Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16102 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.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#14848 May 7, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Abraham had faith that God could raise Isaac from the dead, and so was willing to offer him as COMMANDED.
Hebrews 11:17-19
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,
18 even though God had said to him,“It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
Abraham was either evil enough or stupid enough to believe that murdering your own son could EVER be a good idea. There was no mention of a promise to bring Isaac back from the dead.
John Booker

Hazelwood, MO

#14849 May 7, 2013
Don't worry Gay folks.Churches are going to be easy to sway in the direction of your political,and sexual goals.Mainly because of the love we have for you as our brothers and sisters in Christ.However Islam will be more difficult.Your concerns now are for the rights you seek in the culture of the present.Islam is going to put an end to this form of lifestyle in the future America when it becomes more impowered.This will ofcourse be long after we're all gone from this earth.So good luck with your "struggle"as it were,and remember that when you get what you want the sweet taste of victory is often absent.God is love.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#14850 May 7, 2013
What a foolish notion. The God of the Bible only gave laws to the children of Israel, but the other peoples of the Earth all had their own Gods, that gave them their laws. And even without any of the Gods, there are sound logical reasons for holding moral principles.
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
By your reasoning, there are no moral laws apart from the Hebrew. Even by your assertion, only the Jews would be under those laws.
I'm assuming that you agree, the only law in existence apart from a religious moral code is the law of the jungle. Anythings goes.
Right?
Snicker.
Wow. Your reading comprehension proble is FAR worse than I thought. You need to seek professional help.

To repeat what I posted above:
1) Only the children of Israel are under the Laws of the God of the Bible.
2) Other peoples have their own Gods, and those Gods handed down moral laws for Their people to follow.
3) Morality exists separate from the laws given by the Gods.
KiMare wrote:
No religion gave laws like those given to the Jews. Or had the profound and long lasting effect.
Plenty of religions gave good laws. I will agree that the Torah certainly seems to have longevity, more so than many other religions... the Jews have worked very hard to maintain those laws through much hardship. Of course, having the xians and muslims kill off as many competators as possible didn't hurt.
KiMare wrote:
You are confusing morality with ethics.
Ethics are a choice that only holds validity if you can't get away with pure selfishness.
The whole point of morality, is that it is not an option.
Sorry.
Smile.
Well, you are right about one thing, you certainly are sorry. For a moral person, following that morality is never an option, regardless of the source of that morality. The fact that this continues to elude you only shows that you are seriously lacking in moral maturity. You need the threat of a sky daddy's punishment to get you to do the right things; a truly moral person does the right thing simply BECAUSE it is the right thing.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14851 May 7, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it is obvious that Abraham did not keep Kosher...
Genesis 18:7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
He did not have any problem with lying...
Genesis 20:2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister
But maybe we should not really consider that one a lie, since it could be argued that Abraham was telling a partial truth. Incest is best, the game the whole family can play...
Genesis 20:12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
He did not take proper care of his first born son...
Genesis 21:14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.
Deuteronomy 21:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
Abraham was even okay with committing murder...
Genesis 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
So, all in all, Abraham didn't ever try to keep any of the Laws that would not be codified until several centuries into his future. And if Abraham, called a prophet of the God of the Bible did not keep the laws, why would anyone with an IQ above room temperature think that Sodom should have kept those unwritten laws?
The whole calf/milk thing derives from Canaanite fertility rituals and is a very literal proscription, so, you can get rid of the second fridge and enjoy cream sauces to your heart's content.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14852 May 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
By your reasoning, there are no moral laws apart from the Hebrew. Even by your assertion, only the Jews would be under those laws.
I'm assuming that you agree, the only law in existence apart from a religious moral code is the law of the jungle. Anythings goes.
Right?
Snicker.
<quoted text>
No religion gave laws like those given to the Jews. Or had the profound and long lasting effect.
You are confusing morality with ethics.
Ethics are a choice that only holds validity if you can't get away with pure selfishness.
The whole point of morality, is that it is not an option.
Sorry.
Smile.
Morality and ethics ARE THE SAME THING.

Morality comes from the Latin, and ethics from the Greek.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#14853 May 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole calf/milk thing derives from Canaanite fertility rituals and is a very literal proscription, so, you can get rid of the second fridge and enjoy cream sauces to your heart's content.
Yeah, I like a good sharp chedder on my bacon cheeseburgers. A good friend of mine was observant about the dietary laws, mostly, except for where what was "kosher" went too far beyond the Torah because of the "Pharisees" looking to make real sure than no one ever gave the impression that they were breaking a commandment. Not boiling a kid in its mother's milk strikes me as a great idea. Don't need to worship Yahweh to see that. Not boiling ANY kid alive in the milk of any she-goat, or for that matter, not boiling anything while it is still alive, is also a really good idea.

