Australians back same-sex marriage at polls; Parliament plans December vote
- Thread starter mailmandan
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
I was never aggressive nor did I shout down others. I never resisted the officer who escorted me out.
I simple wanted the 5 minutes allotted to me, but that was not granted. They violated my 1st amendment right by not allowing me to express my religious belief.
You say that Walmart has no requirement to serve me, but a Christian baker can not refuse to make a wedding cake for homosexual marriage.
I guess to refuse on religious grounds is against the law, but any non religious reason is OK. I guess you have no problem with such a double standard, but I do.
I do not make it a point to confront people, but if given the opportunity to speak I will. And it is only proper to explain what I base my belief or objection on. BUT, no, no, you can not use the Bible as the basis of your belief in a public meeting.
I do not hate homosexuals nor anyone else, but I hate their sin.
I simple wanted the 5 minutes allotted to me, but that was not granted. They violated my 1st amendment right by not allowing me to express my religious belief.
You say that Walmart has no requirement to serve me, but a Christian baker can not refuse to make a wedding cake for homosexual marriage.
I guess to refuse on religious grounds is against the law, but any non religious reason is OK. I guess you have no problem with such a double standard, but I do.
I do not make it a point to confront people, but if given the opportunity to speak I will. And it is only proper to explain what I base my belief or objection on. BUT, no, no, you can not use the Bible as the basis of your belief in a public meeting.
I do not hate homosexuals nor anyone else, but I hate their sin.
Don't people always say this when homosexuality is the topic? People always seem to want to divert everyone's attention to some other sin when homosexuality is being discussed. But when some other sin is being discussed (since other sins are discussed, contrary to your subtle implication), nobody ever says, "there are other sins to worry about, like homosexuality".
When God says that homosexuality is an abomination, make sure you personally let Him know that there are other things to be up in arms about. Go ahead and try to divert God's attention too, because He's "up in arms". Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, I'll care about everything that God cares about, including the things that the world wishes He didn't care about. I support any Christian who does so as well and doesn't cower under progressiveness and political correctness.
Be the salt, why don't cha.
When God says that homosexuality is an abomination, make sure you personally let Him know that there are other things to be up in arms about. Go ahead and try to divert God's attention too, because He's "up in arms". Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, I'll care about everything that God cares about, including the things that the world wishes He didn't care about. I support any Christian who does so as well and doesn't cower under progressiveness and political correctness.
Be the salt, why don't cha.
Last edited:
S
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reaction_formation
Under the law a business cannot discriminate based on race, religion or sexual orientation. In other words they can't refuse to serve you based on those factors.
Now, in my ideal world a business can serve or not serve whoever they like for whatever reason they like. They can then face the social and financial consequences if they choose to discriminate. Unfortunately, as we observed after Jim Crow laws were overturned, that ideal is not practical if every single business refuses service.
Other than that I only have your account of what happened at these meetings. I have a hard time believing you were escorted out for no reason then expressing your beliefs. It doesn't make sense and I suspect there is more to the story.
Under the law a business cannot discriminate based on race, religion or sexual orientation. In other words they can't refuse to serve you based on those factors.
Now, in my ideal world a business can serve or not serve whoever they like for whatever reason they like. They can then face the social and financial consequences if they choose to discriminate. Unfortunately, as we observed after Jim Crow laws were overturned, that ideal is not practical if every single business refuses service.
Other than that I only have your account of what happened at these meetings. I have a hard time believing you were escorted out for no reason then expressing your beliefs. It doesn't make sense and I suspect there is more to the story.
Here is some interesting information:
Indeed, “abomination” itself is an inexact translation, used by the King James and other biblical translations for multiple terms. The KJV uses the word twenty-six times to refer to sheketz, an analogous term to toevah which refers usually to idolatry and occasionally to other taboos such as forbidden animals (Lev. 11:10-13). Likewise, Leviticus 7:18 describes leftover sacrificial meat as pigul—but King James again says “abomination.” And 1 Samuel 13:4, speaking of King Saul and the Philistines, uses the term nivash, yet again rendered as “abomination.” And so on, including 1 Kings 11:5-7, 2 Kings 23:13, Isaiah 66:17, Daniel 11:31, Daniel 12:11 (sheketz), and many more.
