Largest US Protestant churches on gay...

Largest US Protestant churches on gay clergy

There are 311 comments on the The Oregonian story from Feb 28, 2010, titled Largest US Protestant churches on gay clergy. In it, The Oregonian reports that:

A look at where the largest Protestant churches in the United States stand on gay clergy: ?UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: 7.9 million U.S. members.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Oregonian.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#166 Nov 26, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither did he speak about many things according to the NT, does that justify doing them or not doing them because there's no record of him giving an opinion?
AN ARAB ENTERS A TAXI.......
Once he is seated he asks the cab driver to turn off the radio because he must not hear music as decreed by his religion and, in the time of the prophet, there was no music, especially not Western music, which is music of the infidels and certainly no radio........

So the cab driver politely switches off the radio, stops the cab and opens the back door.
The Arab asks him: "What are you doing man?"
The cabby answers: "In the time of the prophet there were no taxis so get out and wait for a camel.”

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#167 Nov 26, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to the Gospel of John.
He wrote that Jesus spoke about many things and that there was much too much to write about.
One thing that Jesus did regularly and repeatedy insist upon, including claiming that He Himself embodied the very principle:
Truth.
Rev. Ken
If that is true as you present it, where is the truth to state Jesus's position on same sex relations is well and good if he is recorded to have said nothing?
There are verses that do refer to same sex sex as not being good or well. But we have nothing in the Bible that even insinuate that same sex relations are approved of by God.
Modern Christianity paints God as they wish him to be, not as the Bible states he is or wasn't. Painting God to be pro same sex relations isn't a truth. It's a fabrication of many modern Christians that want to believe that is God's position on the matter.
I used this example once before for this and will use it again. If your father told you to deliver a package by bicycle by a specific route, would you think he also meant you could drive or walk or fly or even run the package to it's destination but by different routes?
God was pretty specific about what he wanted in some matters. Like relationships and their primary purpose. Not secondary purposes we would define them as what we feel God would also allow.
This isn't a matter of science and or being over populated. God in his own wisdom designed the human body to contain a spirit he would create for that body. He gave "unrecorded" information to Adam of what the central purpose of his and Eve's creation was for. To be fruitful and to multiply in a relationship between themselves. In that relationship the hope was that they would have repeated sex so that they would have as many off spring as possible so more spirits could be born to this earth for God's own reasons.
God gave Adam and Eve obvious rules to go by for that relationship and daily living and worshipping him correctly. The proof that God gave that information is the fact that God said his children had become disobedient. You can't be disobedient unless you have rules to disobey. And God judged them by their disobedience of those "unrecorded" laws and commands and decided to destroy them all in a massive flood.
God didn't speak for or endorse same sex relations/marriage for an obvious purpose. He didn't design two women or two men the ability to reproduce on their own. Following the flow of the Bible's own logic here?
God set forth a man and a woman to be in a relationship/union/marriage for the hope that they would produce off spring so the spirits he would create would have a body of flesh and bone to inhabit on this planet. Why is his reasoning, not ours. And he didn't/never gave a set time when that relationship/union/marriage between a man and woman wouldn't be needed to be done any more.
Mankind has decided to do many things that God didn't say to do. He didn't say to be single and avoid sex to not have children. He didn't say it was okay to engage in same sex interests. He didn't say it was okay to kill off millions of potential humans in a woman's womb for any reasoning. He didn't say that it was okay to have several wives or husbands. He didn't say it was okay to have children out of wedlock. Those are all things and many others not mentioned many humans have reasoned out that they think God is okay with instead of doing as he originally instructed.
As you said God is truth and we follow his truths or we don't.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#168 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>AN ARAB ENTERS A TAXI.......
Once he is seated he asks the cab driver to turn off the radio because he must not hear music as decreed by his religion and, in the time of the prophet, there was no music, especially not Western music, which is music of the infidels and certainly no radio........
So the cab driver politely switches off the radio, stops the cab and opens the back door.
