# Wyoming church will welcome same sex marriage ceremonies.



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Wyoming is the state of live and live and is proving it. 

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/...cle_d350bccd-f3ea-5aa0-ba09-acf39173f9db.html

"Three same-sex couples are on their way to being the first to wed in Teton County, and members of at least one Jackson congregation have decided that those couples are welcome to be married by their pastor.
The Teton County Clerkâs Office has issued three same-sex marriage licenses since such unions were legalized in Wyoming roughly a month ago, staff said Tuesday.
During the past two weeks, St. Johnâs Episcopal Church announced that same-sex couples are welcome to use any of its properties for weddings, and church rector the Rev. Ken Asel said he is willing to preside over any such wedding.
âAs long as I am here, this will be a possibility at all of our venues,â Asel said. âWe would be willing to officiate as well. It is not something that is problematic here.â
On Nov. 9, John Smylie, the Episcopal Bishop of Wyoming, wrote a letter to all of Wyomingâs Episcopal churches addressing the sudden shift in the stateâs marriage laws.
While the church had a policy in place to allow a separate blessing for same-sex relationships â a policy St. Johnâs has embraced for two years â it will now treat a same-sex marriage like any other, the letter stated."


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Wyoming is the state of live and live and is proving it.
> 
> http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/...cle_d350bccd-f3ea-5aa0-ba09-acf39173f9db.html
> 
> ...


Well, Epicoplalians are aways flexible in their principles as long as the money keeps coming. In growing up in that sect, I thought that the church maintenance fund contribution was part of the 10 Commandments because that was in every sermon I ever heard.

I was actually shocked when I first visited another protestant church and the preacher actually used the word "hell." The requirements for membership in the Episcopal Church are pretty loose- the goal seems to be not to offend the financing membership.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And no law forced them to do this? Huh? Who knew Christian religions could be so open and welcoming all on their own?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I guess the law of God has no meaning to them. Sin is sin. It can not be changed by popular demand. They claim to be Christian in name only.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> And no law forced them to do this? Huh? Who knew Christian religions could be so open and welcoming all on their own?


Since that was the church of my childhood, I was well aware of the flexibilty of Episcopal values. The San Francisco Episcopal Cathedral is a perfect example- all the frescos are about the priest saving the chalice in the 1906 earthquake and raising money to rebuild more gloriously than ever. And then there is the National Cathedral- designed to be very expensive and not offend anyone who might donate. 

But BTW the way, your last statement about being surprised about churches being so open reminds me of my eternal surprise about liberals. Except I have yet to see one open or welcoming of any difference of opinion from their own. Please surprise me soon.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Just because a group calls themselves a church doesn't mean they are following the teachings of God. Christ told us this.

_21 âNot everyone who says to me, âLord, Lord,â will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?â 23 And then will I declare to them, âI never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.â_
Matthew 7:21-23English Standard Version (ESV)


I would like to see how they Biblically justify this.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sometimes you just can't win. If you disagree with another Christian religion and what they believe then you are not Christian enough.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Since that was the church of my childhood, I was well aware of the flexibilty of Episcopal values. The San Francisco Episcopal Cathedral is a perfect example- all the frescos are about the priest saving the chalice in the 1906 earthquake and raising money to rebuild more gloriously than ever. And then there is the National Cathedral- designed to be very expensive and not offend anyone who might donate.
> 
> But the way, your last statement about being surprised about churches being so open reminds me of my eternal surprise about liberals. Except I have yet to see one open or welcoming of any difference of opinion from their own. Please surprise me soon.


I'm open to and welcome all of your opinions, no matter how much I disagree with them. Express them, defend them and I'll judge them just as you do mine.

The Episcopal church was also the church of my youth. I find their quest for funds not all that different than that of many others I have attended. Memorial pews, windows,and other recognitions abound in many houses of worship. Time always seems to be made for the passing of the plate. Are those mega churches built to serve god or those who built them?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Sometimes you just can't win. If you disagree with another Christian religion and what they believe then you are not Christian enough.


I guess I am still effected by my early childhood. I generally find it acceptable to let people voice their religious values without finding the need to belittle them. If someone says that my values are not Christian enough, I might say that it has been my choice and I am happy with it so far. And thank them for their concern. 
But I would not respond with words to complain about their choices as it actually just might be the perfect thing for them.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Sometimes you just can't win. If you disagree with another Christian religion and what they believe then you are not Christian enough.


It's an argument that can't be won. None of us really know the word of god, only our interpretation of it. Even those who claim god has spoken directly to them filter those words through their own life experience. We may all eventually find out if our beliefs are valid but I choose to live my life trying to make this world better, not hoping some better world exists later.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> I guess I am still effected by my early childhood. I generally find it acceptable to let people voice their religious values without finding the need to belittle them. If someone says that my values are not Christian enough, I might say that it has been my choice and I am happy with it so far. And thank thenm for their concern.
> But I would not respond with words to complain about their choices as it actually just might be the perfect thing for them.


And yet you seem to be willing to belittle the Episcopals for their fundraising.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> I guess I am still effected by my early childhood. I generally find it acceptable to let people voice their religious values without finding the need to belittle them. If someone says that my values are not Christian enough, I might say that it has been my choice and I am happy with it so far. And thank thenm for their concern.
> But I would not respond with words to complain about their choices as it actually just might be the perfect thing for them.


Actually it is those that are belittling the religious views of others that I have the problem with as well. I have no problem with someone saying that they do no believe in same sex marriage and would not belong to a church that does. I do have a problem when they try to say that church is wrong in what they believe.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> It's an argument that can't be won. None of us really know the word of god, only our interpretation of it. Even those who claim god has spoken directly to them filter those words through their own life experience. We may all eventually find out if our beliefs are valid but I choose to live my life trying to make this world better, not hoping some better world exists later.


Yes, but not being God, I try to limit my demands on other people's behavior, working more on my own. Which I still have managed not to perfect to even my own standards, low as they are.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Im a Christian. I follow the bible. Read the first chapter of Romans before you voice an opinion on what is acceptable in a Christian church. Then please, refute it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> Im a Christian. I follow the bible. Read the first chapter of Romans before you voice an opinion on what is acceptable in a Christian church. Then please, refute it.


I don't need to. That is for each church and Christian to do for themselves. It is between them and their God. None of my business.


----------



## thestartupman (Jul 25, 2010)

There are many non Christian churches, and religions in the world. Just because a group declares their building, and people to be a church, doesn't make them a Christian. Man has tried to tell God for centuries what God should except. They try and change God's rules and laws to met there own needs. God has told man from the beginning what is right and what is wrong, he has also told man from the beginning that hell was prepared for Satan, and those that refuse to accept his salvation, and turn from their sins.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Yes, but not being God, I try to limit my demands on other people's behavior, working more on my own. Which I still have managed not to perfect to even my own standards, low as they are.


And since two people, of any gender, loving each other and wishing to have that commitment recognized by the government just like all others makes no demands on my behavior I can't help but support same sex marriage.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Actually it is those that are belittling the religious views of others that I have the problem with as well. I have no problem with someone saying that they do no believe in same sex marriage and would not belong to a church that does. I do have a problem when they try to say that church is wrong in what they believe.


But that is the only possible conclusion of someone religious. If a religion is to be a guidance and a fellowship of like minded individuals, than of course they seek "right" and must believe others are "wrong" if they don't follow the same judgements. 
And that is the greatest glory that our founding fathers gave us in the Constitution. The impetuous to allow a hundred difference religions freedom to exist by working out a framework of accommodation under the law.

Americans have become so used to this that they don't realize what a massive change in humanity this was. And still is as this accommodation is not part of most of the world's reality.

That we get it wrong often does not mean it is not one of the glories of the US. That people can say you are wrong, sinful and going to hell and you will go on with your life. Accepting that is what makes it all possible.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nothing more than a social club with rituals to me. Not one I want to be associated with but I am not going to force my views on those who want to go to hell.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> I don't need to. That is for each church and Christian to do for themselves. It is between them and their God. None of my business.


You don't need to? For someone who is voicing an opinion on the Christian faith you better. Otherwise your opinion is worthless.

But you are right. It is none of your business.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> And since two people, of any gender, loving each other and wishing to have that commitment recognized by the government just like all others makes no demands on my behavior I can't help but support same sex marriage.


Since the reason for marriage is to make a framework to support the creation and raising of children in common, creating responsibilities both legal and moral to do it well, and that is not true of gay marriage, so I can not support it. Marriage keeps fathers responsible for mother and children while it ensures the father that his efforts are in support of his offspring and not someone else's. 

People do not need marriage to love each other, nor to keep faith. It comes down to a different objective, self involved versus children, and the benefits that society has given to marriage, as far as they are related to the above, should remain to those that do the work or at least can be expected to do the work.

The parts of benefits not related to the goal of successful raising of children are up for grabs.

And of course it makes demands on everyone paying taxes or operating under the law- there is no escaping from such an ingrained instiution effecting everyone. If a family fails to take care of its chikdren, you pay. A lot.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But that is the only possible conclusion of someone religious. If a religion is to be a guidance and a fellowship of like minded individuals, than of course they seek "right" and must believe others are "wrong" if they don't follow the same judgements.
> And that is the greatest glory that our founding fathers gave us in the Constitution. The impetuous to allow a hundred difference religions freedom to exist by working out a framework of accommodation under the law.
> 
> Americans have become so used to this that they don't realize what a massive change in humanity this was. And still is as this accommodation is not part of most of the world's reality.
> ...


I agree that we have the right to say anything we want.

I just have never understood the need of each person of religious faith to be in another religions business. I am not religious but I am not going to tell my family, my friend or my neighbor that they should believe or not believe something about what they believe about their religion. That would be the most sacred of things to me.

I can disagree with the things your religion stands for or believe. I can discuss it and try to understand why you believe it. I however have no standing in what you actually believe and should not be telling you that you are not really a Christian if I believe different.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> You don't need to? For someone who is voicing an opinion on the Christian faith you better. Otherwise your opinion is worthless.
> 
> But you are right. It is none of your business.


Where am I voicing an opinion on the Christian faith?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Since the reason for marriage is to make a framework to support the creation and raising of children in common, creating responsibilities both legal and moral to do it well, and that is not true of gay marriage, so I can not support it. Marriage keeps fathers responsible for mother and children while it ensures the father that his efforts are in support of his offspring and not someone else's.
> 
> People do not need marriage to love each other, nor to keep faith. It comes down to a different objective, self involved versus children, and the benefits that society has given to marriage, as far as they are related to the above, should remain to those that do the work or at least can be expected to do the work.
> 
> ...


Many same sex marriages are families that have children. 

It has been proven that marriage is no guarantee of keeping fathers responsible.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I agree that we have the right to say anything we want.
> 
> I just have never understood the need of each person of religious faith to be in another religions business. I am not religious but I am not going to tell my family, my friend or my neighbor that they should believe or not believe something about what they believe about their religion. That would be the most sacred of things to me.
> 
> I can disagree with the things your religion stands for or believe. I can discuss it and try to understand why you believe it. I however have no standing in what you actually believe and should not be telling you that you are not really a Christian if I believe different.


Especially in evangelical religions, which covers Christian, Islam, probably most sects of Buddhism, the need to spread the word is an intergal obligation. If you believe that your religion offers salvation, then you tend to have a duty to preach the correctness of that way. Because others are literally going to hell in the eyes of that religion if they get it wrong. That is just the way it is- just some are more polite about it than others. 



In fact, the only religion I know that is not the least interested in your nonbeliever status is Judaism. It really discourages non jews from joining.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Especially in evangelical religions, which covers Christian, Islam, probably most sects of Buddhism, the need to spread the word is an intergal obligation. If you believe that your religion offers salvation, then you tend to have a duty to preach the correctness of that way. Because others are literally going to hell in the eyes of that religion if they get it wrong. That is just the way it is- just some are more polite about it than others.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the only religion I know that is not the least interested in your nonbeliever status is Judaism. It really discourages non jews from joining.


The Mennonite part of my family would agree. Most of them believed in hitting you over the head with their religion. The buddhist part would not. My buddhist grandparents and cousins believed in leading by example and therefore were the only religion I personally would consider just because of that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Since the reason for marriage is to make a framework to support the creation and raising of children in common, creating responsibilities both legal and moral to do it well, and that is not true of gay marriage, so I can not support it. Marriage keeps fathers responsible for mother and children while it ensures the father that his efforts are in support of his offspring and not someone else's.
> 
> People do not need marriage to love each other, nor to keep faith. It comes down to a different objective, self involved versus children, and the benefits that society has given to marriage, as far as they are related to the above, should remain to those that do the work or at least can be expected to do the work.
> 
> ...


So there should be an age limit or fertility test before a marriage license is issued?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> So there should be an age limit or fertility test before a marriage license is issued?


Well, I sometimes think that a pair of 90 year olds getting married is more a sentimental gestures where everyone goes 'aww.' But if you believe in the morality benefit of marriage as an article of faith, you're just as stuck with it at 90 as at 20 when it's application was more to the point. And it is a good example for the kiddies.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> The Mennonite part of my family would agree. Most of them believed in hitting you over the head with their religion. The buddhist part would not. My buddhist grandparents and cousins believed in leading by example and therefore were the only religion I personally would consider just because of that.


OK but I must say that Buddhists are among the most widely travelling teachers of religion in history. Maybe it is more personality than religion you see.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> OK but I must say that Buddhists are among the most widely travelling teachers of religion in history. Maybe it is more personality than religion you see.


Travelling teachers teach those that wish the information. That exists in both religions. Most of my Mennonite family were also missionaries. Some were teachers, some were pushers.

I see the difference ( to me) in that some ask if you would like the information, some go out of their way to tell you what is right and that no matter what you believe they are more right than you.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

That's good news. 

I had some time and was looking at old threads I posted. I found this one: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...ntryside-families/502391-no-gifts-please.html 

I received all sorts of helpful advice and stories which I appreciated. But I left one thing out. This was the joining of two women.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Well, I sometimes think that a pair of 90 year olds getting married is more a sentimental gestures where everyone goes 'aww.' But if you believe in the morality benefit of marriage as an article of faith, you're just as stuck with it at 90 as at 20 when it's application was more to the point. And it is a good example for the kiddies.


But what of the 20 somethings who are infertile and/ or don't wish to have children. Should they be denied marriage?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Sometimes you just can't win. If you disagree with another Christian religion and what they believe then you are not Christian enough.


There are something which you can believe differently and not go against the teachings of Christ. Most of the things in the book of Revelation are good examples.

I still would like to see how they justify their actions using the Bible and not taking verses out of context. Can you provide any?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> There are something which you can believe differently and not go against the teachings of Christ. Most of the things in the book of Revelation are good examples.
> 
> I still would like to see how they justify their actions using the Bible and not taking verses out of context. Can you provide any?


Provide what for who?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Nothing more than a social club with rituals to me. Not one I want to be associated with but I am not going to force my views on those who want to go to hell.


And yet another post about who cares and why is this news? This gay stuff is left along it will die on its own merit unless some keep trying to shove it once again drown the throats of Americans.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Actually it is those that are belittling the religious views of others that I have the problem with as well. I have no problem with someone saying that they do no believe in same sex marriage and would not belong to a church that does. I do have a problem when they try to say that church is wrong in what they believe.


Again unless a belief can be backed by the Word then the followers of Christ are told they are to call them out. AAMOF, we are very specifically told we are to judge those who take the name of Christ.

I suggest you read Corinthians.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Yes, but not being God, I try to limit my demands on other people's behavior, working more on my own. Which I still have managed not to perfect to even my own standards, low as they are.


If you are a Christian and you see others who call themselves Christians not following the Word you are told you should judge them and their actions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I don't need to. That is for each church and Christian to do for themselves. It is between them and their God. None of my business.


Again I refer you to Corinthians. Specifically 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

_9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral peopleâ 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. âExpel the wicked person from among you.â_

You'll note that you, as a Christian, are not only to judge others who claim to be Christians but if you judge them to be outside the Word you are to not associate with them and if they are in your church you are to expel them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

watcher said:


> Again I refer you to Corinthians. Specifically 1 Corinthians 5:9-13
> 
> _9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people&#8212; 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
> 
> ...


I think that says that God will judge those outside your church? You only get to judge those in your church.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> But what of the 20 somethings who are infertile and/ or don't wish to have children. Should they be denied marriage?


They still have the chance as no one could say that infertility was sure until recently. More than a few women in history lost their spouses over infertility (typically assumed to be the woman's fault.) Some lost their lives as a husband's way of getting rid of useless baggage when enough time passed for the issue to be clear.

And, yes, society does make a value judgement on couples who chose not to raise children. There are complaints about how such couples are "made to feel" commonly. Beside they could change their minds- that happens a lot. Sometimes too late.

It's too early to tell if gay couples, especially gay men, are capable of providing society with children raised in a stable home. I suspect without the shared children, humans are just too self centered on the whole to stick out rough patches without genetic attachment. There is a magic phrase heard all the time - "children change everything." Suddenly people who never worried beyond the next weekend now worry about the future decades ahead. And that is great for society on the whole. Children not genetically related are less of an attachment over all.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

painterswife said:


> I think that says that God will judge those outside your church? You only get to judge those in your church.


Those out side the church have already been judged ,that is a foregone conclusion :bow:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> They still have the chance as no one could say that infertility was sure until recently. More than a few women in history lost their spouses over infertility (typically assumed to be the woman's fault.) Some lost their lives as a husband's way of getting rid of useless baggage when enough time passed for the issue to be clear.
> 
> And, yes, society does make a value judgement on couples who chose not to raise children. There are complaints about how such couples are "made to feel" commonly. Beside they could change their minds- that happens a lot. Sometimes too late.
> 
> It's too early to tell if gay couples, especially gay men, are capable of providing society with children raised in a stable home. I suspect without the shared children, humans are just too self centered on the whole to stick out rough patches without genetic attachment. There is a magic phrase heard all the time - "children change everything." Suddenly people who never worried beyond the next weekend now worry about the future decades ahead. And that is great for society on the whole. Children not genetically related are less of an attachment over all.


No children here. No possibility of children. No problem sticking out the bad times. We know how important the connection is. That is actually what faimily is all about.

Marriage was and continues to be about two things, first the relationship and second it's legal implications. Don't need children to be a family. All you need is love.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Those out side the church have already been judged ,that is a foregone conclusion :bow:


That feels like a really crappy thing to say in my opinion. It is like you are revelling in that you are right and your God will smite all others. I can't and won't believe that a God could ever condone or believe in that just because someone does not believe. No wonder I don't believe in the Bible.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> No children here. No possibility of children. No problem sticking out the bad times. We know how important the connection is. That is actually what faimily is all about.
> 
> Marriage was and continues to be about two things, first the relationship and second it's legal implications. Don't need children to be a family. All you need is love.


But the whole point is that it is not all about you. It's the raising of children that gives marriage its authority. I know that's a slippery concept to those not raising them together but it is the whole point. The rest can be arranged as two people want when they only have to deal with what they want. If there are no children, a couple of any persuasion can spend their days skipping down a sunny beach in Hawaii if they both agree to it. It's children, and to a lesser extent mothers, who need the protection of marriage. 

But that is an idea that gay marriage advocates keep sliding over. They dismiss it as irrelevant. That they don't see the issue at all is just the very problem. They can not expand their idea of marriage beyond the two people getting married. They confuse love or lust with marriage as that is all it is. But to people raising children, it is much more involved than that part that gay marriage advocates see as everything.

Not that even the slightest nod to that idea is ever allowed, being unneccessary to the victorian vision of romantic love so frequently argued.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But the whole point is that it is not all about you. It's the raising of children that gives marriage its authority. I know that's a slippery concept to those not raising them together but it is the whole point. The rest can be arranged as two people want when they only have to deal with what they want. If there are no children, a couple of any persuasion can spend their days skipping down a sunny beach in Hawaii if they both agree to it. It's children, and to a lesser extent mothers, who need the protection of marriage.
> 
> But that is an idea that gay marriage advocates keep sliding over. They dismiss it as irrelevant. That they don't see the issue at all is just the very problem. They can not expand their idea of marriage beyond the two people getting married. They confuse love or lust with marriage as that is all it is. But to people raising children, it is much more involved than that part that gay marriage advocates see as everything.
> 
> Not that even the slightest nod to that idea is ever allowed, being unneccessary to the victorian vision of romantic love so frequently argued.


That is your opinion. It is not everyones reality. Marriage is a very poor way of providing protection for children or women.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> That feels like a really crappy thing to say in my opinion. It is like you are revelling in that you are right and your God will smite all others. I can't and won't believe that a God could ever condone or believe in that just because someone does not believe. No wonder I don't believe in the Bible.


So do you wither in diabolical smoke because he said so? Which BTW I believe was more of a yank of the chain than real. I would not give someone that kind of power that I would let them 'make me' think anything as a reaction to their opinion. 

Leave the vicinity, maybe. Form my opinion in reaction, no.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Wyoming is the state of live and live and is proving it.


I'm not sure about that...maybe, but as soon as I saw the title of the thread I knew it would be in Teton County...the playground of the Hollywood elite. The rest of the state is still pretty darn socially conservative as far as I can tell...but that's from a distance.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

painterswife said:


> That feels like a really crappy thing to say in my opinion. It is like you are revelling in that you are right and your God will smite all others. I can't and won't believe that a God could ever condone or believe in that just because someone does not believe. No wonder I don't believe in the Bible.


