Are you an atheist?

[Vassago]

Just heard about two ministers that were peacefully protesting with signs. They were attacked by (supposedly) gay mob and beaten. No tolerance here,,,only violence.

There are going to be violent people in any group of people. Are you stating this doesn't exist in Christianity? (LOL) The few do not speak for the many.

Being gay or not gay doesn't define your ability to be violent or non-violent.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Just heard about two ministers that were peacefully protesting with signs. They were attacked by (supposedly) gay mob and beaten. No tolerance here,,,only violence.

See also Matthew Shepard, who died in (I think) Wyoming, having been bound in barbed wire and left to die because of [IRONY] Christian tolerance. [/IRONY]

Blade, the Christian side of this argument ALWAYS comes back to the straw man about forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies - but it was the Religious Right that pushed for even civil gay marriages before a justice of the peace to be disallowed. You ALWAYS deflect the argument from the real issue - that your group enjoyed moral high ground for a long time, but now it has been shown that your moral high ground resulted in denial of civil rights.

The argument about whether the SCOTUS decision on marriage infringes on your religious rights is based on the straw man that you have the right to interfere with the lives of others because of your religion's instruction to "spread the word of the Lord." Just because your religion says you need to be able to smoke a humongous marijuana cigar doesn't mean you have the right to do so. Just because your religion demands retribution in the form of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or a life for a life does not mean you have the right to exact that retribution. Just because your religion demands burnt offerings doesn't mean you can burn a carcass in sacrifice. (Note, however, that I explicitly exempt holiday and party barbecue pits from this, where the intention wasn't really to burn the hell out of the meat, it just happens...)

We keep on coming back to the Will Rogers definition of USA freedom - Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins - and you guys STUPIDLY INSIST that your actions aren't the legal equivalent of swinging your fist at someone else's rights. You say that gays don't have the right to dictate to churches what they must do, but then CHILDISHLY insist that churches do, indeed, have that right over gays.

Well, we just took your little toy away from you so that others could share the rights they should have had all along - and now you are the petulant child (like your big boss in the sky) who simply refuses to forgive others for being human but different than your warped image of humanity. Grow up, Blade. Learn to think critically about yourself for a change and stop concentrating on how others are doing things you don't like. It's called LIFE and you don't get to define its details.

 

[Frothingslosh]

As I stated before there has been another lawsuit that removes the tax exemption and lawsuit protection from Churches here in the US.

Good. Churches in no way, shape, or form deserve tax-exempt status.

Just heard about two ministers that were peacefully protesting with signs. They were attacked by (supposedly) gay mob and beaten. No tolerance here,,,only violence.

Assuming you're telling the truth for once, then they got off easier than Matthew Shepard, didn't they?

Edit: DAMMIT, Doc, you had beat me to the wire, didn't you?

 

[Bladerunner]

There are going to be violent people in any group of people. Are you stating this doesn't exist in Christianity? (LOL) The few do not speak for the many.

Being gay or not gay doesn't define your ability to be violent or non-violent.

I agree with you here, It has always been the few (activists)that have pushed things passed the breaking point. However, once it gets past that point, it becomes 'mob mentality' or 'mob rule'. We have seen that in Fergusen and Baltimore of late.

 

[spikepl]

Why do we need to get into such discussions and subjective opinions? Let's hear it from the horse's mouth.

So, god, you are on. A post here in this thread would be just fine. But you can still call me on my cell if you are shy. I encouraged you already a few times, so please don't chicken out this time.

 

[Bladerunner]

Certainly a civil discussion.

Saying you are against something that hasn't happened is silly. Do Christians typically go into a Hindu temple to marry? No! But you make it sound as if they did, and were denied, they would be surprised? I think this is nothing more than a convenient excuse to be against gay marriage.

As for the tax exempt status, I won't even go there. When I see multi-million dollar statues outside of churches, it grinds my gears enough.ow..

OK we will see what happens from here on.

Those tax exempt dollars go to the needy. Yes, the churches (some of them) are large but is a rich fellow going to go to a country church???? It all about getting those bucks so their programs can continue to grow. The churches of these United States do more charity than all the others put together. Are you going to shut that down because of your mind set on churches?


