|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 4, 2006 18:20:49 GMT -5
Eh, I'll live happily with my belief that the Bible is wrong because of all that. I'll ask God when He judges me, know it's too late, but I can chance it. I have faith too. Weigh the evidence.... Seriously. Investigate Truth, rather than assumption. Don't "take your chances". God loves you, Cervyy. Enough to radically change your life.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 4, 2006 19:36:05 GMT -5
Lets see... Leviticus 18:22 in the KJV states: Thou shall not lay with man as thou would with woman.
That still is directed to a man, first off... therefore is not against lesbians. It doesn't say: "Thou shall not lay with woman, as thou would with man".
So the same questions apply: Is this condemning lesbians? Is this condemning a gay man? (Since he would not lay with a man as he would lay with a woman, because he wouldn't lay with a woman). From what I can definatly tell it is condeming a poligomus bisexual... since they would lay with man as they would with woman.
And I do believe in the scripture, however, the modern translations seem to have gained this 'politically correct' stance where they're trying to get the messages to apply to women too... so is the Bible truly free from societal progressivism?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 4, 2006 19:40:25 GMT -5
Romans 1:18-32
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 4, 2006 19:50:29 GMT -5
Yep that passage is so right... this website is evil...
Now think of this sir, if all gays were backbiters of God, then this site wouldn't even exist as it does today. The 'inventor of software' was gay... and also I'm still waiting on the person to show me when a homosexual killed a Christian for being Christian.
PLUS... 'lust' is not 'love', it is true there are homosexuals who 'lust' which can lead to wicked things, but there are also heteros that do the same. All lust is wicked, but love and returned love is not.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 4, 2006 19:55:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 4, 2006 22:58:22 GMT -5
No matter what religion or lack of religion I believe in, I'm still taking a chance.
If God wants to radically change my life ... the only change I could ever need is a sugar momma. Seriously, the only thing that could make my life better would be a lot of extra money. Other then that, I'm good. I have all I need or want (save the money things again). But if He wanted to, he'd have to create a time machine and go back in time and make Himself make me different ... sounds weird and not very much with the sense making, but it has a point.
All the evidence says to me is that your persecutation of gays is wrong, not who they love. And not who they CHOOSE to love either, who GOD made them love. Who GOD made them attracted to (and that doesn't always mean lust). The things that they look for in a person. That's TRUTH. It's there on your heart, not on paper.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 4, 2006 23:32:11 GMT -5
I think that was good. Both sides showed alot of maturity... I thought you were gonna show me some 'pride parade' that even gays show discust over. What I saw there was a bunch of people who took it well. Better then our campus did that's for sure.
You're a good person, you started it off with love and then went straight for the gut. This was the opposite then what they did here last time, which was raise a large sign saying "Fear God" and then on the third day started talking about His love.
You had the right to protest... and they didn't seem to react terribly.
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Sept 5, 2006 18:06:36 GMT -5
Who gives a nuts if they are a minority or not? They have THEIR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!1
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 5, 2006 20:50:07 GMT -5
Who gives a nuts if they are a minority or not? They have THEIR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Yes, correct;who cares? I mentioned the stat because they act as though (here in Canada, anyhow) that they have this great and wonderous following when in reality and in fact they have a very very very very very very SMALL following. Not that it matters
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 6, 2006 0:53:02 GMT -5
Hrm... lets see who's talking... this board hasn't gained more then 300 members... and they aren't all on your side completely. Does having a great following mean you're correct? I would hope you wouldn't think so, otherwise you already lost.
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Sept 6, 2006 1:53:00 GMT -5
As a matter of fact, you have an even smaller following. Let me describe it; It is a very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very minute following.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 6, 2006 6:21:52 GMT -5
Another BIG Win for Religious Freedom...This Time at Georgia Tech...
Orit Sklar and Ruth Malhorta (picture below) knew that their First Amendment right to free speech was being denied. (See ADF News Alert, March 28, 2006).
Ruth Malhorta, Alan Sears, and Orit Sklar
These two courageous students, with the help of David French, director of ADF's Center for Academic Freedom and ADF litigation counsel David Hacker, filed a lawsuit against Georgia Tech's comprehensive student conduct guidelines (distributed to all incoming freshmen) that regulate "permissible" speech and expression. The complaint claimed that the guidelines have been used against religious and conservative individuals and organizations on campus.
