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.

Thinking

Ilminster, UK

#7255 Feb 20, 2013
It's "bruise", btw.
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, that seems to cover it. The only way a "seed" can bruse the head of a serpent, and be brused on the heel by the snake, is if the "seed" is a person walking upright.

John from Texas

“It's all in your head”

Since: Dec 12

Buda, TX

#7256 Feb 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You also appear to have a double standard then, you try an chastise Troth and Jazy for their comments to Sola aka Wayne, but you then IGNORE Sola's aka Wayne's comments towards Tony C and his husband, as well as me and my wife.......either you stand against Gay Bashing in it's ENTIRETY or you allow folks to handle their own issues....but ya can't have it both ways!!!!
She has many standards. I haven't seen a good one yet.
I think she is just bored shitless.

John from Texas

“It's all in your head”

Since: Dec 12

Buda, TX

#7257 Feb 20, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know of even one English Bible that doesn't say people who work on Saturdays should be tortured to death.
http://www.evilbible.com
I thought it was Monday through Friday

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7258 Feb 20, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll go into more detail on this later, but part of my point is that Satan is not a god, yet that is how xians treat him. They want to pretend that he exists, and that he has any power to do evil. But the Bible is clear that all evil comes from the God of the Bible. The closest that the Bible comes to dealing with Satan is in Job, where an adversary convinces the God of the Bible to do bad things to Job so that he'll repudiate his belief. In context, it is obvious that this is an angel, acting in the office of adversary, much like a lawyer might occasionally work as the D.A. for a small town.
If you're speaking of the Christian Bible, if specifically denotes a difference between God the Father and his son Jesus who is a God by birth right and an angel that is referred to as the god of 'evil' and the god of this world.

2 Corinthians 4:4
English Standard Version (ESV)
4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

In the OT there are many verses that speak of the existence of 'many gods' that God was jealous of. Tough to be jealous of gods that don't exist, know what I mean?
Than we have the god called Satan/Lucifer who using his 'godly' powers takes Jesus on a few trips here and there showing him his power and what he's willing to share and give to Jesus if he will just bow to him. Once again, kind of tough for a god to offer to God what already belongs to God unless he had given it away for a period of time.
And in Revelations we have that explicit thing having happened. God gave this earth to not only be Satan's prison, but to be his own world till further notice.
And even twice it was written in the OT and NT,'..is it not written that ye are gods..?
You may not wish to believe in Satan and that's fine. But the Christian Bible is alive and well with a bad dude named Satan and is known for his negative, evil designs on humanity, just saying :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7259 Feb 20, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't have much goin' on; so obviously David was the wife in the marriage
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_94MHBXuNWGg/TG-_PYl...
You can believe Jonathan and David were married as a man and woman marry till your dying breath and that is fine as far as opinions go.
But unfortunately when you want to make an opinion from the Bible, evidence is nice to have.
In this case, you lack evidence to show a man so righteous and faithful with his God, that he would first marry a man and than obey God's command to marry a woman. You lack evidence to show the God he loved and adored, gave a commandment/law for Israelite men to have a choice of not only being married to a woman, but they could also than marry a man at the same time.
So your opinion remains that and nothing more.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7260 Feb 20, 2013
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
<quoted text>
there you go twisting what I said again.
You were and still are defending the church that all secular evidence shows is guilty as sin in the massacre. But you and I both know that to accuse you or any rank and file member for something that was done based on doctrine by Brigham Young and his cronies would be absurd.
When I am exposing the flaws in the doctrine of your church and the horrors that it has led to I am not attacking people I am attacking the ideas that led to the mass slaughter in Utah the church wants brushed under the rug. And of course your whole theology as well.
You are defending other people's ideas No Surprise thinking you are defending yourself. And you really go way overboard in your defense.
have a good evening.
Absolutely not..lol.
You stated... "..still trying to defend the Mountain Meadows Massacre I see! Good luck with that." ...that means you have stated that you believe I am defending the actions of those Mormon elders attacking and slaughtering that wagon train.
There is no twist to your accusation of me. And what you accuse me of is nothing but a lie. You have repeated this lie... "..still trying to defend the Mountain Meadows Massacre I see!" time and time again in various ways of stating it. And you stand fast to being an out right liar each time you have stated it, get it?
I have tried to explain to you from my opinion of all that I have read of this massacre from pro and con sources, what took place and why and how.
You on the other hand are stuck on this 'blame it all on the blood atonement doctrine issue'. That is the only reason you claim it happened. Nothing else prompted that massacre to you.
But, you showed me information I hadn't read. And when I explain it to you what do you do? You act like the information you gave me isn't credible! You gave me information I hadn't read that the attack on this wagon train had to do with cattle being stolen by the local Indian tribes with Young's okay to do it! That invalidated your 'blood atonement' theory. It was also said some other wagon trains had cattle stolen as well previous to this wagon train. So there's more evidence that Mormons attacking wagon trains going through Utah territory had to do with cattle theft, not blood atonement massacres. And you wouldn't even accept that information you gave me!
You need to regroup and decide just what the heck your position is and why you have that position.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7261 Feb 20, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Bullshit. Ministers are not required to marry ANYONE. Fear-mongering with your lies shows just how desperate you are.
Fricking idiot...lol.
Let's go over some things you're oblivious to in which a law didn't demand a minister to not teach/preach a topic, but the change of law affecting US citizens caused the ministers to quit preaching what they once believed in shall we?
How many US Christian religions can you find for me that still teach and preach the God given right to accept or reject the following. Supply the name of the Christian religion and minister. Please exclude out right practising racists like the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Panthers etc.
List for me 'normal' society accepted Christian religions that still teach and believe in the right to own slaves, to have segregation and discrimination among the races, preach against interracial marriage.
I'll save you the time of responding.'Normal' run of the mill Christian religions that once preached all these things as a persons right to be for or against, they keep their traps shut and don't say a word now. Why? Because laws were made to legalize or make illegal all those things mentioned. Ministers don't preach a right to own slaves, they don't preach the white man right to segregation and discrimination, they don't teach interracial marriages are wrong and not of God. Laws for those things made them shut their traps for fear of having the hostility of their community. But no law was ever enacted against those religions themselves to stop teaching/preaching what they had taught for centuries.
In Canada ministers had the freedom of religion to marry or not marry same sex couples at one time. Even after Canada allowed same sex marriage and homosexual rights, ministers could still refuse to wed same sex couples. Now a law demands that if you're a religious minister and can legally wed couples, as a minister in Canada they now by law HAVE TO WED OPPOSITE SEX AND SAME SEX COUPLES.
And you don't think that won't happen here in the US? lolol.... people use to claim the US government and or state governments would never allow same sex marriages....lolol....