I would never guessed you didn't believe in the Bible :thumb: That is one of the great things about our Bible and God it is ones own choice and theirs alone to make . Some aren't honest enough to just tell it like it is with no fear of God 
Yes, the devil believes God existsâin fact, he has no doubts about it. But he doesnât trust God to save him; instead, he has set himself up in opposition to God and wants nothing to do with him. He also knows that some day the final battle will be fought and that God alone will be victorious. That is why the Bible says, âEven the demons believe thatâand shudderâ (James 2:19). Satan will not win!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> So do you wither in diabolical smoke because he said so? Which BTW I believe was more of a yank of the chain than real. I would not give someone that kind of power that I would let them 'make me' think anything as a reaction to their opinion.
> 
> Leave the vicinity, maybe. Form my opinion in reaction, no.


No power over me. My grandmother use to send me letters that I would burn in hell if I continued to work as a bar tender in my younger days and that if I did not stay a virgin until I was married.

I just don't believe that if there is someone of higher power and mind they would not be so vindictive and would not want their followers to be so either.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I would never guessed you didn't believe in the Bible :thumb: That is one of the great things about our Bible and God it is ones own choice and theirs alone to make . Some aren't honest enough to just tell it like it is with no fear of God
> Yes, the devil believes God existsâin fact, he has no doubts about it. But he doesnât trust God to save him; instead, he has set himself up in opposition to God and wants nothing to do with him. He also knows that some day the final battle will be fought and that God alone will be victorious. That is why the Bible says, âEven the demons believe thatâand shudderâ (James 2:19). Satan will not win!


Guess I am not a demon or the devil. I don't believe.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> I still would like to see how they justify their actions using the Bible and not taking verses out of context. Can you provide any?


There are many Christians that do not believe the Bible is inerrant and perfect.

Most of us do not in fact, we understand that the writers were humans, filtering Gods message through their own cultural references and worldview. Add that to the multiple translations it has gone through and then you have different people interpreting it in different ways, all claiming they are right. I mean you have Old orderAmish, modern Evangelicals, many variety's of Baptist, Methodist's, Catholics, etc., all using the same Bible but interpreting it slightly (or greatly) differently

The wonder (to me at least) is even considering all the above is how good it still is.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> There are many Christians that do not believe the Bible is inerrant and perfect.


Here's the response you'll get to that: the Bible says it is inerrant in 2 Timothy!

Yeah, my brother in law says he's inerrant, too....


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> Here's the response you'll get to that: the Bible says it is inerrant in 2 Timothy!
> 
> Yeah, my brother in law says he's inerrant, too....


Circular argument

I'm inerrant because I say I am. Its really a ridiculous argument when you stop and think about it. But you're right, many people claim that.

Another thing to think about: Paul was not writing scripture for a (non-existent at the time) Bible. He was writing letters to various people and [the leaders of]Churches.
It was the Catholic Church that decided to include some of his letters in their New Testament when they put it together a hundred + years later.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Circular argument
> 
> I'm inerrant because I say I am. Its really a ridiculous argument when you stop and think about it. But you're right, many people claim that.


That was my point...just thought I'd get it out of the way before someone comes along and says it seriously.



> Another thing to think about: Paul was not writing scripture for a (non-existent at the time) Bible. He was writing letters to various people and [the leaders of]Churches.
> It was the Catholic Church that decided to include some of his letters in their New Testament when they put it together a hundred + years later.


I've always wondered about that. I've never been able to get a satisfactory answer to my questions about it. I don't know the Bible very well, but when people quote that verse from 2 Timothy it provokes curiosity so I ask about what Paul meant by "scripture" and if he considered his own writing scripture. So far, I've gotten a lot of blank stares and answers like, "Of course it's scripture, it's in the Bible!"


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

I have found that many self proclaimed Christians (and I'll leave judgement as to whether they actually follow Christ up to God) have no clue as to when or by whom the Bible we have today was put together.

Scripture to Jesus and Paul would have been Jewish Scripture, what Christians call the Old Testament. 

The 4 Gospels and Paul's (and other apostles) letters were written long after Christs death, resurrection and ascension, between 40 AD and 100 AD*, 
the New Testament itself was not put together until 170 AD ** 
and the current canon was not agreed upon until 340AD *** (and not all groups agreed until 480 AD - same source) with controversy as to the books that should be included lasting right up to today.

There are also 52 books dug up from near Nag Hammadi that did not make it into the N.T. but at one time or another were considered scripture by various Christian groups/churches****

* http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/
** http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
*** http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm
**** http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/Bi...rspectives/carpenter-missinggospels_bock.aspx


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> I guess the law of God has no meaning to them. Sin is sin. It can not be changed by popular demand. They claim to be Christian in name only.


 Got to agree.

big rockpile


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Sawmill Jim said:


> I would never guessed you didn't believe in the Bible :thumb: That is one of the great things about our Bible and God it is ones own choice and theirs alone to make . Some aren't honest enough to just tell it like it is with no fear of God
> Yes, the devil believes God existsâin fact, he has no doubts about it. But he doesnât trust God to save him; instead, he has set himself up in opposition to God and wants nothing to do with him. He also knows that some day the final battle will be fought and that God alone will be victorious. That is why the Bible says, âEven the demons believe thatâand shudderâ (James 2:19). Satan will not win!


 
Just as I was saying the other day last maybe hundred years people have made the mistake of not fearing God.

I know what He wants, will I follow it 100% ? No but because of me repenting and Grace of God I'm forgiven. Thing is with Homosexuals they are unwilling to turn from their sin and repent :Bawling: 

big rockpile


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

big rockpile said:


> Just as I was saying the other day last maybe hundred years people have made the mistake of not fearing God.
> 
> I know what He wants, will I follow it 100% ? No but because of me repenting and Grace of God I'm forgiven. Thing is with Homosexuals they are unwilling to turn from their sin and repent :Bawling:
> 
> big rockpile


You just said you won't follow his law 100% but will be forgiven but you think that same God will not forgive same sex couples because they Don't follow him 100%.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I think that says that God will judge those outside your church? You only get to judge those in your church.


 We are to guide those non believers Mark 2:17 Jesus said

"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

big rockpile


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

painterswife said:


> You just said you won't follow his law 100% but will be forgiven but you think that same God will not forgive same sex couples because they Don't follow him 100%.


Only if they repent and turn from their sin as my Sister did. But not if they continue in their sin as my Brother and my Cousin. Yes I care for them very much and Pray they will do what is right.

I might add the only one that followed His Law 100% was Jesus. 

big rockpile


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> No power over me. My grandmother use to send me letters that I would burn in hell if I continued to work as a bar tender in my younger days and that if I did not stay a virgin until I was married.
> 
> I just don't believe that if there is someone of higher power and mind they would not be so vindictive and would not want their followers to be so either.


I know it is easy to say but it is all that can be done by anyone- if you truly believe that you have the right of it, let the angry words slide over you and fall away. Reacting with anger hurts you and feeds more anger. 

Angry words falling into silence disappear. Of course, that does not extent to angry actions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I agree that we have the right to say anything we want.
> 
> I just have never understood the need of each person of religious faith to be in another religions business. I am not religious but I am not going to tell my family, my friend or my neighbor that they should believe or not believe something about what they believe about their religion. That would be the most sacred of things to me.
> 
> I can disagree with the things your religion stands for or believe. I can discuss it and try to understand why you believe it. I however have no standing in what you actually believe and should not be telling you that you are not really a Christian if I believe different.


Christians should be judging others who claim to be Christians. We are told to do just that and we are given the standards by which to judge ourselves and them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The Mennonite part of my family would agree. Most of them believed in hitting you over the head with their religion. The buddhist part would not. My buddhist grandparents and cousins believed in leading by example and therefore were the only religion I personally would consider just because of that.


Judging again. Any one who claims to be a Christian and keeps "hitting you over the head" is not following the teachings of Christ. Christians are told if we try to tell someone about Christ and they don't want to hear it we are to walk away.

Thinking that you can save someone by "hitting them over the head" is putting yourself above God by thinking its your actions which save them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Provide what for who?


Biblical support showing that its within the teachings of Christ to marry same sex couples.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

big rockpile said:


> I might add the only one that followed His Law 100% was Jesus.


 So why are their sins worse than yours?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I think that says that God will judge those outside your church? You only get to judge those in your church.


Right and the church in this case (in Biblical context here) is the entire body of believers i.e. all Christians.

Think of the word church in the Bible being like the word 'you' in English. It can be either specific or general. In this case its the general form. IOW, its not talking about a specific group of believers, e.g. the church of Ephesus, but about everyone who calls themselves Christians.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> That feels like a really crappy thing to say in my opinion. It is like you are revelling in that you are right and your God will smite all others. I can't and won't believe that a God could ever condone or believe in that just because someone does not believe. No wonder I don't believe in the Bible.


You may not like the rules but its His bat, His ball and His playing field so He gets to make them.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

painterswife said:


> That feels like a really crappy thing to say in my opinion. It is like you are revelling in that you are right and your God will smite all others. I can't and won't believe that a God could ever condone or believe in that just because someone does not believe. No wonder I don't believe in the Bible.


To be fair, that was NOT Jesus' message. Some people here interpret it as 'their way or the highway', but fortunately that's NOT Gods way.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> You may not like the rules but its His bat, His ball and His playing field so He gets to make them.


Very sad that some fanatical Churches teach that: its the devils doctrine, not Christ's.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> There are many Christians that do not believe the Bible is inerrant and perfect.
> 
> Most of us do not in fact, we understand that the writers were humans, filtering Gods message through their own cultural references and worldview. Add that to the multiple translations it has gone through and then you have different people interpreting it in different ways, all claiming they are right. I mean you have Old orderAmish, modern Evangelicals, many variety's of Baptist, Methodist's, Catholics, etc., all using the same Bible but interpreting it slightly (or greatly) differently
> 
> The wonder (to me at least) is even considering all the above is how good it still is.


The Bible must be taken as a whole. If you study it you will see that God is the same through out. The problem is when people have only a partial knowledge of God. Its like the old story about the group of blind men coming upon an elephant. Each felt a different part and therefore had each had a different view of what an elephant was. But if each of them had taken the time to feel the entire elephant they all would have known exactly what one looked like.

If you read nothing but the New Testament or nothing but the Old Testament you will not have the complete 'view' of God. And like the men with the elephant, the 'view' of God in one seems completely different than the 'view' of God in the other.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> Right and the church in this case (in Biblical context here) is the entire body of believers i.e. all Christians.
> 
> Think of the word church in the Bible being like the word 'you' in English. It can be either specific or general. In this case its the general form. IOW, its not talking about a specific group of believers, e.g. the church of Ephesus, but about everyone who calls themselves Christians.


I am curious about this...how do you know it means the general "you" and not the specific "you" in that case? Is it a different word in the Greek? Or is it something you have deciphered from context or something?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You just said you won't follow his law 100% but will be forgiven but you think that same God will not forgive same sex couples because they Don't follow him 100%.


As an old preacher told me long ago. There's a difference between trippiing and falling in a mud hole, getting up, cleaning yourself off and trying to avoiding falling in another and seeing a mud hole, jumping in and wallowering around in it like a hog on a summer's day.

What most people just don't get is sin isn't so much the action but the reaction of the heart. 

Think about it this way. Say you have two vases which were given to you by someone you really cared for and that person has died. Those vases have a HUGE sentimental value to you. One day you child accidentally knocks one off the table and shatters it. How do you feel? How would you react? Now some time latter you watch as that same child picks up the second vase and throws it to the floor because he's mad at you. Are you going to feel the same? Are you going to react the same?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Very sad that some fanatical Churches teach that: its the devils doctrine, not Christ's.


Really? Care to tell me what other ways there are?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> I am curious about this...how do you know it means the general "you" and not the specific "you" in that case? Is it a different word in the Greek? Or is it something you have deciphered from context or something?


In this case you can decipher it from context. Do you REALLY think that only the group of believers or "the church" in Corinth should follow this teaching? Meaning that the group of believers or "the church" in Ephesus are free to associate those who are sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler and not to judge the 'members' of their 'church'.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> In this case you can decipher it from context. *Do you REALLY think that only the group of believers or "the church" in Corinth should follow this teaching?* Meaning that the group of believers or "the church" in Ephesus are free to associate those who are sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler and not to judge the 'members' of their 'church'.


I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the matter. I just asked a question. Thanks for your answer.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> Really? Care to tell me what other ways there are?


There are thousands of Churches all teaching different doctrine(some close and some far apart), yet out of all of them, YOU know what the Bible really means?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> There are thousands of Churches all teaching different doctrine(some close and some far apart), yet out of all of them, YOU know what the Bible really means?


Watcher may well be the ultimate authority on God's word. But it doesn't really matter. We don't live in a theocracy. No religion is supposed to hold a primacy in regards to the laws of the land. Many have claimed some religous basis for opposing same sex marriages yet when shown that religions can recognize and perform them without government coercion cry that they aren't religous enough. At the same time they defend the owners of Hobby Lobby and their right to pick and chose their religous convictions. That's why the founders separated religion from government. They couldn't agree on the one true religion then and we certainly can't now nor should we legislate based on the principle that any one religous belief holds primacy over another.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Children not genetically related are less of an attachment over all.


Wow. I watched my BFF back in Michigan go to h-e-double-hockey-sticks and back trying to help her dysfunctional adopted daughter. Watched her grief as said daughter made one bad decision after another over the course of decades. Watched her helping to raise her 3 granddaughters, who all turned out to be just as dysfunctional as their mother. 

Thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of dollars spent, millions of tears shed over this daughter and these grandchildren who were not, in fact, "genetically related" to her or her husband.

Excuse me for being offended by your assertion.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the matter. I just asked a question. Thanks for your answer.


I was pointing out how you can tell via context if you apply logic.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Wow. I watched my BFF back in Michigan go to h-e-double-hockey-sticks and back trying to help her dysfunctional adopted daughter. Watched her grief as said daughter made one bad decision after another over the course of decades. Watched her helping to raise her 3 granddaughters, who all turned out to be just as dysfunctional as their mother.
> 
> Thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of dollars spent, millions of tears shed over this daughter and these grandchildren who were not, in fact, "genetically related" to her or her husband.
> 
> Excuse me for being offended by your assertion.


Having seen more than a few biological parents physically, mentally and sexually abuse their offspring and seen many adoptive parents and blended families thrive with love and nurturing I found this statement ludicrous at best but didn't wish to be accused of not being open to other opinions. I will simply say that my wife, who came into my DD's life when she was 4 years old has been much more of a mother than the woman who gave birth to her and walked away when she was two. A genetic link may define someone as a parent but it doesn't define parenthood.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> There are thousands of Churches all teaching different doctrine(some close and some far apart), yet out of all of them, YOU know what the Bible really means?


Again there are some things which are gray and some things which are not. The Bible doesn't require a secret decoder ring to understand. There aren't hidden messages which only "special" people get to understand. All you have to do is study it and you'll understand it.

Read John 14:6 and tell me how many different ways it suggest there are.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Watcher may well be the ultimate authority on God's word. But it doesn't really matter. We don't live in a theocracy. No religion is supposed to hold a primacy in regards to the laws of the land. Many have claimed some religous basis for opposing same sex marriages yet when shown that religions can recognize and perform them without government coercion cry that they aren't religous enough. At the same time they defend the owners of Hobby Lobby and their right to pick and chose their religous convictions. That's why the founders separated religion from government. They couldn't agree on the one true religion then and we certainly can't now nor should we legislate based on the principle that any one religous belief holds primacy over another.


I'm also the ultimate authority on history and as such I recommend you read a little more about the founding of this nation and just what and how the founding fathers felt about religion and government interaction.

Even if you do nothing but read the 1st amendment you'll see they did not wish to forbid the inclusion of religion in the government, they wanted to forbid the inclusion of government in religion. Two different critters.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I'm also the ultimate authority on history and as such I recommend you read a little more about the founding of this nation and just what and how the founding fathers felt about religion and government interaction.
> 
> Even if you do nothing but read the 1st amendment you'll see they did not wish to forbid the inclusion of religion in the government, they wanted to forbid the inclusion of government in religion. Two different critters.


I'm well aware of history. History that has never included a state religion. Nor should it start now.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> Again there are some things which are gray and some things which are not. The Bible doesn't require a secret decoder ring to understand. There aren't hidden messages which only "special" people get to understand. All you have to do is study it and you'll understand it.


So Biblical scholars of all different religions can't get it right, but one of our own posters here on this very board does. Amazing! :bow:


:facepalm:


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevermind.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'm well aware of history. History that has never included a state religion. Nor should it start now.


Again they wanted to make sure government stayed out of religion they did NOT want to keep religion out of government.

Also if you read the bill of rights you will see they had no problem with states having established religions only the federal government. Note how the 1st amendment is written and what the 10th amendment says.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> So Biblical scholars of all different religions can't get it right, but one of our own posters here on this very board does. Amazing! :bow:
> 
> 
> :facepalm:


But of course they do. It is part of the package of seeking the right answer. If you have faith in that answer, you must conclude it is right and the presence of a hundred others with the same claim for different ideas is irrelevant. 
Faith is not subject to rules of logic. No one should need faith to arrive at a humanly logical conclusion. Faith is the saying "The answer to this question is not knowable by human means, therefore I accept this teaching as correct." To say that conflicting ideas may be right too is to lack faith by definition.

Therefore it is worse than useless to simply say a person of faith should recognize the uncertainty of their faith.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

2dogs-mom said:


> Personally, the more I read the more I realize I don't know. My SO and I have arguments/discussions (depending on the day  ) on this very thing. He takes a very strict word-for-word interpretation. Me..not so much..


Use what a preacher told me long ago. 

So he thinks Christ was actually a gate? After all isn't that the exact words used?

Or does he interpret a meaning from those words?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Again they wanted to make sure government stayed out of religion they did NOT want to keep religion out of government.
> 
> Also if you read the bill of rights you will see they had no problem with states having established religions only the federal government. Note how the 1st amendment is written and what the 10th amendment says.


But that leads us to the question of which religion? Christianity? Which branch? Episcopalian( since they're germane to this discussion) or Westboro baptist? Mormon or Catholic? Watcherism or the church of mmoetc? If any state wishes to adapt a religion and write their laws based on that I'm sure it would lead to som interesting legal challenges. Now , it's not my place to argue whether your particular beliefs are indeed true. That you believe them is good enough for you. That I don't share those beliefs is good enough for me. No government told the Episcopal church they had to perform or even condone same sex marriages. Non should require you to either. Nor should they require me to condemn or deny such unions.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> But of course they do. It is part of the package of seeking the right answer. If you have faith in that answer, you must conclude it is right and the presence of a hundred others with the same claim for different ideas is irrelevant.
> Faith is not subject to rules of logic. No one should need faith to arrive at a humanly logical conclusion. Faith is the saying "The answer to this question is not knowable by human means, therefore I accept this teaching as correct." To say that conflicting ideas may be right too is to lack faith by definition.
> 
> Therefore it is worse than useless to simply say a person of faith should recognize the uncertainty of their faith.


You can have all the certainty of your faith. All I, and others, ask is you allow us the same certainty in ours. Don't wish to participate in or recognize a same sex marriage. Don't. But don't try to use the government to deny me the freedom to do so.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> You can have all the certainty of your faith. All I, and others, ask is you allow us the same certainty in ours. Don't wish to participate in or recognize a same sex marriage. Don't. But don't try to use the government to deny me the freedom to do so.


Good post now remember my faith does not support abortion thus do not use the government to go against my freedom to follow my faith

Remember my faith is against homosexual relations do not demand the government to force or punish me if I refuse to bake a cake if doing so deny me to practice my faith.

Do not support the government to try and replace the role of parents as that is against my faith.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> You can have all the certainty of your faith. All I, and others, ask is you allow us the same certainty in ours. Don't wish to participate in or recognize a same sex marriage. Don't. But don't try to use the government to deny me the freedom to do so.


But that is what gay marriage is all about- making everyone else adapt to their wants. 

The part where outsiders get to weigh in is where a person takes public funds for their belief and where their belief spreads into actions that effect the public.

Two people can stand in front of any willing minister and have a ceremony but when they say that they thereby get tax breaks, eligibility to public benefits, etc based on it, then it is now a matter of public concern. 

I think that the hardships of creating and raising children are the fountainhead of these social compensations and that gays rarely have that burden. A woman who risks her health and takes time to bear children needs some protection. The man who uses his resources to support the woman and his children needs some extra care from society. 90% of gay couples do not take the risks or expend the effort to have a claim to societial benefits. 

And there is actual harm to reducing the marriage to the level of self involved love. It confuses that limited vision of marriage, and encourages the easy dismissal of the work of raising a family. As evinced by this whole thread. Raising kids is harder that arranging a mutual agreement- it creates obligations to
actually commit to those resulting children. 

It is an intrinsic good for a child to live in a family where there is a mother and father to see what value each have. I would rather see children raised with love, care and responsibility in a gay marriage than a brutal abusive heterosexual marriage but they would still lose the understanding that comes from living with both sexes.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Therefore it is worse than useless to simply say a person of faith should recognize the uncertainty of their faith.


I disagree, Since we are humans we are limited in our abilities and understanding, the rational religious person should know their understanding may or may not be correct. 
Unfortunately there are too many fanatics and also people who don't even give it a thought, they believe what they were/are taught without question.

