The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

*snickers*as someone who is very very bad at proof-reading my own posts, and often leaves out words and forgets to add an s to plurals... that was pretty funny.

quote:

---

Main Entry: bigot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

---

deal with it.want a better debate?

quote:

---

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

---

quote:

---

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

---

why pick and chose from the bible? i think the federal government should kill people who get divorced, don't you?

I'll say. From Blasphemy to marriage and the family. Hey, in Mark 3:30 it says Jesus said what he said because they were saying He had an evil spirit. I think when it speaks in Mathew about this same interaction the forgivable blasphemy is the "humanist" kind. For instance when we take the Lords name in vain that is blasphemy but it is a forgivable version when you actually speak of or to GOD in a manner that is cursing HIM or saying (in this instance) that Jesus is the devil that is taking it to the "unforgivable" limit. Just my thought. -Z

Hello commike37Just two quick statements So I guess my first statement is this; my wife and I are happily married and, I have always assumed, quite healthy. But since we do not have, nor plan to have, any children I guess I am mistaken.My second statement would be actually more of a question. How would a gay couple being allowed to marry have any effect what-so-ever on the health of a family and any children they may have? You do know how babies are made don’t you?

OK, I scored 17/18 in the Usage/Mechanics subsection of English on the ACT (and a 33/36 overall), so I definitely have a "rudimentary command of English words and grammar." But nobody explains what they mean perfectly every time, so the whole point was to clarify what I meant. I told you what I meant to say, and then you turned around and insulted my intelligence. Also, instead of clarifying your misconception of my statement, you did this: You still have not actually clarified how you misinterpretted my statement. I can try to clarify what I really meant as best as possible, but if you're going to keep saying the same thing over and over again and insult my intelligence, I really can't help you there.edit: corrected a typing transposition error (O,K becomes OK,). FYI, that is a typo, not a grammar error, berberry.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-04-2005 16:51 AM

Well, bigot tends to have a very negative connotation (moreso than ignorant), especially since the definition uses the words 'intolerantly' and 'prejudices'. Besides, jar should be conducting himself better than that.As for the question posed by strictly enforcing the Bible, Judeo-Christian heritage exists in the federal concept of marriage, but not at a level of 100%. So I'm not arguing that a very strict view of marriage should be enforced (as that would totally undermine separation of church and state), but given the Judeo-Christian heritage marriage does have, we should still respect that heritage and protect one of the most fundamental tenets of marriage (of course, that assumes that the Bible is against homosexual marriage, but we won't get in depth on that one since that would get a bit off-topic).edit: Also, the verse from Leviticus shouldn't be used. We don't live under the Law of the Old Testament (or God's Old Covenant with his people), we know live under the grace of Jesus Christ (or the New Covenant), which empowers us to do that which is right. You don't see any church strictly enforcing all of the codes in Leviticus today, do you? Also, read the story about the adulteress who Jesus saved from a stoning and forgave. That's a very simple explanation (almost over-simplified).This message has been edited by commike37, 01-04-2005 16:20 AM

OK, children isn't the sole reason God created marriage. Luther's catechism even says we should "consider sexuality to be a good gift of God." The reason why God made woman was because Adam was lonely. Speaking of marriage as between a man and woman is pretty much consistent throughout the Bible (never does the Bible mention a homosexual marriage, only husbands and wives in reference to each other). So while marriage doesn't solely exist for children, that's one of the reasons it exist ("one of the" meaning not the only one). Where do babies come from? Just kidding. Anyway, there are several possibilities: previous marriage (some homosexuals are open to both hetero- or homo-sexual relationships), adoption (most likely), or even the unexpected result of a heterosexual affair in rare cases.

Well first, I would contend that I'm not discriminating, but that's not my main point.
I'm sure you would light up like a fire if someone condemned a homosexual to hell, but yet you're the one who's condemning. Only God can condemn people to hell (well, there is the power of excommunication which God gives to the church, but even then excommunication means nothing without God's authority backing it up). You can condemn sins (as long as the Bible shows that it's a sin), but ultimately God is the one who condemns sinners.

Wiggle room statements.The fact is that a segment of our population here in the US is being discriminated against. What else can you call laws that prevent certain segments of the population from getting Health Care?By supporting DOMA and other anti-homosexual legislation and practices, Christians are behaving anti-Christ. Just as fifty years ago, many Christians are on the wrong side.The rank and file, those simply following the rantings from the pulpit are simply misguided, they have been lied to. But those in a position of honor and authority in the Church, the Jerry Falwells, Gene Scotts, Jim Bakkers, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertsons, Jimmy Swaggarts, Robert Tiltons, Bob Larsons and Fred Phelps are doing far worse. They are preaching an abomination of the Christian message and should be condemned by any thinking Christian.There are others. Ron Wyatt was simply a fool. Walt Brown is just ignorant. Such failings can be understood and forgiven.But although you may not want to think you are discriminating against a people, when you actively work to deprive them of health care and legal protection, how else can it be defined?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK, that post was to focus mainly on how you were being hypocritial in condemming people who don't agree with you, but moving on to your argument, let's remember one of the Forum Rules This argument is just basically a rehash of your Message 21 (edit: should be 15, my bad). I've introduced all kinds of counter-arguments and further discussion after you posted Message 21 (edit: 15), some focusing specifically on how this is not discrimination, and your only response has been to make accusations of oppressive and discriminative bigotry.This message has been edited by commike37, 01-04-2005 18:12 AM

How else can you describe denying people the right to access to health care?How else can you describe denying people the right to protection from domestic violence?How else can you describe denying people inheritance rights?How else can you describe denying people the same access to protection under divorce laws?How else can you define denying people the rights of adoption?The list goes on and on. You can say you are not discriminating but the facts say otherwise.It's time the vast bulk of Christians began acting like Christians and stood up in opposition of DOMA and all other such discriminatory laws.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You already brought those up in Message 50, and I replied in Message 54. Well, the same logic I used the previous four also applies here, but I also brought in some evidence relating to marriage and children in Message 31.Again, let me remind you of Forum Rule #2.

From your post 31 - Please give support for this assertion.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This is from you message 54 IIRC. If they are a stable family, why not? How can what happens in another marriage affect a seperate marriage? That's simply stupid. Who the hell is talking about privileges? If you think access to health care is a privilege you are in worse shape than I thought. Bunch of off topic bullshit that has nothing to do with the topic. What privileges? If you consider access to health care a privilege you are worse off than I thought. Bullshit. You can get a Judaic marriage, Islamic, Shinto, Buddhist or purely secular marriage. What the hell does that crap have to do with the subject. We are talking about depriving people of access to health care. Bullshit. You can only get married with a license from the state. You cannot get married in a Church without a license from the state. You can get married without a church, but you still need that license from the state.So let's see if I can get you to explain how you justify discrimination, oppression and bigotry this time?How else can you describe denying people the right to access to health care?How else can you describe denying people the right to protection from domestic violence?How else can you describe denying people inheritance rights?How else can you describe denying people the same access to protection under divorce laws?I'm sorry, but a person who is trying to follow the teaching of Jesus CANNOT in honesty support DOMA and other anti-Christ legislation.This message has been edited by jar, 01-04-2005 23:14 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please define healthy as it applies to the family.Is there another topic concerning this?

---

Remember; your enemy rarely thinks he is evil. Knowing this can help you find a means of compromising and finding peace...or, in failing that, you can kill him without wasting precious energy on hate.