#e61919
2
0
1
Mar 22, 2024 12:10:09 GMT -8
Martyn Dale
$[user.personal_text]
20,088
February 2003
martyn
|
Post by Martyn Dale on Aug 31, 2010 8:42:13 GMT -8
This is what happens when people take the Bible too seriously and starts quoting old laws to try to mock the Bible. I lol'd at this for the pathetic attempt. ;D I fear theres no way i can address you while remaining polite. Lets try anyway eh? Look at the post i quoted. They are quoting the bible trying to go against homosexuals, so why is it quotes are only allowed to be used when its in your favor? (Ill give you a clue, its a word that beings in hypo and ends in crite) EVERYTHING in the bible is written by man and is entitled to bias. Take Moses for example. He walked up mountain, spoke to bush, and came back with 10 commandments. NOONE else saw the bush, NOONE else knew it was god. The only reason they accepted the 10 commandments is because they liked how it sounded NOT because he said it was from god. Im sure everyone would have laughed at him if he came back with something ridiculous, EVEN IF GOD WAS THE ONE TO SAY IT. This is because they liked how it sounded and therefore thought god had to have said it A more modern example may help you. Those who liked the teachings of Joseph Smith took what was said verbatim. Followers of mormonism will argue in defense of their religion as strongly as say Catholics. Whats the difference? One set DECIDED WITH THEIR OWN MORTAL OPINIONS that he was a wondering idiot, the others decided hat he said makes sense and could only be religious teachings. In both cases, with Moses and Jospeph, the defining factor wasnt that they said it was from god, it was who believed. Imagine if god actually spoke to someone, and they were to tell you that homosexuality was fine, AS IN THE ACTUAL GOD, TELLING THEM IT WAS OK BUT NOONE ELSE SAW!!! Would you believe it? No, you would say they are full of it and not believe them. Dont blame the bible or your religion for your beliefs, simple fact is its YOU thats not accepting of things.
|
|
inherit
Banned
126443
0
Oct 9, 2010 15:04:22 GMT -8
ily 'TIL THE end
Keep your coins, I want change. Benefit humanity, not individuality.
1,769
June 2008
brotherpente1
|
Post by ily 'TIL THE end on Aug 31, 2010 8:53:57 GMT -8
This is what happens when people take the Bible too seriously and starts quoting old laws to try to mock the Bible. I lol'd at this for the pathetic attempt. ;D So that quote is taken too seriously and it's an old law so it should not be respected, but gay marriage laws from the bible should be respected? Why the optional reading? I lol at your pathetic attempt at loling. Because quoting from the old law is pointless. Most don't think that Jesus dealt with homosexuality, or the New Testament didn't, but He did and it did. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean misusing Old Testament scripture as if we are under the law, which we aren't, if you studied the Bible, you would find we are not under the old law, but under grace. This is what happens when people take the Bible too seriously and starts quoting old laws to try to mock the Bible. I lol'd at this for the pathetic attempt. ;D I fear theres no way i can address you while remaining polite. Lets try anyway eh? Look at the post i quoted. They are quoting the bible trying to go against homosexuals, so why is it quotes are only allowed to be used when its in your favor? (Ill give you a clue, its a word that beings in hypo and ends in crite) EVERYTHING in the bible is written by man and is entitled to bias. Take Moses for example. He walked up mountain, spoke to bush, and came back with 10 commandments. NOONE else saw the bush, NOONE else knew it was god. The only reason they accepted the 10 commandments is because they liked how it sounded NOT because he said it was from god. Im sure everyone would have laughed at him if he came back with something ridiculous, Im sure everyone would have laughed at him, EVEN IF GOD WAS THE ONE TO SAY IT. This is because they liked how it sounded and therefore thought god had to have said it A more modern example may help you. Those who liked the teachings of Joseph Smith took what was said verbatim. Followers of mormonism will argue in defense of their religion as strongly as say Catholics. Whats the difference? One set DECIDED WITH THEIR OWN MORTAL OPINIONS that he was a wondering idiot, the others decided hat he said makes sense and could only be religious teachings. In both cases, with Moses and Jospeph, the defining factor wasnt that they said it was from god, it was who believed. Imagine if god actually spoke to someone, and they were to tell you that homosexuality was fine, AS IN THE ACTUAL GOD, TELLING THEM IT WAS OK BUT NOONE ELSE SAW!!! Would you believe it? No, you would say they are full of it and not believe them. Dont blame the bible or your religion for your beliefs, simple fact is its YOU thats not accepting of things. Now you're just emotionally defending your sexuality while trying to discredit something you claim to have knowledge in. And you have no idea what God has spoken to people because obviously, you don't agree with it anyways. Because even if He did, you would discredit it because you don't agree with it.
