Gays are in trouble

[Newby]

anyone can find JESUS in GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD!!!

I've met a lot of atheists who found an English name in the Bible called Jesus but he didn't come out of that book to greet them. That's why they don't believe he's real.

But I do know that God sent all His prophets to write about us saints coming to speak from the invisible Messiah, also known as the Law of God. This is why the first saint said this;

Matthew 5
17: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18: For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
19: Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20: For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

You Christians are still under the Law and that's why you have no idea who our invisible Creator is or the invisible Messiah, God's Law.

Christians are best-defined by how they pick and choose from their own Bibles. If homosexuality is a sin and you're using the Torah, then you must abide by the other 612 commandments, and not just Leviticus 18:22.

If using ANY of Torah's commandments, you must abide by them all. Why I've always felt Christianity was unwise to include a religious text that's compeltely antithetical to their own. Christianity should only be the NT. Not NT and OT because they're mutually exclusive religious systems.

Is a good 7th Day Adventist sites that addresses whether Christians are under Jewish Law or not (they are according to it.)
Are we still under the law? > Sabbath Truth

How do you see them as mutually exclusive??? The one builds upon the other, and Jesus confirmed that He came to fulfill the law. Lust is spoken of in the new testament as well, Deuteronomy is not he only book in the Bible that speaks of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

GIS and Word arguing... i dont know whether that will be entertaining or just sad.

I don't have to argue. Watch these posts and learn how our Creator handles this poor unbeliever. This person will get very confused soon and will stop trying to argue with Him.

You still arent our Creator.

 

[Avatar4321]

I guess 1 of these 2 "Christians" is going to Hell. I wonder which one?

What two Christians are you talking about? Talk about vague...

 

[Chaussette]

RAWLINGS: If it's Chausette you are attempting to address, you need to write in a more simplistic manner, unfortunately this sad little fellow only functions on a 5th Grade Level.

I do believe what he failed to comprehend was your statement



Which I agree wholeheartedly with, unfortunately more simple minds such as Chausette and many Liberals are unable to grasp multiple concepts within the same breath hence he thought you were saying Gay Marriage would create a Civil War.

So beaner, here's a skill-testing question, you only get one chance so pay attention: would you want a civil war over gay marriage?

You still no Capisce ?!! Oy Vay - Ay carumba !!! culo de puto !!!


Hey Douchebag, read the relevant posts and then get back to - LMFAO

Hey beaner, why you got such a cob on for gay marriage? Someone trick you into sucking their cock?

 

[rdean]

WRONG!!! Only those that choose to reject GOD and God's love and choose to live in evil sin will be destroyed. All believers will spend eternity with GOD here on the re-newed earth that is restored to perfection!!

Is this satire?

Satire would certainly explain your posts. Hard to believe anyone can be so guillible into believing their own propaganda.

So you are saying gays should be destroyed? Got it.

 

[LittleNipper]

If someone doesn't want to do work for gays for moral/religious reasons, do you really imagine that they would what them working for them for the very same reasons? The employer becomes the coconspirator, enabling gays to pursue their immorality when they could employ wholesome moral family type people. I mean there once was a time a man could be fired for cheating on his wife and no one blinked an eye.

Are Christians just as eager about not serving people who worship idols, or people who drink, or people who have straight anal sex, or people who use the word "God" in vein, or people who work on Sunday, or people who don't honor their parents, or people who covet their neighbor's wife, or people who have lied before, or people who are divorced, etc, etc, etc?

Why is it that Christians are only concerned about not serving people who are gay and nothing else listed above? Seems hypocritical.

Well, perhaps if people were asking businesses to create specific goods for celebration of these sins, then yes, they too would be refused service I would imagine. Last time I looked, a guy cheating on his wife doesn't usually throw a party and order a cake to celebrate his infidelity.

It's coming ---- give it a few more years. The very same was said of open homosexuality when abortion on demand became "normalized."

 

[emilynghiem]

Christians are best-defined by how they pick and choose from their own Bibles. If homosexuality is a sin and you're using the Torah, then you must abide by the other 612 commandments, and not just Leviticus 18:22.

If using ANY of Torah's commandments, you must abide by them all. Why I've always felt Christianity was unwise to include a religious text that's compeltely antithetical to their own. Christianity should only be the NT. Not NT and OT because they're mutually exclusive religious systems.

