Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16101 comments on the news.yahoo.com story from Apr 27, 2009, titled Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?. In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

The trouble they see is not just an America where general support for gay marriage will have driven a wedge between churches and the world, but between churches themselves.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.yahoo.com.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7129 Feb 19, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really want to find out you are wrong after you die?
Do you?

Because I am as certain you are wrong as you are certain we are.

Neither argument carries more weight than the other. Nobody can know until then.

However, I know how to recognize a novice bible thumper when I see one, so I have a pretty good idea.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7130 Feb 19, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not gay nor am I a dragqueen however using it in a demeaning way as you have so vividly done proves you are a gay bashing bigot.
That wasn't even a good try.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7131 Feb 19, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh sweety, Hell fire awaits you unless you repent.
How's that approach working for ya?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7132 Feb 19, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Which God????????? You don't even know.
IMO there is only one God.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7133 Feb 19, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
It is throughout the Bible. Read the Bible and be saved.
Prove the authenticity of "the" bible or you have no credibility.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7134 Feb 19, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Since it's in nearly every English Bible, you can't 'disprove' it.
Why is there more than one English bible?

There ya go, I just disproved it.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7135 Feb 19, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
"effect and ridicule LOL" means?
Do you speak English?

It means no reply to that post will be as effective as simply reposting it and letting it speak for itself, to highlight how stupid it is - and presenting it to be ridiculed in case anybody missed it.

Here it is again. It's truly a gem:

"dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
But I do think for myself. That's why I realize this world is perishing and without hope."

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7136 Feb 19, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus is my Savior. God in the flesh.
Yep. THAT'S the Cappadocian heresy, right there.
Virgin First Fruit

Alpharetta, GA

#7137 Feb 19, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
It is throughout the Bible. Read the Bible and be saved.
Only gay men will make it to heaven
.
Men who have sex with women won't get in. They will only be redeemed from among men, and they have to be the first fruits:
.
++++++++++
Revelation 14:1> And I looked, and loe, a Lambe stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundreth fourty and foure thousand, hauing his Fathers Name written in their foreheads.
.
Revelation 14:2> And I heard a voice from heauen, as the voice of many waters, and as the voyce of a great thunder: and I heard the voyce of harpers, harping with their harpes.
.
Revelation 14:3> And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the foure beasts, and the Elders, and no man could learne that song, but the hundreth and fourtie and foure thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
.
Revelation 14:4> These are they which were not defiled with women: for they are virgines: These are they which follow the Lambe whithersoeuer hee goeth: These were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits vnto God, and to the Lambe.
.
Revelation 14:5> And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.
++++++++++

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7138 Feb 19, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, you need to get a grip on this fact if you believe in God. God used what we call science to establish all that exists. God is science and science is God even if the two can't be explained, understand? God, according to Genesis created all things by a time line we have no comprehension of.
Next fact, all of us living things on this earth are animals. We all have many similarities because God created all living things from himself. God created all living things with an attraction. But the fact is that some in each specie existing have 'cross-attractions' that don't align themselves with the 'normal' way attractions happen for the most of that specie, including humans. Since God created all things, he also factually created variances for his own purposes.
Example: remember the man born blind? Remember what the answer was for why he was born blind when most are born with eye sight? He was born blind for God's purposes, not ours.
Well the Bible is specific that God made man and woman so that the man would leave his parents and find a woman to be his wife so hopefully they would do as their parents and have off spring. Well most in that situation are born with an attraction to the opposite sex. Having been born with that attraction helps them complete that commandment if they follow God's way.
But, but some are not born with a normal attraction to the opposite sex. Some are born with an attraction to the same sex. And that was done for God's purposes even if we don't understand it, just as people are born blind and we don't understand it.
So the fact remains that most all of us are born with an attraction. The choices we make concerning that attraction is a choice, that is true. Consider those that are born with opposite sex attraction and make a choice not to have relationships or kids! Consider those that are born with opposite sex attraction and make a choice to have relationships but won't have children! Consider those born with opposite sex attraction that choose to have many relationships with many women and have many children!
Yes, how we act upon our attraction to others is a choice. And God has allowed some with different attractions then the rest and that isn't an abnormal issue as any other issue of the same thing concerning sexual attractions.
In Genesis it's quite evident God wants the male to leave his parents and to find a female to establish a long term relationship with in hopes they'll have children. But he has left it up to us to obey that command or not to obey it.
Since we are playing a version of the Literalism game, consider that the text says that the planet was ordered "to bring forth".