|
|
#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 31, 2010 8:59:12 GMT -8
So that quote is taken too seriously and it's an old law so it should not be respected, but gay marriage laws from the bible should be respected? Why the optional reading? I lol at your pathetic attempt at loling. Because quoting from the old law is pointless. Most don't think that Jesus dealt with homosexuality, or the New Testament didn't, but He did and it did. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean misusing Old Testament scripture as if we are under the law, which we aren't, if you studied the Bible, you would find we are not under the old law, but under grace. Again, how is selective reading a good thing? You choose to believe a part of the Bible and respect it, but the other part you will ignore. Please explain it a bit better, without referring to God as I do not believe in him, but just say why parts of the Bible are to be followed and parts are not. Also, how can you say old laws are pointless, when the Bible is over TWO THOUSAND YEARS OLD? That is not an old law? A few more years and it's an old law. Do you not agree that the world has SIGNIFICANTLY changed in the last 2000 years? That rights have changed? Religions have changed?
|
|
inherit
13803
0
Sept 25, 2010 6:53:02 GMT -8
∞ ConqueringWolf ∞
Merry Meet And Merry Part, Until We Merry Meet Again!
22,287
September 2003
conqueringwolf
|
Post by ∞ ConqueringWolf ∞ on Aug 31, 2010 9:06:19 GMT -8
So that quote is taken too seriously and it's an old law so it should not be respected, but gay marriage laws from the bible should be respected? Why the optional reading? I lol at your pathetic attempt at loling. Because quoting from the old law is pointless. Most don't think that Jesus dealt with homosexuality, or the New Testament didn't, but He did and it did. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean misusing Old Testament scripture as if we are under the law, which we aren't, if you studied the Bible, you would find we are not under the old law, but under grace. I fear theres no way i can address you while remaining polite. Lets try anyway eh? Look at the post i quoted. They are quoting the bible trying to go against homosexuals, so why is it quotes are only allowed to be used when its in your favor? (Ill give you a clue, its a word that beings in hypo and ends in crite) EVERYTHING in the bible is written by man and is entitled to bias. Take Moses for example. He walked up mountain, spoke to bush, and came back with 10 commandments. NOONE else saw the bush, NOONE else knew it was god. The only reason they accepted the 10 commandments is because they liked how it sounded NOT because he said it was from god. If he had came down and said LETS ALL RAPE ANIMALS DAILY! Im sure everyone would have laughed at him, EVEN IF GOD WAS THE ONE TO SAY IT. This is because they liked how it sounded and therefore thought god had to have said it A more modern example may help you. Those who liked the teachings of Joseph Smith took what was said verbatim. Followers of mormonism will argue in defense of their religion as strongly as say Catholics. Whats the difference? One set DECIDED WITH THEIR OWN MORTAL OPINIONS that he was a wondering idiot, the others decided hat he said makes sense and could only be religious teachings. In both cases, with Moses and Jospeph, the defining factor wasnt that they said it was from god, it was who believed. Imagine if god actually spoke to someone, and they were to tell you that homosexuality was fine, AS IN THE ACTUAL GOD, TELLING THEM IT WAS OK BUT NOONE ELSE SAW!!! Would you believe it? No, you would say they are full of it and not believe them. Dont blame the bible or your religion for your beliefs, simple fact is its YOU thats not accepting of things. Now you're just emotionally defending your sexuality while trying to discredit something you claim to have knowledge in. And you have no idea what God has spoken to people because obviously, you don't agree with it anyways. Because even if He did, you would discredit it because you don't agree with it. I am straight, am married but have to agree with Martyn. You really haven't defended your views though Martyn has put forward a lot of good points. How come is it that people ONLY want to quote the bible when it benefits their beliefs? I see this every single day either in person or in the news. Yet bring up something from the bible that causes a contradiction in someone's belief and they say something stupiud like " Well, that's not the way it is meant to be interpreted" or " Well that's the OLD way of thinking, we don't believe in that anymore." If you are to choose to believe the bible in saying homosexuality is a sin then you have to believe EVERYTHING ELSE it says as well. You can't just pick and choose what you want to follow and what you don't.
|
|
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 31, 2010 11:29:28 GMT -8
Why are those "old rules" not followed anymore? What has changed to make those "old rules" not count?
Why is not no longer a murdering offense if a woman is not a virgin when she gets married? Times have changed. Why are adulterers no longer stoned to death? Times have changed.
Times Change, that is why. So stating that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so is poor reasoning because times have changed. And using the "Well those rules are old and are no longer followed" excuse is just that, and excuse to continue to be anti-gay. So guess what, it is time that all anti-homosexuality "rules" in the bible become "old rules" and no longer follow them.
Besides that, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. That means that the state is supposed to leave the church alone, and the church is supposed to keep its nose out of the state's business.