The Arab asks him: "What are you doing man?"
The cabby answers: "In the time of the prophet there were no taxis so get out and wait for a camel.”
Circular reasoning, nice try :)
Jesus said to love thy neighbour as thy self. Should we interject he didn't say when to do that? Should we interject he didn't say how often we should do it? Should we interject that if we don't love ourself, than we're excused from obeying that command? Should we interject that Jesus didn't specify what a "neighbour" was so we can decide what a neighbour is and if we should love them or not?
..........
God gave specifics and even explained a bit concerning why he made males and females and what he expected them to do and why.
Unfortunately we have "interjected" our own reasoning to excuse ourselves from following his original commands so we could follow our own wants and needs instead of his commands on the subject.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#169 Nov 26, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is true as you present it, where is the truth to state Jesus's position on same sex relations is well and good if he is recorded to have said nothing?
There are verses that do refer to same sex sex as not being good or well. But we have nothing in the Bible that even insinuate that same sex relations are approved of by God.
Modern Christianity paints God as they wish him to be, not as the Bible states he is or wasn't. Painting God to be pro same sex relations isn't a truth. It's a fabrication of many modern Christians that want to believe that is God's position on the matter.
I used this example once before for this and will use it again. If your father told you to deliver a package by bicycle by a specific route, would you think he also meant you could drive or walk or fly or even run the package to it's destination but by different routes?
God was pretty specific about what he wanted in some matters. Like relationships and their primary purpose. Not secondary purposes we would define them as what we feel God would also allow.
This isn't a matter of science and or being over populated. God in his own wisdom designed the human body to contain a spirit he would create for that body. He gave "unrecorded" information to Adam of what the central purpose of his and Eve's creation was for. To be fruitful and to multiply in a relationship between themselves. In that relationship the hope was that they would have repeated sex so that they would have as many off spring as possible so more spirits could be born to this earth for God's own reasons.
God gave Adam and Eve obvious rules to go by for that relationship and daily living and worshipping him correctly. The proof that God gave that information is the fact that God said his children had become disobedient. You can't be disobedient unless you have rules to disobey. And God judged them by their disobedience of those "unrecorded" laws and commands and decided to destroy them all in a massive flood.
God didn't speak for or endorse same sex relations/marriage for an obvious purpose. He didn't design two women or two men the ability to reproduce on their own. Following the flow of the Bible's own logic here?
God set forth a man and a woman to be in a relationship/union/marriage for the hope that they would produce off spring so the spirits he would create would have a body of flesh and bone to inhabit on this planet. Why is his reasoning, not ours. And he didn't/never gave a set time when that relationship/union/marriage between a man and woman wouldn't be needed to be done any more.
Mankind has decided to do many things that God didn't say to do. He didn't say to be single and avoid sex to not have children. He didn't say it was okay to engage in same sex interests. He didn't say it was okay to kill off millions of potential humans in a woman's womb for any reasoning. He didn't say that it was okay to have several wives or husbands. He didn't say it was okay to have children out of wedlock. Those are all things and many others not mentioned many humans have reasoned out that they think God is okay with instead of doing as he originally instructed.
As you said God is truth and we follow his truths or we don't.
And yet the Catholic Church teaches we were born the way God intended us to be.

Who should we believe, you or the Pope who was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when this change happened.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#170 Nov 26, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Circular reasoning, nice try :)
Jesus said to love thy neighbour as thy self. Should we interject he didn't say when to do that? Should we interject he didn't say how often we should do it? Should we interject that if we don't love ourself, than we're excused from obeying that command? Should we interject that Jesus didn't specify what a "neighbour" was so we can decide what a neighbour is and if we should love them or not?
..........
God gave specifics and even explained a bit concerning why he made males and females and what he expected them to do and why.
Unfortunately we have "interjected" our own reasoning to excuse ourselves from following his original commands so we could follow our own wants and needs instead of his commands on the subject.
Yup God gave us a lot of rules then Saul of Tarsus came along and said many don't apply anymore.