I have faith, but I understand I also have limited understanding and thus may be incorrect in some or even all of my beliefs, that's OK though because my faith tells me I'll eventually learn the answers (perhaps not until after this life).


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Remember my faith is against homosexual relations do not demand the government to force or punish me if I refuse to bake a cake if doing so deny me to practice my faith.


This I agree with 100%:thumb: While I do support the rights of gays to marry, I NEVER want anyone forced to marry them or do business with them.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> I have faith, but I understand I also have limited understanding and thus may be incorrect in some or even all of my beliefs, that's OK though because my faith tells me I'll eventually learn the answers (perhaps not until after this life).


And I would not dream of questioning your faith. Wouldn't be of use to have the only result being either a circular argument or crushing someone's faith.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Good post now remember my faith does not support abortion thus do not use the government to go against my freedom to follow my faith
> 
> Remember my faith is against homosexual relations do not demand the government to force or punish me if I refuse to bake a cake if doing so deny me to practice my faith.
> 
> Do not support the government to try and replace the role of parents as that is against my faith.


Don't have an abortion. I don't care. Don't bake a cake. I don't care. Don't deny me the same right to buy your cake that anyone else has. I do care. Feed, clothe, house and educate your kids. I don't care. Abuse them, I do care.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> But that is what gay marriage is all about- making everyone else adapt to their wants.
> 
> The part where outsiders get to weigh in is where a person takes public funds for their belief and where their belief spreads into actions that effect the public.
> 
> ...


Or maybe they would just gain an understanding of what love and family truly are. A gay woman goes through the same process of pregnancy and birth as a straight one. Should she be denied the same governmental benefits you think are so important simply because she loves someone you don't approve of? Or is that family deserving of the same benefits because they apply with equal validity no matter the sex of the parents?


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> A gay woman goes through the same process of pregnancy and birth as a straight one.


Since when can 2 women make a baby?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But that is what gay marriage is all about- making everyone else adapt to their wants.


No, opposing gay marriage is making others adapt to your wants.

You don't like what gay people do behind closed doors, and I get that. Your way of showing disapproval is to keep them from getting married. But opposing gay marriage isn't going to stop what they do, it will just prevent them from inheriting their partner's Social Security benefits.

You need to accept that this is a battle you're going to lose. There is now no legal question that treating gays differently is discrimination under our Constitution. There's just no getting around that, so the handwriting is on the wall. You might as well get used to it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Or maybe they would just gain an understanding of what love and family truly are. A gay woman goes through the same process of pregnancy and birth as a straight one. Should she be denied the same governmental benefits you think are so important simply because she loves someone you don't approve of? Or is that family deserving of the same benefits because they apply with equal validity no matter the sex of the parents?


Always gay marriage advocates parse 50% percent of the population out of the equation to arrive at equality. 

When sperm is treated as a commodity, that is what happens. What happens when the child grows enough to wonder about her biological father who was reduced to a word in her history? She has lost the experience from her whole life. She may be fine with it or it may be an ever lasting hole in her education to become an adult.

It is not that I think a pregnant gay woman does not deserve consideration. I just think she has chosen an unreliable, more limited and uncertain path. She has not arranged all the support for her child that she could have by recognizing the value of a father to add his protection . She has put more demands on society in general to cover the number of gay partners making the same value judgement as created their marriage to decide that it is no longer working for her and she moves on. Without committment to the non-related child.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> No, opposing gay marriage is making others adapt to your wants.
> 
> You don't like what gay people do behind closed doors, and I get that. Your way of showing disapproval is to keep them from getting married. But opposing gay marriage isn't going to stop what they do, it will just prevent them from inheriting their partner's Social Security benefits.
> 
> This is a battle you're going to lose. There is now no legal question that treating gays differently is discrimination under our Constitution. There's just no getting around that, so the handwriting is on the wall. You might as well get used to it.


Nevada- please stop assuming that I hold values you prefer that I had into order to dismiss my arguments. Look back for any statement that I ever made that confirms your assumption.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Wendy said:


> Since when can 2 women make a baby?


Quite possibly the same way these couples did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/adoptions-new-frontier/

If course, since they have no genetic ties to these children they likely shouldn't be allowed the tax benefits of parenthood, right?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Quite possibly the same way these couples did. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/adoptions-new-frontier/
> 
> If course, since they have no genetic ties to these children they likely shouldn't be allowed the tax benefits of parenthood, right?


But genenic ties are pretty strong. Why shouldn't society choose the way of encouraging strength rather than weakness?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> I disagree, Since we are humans we are limited in our abilities and understanding, the rational religious person should know their understanding may or may not be correct.
> Unfortunately there are too many fanatics and also people who don't even give it a thought, they believe what they were/are taught without question.
> 
> I have faith, but I understand I also have limited understanding and thus may be incorrect in some or even all of my beliefs, that's OK though because my faith tells me I'll eventually learn the answers (perhaps not until after this life).


There is many times limited understanding is self imposed . :facepalm: There are many claiming to be Christian but you can plainly see they an't .Why take the simple things and confound them :facepalm:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> But genenic ties are pretty strong. Why shouldn't society choose the way of encouraging strength rather than weakness?


Those same genetics ties often fail as evidenced by the number of children abused by their natural parents. Why shouldn't society encourage the strength no matter how it comes about?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Nevada- please stop assuming that I hold values you prefer that I had into order to dismiss my arguments. Look back for any statement that I ever made that confirms your assumption.


You approve of gay relationships? You approve of what gays do behind closed doors?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Don't have an abortion. I don't care. Don't bake a cake. I don't care. Don't deny me the same right to buy your cake that anyone else has. I do care. Feed, clothe, house and educate your kids. I don't care. Abuse them, I do care.


Do you feel that support includes proving money for something? I do. 

My right to follow my faith supersedes you getting a cake to celebrate any event that would have me aiding and abetting a sin knowingly. Personally I would get a clue when the design should be in discussion. You can't deal with that that just publicly state the truth..


You do not believe in freedom, as noted in our constitution... as explained in the declaration of independence the need for freedom.

Read the declaration of independence and see just where fundamentally is used .....


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Do you feel that support includes proving money for something? I do.
> 
> My right to follow my faith supersedes you getting a cake to celebrate any event that would have me aiding and abetting a sin knowingly. Personally I would get a clue when the design should be in discussion. You can't deal with that that just publicly state the truth..
> 
> ...


You might wish to read the equal protection clause in the constitution before you accuse me of believing or not believing. If you don't wish to bake abd sell cakes then don't. But if you're going up bake and sell cakes you must bake and sell them to all. Just don't tell me what I can or cannot do with the cake once I purchase it.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Mmmm...cake


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> My right to follow my faith supersedes you getting a cake to celebrate any event that would have me aiding and abetting a sin knowingly.


I've always considered war a sin, but I still had to pay for it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

the importance of rights as boldly seen as important to freedom and justice it is quite telling that religion freedom was so specifically spelled out with the rational for it made clear.

Say what you want but I will alway maintain the right not to serve anyone if my Faith must be compromised. God before fools.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I've always considered war a sin, but I still had to pay for it.


Then stand up. Stop waiting for someone eels to do it for you, or pay for it for you. Only you are stopping yourself from living your values.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You approve of gay relationships? You approve of what gays do behind closed doors?


I mostly try to keep my personal opinions about others to myself. And prefer you did the same.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> I mostly try to keep my personal opinions to myself. And prefer you did the same.


That's what this forum is for; to express personal opinions.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I've always considered war a sin, but I still had to pay for it.


So you would never fight for anything? Not a useful question, is it?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's what this forum is for; to express personal opinions.


To express but not to solicit.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Those same genetics ties often fail as evidenced by the number of children abused by their natural parents. Why shouldn't society encourage the strength no matter how it comes about?


Yes, they frequently fall short of the best. So how does removing the strength they do offer create anything better?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

​Two females can not create a child 
Labs can
But is is a fact the physically two humans can not naturally have sex and result with a child. To forget...neglect....or to deceive and lie that two same sex human can now reproduce is false. To be silent as it is being spewed is accepting the lie. Allowing for the window of accept and know truths to shifting to misinformation to change the adgenda.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Sawmill Jim said:


> There is many times limited understanding is self imposed . :facepalm: There are many claiming to be Christian but you can plainly see they an't .Why take the simple things and confound them :facepalm:


I will leave the judgement up to God as to who is Christian or not.
I may personally choose not to associate with someone over their actions, but only God knows their hearts (meaning their motivation for doing something).

You may see a young woman stealing groceries and God may know that she is trying to feed her starving children and herself.

You may see a prostitute and God may see a young person who was sexually and mentally abused all their lives.

You may see a lesbian (and you think that's sinful), God may see a young woman who was gang raped in her teens or a woman that was constantly abused by her husband and thus no longer trusts men.

No, I'll leave the judgement up to Him who is much more qualified to judge.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> ​Two females can not create a child
> Labs can
> But is is a fact the physically two humans can not naturally have sex and result with a child. To forget...neglect....or to deceive and lie that two same sex human can now reproduce is false. To be silent as it is being spewed is accepting the lie. Allowing for the window of accept and know truths to shifting to misinformation to change the adgenda.


My DW and I can not create a child naturally either without a labs help, does that make us less than a "real" married couple?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> I will leave the judgement up to God as to who is Christian or not.
> I may personally choose not to associate with someone over their actions, but only God knows their hearts (meaning their motivation for doing something).
> 
> You may see a young woman stealing groceries and God may know that she is trying to feed her starving children and herself.
> ...


So you refuse to take the responsibility that comes from God given to you . Got It .
Matthew 12:33
Verse Concepts
"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

I wonder how God feels about people sitting on His throne usurping His job against his wishes.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> My DW and I can not create a child naturally either without a labs help, does that make us less than a "real" married couple?


No, I too could never carry a child to them... but it seems you and I accept that we can not carry a child. Not being able to have a natural child has nothing to do with marriage.

Lieing and misconstrued what is done in a lab, or as in my case a court room with conceiving a child is the point I am making.

I adopted a child I did not create a child. My sister in laws sister in a homosexual relationship, did not create the 3 children in their home. Each of the women each bore a child and the third I do not know the situation. 

Do I hate them no, I rarely see my family I live far away I am not involved. As simple ...."Oh, that's interesting I will call back when my niece is home.....I sure she is having fun with her cousins." I have never been asked or demanded that I approve or support this reality. My position is clear. Live and let live. This demand for required approve and false victimization when ones lifestyle choice is not celebrated when it deviates from others people's values. 

My values do not wave in the breeze. Nor will they change to please anyone.... that is why they are values.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> I wonder how God feels about people sitting on His throne usurping His job against his wishes.


Show how you came to that view point as I am at a loss. Jim can easily show you where he found ele safe in saying that.....he has done so in the past. I do not see where and thing written usurpation God but following his word.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> I wonder how God feels about people sitting on His throne usurping His job against his wishes.


Try being obedient what he tells you to do and stop making excuses . 
King James Bible
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

kasilofhome, you sound a lot like me. A lot goes in on my family that is so wrong & yet I am the bad guy because I won't praise them for their wrongdoings. I pretty much avoid all family functions & half of my siblings don't even talk to me. I will not go against my values even if it means losing family. Then of course I get accused of not loving people. It is because I love them that I hate to see them doing such sinful things all the while claiming to be Christians.

The funny thing with sin is, there is no grey area. Something is either a sin or it isn't. There aren't some instances where it is ok.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Show how you came to that view point as I am at a loss. Jim can easily show you where he found ele safe in saying that.....he has done so in the past. I do not see where and thing written usurpation God but following his word.



Jeremiah 17:10 (NIV) "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve."

1 Samuel 16:7 (NIV) ....People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Wendy said:


> The funny thing with sin is, there is no grey area. Something is either a sin or it isn't.


Since we're all human we all sin
If you honestly believe the above statement you made, then why are homosexuals sins so much more worse than your sins?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Try being obedient what he tells you to do and stop making excuses .
> .


Not going to fight with you. 

I find that many people cherry pick verses to support their point of view rather than reading the Bible as a whole, concentrating especially on the teachings of Christ.

I might remind you that the Pharisee's complained that Christ ate with (hung around with) sinners. 
I have a feeling that come judgement day, they'll be a lot of surprised people.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Wendy said:


> The funny thing with sin is, there is no grey area. Something is either a sin or it isn't. There aren't some instances where it is ok.


This is another thing I've been curious about over the years...perhaps this thread isn't the place to ask, but the thread has already gone many different directions, so here goes...Rahab lied to protect the Israelite spies in Jericho, and she is considered righteous for what she did. Lying is a sin, but is it sometimes OK?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> Not going to fight with you.
> 
> I find that many people cherry pick verses to support their point of view rather than reading the Bible as a whole, concentrating especially on the teachings of Christ.
> 
> ...


Not wanting to fight just trying to get anyone who want't hear to here and those that want to see to see . I have read the Bible many times also book of mormons,new world translation and the Quran .

Do you get to wait for judgement day ? Could to day be ones judgement day by our own choices .
22 &#8220;The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham&#8217;s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, &#8216;Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.&#8217;


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> This is another thing I've been curious about over the years...perhaps this thread isn't the place to ask, but the thread has already gone many different directions, so here goes...Rahab lied to protect the Israelite spies in Jericho, and she is considered righteous for what she did. Lying is a sin, but is it sometimes OK?


Her consideration of righteous wasn't for lying but for her saving the two men :thumb:
Should we be surprised that a prostitute, living in pagan surroundings, would lie to governmental authorities? Hardly. But she was not saved because she liedâa critical point that needs expanding. In addressing this idea, Allen Webster wrote: âRahab lied, true, but God never complimented this action. She was a heathen, not yet even converted to Judaismâ¦. She was saved in spite of her lying, and not because of it. She was a prostitute, but this text does not authorize such activityâ (1993, p. 2, emp. in orig.). This is a part of the story that seems to have been missed by the Bible critics who have isolated Rahabâs lie not only from the context of the story itself, but from the remainder of her life and additional biblical commentary on that life.http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=733


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

But she saved them BY lying...had she not lied, they wouldn't have been saved. That explanation is weak, but thanks for posting it. It's interesting.

ETA: One of the things that got me interested in this topic was reading about the Holocaust, and how Christians lied to save Jews. I suspect it has had and will have many more applications to real life.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> But she saved them BY lying...had she not lied, they wouldn't have been saved. That explanation is weak, but thanks for posting it. It's interesting.
> 
> ETA: One of the things that got me interested in this topic was reading about the Holocaust, and how Christians lied to save Jews. I suspect it has had and will have many more applications to real life.


Since Jericho eventually was destroyed and the Prophets of Israel wrote the O.T. anyone who saved them was good.
Had people of Jericho written the O.T. I imagine she wouldn't have been treated as well in it.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> If you honestly believe the above statement you made, then why are homosexuals sins so much more worse than your sins?


Can you show me where I said they were? I don't believe I said their sin was worse than anything I have done.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Always gay marriage advocates parse 50% percent of the population out of the equation to arrive at equality.
> 
> When sperm is treated as a commodity, that is what happens. What happens when the child grows enough to wonder about her biological father who was reduced to a word in her history? She has lost the experience from her whole life. She may be fine with it or it may be an ever lasting hole in her education to become an adult.
> 
> It is not that I think a pregnant gay woman does not deserve consideration. I just think she has chosen an unreliable, more limited and uncertain path. She has not arranged all the support for her child that she could have by recognizing the value of a father to add his protection . She has put more demands on society in general to cover the number of gay partners making the same value judgement as created their marriage to decide that it is no longer working for her and she moves on. Without committment to the non-related child.


What you describe happens among heterosexual couple every day yet you don't presume that all such unions will fail and deny them marriage as you wish to do with same sex couples. Why the double standard? And you have yet to address the issue of the snowflake babies I brought up earlier. Why should two people with no genetic tie at all be considered parents and have the same rights, priviliges and tax breaks as a biological parent. A biological parent like my friend who used donor sperm so she and her partner could start their family. She has a genetic connection and her partner is as bonded to her as any male in any heterosexual pair I know. What rationale can be used to not call them a family and allow them to marry and add one more strong union to society's fabric.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Yes, they frequently fall short of the best. So how does removing the strength they do offer create anything better?


What strength does allowing loving couples to marry remove. It seems to me the more strong marriages the better.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> My DW and I can not create a child naturally either without a labs help, does that make us less than a "real" married couple?


No, it doesn't.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> But that leads us to the question of which religion? Christianity? Which branch? Episcopalian( since they're germane to this discussion) or Westboro baptist? Mormon or Catholic? Watcherism or the church of mmoetc?


A question with a very simple answer, all of them that the people of want.




mmoetc said:


> If any state wishes to adapt a religion and write their laws based on that I'm sure it would lead to som interesting legal challenges.


It would. If you read the original USC there is NOTHING in there which forbids them from doing so. Of course today the individual states have no rights nor powers.




mmoetc said:


> Now , it's not my place to argue whether your particular beliefs are indeed true. That you believe them is good enough for you. That I don't share those beliefs is good enough for me. No government told the Episcopal church they had to perform or even condone same sex marriages. Non should require you to either. Nor should they require me to condemn or deny such unions.


I don't speak out as a member of the government. I speak out as a Christian when others who claim to be Christians are doing something which can not be supported Biblically.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Don't have an abortion. I don't care. Don't bake a cake. I don't care. Don't deny me the same right to buy your cake that anyone else has. I do care. Feed, clothe, house and educate your kids. I don't care. Abuse them, I do care.


Anything which must be provided to you by another is not and can not be a right. Therefore you have no right to buy ANYTHING.

Its my cake made by me with my labor with ingredients I bought with my money therefore its my property and you nor anyone else have a bit of "right" to tell me who I may or may not sell it to.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You might wish to read the equal protection clause in the constitution before you accuse me of believing or not believing. If you don't wish to bake abd sell cakes then don't. But if you're going up bake and sell cakes you must bake and sell them to all. Just don't tell me what I can or cannot do with the cake once I purchase it.


Ah. . .you do understand that the USC applies to government not citizens don't you? 

The government can not refuse to sell or give you a cake based on race, gender, etc. But a private citizen has the right to refuse to sell his private property for any reason he wishes. Or he could before individual rights were taken away by the feds.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> I will leave the judgement up to God as to who is Christian or not.
> I may personally choose not to associate with someone over their actions, but only God knows their hearts (meaning their motivation for doing something).
> 
> You may see a young woman stealing groceries and God may know that she is trying to feed her starving children and herself.
> ...


If you know someone is involved in a years long affair, steals from his company and lies all the time you still would say he's a Christian as long as he says so? Or would you judge him by his fruit?

I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where it says if you have a good reason to sin God will over look your sin. Romans 6:1-2 pops into mind:

_What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? _


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> I wonder how God feels about people sitting on His throne usurping His job against his wishes.


As has been pointed out to you Christians are called judge and point out those who claim the name of Christ but do not follow his teachings. Just because you don't like the fact that some of us have read the entire passage which you only know part of (Judge not. . .) and follow what it says doesn't change what the Bible tells us to do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Jeremiah 17:10 (NIV) "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve."
> 
> 1 Samuel 16:7 (NIV) ....People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."



_ But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. _

Matt 15:18
_

45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks._

Luke 6:45


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Since we're all human we all sin
> If you honestly believe the above statement you made, then why are homosexuals sins so much more worse than your sins?


They are not. The difference is they are continuing to live in their sin whereas I work daily to get out of mine. 

As I said there's a difference in accidentally breaking a vase with a huge amount of sentmental value and planning and deliberately breaking one.

In the first case you'd probably forgive the breaker in the second you probably would not.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Hey I want to add something here. Eight pages so far and not one named called nor deleted post. 

I think its great that we can discuss this w/o it becoming nasty and getting the thread locked. There are probably a lot of people reading this who won't post anything and its good to see such things can be discussed civilly.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Adults behaving like adults...yay! But it is worth noting, since it often doesn't happen.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

mnn2501 said:


> So why are their sins worse than yours?


 They are not and they can be forgiven when they repent and turn from their sin. Very simple.

big rockpile


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> A question with a very simple answer, all of them that the people of want.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That would then include Episcopalians and other religions that recognize and perform same sex unions, problem solved. No government intrusion on religion.

Seems like the states often assert their rights and powers when it suits them. They just cannot do it violation of the constitution.

Which is why I haven't entered into the discussion of the validity of your religous beliefs or your criticism of others. It's your right. But, until your beliefs are codified as the sole basis for marriage law there is room for other beliefs to be a part of that law.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Anything which must be provided to you by another is not and can not be a right. Therefore you have no right to buy ANYTHING.
> 
> Its my cake made by me with my labor with ingredients I bought with my money therefore its my property and you nor anyone else have a bit of "right" to tell me who I may or may not sell it to.


The minute you open that business to the public and agree to comport to the laws governing said business you generally agree to serve all who walk through your door. If you wish to set up your business to limit your clientele, there are ways to do it legally. Have at it. If you open your doors to the public, you open it to all the public.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Ah. . .you do understand that the USC applies to government not citizens don't you?
> 
> The government can not refuse to sell or give you a cake based on race, gender, etc. But a private citizen has the right to refuse to sell his private property for any reason he wishes. Or he could before individual rights were taken away by the feds.