Is a good 7th Day Adventist sites that addresses whether Christians are under Jewish Law or not (they are according to it.)
Are we still under the law? > Sabbath Truth

Hi D4E: Yes, I agree with you that people should be consistent with their own systems. however the reasons they cherry pick, deny and project are NOT from external use of laws, but internally because they have unresolved or unforgiven conflicts which bias their judgment. picking apart their flawed arguments is more for the purpose of uncovering these biases and "healing the emotions" attached to inner conflicts projected outward.
so it is important to offer corrections out of forgiveness and respect for them not rejection.

as for the OT this can still be used with the context of the NT such as
* teaching that OT retributive justice by the letter of the law corrupts by greed and brings death and destruction as the lesson from history in the OT
* keeping the 10 commandments and the 3 great/new commandments are consistent with the spirit of the laws, so that all other laws are not violated if these are followed int he firstplace; and where they are breached, then corrections and restitution are made to resolve the breach and restore the relationship in the spirit of justice with mercy and peace

you can use the OT laws, the Constitution, buddhism, science or psychology to reach agreement on either spiritual/sacred laws or secular and natural laws. any laws can be used to fulfill the spirit of truth or God's will by restorative justice which Christ Jesus brings.

I even know someone who uses a combination of the Bible with Islam, while another uses Buddhism which fits his atheistic perspective while he still teaches abundance of free grace.
it is the spirit of the laws that makes the difference if we reach agreement in Christ Jesus, jews or gentiles, believers or nontheists, people under church law or state law, as equals.

 

[Avatar4321]

Is this satire?

Satire would certainly explain your posts. Hard to believe anyone can be so guillible into believing their own propaganda.

So you are saying gays should be destroyed? Got it.

No. Im saying that your posts being satire would explain alot.

Is that really difficult to understand?

 

[KevinWestern]

Well, perhaps if people were asking businesses to create specific goods for celebration of these sins, then yes, they too would be refused service I would imagine. Last time I looked, a guy cheating on his wife doesn't usually throw a party and order a cake to celebrate his infidelity.

Well, not quite. Many Christians believe that once you take a vow - before God - to be with one woman for the rest of your life. When you divorce you may be legally separated but those vows still hold under God so that when you get remarried people are doing nothing more than celebrating you sleeping with another person out of wedlock.

Folks are celebrating adultery, so to speak.

 

[Nosmo King]

They may be able to marry, but they may soon find themselves without a corporate job.
Ariz. Bill Decried As License to Discriminate - NBC News

Arizona...

All this right wing hate crap seems to come from the "Sun Belt". Arizona, Florida, Texas etc. Does the heat shrink brains?

 

[SmedlyButler]

You said;
"Don’t get me wrong, I do think that the government has a real interest in protecting our rights and that sometimes might require laws against discrimination. The irony here is that the 14th actually makes sense to apply to that reality whereas the commerce clause does not."

I always assumed that the Civil Rights Act was justified by the 14th one way or another. I guess that's why the Commerce Clause quote surprised me so much. I did a quick google and found this (regarding an unrelated SCOTUS case);

"[T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law."

Maybe the 14th was too vague and the Federal Government did the fancy legal footwork work-around with the Commerce Clause. Of course I, as a liberal applaud that constitutional manuevering and I'm guessing you as a libertarian and strict constructionist? deplore it.

I kind of liken it to the take down of Al Capone where they had to use income tax laws to put him behind bars when witness temerity was lacking (or witnesses disappeared).

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, perhaps if people were asking businesses to create specific goods for celebration of these sins, then yes, they too would be refused service I would imagine. Last time I looked, a guy cheating on his wife doesn't usually throw a party and order a cake to celebrate his infidelity.

Well, not quite. Many Christians believe that once you take a vow - before God - to be with one woman for the rest of your life. When you divorce you may be legally separated but those vows still hold under God so that when you get remarried people are doing nothing more than celebrating you sleeping with another person out of wedlock.

Folks are celebrating adultery, so to speak.

Actually, most Christians marry until death. They openly announce the divorce in the vows.

 

[SmedlyButler]

I guess 1 of these 2 "Christians" is going to Hell. I wonder which one?

What two Christians are you talking about? Talk about vague...

The two that are arguing about which fork in the road leads to heaven?

 

[FA_Q2]

anyone can find JESUS in GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD!!!

I've met a lot of atheists who found an English name in the Bible called Jesus but he didn't come out of that book to greet them. That's why they don't believe he's real.

But I do know that God sent all His prophets to write about us saints coming to speak from the invisible Messiah, also known as the Law of God. This is why the first saint said this;

Matthew 5
17: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18: For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
19: Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20: For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

You Christians are still under the Law and that's why you have no idea who our invisible Creator is or the invisible Messiah, God's Law.

Christians are best-defined by how they pick and choose from their own Bibles. If homosexuality is a sin and you're using the Torah, then you must abide by the other 612 commandments, and not just Leviticus 18:22.

If using ANY of Torah's commandments, you must abide by them all. Why I've always felt Christianity was unwise to include a religious text that's compeltely antithetical to their own. Christianity should only be the NT. Not NT and OT because they're mutually exclusive religious systems.

