Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's what you say it is.
The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It's not about hate. I hate anyone. Hillary Clinton comes the closest with a standing "absolute distrust and dislike".
It's not about hate.
Sin.... is sin. We as Christians are to avoid being involved in sin. We can't be involved in a same sex marriage. Period. Doesn't mean I hate you.
If I was Jewish, I can't eat pork. Does that mean I hate pig farmers? People who eat bacon? No. I just can't be involved in that. It's part of my faith.
If I am a Muslim, I can't drink alcohol. Does that mean I hate the brewers, or the bar owners? No. I just can't partake in that.
I'm a Christian. I can't be involved in SSM. It's sin to me. Does that mean I 'hate' the people who are gay? No. I just can't supply a SSM wedding with cakes, or photo-shoots, or catering. It's part of my faith.
It's that simple.
As a jew you should not eat pork but their are exception to kashrut laws when there are no alternatives. It does not require you to starve or harm your heath till you can obtain kosher food. Even the orthodox understand that. It is the same for religious fasting for females who are pregnant or nursing, or for those in poor health or those in services like police, fire dept. or doctors. It is the same for working on the sabbath. There are reasonable exception.
If you are a muslim you are still permitted to take medicine, knowing or unknowing it contains a narcotic or alcohol. There are live saving and required meds that alter perception and behavior. We give allergy meds to our children and antibiotics that might not be 'kosher or halal' because of meal times or the need to take with meals. Not everything 'written' is absolute. If those who study the talmud and hadiths know the laws are adaptable to different circumstances and not fixed.
Life is not that simple nor are the religious laws, or civil laws.
It might have been a life time ago, but I am well read in most religious text. I can't always quote by chapter and verse but that does make me ignorant.
There is a reason we read the law, civil or religious, by the spirit and not the letter on occasion. Why even among religious lawyers and courts there is dissent on many issues. Why people have to use their best judgement, in life and in the law.
And yet when the King demanded shadrach meshach and abednego to bow down to the golden statue, did they cite exceptions? Did they rationalize and say "well people have to use their best judgement, in life and the law"?
Or did they just say "no" even under penalty of death?
Are there exceptions to certain laws? Yes of course.
But are there absolutes? Yes.
Tell me, the prohibition on adultery... is that absolute or is there an exception?
Yeah, I get it. If you are Jew, on a deserted island with no food, and surrounded by a herd of pigs... do you eat and live, or abstain and starve? Yeah, you eat the pigs. I get it.
Haven't seen many deaths over lack of photography at rump ranger weddings. So what's your point? Because there are exceptions to certain rules, we can just do whatever we feel like?
There are Christians who have that belief system. I'm not one of them.
are women stoned today? do families stay together? do they have the option of divorce?
It is not about everything or any thing being wrong but we don't treat it the way it was back them, we accept, forgive, move on, seek help but we don't condemn even sin or transgression to hell. Not all sin absolute or punishment to damnation for eternity.
Jesus save the women from stoning because those accusing her and ready to execute her were also sinners.
A child that take a bar of candy from a store, a girl lies to her parents, a gay couple fall in love, a man bares false witness and incites others to condemn and attack or a person in hate kills or causes others to kill, which the greater sin? All sins fated to hell? Are none accepted in the community or by god? Is the belief that all sinners must be punished not a form of hate and violence? Is judging others not wrong? Do we hold all sins of the bible as sinful today? Have we not evolved and changed? Has the church not changed?
Mary is not longer a prostitute. Jews are no longer blamed for the death of Jesus. Gays are welcomed in the church. Most of those within the church that sin are protected by the church, they are not excommunicated or shunned. Modern prophets are profiteers, for what reason does god need money? How much of every dollar raised actually goes to good works? How many that we see healed are really planted fakes? How many churches are calling for the end of days rather than working to make today a place if love and care? They seem to care more for revelations than the gospels.
How many preach hate and damnation instead of love thy brother? Is that really what Jesus taught or why he lived?
Other religions have changed over time as well.
Civil law has evolved and is still evolving.
We do not live in the 10th century bce
What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?
Yes, other religions have changed. The Bible has not. Other religions are man-made, and thus can be changed by man. Biblical Christianity was created by G-d in Heaven, and has not changed, and can not be changed.
.
That is nonsensical. The Bible was written, compiled, and edited by men.
You don't have to change your views of homosexuality. You can hate gays and damn them to hell all you want; but the U.S government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian (or any) religion and religion has (or shouldn't have) any effect on law and legislation made.
