African American Pastors For And Agai...

African American Pastors For And Against Same Sex Marriage

There are 154 comments on the WUSA-TV Washington story from Sep 22, 2012, titled African American Pastors For And Against Same Sex Marriage. In it, WUSA-TV Washington reports that:

We heard two different coalitions of African American pastors taking very different and very public stances Friday on same-sex marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WUSA-TV Washington.

LEW777

Long Beach, CA

#42 Sep 23, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, sure. But lemme get right back in your face, without blinking, and ask whether *YOU* get the concept that someone's "religious" belief doesn't allow them to broadcast it, incite hatred or violence, and rob a minority of its rights. Do *YOU* get *THAT* concept?
Do you get that having a private religious belief has *nothing to do* with a need to *FORCE* others to live in a certain way because of *YOUR* belief? I mean, how about if I just barrel into your home and *FORCE* you to wear what I decree and eat what I decree and so on?
You get the concept, right, that people are free and that right now, for unfathomable, ridiculous, unknowable reasons, a *rape of rights* is occurring in numerous states in America because spineless crybabies think *THEIR "RELIGION" guarantees them* a right to take away the rights of others?
You get that, right?
Right?
Right?
<quoted text>
I dunno, are you cool with your kid ****ing the family dog? Has nothing to do with anything, right? Neither does polygamy. Polygamy is a *set of marriages*; moreover, what *does* the marriage of four men to one woman have to do with me?
You go around *believing you can instruct others* what to do?
What kind of person are you?
Christ.
As in so many posts, the topic is missed. you mention hatred, violence, robbery...uh (lol) are you sure you are posting to the right person?...LOL, I mean, what are you referring to? So that you are clear, the TOPIC has more to do with Pastors and "rights" (where all of the other violence....came from???) of gay people. Now, AS A Christian, I would certainly not want to see a law where two men two women can marry. My polygamy question IS THE NEXT LOGICAL QUESTION ONCE SAME SEX MARRIAGE PASSES. So now, because I belive what the bible says about homosexuality, you ask about my child and the dog.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#43 Sep 23, 2012
LEW777 wrote:
<quoted text>Rom 1 should be clear enough.
I too have come to like Paul's letter to the Church in Rome. At first I didn't understand it. Then after speaking with several members of various clergy I came to understand it's purpose. He got tired of their back biting, bickering, and finger pointing over who was and wasn't righteous.

As for the Biblical condemnations against gays and lesbians, sorry I just don't see it. I've studied enough to know that more often than not those passages are poor translations that pertain to pagan rites and not a person's character.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#44 Sep 23, 2012
the voice of reason wrote:
<quoted text>As I said I never heard of them going to court.
I was not back in 1878. Since I been on planet earth there is not been media covering any group of people demanding the laws to change like what we have for SSM.
In that we agree.

Ever since judges first ruled that marriage laws should be covered by the 14th Amendment, people have been working to have the laws changed to suit their particular religious views on the subject. The anti gays as well as the GLBT community.

But since we live in a Representative Republic, I think we should look at what the Constitution says. It doesn't exclude gays and lesbians , it's written in plain English, and so it should be pretty clear that passing laws like DOMA are not in line with the ideas that formed this nation.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#45 Sep 23, 2012
LEW777 wrote:
<quoted text>Don't forget the title of this particular forum. We are spaeking of African American Pastors, so "3000-plus gods" holds 0 water. Second, no GOD has not personally spoken to me about this issue. He also has not spoken to me about tons of other issues THAT THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ABOUT. So, because I can read, it's not that hard understand. If you have a problem with the bible, that's another topic
so do you eat pork? Shave your beard? Sell disobedient daughters to the highest bidder? Take your dead brother's wife as your second wife? Stone people?
LEW777

Long Beach, CA

#46 Sep 23, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I too have come to like Paul's letter to the Church in Rome. At first I didn't understand it. Then after speaking with several members of various clergy I came to understand it's purpose. He got tired of their back biting, bickering, and finger pointing over who was and wasn't righteous.
As for the Biblical condemnations against gays and lesbians, sorry I just don't see it. I've studied enough to know that more often than not those passages are poor translations that pertain to pagan rites and not a person's character.
I would respectfully ask you to explain Rom 1:27