Actually, the law written by the government and to be applied equally to all makes it illegal not to sell to someone based on various criteria. You call it a taking away of rights, I call it an expansion of rights.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The minute you open that business to the public and agree to comport to the laws governing said business you generally agree to serve all who walk through your door. If you wish to set up your business to limit your clientele, there are ways to do it legally. Have at it. If you open your doors to the public, you open it to all the public.


So to sell things I must give up my rights. Which ones do the government take from us at that point? It takes our right to religious freedom, our right to free speech, our right to be secure in our persons and papers any others?

The fact that there is a law doesn't mean its constitutional. There are many laws which can not be supported by a simple reading of the constitution. Just because a group of judges have looked at the politics of the day to decide what they think is constitutional doesn't make it so. At one time the political judges of the day said segregation was ok but when the political wind shifted BOOM it was suddenly discovered that the constitution did NOT allow it.

So I ask you to show me where in the constitution the government has the power to force you to sell your personal property to someone you do not wish to sale it to.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Actually, the law written by the government and to be applied equally to all makes it illegal not to sell to someone based on various criteria. You call it a taking away of rights, I call it an expansion of rights.


You have no right to ANYTHING which must come from another person. That's because to get that thing you must violate the rights of the person who already has it.

Say you think people have a right to medical care. If that's true then they should be able to force doctors and nurses to care for you w/o pay. If they refused you could have them arrested for violating someone's rights.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> So to sell things I must give up my rights. Which ones do the government take from us at that point? It takes our right to religious freedom, our right to free speech, our right to be secure in our persons and papers any others?
> 
> The fact that there is a law doesn't mean its constitutional. There are many laws which can not be supported by a simple reading of the constitution. Just because a group of judges have looked at the politics of the day to decide what they think is constitutional doesn't make it so. At one time the political judges of the day said segregation was ok but when the political wind shifted BOOM it was suddenly discovered that the constitution did NOT allow it.
> 
> So I ask you to show me where in the constitution the government has the power to force you to sell your personal property to someone you do not wish to sale it to.


The government isn't forcing you to sell anything to anyone. You can choose to sell cakes in a licensed and regulated business open to the public and then be required to sell cakes to all comers under the terms of that agreement. You can choose to sell cakes under some other arrangement to whomever you choose in a variety of legally compliant ways. You can choose not to sell cakes at all. Your choice. You cannot deny me the choice to buy the same cake the person in front of me buys or the person behind me will be allowed to buy. My choice and the choice of everyone in the country.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> You have no right to ANYTHING which must come from another person. That's because to get that thing you must violate the rights of the person who already has it.
> 
> Say you think people have a right to medical care. If that's true then they should be able to force doctors and nurses to care for you w/o pay. If they refused you could have them arrested for violating someone's rights.


But I'm not asking something for nothing. I'm not asking for someone to give up something or do anything they don't normally do. In this case they bake cakes and sell them. The cake they bake for a same sex couple is made of the exact same ingredients and manufactured the exact same way as any other cake. I may feed that cake to wedding guest or pigs. It has no affect on the cake nor changes the fundamental makeup of that cake. I only ask and require that I'm allowed to give the baker money for the exact same cake they would sell to any other without any test for whatever purpose I choose.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> The government isn't forcing you to sell anything to anyone. You can choose to sell cakes in a licensed and regulated business open to the public and then be required to sell cakes to all comers under the terms of that agreement. You can choose to sell cakes under some other arrangement to whomever you choose in a variety of legally compliant ways. You can choose not to sell cakes at all. Your choice. You cannot deny me the choice to buy the same cake the person in front of me buys or the person behind me will be allowed to buy. My choice and the choice of everyone in the country.


PLEASE choose a position. 
Each sale is a separate transaction.
I have refused many times my services.
I did not like their ways and being a non slave I said no. I accept that wort is work but I would never work for people who were pain in the butt.

If I know that the person wanting what I have to sell is you ...you will be refused 
I do not like dealing with me me's. 

Does an animal sell have the right to refuse to sell a dog to people. Would you sell a dog to someone who was loud and annoying and the dog was shy.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> Hey I want to add something here. Eight pages so far and not one named called nor deleted post.
> 
> I think its great that we can discuss this w/o it becoming nasty and getting the thread locked. There are probably a lot of people reading this who won't post anything and its good to see such things can be discussed civilly.


Well, someone was banned.  Not sure if it was because of this thread or something else but I noticed it today. Anyway..my last post here because I think you all know where I stand. C-ya.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> But I'm not asking something for nothing. I'm not asking for someone to give up something or do anything they don't normally do. In this case they bake cakes and sell them. The cake they bake for a same sex couple is made of the exact same ingredients and manufactured the exact same way as any other cake. I may feed that cake to wedding guest or pigs. It has no affect on the cake nor changes the fundamental makeup of that cake. I only ask and require that I'm allowed to give the baker money for the exact same cake they would sell to any other without any test for whatever purpose I choose.


Ok so when there is a female and a male cake decoration you can accept that it is fine and not claim a law suit that a cake made for a heterosexual couple is fine ....

Also the behaviour of a potential client... fussy wassy heterosexual I will not deal with, so homosexual better accept that to. I can say no to anyone remember work takes time my time is valuable I have a right to take time off even if someone wants me to work a job I can do.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> PLEASE choose a position.
> Each sale is a separate transaction.
> I have refused many times my services.
> I did not like their ways and being a non slave I said no. I accept that wort is work but I would never work for people who were pain in the butt.
> ...


My position has been chosen and it hasn't wavered. If you open your doors to the public you must serve all of the public that walks in. If you don't wish to sell to the public, don't.

As for your dog question. I might counsel the buyer to choose another animal better suited to their personality. I might even refuse to sell them a specific animal. I might be sued for such action, I might not but if I felt strongly enough the cost of defending myself is a small price to pay for standing up for what I believe. I've said it before, standing one's moral ground is not without consequence or cost.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Ok so when there is a female and a male cake decoration you can accept that it is fine and not claim a law suit that a cake made for a heterosexual couple is fine ....
> 
> Also the behaviour of a potential client... fussy wassy heterosexual I will not deal with, so homosexual better accept that to. I can say no to anyone remember work takes time my time is valuable I have a right to take time off even if someone wants me to work a job I can do.


You're free to hide behind whatever cloak you wish. I have much more respect for those that stand up and face the consequences of those stands than I do those who hide behind transparent excuses.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The government isn't forcing you to sell anything to anyone. You can choose to sell cakes in a licensed and regulated business open to the public and then be required to sell cakes to all comers under the terms of that agreement. You can choose to sell cakes under some other arrangement to whomever you choose in a variety of legally compliant ways. You can choose not to sell cakes at all. Your choice. You cannot deny me the choice to buy the same cake the person in front of me buys or the person behind me will be allowed to buy. My choice and the choice of everyone in the country.


And just where does the government get the power to force me to sell you MY cake if I don't wish to sell it to you?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> And just where does the government get the power to force me to sell you MY cake if I don't wish to sell it to you?


Once again, the government cannot force you to sell a cake to anyone you don't wish to. They can require you to offer the same goods and services to all who walk through your door. You can refuse to to do so. You can face the legal and economical consequences of that choice. The choice is yours whether your convictions are worth the cost. As a Christian who's religion is chock full of martyrs you should understand that moral stands often come at some personal cost.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Once again, the government cannot force you to sell a cake to anyone you don't wish to. They can require you to offer the same goods and services to all who walk through your door. You can refuse to to do so. You can face the legal and economical consequences of that choice. The choice is yours whether your convictions are worth the cost. As a Christian who's religion is chock full of martyrs you should understand that moral stands often come at some personal cost.


IOW, they can't force you to sell a cake to someone you don't want to, they can just take all your money and put you in jail if you refuse. 

Isn't that like someone saying they didn't take your money you gave it to them when they asked. The fact you were given the option of either giving him the money or being shot should not enter into the equation.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> You're free to hide behind whatever cloak you wish. I have much more respect for those that stand up and face the consequences of those stands than I do those who hide behind transparent excuses.


I am not hiding I am blunt and to the point. I will not lift a finger to aid in the celebration o any homosexual milestone, or any person heterosexuals playing house. Pledged your commitment publicly and live that commitment fine.

I have and will not attend any baby shower for single mothers unless they are widowed or raped.


Why is it ok not to sell a dog into a home you feel is unfit but wrong when others refuse to work to hold a celebration of sin.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> I am not hiding I am blunt and to the point. I will not lift a finger to aid in the celebration o any homosexual milestone, or any person heterosexuals playing house. Pledged your commitment publicly and live that commitment fine.
> 
> I have and will not attend any baby shower for single mothers unless they are widowed or raped.
> 
> ...


Read my post. The choice is mine. I can compromise my values and sell the dog or I can stand up for my values and face the punishment. My choice.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Read my post. The choice is mine. I can compromise my values and sell the dog or I can stand up for my values and face the punishment. My choice.


Why do you think there is any virtue in forcing people to suffer for their beliefs? Especially by a government whose Constitution mandates that government shall not do that to religious values. 

I don't think the civil rights law should override that obligation in the trivial case of complaints of not selling cakes.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Why do you think there is any virtue in forcing people to suffer for their beliefs? Especially by a government whose Constitution mandates that government shall not do that to religious values.
> 
> I don't think the civil rights law should override that obligation in the trivial case of complaints of not selling cakes.


Amen amen amen I a Catholic so BINGO.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So is it ok to serve drinks to a drunk truck driver just cause he asks.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> IOW, they can't force you to sell a cake to someone you don't want to, they can just take all your money and put you in jail if you refuse.
> 
> Isn't that like someone saying they didn't take your money you gave it to them when they asked. The fact you were given the option of either giving him the money or being shot should not enter into the equation.


No, it's more like the police can't stop me from driving 90mph if I wish to. They can pull me over if I do so and take my money or put me in jail. That's how laws work. The bakers can choose to comply with anti discrimination laws and bake cakes for everyone, they can bake cakes for no one, or they can refuse to bake cakes for some and face the potential consequences. The choice is theirs. You can dislike the law and work to change it. That is your choice. I'll choose to work counter to that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Why do you think there is any virtue in forcing people to suffer for their beliefs? Especially by a government whose Constitution mandates that government shall not do that to religious values.
> 
> I don't think the civil rights law should override that obligation in the trivial case of complaints of not selling cakes.


Actions have consequences. Breaking a law has consequences. Work to change the law. That's your perogative. But don't expect there to be no cost in that work. I never read that Martin Luther King objected to being arrested. In fact, the goal of many of the civil rights protests was to be arrested in order to show how unjust the laws were.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> So is it ok to serve drinks to a drunk truck driver just cause he asks.


This would be a case where my moral values line up pretty well with law. The law, in many places, requires a bartender to refuse service to someone who is clearly intoxicated. If you can show me how selling someone a cake might lead to them crossing the center line and killing an innocent family I might better understand your question.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> No, it's more like the police can't stop me from driving 90mph if I wish to. They can pull me over if I do so and take my money or put me in jail.


And how are you going to drive 90 mph while sitting in a jail cell? Seems to me once you are in jail they HAVE stopped you.

And the threat of losing your money and freedom is a way to stop you. Its like someone coming up and saying you 'might' want to pay him $100 a week because if you don't something bad 'might' happen to your children. There's nothing stopping you from not paying him but the implied threat of not following his 'suggestion' is probably going to 'force' you to pay.


The bigger point is why should you have to give up your rights to the whims of the government just to earn money?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

A sign stating I maintain my right to freedom that includes who I do work for. 

Homosexual can take a cake off the shelf, nothing more....big money saver and do what they want with it I Do not and would not do anything special ....wedding cakes are special order. Most wedding stuff is special order.

Plummets told that the did not trust per and would not do work for me .....no big deal it was a special then. People are free to say no I do not want to work for you.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I'm curious as to why every discussion about same sex marriage ends with a discussion over cake.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

There was a pair of mean selfish homosexuals who would only be happy if they forced a deeply religious owner of a cake shop to breach their faith and make the homosexuals a wedding cake specially for their homosexual wedding. It was a hateful thing to do by the homosexuals couple. Homosexual couple truly were the perpetrators of an act of bullying but they waved their pink flag of being Victims. Being the times that it is in this puplicly controlled times. Where society is too intimidated with many in fear of being in pc. The courts a poor call,now the shop is closed for all.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> There was a pair of mean selfish homosexuals who would only be happy if they forced a deeply religious owner of a cake shop to breach their faith and make the homosexuals a wedding cake specially for their homosexual wedding. It was a hateful thing to do by the homosexuals couple. Homosexual couple truly were the perpetrators of an act of bullying but they waved their pink flag of being Victims. Being the times that it is in this puplicly controlled times. Where society is too intimidated with many in fear of being in pc. The courts a poor call,now the shop is closed for all.



I know about the cake incident but perhaps you can clarify a few details since you brought it up. 

Is pink the international colour of victims or something you have personally assigned because I honestly thought the breast cancer folks own pink. 

Since this one incident seems huge in your opinion, you must feel all pink flag carrying gays are going to sue somebody. Do they do this often in the US or are you just on the alert for other pink flag waving victims? If so, you'd best start worrying about those breast cancer people because they're pretty serious about their pink flags.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Actions have consequences. Breaking a law has consequences. Work to change the law. That's your perogative. But don't expect there to be no cost in that work. I never read that Martin Luther King objected to being arrested. In fact, the goal of many of the civil rights protests was to be arrested in order to show how unjust the laws were.


 You are saying that any objection to an interpretation of the law is trivial unless you are willing to go to jail. Which is as shallow an idea as possible. To demand that the baker in question be willing to be sued out of house and home or protest violently enough to get arrested before his right to refuse to make gay wedding cakes is taken recognized. Unless of course you also believe that the gay couple who sued should have protested violently enough to get arrested to prove they were validly concerned in their opinion.
There is already exists the limitation to government law that says the government can't make a law infinging on the free practice of religion. The Constitution. If the Civil Rights Law creates a conflict with that principle, then the Civil Rights Law is unconstitutional. So there really is no law that says you can't refuse to sell cakes with a specific theme even if it creates a religious conflict. Like the old Jim Crow laws, it is a misuse of the law. And because you choose to trivialize the concerns of religion, that does not make it a reasonable standard.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wr you have stated what I must think....so be happy.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> I'm curious as to why every discussion about same sex marriage ends with a discussion over cake.


Because it shows the petty nature of trying to make everyone over into your own image.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Wr you have stated what I must think....so be happy.



I was just making sure that I understood the direction of contempt and it seems to be pink flag wavers that want to order cakes from non pink flag wavers although I do think you made a comment earlier about fussy wussy gays that I'm curious about. 

Do you have any other tired old stereotypes you'd like to use too?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Jesus suffered for his beliefs. I think he would make cake for gay people. He made wine for a wedding without vetting everyone there. And got a new hole chewed for it. And then there's that story about a bunch of fish and bread.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

wyld thang said:


> Jesus suffered for his beliefs. I think he would make cake for gay people. He made wine for a wedding without vetting everyone there. And got a new hole chewed for it. And then there's that story about a bunch of fish and bread.



I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure if he was particularly fond of slinging insults either but I'm not a bible expert.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

He slung many insults. He called the pharasees a bunch of sons of vipers. We say it a little different. He flipped the tax changers tables and ran them out of the temple. He also said when asked about marriage "that as it was in the beginning and still is that a man shall leave his family and take a wife and the wife shall leave her family and take a husband and the two shall become one". No other form of marriage mentioned, no just two people in love. He said a man and a woman.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

wr said:


> I'm curious as to why every discussion about same sex marriage ends with a discussion over cake.


Because cake is goooood!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> There was a pair of mean selfish homosexuals who would only be happy if they forced a deeply religious owner of a cake shop to breach their faith and make the homosexuals a wedding cake specially for their homosexual wedding. It was a hateful thing to do by the homosexuals couple. Homosexual couple truly were the perpetrators of an act of bullying but they waved their pink flag of being Victims. Being the times that it is in this puplicly controlled times. Where society is too intimidated with many in fear of being in pc. The courts a poor call,now the shop is closed for all.


Here's a story that outlines the case and the judge's ruling. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/Maybe if you or the bakers could have explained what would have made it a "homosexual cake" the outcome would have been different. No designs or other details were discussed before the baker refused. The couple in question didn't sue for damages. They don't appear to have walked in with any agenda other than ordering a cake nor did they cause a disruption. They filed a complaint with the proper authorities and things proceeded from there. The bakers didn't even have to pay a fine in this case. They were just told to comply with law going forward. And gays generally fly the rainbow flag.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> And how are you going to drive 90 mph while sitting in a jail cell? Seems to me once you are in jail they HAVE stopped you.
> 
> And the threat of losing your money and freedom is a way to stop you. Its like someone coming up and saying you 'might' want to pay him $100 a week because if you don't something bad 'might' happen to your children. There's nothing stopping you from not paying him but the implied threat of not following his 'suggestion' is probably going to 'force' you to pay.
> 
> ...


I'm not. But I might after I get out of jail. The bigger point really is that the bakers broke the law. They paid no fines and paid no damages. They were simply told to comply with the law going forward. There are ways they could have continued to bake and sell cakes to only they chose. They chose not to.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> You are saying that any objection to an interpretation of the law is trivial unless you are willing to go to jail. Which is as shallow an idea as possible. To demand that the baker in question be willing to be sued out of house and home or protest violently enough to get arrested before his right to refuse to make gay wedding cakes is taken recognized. Unless of course you also believe that the gay couple who sued should have protested violently enough to get arrested to prove they were validly concerned in their opinion.
> There is already exists the limitation to government law that says the government can't make a law infinging on the free practice of religion. The Constitution. If the Civil Rights Law creates a conflict with that principle, then the Civil Rights Law is unconstitutional. So there really is no law that says you can't refuse to sell cakes with a specific theme even if it creates a religious conflict. Like the old Jim Crow laws, it is a misuse of the law. And because you choose to trivialize the concerns of religion, that does not make it a reasonable standard.


Not what I said at all. I simply don't understand why some think that civil disobedience should come without consequence. The bakers weren't threatened to be sued out of house and home. They faced civil charges that they broke the law. The couple involved didn't ask for damages and the judge levied no fines. There was no evidence presented that baking a cake is somehow a religous act. I trivializes religion to try to use it to justify blatant discrimination.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure if he was particularly fond of slinging insults either but I'm not a bible expert.


He did aim some harsh words, aka insults, at people at times. Off the top of my head I can remember He called people vipers, robbers, fools and hypocrites. I'm betting there are others. 

You might want to know that in at one case He even used what most people would call violence. Read John 2:13-17.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

You also need to remember, that while Jesus preached forgiveness, he also told them to repent & sin no more. A lot of people will bring up the adulteress when discussing forgiveness & tell of how Jesus forgave her. Yes, he forgave her, but he didn't tell her to keep right on committing adultery. He told her to go & sin no more. Everyone can & will be forgiven if they repent & turn from their sin. You can be forgiven for anything if you are truly sorry. Living a life of sin, whether it is murdering people, gossiping, sexual sins, lying, stealing, etc. is wrong. You have to stop the sin to receive the grace given from God.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Here's a story that outlines the case and the judge's ruling. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/Maybe if you or the bakers could have explained what would have made it a "homosexual cake" the outcome would have been different. No designs or other details were discussed before the baker refused. The couple in question didn't sue for damages. They don't appear to have walked in with any agenda other than ordering a cake nor did they cause a disruption. They filed a complaint with the proper authorities and things proceeded from there. The bakers didn't even have to pay a fine in this case. They were just told to comply with law going forward. And gays generally fly the rainbow flag.


Easy....in the same way a birthday cake can be seen different from a wedding cake. Homosexuals want a cake fine take a plain premade cake from the shelf.

I maintain the right to practice my faith. No harm no foul.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> I was just making sure that I understood the direction of contempt and it seems to be pink flag wavers that want to order cakes from non pink flag wavers although I do think you made a comment earlier about fussy wussy gays that I'm curious about.
> 
> Do you have any other tired old stereotypes you'd like to use too?




Let me be clear.....what you want, ask for, does not mean I will provide it for you. What you think is what YOU think. You do not matter to me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Easy....in the same way a birthday cake can be seen different from a wedding cake. Homosexuals want a cake fine take a plain premade cake from the shelf.
> 
> I maintain the right to practice my faith. No harm no foul.


Then the premade cake would be a wedding cake just as a custom cake would be. The bakers would still seemingly have the same conflict. They would have made and sold a cake used by a gay couple to celebrate their wedding and dine it knowingly. But if you read the judges decision baking has nothing to do with religion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Let me be clear.....what you want, ask for, does not mean I will provide it for you. What you think is what YOU think. You do not matter to me.


But when you invite me into your establishment with the purpose of selling me something you are obligated by law to sell me those things just as you would to the person in front of or behind me in line. Don't want to sell me something don't invite me in.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Not what I said at all. I simply don't understand why some think that civil disobedience should come without consequence. The bakers weren't threatened to be sued out of house and home. They faced civil charges that they broke the law. The couple involved didn't ask for damages and the judge levied no fines. There was no evidence presented that baking a cake is somehow a religous act. I trivializes religion to try to use it to justify blatant discrimination.


They were forced to close their business as their principles would not allow compliance. What you say is the correct action is that a person can hold all the religious views they want but just can't live by them in their business.