Consider, too, that the Hebrew word usually translated as "good" in relation to what the planet brought forth, actually carries the nuance "good ENOUGH" (not perfect)... as in "it'll work".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p014bt45

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7139 Feb 19, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
IMO there is only one God.
Yeah, but he's got LOTS of kids. lol

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#7140 Feb 19, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
"effect and ridicule LOL" means?
You really ARE that dumb! LMAO

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7142 Feb 19, 2013
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
I don't hate you or those still trapped in the church you are defending, I hate the false doctrine that created the Mountain Meadows Massacre and all the lies used to protect the image of your cult that have harmed you and is harming many children, driving some to suicide because of the doctrines of the church.
You will believe what you want to believe I suppose.
But all your ranting and raving is only going to confirm the reality of your deceitful and dangerous cult to those watching from the outside.
Anyway, have a nice day!
And you do twist things to your own meaning. Need an example? You claim to hate the false doctrine of the LDS church. That implies the LDS doctrine teaches humans it's meanings all of it's own volition as if it was a living entity. So you twistedly think if you could get rid of LDS doctrine, it wouldn't exist any more and Mormons would be free of what you call a hateful doctrine. Am I missing anything so far? You have made Mormon doctrine, a non-living non-thinking thing a living breathing entity that is full of hate and purposefully hurts other living things. And you claim not to be twisting reality to your own purposes?
Need another example? Hitler fostered a doctrine of hate and prejudice. People came to embrace his doctrine as something good and well. other people saw those people embracing Hitler and his doctrine as being hateful and prejudiced. Other people wanted to kill those people for embracing and teaching that doctrine of hate and prejudice. They did kill those people embracing and teaching that doctrine and they indirectly helped to kill the creator of that doctrine of hate and prejudice.
For the most part, when the creator died and many of the followers of that creator of the doctrine of hate and prejudice were killed, the world became a better place. And even though that doctrine exists here and there, the world still remains a better place without it as it once was. Why? Because the masses of people living and teaching that doctrine don't exist any more. No people, no doctrine.
You on the other hand twist it all back ass-wards. You claim not to hate those that embrace and teach the hateful doctrine you love to hate you think harms so many. You seem to think if you could hate that doctrine with all your might, doing that would harm the doctrine and make it go away.
You can't hate a doctrine without hating those embracing it and teach it to others. Not possible except with your twists and spins.
You hate Mormon doctrine, you also hate those that embrace and teach and preach it. You cannot plausibly separate the two.
Let me try this one other way to help you see the error of your twisted thinking.
People hate liberal thinking. If liberal thinking was to cease existing tomorrow, what would those have to do who at present hate liberal thinking? Could they plausibly continue to rant and rave about how bad liberal thinking is if no one practised liberal thinking any more? Plausibly no. Who would be interested in hearing how bad liberal thinking was if no one had liberal thoughts any more hmm? Where would be it's importance in a society where it didn't exist any more? It would have none.
But as long as liberal thinking exists, people have two things to hate: liberal thinking and the people embracing liberal thinking.
You hate Mormon doctrine, you also hate those that embrace and practice Mormon doctrine. A simple fact you'll ignorantly deny of course :)

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

#7143 Feb 19, 2013
His-truth wrote:
and the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever .. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image
Do your kids wake up from a sound sleep and start screaming at the top of their lungs at night a lot?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#7144 Feb 19, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
And you do twist things to your own meaning. Need an example? You claim to hate the false doctrine of the LDS church. That implies the LDS doctrine teaches humans it's meanings all of it's own volition as if it was a living entity. So you twistedly think if you could get rid of LDS doctrine, it wouldn't exist any more and Mormons would be free of what you call a hateful doctrine. Am I missing anything so far? You have made Mormon doctrine, a non-living non-thinking thing a living breathing entity that is full of hate and purposefully hurts other living things. And you claim not to be twisting reality to your own purposes?
Need another example? Hitler fostered a doctrine of hate and prejudice. People came to embrace his doctrine as something good and well. other people saw those people embracing Hitler and his doctrine as being hateful and prejudiced. Other people wanted to kill those people for embracing and teaching that doctrine of hate and prejudice. They did kill those people embracing and teaching that doctrine and they indirectly helped to kill the creator of that doctrine of hate and prejudice.
For the most part, when the creator died and many of the followers of that creator of the doctrine of hate and prejudice were killed, the world became a better place. And even though that doctrine exists here and there, the world still remains a better place without it as it once was. Why? Because the masses of people living and teaching that doctrine don't exist any more. No people, no doctrine.
You on the other hand twist it all back ass-wards. You claim not to hate those that embrace and teach the hateful doctrine you love to hate you think harms so many. You seem to think if you could hate that doctrine with all your might, doing that would harm the doctrine and make it go away.
You can't hate a doctrine without hating those embracing it and teach it to others. Not possible except with your twists and spins.
You hate Mormon doctrine, you also hate those that embrace and teach and preach it. You cannot plausibly separate the two.
Let me try this one other way to help you see the error of your twisted thinking.
People hate liberal thinking. If liberal thinking was to cease existing tomorrow, what would those have to do who at present hate liberal thinking? Could they plausibly continue to rant and rave about how bad liberal thinking is if no one practised liberal thinking any more? Plausibly no. Who would be interested in hearing how bad liberal thinking was if no one had liberal thoughts any more hmm? Where would be it's importance in a society where it didn't exist any more? It would have none.
But as long as liberal thinking exists, people have two things to hate: liberal thinking and the people embracing liberal thinking.
You hate Mormon doctrine, you also hate those that embrace and practice Mormon doctrine. A simple fact you'll ignorantly deny of course :)
How does that work with love the sinner, hate the sin?