QUOTE]

The point is, the people CANNOT vote for or against something that provides federally recognition and rights that go along with it. These become civil rights at that point. Votes do not matter. This is a 14th amendment issue.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens"

If marriage provides federally recognized rights and privileges, no state can pass laws that specifically exclude certain individuals..

[/QUOTE]

There was no Federal law for marriage either way and to piggyback the Gay movement on the backs of the Black civil rights movement in this country is ludicrous It was all state laws and the judges simply struck them down and in effect said, you can no longer make laws concerning marriage, This is a gov. entity now.........Is that not scary??????NO.........


QUOTE]

You didn't answer the question. Wouldn't this make any Christian an oxymoron? By your definition, you say being gay is a sin and because it's a sin, you can't be Christian. But, the Bible clearly says all people are sinners. Since all people are sinners, then no one can be Christian?..

[/QUOTE]

ok, let me make a stab at it. Hope I can word it right if there is a right way. Jeffery Dahmer who committed ra**, murder, disemberment of men and boys during the 70s to the 90's. It is told that he accepted Jesus Christ and repented. Let me let you think about that a minute............. A murder and raper of man going to heaven!!!!!!!

You ask, how can that be. God/Jesus looks at all sins as equal. Murder is one sin, Adultery is another but all equal. The question concerning Jeffery is: Was he Genuine in his repentance of his sins. If he was, Jesus tells us all is forgiven. With the Gay couple they wear a coat of sin 24-7 (so to speak). The sin is according to the Bible (God's word) not mine. How can you be genuine in your repentance if you are living in it 24-7.

As far as I am concerned, They are people and deserve all respect that is afforded to all other people Their lifestyle is theirs AND Gods business. I will not judge them but it seems hypocritical to live in sin and exclaim you are a Christian.

NOW, one other word, there are a lot of people out there that are hypocrites that go to church , proclaim their faith and love, yet through their daily lives continue to commit one Bible sin after another. Are they really genuine about repentance. Only God knows what is deep down in your heart, There are no secrets from him. Now this is my opinion on that.

A lot of God's laws to the Hebrew people state that adultery and other sins be dealt with death. These were laws for man kind at that time. Rem, Mankind had no laws back then. Anything while not acceptable had no or very little consequences.

QUOTE]

Right, but since you quote that specific passage from Leviticus as a way of stating this is why you are against gay marriage, shouldn't you follow all of it? How do you decide which to follow and which not to? Wouldn't no following all of it be going against God?.

[/QUOTE]

Yes I am against Gay Marriage as a Christian, I believe it is a sin!!!!!!! However, if the laws of man allow it, I have no problem with gays being married by the state.(believe I stated that before) and as you correctly stated it is no skin off my nose. You Said: "Saying you are against something that hasn't happened is silly." but I stated this was going to happen six months to a year ago and part of it has been fulfilled. The activists NOT the good people will continue to drive wedges between us and will continue to disrupt state and federal laws through Judicial legislation. I believe that during this eruption of PC, the church and it parishioners will bare the brunt of these actions. I guess we will just have to wait and see. As I stated to Frothy: Once it happens, no matter how angry you or I get about it, it cannot be put back to it original.

I quote scripture that best makes a statement against the part I am debating against. The laws of God have to be taken in their entirety which is why there is so much dissention out there .


QUOTE]

I didn't see anything in Matthew 19:1-8 that even sounded like it spoke of marriage, only about divorce between a man and a woman. It didn't state anything about defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman. He was answering a specific question with a specific answer. How can this be interpreted any differently. This is like reading a sports magazine that mentions Michael Jordan being a great basketball player and assuming he should be good at all sports.

The Romans passage likewise seems to open-ended. I've seen many different translations of this passage. The one thing I do see is that it sounds more like it's about the acts of unfaithfully going from person to person. I think this is the better interpretation of this passage, moreso, than specifically being against a monogamous couple, regardless of the sexes of the pair. It also doesn't mention marriage in any sense. It seems your interpretation is again one of convenience, and one built upon a specific translation at that.

