Jump to content
LTnewsDawg

New pope fails litmus test

Recommended Posts

thatdavebeans

I find Steve Cornell the poster child for how not to behave as a Christian. He seems purposely as offensive as he can be and I've never read a single thing he has written that has been positive or uplifting or even informative.

 

And these are the "christians" I "bash", yet I would die defending their right to spew their hatred, bigotry and nonsense along with my right to "bash" them for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brampton

So what does the Koran or Book of Mormon say about homosexual sex ?

 

Do they approve ?

 

The Koran and The Book of Mormon also disapproves of alcohol.  Do you violate God's word by drinking when the heavenly lord, sweet host of hosts, specifically tells you not to?  I don't think you are in a position to pick and choose which of God's laws to follow, but you do.  You pick which laws to follow based on what book it is in and then you even pick and choose which ones in THAT book to follow.  It's kind of hard to take your dedication to God's law seriously when you don't even do so.

 

What about this Leviticus thing over a woman's time of month.  Have you, in your marriage, violated this law from God?  If so, you are just as "guilty" as a homosexual and will be vomited out by the land.  In fact, God commands "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people."

 

So am I to assume that your husband never approached you during your uncleanliness since you are still amoungst us?

How many of your friends have you cast out for violating the woman's uncleanliness law?  Did they understand that for the sanctity of all our marriages, they must be vomited out?

 

I never heard about this law before, yet I hear about God and gays all the time.  God didn't make one violation any worse or more detestable than the other, you did; so do you see that you're just trying to force your own opinion on everyone disguised as the word of god.

Edited by Bouquet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52skidoo

Have these laws been repealed ?:

 

 

Leviticus

 

 

 

leviticus laws against eating bacon and shrimp are no longer in force

 

oh...

 

and the one on divorce...is also done..

 

thanks for asking..

Edited by 52skidoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

The Koran and The Book of Mormon also disapproves of alcohol.  Do you violate God's word by drinking when the heavenly lord, sweet host of hosts, specifically tells you not to?  I don't think you are in a position to pick and choose which of God's laws to follow, but you do.  You pick which laws to follow based on what book it is in and then you even pick and choose which ones in THAT book to follow.  It's kind of hard to take your dedication to God's law seriously when you don't even do so.

 

What about this Leviticus thing over a woman's time of month.  Have you, in your marriage, violated this law from God?  If so, you are just as "guilty" as a homosexual and will be vomited out by the land.  In fact, God commands "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people."

 

So am I to assume that your husband never approached you during your uncleanliness since you are still amoungst us?

How many of your friends have you cast out for violating the woman's uncleanliness law?  Did they understand that for the sanctity of all our marriages, they must be vomited out?

 

I never heard about this law before, yet I hear about God and gays all the time.  God didn't make one violation any worse or more detestable than the other, you did; so do you see that you're just trying to force your own opinion on everyone disguised as the word of god.

 

 

The Koran and The Book of Mormon also disapproves of alcohol.  Do you violate God's word by drinking when the heavenly lord, sweet host of hosts, specifically tells you not to?  I don't think you are in a position to pick and choose which of God's laws to follow, but you do.  You pick which laws to follow based on what book it is in and then you even pick and choose which ones in THAT book to follow.  It's kind of hard to take your dedication to God's law seriously when you don't even do so.

 

What about this Leviticus thing over a woman's time of month.  Have you, in your marriage, violated this law from God?  If so, you are just as "guilty" as a homosexual and will be vomited out by the land.  In fact, God commands "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people."

 

So am I to assume that your husband never approached you during your uncleanliness since you are still amoungst us?

How many of your friends have you cast out for violating the woman's uncleanliness law?  Did they understand that for the sanctity of all our marriages, they must be vomited out?

 

I never heard about this law before, yet I hear about God and gays all the time.  God didn't make one violation any worse or more detestable than the other, you did; so do you see that you're just trying to force your own opinion on everyone disguised as the word of god.

