Fasting against marriage equality

[thebrucebeat]

Really? You are really going to assert that the group claimed to be fasting "for hate"?

Certainly.
They would use the canard of hating "the sin".
The rest of us would notice they have never fasted for the elimination of greed.

Starting to see why you didn't make it as a pastor. What makes you think they don't come against greed?

Show me the evidence.

 

[Clement]

Certainly.
They would use the canard of hating "the sin".
The rest of us would notice they have never fasted for the elimination of greed.

Starting to see why you didn't make it as a pastor. What makes you think they don't come against greed?

Show me the evidence.

I don't need to, this is your claim to defend - "The rest of us would notice they have never fasted for the elimination of greed."

Or is it just more bearing of false witness in your ignorance?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Starting to see why you didn't make it as a pastor. What makes you think they don't come against greed?

Show me the evidence.

I don't need to, this is your claim to defend - "The rest of us would notice they have never fasted for the elimination of greed."

Or is it just more bearing of false witness in your ignorance?

Sorry.
Can't find any evidence of anti-greed fasts.
Or fasting against adultery.
Or fasting against pride.
Or fasting against divorce.
If you know otherwise, educate me.

 

[Clement]

Show me the evidence.

I don't need to, this is your claim to defend - "The rest of us would notice they have never fasted for the elimination of greed."

Or is it just more bearing of false witness in your ignorance?

Sorry.
Can't find any evidence of anti-greed fasts.
Or fasting against adultery.
Or fasting against pride.
Or fasting against divorce.
If you know otherwise, educate me.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I didn't think you could back up your claim.

You have just been beaten at your own game. Better luck next time.

 

[bodecea]

"In a statement, the group claims that the federal government, the media, corporations, the public education system, and the entertainment industry are all ganging up against churches in the fight for equality."

Really? Is that what they said? I don't agree with them but it's their bellies and i doubt they said that. Marriage has been equal, all eligible men could marry any eligible woman. The lie gets repeated and people need to be reminded the gays want marriage redefined to include them. Maybe the gays will fast when bisexuals demand the same.

1. "the fight for equality" is a bad thing in the eyes of churches?

2. IMO, some religious people just aren't complete unless they feel persecuted.....AND...let everyone know it.

 

[DGS49]

Anyone who even uses the word, "hate" in this discussion is either a liar or an idiot. Or both.

The Judeo-Christian community has uniformly and universally condemned same-sex sodomy as seriously sinful behavior for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with "hate." It has to do with moral teachings flowing down, unambiguously, from the Bible and other Church traditions, some of which are written and some not.

Christians do not "hate" sodomites but they abhor sodomy and absolutely reject the premise that it is excusable if the actor is innately inclined to do it - which is basically the position of quasi-Christian homosexuals today. Christians also abhor the fact that people voluntarily proclaim their tendency to commit acts of sodomy, and publicly proclaim their intention to engage in it through gay "marriages."

Abhoring sodomy is NOT THE SAME has hating sodomites, any more than abhoring adultery is not the same as hating former President William Jefferson Clinton.

Few Christians protested when the U.S. Supreme Court basically voided all laws criminalizing sodomy in private between consenting adults. It was generally acknowledged that this moral belief could no longer be imposed on those who do not share it. So most Christians concede that in our diverse society, homosexuals can engage in whatever conduct they like in private, they can live together, they can PROMISE FOREVER TO LIVE IN whatever arrangement they want, even if it is analogous to a traditional marriage. No Christians are protesting "love" between people of the same sex.

But for a federal judge to overturn 200 years of legal precedent and the clearly expressed will of the people of a state to maintain the integrity of legal marriage is an outrage, worthy of public protests.

And make no mistake, THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THAT CAN LEGITIMATELY BE CITED TO SUPPORT AN INDIVIDUAL'S "RIGHT" TO MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER. Just as there is no constitutional right to marry your brother. It is entirely a matter for the States to decide.

(Recognizing marriages from other states is a different matter).

But this is the same bullshit that Democrats always do. They totally mischaracterize the actions of people they don't like, then excoriate the mischaracterizations. In this case, characterizing this legitimate protest as an expression of "hate" for people.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I don't need to, this is your claim to defend - "The rest of us would notice they have never fasted for the elimination of greed."

Or is it just more bearing of false witness in your ignorance?

Sorry.
Can't find any evidence of anti-greed fasts.
Or fasting against adultery.
Or fasting against pride.
Or fasting against divorce.
If you know otherwise, educate me.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I didn't think you could back up your claim.

You have just been beaten at your own game. Better luck next time.

Your unwillingness to show an example, which should be easy if my premise is incorrect, confirms my point.
You can prove a positive assertion, which you are suggesting.
All I can do is share that I can find no evidence of such movements.
If you think the hypocrisy of believers is a game, you are proving yourself to be a clumsy player.

