at the capital half of the inscriptions have something to do with God. The money says "In God we Trust". I don't remember all the other inscriptions but i do remember that on the doors they have the Ten Commandments. This country was made to accept other religions but it was made as a christian nation."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't think this is a totally religious subject. I think it's wrong even without God in it. I am sorry but it was not founded by christians. That is a myth. All the refferences to god were added much later by Christian potlitians.
|
|
inherit
GO NOW Welcome to Pain
145851
0
Nov 2, 2022 12:05:16 GMT -8
Syko Nachoman
as the final day falls into the night, there is peace outside in the narrow light
14,493
August 2009
sykonachoman
|
Post by Syko Nachoman on Aug 29, 2010 16:18:35 GMT -8
"One nation under God" was added in 1954. It is in no way part of your constitution. " The Pledge has been modified four times since then, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954. " While the following quote IS part of your constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So, tell me, how is that not an oxymoron of its own constitution. Also, if you want to get technical, it never states WHICH God. The Government is not allowed to respect any religion, yet they do. if only i had the answer to everything. Including the question I asked you.
|
|
Ash
Full Member
love and peace go a long way
Posts: 610
inherit
155499
0
Apr 8, 2014 14:31:43 GMT -8
Ash
love and peace go a long way
610
June 2010
itsashleighyo
|
Post by Ash on Aug 29, 2010 16:19:30 GMT -8
some religions let people marry more than one women...and it's illegal to do so here.
so, there's going to be flaws anywhere someone goes. complaining gets a person no where.
for me and what I disagree with 'suck it up and keep living'
|
|
inherit
66829
0
Jan 16, 2020 19:36:30 GMT -8
Hero
I r teh n00b eater!
17,455
December 2005
herooftime3
|
Post by Hero on Aug 29, 2010 16:20:02 GMT -8
And for those who say "but da pledge has da wurds "under god" in it!", no... well, yes, but that part wasn't added until the 50s. Just sayin'.
|
|
inherit
153968
0
Nov 19, 2012 15:03:05 GMT -8
Thesealion
New Phone Who Dis?
4,124
April 2010
joemaggio
|
Post by Thesealion on Aug 29, 2010 16:21:31 GMT -8
Other than that all I can say is in the Bible it was a sin back then and the law remains. Free-will lets people do what they want but will be judged. *shrug* it wasn't okay then and it's not now according to the Bible. Sorry, but you're wrong. Have you actually researched the issue by looking up the Bible scholars who searched for the original meanings of words such as arsenokoitai? Have you actually looked up what arsenokoitai means, and when it got changed to "homosexual"? Until then, please don't say that the Bible says it's wrong without clarifying that revisionists changed the Bible to make it wrong. Ok so in that case you might be correct i will give that one to you even though i don't believe it. But read Liviticus 20 vs 13 "If a Man Lies with a male as with a woman both of them shall be put to death" That clearly states that it is wrong. Now do we want to kill them? No! We just know that God says it is wrong
|
|
Ash
Full Member
love and peace go a long way
Posts: 610
inherit
155499
0
Apr 8, 2014 14:31:43 GMT -8
Ash
love and peace go a long way
610
June 2010
itsashleighyo
|
Post by Ash on Aug 29, 2010 16:21:53 GMT -8
Other than that all I can say is in the Bible it was a sin back then and the law remains. Free-will lets people do what they want but will be judged. *shrug* it wasn't okay then and it's not now according to the Bible. Sorry, but you're wrong. Have you actually researched the issue by looking up the Bible scholars who searched for the original meanings of words such as arsenokoitai? Have you actually looked up what arsenokoitai means, and when it got changed to "homosexual"? Until then, please don't say that the Bible says it's wrong without clarifying that revisionists changed the Bible to make it wrong. i didn't want to but you asked for it * Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1 * Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" * 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." * Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
|
|
inherit
153968
0
Nov 19, 2012 15:03:05 GMT -8
Thesealion
New Phone Who Dis?