[/QUOTE]

I don't think the Bible has the word marriage in it. It does state Husband and wife, Man and Woman and of course divorce. Marriage is Mans word for the union of a man and a woman into one.

Everyone who reads scripture has an opinion based upon their lifestyle about the scripture. Good or bad it is your opinion that counts to you, Rightly so, There are those that cannot bring themselves to accept the FREE redemption of all the sins (Bible) they had done over their life time enabling them to enjoy everlasting life after this earthly death for one reason or another. This too is controlled by ones opinion.

One other topic....before the end of times begin, there will a one church (one religion for all) established. This may have already happened or may not have. Again, my opinion of gay marriage is a sin against God. However, since it is now a pseudo law of the land, I accept the governments right to marry these people and actually have no problem with it since it is not my call. The gay people in my opinion are good people just misled, kind of like lost sheep. Yes there are those that are not lost but for the most part, people of these United States have good hearts.

Having said that, IF I were a minister, I would not marry under God, a gay couple even under the threat of Death......Boy Howdy,,IF we get that far, it is all over anyway.

 

[Brianwarnock]

There are those that cannot bring themselves to accept the FREE redemption of all the sins (Bible) they had done over their life time enabling them to enjoy everlasting life after this earthly death for one reason or another. This too is controlled by ones opinion.

My problem with this is that some may not have the opportunity to repent, death maybe sudden, how can that be right?

Brian

 

[Bladerunner]

My problem with this is that some may not have the opportunity to repent, death maybe sudden, how can that be right?

Brian

Exactly!!!!!!! Therefore "treat everyday as if were your last!" Up until your death, you still have a choice, after death you have NONE!

 

[Vassago]

OK we will see what happens from here on.

Those tax exempt dollars go to the needy. Yes, the churches (some of them) are large but is a rich fellow going to go to a country church???? It all about getting those bucks so their programs can continue to grow. The churches of these United States do more charity than all the others put together. Are you going to shut that down because of your mind set on churches?

Fair enough. I know some of them are good and help those around them. I just get very annoyed when I see things like the giant cross in Orlando lit up by spotlights every night that, admittedly, had a cost of over $1m to produce. This isn't even considering the power usage. Things like this seems unnecessarily flashy, which to me is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.

There was no Federal law for marriage either way and to piggyback the Gay movement on the backs of the Black civil rights movement in this country is ludicrous It was all state laws and the judges simply struck them down and in effect said, you can no longer make laws concerning marriage, This is a gov. entity now.........Is that not scary??????NO.........

There has always been a federal recognition of marriage in public service jobs at the federal level. Everything from military to office workers. You also had tax benefits at the federal level. Also, at the federal level, there were laws that may not be directly related to marriage, but had to do with rights to hospital visits and decisions. These can be very big deals if you ever run into these situations.

ok, let me make a stab at it. Hope I can word it right if there is a right way. Jeffery Dahmer who committed ra**, murder, disemberment of men and boys during the 70s to the 90's. It is told that he accepted Jesus Christ and repented. Let me let you think about that a minute............. A murder and raper of man going to heaven!!!!!!!

You ask, how can that be. God/Jesus looks at all sins as equal. Murder is one sin, Adultery is another but all equal. The question concerning Jeffery is: Was he Genuine in his repentance of his sins. If he was, Jesus tells us all is forgiven. With the Gay couple they wear a coat of sin 24-7 (so to speak). The sin is according to the Bible (God's word) not mine. How can you be genuine in your repentance if you are living in it 24-7.

It still doesn't explain why this one law in Leviticus is consistently repeated as being the main verse fighting against homosexuality, yet all of the other laws are completely ignored. Almost all people today have committed sins between this book and others in the Old Testament, even some of the really silly ones like not wearing cloth from two different sources, and do so every day, so what allows one law to be picked over another? If we can admit that one is silly, why can't we admit the other is?