 

[Clement]

Sorry.
Can't find any evidence of anti-greed fasts.
Or fasting against adultery.
Or fasting against pride.
Or fasting against divorce.
If you know otherwise, educate me.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I didn't think you could back up your claim.

You have just been beaten at your own game. Better luck next time.

Your unwillingness to show an example, which should be easy if my premise is incorrect, confirms my point.
You can prove a positive assertion, which you are suggesting.
All I can do is share that I can find no evidence of such movements.
If you think the hypocrisy of believers is a game, you are proving yourself to be a clumsy player.

You are pathetic. You shot your mouth off with nothing to back it up and you want to put the monkey on my back? Homey don't play that game. I have listened to people like you make unfounded claims then challenge others to prove them wrong for years. Get lost, pseudo-intellectual.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I didn't think you could back up your claim.

You have just been beaten at your own game. Better luck next time.

Your unwillingness to show an example, which should be easy if my premise is incorrect, confirms my point.
You can prove a positive assertion, which you are suggesting.
All I can do is share that I can find no evidence of such movements.
If you think the hypocrisy of believers is a game, you are proving yourself to be a clumsy player.

You are pathetic. You shot your mouth off with nothing to back it up and you want to put the monkey on my back? Homey don't play that game. I have listened to people like you make unfounded claims then challenge others to prove them wrong for years. Get lost, pseudo-intellectual.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
You are embarrassed that the believers have a cut-and-paste theology, choosing to be appalled by a rarely mentioned issue scripturally and ignoring ongoing themes of money and pride.
If I'm wrong, stand up.

 

[bodecea]

Your unwillingness to show an example, which should be easy if my premise is incorrect, confirms my point.
You can prove a positive assertion, which you are suggesting.
All I can do is share that I can find no evidence of such movements.
If you think the hypocrisy of believers is a game, you are proving yourself to be a clumsy player.

You are pathetic. You shot your mouth off with nothing to back it up and you want to put the monkey on my back? Homey don't play that game. I have listened to people like you make unfounded claims then challenge others to prove them wrong for years. Get lost, pseudo-intellectual.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
You are embarrassed that the believers have a cut-and-paste theology, choosing to be appalled by a rarely mentioned issue scripturally and ignoring ongoing themes of money and pride.
If I'm wrong, stand up.

Not only ignoring....but getting pretty darned upset with anyone who points out their hypocrisy in that regard, eh?

 

[thebrucebeat]

You are pathetic. You shot your mouth off with nothing to back it up and you want to put the monkey on my back? Homey don't play that game. I have listened to people like you make unfounded claims then challenge others to prove them wrong for years. Get lost, pseudo-intellectual.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
You are embarrassed that the believers have a cut-and-paste theology, choosing to be appalled by a rarely mentioned issue scripturally and ignoring ongoing themes of money and pride.
If I'm wrong, stand up.

Not only ignoring....but getting pretty darned upset with anyone who points out their hypocrisy in that regard, eh?

He seems a bit testy.
Another Christian who finds the Fruits of the Spirit a punch line.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Anyone who even uses the word, "hate" in this discussion is either a liar or an idiot. Or both.

The Judeo-Christian community has uniformly and universally condemned same-sex sodomy as seriously sinful behavior for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with "hate." It has to do with moral teachings flowing down, unambiguously, from the Bible and other Church traditions, some of which are written and some not.

Christians do not "hate" sodomites but they abhor sodomy and absolutely reject the premise that it is excusable if the actor is innately inclined to do it - which is basically the position of quasi-Christian homosexuals today. Christians also abhor the fact that people voluntarily proclaim their tendency to commit acts of sodomy, and publicly proclaim their intention to engage in it through gay "marriages."

Abhoring sodomy is NOT THE SAME has hating sodomites, any more than abhoring adultery is not the same as hating former President William Jefferson Clinton.

Few Christians protested when the U.S. Supreme Court basically voided all laws criminalizing sodomy in private between consenting adults. It was generally acknowledged that this moral belief could no longer be imposed on those who do not share it. So most Christians concede that in our diverse society, homosexuals can engage in whatever conduct they like in private, they can live together, they can PROMISE FOREVER TO LIVE IN whatever arrangement they want, even if it is analogous to a traditional marriage. No Christians are protesting "love" between people of the same sex.

But for a federal judge to overturn 200 years of legal precedent and the clearly expressed will of the people of a state to maintain the integrity of legal marriage is an outrage, worthy of public protests.

And make no mistake, THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THAT CAN LEGITIMATELY BE CITED TO SUPPORT AN INDIVIDUAL'S "RIGHT" TO MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME GENDER. Just as there is no constitutional right to marry your brother. It is entirely a matter for the States to decide.