4,124
April 2010
joemaggio
|
Post by Thesealion on Aug 29, 2010 16:22:21 GMT -8
You say that they shall respect no religion and i agree that this is best but you fail to think about how most of the founders were christian. If you look at the capital half of the inscriptions have something to do with God. The money says "In God we Trust". I don't remember all the other inscriptions but i do remember that on the doors they have the Ten Commandments. This country was made to accept other religions but it was made as a christian nation. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't think this is a totally religious subject. I think it's wrong even without God in it. Most of the founding fathers were running AWAY from religion, establishing a new country where they can express which ever religion they want. The constitution says that no religion shall impose it's beliefs on laws. No matter what religion anyone belongs to, law should be made on an objective basis, not because "the Bible says so". If you think it's wrong even without God, I understand, however, why should beliefs of some infringe on the rights of people? Should the beliefs of white people infringe on the rights of black people again and reenact slavery, because that's how they feel? Should the belief of the "actual" Bible that women are inferior to men be imposed to law? No it shouldn't. I really don't think this is a religious thing. I think the Homosexuals blame it on the Christians because the Christians come out against it. I do think it is wrong and i do think it is a sin and should not be law. The thing is there isn't a law saying it isn't legal there just isn't a law that says it IS legal.
|
|
inherit
153968
0
Nov 19, 2012 15:03:05 GMT -8
Thesealion
New Phone Who Dis?
4,124
April 2010
joemaggio
|
Post by Thesealion on Aug 29, 2010 16:24:02 GMT -8
Sorry, but you're wrong. Have you actually researched the issue by looking up the Bible scholars who searched for the original meanings of words such as arsenokoitai? Have you actually looked up what arsenokoitai means, and when it got changed to "homosexual"? Until then, please don't say that the Bible says it's wrong without clarifying that revisionists changed the Bible to make it wrong. i didn't want to but you asked for it * Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1 * Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" * 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." * Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." You proved the point better than me The point is even if you change a few words in a few cases you can't change the word for male and female...they are pretty easy to recognize and it seems that the point is clearly stated in that text.
|
|
#e61919
Product Manager
12218
0
1
Mar 11, 2017 17:47:30 GMT -8
Matej
This is my status!
17,630
August 2003
wooper
|
Post by Matej on Aug 29, 2010 16:24:15 GMT -8
Sorry, but you're wrong. Have you actually researched the issue by looking up the Bible scholars who searched for the original meanings of words such as arsenokoitai? Have you actually looked up what arsenokoitai means, and when it got changed to "homosexual"? Until then, please don't say that the Bible says it's wrong without clarifying that revisionists changed the Bible to make it wrong. Ok so in that case you might be correct i will give that one to you even though i don't believe it. But read Liviticus 20 vs 13 "If a Man Lies with a male as with a woman both of them shall be put to death" That clearly states that it is wrong. Now do we want to kill them? No! We just know that God says it is wrong I'll counter with quotes from the West Wing: "I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?" "My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?" "Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? "Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? How about that? Will you, or do you follow all of that? They're also Leviticus. Are they wrong? Why isn't Leviticus 20:13 wrong? Why aren't the others respected?
|
|
inherit
66829
0
Jan 16, 2020 19:36:30 GMT -8
Hero
I r teh n00b eater!
17,455
December 2005
herooftime3
|
Post by Hero on Aug 29, 2010 16:26:23 GMT -8
Most of the founding fathers were running AWAY from religion, establishing a new country where they can express which ever religion they want. The constitution says that no religion shall impose it's beliefs on laws. No matter what religion anyone belongs to, law should be made on an objective basis, not because "the Bible says so". If you think it's wrong even without God, I understand, however, why should beliefs of some infringe on the rights of people? Should the beliefs of white people infringe on the rights of black people again and reenact slavery, because that's how they feel? Should the belief of the "actual" Bible that women are inferior to men be imposed to law? No it shouldn't. I really don't think this is a religious thing. I think the Homosexuals blame it on the Christians because the Christians come out against it. I do think it is wrong and i do think it is a sin and should not be law. The thing is there isn't a law saying it isn't legal there just isn't a law that says it IS legal. There's not a law saying being male is legal. There's not a law saying being female is legal. There's not a law saying being straight is legal. There's not a law saying being human is legal.
