Comments
261 - 280 of 319 Comments Last updated Mar 29, 2013
free thinker

Southfield, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#265
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SeenItBefore wrote:
I was asking if what he was saying is (he believes) God and Jesus are one in the same.
Seems Jesus did: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" (John 14:9)

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#266
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
That gays should not marry because of religious reasons is not MY bias. It is the entire crux of the argument given by the right-wing protagonists.
If I want you to stay out of my private life then keep it private? So you have the "right" to delve into the sex lives of married men and women? You have the "right" to dictate what they do in the bedroom? You don't have a darn good idea of what married men and women do?
What????? I have no problem with a church placing a spiritual framework around people's behavior that understand and voluntarily agree with it. You of all people are going to tell me that those "frameworks" being law wouldn't be an entirely different situation?
Oh, and do tell me why Pelosi and Biden shouldn't take communion.
Catholics using birth control is against Catholic doctrine. They can be banned by the church if discovered.
So tell me. To what religious affiliation did Jesus to? There were after all established religious orders then.
The point I keep making is that there are both religious and non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. Yes, Frank (instead of “you”) may argue against it on religious grounds. But that doesn’t mean that the only argument is religious. When I’ve argued against it, immediately I get accused of religious bias even if I haven’t used a religious argument. The entire crux of the argument from the left is that the only reason to be against it is religious (similar to the left screaming “racism” anytime someone disagrees with the President).Of course there is never a good reason why being opposed to something based on one’s religion is a weaker argument than being supportive of something based on one’s emotions. Why is Frank’s opposition which is based on “God said so” a weaker argument then Jim’s support which is based on “it’s not fair.”? They may both be weak but an argument based on absolutism will always beat one based on relativism.

As I said, I don’t have a right to delve into the sex lives of married or unmarried men and women. Apparently you missed the line “If someone wants to have sex with another person of the same sex, or six people or two people and a goat, that's fine. I'm staying out of their life.” When someone wants to marry another person of the same sex, or six people want to get married or two people and a goat want to get married then it becomes a social statement giving approval. Just as if we legalize heroin or euthanasia we as a society are putting our stamp of approval on it. As I’ve shown before, by focusing on marriage instead of civil unions, the homosexual community is starting with the assumption that homosexuality is acceptable and forcing the opposition to start their argument with a given that homosexuality is fine. The opposition wants to first have that discussion but the gay community doesn’t want to. So, taking a lesson from the gay community, let’s start with the assumption that homosexuality is both scientifically and morally wrong.

Would the framework laws be an entirely different situation? I don’t know. I asked for an example of something of what you were thinking of. We’ve had blue laws and laws regarding alcohol but those laws had both religious and non-religious reasons for being. I can't think of a time when the government tried to force say water baptism on one group or tried to get another group to accept the authority of the Pope.

Re: Pelosi and Biden. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/bide...

Jesus was Jewish. Haven’t you seen the bumper sticker?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#267
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I keep making is that there are both religious and non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. Yes, Frank (instead of “you”) may argue against it on religious grounds. But that doesn’t mean that the only argument is religious. When I’ve argued against it, immediately I get accused of religious bias even if I haven’t used a religious argument. The entire crux of the argument from the left is that the only reason to be against it is religious (similar to the left screaming “racism” anytime someone disagrees with the President).Of course there is never a good reason why being opposed to something based on one’s religion is a weaker argument than being supportive of something based on one’s emotions. Why is Frank’s opposition which is based on “God said so” a weaker argument then Jim’s support which is based on “it’s not fair.”? They may both be weak but an argument based on absolutism will always beat one based on relativism.
As I said, I don’t have a right to delve into the sex lives of married or unmarried men and women. Apparently you missed the line “If someone wants to have sex with another person of the same sex, or six people or two people and a goat, that's fine. I'm staying out of their life.” When someone wants to marry another person of the same sex, or six people want to get married or two people and a goat want to get married then it becomes a social statement giving approval. Just as if we legalize heroin or euthanasia we as a society are putting our stamp of approval on it. As I’ve shown before, by focusing on marriage instead of civil unions, the homosexual community is starting with the assumption that homosexuality is acceptable and forcing the opposition to start their argument with a given that homosexuality is fine. The opposition wants to first have that discussion but the gay community doesn’t want to. So, taking a lesson from the gay community, let’s start with the assumption that homosexuality is both scientifically and morally wrong.
Would the framework laws be an entirely different situation? I don’t know. I asked for an example of something of what you were thinking of. We’ve had blue laws and laws regarding alcohol but those laws had both religious and non-religious reasons for being. I can't think of a time when the government tried to force say water baptism on one group or tried to get another group to accept the authority of the Pope.
Re: Pelosi and Biden. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/bide...
Jesus was Jewish. Haven’t you seen the bumper sticker?
Well I guess I'll just boil it down to this. Gays marrying is between them and God...if they believe in God. Which as I know there are many who do.

To make it illegal secularly is an intrusion by the government into private lives.

I wasn't accusing you per-say of religious bias. Though it is hard to because that has been one of your ongoing arguments against gay marriage.