My point in the Arab story was that if you want to live by ancient Biblical law then do it, don't try to make excuses for enjoying the modern world.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#171 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And yet the Catholic Church teaches we were born the way God intended us to be.
Who should we believe, you or the Pope who was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when this change happened.
Because something is taught, that doesn't make it correct, even by a pope. And try and understand their reasoning for that belief. You'll need a lot of time. A lot of the RCC doctrines aren't Bible based.
In the NT there was a blind man. the doctrine you speak of extends from it. But that story refers to the physically handicapped and why they were born that way. Jesus said it was for the glory/purpose of God.
But no where did that story speak about same sex attraction or why some are born smart and others aren't and why some are born poor and others into riches. Meaning, concerning our state of birth the only thing Jesus spoke of was why some are born with physical handicaps. So unless you wish to call homosexuality a physical handicap, your point means nothing of what I spoke of previously.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#172 Nov 27, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is true as you present it, where is the truth to state Jesus's position on same sex relations is well and good if he is recorded to have said nothing?
...
As you said God is truth and we follow his truths or we don't.
No Surprise,

I appreciate that you would like to put your logic to all that the bible presents. We all would like to do that ourselves.

But, there are flaws in your and our logic and there are inconsistencies in the presentation of theology that we call the bible.

It was these very inconsistencies that Jesus forced the Pharisees and Saducees to face in themselves. In bitter response and rather than face these inconsistencies, they required the Romans to hang him from a tree until dead.

The bible is a most excellent work. It contains truth. But, it also contains old stories that have been passed down through generation upon generation, having been told for moral purposes and therefore skewed in fact and detail. It is also a record of the travails of tribal man's attempts to understand his and her Creator.

The modern human beings, you and I, are just as these were a long time ago. But, we have the advantage of two thousand years of constantly searching for and uncovering truth. We have found truth in the outer world and we have found truth within ourselves. Throughout this journey, we have steadfastly had the help of the words of Jesus and of the Fathers and the Prophets and the unfailing help and care and support of our mothers and sisters.

Yet, we are not done. Not even close. In fact, if we are honest with ourselves, we will acknowledge that the more truth we have revealed, the more that truth is realized to be a greater body of understanding that we have barely begun to touch.

So, it is much better to accept what we are learning about ourselves and our world-universe and to keep our eyes open than it is to arrogantly think that we already know it all.

In the meantime, we learn to take the two Commandments seriously.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#173 Nov 27, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yup God gave us a lot of rules then Saul of Tarsus came along and said many don't apply anymore.
My point in the Arab story was that if you want to live by ancient Biblical law then do it, don't try to make excuses for enjoying the modern world.
DNF,

The fundamentalist/literalist has to make a "leap of faith" before what you are saying can make any sense.

It is a powerful leap, even if it is done in weakness and gingerly, a slight step at a time. You cannot expect a person who uses the bible as his or her foundation of reasoning to make a step towards throwing that foundation away.

But, that is exactly what they must do, in order to find the truth that the bible actualy presents.

The Kingdom of Heaven is within.