The Constitution, but evidently not the Colorado or Oregon law, says about only protecting the exercise of religious belief. For the State to expand the limits on free expression of religion, they must have a compelling interest in doing so. So far the US Supreme Court has not accepted a case to test the constitutionality of the dismissing the protection of religious practice in these cases but there are more and more of them and one day it will happen. If it can be proven that selling services or products used in a religious practice is protected, then that case will prevail.

I do think it waters down the baker's case to have sold a cake for a dog marriage, although they probably thought of it as not a sacrament but a joke as no recognized sacrament would take place. Still if marriage is a sacrament, then it is not material for a joke. But that could successfully be argued around.

Anyway, you assume that no religious belief can legally be practiced by a person in a business and that will turn out to be wrong. Sooner or later there will be a religious exception as there is no compelling (to any rational person) reason the state must force a person to quit their business of non-life threatening activity to avoid violating a pretty commonly held religious based principle.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> But when you invite me into your establishment with the purpose of selling me something you are obligated by law to sell me those things just as you would to the person in front of or behind me in line. Don't want to sell me something don't invite me in.




No, I refuse people who I fine to be a problem. Take the plain cake off the shelf. As is . No writing. Plain walk out and do what you want. Want it customized or made to order......my choice period end of story. I do not have to use my time in matters if find distasteful, or offensive. I make the determination what is distasteful and what is offensive to me. It is my life 
I am not here for you.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

wr said:


> I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure if he was particularly fond of slinging insults either but I'm not a bible expert.


IMO he didn't insult, just truthfully called a spade a spade. there's a difference


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wyld thang said:


> IMO he didn't insult, just truthfully called a spade a spade. there's a difference


Evidently not to all spades.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Bringing up the woman caught/taken in adultery then that is a unique story. First off Jesus did not "forgive" the woman. He said I do not condemn you--ie as the witch burners had slunk off and acquiesced THEIR condemnation and punishment of her for adultery, Jesus acknowledged there was nothing to condemn her for the accused sin of adultery, and that he did not condemn...no evidence of sin as it were.

After that Jesus sent the woman off with a general "go and sin no more" and AGAIN did not tell her to quit adultering.

People again and again keep on condemning this woman of adultery when Jesus DOES NOT. 

Please remember this was the middle east and Jesus was incredibly uh, "progressive" for the value of women as a human being, equally deserving of God's love. Women were and still are accused unjustly and forced into "sin" like adultery(sex slave) because of either class, bad luck, or poverty. We do NOT know this woman's backstory in the retelling of this as a example of the whole forgiveness and quit yer sinning thing.

This story is totally about the self righteous religious jerks who wanted to trick Jesus and either get the Romans to deal with him, or trip him up and have the Jewish religious leaders CONDEMN him. Which, remember, ended up all going down. "Let the one without sin cast the first stone" is the lesson of this story. And of course, thank God he is more merciful than we are.

There are pictures on there of real women that have been stoned, a woman that is getting buried in preparation to be stoned, and a naked woman paraded through the streets of France. Personally I don't care if these women were "technically" adulterous, if you have no compassion looking upon these scenes you have a heart of stone. And Jesus is sad for you.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

"It is my life 
I am not here for you."

Said Jesus, not ever.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The quality of my life is not impacted by other people thoughts.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Wendy said:


> You also need to remember, that while Jesus preached forgiveness, he also told them to repent & sin no more. A lot of people will bring up the adulteress when discussing forgiveness & tell of how Jesus forgave her. Yes, he forgave her, but he didn't tell her to keep right on committing adultery. He told her to go & sin no more. Everyone can & will be forgiven if they repent & turn from their sin. You can be forgiven for anything if you are truly sorry. Living a life of sin, whether it is murdering people, gossiping, sexual sins, lying, stealing, etc. is wrong. You have to stop the sin to receive the grace given from God.



It is my understanding that Jesus also discouraged people from passing judgment on others or has he appointed a committee that I'm unaware of?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> It is my understanding that Jesus also discouraged people from passing judgment on others or has he appointed a committee that I'm unaware of?


You might have that as an understanding but I will stick with what IS found in my Bible. You get your beliefs others have theirs to live by.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> It is my understanding that Jesus also discouraged people from passing judgment on others or has he appointed a committee that I'm unaware of?


Actually, there are scripture passages that talk of helping your brother turn from their sin & how great it is if you can bring even one person back from sin. Don't remember the exact versus, but I can find them if you really want. 

It's kind of like a train wreck about to happen. If I see someone that is going to be hit by a train then I would try to pull them back & help them. If I see someone in serious sin then as a Christian I am supposed to try to help them turn from that sin & follow Christ. Now, I will try to do so, but if that person refuses to see that what they are doing is sinful, then I will leave them. My job is done. It is up to them to follow Christ or not. If I encourage people in their sinful acts then I am condoning sinful behavior & therefore guilty of that sin as well because I am not trying to help them. 

This is the problem with the world today. No one wants to see anything as sinful. If it makes them happy, then that's all that matters. God gave us laws to follow & they still apply today, even though a lot of people will say they don't. Pretty much why there are so many different religions. Someone in a church decides they don't like what is being taught. They don't like it so they go start a church that makes them feel all warm & fuzzy. People do not like to hear what they are doing is wrong. Kind of like a 2 year old. As a parent we know what is best for our child & will keep them from harm by laying down rules. God as our father did the same. Like 2 year olds, we continually try to get him to change the rules because we don't like them, even though the rules laid down are what is the best for us. Just because everyone does something does not make it right. The perfect example is people living together & having kids out of wedlock. It is so common now that people don't see it as being wrong anymore. This is not what God intended. God intended for a man to leave his mother & cling to his wife. To bring children into the world created by that love. Instead, a huge amount of those kids are made out of lust & are denied the right of having a mother & a father. The Bible is pretty clear on certain things, yet we as humans think we know better than God. 

For those that don't believe in God, well, I guess the rules don't apply. For those that say they are Christian & do believe in God, then you don't get to pick & choose which rules you want to follow.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wendy, that's what I got from the book too.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> They were forced to close their business as their principles would not allow compliance. What you say is the correct action is that a person can hold all the religious views they want but just can't live by them in their business.
> 
> The Constitution, but evidently not the Colorado or Oregon law, says about only protecting the exercise of religious belief. For the State to expand the limits on free expression of religion, they must have a compelling interest in doing so. So far the US Supreme Court has not accepted a case to test the constitutionality of the dismissing the protection of religious practice in these cases but there are more and more of them and one day it will happen. If it can be proven that selling services or products used in a religious practice is protected, then that case will prevail.
> 
> ...


I don't doubt that a business can find a legitimate , legal belief to fold into their business practices. I don't for example think that government can compel a business to open on the sabbath or a religous holiday. There is room for religous conviction in business. But there's nothing religous about baking a cake. This couple didn't force their way into a private home or club. They didn't demand any special treatment. They walked into an open door that invited them in . They only expected the same treatment that the couple walking in before them recieved. They only expected the same treatment that the couple walking in behind them would receive. They only asked for the same treatment this faciltry gave dogs. There may come a Supreme Court decision on a case similar to this. I doubt the outcome will be to your liking and I doubt that settled law will end the controversy.

But since you're here again, let's get back to that question about snowflake babies and genetic ties and the rights and tax benefits bestowed on their "parents" which you would wish to deny a lesbian couple doing the exact same thing. What's the difference?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> No, I refuse people who I fine to be a problem. Take the plain cake off the shelf. As is . No writing. Plain walk out and do what you want. Want it customized or made to order......my choice period end of story. I do not have to use my time in matters if find distasteful, or offensive. I make the determination what is distasteful and what is offensive to me. It is my life
> I am not here for you.


But you still willingly baked and sold a cake for use in a gay wedding. That is exactly the thing that the bakers said they could not do. There is no distinction. It is still a cake used in a gay wedding baked by a profited from by the bakers. It still involves the very acts they say their god disapproves of and threatens their spritual being. Maybe they can explain the difference to their god better than you have explained it to me.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

They requested a wedding cake. To have a cake specially made for them in the style acceptable for their wedding for a future date. 

Taking a cake off the shelf would be akin to selling rat poison of the shelf to a person vs taking time to discuss with a potential customer on the best poison to kill one's mother in law prior to him selecting what you felt would do the job of killing someone.

In case on where the rat poison is simply purchased the seller holds no guilt.

In the case where the seller knew the intended use of the item he does share in the deed.

Aiding and abetting sin ....leading to temptation not good.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

There are many verses about Christians judging sins righteously and helping those same sinners. As to the adulterous Wyman. He turned and said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Meaning yes she was sinning but so do we all. But he then said go and sin no more. So her sin was present so she needed to go and do it no more. And Jesus knew it was a sin and by law they could stone her and by him saying go ahead and carry out the law means she did it and deserved it by law. But he said let the man without sin start it. So she did sin and could be killed for it and was told do it no more.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> They requested a wedding cake. To have a cake specially made for them in the style acceptable for their wedding for a future date.
> 
> Taking a cake off the shelf would be akin to selling rat poison of the shelf to a person vs taking time to discuss with a potential customer on the best poison to kill one's mother in law prior to him selecting what you felt would do the job of killing someone.
> 
> ...


But you never said you wouldn't sell them a cake for use in their celebration. You said you would steer them towards a premade cake to fulfill their request. As long as you knew they were gay, and you knew what the cake was to be used for you would be, in your words, aiding and ebetting sin. The bakers in this case said they wouldn't even allow a heterosexual to purchase a cake to be used to celebrate a gay wedding. If you don't wish to sell cakes in your store don't. If you do, do. I could use a wedding cake to celebrate a birthday, anniversary or just Tuesday. It doesn't fundamentally alter the make up of the cake. Nothing about baking a cake makes it a religous event.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I have explained. My crayons have been all used up. Others get it. I can't help everyone and you make st be one I can't. That's no about. They and just about everyone wanting a wedding cake goes to the cake maker well in advance of the wedding.

In fact appointments are made with the bake shop to plane and design a wedding cake. For cakes off the rack people do not do that. It is Frist come first serve... think black Friday shopping customization is not happening on black Friday. Even homosexuals are not getting special treatment shopping g on black Friday ....cause no one is getting it.

No, see these people did not want a cake where they might have to personal have scrape of HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO and the sever it at their wedding. The shop owners sell any special cake but drew a line in the sand in the same place I have. I will not do a cake for a homosexual wedding . That means no taking an appointment the book my time to aid in design ing a special cake to their satisfaction. 

If the goal of the homosexual couple was to enjoy the pastry only crafted by that shopp they could have.... but the wanted to make a Christian bow to their sinful life choices and their method was to have the cake maker participate in the supporting the sin for the lust of money .... the money did not tempt the cake baked they stood firm on their beliefs.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Oh the homosexual couple had in the past purchased products from the baker.....just never something that would be used to promote sin. 

That is why the homosexual couple in my view committed a hated crime for bullying over a person right to practice their faith.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> He did aim some harsh words, aka insults, at people at times. Off the top of my head I can remember He called people vipers, robbers, fools and hypocrites. I'm betting there are others.
> 
> You might want to know that in at one case He even used what most people would call violence. Read John 2:13-17.


Yes but who was He calling names? The rigid leaders of the (then) current Church who were rigid in their beliefs.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wrong.....those who were abusing the faithfully for gain. As it has been told there will be those who claim to lead to Christ and follow to God but they will have false teachings and some will do it to line their pockets.

The deceitful can put on and enticing show. Poison is often made palatable to the taste.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> It is my understanding that Jesus also discouraged people from passing judgment on others or has he appointed a committee that I'm unaware of?


Actually its just the opposite. We are not only told to judge people we are given the standards to use when judging them. Even the section of the Bible that most sinners bring up when they want you to stop pointing out their sin (Judge not lest. . .) if you read the entire section you will see He is not telling people not judge. He is telling them to judge their own life and get it in order THEN go out and judge their brother.

What kind of horrific person would see someone they thought was doing things which would result in them going to Hell and just go "Well I can't judge their actions so I'm not going to say anything." To me not looking at a person's actions and judging them is one of the most EVIL things there could ever be done.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Yes but who was He calling names? The rigid leaders of the (then) current Church who were rigid in their beliefs.


The people He called robbers and got violent with were not church leaders.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> What kind of horrific person would see someone they thought was doing things which would result in them going to Hell and just go "Well I can't judge their actions so I'm not going to say anything."


Just so you know, keeping gays from marrying isn't going to prevent them from doing what they do.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Understand I mean look at how so many support Obama care.....even with the videos with the head people lying ...the pres. Nancy ...... ,calling the people too stupid to understand it won't work as they were told. So you ​are right out in the open jumping for joy. You CAN'T fix stupid but you can refuse to part take and state your reason each time.

There are still me that really only think of today a pleasure, money is often away to find pleasurable think today when other pay for the needs.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

wow. I could give them a card for an erotic bakery in Seattle. this makes me want to bake gay cakes and do a dance on the table to boot for good measure. this is why I love the simplicity of buddhism--be compassion (and stuff will sort itself out). I have seen love do so much more good magic in people's lives than judgement and meanness. that is how I choose to live. 

and I will be honest and say a time ago I felt just as offended and self righteous regarding the gay "thing". and I said many of the same things here. but life has a way of happening and since I told life to beat the hell out of me to teach me the truth, I got beaten so good, so so good. I made gay(and otherwise) friends, and was taken to heart in a precious way that taught me much. That all of this is about being a HUMAN BEING. yeah Im an "unrepentant" heretic. And strangely, God has led me on this journey.

there is something so exquisitely beautiful and divine about people who are what they really are, and do it with love. 

nobody is without sin, which in essence, is the absence of love. that is all it is. we strive to define sin as a bunch of don't do this, so we don't have to ask ourselves if we are acting well or with prudence, and so we can sidestep the responsibility to be love to the world, to be a light--because THAT can get uncomfortable and weird and scary. I choose to err on the side of a religion of yes, than a religion of no.

I just feel really sad for those who choose the religion of no, life is so dark and small. I know I been there. Life is really full of light and immensity, now.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

We'll feel sad for each other. I just think that when you care you put the poisonous stuff out of reach and say no.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

death where is thy sting?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

39 Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." 40 The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? 41 And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 He replied to him, "Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:39-43

This religion of no says to Jesus "save me". The religion of yes says to Jesus "remember me".


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> We'll feel sad for each other. I just think that when you care you put the poisonous stuff out of reach and say no.


Yep :buds: Going to bite a lot of people :thumb:
Isaiah 5:21 CJB
Complete Jewish Bible
Woe to those seeing themselves as wise, esteeming themselves as clever.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wyld thang said:


> 39 Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." 40 The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? 41 And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 He replied to him, "Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:39-43
> 
> This religion of no says to Jesus "save me". The religion of yes says to Jesus "remember me".



Look at your own link. The repentant...sorrowful thief owned up to the sin accepting that there were boundaries he crossed and saw the difference with the other condemed that while both saw Jesus as more than just a man one was not sorry and again wanted the quickie out of boring hardship and mock Jesus to save all three of the just because he he ...Jesus could and did have it in his ability. Yet, he ...Jesus did not yield to the easy painless path and to the repentant thief he granted him paradise that day.

So, even though I have a Will sin again and again I really do want to do better I do not gain any brownie point for not supporting homosexuals but it does aid me in that I see just how easy pleasure and acceptance as well as money tempts one down paths that are damming. Most of us can see plainly to planning to kill your wife is evil and not a ticket to good things as such those things are easy to avoid doing but what about killing someone who you feel will make your life hard someone with few contacts with society and needy is it easier to kill with out doing it yourself...never seeing the pain hiring a hit man. What if you lived in a time where you could just kill people who caused you difficulties and no one cares. Would you support abortion then.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Look at your own link. The repentant...sorrowful thief owned up to the sin accepting that there were boundaries he crossed and saw the difference with the other condemed that while both saw Jesus as more than just a man one was not sorry and again wanted the quickie out of boring hardship and mock Jesus to save all three of the just because he he ...Jesus could and did have it in his ability. Yet, he ...Jesus did not yield to the easy painless path and to the repentant thief he granted him paradise that day.
> 
> So, even though I have a Will sin again and again I really do want to do better I do not gain any brownie point for not supporting homosexuals but it does aid me in that I see just how easy pleasure and acceptance as well as money tempts one down paths that are damming. Most of us can see plainly to planning to kill your wife is evil and not a ticket to good things as such those things are easy to avoid doing but what about killing someone who you feel will make your life hard someone with few contacts with society and needy is it easier to kill with out doing it yourself...never seeing the pain hiring a hit man. What if you lived in a time where you could just kill people who caused you difficulties and no one cares. Would you support abortion then.


huh? first off I used the Wikipedia link for to get the scripture ref for the thief on the cross and wasn't interested in the interpretation and did not quote it so please don't use it against me. Though, ha, I offered my own interp to the ether here. 

As to the question of me supporting abortion of people who will commit crimes against me (I think that's what you're saying...uh, Minority Report anyone?). Um. No. Namaste. And, I'm really confused how this fits into refusing to bake a gay cake(IMO, out of spite...which although the refusal may not have been acted in spite, it sure smacks of it, and if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck). 

And when I read that scripture, I really don't see any repentance at all, just an acceptance that he committed a crime and deserved his punishment, and that he recognized true goodness and Jesus's undeserved execution and spoke the truth of this and his own guilt, and humbly, simply, asked to be remembered by someone good, who had the power to do this, in paradise. 

I know this rocks to boat to observe this "get-around" the dogmatic concept of a formulaic repentance(pray the Jesus prayer...). Yet the story stands, and has stayed in the bible. And frankly, it opens up that possibility that Jesus can be known by other names and ways than the current dictator in power(the cannibal on the desert island conundrum).


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I used your link fyi. I fits because in this world today we are truly amoral. Add to that a vocal group enjoys doing what ever, when as long as they receive pleasure or benefits. People who stand .....like the repentant sinner and accept that the screwed up and want to improve deal with the vocal group saying we will force you to accept evil as good ...as it has been predicted that this time would come. Some will know it is wrong but so we indoctrinate in double control where stand up for morality is to go against this new society.

Did you understand from your choice of biblical passages that the thief who was not sorry and mocked Jesus went to paradise.?

I can't stop a drunk from drink but helping deny the problem and risks he takes is weak, and or cruel. I am not going to Change my position even if it hurts you to hear it. Some people are sell outs just to fit in so in need of human acceptance they sell their soles.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Most of us can see plainly to planning to kill your wife is evil and not a ticket to good things as such those things are easy to avoid doing but what about killing someone who you feel will make your life hard someone with few contacts with society and needy is it easier to kill with out doing it yourself...never seeing the pain hiring a hit man. What if you lived in a time where you could just kill people who caused you difficulties and no one cares. Would you support abortion then.


Actually, this is hugely ironic you ask this, cuz, I actually have some experience here. I was a faithful wife to my husband of 25 years, watched him go mad and become abusive, finally cried uncle and said I can't do this anymore, and he killed himself. A self righteous element of my family said I killed him. hiring a friend to shoot him and make it look like suicide. Luckily all the people this person called up to tell his theory to also knew me and how far from the truth that could ever be told him to be quiet. I can't tell you how much it hurt to be accused unjustly of that. I know this person was hurting over my husband;s death and this was how it manifested. But still. God, the question of aborting the "problem" of making my life difficult is wrenching. Jesus Christ.

Who needs God to ---- us, we do it enough to each other already.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> I used your link fyi. I fits because in this world today we are truly amoral. Add to that a vocal group enjoys doing what ever, when as long as they receive pleasure or benefits. People who stand .....like the repentant sinner and accept that the screwed up and want to improve deal with the vocal group saying we will force you to accept evil as good ...as it has been predicted that this time would come. Some will know it is wrong but so we indoctrinate in double control where stand up for morality is to go against this new society.
> 
> Did you understand from your choice of biblical passages that the thief who was not sorry and mocked Jesus went to paradise.?
> 
> I can't stop a drunk from drink but helping deny the problem and risks he takes is weak, and or cruel. I am not going to Change my position even if it hurts you to hear it. Some people are sell outs just to fit in so in need of human acceptance they sell their soles.


I don't ever expect to change your position ever. but I am speaking up so a different point of view is spoken in this conversation...much like you. 

I have a son I had to let hit the bottom(per your drunk example), and I was terrified he would die and take someone with him. I never judged him, even though he told me terrible things in an effort to shock me, and he told me he had hate for me. I never judged, I did not bat an eye, I just loved him and returned love for (apparent) hate, which was really intense pain. I never judged. I trusted and honored the Namaste. He is in a much better place now, "turned around". I have seen how powerful love, REAL love, is.
I did not flinch in the face of this suffering, he said "you didn't judge me mom". 

I have a different interpretation of this amoral world. I see it as the church reaping the consequences of existing away from the truth of Jesus Christ, controlling people by fear and judgement and pride--phariseeism, the very thing Christ had no love for. The church has set itself up as God, and as happens to every false idol, it can't keep it up and so falls and dies. But no fear, the real thing endures. And it's all around if you have eyes to see. Even in gays who just want to buy a wedding cake.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

watcher said:


> Actually its just the opposite. We are not only told to judge people we are given the standards to use when judging them. Even the section of the Bible that most sinners bring up when they want you to stop pointing out their sin (Judge not lest. . .) if you read the entire section you will see He is not telling people not judge. He is telling them to judge their own life and get it in order THEN go out and judge their brother.
> 
> What kind of horrific person would see someone they thought was doing things which would result in them going to Hell and just go "Well I can't judge their actions so I'm not going to say anything." To me not looking at a person's actions and judging them is one of the most EVIL things there could ever be done.


