He was attack my comment not knowing I do support gay marriage. Don't even try.
Who was this directed at since no one else is here?
So regardless if you think it is a sin or unnatural, gay marriage should be allowed
He was attack my comment not knowing I do support gay marriage. Don't even try.
Who was this directed at since no one else is here?
So regardless if you think it is a sin or unnatural, gay marriage should be allowed
Don't have to "live them all" as that is what forgiveness is for. You try not to do it again. You see being gay is not a sin, but acting on it is. If you continue to act on it, how can you be forgiven? You are obviously not sorry you did it etc. This is the main problem for gays and Christianity. Of course as I said this would be no worse than a fornicator or adulterer.
It wasn't directed at anybody, I was just stating a fact.
You are correct, and pardon the high energy tonight, it has been a heated discussion. The 14th amendment is one of the centers of the SSM debate, both in relation to DOMA and the case on Prop 8.
Edit: welcome to the board. If you have any questions or concerns do not hesitate to PM me or another mod for help. We are always happy to help out new posters.
You are trying to twist this. The point is that it is people who chose what is canon and what is not. It was people who transcribed down what they thought god had said to people. It was people who translated those writings(and created strange things like Mary being a virgin to meet a translation error in a prophesy). It was people who edited out things they did not like. It was people who decided what was allegory and what was literal.
Not true at all. The basic Commandments of Jesus and the apostles etc in the NT are intact as law.Bible scholars cannot agree on what all is and should be literal, what is allegory, what is still enforceable and what no longer is.
And yet you know the answer so well you don't hesitate to attack other people's faith and tell them they are wrong.
I as a general rule do not attack people's faith, as I think you know. I am making an exception this time because you went right on the attack, going after the beliefs of other christians.
It wasn't directed at anybody, I was just stating a fact.
You do realize most if not all of that has now been corrected. We also have direct study guides that explain the original language and uses for certain words.
You are also trying to overturn a basic (accurate translation) on homosexuality in both testaments. Sorry will not fly.
Not true at all. The basic Commandments of Jesus and the apostles etc in the NT are intact as law.
I did not attack anyones faith, I told them what the Bible says. Nothing more nothing less.
If correcting someone on scripture is an "attack" label me guilty. :roll:
Red that is all bull****. You have attacked my faith earlier in this thread, so your statement is not true. In fact you attacked it like what 3 pages back or more? :lol:
Fact: OT very clear on basic commandments including men with men etc.
Fact: Jesus very clear on who could be married.
Fact: Paul Very clear on men with men etc.
You can twist all you want, but the truth is the truth.
Fact: OT very clear on basic commandments including men with men etc.
Fact: Jesus very clear on who could be married.
Fact: Paul Very clear on men with men etc.
You can twist all you want, but the truth is the truth.
Fact: OT very clear on basic commandments including men with men etc.
Fact: Jesus very clear on who could be married.
Fact: Paul Very clear on men with men etc.
You can twist all you want, but the truth is the truth.
You do realize most if not all of that has now been corrected. We also have direct study guides that explain the original language and uses for certain words.
You are also trying to overturn a basic (accurate translation) on homosexuality in both testaments. Sorry will not fly.
Not true at all. The basic Commandments of Jesus and the apostles etc in the NT are intact as law.
I did not attack anyones faith, I told them what the Bible says. Nothing more nothing less.
If correcting someone on scripture is an "attack" label me guilty. :roll:
Red that is all bull****. You have attacked my faith earlier in this thread, so your statement is not true. In fact you attacked it like what 3 pages back or more? :lol:
Fact: OT very clear on basic commandments including men with men etc.
Fact: Jesus very clear on who could be married.
Fact: Paul Very clear on men with men etc.
You can twist all you want, but the truth is the truth.
I would just like to point out, that it doesn't matter what Jesus or God says when it comes to social issues like gay marriage. No religion should be allowed to dictate the laws of our country.
So I'm good right
Let's see. The OT is out since we have the whole New Covenant thing. Jesus was talking about divorce when he talked about marriage, not about who could and could not get married. Paul was talking pretty much about his own time in strongly worded letters that he had no voice in putting in the Bible.
But I guess if you take it out of context...
And you take one small part, argue with it and ignore the entirety of what was said. Why did you make it a point to focus on one sentence and ignore the rest? I know the answer, will you admit it?
And again with evasions. What about the entire rest of the bible, including those parts expurgated out?
You quite clearly attacked YS's faith. You can call it what you want.
You mean after you attacked other people's beliefs? That would be the point, yes.
Please show an example. Last time I looked quoting scripture to someone who is a self professed Christian is not attacking ones faith. She tried to accuse me of talking for her, I showed I was not and that it was according to the Bible.
What are you talking about? I mentioned fornication and adultery before. Do I have to rewrite everything I said every time now?
It is also what we are talking about.
Redress said:You are trying to twist this. The point is that it is people who chose what is canon and what is not. It was people who transcribed down what they thought god had said to people. It was people who translated those writings(and created strange things like Mary being a virgin to meet a translation error in a prophesy). It was people who edited out things they did not like. It was people who decided what was allegory and what was literal.
You do realise the Bible is not one book? It is 66 books and a few more the Catholics added later. It is the sum total of it'a parts. Take it as it is or leave it. Either way it is the word of God.
As it sits now nothing is missing at all. If God had wanted it in there, it would be.
Please show an example. Last time I looked quoting scripture to someone who is a self professed Christian is not attacking ones faith. She tried to accuse me of talking for her, I showed I was not and that it was according to the Bible.
So you can take that to the bank.
Oh no you didn't...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/99998-homosexuality-sinful-and-unnatural-53.html#post1059522379
Before I said anything.
It's only because you will not accept that gay men are far more promiscuous than straight men, so the states interest is not represented as I see it.. All your fault. Other than that we agree.
You still have not presented one logical argument against SSM. You still continue to blame your position on god, instead of accepting responsibility for your position.
Because you all continue to bash Christians. Whats good for the goose and all that. A bigot is a bigot no matter how progressive or conservative.
And yet. it still is not. So either you are assuming it is background noise, or you are sadly mistaken. Looking at the Federal laws and the fact a majority of states have amended their constitutions, I would say you need to maybe turn up the volume?
If God exists, would it not be logical to obey his commands? Well he exist for many and it is completely logical whether you want to believe or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?