Rev. Ken

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#174 Nov 27, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Because something is taught, that doesn't make it correct, even by a pope. And try and understand their reasoning for that belief. You'll need a lot of time. A lot of the RCC doctrines aren't Bible based.
In the NT there was a blind man. the doctrine you speak of extends from it. But that story refers to the physically handicapped and why they were born that way. Jesus said it was for the glory/purpose of God.
But no where did that story speak about same sex attraction or why some are born smart and others aren't and why some are born poor and others into riches. Meaning, concerning our state of birth the only thing Jesus spoke of was why some are born with physical handicaps. So unless you wish to call homosexuality a physical handicap, your point means nothing of what I spoke of previously.
Thank you for sharing your beliefs with me but please stop trying to deny me my religious freedom.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#175 Nov 27, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No Surprise,
I appreciate that you would like to put your logic to all that the bible presents. We all would like to do that ourselves.
But, there are flaws in your and our logic
I stopped reading at the above I left. I'll respond to the rest later.
Jesus said absolutely not a single thing about his position on same sex relationships. That's a Bible fact that I have pointed out in truth many times and you call that flawed logic? I'm cautious to hear what you call credible logic :)
Christian apologists for same sex relations like yourself, they have no problem stating Jesus is for same sex relations even if there is no evidence for such an opinion from the Bible. When you state how someone thinks that has not said what you claim they think/said, now that is flawed logic.
Anyone can be for same sex relationships. But the Bible doesn't endorse same sex relations. God never gave his opinion on same sex relationships (that we know of) and he had 6000 years of Bible history to say something.
Being silent on a matter for a while is one thing. But purposefully remaining silent on a matter for 6000 supposed years of Bible recorded history, to the logical that says a lot concerning their position if they have continually proved to refuse to give comment when they had 6000 years of ample time to do so.
Somehow pro same sex relationship Christian apologists don't or won't consider that fact. Instead it's just easier for them to say with lame and very flawed logic, if God is a God of love, than he must be well and okay with same sex relationships. But that is a perfect example of what you deem flawed logic :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#176 Nov 27, 2012
RevKen wrote:
The bible is a most excellent work. It contains truth. But, it also contains old stories that have been passed down through generation upon generation, having been told for moral purposes and therefore skewed in fact and detail. It is also a record of the travails of tribal man's attempts to understand his and her Creator.
The modern human beings, you and I, are just as these were a long time ago. But, we have the advantage of two thousand years of constantly searching for and uncovering truth. We have found truth in the outer world and we have found truth within ourselves.
At one time the Bible was a book of pure fictional stories except for a few actual geographical areas that did exist. Science has been proving the stories, more and more of them were based on actual events that did take place. So the Bible is no longer just a book of fairy tales except to the ignorant.
And I would disagree that we have an advantage over those that lived 2000 years ago concerning knowing God. Science exploring space has proved nothing to prove the existence of God. Not then with the naked eye and not now with space ships and telescopes.
I would say 2000 years ago they were closer to knowing the truth of God then we'll ever come close to knowing of. Why? Because 2000 years ago they still believed on occasion, God would chose someone special and dub them a prophet and speak new things through them to the people worshipping him.
Christians today feel defiled that someone would even think that God would set a prophet on this earth with new things to say to them and to verify things that had once been said 2000 years ago.
What they don't know, is it's an out right contradiction to think God will speak to individuals by his spirit today and then to think God can't use a prophet to enlighten everyone as he use to do for 4000 years.
Modern Christians have set an ever widening gulf between themselves and God with every passing century. Because that is how much older the information that God gave us becomes with each passing century, older and older and older.
Christians today see nothing wrong with putting words in God's mouth concerning a variety of subjects that he didn't speak about that we know of. And same sex relationships is one of those things. Christians for same sex relationships have went from wanting God to be okay with them to now telling people God is okay with same sex relationships.
We are less closer to the truths of God then mankind has been for centuries. God has said nothing new to Christians for a 2000 year period now according to Christians. That should be a warning to modern Christians if 2000 years of silence means anything at all to them.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#177 Nov 27, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for sharing your beliefs with me but please stop trying to deny me my religious freedom.
Denying you what? lol...I denied you nothing! lol.
You are the one that imposed your religious philosophy upon me, telling me I should believe a man that people adore as a pope that doesn't even receive revelation from God.
You did state...
"And yet the Catholic Church teaches we were born the way God intended us to be.
Who should we believe, you or the Pope who was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when this change happened."
The pope no more knows the will of God then you do or I or rev ken.
There is not a single verse in the Bible that states or infers what you claimed. But I do agree the RCC will teach what it needs to teach to meet it's philosophy.
And to speak of those following Pauline philosophy, which church was it for centuries and even today, taught the offices of God in the RCC church belonged to single, non-married clergy? A philosophy Paul taught was of himself, not of God?
lol...I'm denying you your religious freedom you claim yet you're imposing your's on me and others that we should believe what a RCC pope says? How fricking hypocritical you are.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#178 Nov 27, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And yet the Catholic Church teaches we were born the way God intended us to be.
Who should we believe, you or the Pope who was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when this change happened.
when will they ever learn? LOVED the joke BTW!