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#47 Sep 23, 2012
the voice of reason wrote:
<quoted text>This posting is in reference to SSM not about a computer.
The same principle applies, my little biblicist heretic.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#48 Sep 23, 2012
the voice of reason wrote:
<quoted text>I read that verse too. Still in the bible, homosexual behavior is condemn.
Please point out exactly where "homosexual behavior" (whatever that is), is condemned. And do you take all biblical passages (written by numerous authors over many hundreds of years) absolutely literally as they are translated into modern American English ?
LEW777

Long Beach, CA

#49 Sep 23, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
Please point out exactly where "homosexual behavior" (whatever that is), is condemned. And do you take all biblical passages (written by numerous authors over many hundreds of years) absolutely literally as they are translated into modern American English ?
Rom 1:27 1 Cor 6:9. NO, all biblical passages are not taken "literally", they are taken at "face Value". IN OTHER WORDS, like any other book, when one reads "it was raining cats and dogs" uh, you certainly know poodles and pits...were not crashing to the ground. But other passages, THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM. Since OUR GOD "inspired" the bible, and he sees into the future, the translation is not a problem.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#50 Sep 23, 2012
"Marriage is a "sacred institution" only between the couple who desire to make it so."
-Tucksun Jack

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#51 Sep 23, 2012
LEW777 wrote:
<quoted text>Rom 1:27 1 Cor 6:9. NO, all biblical passages are not taken "literally", they are taken at "face Value". IN OTHER WORDS, like any other book, when one reads "it was raining cats and dogs" uh, you certainly know poodles and pits...were not crashing to the ground. But other passages, THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM. Since OUR GOD "inspired" the bible, and he sees into the future, the translation is not a problem.
Not everything in that anthology is prophetic utterence. Saul certainly isn't.

Yeshua is recorded as stating that, despite written claim to the contrary, not everything in the Mosaic/Levitical/Deuteronomic and Solomonic codes is either.
LEW777

Long Beach, CA

#52 Sep 23, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>so do you eat pork? Shave your beard? Sell disobedient daughters to the highest bidder? Take your dead brother's wife as your second wife? Stone people?
All of the things you mentioned would apply if the New Testament had not been written. BUT JESUS CAME, and made a new (covenant)agreement with us. So rather than living by a set of laws, he (JESUS, as Romans states) fullfilled the law. That does not mean we can do what we want (as Romans states)but no more laws, but grace.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#53 Sep 23, 2012
LEW777 wrote:
<quoted text>All of the things you mentioned would apply if the New Testament had not been written. BUT JESUS CAME, and made a new (covenant)agreement with us. So rather than living by a set of laws, he (JESUS, as Romans states) fullfilled the law. That does not mean we can do what we want (as Romans states)but no more laws, but grace.
Saul's theology is heretical. But indoctrinated to Saulianism, you wouldn't recognize that.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#54 Sep 23, 2012
LEW777 wrote:
<quoted text>Rom 1:27 1 Cor 6:9. NO, all biblical passages are not taken "literally", they are taken at "face Value". IN OTHER WORDS, like any other book, when one reads "it was raining cats and dogs" uh, you certainly know poodles and pits...were not crashing to the ground. But other passages, THERE IS NO WIGGLE ROOM. Since OUR GOD "inspired" the bible, and he sees into the future, the translation is not a problem.
Well, Leviticus 18:22 says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

And Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Now I actually DO take those biblical passages ABSOLUTELY LITERALLY AS THEY WERE MEANT TO BE, which is EXACTLY WHY when I have oral sex with a guy, I ALWAYS make sure I have sex with him on my knees JUST TO PREVENT MYSELF FROM VIOLATING THOSE VERY PASSAGES !