The U.S is the home of the free, it's a place of liberty and freedom. In my opinion we look dumb as shit touting that we're the land of the free when we won't even let people marry if they aren't marrying the opposite sex.
A gay couple that want to commit to each other are assholes? You would refuse to provide a serve because of sexuality makes you the asshole. It is a prejudice, a form of hate crime.And for future reference for those of you who can't get it through your thick heads:
I really don't care what you think is a 'form of hate'. Can I just make up that what you are saying on this forum, I consider to be a form of hate crime against me?
Grow up.
As for the rest.... well... the gay people that respect my beliefs and cause me no problem, such as those where I work, I don't think they qualify.
But for those who sue a bakery for not providing service for something that directly violates their faith values.... Yeah, that would qualify.
There is no Biblical law against serving homosexuals in one's business.
You don't have to change your views of homosexuality. You can hate gays and damn them to hell all you want; but the U.S government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian (or any) religion and religion has (or shouldn't have) any effect on law and legislation made.
The U.S is the home of the free, it's a place of liberty and freedom.
In my opinion we look dumb as shit touting that we're the land of the free when we won't even let people marry if they aren't marrying the opposite sex.
A gay couple that want to commit to each other are assholes? You would refuse to provide a serve because of sexuality makes you the asshole. It is a prejudice, a form of hate crime.And for future reference for those of you who can't get it through your thick heads:
I really don't care what you think is a 'form of hate'. Can I just make up that what you are saying on this forum, I consider to be a form of hate crime against me?
Grow up.
As for the rest.... well... the gay people that respect my beliefs and cause me no problem, such as those where I work, I don't think they qualify.
But for those who sue a bakery for not providing service for something that directly violates their faith values.... Yeah, that would qualify.
There is no Biblical law against serving homosexuals in one's business.
Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you, a pagan, over what the Bible says.
I'm not here to argue the merits. I'm just standing for my faith. If you disagree with my faith, fine, but that's not going to stop me from practicing it.
You don't have to be involved in same sex marriage. Are you marrying them? Are you marrying someone of your own sex? Then no. You aren't being involved in SSM. Second of all, your freedom of religion does not stretch to a "right" to not allow SSM.And Religious freedom, including my freedom to not violated my faith by being involved in SSM.
You don't have to change your views of homosexuality. You can hate gays and damn them to hell all you want; but the U.S government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian (or any) religion and religion has (or shouldn't have) any effect on law and legislation made.
I never once made such a claim. Do you read at all, or...? Have you been reading anything I've posted in this thread? How many times I've stated I don't hate gays? Well then, let me say it again:
I don't hate gays, I don't begrudge them their right to marry nor their want for equality. What I have a problem with is their insistence that their values trump my faith. Not going to happen.
The U.S is the home of the free, it's a place of liberty and freedom.
No its not.
Tell that to the owner of the bakery, the photographer, or the granny handing out flowers on the street. Tell them that this is a place of "liberty and freedom." When they have to sacrifice their religious beliefs in order to make a living, that's not liberty and freedom, that's dictation.
In my opinion we look dumb as shit touting that we're the land of the free when we won't even let people marry if they aren't marrying the opposite sex.
Er, so how does not baking a cake for a gay couple stop them from getting married? Funny nobody here has been able to answer that question. If your entire marriage revolves around a damned cake instead of the one you want to marry, then the love isn't real, and the hostility for the religious baker is the overriding factor. But go ahead, keep preaching that this is the "home of the free" or a "place of liberty." Liberty and freedom for you perhaps.
If I start a mass movement and religion that says that white people should no longer have rights, would it be okay for me to take away your rights? After all, that would be "trumping my faith."I don't hate gays, I don't begrudge them their right to marry nor their want for equality. What I have a problem with is their insistence that their values trump my faith. Not going to happen.
I'm a libertarian man. I support the right of gays to marry just as I support the right of a business to deny service to anyone for any reason. That's the very basis of private property. Does that mean I support their decision? No. But I have no right to say that they can't do it.No its not.
Tell that to the owner of the bakery, the photographer, or the granny handing out flowers on the street be sued and fined into oblivion for standing up for their religious beliefs. Tell them that this is a place of "liberty and freedom." When they have to sacrifice their religious beliefs in order to make a living, that's not liberty and freedom, that's dictation.
You should stop assuming that just because I support gay marriage that I support that dumb-ass case.Er, so how does not baking a cake for a gay couple stop them from getting married? Funny nobody here has been able to answer that question. If your entire marriage revolves around a damned cake instead of the one you want to marry, then the love isn't real, and the hostility for the religious baker is the overriding factor. But go ahead, keep preaching that this is the "home of the free" or a "place of liberty." Liberty and freedom for you perhaps.
