Christian churches MUST change their teachings on homosexuality

[daws101]

nope chief you as always it's you ,the thread had already morphed from the subject when you jumped in ...that's why my first post to you said you were off topic....thanks for playing.

1. OK, thank you for admitting you and others 'hijacked the thread's topic' while others were talking about liberals intolerantly demanding Christians change their beliefs / teachings to fall in line with the only acceptable views - those of Liberals.

2. Nice display of Liberal arrogance / narcissism in declaring once you and yours have hijacked /
'morphed' (Saul Alynski would have loved the use of that term in describing how you used his techniques to distract and change the topic of discussion away from the REAL topic of discussion) no one else was allowed to do so or return the discussion back to the original discussion!



AGAIN...I don't care what YOU were talking about, 'Saul', the title of the tread reads:

"Christian churches MUST change their teachings on homosexuality"

NOT

"religion and the belief in god or gods"

You lose!

wrong again! nobody hijacked the thread,
then again I understand why you are driven to make blatant false assumptions.
no liberals were displaying arrogance if you actually read the thread instead of willfully misinterpreting it you'd see that all the arrogance was from the defenders of religious homophobia.

 

[easyt65]

wrong again! nobody hijacked the thread.

Daws, did you NOT say, "nope chief you as always it's you, the thread had already morphed from the subject'? Are those NOT your words, as clearly shown in the previous posts? All I did was copy and past YOUR OWN words?

Whether you say

- Hijacked the post

- Deviated from the main discussion

- Changed the subject

- 'morphed from the subject' (YOUR WORDS)

...'Mr. Clinton' you can argue until you are blue in the face over the 'definition of the word 'is' in an attempt to squirm out of this, but you have been busted - much like Hillary - through the use of your own words.

Have a nice day, and thank YOU for playing...but you STILL LOSE!

 

[daws101]

wrong again! nobody hijacked the thread.

Daws, did you NOT say, "nope chief you as always it's you, the thread had already morphed from the subject'? Are those NOT your words, as clearly shown in the previous posts? All I did was copy and past YOUR OWN words?

Whether you say

- Hijacked the post

- Deviated from the main discussion

- Changed the subject

- 'morphed from the subject' (YOUR WORDS)

...'Mr. Clinton' you can argue until you are blue in the face over the 'definition of the word 'is' in an attempt to squirm out of this, but you have been busted - much like Hillary - through the use of your own words.

Have a nice day, and thank YOU for playing...but you STILL LOSE!

since this is not a Competition there is nothing to win or lose,

 

[Dale Smith]

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. ...
If you are truly Christian you would follow his lead.
It should be noted that the op is a white supremacist fuck up.
When he yammers about Christians , he means WHITE CHRISTIANS ONLY.
The rest are sub humans.

Jesus made it clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. That's good enough. Don't fix what isn't broken.

So Jesus is the only one who decides what is marriage in this country. What congressional district is he from?

They can't find a word in the Bible that condemns same sex civil marriage.

Nor can you find it in most of the marriage laws created long ago, but that's because nobody even considered it back then.

Which from a purely legal standpoint...makes gay marriage bans a brand new thing, thus NOT upholding traditional marriage.

Having said that, if gay marriage was something they had considered when they created those laws, like Polygamy, they would have most likely prohibited it.

Toxicmedia, how dare you bring logic and sanity to this thread. There is no need to stoop to such levels. Mind you- I will be following you and will call you out again if I see you using anymore of your fancy shmancy historical facts.

A marriage recognized by the state under admiralty law is simply the merger of two corporate entities while making the state a third party to it.

 

[Dale Smith]

Jesus made it clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. That's good enough. Don't fix what isn't broken.

So Jesus is the only one who decides what is marriage in this country. What congressional district is he from?

They can't find a word in the Bible that condemns same sex civil marriage.

Nor can you find it in most of the marriage laws created long ago, but that's because nobody even considered it back then.

Which from a purely legal standpoint...makes gay marriage bans a brand new thing, thus NOT upholding traditional marriage.