The KJV even uses “abomination” six times in translation of New Testament texts (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Luke 16:15, and Revelation 17:4-5, 21:27). All these biblical terms refer to different, albeit similar, violations, yet the umbrella term “abomination” elides any distinction between them. As a result, the KJV lists exactly 150 occurrences of the term “abomination,” though only 103 of them translate toevah.
Now, if by “abomination,” the King James means a cultural prohibition—something which a particular culture abhors but another culture enjoys—then the term makes sense. But in common parlance, the term has come to mean much more than that. Today, it connotes something horrible, something contrary to the order of nature itself, or God’s plan, or the institution of the family, or whatever. It is this malleability of meaning, and its close association with disgust, that makes “abomination” a particularly abominable word to use. The term implies that homosexuality has no place under the sun (despite its presence in over 300 animal species), and that it is an abomination against the Divine order itself. Again, toevah is not a good thing—but it doesn’t mean all of that.
Progressive religionists must stop using the word “abomination” to refer to toevah. The word plays into the hands of fundamentalists on the one hand, and anti-religious zealots on the other, both of whom want to depict the Bible as virulently and centrally concerned with the “unnatural” acts of gays and lesbians. In fact, toevah is mostly about idolatry, and male homosexual behavior is only as abominable as remarriage or not keeping kosher. Whenever we use the word “abomination” we are perpetuating the misunderstanding of biblical text and the religious persecution of LGBT people.
Indeed, “abomination” itself is an inexact translation, used by the King James and other biblical translations for multiple terms. The KJV uses the word twenty-six times to refer to sheketz, an analogous term to toevah which refers usually to idolatry and occasionally to other taboos such as forbidden animals (Lev. 11:10-13). Likewise, Leviticus 7:18 describes leftover sacrificial meat as pigul—but King James again says “abomination.” And 1 Samuel 13:4, speaking of King Saul and the Philistines, uses the term nivash, yet again rendered as “abomination.” And so on, including 1 Kings 11:5-7, 2 Kings 23:13, Isaiah 66:17, Daniel 11:31, Daniel 12:11 (sheketz), and many more.
The KJV even uses “abomination” six times in translation of New Testament texts (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Luke 16:15, and Revelation 17:4-5, 21:27). All these biblical terms refer to different, albeit similar, violations, yet the umbrella term “abomination” elides any distinction between them. As a result, the KJV lists exactly 150 occurrences of the term “abomination,” though only 103 of them translate toevah.
Now, if by “abomination,” the King James means a cultural prohibition—something which a particular culture abhors but another culture enjoys—then the term makes sense. But in common parlance, the term has come to mean much more than that. Today, it connotes something horrible, something contrary to the order of nature itself, or God’s plan, or the institution of the family, or whatever. It is this malleability of meaning, and its close association with disgust, that makes “abomination” a particularly abominable word to use. The term implies that homosexuality has no place under the sun (despite its presence in over 300 animal species), and that it is an abomination against the Divine order itself. Again, toevah is not a good thing—but it doesn’t mean all of that.
Progressive religionists must stop using the word “abomination” to refer to toevah. The word plays into the hands of fundamentalists on the one hand, and anti-religious zealots on the other, both of whom want to depict the Bible as virulently and centrally concerned with the “unnatural” acts of gays and lesbians. In fact, toevah is mostly about idolatry, and male homosexual behavior is only as abominable as remarriage or not keeping kosher. Whenever we use the word “abomination” we are perpetuating the misunderstanding of biblical text and the religious persecution of LGBT people.
7
no
the OT is Judaisim?
so we have 2 different Gods?
it gets worse the more you try to explain yourself
you can't make this stuff up
wakie do dah there dude! God promised Jesus as He was expelling Adam and Eve from the garden
check it out. it's in the Bible. the Old Testament. beginning of the book. Genesis I believe. chapter 3 or a little later
people had multiple wives...well actually men...because they copied the pagan nations around them
it was never God's plan. He created one and one and took Eve from Adam's side....not his big toe