In addition, school officials had also implemented a program aimed at indoctrinating students in what the officials deemed to be the "correct" interpretation of religious texts with regard to homosexual behavior. The program, called "Safe Space," promoted the beliefs of religions that favor the practice of homosexual behavior, while denigrating those that oppose it.
After these two young ladies filed their lawsuit, they underwent unbelievable persecution, name calling, and harrassment from radical leftists and their allies; but Ruth and Orit knew in their hearts, they were right, and stuck to their guns despite the ongoing attacks.
And their perseverance has been rewarded.
On Monday, August 14th, a federal judge ordered the restrictive speech code repealed. He prohibited the school from changing its new student speech policy without court approval for the next five years. In addition, the judge denied Georgia Tech's request that the case be dismissed, and ADF will proceed with the other parts of the case.
Please continue to pray for this case, and especially for Orit and Ruth, who still find themselves experiencing incredible personal attacks for their brave stand. We will keep you posted on further developments in the weeks ahead.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 6, 2006 18:22:36 GMT -5
Take that Georgia Tech, you're just gonna have to learn to ignore that 'offensive speech' like the rest of us.
Seriously, I would be offended if those that disagreed with me couldn't come out and say it. As long as they weren't harassing... but there is a line between harassment and talking.
And abb, I find your ability to restate what I said in very very laymans terms 'cute'.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 6, 2006 20:22:12 GMT -5
justaman, are you a homosexual?
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 6, 2006 21:11:46 GMT -5
No, just saying if the freedom of speech is to work, you have to be able to state your beliefs without being persecuted for them by the organization at large. Someone can hate you for what you believe, but that's their choice. An institiution of education has no right to tell you what to think or say. I would feel bad if an institution imposed its power to make people 'walk on eggshells' around me... and it would also make me feel the institute doesn't think I can handle opposition.
It is insulting in its own way.
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Sept 6, 2006 21:26:02 GMT -5
Someone has to translate so these folks can understand ^^.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 6, 2006 21:49:47 GMT -5
No, just saying if the freedom of speech is to work, you have to be able to state your beliefs without being persecuted for them by the organization at large. Someone can hate you for what you believe, but that's their choice. An institiution of education has no right to tell you what to think or say. I would feel bad if an institution imposed its power to make people 'walk on eggshells' around me... and it would also make me feel the institute doesn't think I can handle opposition. It is insulting in its own way. Well, there all like that. Just go to The foundation for individual rights in education's web site. Check out the speech codes. As for the fine line part...freedom of speech means your feelings can get hurt. Whether intended or not.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 7, 2006 0:42:19 GMT -5
Right, but the one hand is that people's reactions are a concequence what you say, words do hold a price though they are free... since local government being more powerful the federal is one of the major points of this country, it kinda puts restrictions in certain speech... like advertising Wal-Mart in a Target parking lot will probably get that land owners to request you leave, or have you thrown out for tresspassing (heck wearing a 'pro-union' shirt can result in that probably).
Some are worse then other, it varies... for example, here in Oswego, though you guys did cause alot of ruckus (which was just as much the students' fault, but they took the bait). The cops let you have your time. I've read your letters where in places like Canada, or Rochester University, you guys were removed.
I don't agree with people doing that... but this isn't communism... there is private property. State institutions need to remain unbiased... private ones can have whatever ones they want. There are Christian colleges, and some other types of private institutions. Generally people know what they are walking into though when they select one.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 7, 2006 9:07:04 GMT -5
Yes, words do hold a price and they attempted to throw Jesus off a Cliff for preaching his first sermon.
The reason those words are so offensive is because most people disagree with them and actually they are convicted by the preaching of the law.
In fact anyone who falls under conviction of the spoken Word of God needs to examine themselves.
|
|
|
Post by wkufan on Sept 7, 2006 16:06:13 GMT -5
In the interest of tolerance, enlightenment and freedom of speech, I wonder if they'd let one raise a nazi flag at town hall?
|
|
|
Post by gloworm on Sept 7, 2006 19:40:53 GMT -5
It amazes me how many could stand in agreement to sin, even to have a public display of such an event to "honor" gay rights at the city hall. What makes me disturbed, is that the "Pride" flag stood at the the same level of the other flags. That is to say that they would be in equal standing with the flags represented there already. HMMM I wonder what they would do if the Christian flag were put at the same level of the other flags. This is not a flag issue, but what it represents. We will continue to raise up a banner for JESUS, even it is in our hearts. The decieving beautiful colors and strong flag of "Pride" seems to be winning at this hour, but in the end the flag that went through the battle with its colors looking like its been dragged in the mud of "Humility" will be the only one remaining. Hallelujah, to the LAMB OF GOD.