 

There are many who choose to obey the laws of God, confessing their lapses as the sins that they are.  Sin is sin.  One is no worse than the other, all can be forgiven.

 

And aren't you and isn't the LGBT community trying to force your opinion on everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

leviticus laws against eating bacon and shrimp are no longer in force

 

oh...

 

and the one on divorce...is also done..

 

thanks for asking..

 

 

leviticus laws against eating bacon and shrimp are no longer in force

 

oh...

 

and the one on divorce...is also done..

 

thanks for asking..

 

(anyone know why I am getting a double quote box?)

 

Many people of faith obey the dietary laws.  Besides, following them is the best for your health.  And many many people of faith never divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brampton

And aren't you and isn't the LGBT community trying to force your opinion on everyone?

If two gay people get married, how does this equate to anything being forced upon you?  Please be specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToldYouSo

I don't think you are in a position to pick and choose which of God's laws to follow, but you do

 

So do most people:

 

549766_10151586839683688_2125331494_n.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

If two gay people get married, how does this equate to anything being forced upon you?  Please be specific.

Civil unions accomplish the same thing.  LGBT community says that's not enough.  Only "marriage" will do.  Why?  Mark it down.  The next step will be forcing churches to perform weddings and marriages.

 

 

Gay Marriage Forced On Church’s

Educate_Christians.jpgGay marriage is now the law in six states.  I am sure most people in these states believe it is the right of gay people to be married, but probably feel it is a Church’s right to withhold from gay marriage ceremonies, if it is against the fundamental belief of that Church.  Some courts do not agree.

Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds.  The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies.  Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree.  Judge Solomon Metzger ruled Ocean Grove had to allow such marriages then went one step further and revoked Ocean Groves tax-exempt status on the pavilion and surrounding grounds.  The tax-exempt status has since been re-instated for most of the grounds after the church re-filed for the exemption.

This is not only an example of out-of-control judges, who willfully withhold Constitutional rights from one group, usually Christian/Catholic groups while extending non-existent rights to other groups, usually gay or Muslim groups but it is also an example of how liberal rulings and laws become dominoes.  Once a law is passed, gay marriage in this case, lawsuits are filed against organizations thought to be exempt, then one ruling against the organization is then used as precedence forcing all to be loyal to the law.

Here are a few cases from around the nation from NPR’s website, where other people’s rights are stepped on forcing them to recognize gay marriage:

Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples.

On January 28, 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission heard the case of Vanessa Willock v. Elane Photography.

Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: “We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!â€

In April, the state human rights commission found that Elane Photography was guilty of discrimination and must pay the Willock’s more than $6,600 attorneys’ fee bill. The photographers are appealing to state court.

This isn’t just about gay marriage.  This is the liberals attempts to gain and maintain power and control within the nation and the religious right gets in the way.  Religious people and morality are at odds with the goals of liberals and the left can’t control religious people in the same manner Nazi and Communist did…imprison them or kill them, no they have to control the religious by marginalizing them.  Once the left has a large portion of the nation in agreement (in this case the youth agrees with the left on gay marriage) then they can marginalize the rest making morality and religion antiquated beliefs and thus reducing those who practice Christianity allowing for more control with morality being a thing of the 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Citydweller

There are many who choose to obey the laws of God, confessing their lapses as the sins that they are.  Sin is sin.

 

And therein lies the rub. You can't deny anyone equal rights under the law on the basis of them being "sinners".

 

If gays are "sinners" then fine, pity them, pray for them, hate them if you will, but you can no more deny them the right to marry than you can a liar, a thief or even a murderer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daisy-dog

Can you deny my right to marry my dog ?