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#179 Nov 28, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
At one time the Bible was a book of pure fictional stories except for a few actual geographical areas that did exist. Science has been proving the stories, more and more of them were based on actual events that did take place. So the Bible is no longer just a book of fairy tales except to the ignorant.
And I would disagree that we have an advantage over those that lived 2000 years ago concerning knowing God. Science exploring space has proved nothing to prove the existence of God. Not then with the naked eye and not now with space ships and telescopes.
I would say 2000 years ago they were closer to knowing the truth of God then we'll ever come close to knowing of. Why? Because 2000 years ago they still believed on occasion, God would chose someone special and dub them a prophet and speak new things through them to the people worshipping him.
Christians today feel defiled that someone would even think that God would set a prophet on this earth with new things to say to them and to verify things that had once been said 2000 years ago.
What they don't know, is it's an out right contradiction to think God will speak to individuals by his spirit today and then to think God can't use a prophet to enlighten everyone as he use to do for 4000 years.
Modern Christians have set an ever widening gulf between themselves and God with every passing century. Because that is how much older the information that God gave us becomes with each passing century, older and older and older.
Christians today see nothing wrong with putting words in God's mouth concerning a variety of subjects that he didn't speak about that we know of. And same sex relationships is one of those things. Christians for same sex relationships have went from wanting God to be okay with them to now telling people God is okay with same sex relationships.
We are less closer to the truths of God then mankind has been for centuries. God has said nothing new to Christians for a 2000 year period now according to Christians. That should be a warning to modern Christians if 2000 years of silence means anything at all to them.
No Surprise,

Thank you for replying. I believe that you sincerely hold the ideas you have presented above as truth. A forum like this does not make it very easy for either of us to freely and openly discuss ideas. Instead, it forces us to boil down our thoughts and fit them into a box. The result is that the other person has to be careful not to misinterpret what is posted with brevity and inflexibility. Likewise, responses are often emotional because of a lack of time and openness.

So, I thank you for taking time to explain your view.

You say:

The bible is no longer fairy tales. I agree. But, its stories, even though factual or historical in origin, are still derived through a process of the oral tradition of the tribal Hebrews. Before they were written down, they were passed from generation to generation, being told around the table or in a ritual celebration, like in the Seder.

As a result, the story becomes a stylized moral lesson and contains significant value to the maintenance of social order and tradition within the tribe. The body of these stories is the basis for a faith that has developed over thousands of years and is handed down to us, even in the form of the Covenant of Abraham.

When the lesson reaches us in the present day, it still has that moral value and it is still built on the original historical event. An example is the 6000 years of time that you cite in which these stories were developed and passed down.

The story of Noah, to the best of our present forensic archeology, appears to be told around a series of events that occurred in and around what is today known as the Black Sea near the straits of the Bosphorus at the close of the Ice Age, more like 7,500 years ago, with a cultural history of a people living in the area to 11,000 years ago.