 Guess I'm the worst sort of evil there is then, and I will own it with all my heart. I work with kids at an at-risk school and problem horses. In every case I "see" their negative behavior, but engage them on any positive footing I can conjure and build a home upon the solid rock. I dwell within the Namaste, and dance with the good that is still within. The rest takes care of itself. You see sin, I see pain. I ask myself, pray, how can I ease this suffering. All judging does is cause more pain, and comes from pain as well.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

ps, I should add I do not try to protect or prevent someone from experiencing the consequences of their actions. but I will walk with them through that experience, and hope to see them in paradise.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

watcher said:


> The people He called robbers and got violent with were not church leaders.


And who did he call: vipers? hypocrites, blind guides, etc
Shall I go on?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Many of the people who preach about 'resisting the temptations of the gay lifestyle' are probably self-loathing, closeted homosexuals. As a straight man, I can tell you there is absolutely nothing 'tempting' about the 'gay lifestyle'... You're either born with those tendencies or you're not. And I don't condemn someone for being born a certain way. 
Some folks, it appear 'doth protest too much'. Amazing how many rabid anti-gay people wind up being revealed as gay themselves. 
As far as people being more 'amoral' today, thats hogwash also. People are people, and they've been lying, cheating, and murdering each other since time began.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I can't find the youtube quickie thing, but just wanted to throw this into the fray. for him who has ears to hear 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd1CHFfym1s&list=RDIz6tP405nRo&index=9[/ame]


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Sounds like a coming out speech to me! :shrug: Seems that when someone touts how "straight" they are....their usually not! To each his own!!!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

R
T
Proving services such as when it was cool and compassionate to provide needles to druggies to aid them from the temptation of continuing to shoot up esp when aids was found to transfer via blood /needles was cruel. Rather that get them into detox at a time when the fear of getting aids via sharing drug needles seemed to impact many druggies to clean up. Handing out clean needles kept the shoot in up in fact it tempted and encouraged it. Those angels reaching out in compassion for the druggies destroyed peoples lives. Yea, I get that the druggies were happy to get clean needles but see they stayed hook and were happy to use a dirty needle too....the compassion angels aided and abetted people to stay addicted, and desperate for the next fix, sell themselves getting in deeper, robbing and steal for more .....people died.

What if when the reality of the drug use was not made socially acceptable what if those who continued to play the wonderful loving people did not continue to temp a fellow human that drug shooting up was safe.


What if the temptation was removed because sane minds said stop tempting the druggies to continue.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> For those that say they are Christian & do believe in God, then you don't get to pick & choose which rules you want to follow.


Luckily for you guys, Jesus narrowed them down to only two.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

wyld thang said:


> ps, I should add I do not try to protect or prevent someone from experiencing the consequences of their actions. but I will walk with them through that experience, and hope to see them in paradise.


Would you truly let a child touch a hot stove .Would you let a blind man fall in a pit .

No one is born a soddimite if so that would contradict the Bible in total :hammer: 

Here is who a lot listen to always have always will .That is ones free choice:thumb:
But the serpent said to the woman, &#8220;You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.&#8221; 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,2 she took of its fruit xand ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, yand he ate.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> No one is born a -------- if so that would contradict the Bible in total


So sexual orientation is a matter of choice? Tell me, when did you decide to be a heterosexual? Because you just as easily could have chosen to be gay, right? :shrug:


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I chose to be heterosexual when i seen a mom and dad loving each other and I and my brother were the result. It made sense and fit. At the time I only played with the neighborhood boys. Liked them much better than the girls. But my surroundings, environment and exposure to my family taught me natural order of the way things should work.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

But you really can't know for sure one is better until you've experienced both...give it a try and get back to us.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I don't know that a person can chose who he's attracted to. You could make a choice to not act on an attraction, but there is no choice in being attracted.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> So sexual orientation is a matter of choice? Tell me, when did you decide to be a heterosexual? Because you just as easily could have chosen to be gay, right? :shrug:


Read post # 236 real slow again. Eve made the first recorded choice and got ever one on the same wagon :hammer:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> R
> T
> Proving services such as when it was cool and compassionate to provide needles to druggies to aid them from the temptation of continuing to shoot up esp when aids was found to transfer via blood /needles was cruel. Rather that get them into detox at a time when the fear of getting aids via sharing drug needles seemed to impact many druggies to clean up. Handing out clean needles kept the shoot in up in fact it tempted and encouraged it. Those angels reaching out in compassion for the druggies destroyed peoples lives. Yea, I get that the druggies were happy to get clean needles but see they stayed hook and were happy to use a dirty needle too....the compassion angels aided and abetted people to stay addicted, and desperate for the next fix, sell themselves getting in deeper, robbing and steal for more .....people died.
> 
> ...


 a clean needle, or otherwise, is not what "tempts" the druggies to continue


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

In an effort to be valued and accept people can be willing to do anything to feel loved and wanted. As fear of being labeled homophobes and fear of profit margins tallies along with guilty persons in media and Hollywood wanting to grab air time for fame homosexuality has gained ground in acceptance.


As it spreads more and more families have to deal with family members choices. 
You love them and they are in a bad spot in showing love for the individual and knowing but not discussing the harm it has spread. Now, if you can't mention the problem with your family members people feel powerless to say anything to friend and other. 

It is out there and always has been out there. So has rape, stealing, and ctrl ....the fact that it is does not make it right. Crack houses are are they good.

Lost confused soles just wanting to be accepted will take risks just like many things that one fines pleasure in there can be harm in it. 

Homosexuality is really sad.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Would you truly let a child touch a hot stove .Would you let a blind man fall in a pit .
> 
> No one is born a soddimite if so that would contradict the Bible in total :hammer:
> 
> ...


My young children were in my arms or on my back when the stove was hot, when they were older I gave them their own pot and spoon to stir. If I walk with the blind man hand in hand, then we skirt the pits. 

On the other hand, never know what will happen when you fall down the rabbit hole ;D


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> So sexual orientation is a matter of choice? Tell me, when did you decide to be a heterosexual? Because you just as easily could have chosen to be gay, right? :shrug:


We are heterosexual until a decision is made to not be one!! It really is that simple, our anatomical functions prove it!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wyld thang said:


> a clean needle, or otherwise, is not what "tempts" the druggies to continue


Yes it did, many people have stated that with clean needles provided at no charge the were free to continue when then had a reason to quit.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So why would you prevent the kids to play with the stove....did you see that they could get hurt .....what about letting your kids to learn about freedom....they were born free. 

Or did you love them and want them safe


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Read post # 236 real slow again. Eve made the first recorded choice and got ever one on the same wagon :hammer:


Umm, you didn't answer my question. If you believe sexual orientation is merely a choice, then surely you remember when you made yours, right? I mean, it seems like it would be a fairly momentous decision, not one easily forgotten.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> We are heterosexual until a decision is made to not be one!! It really is that simple, our anatomical functions prove it!


Umm, no. I don't think 'heterosexual' is some kind of default setting. From the time I understood what it meant to be sexual, I knew I was bi. Talking to gay folks, it seems most feel the same way about their orientation. And if you're old enough (as I am) to have watched at least one generation of kids grow up, I'm pretty sure you could pick out who the gay ones were even before they reached puberty.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> So why would you prevent the kids to play with the stove....did you see that they could get hurt .....what about letting your kids to learn about freedom....they were born free.
> 
> Or did you love them and want them safe


so its one or the other then, freedom versus safety

maybe that day(s) when I burned myself on the stove and yelled and cried they got a clue  stuff happens

when they were the appropriate age to use the stove I taught them how and had them help me prepare a meal. before that if they showed interest in stove goings on I gave them their own pot and spoon to "cook" with in a age appropriate manner. before that as I said I had them in my arms or on my back and they could watch me use the stove.

with guns I started with squirt guns. when they showed the mental and physical maturity to learn to handle a gun they got a pellet gun. when they showed a consistant responsibility and respect for guns they got the rifle.

for moral teaching I strove to be a loving, faithful person to act in love.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Umm, no. I don't think 'heterosexual' is some kind of default setting. From the time I understood what it meant to be sexual, I knew I was bi. Talking to gay folks, it seems most feel the same way about their orientation. And if you're old enough (as I am) to have watched at least one generation of kids grow up, I'm pretty sure you could pick out who the gay ones were even before they reached puberty.


Um, yes, it is our default setting. Care to prove otherwise? 
What you "think" or feel, is irrelevant. I also thought some were, but weren't! It's still a choice, plan and simple. Your a female and you like relationships with other females, good for you! That's your choice! I didn't choose anything I am heterosexual by default.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> I didn't choose anything I am heterosexual by default.


You may well be hetero by default...but could you make yourself enjoy having sex with dudes if you decided to?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Just so you know, keeping gays from marrying isn't going to prevent them from doing what they do.


Just so you know its clear no law is going to keep anyone from doing what they want to.

And to put in your info file I don't think the government has any right nor power to try to enforce morals via laws. I a strong Christian and a strong constitutionalist and the two work just fine together. I have no problem with gays doing what they want to as long as their actions do not interfere with someone else. But I do have a problem when someone wants the *government *to force others to change how they feel, act or think about a subject.

I've fought racism long and hard but I think you have the right as a citizen to not like <insert color here> people. As a private business owner you have the right to not hire nor serve <insert color here> people. As a private citizen you have the right to freely express you thoughts about your dislike of <insert color here> people. I think that any law or action of any government to prevent you from being able to do that is wrong and even *more repugnant* than the racism it is supposedly trying to end.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> 39 Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." 40 The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? 41 And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 He replied to him, "Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise." Luke 23:39-43
> 
> This religion of no says to Jesus "save me". The religion of yes says to Jesus "remember me".


You'll note that, in effect, Jesus said "No." to one of them? Only the one who expressed belief and asked was forgiven. Where do you think the other one is spending eternity?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> Guess I'm the worst sort of evil there is then, and I will own it with all my heart. I work with kids at an at-risk school and problem horses. In every case I "see" their negative behavior, but engage them on any positive footing I can conjure and build a home upon the solid rock. I dwell within the Namaste, and dance with the good that is still within. The rest takes care of itself. You see sin, I see pain. I ask myself, pray, how can I ease this suffering. All judging does is cause more pain, and comes from pain as well.


And if one of them told you he had bought a gun and was going to kill someone you would do nothing? After all you could not judge him nor his actions correct?

Standing by and letting evil happen and doing NOTHING to stop it is the worse form of evil there is.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> And who did he call: vipers? hypocrites, blind guides, etc
> Shall I go on?


So you admit He did insult people you just want to know who they were?

Most of them were those who were spitting in the face of God by claiming to be following the teachings of God but actually twisting those teachings to take glory from God.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> I have explained. My crayons have been all used up. Others get it. I can't help everyone and you make st be one I can't. That's no about. They and just about everyone wanting a wedding cake goes to the cake maker well in advance of the wedding.
> 
> In fact appointments are made with the bake shop to plane and design a wedding cake. For cakes off the rack people do not do that. It is Frist come first serve... think black Friday shopping customization is not happening on black Friday. Even homosexuals are not getting special treatment shopping g on black Friday ....cause no one is getting it.
> 
> ...


Maybe you can resharpen your crayons and explain to me how it is ok, in your mind , to participate a little in that gay wedding you disagree with so much. You are baking a cake. You are taking money in exchange for doing that. Your involvement isn't that much as designing a custom cake but it is involvement. If your god indeed will punish you for any involvement why is this limited involvement not also wrong? Is there a time limit, size limit or dollar amount you must stay under?

The bakers in Colorado insisted they would have no involvement with a gay wedding. This included not allowing a heterosexual to purchase a cake for use in such a celebration. I can understand that reasoning even if I don't agree with it. I can't understand the logic behind a belief that allows you to aid and abet a sin, as you put it, just a little bit.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> You may well be hetero by default...but could you make yourself enjoy having sex with dudes if you decided to?


If I choose to be gay, I suppose I would enjoy it, otherwise why make that choice?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Umm, you didn't answer my question. If you believe sexual orientation is merely a choice, then surely you remember when you made yours, right? I mean, it seems like it would be a fairly momentous decision, not one easily forgotten.


Yes I answered your question you just refuse to accept it :thumb:

Proverbs 14\6 King James Bible
A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Just so you know its clear no law is going to keep anyone from doing what they want to.
> 
> And to put in your info file I don't think the government has any right nor power to try to enforce morals via laws. I a strong Christian and a strong constitutionalist and the two work just fine together. I have no problem with gays doing what they want to as long as their actions do not interfere with someone else. But I do have a problem when someone wants the *government *to force others to change how they feel, act or think about a subject.
> 
> I've fought racism long and hard but I think you have the right as a citizen to not like <insert color here> people. As a private business owner you have the right to not hire nor serve <insert color here> people. As a private citizen you have the right to freely express you thoughts about your dislike of <insert color here> people. I think that any law or action of any government to prevent you from being able to do that is wrong and even *more repugnant* than the racism it is supposedly trying to end.


Weren't you arguing a few pages ago that laws could force people to do things? I believe you even tried to convince me they could force bakers to bake cakes they didn't wish to. Why the change of heart?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> If I choose to be gay, I suppose I would enjoy it, otherwise why make that choice?


But could you choose to be gay? That is the question. Can you choose to like having sex with other men? I don't think I could. I would like someone to give it a try and see how it goes.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

watcher said:


> And if one of them told you he had bought a gun and was going to kill someone you would do nothing? After all you could not judge him nor his actions correct?
> 
> Standing by and letting evil happen and doing NOTHING to stop it is the worse form of evil there is.


You didn't read what I said. I said I take POSITIVE action and involvement in the life. I said I appeared to be your idea of evil because what I do appears to you to be nothing because it's so far outside your box it is not even on the same planet. Thanks for proving my point. :thumb:


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> In an effort to be valued and accept people can be willing to do anything to feel loved and wanted. As fear of being labeled homophobes and fear of profit margins tallies along with guilty persons in media and Hollywood wanting to grab air time for fame homosexuality has gained ground in acceptance.
> 
> 
> As it spreads more and more families have to deal with family members choices.
> ...


Sorry, I was really trying to stay out of this thread but... wow, really? Homosexuality is really sad?

I socialize with quite a few members of the gay community through my sister who is gay. Most of them are in committed relationships, they hold jobs, they pay taxes, they own homes, they laugh, they cry, they play, they have us over for dinner during which we have a great time, they help us move and they are there for us in times of crisis, in fact, except for the fact that they are in a relationship with a person of the same sex, they are exactly like the rest of us. Some of them have adopted children (who, by the way, apparently are from heterosexual relationships gone wrong) and are raising them with as much love and compassion as any straight couple I know. It doesn't matter about the gender of those raising the children, as long as they are raising them with love and support. There are a lot of male and female role models in the world that kids are exposed to.

The gay community isn't trying to take over the world and convert anyone to their lifestyle like ISIS. Being gay isn't a virus that can spread like ebola. They are simply fighting for the right to love another person just like everyone else can. Recognizing gay marriage under the law is actually more stabilizing, allowing gay couples the same legal and financial rights as anyone else, regarding child custody and spousal survival benefits among other things.

To many of us, who someone has a relationship with is a non issue and has absolutely nothing to do with our lives. All we want is that they are happy. A "sin" has to involve a victim and be detrimental to society (eg. murder, rape, fraud). Neither applies to being gay.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> But could you choose to be gay? That is the question. Can you choose to like having sex with other men? I don't think I could. I would like someone to give it a try and see how it goes.


I'm heterosexual by default, so for me, there is no choice to be made. I'm not curious in the least about other folks sexual preferences. I've only ever been attracted to females.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe you can resharpen your crayons and explain to me how it is ok, in your mind , to participate a little in that gay wedding you disagree with so much. You are baking a cake. You are taking money in exchange for doing that. Your involvement isn't that much as designing a custom cake but it is involvement. If your god indeed will punish you for any involvement why is this limited involvement not also wrong? Is there a time limit, size limit or dollar amount you must stay under?
> 
> The bakers in Colorado insisted they would have no involvement with a gay wedding. This included not allowing a heterosexual to purchase a cake for use in such a celebration. I can understand that reasoning even if I don't agree with it. I can't understand the logic behind a belief that allows you to aid and abet a sin, as you put it, just a little bit.


I do not understand your question

Please quote me where you have interpreted I would aid a little bit.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe you can resharpen your crayons and explain to me how it is ok, in your mind , to participate a little in that gay wedding you disagree with so much. You are baking a cake. You are taking money in exchange for doing that. Your involvement isn't that much as designing a custom cake but it is involvement. If your god indeed will punish you for any involvement why is this limited involvement not also wrong? Is there a time limit, size limit or dollar amount you must stay under?
> 
> The bakers in Colorado insisted they would have no involvement with a gay wedding. This included not allowing a heterosexual to purchase a cake for use in such a celebration. I can understand that reasoning even if I don't agree with it. I can't understand the logic behind a belief that allows you to aid and abet a sin, as you put it, just a little bit.





Truckinguy said:


> Sorry, I was really trying to stay out of this thread but... wow, really? Homosexuality is really sad?
> 
> I socialize with quite a few members of the gay community through my sister who is gay. Most of them are in committed relationships, they hold jobs, they pay taxes, they own homes, they laugh, they cry, they play, they have us over for dinner during which we have a great time, they help us move and they are there for us in times of crisis, in fact, except for the fact that they are in a relationship with a person of the same sex, they are exactly like the rest of us. Some of them have adopted children (who, by the way, apparently are from heterosexual relationships gone wrong) and are raising them with as much love and compassion as any straight couple I know. It doesn't matter about the gender of those raising the children, as long as they are raising them with love and support. There are a lot of male and female role models in the world that kids are exposed to.
> 
> ...


GOD DEFINDED SIN NOT MAN....HOMOSEXUALITY MADE THE LIST AS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE. if man were god you could have a point but man is a creation of God for his reason we have life. We all fail God but challenging God is not wise. He knows we will all fail, we can never make it alone.we just have to allow him to teach us that we need him when man innately want to be unimportant. We are self made, we change the climate, we will define sin.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> I'm heterosexual by default, so for me, there is no choice to be made. I'm not curious in the least about other folks sexual preferences. I've only ever been attracted to females.


Isn't it your position that everybody is heterosexual by default?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

That's what many people don't understand. I and many other Christians don't hate gay people. I have my favorite aunt who is gay. I love her to pieces. She makes me laugh all the time. I also have a cousin who is gay. Love him to. They come over for thanksgiving every year and is a grand time. But. They know how I feel because of my spiritual beliefs. The Bible says if I cast my lot meaning support behind sin or a sinful lifestyle, then in God's eyes in just as guilty. In both my family members cases I can say 100% is a choice. My aunt was in great relationship with a man. Then she was sexually ausalted. She then switched to women. In my cousins case who is very close to growing up, he was a normal kid. Turn his parents split up and everything changed. He stated looking for a male figure in his life and started looking towards men. People say there are no choices. But even if the wiring was twisted in a person they have a choice in whether or not to act on those impulses. Many gays believe they evolved that way. Problem is if evolution were even true, then that change is counter productive for the species so it doesnt work. Same with God. He said be fruitful and multiply. He also said only man and woman should marry. So it goes against all natural order. Same thing with human evolution. Species evolve to better themselves. But science proves it is a negative effect for humans to evolve away their body hair. The dna knows nothing of clothing. Yet we evolved away from our protective body hair that like in most animals would regulate or body temperature. So now we freeze to death or burn up. Doesn't make sense or work. So I have to go with what the good lord says and walk according to those beliefs. And he tells me I will be hated for it by society and those closest to me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> I do not understand your question
> 
> Please quote me where you have interpreted I would aid a little bit.


"Homosexuals want a cake fine take premade cake from shelf." Your post #190. 

"Take the plain cake off the shelf..." Your post #195

You also defended the statement in post #207.

Now I'll ask the same question. How is selling someone a plain cake you know is going to be used in a way you don't approve of different than selling them a custom cake for the same purpose? How would they know you wouldn't sell them a custom cake and to walk over to the plain cake shelf if you hadn't already turned down their request for a custom cake?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> But even if the wiring was twisted in a person they have a choice in whether or not to act on those impulses.


You make it sound as if loving people were a bad thing.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> GOD DEFINDED SIN NOT MAN....HOMOSEXUALITY MADE THE LIST AS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.


Jesus said you only had to do 2 things to get into Heaven. And neither had anything to do with being gay. 

Apparently those folks in the Wyoming church actually read their Bibles.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> I'm heterosexual by default, so for me, there is no choice to be made. I'm not curious in the least about other folks sexual preferences. I've only ever been attracted to females.


And there ya go. You, Jeffrey, are heterosexual by default. I'm bi by default. Larry over there is gay by default, and Susan is a lesbian. Rather than trying to change each other, why don't we all just love the consenting adult of our choice, and try to get along? 

Wouldn't that make the world a better place?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> Jesus said you only had to do 2 things to get into Heaven. And neither had anything to do with being gay.
> 
> Apparently those folks in the Wyoming church actually read their Bibles.