Edited by daisy-dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brampton

Ocean Grove, a United Methodist Church in New Jersey, was successfully sued by a lesbian couple for not allowing them to be married on Ocean Grove’s grounds.  The site in question is Ocean Groves’ seaside pavilion which is used in worship ceremonies.  Ocean Grove argued under the First Amendment they have the right to not allow marriages they do not recognize on their grounds, the judge did not agree.  Judge Solomon Metzger ruled Ocean Grove had to allow such marriages then went one step further and revoked Ocean Groves tax-exempt status on the pavilion and surrounding grounds.  The tax-exempt status has since been re-instated for most of the grounds after the church re-filed for the exemption.

Let's start here.  The church was granted tax-exempt status on that land in return for making accessible to the public.  The church then violated it's own agreement by prohibiting some of the public from using the property.  So this is not a case of forcing a church to abondon it's principles, but rather a church living up to the agreement they reached to make property tax-exempt.

 

Can you deny my right to marry my dog ?

A dog cannot give consent.  Even if it could the constitution is not designed to provide right to animals.  Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToldYouSo

What about marrying 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 people?

 

The first part of your post is the problem I have with it. No church should be forced to marry someone of the same sex if it goes against the church's teachings. 

Edited by ToldYouSo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brampton

The Yeshiva case did not take place at a religious school, but rather at a secular medical school owned by Yeshiva.  The point of the case was that by denying housing to gay couples, it made the educational experience at the secular medical school unnecessarily more expensive for gay students than straight students.  In no way did allowing a gay married couple to live in the dorms there stop anyone from practicing their religion.

 

In the case of the photographers, change their e-mail from "we do not photograph same-sex weddings" we do not photograph black weddings"...or even "we do not photograph christian weddings" and them maybe it will be clear to you why they got in trouble.  Come on, is this really that complicated fo you?

Edited by Bouquet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToldYouSo

So, you have a business and now you must agree to do business with someone even if it goes against your personal beliefs.

 

Find another photographer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brampton

What about marrying 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 people?

 

The first part of your post is the problem I have with it. No church should be forced to marry someone of the same sex if it goes against the church's teachings. 

As far as i can see, no church has been forced to.

 

Polygamy is not recognized because marriage is a contract and in case of a divorce how do you equitablly dissolve a multi-party contract like that?

 

So, you have a business and now you must agree to do business with someone even if it goes against your personal beliefs.

 

Find another photographer.

...or find another profession.  A grocery store can't hang out a sign saying "No Blacks".  Imagine if K-Mart said no christians were allowed in their store.  Same thing. 

 

Same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToldYouSo

Not forced, just sued if they are not allowed. Lawyers win again.

 

Businesses have partnerships which is a legal agreement between multiple parties.

Edited by ToldYouSo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brampton

Not forced, just sued if they are not allowed. Lawyers win again.

 

Businesses have partnerships which is a legal agreement between multiple parties.

Again, they were not sued for not allowing gay couples to marry, they were sued for violating the tax-exempt status agreement they voluntarily signed.

 

There are laws in place for the division of holdings in a business.  How can you have one wife leave a marriage because of a fight with the husband, she gets the car and that does not place a burden on the other wife with whom the first wife had no argument?  Should the second wife pay alimony to the first wife even though the cause of the divorce was a fight between the husband and the first wife?  If you can answer those questions, then I could see polygamy being legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

And therein lies the rub. You can't deny anyone equal rights under the law on the basis of them being "sinners".

 

If gays are "sinners" then fine, pity them, pray for them, hate them if you will, but you can no more deny them the right to marry than you can a liar, a thief or even a murderer.

They can marry.  A woman can marry a man, and a man can marry a woman.  That is what marriage is.  What is being sought is to redefine marriage.  And a male liar may marry any woman he wishes, a female thief may marry any male she wishes.  That's how marriage works.

 

Let's start here.  The church was granted tax-exempt status on that land in return for making accessible to the public.  The church then violated it's own agreement by prohibiting some of the public from using the property.  So this is not a case of forcing a church to abondon it's principles, but rather a church living up to the agreement they reached to make property tax-exempt.