As far as I am concerned, They are people and deserve all respect that is afforded to all other people Their lifestyle is theirs AND Gods business. I will not judge them but it seems hypocritical to live in sin and exclaim you are a Christian.

NOW, one other word, there are a lot of people out there that are hypocrites that go to church , proclaim their faith and love, yet through their daily lives continue to commit one Bible sin after another. Are they really genuine about repentance. Only God knows what is deep down in your heart, There are no secrets from him. Now this is my opinion on that.

A lot of God's laws to the Hebrew people state that adultery and other sins be dealt with death. These were laws for man kind at that time. Rem, Mankind had no laws back then. Anything while not acceptable had no or very little consequences.

However, if the laws of man allow it, I have no problem with gays being married by the state.

I'm glad to hear you actually state that.

 

[Bladerunner]

Fair enough. I know some of them are good and help those around them. I just get very annoyed when I see things like the giant cross in Orlando lit up by spotlights every night that, admittedly, had a cost of over $1m to produce. This isn't even considering the power usage. Things like this seems unnecessarily flashy, which to me is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught..

Agreed!

There has always been a federal recognition of marriage in public service jobs at the federal level. Everything from military to office workers. You also had tax benefits at the federal level. Also, at the federal level, there were laws that may not be directly related to marriage, but had to do with rights to hospital visits and decisions. These can be very big deals if you ever run into these situations..

Marriage itself has been recognized by the federal government but it has been the states that have defined marriage This the federal gov had not done and still has not done. 5-6 SCOTUS judges made this law themselves. We now have a Federal law that defines marriage between what????????????is the question?????????This is the problem. At least when the state made a law it was with the majority vote of the states population. Now the whole US. (320 mil or so people) did not get a vote but rather 5-6 judges told them how it is going to be and you don't have any problems with it????????????????????????????????????/ OoooooK again, be careful what you ask for!

It still doesn't explain why this one law in Leviticus is consistently repeated as being the main verse fighting against homosexuality, yet all of the other laws are completely ignored. Almost all people today have committed sins between this book and others in the Old Testament, even some of the really silly ones like not wearing cloth from two different sources, and do so every day, so what allows one law to be picked over another? If we can admit that one is silly, why can't we admit the other is?.

I will try once more by playing a bad lawyer, I am sure......lol.... Leviticus 18:22-24 was one of God's laws for his chosen people the Israelis. Whether or not this law is still in effect is a mute point since it shows the mindset of God in detail of how he thinks about a man lying with a man and so on and so forth. Having said that, salvation is only a choice away. When Jesus died for our sins, all those laws are mute if you seek forgiveness. One point, I do not know about is that if one does not seek forgiveness nor accepts Jesus before they die, do these original laws remain in effect... Only God knows the answer. However, by his words in Levititcus, I don't think the chances would be good that he threw them out. There did I pass the BAR???lol

Here is a list of several scriptures that have something to say about homosexuality.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Homosexuality/

I'm glad to hear you actually state that.

I believe I stated it several times before.,,,,I guess one more time would did not hurt.


p.s. The Atheist won another battle today. It seems that Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the "Ten Commandments" monument had to be removed from its state capital grounds. It seems it was against the law that had previously been written???? Don't know when the law was written or by whom. and it does not really matter. This supreme court did what they were suppose to do and did not legislate from the bench but rather simply were referees. While I think it is silly for the left (liberals) to continue demanding these monuments be removed from any governmental grounds when this government was founded on these very principles, I also believe they have to be removed for socialism to have any chance of taking hold. "Out of sight---Out of Mind". For without them, everything is left to atheism (nothingness) and anything goes and nothing is taboo.

 

[Bladerunner]

Raining here so have a little time for conversation.

Heard the leader of the Atheist movement in these United States (last night on Fox News) that removal of the Tax exempt and other protective laws of the church is the next step. This will lead to the destruction of the church as we know it.

But first removal of all religious artifacts from any government properties irregardless of the fact that they are historical. is necessary.

As Frothy stated:.(a revision of history).....I will apply.....this to the left Liberal vision of how things happened and should be in the future without any input of any of the states that are in disagreement with them. The voice of the people of these states are not recognized and thereby considered null and void. By-passing the constitution as was done is also being done today.