Henry VIII kicked out the Catholic Church and instituted Protestantism as the Church of England. It was a ruling by Henry VIII that all English citizens be members of the Church of England as the official religion of England. Thus our Separation of Church and State.

Jesus was Jewish by birth, which by the means of conception is arguable. Certainly not though Jewish as in the faith. Jesus didn't like organized religion. Thus the contentious relationship between Him and the Pharisees. Actually the Pharisees with Him for "defying" doctrine.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#268
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lets not get into the taking Communion by Pelosi and Biden.
"But Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, part of the conclave that elected Francis, has said he would offer Pelosi communion despite her views on abortion because he didn't believe communion should be used as a weapon. "We never -– the Church just didn't use Communion this way. It wasn't a part of the way we do things, and it wasn't a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people," Wuerl said in a 2010 interview. His position would logically extend to Biden. The vice president's bishop, Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Del., has also said he would not deny communion to Biden."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/bide...

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#269
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Seen it before wrote
Jesus was Jewish by birth, which by the means of conception is arguable. Certainly not though Jewish as in the faith. Jesus didn't like organized religion.

"Thus the contentious relationship between Him and the Pharisees. Actually the Pharisees with Him for "defying" doctrine."

This is my whole argument. Jesus would rather we be explorers than get so caught up in him we cant see the rest of existence and there is more so much more than the bible god and Jesus. Open your eyes and see don't close them and pray.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#270
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I guess I'll just boil it down to this. Gays marrying is between them and God...if they believe in God. Which as I know there are many who do.
To make it illegal secularly is an intrusion by the government into private lives.
I wasn't accusing you per-say of religious bias. Though it is hard to because that has been one of your ongoing arguments against gay marriage.
Henry VIII kicked out the Catholic Church and instituted Protestantism as the Church of England. It was a ruling by Henry VIII that all English citizens be members of the Church of England as the official religion of England. Thus our Separation of Church and State.
Jesus was Jewish by birth, which by the means of conception is arguable. Certainly not though Jewish as in the faith. Jesus didn't like organized religion. Thus the contentious relationship between Him and the Pharisees. Actually the Pharisees with Him for "defying" doctrine.
No, people engaging in homosexual sex is between them and God. It doesn't go from being "wrong" before they get married and then "ok" after they get married. And I agree, many believe in God. I have several homosexual friends who believe in the God they want to believe in, not the God of the Bible. I get that. However I've never heard a pro-homosexual use Romans 1:18-32 to admonish other homosexuals. Jefferson cut specific versus out of the Bible that he didn't agree with. Homosexuals and many others do the same. I've had folks tell me that God approved of their affair/violence/drug use because of (insert reason here).

No. To make it legal secularly is to pronounce cultural acceptance which is a mistake, just as legalizing meth would be since that is done in the privacy of one's home.

My arguments have been non-religous, although I can certainly take that tack as well. However, within this forum I've yet to have anyone successfully argue for homosexual marriage based on homosexuality being as normal as heterosexual behavior. Heck, not one person can take the supposed homosexual gene from Don and Dave, two male dinosaurs and get that gene to modern man. If you have an argument to show that homosexual behavior is just as normal (normal as defined by TOE) go for it.

Henry the 8th? Really. Totally agree. If we ever eliminate our government, install a King then you can be afraid of religion controlling your life through legal means. Remember my comment about the Muslims taking over, which I said if it were to happen would be after me, my kids, and my grandkids were dead. Well, we will have a King after the Muslims take over. And we've been hit by a meteor. And OJ Simpson becomes a Senator. And Nancy Pelosi tells the truth. And Walmart merges with the Ritz Carlton.

Jewish linage as far as God is concerned is either from the father or the mother but for orthodox Jews, a Jew is born only from a Jewish mother. And Jesus didn't mind organized religion, there is nothing he ever said against the organization. He disliked people using it to gain power over others and misusing it to put an undue burden on folks.

BTW, Jesus was also the one who made more comments about Hell, eternal punishment, etc. than anyone else. So if you like his comments against "organized religion" you also have to like his statements about those who don't know him or continue in their sin being cast into the Lake of Fire. Christianity isn't a Jeffersonian cafeteria.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#271
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Yet Jesus, after being the one to speak more about Hell, eternal punishment, etc. than any other, didn't speak of homosexuality.

Rather than take up the space here, this is an interesting insight to it.
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/gue...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#272
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Better said, Jesus was against the distraction of ritualism and leagalism from the true purpose of religion.
Thor

Rockford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#273
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but it hasn't been debunked. In fact every question that has been asked of me I have responded to. However every question, even something as basic as "how do you define marriage" has been ignored in order to just make meaningless points and call names.
Your claim that marriage was originally a religious contract was indeed thoroughly debunked.

Do you know why you haven't cited a marriage that was a religious contract that pre-dated the cited marriages that were contracts between humans?

It's because you can't.