You would be surprised how easy it really is to get married in most states. All that really has to happen is someone authorized by the state and 2 witnesses need to sign a paper along with the couple getting married and then file it with the state. That is it! No ceremony is needed, nobody has to say a thing. Just sign some papers and you are married. In most states you do not even have to be registered with the state. You just have to be on file with some religious organization to have the authority to preform a wedding. In Michigan it is really easy to be authorized to preform a wedding. All you really have to do is create your own church, then give yourself permission. You do not have to file any paperwork with the state about creating a church, you do not have to have any tax exemption status, nothing.
Earlier this year I went to a non-denominational online church and I filled out a form to get permission to preform weddings. This was incase the person my brother and his now wife chose pulled anything. And she did, she suddenly wanted several hundred dollars a week before the wedding. So I ended up preforming the wedding. The state accepted it and that was that.
If you want to stick to the whole religious backing, then how about this... Make gay marrage legal. Then allow the churches to NOT marry same-sex couples. That will allow other churches who do not care about sexual orentation to preform those marrages if they choose to. That way those religions that are anti-gay can continue to be anti-gay, but they will not be stomping on the rites of others. I also think that the whole process should be split in half. The legal and the religious. The legal should be renamed from marrage to "Cival Union". In order to be legal everyone would have to file "Cival Union" paperwork. "Marrige" would become the religious/celebration portion of it. This is where each religion can follow their teachings and traditions. This part is optional.
|
|
inherit
155366
0
Sept 14, 2012 11:28:40 GMT -8
Alex Zechiel
Everyone is AWESOME
203
June 2010
alex
|
Post by Alex Zechiel on Aug 31, 2010 13:26:10 GMT -8
Most don't think that Jesus dealt with homosexuality, or the New Testament didn't, but He did and it did. I know Paul mentioned it, but I've read the entire Bible twice, and I don't remember Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. Could you please refresh my memory with a citation?
|
|
inherit
Within Moriarty's Web
7801
0
Sept 26, 2020 6:36:42 GMT -8
Storm
25,378
February 2003
storm914
|
Post by Storm on Aug 31, 2010 13:47:14 GMT -8
This is what happens when people take the Bible too seriously and starts quoting old laws to try to mock the Bible. I lol'd at this for the pathetic attempt. ;D You want to know what's even more pathetic? People like you that keep trying to shove religion down people's throats on internet message boards. Stick your churches and to the people you can see in person please. People can say and do anything online and you'll never know if they actually convert or not. Most would just say they do to simply shut people like you up. Another thing, when I looked at the calendar this morning, it was the year 2010. Get with the times. Who died and declared Christianity the bedroom patrol? You judge others when it's your own God that says, "Judge not less you be judged." So in other words, stop trying to 'play' God. You fail at seeing Martyn's humor and you fail at clearly mocking people's basic human rights. Oh but wait heaven forbid if anyone came 'judging' you for being straight. Love is love no matter what the form is. So do kindly get off your high horse. People don't like looking at the crack of your butt. Because it's beyond smelly. hmmm....
|
|
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 31, 2010 16:03:08 GMT -8
Most don't think that Jesus dealt with homosexuality, or the New Testament didn't, but He did and it did. I know Paul mentioned it, but I've read the entire Bible twice, and I don't remember Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. Could you please refresh my memory with a citation? I echo Alex's post. I read the four gospels of Jesus several times, since they're my favorite books in the bible, and I never remember Jesus addressing homosexuality once. I have often wondered what Jesus' opinion of homosexuality was if he had one. Only part of the New Testament I remember homosexuality being condemned was with Paul but even that is debatable, which I have already seen.
|
|
brokenmalice
inherit
-4162774
0
Jun 26, 2024 5:49:11 GMT -8
brokenmalice
0
January 1970
GUEST
|
Post by brokenmalice on Aug 31, 2010 17:43:04 GMT -8
Let me pose this.
Our country was founded on freedom of religion, and supposedly, the principle of "separation of church and state" is advocated (but very, very loosely followed, if at all). Our Founding Fathers were indeed NOT Christian (LE GASP), so why is homosexual marriage illegal?
It makes sense to infer that homosexual marriage is in fact only wrong because certain religions consider it a sin, so of course, due to the religious rite in this country, homosexual marriage is illegal. Now, if separation of church and state truly exists, why are those certain religions allowed to make homosexual marriage illegal? Wouldn't that fall under the category of a majority imposing their beliefs on a minority?
Now, people can say that they believe homosexuality is wrong, be it because of the Bible or some other reason, but what right does that give them to insist that they live in a country where homosexual marriage is illegal?