Having said that, if gay marriage was something they had considered when they created those laws, like Polygamy, they would have most likely prohibited it.

Toxicmedia, how dare you bring logic and sanity to this thread. There is no need to stoop to such levels. Mind you- I will be following you and will call you out again if I see you using anymore of your fancy shmancy historical facts.

A marriage recognized by the state under admiralty law is simply the merger of two corporate entities while making the state a third party to it.

Daws101....laugh about this, bitch.........

Rich writes:

I wanted to pass along some VERY important information regarding marriage, the marriage contract, contract law, the state and children. This has helped me see the TRUE DANGER in getting married today.

I have been studying the law intensely for the past few years and learned all about maritime law, contract law, trusts, corporations, policies, common law and how nearly ALL such "laws" today are not laws at all, but are merely Policies. They're operating under pretense of law. That is why police today are in fact called Police...because they enforce POLIC(E)-IES... NOT laws. They actually work for the insurance companies who are themselves owned by the banks, especially the Federal Reserve central banks.


________________
by Rich
(henrymakow.com)
The marriage license began in the middles ages as a private contract between two families. Most of the time this was recorded in the local church with or without eyewitnesses. Usually the word of a couple that stated they were married was sufficient to have the marriage recorded as such.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as - "Permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

In other words, the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal. They then charge you a fee (which is a bribe) to turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do!

So the state, in instituting any kind of licensing, is forcing you to contract with them and pay a bribe to do something that they claim is illegal.

In Civil Law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture. As the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business.

Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed "contract."

This contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that are attached to it.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid. This results in an implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property.

It should be emphasized that this contractual consideration places the bride and groom in an inferior position (as defined-by-law) and makes them subject to the State. Very few people realize this.

It is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" - meaning the children primarily belong to the State.

In this regard, children are regarded as "contract bearing fruit,".

This was established in the US in the 1930's by two doctrines. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to put it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent.

Along this line, a 1930's Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State.

This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State.

But if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -i.e. the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship between the husband, wife and state. It's a trinity, just like a pyramid, with the State on top.

Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage (a maritime corporation), to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage.
Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence.

The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction over the marriage, husband and wife, by the state, now separated, continues over all aspects of the marriage, including over marital property and the children brought into the marriage.

That is why Family Law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage, because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. The marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.This is why time and time again CPS feels that they can just come in and take over your children, because according to the marriage license (along with numerous other unrevealed contracts), they have legal jurisdiction over your children without you really knowing or understanding why.

Much of this also goes back to the 14th amendment, your all capitalized name and each persons name being incorporated, thus giving the states and Feds authority over you.

This is how we have all become enslaved once again, by these dangerous and unrevealed adhesion contracts, many of which, like the marriage contract, are always in force to some degree.

Others include: Social Security, Drivers Licenses, Building Permits, Property Taxes, and SO many more. ALL of these items are adhesion contracts that have far reaching implications, without you knowing it.
None of them are mandatory!!!!!--
- See more at: Marriage License is a Trap

 

[daws101]

THE BLOG
Myth: The Bible is the Word of God
10/08/2015 11:42 am ET | Updated Oct 08, 2015
1 K

• 
  Christian ChiakulasWriter, activist, and musician from Chicago

What is the Bible? Is it a collection of scriptures written by men, or something more?

Conservative Christianity affirms the idea of “Biblical Inerrancy;” that is, the Bible is the literal, Divinely-inspired Word of God. Whether or not they accept the scholarly consensuses on authorship of specific books (and some do not) they do believe that these authors’ pens were guided by the hand of God, and thus the bible is in a sense perfect. This can be expressed in two nonexclusive ways: 1.) that the bible is without error, and 2.) that the bible does not affirm anything that is not true.

This idea is the source of all misuse and misunderstanding of biblical passages.

If you believe God wrote the bible, it is quite easy to imagine a certain passage applies directly to you and the world you live in. Obviously; God is timeless, so why would He write something intended only for a specific time period?