 

[Libre]

Blade - we've moved (or are moving) from a society that initially only recognized only one race (white) and gender (male) and sexual orientation (hetero) and religion (Christian) to a multi-cultural society where many diverse groups are recognized. The Constitution supposedly guarantees equality under the law so the Constitution was actually enforced by the SCOTUS. As such, the relics of the original oppressive system (tablets of the 10 Commandments, etc) are falling and that's a good thing in my mind.

Several corrections: "atheism" =/= "nothingness". It's the philosophy that filling in blanks in our knowledge with fabrications does not cut it.
Also, the words "moot" and "mute" are very different and mean entirely different things. Forgive me for the correction because ordinarily I'd let something like that slide but in this case the word mute just stands out like a sore thumb. Then, as long as I'm at it, the word "irregardless" is a comical non-word and is easily avoided by substituting either "regardless" OR "irrespective".

 

[Frothingslosh]

Also, who is the Leader of Atheism? Many atheists I know would love to know, since as far as intelligent people are aware, there isn't one.

Also, if every belief system or lack of one has one supreme leader, how do you feel about YOUR leader, the Pope, and his recent encyclical?

 

[Vassago]

Marriage itself has been recognized by the federal government but it has been the states that have defined marriage This the federal gov had not done and still has not done. 5-6 SCOTUS judges made this law themselves. We now have a Federal law that defines marriage between what????????????is the question?????????This is the problem. At least when the state made a law it was with the majority vote of the states population. Now the whole US. (320 mil or so people) did not get a vote but rather 5-6 judges told them how it is going to be and you don't have any problems with it????????????????????????????????????/ OoooooK again, be careful what you ask for!

I think we've covered that you cannot let the people vote to remove rights from a minority group of people that are granted and recognized by the government. If you could, what's to stop Mississippi from deciding that blacks can be slaves again? The whites outnumber them considerably there. This is why these bans are being deemed Unconstitutional. By allowing people to ban these rights and privileges from other people, you are removing the same rights everyone else is entitled to.

Personally, I think we've moved beyond needing marriage to be recognized by a government entity. I think it's none of their business who anyone chooses to love for life at this stage. We don't need them to play any part in marriage. But as long as they continue to treat married individuals differently than single individuals and grant certain rights to partners, we cannot change this.

One point, I do not know about is that if one does not seek forgiveness nor accepts Jesus before they die, do these original laws remain in effect... Only God knows the answer. However, by his words in Levititcus, I don't think the chances would be good that he threw them out. There did I pass the BAR???lol

Sounds like there should be a lot of dead wives then.

I believe I stated it several times before.,,,,I guess one more time would did not hurt.


p.s. The Atheist won another battle today. It seems that Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the "Ten Commandments" monument had to be removed from its state capital grounds. It seems it was against the law that had previously been written???? Don't know when the law was written or by whom. and it does not really matter. This supreme court did what they were suppose to do and did not legislate from the bench but rather simply were referees. While I think it is silly for the left (liberals) to continue demanding these monuments be removed from any governmental grounds when this government was founded on these very principles, I also believe they have to be removed for socialism to have any chance of taking hold. "Out of sight---Out of Mind". For without them, everything is left to atheism (nothingness) and anything goes and nothing is taboo.

I think this ten commandment stuff is rather dumb. I understand the religious background, but they are some pretty good rules to live by regardless. My only point would be, as long as they didn't deny other religions from equal space on the same grounds, it's ok by me.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade - we've moved (or are moving) from a society that initially only recognized only one race (white) and gender (male) and sexual orientation (hetero) and religion (Christian) to a multi-cultural society where many diverse groups are recognized. The Constitution supposedly guarantees equality under the law so the Constitution was actually enforced by the SCOTUS. As such, the relics of the original oppressive system (tablets of the 10 Commandments, etc) are falling and that's a good thing in my mind.".

ok

Several corrections: "atheism" =/= "nothingness". It's the philosophy that filling in blanks in our knowledge with fabrications does not cut it.
Also, the words "moot" and "mute" are very different and mean entirely different things. Forgive me for the correction because ordinarily I'd let something like that slide but in this case the word mute just stands out like a sore thumb. Then, as long as I'm at it, the word "irregardless" is a comical non-word and is easily avoided by substituting either "regardless" OR "irrespective".