But to extend that until it now is interpreted to mean that one can't have ice cream after a steak dinner is violating the commandment against adding to the Law.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14854 May 7, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I like a good sharp chedder on my bacon cheeseburgers. A good friend of mine was observant about the dietary laws, mostly, except for where what was "kosher" went too far beyond the Torah because of the "Pharisees" looking to make real sure than no one ever gave the impression that they were breaking a commandment. Not boiling a kid in its mother's milk strikes me as a great idea. Don't need to worship Yahweh to see that. Not boiling ANY kid alive in the milk of any she-goat, or for that matter, not boiling anything while it is still alive, is also a really good idea.
But to extend that until it now is interpreted to mean that one can't have ice cream after a steak dinner is violating the commandment against adding to the Law.
Precisely.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#14855 May 8, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Abraham was either evil enough or stupid enough to believe that murdering your own son could EVER be a good idea. There was no mention of a promise to bring Isaac back from the dead.
Hebrews 11:17-19 (MSG)
17 By faith, Abraham, at the time of testing, offered Isaac back to God. Acting in faith, he was as ready to return the promised son, his only son, as he had been to receive him—
18 and this after he had already been told, "Your descendants shall come from Isaac."
19 Abraham figured that if God wanted to, he could raise the dead. In a sense, that's what happened when he received Isaac back, alive from off the altar.

Still exposing your stupidity...

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#14856 May 8, 2013
Liam R wrote:
What a foolish notion. The God of the Bible only gave laws to the children of Israel, but the other peoples of the Earth all had their own Gods, that gave them their laws. And even without any of the Gods, there are sound logical reasons for holding moral principles.
<quoted text>
Wow. Your reading comprehension proble is FAR worse than I thought. You need to seek professional help.
To repeat what I posted above:
1) Only the children of Israel are under the Laws of the God of the Bible.
2) Other peoples have their own Gods, and those Gods handed down moral laws for Their people to follow.
3) Morality exists separate from the laws given by the Gods.
<quoted text>
Plenty of religions gave good laws. I will agree that the Torah certainly seems to have longevity, more so than many other religions... the Jews have worked very hard to maintain those laws through much hardship. Of course, having the xians and muslims kill off as many competators as possible didn't hurt.
<quoted text>
Well, you are right about one thing, you certainly are sorry. For a moral person, following that morality is never an option, regardless of the source of that morality. The fact that this continues to elude you only shows that you are seriously lacking in moral maturity. You need the threat of a sky daddy's punishment to get you to do the right things; a truly moral person does the right thing simply BECAUSE it is the right thing.
1. The lack of comprehension is all yours. I agreed with you about the Hebrew law, ignored the other gods, and simply pointed out the basis of your ethics. You have no morality, you follow self regulated ethics only when convenient.

2. I didn't refer to Jewish efforts to obey the laws. I noted the profound survival and success of the culture, just as the Alien prophesied on the mountain.

*You only expose your bigotry by the comment about Christians and Muslims.

3. Jews do not obey the Laws because of the threat of hell. There is no doctrine of hell in Judaism.

4. A Christian obeys because of love and trust.

John 14:15 (NJB)
15 If you love me you will keep my commandments.

There is NO intrinsically 'right thing' in ethics. In fact, the only intrinsic mandate in soulless evolution is survival at any cost.

Smile.
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#14857 May 8, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes! Very good.
And the only Laws given by the God of the Bible were given to the children of Israel, so as far as that particular God is concerned, I am without sin.
We are not under the law of Moses:

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are NOT under law but under grace.

What then?

Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?

Certainly not!"

"Therefore, my brethren, you also have become DEAD to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."

"But now we have been DELIVERED from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and <<<NOT in the oldness of the letter.">>>
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#14858 May 8, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What commands and decrees did Abraham keep?
Abraham, as part of his covenant with God, was COMMANDED to circumcise his foreskin.

Genesis 17:10-14

10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.

13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised.[[[[[My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.]]]]]

14 ~~~~~Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”~~~~~

**********

The immediate reason was that every covenant contained a clause concerning the witness to the covenant.

A witness was a perpetual reminder that the covenant existed.

**********

Example:

The covenant between Jacob and Laban was witnessed by a stone marker:

Genesis 31:46-48

46 He said to his relatives,“Gather some stones.” So they took stones and piled them in a heap, and they ate there by the heap.

47 Laban called it Jegar Sahadutha, and Jacob called it Galeed.

48 Laban said,*****“This heap is a witness between you and me today.”***** That is why it was called Galeed.

**********

Now, centuries later, God revealed what circumcision represented.

What did circumcision represent???
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#14859 May 8, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Abraham was either evil enough or stupid enough to believe that murdering your own son could EVER be a good idea. There was no mention of a promise to bring Isaac back from the dead.
God accepts the sacrifice of Abraham’s heart...

God knew that Abraham’s heart belonged to Him totally, absolutely!

Abraham was allowing nothing to stand between him & God – no matter the cost, Abraham would obey God.

Within his heart, Abraham had offered the supreme sacrifice, his son.