The problem with biblical inerrancy is that it’s utter nonsense, as a basic reading of the Bible will show. For example: in Genesis 1, God creates plant life, and then Man. In Genesis 2, God creates Man first, and then plant life. Both of these things simply cannot be true, even in God’s omnipotence, for omnipotence doesn’t extend to the logically impossible. A couple other brief examples:

If you read each gospel’s account of the 12 apostles, it is clear that there are more than 12 names and none of the gospels precisely agree on who they were.

Jesus says he comes not to bring peace, but a sword, and then He also says that all who live by the sword shall perish by the sword.

In Galatians Paul writes “there is neither slave no r free,” but then in Titus, Paul apparently writes that slaves are to be subject to their masters. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians Paul says that women may “pray or prophesy” but only with their heads covered, but then in several other letters Paul apparently tells women not to speak at all.

If the Bible is perfect, how can it contradict itself so much? Some may look at these and other examples and shrug, grunting something about “God working in mysterious ways.” For the rational-minded among us, this answer will not suffice.

The truth is that the bible is a human product, each book written in a time and place for a specific audience, by authors who were shaped by their experiences of God. Therefore, in order to correctly understand and interpret the bible, you must place the book you are reading in proper historical and theological context.

Myth: The Bible is the Word of God

 

[daws101]

So Jesus is the only one who decides what is marriage in this country. What congressional district is he from?

They can't find a word in the Bible that condemns same sex civil marriage.

Nor can you find it in most of the marriage laws created long ago, but that's because nobody even considered it back then.

Which from a purely legal standpoint...makes gay marriage bans a brand new thing, thus NOT upholding traditional marriage.

Having said that, if gay marriage was something they had considered when they created those laws, like Polygamy, they would have most likely prohibited it.

Toxicmedia, how dare you bring logic and sanity to this thread. There is no need to stoop to such levels. Mind you- I will be following you and will call you out again if I see you using anymore of your fancy shmancy historical facts.

A marriage recognized by the state under admiralty law is simply the merger of two corporate entities while making the state a third party to it.

Daws101....laugh about this, bitch.........

Rich writes:

I wanted to pass along some VERY important information regarding marriage, the marriage contract, contract law, the state and children. This has helped me see the TRUE DANGER in getting married today.

I have been studying the law intensely for the past few years and learned all about maritime law, contract law, trusts, corporations, policies, common law and how nearly ALL such "laws" today are not laws at all, but are merely Policies. They're operating under pretense of law. That is why police today are in fact called Police...because they enforce POLIC(E)-IES... NOT laws. They actually work for the insurance companies who are themselves owned by the banks, especially the Federal Reserve central banks.


________________
by Rich
(henrymakow.com)
The marriage license began in the middles ages as a private contract between two families. Most of the time this was recorded in the local church with or without eyewitnesses. Usually the word of a couple that stated they were married was sufficient to have the marriage recorded as such.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as - "Permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

In other words, the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal. They then charge you a fee (which is a bribe) to turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do!

So the state, in instituting any kind of licensing, is forcing you to contract with them and pay a bribe to do something that they claim is illegal.

In Civil Law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture. As the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business.

Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed "contract."

This contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that are attached to it.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid. This results in an implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property.

It should be emphasized that this contractual consideration places the bride and groom in an inferior position (as defined-by-law) and makes them subject to the State. Very few people realize this.

It is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" - meaning the children primarily belong to the State.

In this regard, children are regarded as "contract bearing fruit,".

This was established in the US in the 1930's by two doctrines. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to put it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent.

Along this line, a 1930's Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State.

This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State.

But if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -i.e. the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship between the husband, wife and state. It's a trinity, just like a pyramid, with the State on top.

Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage (a maritime corporation), to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage.
Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence.

The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction over the marriage, husband and wife, by the state, now separated, continues over all aspects of the marriage, including over marital property and the children brought into the marriage.

That is why Family Law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage, because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. The marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.This is why time and time again CPS feels that they can just come in and take over your children, because according to the marriage license (along with numerous other unrevealed contracts), they have legal jurisdiction over your children without you really knowing or understanding why.