Rev. Ken

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#180 Nov 28, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No Surprise,
Thank you for replying. I believe that you sincerely hold the ideas you have presented above as truth. A forum like this does not make it very easy for either of us to freely and openly discuss ideas. Instead, it forces us to boil down our thoughts and fit them into a box. The result is that the other person has to be careful not to misinterpret what is posted with brevity and inflexibility. Likewise, responses are often emotional because of a lack of time and openness.
So, I thank you for taking time to explain your view.
You say:
The bible is no longer fairy tales. I agree. But, its stories, even though factual or historical in origin, are still derived through a process of the oral tradition of the tribal Hebrews. Before they were written down, they were passed from generation to generation, being told around the table or in a ritual celebration, like in the Seder.
As a result, the story becomes a stylized moral lesson and contains significant value to the maintenance of social order and tradition within the tribe. The body of these stories is the basis for a faith that has developed over thousands of years and is handed down to us, even in the form of the Covenant of Abraham.
When the lesson reaches us in the present day, it still has that moral value and it is still built on the original historical event. An example is the 6000 years of time that you cite in which these stories were developed and passed down.
The story of Noah, to the best of our present forensic archeology, appears to be told around a series of events that occurred in and around what is today known as the Black Sea near the straits of the Bosphorus at the close of the Ice Age, more like 7,500 years ago, with a cultural history of a people living in the area to 11,000 years ago.
Rev. Ken
Thanks for your reply.
The ideas I presented are truths of the well established history of Christianity. For about 1700 years Christianity has believed the Spirit of God resides within them, but not with a prophet. They believe prophets are of no use to them.
I find it quite sad that a group of people could say their God does so much and yet in the same breath, limit his power and what he does with it.
Christians are today, where Jews were 2000 years ago were. For about 500 years prior to Jesus's birth, Jews stopped believing in the need of prophets. They had their Jewish wise-men/mystics that equate to today's pope that they revered, but they had limited their God's power and ability to speak to them because as Christians today, they were waiting for the messiah to come and make all things better.
That importance set upon the arrival of a messiah allowed those Jews to decide over time that God wouldn't use a prophet any more. But because of their unbelief as it happened many times in their past, disbelief caused an absence of prophets to be there to guide them in the truth.
Christians are repeating what the Jews did 2000 years ago. Their waiting for the return of the Messiah and have decided they need no prophets till his return.
If you read the OT, you will see that prophets gave the word of God anew and reaffirmed the word of God that existed previously. That was what their job was for.
The Jews at the height of their era, decided many times prophets were not needed because they had the wisdom of their wise-men and mystics. And they suffered for that decision. They perverted the teachings and accepted teachings/laws God didn't give.
The Christians today are doing the very same exact thing. They have decided prophets aren't needed because they have the wisdom of the pope and various wise-men of different Christian religions. And they have injected new teachings and literally new laws of belief that God said nothing of. Christians are perverting the ways of ancient Christianity and will suffer for it.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#181 Nov 28, 2012
RevKen wrote:
The story of Noah, to the best of our present forensic archeology, appears to be told around a series of events that occurred in and around what is today known as the Black Sea near the straits of the Bosphorus at the close of the Ice Age, more like 7,500 years ago, with a cultural history of a people living in the area to 11,000 years ago.
Rev. Ken
Ahh, the flood story. People spend so much time looking for geographical evidence that I think they don't take time to read the story itself as it gives some amazing possible clues.
Consider the following verses. If you have read about the earth's geography and the arrangement of the continents, something should stand out as a strong possibility of having been at the time of the Bible flood story.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm
9 And God said:'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.

A geologist worth their degree would say the writer is inferring to the theory of Pangaea. A single massive continent surrounded by many seas/oceans.
Now pretending for a moment that the earth was indeed a single continent when the flood happened, that would put the earth at an early age with lower mountains which would explain how the entire earth could have been flooded above the tallest mountain.
But theory doesn't jibe with the accepted age man to God being a thousand years. So one of two possibilities exist for the Bible story. Either the one day to God is a thousand years to mankind holds true or it's incorrect.
And relying on science and all it's dates aren't reliable either to sustain the Pangaea theory for the flood. Science for decades claimed factual evidence that the "Scablands" in the north-west US had taken tens of millions of years to come to be as they were shaped. But a short time ago, a young geologist studied all that prior scientific factual data and said it was wrong. That a succession of glacier floods and carved the land into what it was. That each flood took only days to shape the land scape and not tens of millions of years of time. Geologists studied his work and now side with him.
Point being, Science claims it took the earth millions to tens of millions etc to form as it aged and they could well be wrong or right.
But maybe the flood did happen when the earth was a single continent. Maybe the power of God shaped things (like the glacial floods) to be as they are now during that flood.
Any way, it's nothing I have a cemented belief in but I like possibilities :)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#182 Nov 28, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Because something is taught, that doesn't make it correct, even by a pope.
I'm glad you understand that.