Is a good 7th Day Adventist sites that addresses whether Christians are under Jewish Law or not (they are according to it.)
Are we still under the law? > Sabbath Truth

What makes you the final arbiter on what people must believe and how they must use their holy books?

They ‘must’ do nothing of the sort. YOU can define your faith or the rejection of others faith any way you wish just as they can do the same. Faith is, by its very nature, an extremely personal experience. How they view the ‘commands’ within whatever holy text they choose to use will vary greatly.

This idea that those outside a particular faith or others that are not of your faith somehow define what you believe in has always baffled me. You do not have the right to demand that they believe in anything or adhere to anything – that is for the individual themselves to decide and no one else.

 

[FA_Q2]

You said;
"Don’t get me wrong, I do think that the government has a real interest in protecting our rights and that sometimes might require laws against discrimination. The irony here is that the 14th actually makes sense to apply to that reality whereas the commerce clause does not."

I always assumed that the Civil Rights Act was justified by the 14th one way or another. I guess that's why the Commerce Clause quote surprised me so much. I did a quick google and found this (regarding an unrelated SCOTUS case);

"[T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law."

Maybe the 14th was too vague and the Federal Government did the fancy legal footwork work-around with the Commerce Clause. Of course I, as a liberal applaud that constitutional manuevering and I'm guessing you as a libertarian and strict constructionist? deplore it.

I kind of liken it to the take down of Al Capone where they had to use income tax laws to put him behind bars when witness temerity was lacking (or witnesses disappeared).

You would be correct – I completely abhor it and find it rather interesting that you would (even as a liberal) applaud such. What, then, does the constitution mean if the terms within it can be warped to anything that the current government wishes it to be? The very concept is completely counter to the entire idea of the American government – one that was founded upon rights rather than powers and a government that is limited rather than infinite. Everything that the government stands for is counter to the idea that the constitution can be ‘maneuvered’ around.

Note that I make a distinction with applying new circumstances to established law and constitutional maneuvering. There is a stark difference in my mind in applying a clause that is CLEARLY not meant to be used in such a manner and finding a place for new technology within the constitutional framework. For instance, we currently have methods of communication that were not at issue in the founder’s time. Things like email and cell phones were not even imagined back then but they have laws that govern their use and protections from government intercepting your transmissions. I don’t think such things were applicable in the founder’s time when the best method of communication was a written letter. The government has rightfully placed those things within the constitutional framework and covered them under the first amendment as is correct. That is not maneuvering though – it is applying tried and true law to current tech.

I also find it odd to state something like the 14th (a pretty clear amendment IMHO) is too vague while that commerce clause is not. That reasoning is incredibly backwards as it requires you to read the commerce clause in a manner that makes it so vague that it is utterly meaningless.

 

[rdean]

Well, perhaps if people were asking businesses to create specific goods for celebration of these sins, then yes, they too would be refused service I would imagine. Last time I looked, a guy cheating on his wife doesn't usually throw a party and order a cake to celebrate his infidelity.

Well, not quite. Many Christians believe that once you take a vow - before God - to be with one woman for the rest of your life. When you divorce you may be legally separated but those vows still hold under God so that when you get remarried people are doing nothing more than celebrating you sleeping with another person out of wedlock.

Folks are celebrating adultery, so to speak.

Actually, most Christians marry until death. They openly announce the divorce in the vows.

Huh?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

anyone can find JESUS in GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD!!!

I've met a lot of atheists who found an English name in the Bible called Jesus but he didn't come out of that book to greet them. That's why they don't believe he's real.

But I do know that God sent all His prophets to write about us saints coming to speak from the invisible Messiah, also known as the Law of God. This is why the first saint said this;

Matthew 5
17: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18: For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
19: Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20: For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

You Christians are still under the Law and that's why you have no idea who our invisible Creator is or the invisible Messiah, God's Law.

Christians are best-defined by how they pick and choose from their own Bibles. If homosexuality is a sin and you're using the Torah, then you must abide by the other 612 commandments, and not just Leviticus 18:22.

If using ANY of Torah's commandments, you must abide by them all. Why I've always felt Christianity was unwise to include a religious text that's compeltely antithetical to their own. Christianity should only be the NT. Not NT and OT because they're mutually exclusive religious systems.

Is a good 7th Day Adventist sites that addresses whether Christians are under Jewish Law or not (they are according to it.)
Are we still under the law? > Sabbath Truth

You dingbat, a free people may object or dissent for any reason or on any ideological grounds they choose. They don't even have to be religious at all. That is the essence of liberty. Your diatribe is utterly irrelevant, a boorish red herring.