Much of this also goes back to the 14th amendment, your all capitalized name and each persons name being incorporated, thus giving the states and Feds authority over you.

This is how we have all become enslaved once again, by these dangerous and unrevealed adhesion contracts, many of which, like the marriage contract, are always in force to some degree.

Others include: Social Security, Drivers Licenses, Building Permits, Property Taxes, and SO many more. ALL of these items are adhesion contracts that have far reaching implications, without you knowing it.
None of them are mandatory!!!!!--
- See more at: Marriage License is a Trap

 

[Clementine]

Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist

It begins. I told you all a few days ago they would come for the churches.

No surprise here. Of course, the left has opposed Christians for decades. Notice that the left is more outraged at Christians who see being gay as a sin than they are at Muslims who see being gay as a crime punishable by death.

 

[daws101]

Christian churches ‘must be made’ to affirm homosexuality, says New York Times columnist

It begins. I told you all a few days ago they would come for the churches.

No surprise here. Of course, the left has opposed Christians for decades. Notice that the left is more outraged at Christians who see being gay as a sin than they are at Muslims who see being gay as a crime punishable by death.

really? The term Christian left refers to a spectrum of left-wing Christian political and social movements that largely embrace viewpoints described as social justice that upholds a social gospel. Given the inherent diversity in international political thought, the term can have different meanings and applications in different countries.

 

[ChrisL]

IMO, these people who claim to have "religious superiority" over their fellow human beings are the furthest from their "God." They hate homosexuals and that is why they constantly start threads whining about them. Thankfully our country is secular and favors no religion. Otherwise, I fear we would be very similar to some other countries where they execute homosexuals.

 

[easyt65]

since this is not a Competition there is nothing to win or lose,

Nice attempt to DODGE THE FACT POINTED OUT:

Daws, did you NOT say, "nope chief you as always it's you, the thread had already morphed from the subject'? Are those NOT your words, as clearly shown in the previous posts? All I did was copy and past YOUR OWN words...so the answer would be YES!

And once again, Whether you say

- Hijacked the post

- Deviated from the main discussion

- Changed the subject

- 'morphed from the subject' (YOUR WORDS)


It all means the same thing.

...'Mr. Clinton' you can argue until you are blue in the face over the 'definition of the word 'is' in an attempt to squirm out of this, but you have been busted - much like Hillary - through the use of your own words.

You argument has been proven to be FALSE, WITHOUT MERIT, WRONG. And you are WRONG about nothing to be won or lost - you just lost a measure of credibility.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Mormons believed in polygamy not just as being permissible but as being a core tenet of their Christian faith.

Then the government came along and attached some dire consequences to the Mormons continuing that practice,

and magically! the Mormon head honcho got a message from God Himself! saying that polygamy is no longer okay.

Hmmmm...how is that possible?

If it were true, you should ask the Mormons.
But since you said it, we know it isn't true, so meh.

Read the official manifesto then:

Official Declaration 1

 

[Ernie S.]

The man who is spending millions to "normalize" sodomy in the Christian church is a NY jew named Mitchell Gold. ......

You're racism is obvious as is your religious intolerance.

What does that mean?

It's obvious if you're not feining

The man who is spending millions to "normalize" sodomy in the Christian church is a NY jew named Mitchell Gold. ......

You're racism is obvious as is your religious intolerance.

What does that mean?

What it means is obvious is you are not willfully ignorant.

I find it amazing that you used the contraction "you're" when the appropriate word was "your" and call anyone else ignorant. Read what you just posted. Are you drunk already or is your command of the language always this poor?

spell Nazism! the ultimate act of desperation .

Godwin would be very proud of you.

 

[SwimExpert]

Read the actual opinion piece, instead of a biased article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html?rref=collection/column/frank-bruni&_r=2

You know, I'm disturbed by this new trend in the past few years of websites writing opinion pieces about opinion pieces, which then are passed off as if they as if they're a legitimate analysis of the core subject. It seems alot like the game Telephone.