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#7145 Feb 19, 2013
Folks.. this is:
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
Are denying that you ridiculed Wayne for posting about some experimentation he went through in his youth? Are you denying you have demoralized demeaned and gay bashed Wayne over this?
defending sola scripture aka wayne.

Lmao and she 'wont tolerate gay bashing'? Who does she 'think' she's defending?
God only knows! But it damn sure isnt the gay folks!

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Key West, FL

#7146 Feb 19, 2013
Troth for Leogere wrote:
Folks.. this is:
<quoted text> defending sola scripture aka wayne.
Lmao and she 'wont tolerate gay bashing'? Who does she 'think' she's defending?
God only knows! But it damn sure isnt the gay folks!
I am pointing out how you have a double standard TROTH. You think it is okay to use gay as demeaning derogatory and demoralizing when it comes to posters.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7147 Feb 19, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
I am pointing out how you have a double standard TROTH. You think it is okay to use gay as demeaning derogatory and demoralizing when it comes to posters.
Context and intent matter, sweetie.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7148 Feb 19, 2013
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
<quoted text>
you have the audacity to warn people in America about their religious freedoms after the prop h(8) fiasco?
You are so blinded by your hateful twisted religion that you can not see that gay people have spiritual convictions too!
Unbelievable!
lol...you're a pathetic, ignorant idiot...lol.
If you went to the link, you would see my comments were at the top, not any of the below from that link. Some one else was doing all the warning.
Why are you an ignorant pathetic idiot? Because you don't read to understand. You read with an agenda. That will always leave you an idiot till you stop.
A poster was claiming Canadian churches weren't fighting among themselves over gay marriage. It was a plausible statement and got me to wondering if it was true.
So I did some research. Actually Canadian churches do fight/disagree between themselves over same sex marriage and homosexuality issues as do American churches.
But the most interesting thing of the post that you never hear pro-homosexual advocates speak about concerning what took place with our northern neighbours, is that what they claim wouldn't happen to religious ministers here in America, them being forced by the US government against their will to marry same sex couples, that very thing happened in Canada.
At one time Canadian ministers had the option by religious freedom to choose or not to choose to marry same sex couples. But the Canadian government decided that it was against their constitution for religious ministers to act on their religious beliefs to refuse same sex marriages.
So the Canadian government passed laws so now religious ministers HAVE TO BY LAW OR SUFFER CRIMINAL ACTIONS marry same sex couples. Freedom of religion in Canada no longer constitutes a minister to act on his personal beliefs concerning same sex marriage.
And you, reverting to your pathetic idiot image didn't see that in that post.
When and if SCOTUS redefines marriage for Americans, if they redefine marriage as being that between any two persons regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc, the next step to be taken will be what happened in Canada. Since marriage is a constitutional right for same sex persons, it will shortly be found unconstitutional for a religious minister in America, acting as a person with authority to legally marry, to deny same sex marriages based on the present principle of 'religious freedom'.
So what the pro-homosexual crowd has claimed would never happen, it will happen when same sex marriage is found to be a constitutional right by SCOTUS. Religious ministers will be forced to marry opposites sex and same sex even if it goes against their religious beliefs afforded to them by the constitutional right concerning freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion will be redefined a second time. It was first redefined in 1862.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#7149 Feb 19, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
As in, "Haven't you read the Bible?" "Yes, I have. Haven't you read ANYTHING ELSE?"
Well, I hae read quite a few other books. However, I taylor my responces to these posts to my audience: to findies, I respond from the Bible's perspective; for rational human beings, I use variety of sources, often of a scientific nature.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 5,402
News Lacusong: What is your religion's ultimate goal? 4 hr True Christian wi... 3
News The Orchard seeks withdrawal from UMC 5 hr South Knox Hombre 18
News Hawaii Republican resigns from party after crit... 5 hr Guru 7
News Canada protestor tears Quran to protest prefere... 13 hr just Jay _ for fr... 1
News Prince 'Ulukalala to wed Hon Sinaitakala Fakafanua (Jul '11) Sat Maeakafa 561
News Ivanka Trump takes daughter Arabella to the Sup... Sat JEFF ZIOTARDE 2
More from around the web