You don't have to be involved in same sex marriage. Are you marrying them? Are you marrying someone of your own sex? Then no. You aren't being involved in SSM. Second of all, your freedom of religion does not stretch to a "right" to not allow SSM.And Religious freedom, including my freedom to not violated my faith by being involved in SSM.
God would be absolutely ashamed of your intolerance of another human for something as silly as their sexuality. Have you ever read Luke 6:37? I swear you people don't even read your own book.
God would not expect you to choose between your faith and your compassion. If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then it is morally indefensible for Christians to do so.
What cannot be denied is that Christians have caused a great deal of pain and suffering to gay persons, by:
Banning their participation in the church
Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage
Damaging the bonds between gays and their straight family members
Using their position within society as spokespersons for God to proclaim that all homosexual relations are disdained by God, thus knowingly contributing to the cruel persecution of a minority population.
Without a clear directive from God to exclude and condemn homosexuals, the Christian community’s treatment of gay persons is in clear violation of what Jesus and the New Testament writers pointedly identified as one-half of God’s most important commandment: to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.
Homosexuality is only briefly mentioned in six or seven of the Bible's 31 thousand verses. The fact that it's so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be indication enough that it is of very little importance to God and the authors of the Bible.
While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of it's content is devoted to how a Christian should act, present themselves, and treat others. It insists upon fairness, equity, love, and the rejection of legalism over compassion. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward these people?
Have you read John 8:7? Romans 13:8? Colossians 3:11? Matthew 23:23?
Christians should, as the Bible says, evaluate the degree of sin, or even whether or not a real sin has occurred, by looking at the harm caused by the sin, and the intent of the sin's perpetrator.
It seems they usually do that for all sins except homosexuality.
Great, then you support SSM and the discussion is over.Yes, I've read all of those, thanks. I read through the entire Bible every single year, and have for the last 3 years+.
Oh dear, guess you didn't read them.Thanks for asking, although it doesn't change anything in this conversation.
Exactly. So when are you going to show me the verse where it says "gays are legally not allowed to marry, and it is every Christians obligation to oppose that legislation"Sorry, but you don't get to cherry pick which verses you want to follow, and which you don't.
There's no argument, I know what the bible says and that's that. Argument assumes that you have a case, which you don't.Nor do you get to argue with me, over what you think the Bible says.
Said the blind man.I can read it for myself, and see that you are wrong.
Corinthians 5:11 says that you shouldn't associate with anyone who is immoral. That does not say to outlaw same sex marriage. Try again, but I'll just give you a hint: the verse you're looking for doesn't exist.1 Corinthians 5:11 is pretty much an open and shut case. You should look up what the Bible says about 'shunning'. It's pretty clear.
A gay couple that want to commit to each other are assholes? You would refuse to provide a serve because of sexuality makes you the asshole. It is a prejudice, a form of hate crime.And for future reference for those of you who can't get it through your thick heads:
I really don't care what you think is a 'form of hate'. Can I just make up that what you are saying on this forum, I consider to be a form of hate crime against me?
Grow up.
As for the rest.... well... the gay people that respect my beliefs and cause me no problem, such as those where I work, I don't think they qualify.
But for those who sue a bakery for not providing service for something that directly violates their faith values.... Yeah, that would qualify.
There is no Biblical law against serving homosexuals in one's business.
Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you, a pagan, over what the Bible says.
I'm not here to argue the merits. I'm just standing for my faith. If you disagree with my faith, fine, but that's not going to stop me from practicing it.
To shun people for what they are genetically. For denying them the right to love and commit to each other. This was not what Jesus did or taught. It is the same as rejecting someone for the color of their skin or where they were born.
Great, then you support SSM and the discussion is over.Yes, I've read all of those, thanks. I read through the entire Bible every single year, and have for the last 3 years+.
Oh dear, guess you didn't read them.Thanks for asking, although it doesn't change anything in this conversation.
Exactly. So when are you going to show me the verse where it says "gays are legally not allowed to marry, and it is every Christians obligation to oppose that legislation"Sorry, but you don't get to cherry pick which verses you want to follow, and which you don't.
There's no argument, I know what the bible says and that's that. Argument assumes that you have a case, which you don't.Nor do you get to argue with me, over what you think the Bible says.
Said the blind man.I can read it for myself, and see that you are wrong.