(Recognizing marriages from other states is a different matter).

But this is the same bullshit that Democrats always do. They totally mischaracterize the actions of people they don't like, then excoriate the mischaracterizations. In this case, characterizing this legitimate protest as an expression of "hate" for people.

Another long post that can be summarized as "Stay in the closet and we won't bother you".
Are you required to keep your hetero relationship in the closet? To keep it in private?
Equal protection under the law is the COTUS principle that applies here.

 

[Clement]

Your unwillingness to show an example, which should be easy if my premise is incorrect, confirms my point.
You can prove a positive assertion, which you are suggesting.
All I can do is share that I can find no evidence of such movements.
If you think the hypocrisy of believers is a game, you are proving yourself to be a clumsy player.

You are pathetic. You shot your mouth off with nothing to back it up and you want to put the monkey on my back? Homey don't play that game. I have listened to people like you make unfounded claims then challenge others to prove them wrong for years. Get lost, pseudo-intellectual.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
You are embarrassed that the believers have a cut-and-paste theology, choosing to be appalled by a rarely mentioned issue scripturally and ignoring ongoing themes of money and pride.
If I'm wrong, stand up.

You're full of shit on all counts, Bruce. Not only do I not care about what these people think or why they think it, I really don't care about what you think or why you think it. You have your own cut and paste morality, you are no different from the ones you shame.

You lost your way, man, you forgot what the ministry is all about.

 

[Clement]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
You are embarrassed that the believers have a cut-and-paste theology, choosing to be appalled by a rarely mentioned issue scripturally and ignoring ongoing themes of money and pride.
If I'm wrong, stand up.

Not only ignoring....but getting pretty darned upset with anyone who points out their hypocrisy in that regard, eh?

He seems a bit testy.
Another Christian who finds the Fruits of the Spirit a punch line.

You will be judged by your own words, dude. You are one to talk about pride.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You are pathetic. You shot your mouth off with nothing to back it up and you want to put the monkey on my back? Homey don't play that game. I have listened to people like you make unfounded claims then challenge others to prove them wrong for years. Get lost, pseudo-intellectual.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
You are embarrassed that the believers have a cut-and-paste theology, choosing to be appalled by a rarely mentioned issue scripturally and ignoring ongoing themes of money and pride.
If I'm wrong, stand up.

You're full of shit on all counts, Bruce. Not only do I not care about what these people think or why they think it, I really don't care about what you think or why you think it. You have your own cut and paste morality, you are no different from the ones you shame.

You lost your way, man, you forgot what the ministry is all about.

That really isn't an argument, now is it?
I understand.
Why care what scripture emphasizes?
Why have your interactions with others be ruled by the Fruits of the Spirit?
Why have the bible's major themes influence your life?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Not only ignoring....but getting pretty darned upset with anyone who points out their hypocrisy in that regard, eh?

He seems a bit testy.
Another Christian who finds the Fruits of the Spirit a punch line.

You will be judged by your own words, dude. You are one to talk about pride.

The best you can do is the elementary school playground response
"I know you are but what am I"?

 

[amrchaos]

Hey--you do know there are different types of Fast.

For instance, they may not be allowed to eat during the day, but allowed to eat at night.

So, for all you guys talking about holding a BBQ across the street, don't be surprised when the fasters pile their plates with you fine cooking...Heck, some may even say "thank you for supporting our stand against the gay agenda!!""


Now, that, I would find highly humorous!!

 

[Clement]

He seems a bit testy.
Another Christian who finds the Fruits of the Spirit a punch line.

You will be judged by your own words, dude. You are one to talk about pride.

The best you can do is the elementary school playground response
"I know you are but what am I"?

You know bloody well what I mean, or you were never a minister.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You will be judged by your own words, dude. You are one to talk about pride.

The best you can do is the elementary school playground response
"I know you are but what am I"?

You know bloody well what I mean, or you were never a minister.

I know you are avoiding the message by attacking the messenger.

 

[Newby]

Show me the evidence.

I don't need to, this is your claim to defend - "The rest of us would notice they have never fasted for the elimination of greed."

Or is it just more bearing of false witness in your ignorance?

Sorry.
Can't find any evidence of anti-greed fasts.
Or fasting against adultery.
Or fasting against pride.
Or fasting against divorce.
If you know otherwise, educate me.

Where did they say they were fasting 'against' anything?

And secondly, fasting takes place all the time, it's only 'reported' and distorted when your side wishes to spew hate and lies to further their agenda. Spewing lies and hate in regards to fasting and greed would do nothing for their agenda, why would they waste their time doing that? Are you really unable to comprehend why the article quoted in the op even exists to begin with?