 

[Igrok_]

the new order will be much more cruel that that in USSR or Noth Korea. Go to christian countries away from the "equal rights"-one. It is just another way of totalitarism.

 

[Ernie S.]

The man who is spending millions to "normalize" sodomy in the Christian church is a NY jew named Mitchell Gold. ......

You're racism is obvious as is your religious intolerance.

What does that mean?

It's obvious if you're not feining

The man who is spending millions to "normalize" sodomy in the Christian church is a NY jew named Mitchell Gold. ......

You're racism is obvious as is your religious intolerance.

What does that mean?

What it means is obvious is you are not willfully ignorant.

I find it amazing that you used the contraction "you're" when the appropriate word was "your" and call anyone else ignorant. Read what you just posted. Are you drunk already or is your command of the language always this poor?

Ernie S.

So you're saying this poster is ignorant.

The link took me directly to your profile, so yes.

 

[Ernie S.]

classic kosher hag dodge...we are talking about religion and the belief in god or gods

Actually we are talking about, despite freedom of religion and speech being protected under the Constitution / Law, liberals trying to declare Christians MUST alter their teachings, based on their religion and practice thereof, and adopt the liberally accepted views and practices regarding homosexuality....

no that's what you've been desperately attempting to inject in to the thread since you jumped in with your ass on fire.

That's some funny shit right there. THAT'S THE TITLE OF THE DAMNED THREAD.

 

[toxicmedia]

Jesus made it clear that marriage was between a man and a woman. That's good enough. Don't fix what isn't broken.

So Jesus is the only one who decides what is marriage in this country. What congressional district is he from?

They can't find a word in the Bible that condemns same sex civil marriage.

Nor can you find it in most of the marriage laws created long ago, but that's because nobody even considered it back then.

Which from a purely legal standpoint...makes gay marriage bans a brand new thing, thus NOT upholding traditional marriage.

Having said that, if gay marriage was something they had considered when they created those laws, like Polygamy, they would have most likely prohibited it.

Toxicmedia, how dare you bring logic and sanity to this thread. There is no need to stoop to such levels. Mind you- I will be following you and will call you out again if I see you using anymore of your fancy shmancy historical facts.

A marriage recognized by the state under admiralty law is simply the merger of two corporate entities while making the state a third party to it.

In a practical sense...my ex wife is a hag.

Amazing how different two points of view can be ain't it!

 

[daws101]

since this is not a Competition there is nothing to win or lose,

Nice attempt to DODGE THE FACT POINTED OUT:

Daws, did you NOT say, "nope chief you as always it's you, the thread had already morphed from the subject'? Are those NOT your words, as clearly shown in the previous posts? All I did was copy and past YOUR OWN words...so the answer would be YES!

And once again, Whether you say

- Hijacked the post

- Deviated from the main discussion

- Changed the subject

- 'morphed from the subject' (YOUR WORDS)


It all means the same thing.

...'Mr. Clinton' you can argue until you are blue in the face over the 'definition of the word 'is' in an attempt to squirm out of this, but you have been busted - much like Hillary - through the use of your own words.

You argument has been proven to be FALSE, WITHOUT MERIT, WRONG. And you are WRONG about nothing to be won or lost - you just lost a measure of credibility.

right like I care about your judgement of what's credible and what's not.
Illusory superiority is often referred to as the above average effect. Other terms include superiority bias, leniency error, sense of relative superiority, the primus inter pares effect,[1] and the Lake Wobegon effect

 

[daws101]

classic kosher hag dodge...we are talking about religion and the belief in god or gods

Actually we are talking about, despite freedom of religion and speech being protected under the Constitution / Law, liberals trying to declare Christians MUST alter their teachings, based on their religion and practice thereof, and adopt the liberally accepted views and practices regarding homosexuality....

no that's what you've been desperately attempting to inject in to the thread since you jumped in with your ass on fire.

That's some funny shit right there. THAT'S THE TITLE OF THE DAMNED THREAD.

the subject had changed so you have no p0int...