Remember – God is after the ~HEARTS~ of people, not the slaying of their bodies.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14860 May 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hebrews 11:17-19 (MSG)
17 By faith, Abraham, at the time of testing, offered Isaac back to God. Acting in faith, he was as ready to return the promised son, his only son, as he had been to receive him—
18 and this after he had already been told, "Your descendants shall come from Isaac."
19 Abraham figured that if God wanted to, he could raise the dead. In a sense, that's what happened when he received Isaac back, alive from off the altar.
Still exposing your stupidity...
Smirk.
Right. He believed that it was in keeping with his God's character to demand child sacrifice, and he was willing to kill his son.

If you were absolutely convinced God was commanding you to kill your son, would you do it?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14861 May 8, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not under the law of Moses:
"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are NOT under law but under grace.
What then?
Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?
Certainly not!"
"Therefore, my brethren, you also have become DEAD to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."
"But now we have been DELIVERED from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and <<<NOT in the oldness of the letter.">>>
Great. Then we can get rid of the 10 commandments and Leviticus, including 18:22.
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#14862 May 8, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So Abraham had faith in God. Did Abraham teach all the people in the world God's Law? How would the other people know what was required of a faithful person? What ethical standard would they follow when none was specified?
The reason Abraham is made privy to God's plans is because he will be the head of a great nation and the Messiah will descend from him.

As such, an important patriarch, he will need to teach his descendants the ways of the Lord, including the reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and why it is critical to follow God.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14863 May 8, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
By your reasoning, there are no moral laws apart from the Hebrew. Even by your assertion, only the Jews would be under those laws.
I'm assuming that you agree, the only law in existence apart from a religious moral code is the law of the jungle. Anythings goes.
Right?
Snicker.
<quoted text>
No religion gave laws like those given to the Jews. Or had the profound and long lasting effect.
You are confusing morality with ethics.
Ethics are a choice that only holds validity if you can't get away with pure selfishness.
The whole point of morality, is that it is not an option.
Sorry.
Smile.
Everything you said is completely stupid. Well done.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#14864 May 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Morality and ethics ARE THE SAME THING.
Morality comes from the Latin, and ethics from the Greek.
Look it up.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#14865 May 8, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Abraham, as part of his covenant with God, was COMMANDED to circumcise his foreskin.
Genesis 17:10-14
10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.
12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.
13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised.[[[[[My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.]]]]]
14 ~~~~~Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”~~~~~
**********
The immediate reason was that every covenant contained a clause concerning the witness to the covenant.
A witness was a perpetual reminder that the covenant existed.
**********
Example:
The covenant between Jacob and Laban was witnessed by a stone marker:
Genesis 31:46-48
46 He said to his relatives,“Gather some stones.” So they took stones and piled them in a heap, and they ate there by the heap.
47 Laban called it Jegar Sahadutha, and Jacob called it Galeed.
48 Laban said,*****“This heap is a witness between you and me today.”***** That is why it was called Galeed.
**********
Now, centuries later, God revealed what circumcision represented.
What did circumcision represent???
Do you think God actually required circumcision? Did God change his mind later? If God created everything, didn't God also create foreskins?

This God seems obsessed with male gentiles don't you agree?

Does male circumcision have anything to do with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Did the men of Sodom want to inspect the visitor's dicks?

A covenant between two people has nothing to do with a covenant with God. BTW, a covenant is simply a contract.

So far you have given me nothing preceding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah nor the destruction of the people in the flood that explains what laws or covenants the people violated. Are you telling me the people were wicked because they were uncircumcised?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14866 May 8, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think God actually required circumcision? Did God change his mind later? If God created everything, didn't God also create foreskins?
This God seems obsessed with male gentiles don't you agree?
Does male circumcision have anything to do with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Did the men of Sodom want to inspect the visitor's dicks?
A covenant between two people has nothing to do with a covenant with God. BTW, a covenant is simply a contract.
So far you have given me nothing preceding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah nor the destruction of the people in the flood that explains what laws or covenants the people violated. Are you telling me the people were wicked because they were uncircumcised?
He's not dick-obsessed. He's genital-obsessed. Note the uncleanliness rules for women when they're having their period, and how they should be kept apart from the rest of society until such time as they stop leaking sin from out of their lady bits. And, only religious fundamentalism (that is, strictly adhering to the teachings of one's holy book) could result in something like this: http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn16624-s...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#14867 May 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
He's not dick-obsessed. He's genital-obsessed. Note the uncleanliness rules for women when they're having their period, and how they should be kept apart from the rest of society until such time as they stop leaking sin from out of their lady bits. And, only religious fundamentalism (that is, strictly adhering to the teachings of one's holy book) could result in something like this: http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn16624-s...
You have a point there. But we were talking Genesis which is limited to male genitalia.

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 Gay rights advocates: Jailed Kentucky clerk is ... 10 min Rainbow Kid 1
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... (Mar '15) 1 hr tongangodz 7,312
News Another KY clerk vows to not issue same sex mar... 3 hr I Hate queers 27
News Kentucky clerka s defiance on same-sex marriage... 6 hr serfs up 38
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 7 hr NoahLikesPi 398
News Mike Huckabee says Hillary Clinton should go to... 8 hr Synque 65
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 9 hr too lazy to log in 1,307
More from around the web