(btw, the bible nowhere says "Thou shalt not have oral sex.")
LEW777

Long Beach, CA

#55 Sep 23, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Leviticus 18:22 says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
And Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Now I actually DO take those biblical passages ABSOLUTELY LITERALLY AS THEY WERE MEANT TO BE, which is EXACTLY WHY when I have oral sex with a guy, I ALWAYS make sure I have sex with him on my knees JUST TO PREVENT MYSELF FROM VIOLATING THOSE VERY PASSAGES !
(btw, the bible nowhere says "Thou shalt not have oral sex.")
Roman 1:27 & 1 Cor 6:9 - Now you KNOW.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#56 Sep 23, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Leviticus 18:22 says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
And Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Now I actually DO take those biblical passages ABSOLUTELY LITERALLY AS THEY WERE MEANT TO BE, which is EXACTLY WHY when I have oral sex with a guy, I ALWAYS make sure I have sex with him on my knees JUST TO PREVENT MYSELF FROM VIOLATING THOSE VERY PASSAGES !
(btw, the bible nowhere says "Thou shalt not have oral sex.")
I always KNEW you were a bottom, "Foxy !
LEW777

Long Beach, CA

#57 Sep 23, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Saul's theology is heretical. But indoctrinated to Saulianism, you wouldn't recognize that.
Yeah, guess not

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#58 Sep 23, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Saul's theology is heretical. But indoctrinated to Saulianism, you wouldn't recognize that.
Saul was a pharisee, which means that his whole life and identity revolved around The Law. Yet Saul said that he had a vision where he was COMMANDED to abandon The Law and follow the teachings of Christ.

Now either Saul was lying, OR, we can safely abandon the Jewish religious laws of the Old Testament. People are free to make that decision for themselves.

As a Christian, I do NOT believe that "God inspired" the writings that say different cloths should not be mixed, that fields shall be planted a certain way, and that we should treat out slaves justly. I HEREBY PUBLICLY REJECT SUCH LAWS.

Am I now condemned to Hell for that statement ?

I don't think so.

As a Christian, I put MY FAITH AND TRUST in Jesus Christ that He has ALREADY forgiven me and saved me from my sins, those commited in the past, those committed in the present, and those committed yet to come.

There is NO WAY to The Father, EXCEPT thru Him.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#59 Sep 23, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Not everything in that anthology is prophetic utterence. Saul certainly isn't.
Yeshua is recorded as stating that, despite written claim to the contrary, not everything in the Mosaic/Levitical/Deuteronomic and Solomonic codes is either.
Thank you again my friend and "rabbi"!
LEW777

Long Beach, CA

#60 Sep 23, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
Saul was a pharisee, which means that his whole life and identity revolved around The Law. Yet Saul said that he had a vision where he was COMMANDED to abandon The Law and follow the teachings of Christ.
Now either Saul was lying, OR, we can safely abandon the Jewish religious laws of the Old Testament. People are free to make that decision for themselves.
As a Christian, I do NOT believe that "God inspired" the writings that say different cloths should not be mixed, that fields shall be planted a certain way, and that we should treat out slaves justly. I HEREBY PUBLICLY REJECT SUCH LAWS.
Am I now condemned to Hell for that statement ?
I don't think so.
As a Christian, I put MY FAITH AND TRUST in Jesus Christ that He has ALREADY forgiven me and saved me from my sins, those commited in the past, those committed in the present, and those committed yet to come.
There is NO WAY to The Father, EXCEPT thru Him.
So, a person either believes the bible IS inspired by GOD, or it's not. If they belive it's not, you will see the picking and choosing of WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE. See, people know enough that GOD exist, Jesus exist, there so much validity and even common sense to the bible. But people simply WANT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT, NOT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#61 Sep 23, 2012
LEW777 wrote:
<quoted text>All of the things you mentioned would apply if the New Testament had not been written. BUT JESUS CAME, and made a new (covenant)agreement with us. So rather than living by a set of laws, he (JESUS, as Romans states) fullfilled the law. That does not mean we can do what we want (as Romans states)but no more laws, but grace.
Yes I've heard that line before. It's very convenient that somehow the death of Jesus gave Paul permission to revise an entire religion according to what he did and didn't like.

You say we are saved by grace. Many clergy agree with you. But often they then make an about face and say "behavior" is what matters.
If we are saved by Acts then was it necessary for Jesus to die?

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 Edward Sharpe And The Magnetic Zeros Stage Gay ... 2 hr Jose 1
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 3 hr woodtick57 1,070
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 8 hr hajahhd 98
News Gay marriage victory at Supreme Court triggerin... 14 hr Table Scraps 7
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) Sun Redeemed 4,201
News Government does not have a place in your bedroo... Sun david traversa 1
News Woman arrested as gay couple gets Alabama marri... (Feb '15) Sun ChromePearl 23
More from around the web