Wrong. Jesus said love the Lord thy God with an thy heart and keep his commandments. That's a very broad thing. Meaning if God says something is sin don't do it. If you love him with all your heart you won't do things God said is sinful. No sin can enter heaven. We all sin. But it's the continuation of sin without remorse or trying to stop that sin that damnes a soul.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Um, yes, it is our default setting. Care to prove otherwise?


Care to prove it is?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

While I agree that for some it is a choice, I believe for many others it is not, just like Willowgirl said a few pages back. I know it wasn't a choice for me..I've always loved men simply for the reason they're my opposite, their strength, muscles, deep voices.. Being with a woman (and yes, I went to college  ) has never interested me. I'm as straight as they come.

There's been research done on the genetic component to it, but not necessarily a gay gene, rather epigenetics..which is sort of an on-off switch. Here's an article from a few years ago..I promise it's relatively short and easy to understand: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/...tely-result-gene-regulation-researchers-find/

The reason I suscribe to this theory is I have friends who are twins. Identical twins. One is a lesbian. One is not. I've known them since we were in kindergarten. One of them was my go-to friend when I wanted to play games like cops and robbers..the other was more fun to play house and dolls with. They were raised in the same house, identically. Five year old girls (imvho) do not have the capability to process sexual feelings..they simply play with things that interest them. For one it was cars, the other it was dolls--and it just went from there.

The other reason I feel epigenenetics may be the cause (meaning it's not a choice) is studies have shown animals can also be homosexual. There's absolutely no reason this should be a case, from a biological/reproductive standpoint. I feel 'true' homosexuality and the very nature of the sex we are attracted to and/or the gender we identify with is simply nothing more than a factor such as having red hair versus brown.

I know I'm not going to change any minds but hopefully if anything, I can expand them so please take a peek at the article..I really do think it's fascinating.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

It's interesting how many of my electronic gadgets come with a default setting that is less useful and enjoyable to use than some of the custom settings. Maybe human sexuality is the same.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

As far as default settings, some of you men on here may be surprised to learn that you all began life as a female. Yep.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

2dogs-mom said:


> While I agree that for some it is a choice, I believe for many others it is not, just like Willowgirl said a few pages back. I know it wasn't a choice for me..I've always loved men simply for the reason they're my opposite, their strength, muscles, deep voices.. Being with a woman (and yes, I went to college  ) has never interested me. I'm as straight as they come.
> 
> There's been research done on the genetic component to it, but not necessarily a gay gene, rather epigenetics..which is sort of an on-off switch. Here's an article from a few years ago..I promise it's relatively short and easy to understand: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/...tely-result-gene-regulation-researchers-find/
> 
> ...


Some people like brocolli, some can't stand it. Genetics or conditioning or some of both. Sexual preference is likely the same and runs the bell curve of all things 
human. But who cares why? It doesn't affect me unless I have some interest in another who doesn't in me. But that could as easily be due to height, body type, hair color or musical preference as what dangly parts either of has or doesn't.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> "Homosexuals want a cake fine take premade cake from shelf." Your post #190.
> 
> "Take the plain cake off the shelf..." Your post #195
> 
> ...


As I have said there is a difference between a wedding cake and a cake off the shelf.

Now, I feel that the issue in aiding the celebration of a sin is bad thus I feel that refusing to help someone sin is a reason to say no to them. I never said I would sell them a wedding cake. I have explained in detail that a wedding cake that is specially ordered and it would be at the ordering time that I would learn that the homosexuals wanted me to help them celebrate sin. It is at that stage I would inform them that I would be unable to assist them. 

Now, since I do not hate homosexuals nor am I trying to make their life hard I would not see a problem sell them products for any other reason. I would not turn down serving a homosexual for any other services other that wedding related events for homosexuals.

If the came in and wanted an wanted a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding as in for a child of theirs or other person.....I would make tghe cake.

A cake off the shelf is simple a product with no special effort. Should a cake off of the self satisfy them for their wedding and they never mentioned "Hey, this s going to be our homosexual wedding cake" they would indeed have a cake I made for their wedding I would not have been made knowable of the issue thus I would not have intent.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> So sexual orientation is a matter of choice? Tell me, when did you decide to be a heterosexual? Because you just as easily could have chosen to be gay, right? :shrug:


I think all abnormal sexual behavior is based on mental issues. 

The fact that people can choose to have and enjoy homosexual sex at times (think prison) shows that there is some ability to choose what you find arousing. But it also supports my belief because being confined is known to cause mental issues.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Umm, you didn't answer my question. If you believe sexual orientation is merely a choice, then surely you remember when you made yours, right? I mean, it seems like it would be a fairly momentous decision, not one easily forgotten.


Isn't that like trying to give the exact minute you got sunburned? Sexual awaking is not a switch that is flipped. If it were little kids would not 'play doctor' or 'I will show you mine if you show me yours'. They'd be neutral until one day they were suddenly sexually aware.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Weren't you arguing a few pages ago that laws could force people to do things? I believe you even tried to convince me they could force bakers to bake cakes they didn't wish to. Why the change of heart?


Laws can force people to or not do things. It can force you to stop speeding by putting you in jail. It can stop you from speeding because you are afraid of being put in jail. But it will not put a stop to the action because there are always people who either feel the law does not apply to them or just don't care about what happens.

Think about my man with a gun and your money. Using your logic he is not forcing you to give him money, he is merely offering you a choice. Its up to you which one you choose.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

For a bunch of people who are homestead oriented and therefore raise animals, there is a whole lot of ignorance about breeding and choice going on.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> But could you choose to be gay? That is the question. Can you choose to like having sex with other men? I don't think I could. I would like someone to give it a try and see how it goes.


Talk to anyone who works in a prison or has been in prison for 5+ years.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> You didn't read what I said. I said I take POSITIVE action and involvement in the life. I said I appeared to be your idea of evil because what I do appears to you to be nothing because it's so far outside your box it is not even on the same planet. Thanks for proving my point. :thumb:


So if you see someone who is sinning what "positive" action do you take?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Truckinguy said:


> A "sin" has to involve a victim and be detrimental to society (eg. murder, rape, fraud). Neither applies to being gay.


Care to show me where this is stated in a religious text?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> As I have said there is a difference between a wedding cake and a cake off the shelf.
> 
> Now, I feel that the issue in aiding the celebration of a sin is bad thus I feel that refusing to help someone sin is a reason to say no to them. I never said I would sell them a wedding cake. I have explained in detail that a wedding cake that is specially ordered and it would be at the ordering time that I would learn that the homosexuals wanted me to help them celebrate sin. It is at that stage I would inform them that I would be unable to assist them.
> 
> ...


Any cake used to celebrate the wedding is by definition a wedding cake. The plain white cake holds the same significance to those partaking of it as the seven layered overly frosted monstrosity. Just as the plain white dress from walmart is as much a wedding dress as the multi thousand dollar conglomeration of lace from a specialty boutique. It is not the cake but the purpose for which it is used that defines it. There is no way most customers would know whether you would sell them the decorated cake unless they asked you for one first and you denied the request. If you refuse to sell a custom decorated cake for use in a gay wedding but instead steer that same customer to a premade cake from your display case you have still sold a wedding cake. Your involvement is somewhat less but you are still involved. Are you going to tackle someone leaving your store with a dozen cupcakes if, after paying you, they say how much Bill and Hohn will enjoy them at their potluck wedding reception?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Jesus said you only had to do 2 things to get into Heaven. And neither had anything to do with being gay.
> 
> Apparently those folks in the Wyoming church actually read their Bibles.


If your husband told you he loved you but repeatedly spit in your face, destroyed things you cared for, was always doing things which caused you emotional pain and generally abused you would you think he really loved you?

One of the things Christ said was you have to love God totally and competently. If you regularly spit in Gods face by doing things which He says you should not do then do you really think you love Him?

The other was love others like you love yourself. When you see someone doing something which will or is likely to cause them harm is it loving to just stand by and do nothing?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

where I want to said:


> For a bunch of people who are homestead oriented and therefore raise animals, there is a whole lot of ignorance about breeding and choice going on.


How so? - just curious.. I don't breed animals though.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

2dogs-mom said:


> How so? - just curious.. I don't breed animals though.


 Ever seen 2 male dogs breed and one have puppies ?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Fyi, if a homosexual couple selected a plain off the shelf cake a and brought it to the counter and ask that I add anything that would inform me that they were asking me to transfer the cake into a cake for a wedding cake...example.
"Could you add ( congratulations bubba and Charles on your wedding) I would not do that for them even though I would add as I have in the past asked cake maker happy birthday Taylor.

You have asked what's difference between a wedding cake and a plain cake..I have explained that to you. Yes most cakes contain the same or similar ingredients ....it is not the ingredients that determines what kind of event cake it is ....that comes from special addition of decorations which is a deliberate effort. That is the reason decorated cakes cost more.....


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Ah! I see. Well, one male human and one female human tried to breed and nothing came out of it either, so I suppose I know nothing about breeding then. Besides, I covered the gay animals in an earlier post.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

This is not suppose to be a red herring or such, but a question that came to mind while reading thru this thread.

Why are guys called 'gay" and women "lesbians"? I thought all were signified as 'gay' these days. If having significant others of the same sex.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Just as ALREADY explained if some buys rat poison and kills a child with what I sold them I did not know ....I did not aid the in the crime.

If you buy a cake and I have no knowledge that it is for a gay wedding ....I am not aiding sin.

If a homosexual buys the cake gets to the door a shouts.....ha ha you just made a cake for gay wedding....I know in my heart as does God. I did MAKE the cake for a homosexual wedding.....it simply would be used for a gay wedding.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

watcher said:


> So if you see someone who is sinning what "positive" action do you take?


it's called LOVE> You smile when you see them, you express thankfulness they are alive in this world, and in your life. You pay attention and notice positive things they do, a tenderness to a dog, a deftly drawn doodle, a particularly clever wrong answer to a question, you share your lunch, make cookies for no reason, ask them to help you with a task, take them hiking or to the beach to get what the ocean magic does. 

Seriously, you dwell in the positive/love, and the rest begins to be affected by that. We Christians are always saying we believe good is more powerful than evil. WHY NOT LIVE LIKE WE BELIEVE IT.

BE the change. Live your own life with love, and judge not--"they"(more accurately WE) ALREADY judge them-our-selves enough. Seriously, it works.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Angie ..that is why I take the time to spell out homosexual as I wish to be inclusive of female lesbians as often times the word gay is used in a way we used to use man

Mailman chairman mankind.... and the that turned that it was overlooking woman and public control made us create chairwoman. My favorite stupid one is mailfemale.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

AngieM2 said:


> This is not suppose to be a red herring or such, but a question that came to mind while reading thru this thread.
> 
> Why are guys called 'gay" and women "lesbians"? I thought all were signified as 'gay' these days. If having significant others of the same sex.


For kicks, I just texted my friend this question and she said she doesn't care either way (and then called me weird for asking-lol). But both she and her partner draw the line at **** because it's usually used as an insult.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

2dogs-mom said:


> How so? - just curious.. I don't breed animals though.


OK- cover your ears( I guess that is eyes) if really don't want to know. 

Most animals reach "breeding" age and suddenly actions that were play, like jumping on the mother or peers, gets much more serious. Reactions to simula, like smells or posture, create interest. Depending on programming, breeding becomes one of the three or four necessities of life
Some animals figure it out fast and orient towards the opposite sex. Some take awhile to figure out where the itch gets scratched and where it gets trouble with little reward. A few never figure it out. And end up in the deadend of life. 
The urge to breed frequently comes before the object is determined. So, yes, experience does shape the orientation. 
I have seen many male animals so consumed with breeding, they attempt to breed anything, same species or not, same sex or not, until they figured out which worked best with some never figuring it out.
The same with females. If deprived of the opportunity, they will "show" to anything to try and get what their body is demanding. I had one mare who routinely backed up to fence posts to display breeding readiness. And I have one now who has the same relation to a feeder.

Animals also key off each other. If they see another animal pursuing a breeding, they will all focus on that animal. Sometimes to the point of fenzy and personal harm.

So sexual relations for many are simply not that simple- that they are born that way. A few are but most frankly most learn how to use the urge after the urge forces action. They are born to breed and figure out what to breed later.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Makes sense and thanks! But your sentence caught my eye "*A few never figure it out. And end up in the deadend of life*." Would you ever consider those animals may be homosexual? Maybe that's why they're not interested in other animals of the opposite sex? I guess what I'm getting at is my post (I think it was 275) - not sure if anyone read it or not but it delved into the possibility of a genetic link before any of us, or any animal is born, regardless of environment. 

Anyway..enough with my gay animal talk. I'm starting to bore myself...lol. Otherwise this has been an interesting discussion, so thanks!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

2dogs-mom said:


> Makes sense and thanks! But your sentence caught my eye "*A few never figure it out. And end up in the deadend of life*." Would you ever consider those animals may be homosexual? Maybe that's why they're not interested in other animals of the opposite sex? I guess what I'm getting at is my post (I think it was 275) - not sure if anyone read it or not but it delved into the possibility of a genetic link before any of us, or any animal is born, regardless of environment.
> 
> Anyway..enough with my gay animal talk. I'm starting to bore myself...lol. Otherwise this has been an interesting discussion, so thanks!


Yes, I believe there are. But the big issue is the mass in the middle that take time getting oriented. What happens if their orientation is "fixed" when they could have gone in a different direction? And what the costs are for that orientation?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> As I have said there is a difference between a wedding cake and a cake off the shelf.
> 
> Now, I feel that the issue in aiding the celebration of a sin is bad thus I feel that refusing to help someone sin is a reason to say no to them. I never said I would sell them a wedding cake. I have explained in detail that a wedding cake that is specially ordered and it would be at the ordering time that I would learn that the homosexuals wanted me to help them celebrate sin. It is at that stage I would inform them that I would be unable to assist them.
> 
> ...


First off, God has no special pet sins. It's all sin to him, and the bible says only God knows the heart of man. He doesn't tally up a murderer as worser than a busybody.

So to be accountable to your justification of refusing cake to gay folk, you must also refuse cake to fat people or diabetics, or that most expensive blinged out cake to the pretentious designer label prideful snob. Or the cake that gets snatched off the shelf because someone is too lazy to make dinner. Or the cake that is going to the retirement dinner to celebrate years of service of a mortgage banker. Or the white cake with a cross that you are told to put "25" on it and you think it means anniversaries but it really means "sanitations". Or sell a birthday cake for a child that gets beaten and will never taste that cake because it's only being bought to look like the parent is a good parent.

I looked up a bunch of interpretations for the is homos is sin theory. Since by far usually the mention of homosexuality occurs in a laundry list of sin, I started to notice another sin, one you never hear sermons on--being a busybody. It's pretty obvious to me, getting into people's business and determining what sin they are guilty of and then refusing to sell them cake is being a busybody. So, therefore, for your own salvation you need to get out of the business of selling cake, because it is causing you to sin.

******************************
(and for anyone else who cares, the pages of interpretation that makes an effort to go back to the original languages and culture etc all have an interesting common thread, that there is a difference between the sex act done as prostitution and slavery, and that done in love between two people that love each other. guess which one is frowned on )


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

2dogs-mom said:


> For kicks, I just texted my friend this question and she said she doesn't care either way (and then called me weird for asking-lol). But both she and her partner draw the line at **** because it's usually used as an insult.


You friends are but a few people not enough to be a good sample. I like chairman and mailman...but I am not enough to be a good number to set the standards.

African American is a poor term as many African American are white.
Black is still beautiful and I use it because....I I want someone to meet Curtis in a place it is best that I say...ok, he will be the one 6foot 4 black man skinny with a mustache well dressed will answer to Curtis.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> This is not suppose to be a red herring or such, but a question that came to mind while reading thru this thread.
> 
> Why are guys called 'gay" and women "lesbians"? I thought all were signified as 'gay' these days. If having significant others of the same sex.


All my lesbian friends refer to themselves as gay.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

The costs. I'm trying to understand your question, so I assume you're talking people? 

Well, I've seen kids who have felt forced to keep their homosexuality a secret and been completely miserable. I've heard stories from my friends of being dragged to sessions to "pray away the gay" so to speak. Once they were allowed to be their authentic selves, were they truly happy. 

But aside from that, not all people who marry - whether gay or not, want to procreate or even adopt.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wyld thang said:


> First off, God has no special pet sins. It's all sin to him, and the bible says only God knows the heart of man. He doesn't tally up a murderer as worser than a busybody.
> 
> So to be accountable to your justification of refusing cake to gay folk, you must also refuse cake to fat people or diabetics, or that most expensive blinged out cake to the pretentious designer label prideful snob. Or the cake that gets snatched off the shelf because someone is too lazy to make dinner. Or the cake that is going to the retirement dinner to celebrate years of service of a mortgage banker. Or the white cake with a cross that you are told to put "25" on it and you think it means anniversaries but it really means "sanitations". Or sell a birthday cake for a child that gets beaten and will never taste that cake because it's only being bought to look like the parent is a good parent.
> 
> ...


YOUR view are your to live by, mine are mine. My understanding of God Are mine to deal with and I fail to see how your understandings of my faith creates a requirement that I follow your decrees 

In as much as my faith and my bible study, and my religious education Does so inform me that their are classification of sins. Excuse me, were I follow my faith in the way I have been instructed because I doubt that when my day comes and I take my turn to face God I have little faith that my sole will be saved in saying.....but Wyld thing told me this and while you God Provided me with another view I followed her.....came I still go to heaven with you God.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

2dogs-mom said:


> Makes sense and thanks! But your sentence caught my eye "*A few never figure it out. And end up in the deadend of life*." Would you ever consider those animals may be homosexual? Maybe that's why they're not interested in other animals of the opposite sex? I guess what I'm getting at is my post (I think it was 275) - not sure if anyone read it or not but it delved into the possibility of a genetic link before any of us, or any animal is born, regardless of environment.
> 
> Anyway..enough with my gay animal talk. I'm starting to bore myself...lol. Otherwise this has been an interesting discussion, so thanks!


Thus far with computers stronger that what were need to get to the moon mush time and effort in trying to know for a fact if the is something in the DNA of humans with xx or xy if there is any homosexual gene.....alas no...there are theories ....but theories are not laws just ideas. Nothing factual......and very smart men and women have for years been searching...


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> YOUR view are your to live by, mine are mine. My understanding of God Are mine to deal with and I fail to see how your understandings of my faith creates a requirement that I follow your decrees
> 
> In as much as my faith and my bible study, and my religious education Does so inform me that their are classification of sins. Excuse me, were I follow my faith in the way I have been instructed because I doubt that when my day comes and I take my turn to face God I have little faith that my sole will be saved in saying.....but Wyld thing told me this and while you God Provided me with another view I followed her.....came I still go to heaven with you God.


 
All this discussion boils down to "how should we live?" or it should, otherwise why waste time expressing one's thoughts and reading other's thoughts and examining the practical truth of it all? 

I pointed out the practicality of your idea of not condoning sin. The bible has several lists of sins, including gluttony, usury, anger, pride, stinginess. All of those turn our hearts away from God and I would think you'd be just as concerned about those, which are all the more insidious because we see them as not so bad (again, when was the last time you heard a sermon on gluttony?) We then establish an unbiblical hierarchy of sins so that we can feel better about ourselves (well, I'm not a murderer!). Humans, always evaluating, like Goldilocks. Problem with constant evaluation is nothing is ever good enough. Thankfulness is lost. We become our own idols. 

Ever wonder why Jesus spent his down time with tax collectors and prostitutes and brawling fishermen? It was a chance to get away from the judgers!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

touching another human being is not always just about making a baby or the priveledge of the marriage contract. those that reduce it to that are missing out on something divinely beautiful and joyful. IMO of course ha.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

you know what really jerks my chain?? seeing food go in the garbage. I have a visceral nauseous feeling. I work in the kitchen of a Christian organization. by law we are required to throw excess served food(on family style plates, untaken) into the garbage. I divert what I can, by lying saying it is going for livestock per the law(some of it is...white lie ha). My fantasy sermon is to take one of those full garbage cans of perfectly good food and dump it out on the stage of the pastor's conference. We let these laws stand. We are too lazy to gather this food and take it to those that need it. We turn a blind eye to the wastefulness and apathy and self absorbtion this can of garbage represents. We are randomly born to a status that allows us to throw away food.

Jesus said feed the hungry. Sorting the sheep and the goats, Jesus says, you did not feed me. The goats ask, when did we see you Jesus to feed you? Jesus said, I am in every hungry person standing on the street corner, your neighbor, that junkie.

I am not equating gayness with "hungry"--just saying there are far more important things to be doing about our Father's business.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

wyld thang said:


> First off, God has no special pet sins. It's all sin to him, and the bible says only God knows the heart of man. He doesn't tally up a murderer as worser than a busybody.


Not sure I agree with you -- While God doesn't abide any sin, I am sure he knows the difference between a mass murderer and a gossip and 'rewards' them accordingly.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> Talk to anyone who works in a prison or has been in prison for 5+ years.


The question isn't whether ANYONE can choose...it's whether YOU can choose.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Not sure I agree with you -- While God doesn't abide any sin, I am sure he knows the difference between a mass murderer and a gossip and 'rewards' them accordingly.


how does he reward them accordingly? have you seen it yourself? from what I remember from the bible our reward in heaven has more to do with what we did with our talents here, than punishment, or neglect according to our screw ups.

see this dichotomy of focus between good and bad, yes and no? 