Corinthians 5:11 says that you shouldn't associate with anyone who is immoral. That does not say to outlaw same sex marriage.1 Corinthians 5:11 is pretty much an open and shut case. You should look up what the Bible says about 'shunning'. It's pretty clear.
You aren't being involved in SSM.
Christians should, as the Bible says, evaluate the degree of sin, or even whether or not a real sin has occurred, by looking at the harm caused by the sin, and the intent of the sin's perpetrator.
Homosexuality is only briefly mentioned in six or seven of the Bible's 31 thousand verses. The fact that it's so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be indication enough that it is of very little important to God and the authors f the Bible.
Banning their participation in the church
Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage
I swear you people don't even read your own book.
If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then it is morally indefensible for Christians to do so.
I have never said that religious people running private business should be forced to service gay couples. I support the right for any business to deny service to any person for any reason.No, but religious people running private businesses are. Something you fail to grasp.
I have never said that religious people running private business should be forced to service gay couples. I support the right for any business to deny service to any person for any reason.Ha! We see it each time some business is harassed, threatened, sued, and fined into submission because some gay couple got their feelings hurt. We call it persecution. Oho, hold on, don't act like you own the word, gays are just as guilty of it as they claim Christians are.
I never once said that at all. That really went over your head completely.So, you conflate the rarity of mention of homosexuality in the Bible to mean God's consent of homosexuality? What sordid logic! How dare you?
If only things written in the constitution gave us rights, we'd live in a pretty fucked up land. Fortunately, supreme court rulings dictate what we have rights to. In fact, they've ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right.The word "marriage" is not mentioned once in the Constitution, yet here you are demanding that you or your gay friends be granted the "constitutional right to marry." Funny, I could just as easily say that since the constitution doesn't mention gay marriage at all, that it doesn't condone gay marriage. I would be simply eviscerated for such puerile reasoning.
You are a terrible christian.For good reason. They don't belong there, not if they are going to do what you're doing now.
I'm a Christian and I have been for many years. I've read mine and your book from cover to cover several times. I've learned that this is a religion of love and acceptance, something that clearly has went over your head.I swear, you are cherrypicking our book, and I assume you've never read it from cover to cover. Imagine how we feel when we don't take you seriously.
It's funny because that's what I should be saying to you.You might want to swap out that anger for a pair of reading glasses.
Nice! Now show me the one where it says that they should be legally barred from marriage.LEVITICUS 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
LEVITICUS 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
JUDGES 19:22-23 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we [Benjamites living in Gibeah] can have sex with him." The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile."
1 KINGS 14:24 There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land [Rehoboam was king at the time]; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.
1 KINGS 15:12 He [King Asa] expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land [Judah] and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made.
1 KINGS 22:46 He [King Jehosophat] rid the land [Judah] of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa.
2 KINGS 23:7 He [King Josiah] also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the Lord and where women did weaving for Asherah.
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 TIMOTHY 1:9-11 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
JUDE 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
It's like you're talking to a mirror. Or just yourself.No, actually I have no intention of showing you anything. The Bible is very clear. Obviously you have read it, and rejected it. That's ok. That's your choice.
Again, talking to yourself.But I don't need to justify what the Bible says to you who has rejected it. Nor do I have to justify myself to you, a pagan.
If you intend to follow your faith you should probably learn what acceptance means and to love your fellow man.SO! I intend to follow my faith, and there is nothing you are going to do to stop me. Moving on?
It's like you're talking to a mirror. Or just yourself.No, actually I have no intention of showing you anything. The Bible is very clear. Obviously you have read it, and rejected it. That's ok. That's your choice.
Again, talking to yourself.But I don't need to justify what the Bible says to you who has rejected it. Nor do I have to justify myself to you, a pagan.
If you intend to follow your faith you should probably learn what acceptance means and to love your fellow man.SO! I intend to follow my faith, and there is nothing you are going to do to stop me. Moving on?
It seems to me that you both have subscribed to a religion other than Christianity; one of hate and ignorance.
God's word is one of love and acceptance, one I plan on following and spreading to my peers.
I have never said that religious people running private business should be forced to service gay couples.
You are a terrible christian.
If only things written in the constitution gave us rights, we'd live in a pretty fucked up land. Fortunately, supreme court rulings dictate what we have rights to. In fact, they've ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right.
Nice! Now show me the one where it says that they should be legally barred from marriage.
I'm a Christian and I have been for many years. I've read mine and your book from cover to cover several times. I've learned that this is a religion of love and acceptance, something that clearly has went over your head.
I have never said that religious people running private business should be forced to service gay couples. I support the right for any business to deny service to any person for any reason.
