Homophobes try to force gays to abandon hallmark of culture
- Login to post comments
Let's stick to the original statement. Ok let's stick with that statement. You picked incest, I'll choose divorce and remarriage. He said nothing about monogamous gay relationships...but said this about divorce and remarriage:
In Luke 16:18 Jesus says:
Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery
Hey, your church remarry divorced folks? You pick what you wish to focus on...so does your church.
Wv..always back to comparing gays with sex with kids(although many pedo's are married fella's)...
Consenting adults...You know that, but it makes you feel better to be confused. No kids, not pets, no farm animals...
So concerned about others sex lives...again, was it because of Dobson's upset with Sponge Bob?
So concerned about others sex lives...again, was it because of Dobson's upset with Sponge Bob?
You keep bringing up Sponge Bob, what happened? I don't know what you're talking about. Is this similar to Naran bringing up indoor plumbing?
LMD responded and asked charlotte:
"~Jesus never said anything about incest.
I ask you again [for the second time, now the third], is incest acceptable since Jesus said nothing about it?"
charlotte responds:
"Let's stick to the original statement. Ok let's stick with that statement. You picked incest, I'll choose divorce and remarriage. He said nothing about monogamous gay relationships...but said this about divorce and remarriage:..."
Once again we have charlotte dodging the question in order to cover up her serious lack of logic in her thinking.
Just as Jesus never said anything about "monogamous homosexual relationships", Jesus never said anything about incest either.
But are we to assume that either of the aforementioned are acceptable because of Jesus' silence on the matters?
charlotte chooses to present the erroneous notion that because Jesus never "said" anything about homosexual monogamous relationships, then they must be OK.
When presented with the fact that Jesus never said anything against incest either, charlotte suddenly realizes the error of her thinking, runs away from her initial claim and throws up another subject in an attempt to deflect the attention away from her own faulty reasoning.
charlotte, you have been exposed.
I suggest you drop that hollow, oft-used argument that 'monogamous homosexual relationships' are OK by Jesus because He never said anything about them.
Jesus never said anything about incest, but we know it is forbidden because of the prohibitions found in Leviticus and 1 Corinthians.
Jesus never said anything about beating your wife, but it is written that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church (just one of many passages related to the subject).
Jesus never said anything about "monogamous homosexual relationships", but we know from references in the Old and New Testament that monogamous relationships are to be solely between one man and one woman.
We also know that divorced people who remarry are adulterers, and adultery is just as big an abomination as homosexuality (according to the Bible) yet I don't see Christians lined up to ban divorce or ask for constitutional amendments to ban divorce. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
was it because of Dobson's upset with Sponge Bob?
This is an example of the way people twist things and copy things from websites that twist things to vilify others.
Dr. Bobson was not “upset with Sponge Bobâ€. He was upset that an “educational†video was being produced and distributed to elementary schools using popular cartoon characters to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."
The following quote is not from Dr. Dobson but from a writer at the New York Times (David Kirkpatrick) in a story about Dr. Dobson. “SpongeBob needed no introduction. In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men, perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/politics/20sponge.html
We also know that divorced people who remarry are adulterers, and adultery is just as big an abomination as homosexuality (according to the Bible) yet I don't see Christians lined up to ban divorce or ask for constitutional amendments to ban divorce. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Yes, hypocrisy abounds. We are all subject to its temptation. (It is even evident in your post.) But how people use or respond to truth does not alter truth.
All divorced people who remarry are not adulterers, by the way. There is also a difference between those who have repented of previous sin and those who refuse to acknowledge or repent.
Charlotte Jesus loved children. He gathered them around Him everywhere He went. It is written that God knows us even before we are born. God even knows when a sparrow falls from the sky. Do you think that Jesus approves of abortion because He never directly mentioned it?
Al
Divorce and remarriage is acceptable, not a sin, if the reason for the divorce is adultery of the other spouse. Jesus did say that God permitted divorce only because of the hardness of our hearts; but if one's spouse was unfaithful, then the other spouse was free to remarry.
I accept Charlotte's point that divorce and remarriage, except as noted above, is a sin; as is greed, idolatry, hatred, etc. There is no difference.
The difference, however, the sinner must repent, turn away, from his/her sins whatever the sins may be, and plead the Almighty's forgiveness. We can be sure our sins will be forgiven; and, believe it or not, the Almighty will remember them no more!
If a sin is a sin, then why do churches remarry divorced folks, but want gays to repent if they are to be part of a church?