Know the difference but sometimes when I am writing while heavily in thought, my fingers just don't get it right, especially at my age. Mute should have been moot. My appology to your ears!!!!!!!!!!!.

Irrespective is a saying here in the South...Guess we need to throw that out as well to be PC.. I read up on the definition (Now, I am not as Ignorant as I was) and here is what I found:

Used by people who ignorantly mean to say regardless. According to webster, it is a word, but since the prefix "ir" and the suffx "less" both mean "not or with" they cancel each other out, so what you end up with is regard. When you use this to try to say you don't care about something, you end up saying that you do. Of course everyone knows what you mean to say and only a ??????,????? ??????? will correct you.

I thought it was funny but to sensitive people, it might not thus I Questioned it out? However, for those that want to see,,,,, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=irregardless

 

[Bladerunner]

Also, who is the Leader of Atheism? Many atheists I know would love to know, since as far as intelligent people are aware, there isn't one.

Also, if every belief system or lack of one has one supreme leader, how do you feel about YOUR leader, the Pope, and his recent encyclical?

,, Should have been since she is was but one, 'one of the leaders'

Simply watch last night 'Hannity' on Fox News.

 

[Bladerunner]

Also, who is the Leader of Atheism? Many atheists I know would love to know, since as far as intelligent people are aware, there isn't one.

Also, if every belief system or lack of one has one supreme leader, how do you feel about YOUR leader, the Pope, and his recent encyclical?

oops missed that one,,,,,,Now Why on earth would the POPE be my Leader...My leader is Jesus Christ............

 

[Frothingslosh]

Subtlety is completely lost on you.

"Atheists" have no leader, any more than "Christians" do. To have a leader requires single, acknowledged organization, and there is not one. Hell, the vast majority of atheists are not part of any form of 'atheist organization' at all.

There are PROMINENT atheists, just like there are prominent scientists and prominent musicians, but despite what the inveterate liars on Fox News would tell you, that is not even remotely the same thing.

 

[Bladerunner]

I think we've covered that you cannot let the people vote to remove rights from a minority group of people that are granted and recognized by the government. If you could, what's to stop Mississippi from deciding that blacks can be slaves again? The whites outnumber them considerably there. This is why these bans are being deemed Unconstitutional. By allowing people to ban these rights and privileges from other people, you are removing the same rights everyone else is entitled to..

It is not the law,,,It is the way it was created by 5-6 people who proclaimed themselves qusi-dictators over us. You still cannot see it, and we are going around in circles here. It is OK,, it is done.

Personally, I think we've moved beyond needing marriage to be recognized by a government entity. I think it's none of their business who anyone chooses to love for life at this stage. We don't need them to play any part in marriage. But as long as they continue to treat married individuals differently than single individuals and grant certain rights to partners, we cannot change this..

OK

I think this ten commandment stuff is rather dumb. I understand the religious background, but they are some pretty good rules to live by regardless. My only point would be, as long as they didn't deny other religions from equal space on the same grounds, it's ok by me.

Don't have a problem with that either. Lets, see we have the pagan, witches (forget what they are called), Satanist of course, Islamist, Buhdist, etc.........

On second thought,,we might run out of government grounds if we do that. Let them take it and just see where it leads us????????

 

[Bladerunner]

Subtlety is completely lost on you.

"Atheists" have no leader, any more than "Christians" do. To have a leader requires single, acknowledged organization, and there is not one. Hell, the vast majority of atheists are not part of any form of 'atheist organization' at all.

There are PROMINENT atheists, just like there are prominent scientists and prominent musicians, but despite what the inveterate liars on Fox News would tell you, that is not even remotely the same thing.

Ok, she spoke for the Atheist cause and their agenda??????sorry ,,,hope that is better....