 

A dog cannot give consent.  Even if it could the constitution is not designed to provide right to animals.  Try again.

You are simply wrong.  Tax-exempt status comes with it being a church.  No quid pro quo is required in order to secure tax-exempt status.  Care to try again?  Because you are proving my point.  Your goal is to force churches to do what you wish, violating their religious beliefs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gp80mac

We shouldn't have allowed women the right to vote.  It had lead to hamsters having the right to vote.

 

 

Oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brampton

 

 

You are simply wrong.  Tax-exempt status comes with it being a church.  No quid pro quo is required in order to secure tax-exempt status.  Care to try again?  Because you are proving my point.  Your goal is to force churches to do what you wish, violating their religious beliefs.  

The church retained it's tax-exempt status.  They only lost the tax-exempt status for that particular part of property which was not eligible for tax exempt status until they voluntarily agreed to open it up for public use.  They then denied members of the public use, so they lost the tax-exempt status on that part of the land.

 

The church was not forced to marry gay couples.  They were given a choice.  They chose not to.  By doing so they violated their agreement and so lost the benefit that came with the agreement.

 

Take off the tin foil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gp80mac

And we let blacks in the military.  Now we have 12 year old kids serving. 

 

Oh, wait....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
culturalinfidel

Can you deny my right to marry my dog ?

 

 

Can you dog consent?

 

Later...CI

 

What about marrying 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 people?

 

The first part of your post is the problem I have with it. No church should be forced to marry someone of the same sex if it goes against the church's teachings. 

 

Nobody is forcing churches to marry anyone.

 

Later...CI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

The church retained it's tax-exempt status.  They only lost the tax-exempt status for that particular part of property which was not eligible for tax exempt status until they voluntarily agreed to open it up for public use.  They then denied members of the public use, so they lost the tax-exempt status on that part of the land.

 

The church was not forced to marry gay couples.  They were given a choice.  They chose not to.  By doing so they violated their agreement and so lost the benefit that came with the agreement.

 

Take off the tin foil.

 

 

The church retained it's tax-exempt status.  They only lost the tax-exempt status for that particular part of property which was not eligible for tax exempt status until they voluntarily agreed to open it up for public use.  They then denied members of the public use, so they lost the tax-exempt status on that part of the land.

 

The church was not forced to marry gay couples.  They were given a choice.  They chose not to.  By doing so they violated their agreement and so lost the benefit that came with the agreement.

 

Take off the tin foil.

This is the point I am making.  Thanks for helping to make it.  A church, by its own good grace, opens part of its property to be enjoyed by the public, and the LGBT community takes every opportunity to force its will upon the church.  That's what has already happened.  It is the ongoing goal of the LGBT community and those of you who agree with them and despise faith and people of faith.  

 

Otherwise, why are civil unions not satisfactory?  There is only one explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
culturalinfidel

This is the point I am making.  Thanks for helping to make it.  A church, by its own good grace, opens part of its property to be enjoyed by the public, and the LGBT community takes every opportunity to force its will upon the church.  That's what has already happened.  It is the ongoing goal of the LGBT community and those of you who agree with them and despise faith and people of faith.  

 

Otherwise, why are civil unions not satisfactory?  There is only one explanation.

 

My understanding of the case in question is that the church was not forced to marry the couple.  Only allow them to use the pavilion for their ceremony.  I don't think it is anyone's goal to force a church to marry a gay couple any more than it is anyone's goal to force a catholic church to marry a non-catholic couple.

 

Later...CI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sensible

My understanding of the case in question is that the church was not forced to marry the couple.  Only allow them to use the pavilion for their ceremony.  I don't think it is anyone's goal to force a church to marry a gay couple any more than it is anyone's goal to force a catholic church to marry a non-catholic couple.

 

Later...CI

So if my kid wants to get married in your back yard, we get to force you to let us use your property?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...