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 8, 2006 1:25:26 GMT -5
Random preachiness hoorah. Go ahead and hang your flag there if you want, I ain't stopping you, and if they didn't stop the gays they probably wouldn't stop you. And plus you're a female right, when it comes to religion you're supposed to be silent right? I don't think this of course but I believe that's what Miles said last year when he was here I think. (The audio of the third day at Oswego)
And also wku... many people died fighting the nazis... I have yet to see gay people shove people into concentration camps. Also, one of the famous Anglo-Saxon deciferers of German communications was gay... so the Nazis were their enemy too.
All in all it should be up to the runner of the town hall what flags can be raised at that town hall.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 3:42:48 GMT -5
I love the "Christian" response, "Oh .. well, ummm ... in the end! You'll see in the end!" Last resort response when they can't give the answers ...
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 8, 2006 9:31:26 GMT -5
I actually wish more would answer that way. Cause that way they put it out of their hands to convert you. However they should say "We'll see in the end." Because I'm sure even those that deem themselves the holiest of the holy will have their wrongs to answer for. (Mainly because deeming themselves as such breaks the 2nd Commandment)
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 10:14:36 GMT -5
Hitler used the homosexual movement at the time to attack the Church. It was kind of like an excuse to silence Christians, not unlike today. Then, when he was in control of the Church in Germany, he turned on the homosexuals. Also, many Nazis were gay...including Hitler. He was into S&M and witchcraft. Some of the most absolutely perverse people in history were homosexual....like Alister Crowley. Or maybe it was that they were just that wicked...I don't know?? But many in the occult practice homosexual sex.
|
|
|
Post by cervyy on Sept 8, 2006 10:22:50 GMT -5
Oi, sweeping generalizations ... I seriously cnnot believe you people can think this way. Tell me it's just you psychos and OA preachers??
|
|
|
Post by justaman on Sept 8, 2006 11:05:46 GMT -5
Um... you obviously didn't pass history class. Hitler condemned homosexuals, he never 'used them' he would never associate with them. Next you'll be telling me he used the Jewish people to silence the Christian community. Face it, Hitler used the same tactics you guys sometimes use. Scaring people into thinking that if we don't 'do something' about sinners God will foresake our country and we'll be sorry. He DID however plant a communist in Russia in hopes of weakening their resolve by starting a 'revolution.' You're going to have to site your source, I'll site mine... just Google this: Hitler Homosexuals. The first link you get is this: www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Sept 8, 2006 11:11:31 GMT -5
Um... you obviously didn't pass history class. Hitler condemned homosexuals, he never 'used them' he would never associate with them. Next you'll be telling me he used the Jewish people to silence the Christian community. Face it, Hitler used the same tactics you guys sometimes use. Scaring people into thinking that if we don't 'do something' about sinners God will foresake our country and we'll be sorry. He DID however plant a communist in Russia in hopes of weakening their resolve by starting a 'revolution.' You're going to have to site your source, I'll site mine... just Google this: Hitler Homosexuals. The first link you get is this: www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html I have to side with justaman here, because he sides with historical evidence. Hitler was a homosexual HATER; not a homosexual LOVER. As believers, let's get our facts in line with historicl date, not assumed ideologies which have no basis in truth. Hitler, a homosexual HATER, however, went to hell... he was evil, killed Jews, Jehaovah's Witnesses, Russians and others.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 12:47:25 GMT -5
Um... you obviously didn't pass history class. Hitler condemned homosexuals, he never 'used them' he would never associate with them. Next you'll be telling me he used the Jewish people to silence the Christian community. Face it, Hitler used the same tactics you guys sometimes use. Scaring people into thinking that if we don't 'do something' about sinners God will foresake our country and we'll be sorry. He DID however plant a communist in Russia in hopes of weakening their resolve by starting a 'revolution.' You're going to have to site your source, I'll site mine... just Google this: Hitler Homosexuals. The first link you get is this: www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html I have to side with justaman here, because he sides with historical evidence. Hitler was a homosexual HATER; not a homosexual LOVER. As believers, let's get our facts in line with historicl date, not assumed ideologies which have no basis in truth. Hitler, a homosexual HATER, however, went to hell... he was evil, killed Jews, Jehaovah's Witnesses, Russians and others. Very wrong my Christian friend. I will be back with my source.
|
|
|
Post by oap001 on Sept 8, 2006 12:51:34 GMT -5
|
|