Debunked. Try again.
free thinker

Southfield, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#274
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SeenItBefore wrote:
Jesus was Jewish by birth, which by the means of conception is arguable. Certainly not though Jewish as in the faith. Jesus didn't like organized religion. Thus the contentious relationship between Him and the Pharisees. Actually the Pharisees with Him for "defying" doctrine.
There is no doubt that Jesus was Jewish. Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son and in Jewish law, that carries the same weight as if he had been his biological father.
As to being a practicing Jew, he most certainly was: He was circumcised. He observed the Jewish festivals such as passover, He regularly went to and taught in the Temple. Yes, there was some friction between Jesus and the Jewish leadership but that doesn't mean he was not a practicing Jew.
free thinker

Southfield, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#275
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

SeenItBefore wrote:
Yet Jesus, after being the one to speak more about Hell, eternal punishment, etc. than any other, didn't speak of homosexuality.
Rather than take up the space here, this is an interesting insight to it.
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/gue...
Jesus didn't speak about wife abuse, child abuse or elder abuse, either. He also didn't address illegal drug use. I'm pretty sure he didn't address bestiality, either. I guess we should take it, then, by your reasoning that He was just fine with all of those.
St Stephen

Holland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#276
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

free thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus didn't speak about wife abuse, child abuse or elder abuse, either. He also didn't address illegal drug use. I'm pretty sure he didn't address bestiality, either. I guess we should take it, then, by your reasoning that He was just fine with all of those.
There were no 'illegal' drugs back in Jesus' day.'Illegal' drugs weren't around until republicans were invented.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#277
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

St Stephen wrote:
There were no 'illegal' drugs back in Jesus' day.'Illegal' drugs weren't around until republicans were invented.
There weren't any homosexuals in those days, either, since the word wasn't even in existence yet.
Really

Battle Creek, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#278
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

St Stephen wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no 'illegal' drugs back in Jesus' day.'Illegal' drugs weren't around until republicans were invented.
You get more stupid by the day.
Sassy

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#279
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

So do you.
Really wrote:
<quoted text>You get more stupid by the day.
Really

Battle Creek, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#280
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Sassy wrote:
So do you.
<quoted text>
Looking in the mirror Beverly?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#281
Mar 22, 2013
 

Judged:

5

2

2

free thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no doubt that Jesus was Jewish. Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son and in Jewish law, that carries the same weight as if he had been his biological father.
As to being a practicing Jew, he most certainly was: He was circumcised. He observed the Jewish festivals such as passover, He regularly went to and taught in the Temple. Yes, there was some friction between Jesus and the Jewish leadership but that doesn't mean he was not a practicing Jew.
I haven't been saying he wasn't born Jewish.

So answer if He was a practicing Jew why did the Jews reject Him and why did the Pharisees reject Him? And if He was a practicing Jew why is the Jewish and Christian religions different to this day?

And quite trying to make what I say what you want to be believe it is rather than what I am actually talking about.

Because you are a free thinker doesn't make you an accurate thinker.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#282
Mar 23, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

SeenItBefore wrote:
So answer if He was a practicing Jew why did the Jews reject Him and why did the Pharisees reject Him?
Most of the Jews didn't reject Him...huge crowds followed Him wherever he went with some Biblical accounts numbering them from 5,000 to 10,000 and apparently you've forgotten his entrance into Jerusalem just prior to His crucifixion (the religious holiday we now celebrate as Palm Sunday). Not even all the Pharisees rejected him...remember Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin? Why are the two religions now different? Pfft...I thought you claimed you were a Bible scholar and you ask a question such as that? The Jewish people of today, most of them, are operating under the belief that their Messiah has not yet come. Christians, however, recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah who said He was establishing a new covenant.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#283
Mar 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
And quite trying to make what I say what you want to be believe it is rather than what I am actually talking about.
Quite? Be more accurate in your use of language and there should be no misunderstandings, oh purposely obtuse one.
You're the one who is using the reasoning that if Jesus didn't mention something, He wasn't against it. Don't get mad because someone points out the weakness in that logic.
Really

Battle Creek, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#284
Mar 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't been saying he wasn't born Jewish.
So answer if He was a practicing Jew why did the Jews reject Him and why did the Pharisees reject Him? And if He was a practicing Jew why is the Jewish and Christian religions different to this day?
And quite trying to make what I say what you want to be believe it is rather than what I am actually talking about.
Because you are a free thinker doesn't make you an accurate thinker.
There are a couple of reasons why the Jewish religion is different from the Christian religion. Actually, there are several and as a person who has been talking and talking and talking about how learned you are in the Scriptures, I would certainly think you would know them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

19 Users are viewing the Grand Rapids Forum right now

Search the Grand Rapids Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
New Year's Rapist Takes Plea Deal 58 min Jim 11
Is Terri Lynn Land a slumlord? (Jan '12) 1 hr Batch 37 Pain Is Good 82
Juneteenth - " celebrating the end of slavery 6 hr Jim 808
go blue goes black 7 hr Jim 9
Fifth Third Bank loses $202 million (Jul '08) Thu mat 217
Local News Women (Apr '09) Wed Red Wood 2,294
What about the Malaysian jetliner? Tue Gville Jim 56
•••
•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••