God is Love. Be still and know.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wyld you may not be able to truthfully know what is going on in everyone else's bible groups, churches, and studies...please accept that though you were not in attendance here gluttony is covered esp the Sunday before thanksgiving. The rest is covered too.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Crowns


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Care to prove it is?


Sure...Look at our anatomy and how it functions! ! Done!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Wyld you may not be able to truthfully know what is going on in everyone else's bible groups, churches, and studies...please accept that though you were not in attendance here gluttony is covered esp the Sunday before thanksgiving. The rest is covered too.


sigh...it was the rhetorical question to the cosmic you. good thing it's being discussed. gluttony is not just about food neither. it's also about feeding on the feelgood of a behavior, or what an object represents and defending it to the death. which at this point I confess I am doing, so I will stop and repent.

I just find it hugely ironic to let these discussions here play themselves out to the inevitable mirey "fruit", the same clinging to the (false)security of judgement. It's my fatal flaw to speak up for love and hope something might change one day.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> And there ya go. You, Jeffrey, are heterosexual by default. I'm bi by default. Larry over there is gay by default, and Susan is a lesbian. Rather than trying to change each other, why don't we all just love the consenting adult of our choice, and try to get along?
> 
> Wouldn't that make the world a better place?


We can all.get a long just fine! Just don't keep telling us you were born that way. Your Internal plumbing says otherwise! Everyone is heterosexual by default. ..some choose to deviate from that default, that's their choice. I'm not trying to change anyone, so stop trying to change me into a follower. I'm secure with my default settings, apparently some are not!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

for the argument that our biology and body parts dicktate heterosexualism as the uber normal average default only moral expression blah blah...

sex is not just about procreation. it is also about bonding and touching. science shows that touching skin to skin with care releases bonding chemicals/feelings and good feeling chemicals/feelings that foster well being and health, in the immune system and other body systems. gender is irrelevant to the response touching releases in the body. God designed us this way. if the argument is going to be posited that our design "proves" hetero is the only ok, I say our design also proves that pangender loving contact is also beneficial.

(ps, yes I believe a loving "divine" great spirit brought forth this universe)


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

wyld thang said:


> for the argument that our biology and body parts dicktate


 Lol. Wyld thang, I think I love you


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Jim,

We women always have had problems with diets.
Many will try anything to get what they want but the real way .

Grapefruit
Cabbage
Not fat.
All fat
Not bread

The worst was the Apple avoiding diet.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

circlebump time! feelin the love


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Sure...Look at our anatomy and how it functions! ! Done!


Sorry, try again. While Part A does fit in part B it also fits in Parts C and D.
and Part D and part B go nicely together as does D with A
And Part E works very well with both A and B and I guess some like it with Part C too.



My view is that X % is hetrosexual and Y % are homosexual and nothing is changing those two extreme's -- they have no choice whatsoever
People inbetween X and Y may lean one way or the other and can choose.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Sorry, try again. While Part A does fit in part B it also fits in Parts C and D.
> and Part D and part B go nicely together as does D with A
> And Part E works very well with both A and B and I guess some like it with Part C too.
> 
> ...


I accept that that is your view and that we can agree that yes pacts can fit in lots of places and that many people hold fast to their faiths that certain sexual acts and certain type of relations are sin.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Sorry, try again. While Part A does fit in part B it also fits in Parts C and D.
> and Part D and part B go nicely together as does D with A
> And Part E works very well with both A and B and I guess some like it with Part C too.
> 
> ...


Sorry, not wrong, as a matter of fact, totally right. Just because something "fits" doesn't mean it was designed to do that. You know your wrong, you just seem to want to argue. Your "view" doesn't matter. Facts are facts.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Sorry, not wrong, as a matter of fact, totally right. Just because something "fits" doesn't mean it was designed to do that. You know your wrong, you just seem to want to argue. Your "view" doesn't matter. Facts are facts.


Yes, that is YOUR view, it's not everyone's.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Yes, that is YOUR view, it's not everyone's.


Not my view at all! Our bodies are proof enough. Ask any doctor or nurse to explain how our bodies work. You seem to need a refresher course. I mean really, is understanding how our anatomical functions work so hard? It really isn't. It is by far, the majorities view.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

If my wife and I created a child every time we had sex, we'd have at least a half a dozen more than we do, now!


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Oggie said:


> If my wife and I created a child every time we had sex, we'd have at least a half a dozen more than we do, now!


Are you bragging or whining :lookout::hysterical::tmi:


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

mnn2501 said:


> Sorry, try again. While Part A does fit in part B it also fits in Parts C and D.
> and Part D and part B go nicely together as does D with A
> And Part E works very well with both A and B and I guess some like it with Part C too.


Oh! That happened to us. Luckily ikea was still open and we were able to buy a few more nuts and bolts.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

watcher said:


> Care to show me where this is stated in a religious text?


 It doesn't. However, for something to be called a sin it has to be a bad thing and cause some sort of bad consequences or else what's the point? I don't subscribe to the concept of sin, rather I prefer cause and effect and consequences to your actions. Two men or two women in a loving relationship has no negative effect on my life so it's a non issue.

I"m not a Christian so people can throw all the Bible verses around that they want and it means nothing to me but, just for argument's sake, I understand that murder is a sin because it has an obvious victim, causes a lot of pain to those attached to the victim and there are many logistical issues with things that were going on in the victim's life and dealing with their premature demise.

So, if Joe and Jim decide to put part A into part C or D where, some people assert, it wasn't really supposed to go, it doesn't have any affect on anyone else's life in any way, shape or form. If that was the issue then straight couples would have to refrain from any physical act outside the missionary position. From some of the straight couples I know, that's not going to go over very well!

However, this isn't about sex. Sex happens in any relationship. It's about a loving commitment to another person, it's about stability, both financial and social, it's about support and compassion and love for our fellow human beings. It's about raising children in a stable, loving home and teaching them to treat others the way they would like to be treated. It's about being there for others in times of need and being a source of comfort and support. If two people, whether straight or gay, who have a genuine loving attraction to each other, are encouraged to build a stable and committed life together, all these things are more likely to be accomplished and the world would be a better place. Who really cares whether we were born one way or another or if it is a choice? We are who we are and how we got there is each person's personal journey and shouldn't be judged by anyone else.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Double Post


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Wrong. Jesus said love the Lord thy God with an thy heart and keep his commandments.


I'm afraid you're putting words in Jesus' mouth there. 

Let's go straight to the source, shall we?



> *Luke 10
> *
> 25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. &#8220;Teacher,&#8221; he asked, &#8220;what must I do to inherit eternal life?&#8221;
> 26 &#8220;What is written in the Law?&#8221; he replied. &#8220;How do you read it?&#8221;
> ...


So, according to Jesus, that's all there is to it.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Laws can force people to or not do things. It can force you to stop speeding by putting you in jail. It can stop you from speeding because you are afraid of being put in jail. But it will not put a stop to the action because there are always people who either feel the law does not apply to them or just don't care about what happens.
> 
> Think about my man with a gun and your money. Using your logic he is not forcing you to give him money, he is merely offering you a choice. Its up to you which one you choose.


But your man with a gun is offering me a choice. The choices you offered aren't the only choices available to me, though. I may choose to act legally or extralegally to counter his offer. I'd likely weigh the consequences of those choices just as I weigh the consequences of the choices he offered me.

So are you now refuting your emphatic assertion that a law can't make someone do something? I won't continue to play "gotcha" after this but in just curious which you really think it is.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Fyi, if a homosexual couple selected a plain off the shelf cake a and brought it to the counter and ask that I add anything that would inform me that they were asking me to transfer the cake into a cake for a wedding cake...example.
> "Could you add ( congratulations bubba and Charles on your wedding) I would not do that for them even though I would add as I have in the past asked cake maker happy birthday Taylor.
> 
> You have asked what's difference between a wedding cake and a plain cake..I have explained that to you. Yes most cakes contain the same or similar ingredients ....it is not the ingredients that determines what kind of event cake it is ....that comes from special addition of decorations which is a deliberate effort. That is the reason decorated cakes cost more.....


So it's the adornment, not the use that defines the cake? My wife's wedding dress was the top of a pair of overalls to which a plain calico skirt had been attached. No lace, no frills. I'll have to explain to her it wasn't really a wedding dress. Our wedding cake was a plain, checkerboard cake with white icing baked by a friend. No congratulatory message, no flowers, no extra adornment of any kind. I'm sure our friends and family would be surprised to learn they didn't enjoy wedding cake. It's been fun to see the many ways you justify your actions to make you feel better about making someone else feel worse. I think I'll go on to more productive things now. There's snow to move.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Sorry, try again. While Part A does fit in part B it also fits in Parts C and D.
> and Part D and part B go nicely together as does D with A
> And Part E works very well with both A and B and I guess some like it with Part C too.


Thank you, MNN. I had trying to think of a way to say that without getting myself banned, and was coming up short! :teehee:

I supposed if your only reason for having sex is to make a baby, there is only one correct way to do it, but the vast majority people don't have sex solely for that purpose.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> So, according to Jesus, that's all there is to it.
> 
> Your mileage, of course, may vary.



If you really, really LOVE God, you will keep His commandments. If you are not following the commandments He gave then you really don't love Him very much.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Wendy said:


> If you really, really LOVE God, you will keep His commandments. If you are not following the commandments He gave then you really don't love Him very much.


A great framework of how to live a Godly, moral life but it's not that cut and dry. When is the Sabbath?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The Sabbath is one day in the week. Since you asked, and you have shown that you do not follow the same path, it is clear your question is not to learn to follow.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

There is no single sabbath day anymore. Jesus is lord of the sabbath. It isn't Sunday never was. It is no longer Saturday. Jesus said we are to enter into his rest. Which is what sabbath means. It's a spiritual rest not a physical rest anymore. That was a part of the old law that Jesus nailed to the cross. It is now written in our hearts. Old testement is physical works , new testement is spiritual works.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

No, my question was apparently unclear and that was a rather rude, dismissive response. 

What day of the week do you consider the Sabbath? What day of the week do you think God thought the Sabbath should be on? Did you realize that different faiths keep it on different days? Even Christians considered it to be different days than many do now. Do you keep it on Sunday? That hasn't always been the way Christians have done it. 

My point all along (and others have touched on this as well) has been that the Bible was written in a different time and has been transcribed, edited and interpreted in different ways. To say 'If you don't believe in X, then this means you don't love God', just doesn't fly with me. Sorry folks.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

If one thing can be taken from God is this. He hates worldly things. He hates worldly traditions. And he hates sin. He had never side with the majority. Well the majority today including many Christians and even the Catholic Church are taking up for homosexuality. An act the Bible says is sin God said it is detestable to him. Meaning it makes him sick on his stomach. Yet we teach otherwise. So false doctrine takes over. So if an the majority is saying is OK. You cab bet in God's eyes it aint.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

2dogs-mom said:


> No, my question was apparently unclear and that was a rather rude, dismissive response.
> 
> What day of the week do you consider the Sabbath? What day of the week do you think God thought the Sabbath should be on? Did you realize that different faiths keep it on different days? Even Christians considered it to be different days than many do now. Do you keep it on Sunday? That hasn't always been the way Christians have done it.
> 
> My point all along (and others have touched on this as well) has been that the Bible was written in a different time and has been transcribed, edited and interpreted in different ways. To say 'If you don't believe in X, then this means you don't love God', just doesn't fly with me. Sorry folks.


But what your forgetting is that the original text written when Jesus walked the earth are very much intact and unchanged. And you can read them yourself. There are Hebrew translators on the net. The Bible has not deviated from its original meanings. What God said was sin is sin. And God said his word would never be changed. You don't think he would actually allow it to be changed do you? I think not.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Even Biblical scholars themselves, disagree on the original meaning of the verses, and always will. 

God knows what's in my heart and He knows my beliefs. I answer to Him alone, not strangers on a chat board who have no idea about the life I lead or the compassion I show to others on a daily basis. I believe I praise Him by my actions. I support my gay friends. I support my straight friends. I support gay marriage and traditional marriage, yet I, myself am not married. I believe the world has enough problems in it that we should be supporting those who want to enter into a loving covenent of marriage. To love someone and be loved right back is the most glorious feeling in all the world. I consider myself a Christian who is stumbling along finding the more I think I know, the more questions I have, yet am not afraid to ask at the risk of looking foolish. I've never been out to change minds, just open them based on my experiences.

I feel this is a circuituous discussion bordering on arguing that has become tiresome, so I'm going to have to end it here by simply stating that I respectfully disagree.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

2dogs-mom said:


> No, my question was apparently unclear and that was a rather rude, dismissive response.
> 
> What day of the week do you consider the Sabbath? What day of the week do you think God thought the Sabbath should be on? Did you realize that different faiths keep it on different days? Even Christians considered it to be different days than many do now. Do you keep it on Sunday? That hasn't always been the way Christians have done it.
> 
> My point all along (and others have touched on this as well) has been that the Bible was written in a different time and has been transcribed, edited and interpreted in different ways. To say 'If you don't believe in X, then this means you don't love God', just doesn't fly with me. Sorry folks.


You are doing what the Pharisees did. You are looking at and expecting to enforce the letter of the law not the intent. Working on the Sabbath was not about what work is nor what day the Sabbath is. Its about taking a day away from the world and giving it to God. For me a small part of everyday is a Sabbath because I spend it reading the Bible and growing my relation with God. You really can't have a relationship with someone if you only 'visit' them one day out of seven.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> But what your forgetting is that the original text written when Jesus walked the earth are very much intact and unchanged. And you can read them yourself. There are Hebrew translators on the net. The Bible has not deviated from its original meanings. What God said was sin is sin. And God said his word would never be changed. You don't think he would actually allow it to be changed do you? I think not.


We have None of the originals, ZERO. The earliest fragment (part of 1 verse) exists from the 2nd century and the earliest full Bible that exists is from the 10th century.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> even the Catholic Church are taking up for homosexuality.


I just have to say that the Catholic Church has never condoned living the gay lifestyle. That's not to say we shouldn't love gay people, but most definitely does not support that lifestyle.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If one thing can be taken from God is this. He hates worldly things.


Oh, I dunno. If memory serves me correctly, it seems Jesus kind of dug it when a lady of questionable virtue poured perfume on his feet and wiped them with her hair. 

Groovy! 

That's actually a pretty interesting story, one that some here might do well to study. I don't imagine it's discussed much in evangelical circles. 

Dang; WyldThang and 2Dogs might make a Christian of me yet. ound:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Oh, I dunno. If memory serves me correctly, it seems Jesus kind of dug it when a lady of questionable virtue poured perfume on his feet and wiped them with her hair.
> 
> Groovy!
> 
> ...


I have always loved that story and felt the feels, even when I was a child, of the sensual touch of love that embraces the whole universe within such a small vessel of body in action. It's one of the Jesus stories that holds me fast amidst the sanitation and safety interpretations of his being that emasculate Him. 

and you my dear scoot me further, madly, deeply, truly into my bi spectrum ha! Namaste, Love! :kiss:


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> If one thing can be taken from God is this. He hates worldly things. He hates worldly traditions. And he hates sin. He had never side with the majority. Well the majority today including many Christians and even the Catholic Church are taking up for homosexuality. An act the Bible says is sin God said it is detestable to him. Meaning it makes him sick on his stomach. Yet we teach otherwise. So false doctrine takes over. So if an the majority is saying is OK. You cab bet in God's eyes it aint.


 "we carve an idol out of our fear and call it God" The Seventh Seal


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

I hope the feel good and not doing as God say works out for some and we know the Bible is instruction for the believer and non believers can't understand the things of God :sing:

Matthew 7:21-23King James Version (KJV)

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Wendy said:


> I just have to say that the Catholic Church has never condoned living the gay lifestyle. That's not to say we shouldn't love gay people, but most definitely does not support that lifestyle.


They allowed the first openly gay bishop in DC.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> They allowed the first openly gay bishop in DC.



What is his name?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> They allowed the first openly gay bishop in DC.


I would think that would go against the teachings of the Catholic church because bishops are expected to be celibate.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

If he is celibate than being gay doesn't really matter, does it??


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

Being gay is not a sin, acting on it is.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

What is the name of the bishop?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Might do a little digging here and find out a few things .May or may knot be what you are looking for . 

Catholic chaplain Lt. Robert Hrdlicka pleaded guilty to molesting boys in 1993. Before his sentencing, six other Catholic Navy chaplains and the churchâs archbishop for the military services urged authorities to send Lt. Hrdlicka to a church-run treatment center.

âIt is my fervent hope and prayer that he will be able to return to the active ministry as soon as possible,â wrote then-Cmdr. Robert L. Kincl.

Instead, Lt. Hrdlicka went to prison.

http://shoebat.com/2014/11/09/pope-...l-cardinal-homosexual-agenda-creeped-vatican/


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

1. Not a bishop
2. Not openly gay.
3. Not "allowed."


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

I'm not Christian but I was for many years and have been exposed to a number of denominations. I have great appreciation for many Christians and the basic tenants that the religion is supposed to teach. Upon saying that didn't Jesus say that he had one commandment that was more important the the ten that Moses received, in John 13:33-34, , _New Command I Give You
&#8230;33"Little children, I am with you a little while longer. You will seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, now I also say to you, 'Where I am going, you cannot come.' 34"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."_ Too many who call themselves Christian need to remember that in all aspects of their lives.

I'm just a polytheist so I may be wrong.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> If one thing can be taken from God is this. He hates worldly things. He hates worldly traditions. And he hates sin. He had never side with the majority. Well the majority today including many Christians and even the Catholic Church are taking up for homosexuality. An act the Bible says is sin God said it is detestable to him. Meaning it makes him sick on his stomach. Yet we teach otherwise. So false doctrine takes over. So if an the majority is saying is OK. You cab bet in God's eyes it aint.


That's funny, I always heard 'God is Love', not 'God is Hate'


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

There are so many things I write for this thread, and then erase. :yuck:


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mnn2501 said:


> That's funny, I always heard 'God is Love', not 'God is Hate'


He is love but he uses the word hate for certain sins. 

Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes;Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"
Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."
Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and-therefore I have abhorred them."
Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:-17 a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,18-A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil,-19-A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."
Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed,-I came to hate them there!-Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

what is sin?many dont know...scriptures gives a clear definition of it.

* 1 John 3:4King James Version (KJV)*

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

the translated word law is ha'Torah...meaning the torah...laws,statutes and guidelines in in first 5 books of scripture..



* Matthew 5:17-19King James Version (KJV)*

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.



once again the word law is ha'Torah

we ALL are sinners !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

more to ponder....the capitalised word wicked is greek word _anomos....look at its definition_


* 2 Thessalonians 2:8King James Version (KJV)*

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:




http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G459&t=KJV


_anomos_
Pronunciation
Ã¤'-no-mos (Key) 
Part of Speech
adjective
Root Word (Etymology)
From &#7940;&#955;&#966;&#945; (G1) (as a negative particle) and &#957;&#8057;&#956;&#959;&#962; (G3551) 
Dictionary Aids
*Vine's Expository Dictionary:* View Entry
*TDNT Reference:* 4:1086,646

Outline of Biblical Usage


destitute of (the Mosaic) law

of the Gentiles

departing from the law, a violator of the law, lawless, wicked


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Wendy said:


> If you really, really LOVE God, you will keep His commandments. If you are not following the commandments He gave then you really don't love Him very much.


Why, then, do most Christians not strive to keep all 613 Mitzvoh (commandments)? Why do they not have their sons circumcised for religious reasons, and follow the dietary practices of the Jews? 

I'm going to let Paul do the heavy lifting here, as he undoubtedly has far more credibility than I do on the subject. This is from the third chapter of Galatians:



> 3 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vainâif it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham âbelieved God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.â
> ...
> 
> 10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: âCursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.â 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because âthe righteous will live by faith.â 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, âThe person who does these things will live by them.â 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: âCursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.â 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.


I find it curious that the first thing that people who have been freed from the Law want to do is ... run back into the shelter of it! Even Paul himself does it, time and time again. On second thought, though, it's really not so surprising, as to live in the Spirit is probably a lot more demanding, when you get down to the nitty-gritty of it.

If you go back to the passage I quoted earlier, from Luke, you'll see that the first thing the questioner does, upon being told that he only has to do two things (love God and his neighbor) to win eternal life, is to ask for the definition of the word "neighbor." You can almost hear the wheels turning in his mind! He's undoubtedly thinking, "Gee, loving _everyone I know_ would be really hard, but if I can whittle down the list a bit, I just might be able to pull it off!" Of course, Jesus didn't let the man off so easily. After receiving his answer, the poor fellow probably went away thinking, "Can't I just keep all 613 Mitzvoh (commandments) instead? It would sure be a heck of a lot easier!" ound:


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

paul was talking to those that thought salvation came from keeping the law...salvation comes from yeshua/jesus 

paul taught and lived the torah...once paul said he had to get to the temple and was out of time and coulnt stay because of a vow...that vow was the nazarite vow or netzer vow..it was taken for a time and on completion they cut their hair and offered it on the altar..he was doing an aspect of torah 


paul also said this in romans...pretty clear...

* Romans 6:14-15King James Version (KJV)*

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.


law here is translated from word ha'Torah


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

more from paul.....highlighted are straight quotes paul used from torah....last bolded part paul is pretty clear


* Galatians 5:19-21King James Version (KJV)*

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; *Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,*
*20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,*
*21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like*: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, *that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.*


----------