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7262 Feb 20, 2013
Thinking wrote:
It's "bruise", btw.
<quoted text>
Yes, I know how to spell bruise. This laptop sucks.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7263 Feb 20, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
For the third time, intent and context matter.
I can call my best friend a [email protected]@+
You can't.
hypocrite - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypocriteDefini... of hypocrite : A hypocrite preaches(does) one thing, and does(preaches) another. You're a hypocrite if you criticize other people for wearing fur, but pull out your big ...

A slur is a slur no matter who says it.

“Jesus=only way into Heaven”

Since: Nov 12

saved by grace through faith

#7264 Feb 20, 2013
Addison wrote:
<quoted text>You are a liar and a Spammer. You're repeatedly seen passages proving that David was innocent of any homosexual act, yet you Spam on.

The word 'seed' you focus on proves that both anticipated descendants, which are NOT the product of the homosexual acts that God repeatedly condemns.
Amen!

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#7265 Feb 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
hypocrite - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypocriteDefini... of hypocrite : A hypocrite preaches(does) one thing, and does(preaches) another. You're a hypocrite if you criticize other people for wearing fur, but pull out your big ...
A slur is a slur no matter who says it.
How come the overwhelming majority of Christians use it? and why are slurs printed in the bible? God slurs? He's an azzhole, you must agree!

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#7266 Feb 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
hypocrite - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypocriteDefini... of hypocrite : A hypocrite preaches(does) one thing, and does(preaches) another. You're a hypocrite if you criticize other people for wearing fur, but pull out your big ...
A slur is a slur no matter who says it.
Agreed...yet why can blacks call other blacks the 'N' word...but if whitey does it...bad news...

A bit o' hypocrisy maybe?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#7267 Feb 20, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed...yet why can blacks call other blacks the 'N' word...but if whitey does it...bad news...
A bit o' hypocrisy maybe?
Are you really so stupid you don't know the answer?
Really?
If you are, just say so, and I will explain it.
But I have a felling you aren't really that dumb, and are just pretending to be to try to make some kind of "point".

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7268 Feb 20, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
And besides;
.
where 'else' in the world would two naked men in the desert come up with 'seed'?
.
++++++++++
Genesis 17:7

Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 17:7.

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Pure Cambridge Edition

++++++++++
.
.....unless they got it from Samuel; who was hiding behind the Rock to the North; and watching and writing it all down for us to read (voyeurism; pornography; spontaneous ejaculation)
Making a covenant/pack between two people's seeds had other interpretations as I have interjected in your reply above :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7269 Feb 20, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Serious question: do they ever refer to children as 'seed?'
Yes...

Genesis 17:7

Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Genesis 17:7.

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Pure Cambridge Edition

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7270 Feb 20, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed...yet why can blacks call other blacks the 'N' word...but if whitey does it...bad news...
A bit o' hypocrisy maybe?
Of cours eit's hypocrisy. Backs are the biggest group of hypocrites in teh U.S.

And did you hear that Congressman Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr. AND his wife BOTH pled guilty to numerous federal felonies today and are going to spend some time in the federal slammer ?