That is my main point. So many here say because I belong to a UCC I am no "real" Christian. Yet, their church will remarry a divorced person...so they support what the bible calls a sin.
Just calling it as I see it.
Bob, you are wrong about divorced people not being adulterers if they divorce because of adultery. See Mark and Luke. They contradict Matthew and there is certainly some disagreement over the translation from the Greek in Matthew re: adultery being a legitimate reason for divorce. No one answered the question, however, as to why fundamentalist Christians aren't looking for laws and constitutional amendments banning divorce (or even banning divorce except for adultery), especially since divorce is the #1 cause of the breakdown of the family unit. And divorce and remarriage is an abomination.
The answer seems to be that it's easier to pick on homosexuals.
The point I tried to make above is that it is okay to remarry--a church can bless the marriage--of a person whose spouse in the first marriage committed adultery--that is, had sex outside of their marriage vows. But, of course, a "no fault" divorce and a subsequent remarriage cannot be blessed by the church.
However, there is one caveat: if one spouse was not Christian at the time of the first marriage, that marriage has not had the blessing of the church and can be dissolved, and the parties are free to remarry.
This is about all I know about this issue, or care to discuss.
JHR, you are wrong on both counts. Check out your Bible, see 1 Corinthians.
Editor's Note: And a related news item....
Heinz pulls gay kiss advert
Heinz Deli Mayo 'Mum' TV ad
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0cXNzcxDrN4
Heinz has pulled an advert featuring a gay kiss after more than 200 complaints to the advertising watchdog, prompting a LGBT lobby group to call for a boycott on all the food manufacturer's products.
Heniz claims the TV ad was created “as a humorous take on a slice of life†and plays on a typical domestic family moning scene.
I thought it was cute...too bad it was pulled.
If the purpose of advertising is still selling products, they would have lost my business if I had seen that on TV. At least they had the sense to run it overseas, it would have been a marketing diaster running that ad in the US.
WV, I believe the ad played in England, where it is basically illegal to not agree with the secular humanist agenda, specifically homosexual behavior.
I don't believe the company expected it would become known here -- let alone an issue.
Based on these standards, half the ads shown during Superbowl would lead to product boycotts.
Humor is outlawed in the US, I guess.
I thought it was funny.
That's true, Michelle. They don't have freedom of speech over there like we do, though the PC thugs are certainly working on it.
Rubbish.
Based on these standards, half the ads shown during Superbowl would lead to product boycotts.
Humor is outlawed in the US, I guess.
I thought it was funny.
What standards would that be? There were only two superbowl ads I found that have been protested. The snickers bar ad with two guys "accidently" kissing (thankfully, I missed that one) which was immediately removed even from their website and the Dodge truck commerical with the priest which was pulled before it aired.
Heniz claims the TV ad was created “as a humorous take on a slice of life†and plays on a typical domestic family moning scene.
Favorite ploy used by unscrupulous, unprincipled manipulators:
Sneak in a subtle message to promote a personal (though offensive) cause, and if called on it simply pass it off as just a joke.
Amazing how often they get away with it. Though not this time.
democrat -
Am I expected to change my understanding just because you say I am wrong?
I have already seen Mark and Luke (also 1 Corinthians & Romans)
There is no contradiction.
And I am still right.
btw, you did not quote me accurately. again
The rest of your question is absurd, so I am ignoring it. I have not heard about you campaigning against child abuse. Does that mean you approve of it? (I doubt it)
The ad was cute and harmless...Some need to get a sense of humor.
The ad was cute and harmless...Some need to get a sense of humor.
Sorry, I don't find perversity humorous, though some do....and have kids involved in it? even worse!
Bob E, it's not just me who says you're wrong. The Pope says you're wrong, and he's the head of a much bigger church than yours.
Oh, two loving parents of the same sex...those poor kids....
I would be much more up in arms for the poor kids that don't have anyone making their lunch or giving a rip about them.
democrat - I don't own a church. And if I did, I would not measure it by the number of people.
But if we use your standard then I guess you will have to agree with the Pope on everything he says, right?
Hey, you're the one who seemed to want the opinion of a "higher" authority than me. I don't have to agree with either you or the Pope. You're the Christians, not me, but you guys can't seem to agree on what the Bible says or means. That's why it's so funny when one of you claims that "God's word" is so clear. Maybe you should check out the Koran.
- Login to post comments
Well, I guess you finally answered the incest and nambla question...thanks for the clairifacation.