Now try applying that to what you were taught in your religious training.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#183 Nov 28, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Denying you what? lol...I denied you nothing! lol.
You are the one that imposed your religious philosophy upon me, telling me I should believe a man that people adore as a pope that doesn't even receive revelation from God.
You did state...
"And yet the Catholic Church teaches we were born the way God intended us to be.
Who should we believe, you or the Pope who was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when this change happened."
The pope no more knows the will of God then you do or I or rev ken.
There is not a single verse in the Bible that states or infers what you claimed. But I do agree the RCC will teach what it needs to teach to meet it's philosophy.
And to speak of those following Pauline philosophy, which church was it for centuries and even today, taught the offices of God in the RCC church belonged to single, non-married clergy? A philosophy Paul taught was of himself, not of God?
lol...I'm denying you your religious freedom you claim yet you're imposing your's on me and others that we should believe what a RCC pope says? How fricking hypocritical you are.
I don't think I ever insisted you subscribe to Catholicism.

Please go back and find the post that proves what you claim.

You come on these boards trying to impose your religious doctrines and ideas on everyone else and then have the NERVE to get snippy when I simply make statements about other religious beliefs.

I'm not Catholic so you can't really claim I'm trying to impose those beliefs on you because I don't share all the beliefs of the R.C.C. in the first place.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#184 Nov 28, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think I ever insisted you subscribe to Catholicism.
Please go back and find the post that proves what you claim.
You come on these boards trying to impose your religious doctrines and ideas on everyone else and then have the NERVE to get snippy when I simply make statements about other religious beliefs.
I'm not Catholic so you can't really claim I'm trying to impose those beliefs on you because I don't share all the beliefs of the R.C.C. in the first place.
You did write...
"And yet the Catholic Church teaches we were born the way God intended us to be."
The above statement as you wrote it, implies you believe what the pope teaches. That would insinuate you're a RCC. Understand your own statement and it's implications?
"Who should we believe, you or the Pope who was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when this change happened."
The above again implies you're leaning on the teaching/preaching of the pope. That insinuates to the reader not knowing you that you're a RCC, even if you later state you aren't, understand?
By the way, a personal opinion isn't a doctrine. You shouldn't confuse the two.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#185 Nov 28, 2012
DNF wrote:
Please go back and find the post that proves what you claim.
Prove what I claim? The rev and I had been discussing Jesus's position on same sex relationships. He stated at one point...
"Not according to the Gospel of John.
He wrote that Jesus spoke about many things and that there was much too much to write about.
One thing that Jesus did regularly and repeatedy insist upon, including claiming that He Himself embodied the very principle:
Truth."
The rev was insinuating that Jesus could have said something positive about same sex relations though we have no record of it.
And he is correct, it's a possibility.
But my previous position as it is now, is that Jesus/God has had 6000 "supposed" Bible years to say something positive about same sex relations and he hasn't. That is my evidence/proof of God's position on the matter. He doesn't have one. He doesn't need to have a position on same sex relations.
God had one position on human relationships and established it in Genesis and made laws for it for 4000 supposed Bible years. It is my opinion from what the Bible says and doesn't say of the varied relationships we humans engage ourselves in, that God gave specific directions for us to follow and left it up to us to follow them or chose not to follow them.
My proof of this information lays in what humans have chosen to do for 6000 supposed Bible years in spite of specific instructions of what relationship he wants us to be engaged in.
That information forms my opinion, not a doctrine. The rev believes God is well and okay with same sex relationships and that is his opinion, not a doctrine. Unfortunately the Bible doesn't support his opinion.

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 Gay veteran with a penchant for heels wins land... 6 min Tea Bag Residue C... 95
News Video Campaign Aims To Unify Poland Through The... 10 min Tea Bag Residue C... 1
News Lyft driver in Indianapolis orders gay couple o... 13 min Tea Bag Residue C... 30
News Pope Francis reportedly tells gay man: 'God mad... 19 min The Lightbearer 3
News TMLC: Catholic Therapist Allegedly Fired For He... 27 min Tea Bag Residue C... 1
News Oregon high school faces hearing for anti-gay d... 40 min Tea Bag Residue C... 2
News God made you gay' pope tells victim of clergy s... 45 min Hahahlolahah 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr cpeter1313 61,639
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 28,160