Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16097 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.

heartandmind

Moline, IL

#17856 Jul 12, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they are insecure, especially in their faith.
only those that point fingers and want to divide instead of accepting those of other denominations, faiths or even those of no particular faith at all.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17857 Jul 12, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Partly right. Their belief system gave them a national identity and sense of self. They were far from being a secular society. Church and State were one and the same. Priests were judges, doctors and law makers. Sacrificial laws feed the priests and allowed them to run a meat market out the back door. You have no idea what the kingdom of God actually means. Alien knowledge a personal fantasy.
I'm so glad you live on Fantasy Island.
Of course it is a theocracy.

The behavior you describe is one that was judged. What it proves is the inherent brokenness/depravity of man, an inability to even follow a perfect law spelled out.

God is an extraterrestrial being, hence 'Alien'. No fantasy, just a simple fact.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17858 Jul 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I've shown you before where it is recorded (twice) that Yeshua specifically stated that the divorce law in particular was created by Moses, not the Father.
The disputes are not vociferous, and certainly not among those who accept the inherent heresies.
You and I both know that interpretation is a minority view.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17859 Jul 12, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
only those that point fingers and want to divide instead of accepting those of other denominations, faiths or even those of no particular faith at all.
Exactly.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#17860 Jul 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You and I both know that interpretation is a minority view.
So was heliocentrism.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17861 Jul 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is a theocracy.
The behavior you describe is one that was judged. What it proves is the inherent brokenness/depravity of man, an inability to even follow a perfect law spelled out.
God is an extraterrestrial being, hence 'Alien'. No fantasy, just a simple fact.
You call the Law of Moses perfection?

Really?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17862 Jul 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

God is an extraterrestrial being, hence 'Alien'. No fantasy, just a simple fact.
First you must prove your God exists and is tangible using readily verifiable non-ontological evidence. Otherwise it is impossible to determine if God is even a "being." Sorry, that is not a fact but an opinion which you cannot substantiate.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17863 Jul 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You and I both know that interpretation is a minority view.
It requires no "interpretation". It's explicit. "Interpretation" comes into play ONLY when one tries to discount it. Usually, though, the Juridical Pharisaic mind ignores it in favor of chopping rules about divorce or somesuch.

The implications are huge, and strike at the foundations of the resurrected phariseeism and sadduceeism that is "christendom".

We aren't concerned by our small numbers, nor even by the great numbers holding the heretical views.

"Salvation" (a heretical concept itself) is not based upon "belief" per se. That would be the Gnostic heresy.

We have been given the criteria for reward very clearly in the parable about separating sheep from goats. Belief, or even knowledge are not essential.

" ... Let those with the ears, hear ... "

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17864 Jul 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text> Of course it is a theocracy ... God is an extraterrestrial being, hence 'Alien'. No fantasy, just a simple fact.
Technically, only during the rule by the prophets was it anything close to a "theocracy". The rest of the time it was merely a "theonomy".

And, since there is no place that god is not, "extraterrestrial" doesn't apply.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17865 Jul 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So was heliocentrism.
So?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17866 Jul 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is a theocracy.
The behavior you describe is one that was judged. What it proves is the inherent brokenness/depravity of man, an inability to even follow a perfect law spelled out.
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You call the Law of Moses perfection?
Really?
For it's time, yes.

You are confusing the expression of that Law through broken humans with the principles it espouses.

Example; If we termed science as your god, how faithful are you in following what it has determined? Your brokenness is exposed.

Keep in mind, science has determined

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17867 Jul 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

God is an extraterrestrial being, hence 'Alien'. No fantasy, just a simple fact.
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
First you must prove your God exists and is tangible using readily verifiable non-ontological evidence. Otherwise it is impossible to determine if God is even a "being." Sorry, that is not a fact but an opinion which you cannot substantiate.
YOU accepted the premise that God existed by questioning my description of Him as an Alien.

Under that premise, God is an Alien.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17868 Jul 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It requires no "interpretation". It's explicit. "Interpretation" comes into play ONLY when one tries to discount it. Usually, though, the Juridical Pharisaic mind ignores it in favor of chopping rules about divorce or somesuch.
The implications are huge, and strike at the foundations of the resurrected phariseeism and sadduceeism that is "christendom".
We aren't concerned by our small numbers, nor even by the great numbers holding the heretical views.
"Salvation" (a heretical concept itself) is not based upon "belief" per se. That would be the Gnostic heresy.
We have been given the criteria for reward very clearly in the parable about separating sheep from goats. Belief, or even knowledge are not essential.
" ... Let those with the ears, hear ... "
Silly stupid.