Guess teh good ol Rev. forgot about (or just skipped over) that part in The Bible which says: "Thou shalt NOT steal".

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7271 Feb 20, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no record of Jonathan and David ever being same-sex 'parents'; so swapping their 'seed' could only mean one thing
.
They consummated their marriage:
.
++++++++++
1 Samuel 20:42> And Ionathan said to Dauid, Goe in peace, forasmuch as wee haue sworne both of vs in the Name of the Lord, saying; The Lord be betweene me and thee, and betweene my seede and thy seede for euer. And hee arose, and departed: and Ionathan went into the citie.
++++++++++
.
It is interesting to note that the 'seed' part of verse 42 was deleted in many of the redneck bibles published by the fundies
.
One of the fundie 'bibles' tries to substitute the word 'descendants' for 'seed'; thus exposing it's copyright owners as morons:
.
Gay couples don't produce 'descendants'
This phrase you don't take time to fully evaluate, "The Lord be betweene me and thee, and betweene my seede and thy seede for euer." never ever in another place in the entire Bible was used again as you claim it's definition. And we have couple after couple in the Bible becoming married who should have had this same very phrase used for prior to their consummating their marriage. Yet it wasn't. Why was that do you suppose?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7272 Feb 20, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
And besides;
.
where 'else' in the world would two naked men in the desert come up with 'seed'?
.
++++++++++
1 Samuel 20:41> And assoone as the ladde was gone, Dauid arose out of a place toward the South, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himselfe three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, vntill Dauid exceeded.
.
1 Samuel 20:42> And Ionathan said to Dauid, Goe in peace, forasmuch as wee haue sworne both of vs in the Name of the Lord, saying; The Lord be betweene me and thee, and betweene my seede and thy seede for euer. And hee arose, and departed: and Ionathan went into the citie.
++++++++++
.
.....unless they got it from Samuel; who was hiding behind the Rock to the North; and watching and writing it all down for us to read (voyeurism; pornography; spontaneous ejaculation)
Maybe you should consider how rabbis originally translated these verses?
35 In the morning, Jonathan went out into the open for the meeting with David, accompanied by a young boy. 36 He said to the boy, "Run ahead and find the arrows that I shoot." And as the boy ran, he shot the arrows past him. 37 When the boy came to the place where the arrows shot by Jonathan had fallen, Jonathan called out to the boy, "Hey, the arrows are beyond you!" 38 And Jonathan called after the boy, "Quick, hurry up. Don't stop!" So Jonathan's boy gathered the arrows and came back to his master.— 39 The boy suspected nothing; only Jonathan and David knew the arrangement.— 40 Jonathan handed the gear to his boy and told him, "Take these back to the town." 41 When the boy got there, David emerged from his concealment at the Negeb. He flung himself face down on the ground and bowed low three times. They kissed each other and wept together; David wept the longer.

42 Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace! For we two have sworn to each other in the name of the Lord:'May the Lord be [witness] between you and me, and between your offspring and mine, forever!'"

Taken from Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures,(Philadelphia, Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society) 1985.
Used by permission of The Jewish Publication Society. Copyright ©1962, 1992
Third Edition by the Jewish Publication Society. No part of this text can be reproduced or forwarded without written permission.
Please visit the JPS website for more fine books of Jewish literature and tradition.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#7273 Feb 20, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Of cours eit's hypocrisy. Backs are the biggest group of hypocrites in teh U.S.
And did you hear that Congressman Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr. AND his wife BOTH pled guilty to numerous federal felonies today and are going to spend some time in the federal slammer ?
Guess teh good ol Rev. forgot about (or just skipped over) that part in The Bible which says: "Thou shalt NOT steal".
Why are fundies such racists? Don't you believe Jesus died for black people?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7274 Feb 20, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually what I was asking is if, throughout the bible, children are referred to as "seed." I was trying to get some context.
I have not delved much into this story, although I often see it discussed on forums like these.
Didn't at least one of them go on to have wives/kids?
I'm trying to rule out (or in) the possibility that the "seed" reference simply means "our kids will be friends" and/or if one or both ultimately had kids.
I like to answer questions :)

Jonathan the oldest, he was married before David came into the picture.
Than David came into the picture and the claim is David and Jonathan had a relationship and or were married as a man and woman were married.
David while 'supposedly' being married to Jonathan marries a daughter of Saul.
Than Saul and Jonathan are killed in war and God gives David King Saul's wives. David goes on to marry other wives. Than the story of Bathsheba takes place.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 15 min Brian_G 1,005
Why Do People Turn Gay? 35 min Blackice5434 16
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr EdmondWA 37,452
BIG 4th OF JULY EXTRAVAGANZA 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 17
News The Latest: Celebrities record tribute to night... 4 hr Anita Bryant s Jihad 11
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 13,225
News Meet the Two Transgender Women Who Won Primary ... 5 hr Anita Bryant s Jihad 17
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 7 hr Quirky 1,022
More from around the web