|
|
ToriJ
New Member
Randomness all 'night long baby
Posts: 10
inherit
159344
0
Oct 16, 2010 18:58:40 GMT -8
ToriJ
Randomness all 'night long baby
10
October 2010
jennovul
|
Post by ToriJ on Aug 29, 2010 16:27:24 GMT -8
No they weren't. Homosexuality was but one thing among so many other sins... They weren't destroyed for homosexuality alone. Homosexuality was what put it over the top. Yes there were other bad things that went on there but the one that is put out in huge detail is Homosexuality. They still weren't destroyed for homosexuality alone. Ezekiel 16: 49-5049 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
|
|
Ash
Full Member
love and peace go a long way
Posts: 610
inherit
155499
0
Apr 8, 2014 14:31:43 GMT -8
Ash
love and peace go a long way
610
June 2010
itsashleighyo
|
Post by Ash on Aug 29, 2010 16:37:10 GMT -8
woopWorking on a Sabbath day; in the new testament the pharisees are critical of Jesus working miracles on the sabbath day. and he asks them if their horse fell in a well would they leave it there on the sabbath day or go fetch it out? and they couldnt answer him. Edit: The Sabbath is a sign between God and man Exod. 31:12 Then the LORD said to Moses, 13"Say to the Israelites, `You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. 14"`Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'" Exod. 34:21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest." Exod. 35:1 Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: 2For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. 3Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day." Lev. 16:29 "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work --whether native-born or an alien living among you-- 30because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins. 31It is a Sabbath of rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance. Commentary: This special day, the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur, was to be a special Sabbath of rest also. Lev. 19:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2"Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: `Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy. 3"`Each of you must respect his mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the LORD your God. Lev. 19:28 "`Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. 29"`Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness. 30"`Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD.
|
|
inherit
Minister of English Affairs
58572
0
Aug 7, 2012 18:28:52 GMT -8
bagheera
7,535
September 2005
bagheera101
|
Post by bagheera on Aug 29, 2010 16:39:22 GMT -8
Sorry, but you're wrong. Have you actually researched the issue by looking up the Bible scholars who searched for the original meanings of words such as arsenokoitai? Have you actually looked up what arsenokoitai means, and when it got changed to "homosexual"? Until then, please don't say that the Bible says it's wrong without clarifying that revisionists changed the Bible to make it wrong. Ok so in that case you might be correct i will give that one to you even though i don't believe it. But read Liviticus 20 vs 13 "If a Man Lies with a male as with a woman both of them shall be put to death" That clearly states that it is wrong. Now do we want to kill them? No! We just know that God says it is wrong See my post below. You proved the point better than me The point is even if you change a few words in a few cases you can't change the word for male and female...they are pretty easy to recognize and it seems that the point is clearly stated in that text. You're assuming that the rest of the sentence was structured the same way in the original Bible. Try to fit those words into the literal translation of Lev 18:22: "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman". See? It's not about the gender pronoun. It's about what words belong in between "lay" and "lyings". Sorry, but you're wrong. Have you actually researched the issue by looking up the Bible scholars who searched for the original meanings of words such as arsenokoitai? Have you actually looked up what arsenokoitai means, and when it got changed to "homosexual"? Until then, please don't say that the Bible says it's wrong without clarifying that revisionists changed the Bible to make it wrong. i didn't want to but you asked for it * Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1 * Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" * 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." * Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." I didn't ask for quotes from the very same revisionist Bible I mentioned. I asked for research into the history of said Bible. But I've done it for you, so here you go. Lev. 18:22: Given the context of the verses surrounding it, it makes sense that it regards ancient idolatrous sex in pagan temples. If it referred to homosexual sex, it would likely appear before the topic was changed to temple sex. The other possible explanation that makes more sense is that the precise translation, which reads "lay lyings", refers to a woman's bed. You can see how this makes sense by inserting the words "in the" rather than "as the" between the words. Lev. 20:13: Similar to the last verse, another acceptable translation would read: "And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them." Also, it is believed that this refers to homosexual prostitution in a temple, like the last verse, a practice which has obviously since been abandoned (perhaps because of this verse or perhaps not). It doesn't say you can't do it -- just that you can't do it in a woman's bed. Also, if you're going to take this passage literally, you have to put people who cheat to death too. That means killing 22% of the population. 1 Cor. 6:9-10: "nor homosexuals" is very clearly not actually meant to be "homosexuals", since Paul wrote "arsenokoitai" and not the word Greeks used for homosexuality at the time, which was "paiderasste". Same with "nor effeminate", since "malakoi" meant: "[those] who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship" -- essentially, lazy men. Rom. 1:26-28: Remember the line after it, which can be translated as, "At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself." Now, moving on to the actual translation. If you carefully read the most original translation possible, you can see that Paul is condemning those who act against their natural inclinations. This group had been engaging in sin because, for them, homosexual activity was unnatural. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with behavior that is against one's basic nature.
And even if Christians accept that the revisionist Bible is somehow better than the original meanings that Paul and the other writers of it intended, if you're going to talk about homosexuality using the Bible, why don't you also accept human slavery, burning hookers alive, requiring rape victims to marry their rapist, and executing non-virgin brides? Because it's immoral and outside the "real" will of God? So is taking this view of homosexuality.
|
|