You 'interpret' that Jesus referred to Moses and the Law in a negative sense. It not only violates later statements by Jesus about the Law, it violates the context of the passage.

Limited divorce was instruction on dealing with the failure of man to follow perfection. The Pharisees attempted to excuse even greater failure (as you are also attempting). Jesus simply drew it back to perfection (a man and a woman united for life as one), and clarified the exception (adultery).

He also clarified that sexual activity is limited to expression within the marriage of a man and woman.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17869 Jul 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, only during the rule by the prophets was it anything close to a "theocracy". The rest of the time it was merely a "theonomy".
And, since there is no place that god is not, "extraterrestrial" doesn't apply.
I would never dispute that God's people failed to submit to the theocracy.

Heaven is identified as the primary residence of God.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#17870 Jul 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So?
Fascinating that you ignore your own argument to defend it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#17871 Jul 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
God is an extraterrestrial being, hence 'Alien'. No fantasy, just a simple fact.
<quoted text>
YOU accepted the premise that God existed by questioning my description of Him as an Alien.
Under that premise, God is an Alien.
So, if someone questions the premise that bigfoot exists, that's an admission that bigfoot exists?

You seriously have no idea how logic works. Little wonder that you think "Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" is a compelling argument.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17872 Jul 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
God is an extraterrestrial being, hence 'Alien'. No fantasy, just a simple fact.
<quoted text>
YOU accepted the premise that God existed by questioning my description of Him as an Alien.
Under that premise, God is an Alien.
You have not established that God even exists, much less that God is any kind of being, so to speak.

False. I never accepted that God exists as anything tangible. God is conceived in the minds of man. There are numerous arguments both for and against the existence of God but none qualify as being factual using any type of readily verifiable, non-ontological evidence. Therefore I must reject your notion that God is an Alien. In fact, from a mystical point of view, calling God an Alien is heresy. God exists in all as the Holy Spirit. Nice work. You have rejected both the teachings of the Lord and the Holy Spirit by saying that God is Alien.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17873 Jul 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I would never dispute that God's people failed to submit to the theocracy.
Heaven is identified as the primary residence of God.
Where is Heaven? You speak of Heaven as a tangible place.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17874 Jul 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if someone questions the premise that bigfoot exists, that's an admission that bigfoot exists?
You seriously have no idea how logic works. Little wonder that you think "Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" is a compelling argument.
Exactly. That was a good example of the circular reasoning fallacy.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17875 Jul 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly stupid.
You 'interpret' that Jesus referred to Moses and the Law in a negative sense. It not only violates later statements by Jesus about the Law, it violates the context of the passage.
Limited divorce was instruction on dealing with the failure of man to follow perfection. The Pharisees attempted to excuse even greater failure (as you are also attempting). Jesus simply drew it back to perfection (a man and a woman united for life as one), and clarified the exception (adultery).
He also clarified that sexual activity is limited to expression within the marriage of a man and woman.
Just as I said. The Pharisaical and Juridical mind ignores it in favor of rule mongering.

The Mosaic text clearly states that all that precedes it in the record is of divine origin, which also includes clear statements to not add or subtract to these laws in the slightest. Yeshua clearly states that Moses made some of those laws up (for whatever reason). This violates the proscription against doing so.

It appears that Moses hit the rock twice on more than one occasion.

The question becomes, "How many times?"

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 2 couples tie the knot in Australia's 1st same-... 41 min Randy 1
News Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to hig... 50 min Fix That Bridge 112
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr RiccardoFire 15,046
News Police bust drug rings, arrest 22 in 3 states (Sep '07) 9 hr Wow just wow 3
News Will Donald Trump be invited to the royal wedding? 13 hr Reddiaperdoperbaby1 95
News Lesbian granted rights of 'husband' in same-sex... (May '17) 14 hr thomas cordell co... 48
News All bets are off at the Supreme Court 18 hr Brick House 48
More from around the web