I suppose the best I can hope for is to wait for everyone who believes that homosexual marriage should be illegal to become the minority, as that seems to be the way that the country is going anyway.
|
|
clonetroopermatt
inherit
-4162779
0
Jun 26, 2024 5:49:11 GMT -8
clonetroopermatt
0
January 1970
GUEST
|
Post by clonetroopermatt on Aug 31, 2010 17:46:40 GMT -8
Our country was founded on freedom of religion, and supposedly, the principle of "separation of church and state" is advocated (but very, very loosely followed, if at all) I only know of ONE Christian organization that actually does follow separation of Church and State.
|
|
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 31, 2010 20:21:08 GMT -8
Our country was founded on freedom of religion, and supposedly, the principle of "separation of church and state" is advocated (but very, very loosely followed, if at all) I only know of ONE Christian organization that actually does follow separation of Church and State. Which Christian organization is that?
|
|
clonetroopermatt
inherit
-4162943
0
Jun 26, 2024 5:49:11 GMT -8
clonetroopermatt
0
January 1970
GUEST
|
Post by clonetroopermatt on Aug 31, 2010 20:36:08 GMT -8
I only know of ONE Christian organization that actually does follow separation of Church and State. Which Christian organization is that? Jehovah's Witnesses
|
|
brokenmalice
inherit
-4163045
0
Jun 26, 2024 5:49:11 GMT -8
brokenmalice
0
January 1970
GUEST
|
Post by brokenmalice on Aug 31, 2010 23:18:06 GMT -8
Which Christian organization is that? Jehovah's Witnesses Being a former Jehovah's Witness, I can tell you that they have no interest in getting involved in politics, which is the way it should be with ALL religious organizations; however, as one can plainly see, this is not the case. If separation of church and state was enforced, religious organizations would have no sway in politics or anything related to politics, like homosexual marriage and the rights associated with it. Like I said before, homosexual marriage is only considered wrong because some religions consider it a sin; in fact, I would like to see if there's one person who thinks that homosexuality is wrong for a reason other than being taught so by religion.
|
|
inherit
The Grumpy One
43147
0
Aug 12, 2013 14:58:17 GMT -8
Graham
non urinat contra ventum
13,546
May 2005
amusedtodeath
|
Post by Graham on Sept 1, 2010 1:12:38 GMT -8
So that quote is taken too seriously and it's an old law so it should not be respected, but gay marriage laws from the bible should be respected? Why the optional reading? I lol at your pathetic attempt at loling. Because quoting from the old law is pointless. Most don't think that Jesus dealt with homosexuality, or the New Testament didn't, but He did and it did. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean misusing Old Testament scripture as if we are under the law, which we aren't, if you studied the Bible, you would find we are not under the old law, but under grace. I fear theres no way i can address you while remaining polite. Lets try anyway eh? Look at the post i quoted. They are quoting the bible trying to go against homosexuals, so why is it quotes are only allowed to be used when its in your favor? (Ill give you a clue, its a word that beings in hypo and ends in crite) EVERYTHING in the bible is written by man and is entitled to bias. Take Moses for example. He walked up mountain, spoke to bush, and came back with 10 commandments. NOONE else saw the bush, NOONE else knew it was god. The only reason they accepted the 10 commandments is because they liked how it sounded NOT because he said it was from god. Im sure everyone would have laughed at him if he came back with something ridiculous, Im sure everyone would have laughed at him, EVEN IF GOD WAS THE ONE TO SAY IT. This is because they liked how it sounded and therefore thought god had to have said it A more modern example may help you. Those who liked the teachings of Joseph Smith took what was said verbatim. Followers of mormonism will argue in defense of their religion as strongly as say Catholics. Whats the difference? One set DECIDED WITH THEIR OWN MORTAL OPINIONS that he was a wondering idiot, the others decided hat he said makes sense and could only be religious teachings. In both cases, with Moses and Jospeph, the defining factor wasnt that they said it was from god, it was who believed. Imagine if god actually spoke to someone, and they were to tell you that homosexuality was fine, AS IN THE ACTUAL GOD, TELLING THEM IT WAS OK BUT NOONE ELSE SAW!!! Would you believe it? No, you would say they are full of it and not believe them. Dont blame the bible or your religion for your beliefs, simple fact is its YOU thats not accepting of things. Now you're just emotionally defending your sexuality while trying to discredit something you claim to have knowledge in. And you have no idea what God has spoken to people because obviously, you don't agree with it anyways. Because even if He did, you would discredit it because you don't agree with it.[/quote] Someone using their own emotions? Well bugger me, that's a new one. I love how you chose to talk about HIS sexuality when he didn't mention it in his post. Struggling to keep to the argument? Surely, by your last sentence you are doing the same thing? Discrediting something because you don't believe in it? Martyn got it right - you're a hypocrite.
|
|