Yea I will be fine. And it's Soul, you got a little typo there nothing major just a typo
Least we forget
- Thread starter sammyk
- Start date
ok sorry to belabor this discussion but I have to respond to a couple things:
the reference to "Your Government party is forcing the issue on people". I've been a registered Republican and Democrat in my lifetime, and don't blindly profess allegiance to either party.. so who is my party? And the majority of both parties seem to support legal rights for gay marriage.. A 2021 Gallup poll found that a record-breaking 70% of the U.S. population now supports same-sex marriage, including 83% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans.
I am personally not coming from a place of trying to force my views on you.. I respect your right to believe whatever you want.. but the Gov't has a role to provide legal rights to all citizens regardless of their race, religion, sex, etc.. I don't interpret that as the Gov't forcing their beliefs on you...again, if you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of your same sex, you have every right to live your life in that way.
That's up to you. I don't really care. But it seriously is beginning to sound like you do not believe historical facts and documents. The Myans also have a history as does Roman Empire. Don't recall ever denying any of those.
The Babylonians, Romans, Myans, Egyptian Empire and the Greek Mythology Middle eastern and far east are spoken of in the bible. The three wise men were Persian wise men that were something like priests, interpreters of special signs, and especially astrology.
Mάgoi as used to refer to the wise men is probably in line with the first definition. Like these Persian wise men, the magi were interested in astrology (they followed a star) and they were from the east (the direction of Babylon/Persia).
Sometimes the magi are referred to as kings, but the Bible never calls them that.
I suggest you study and quit playing gym teacher.
What historical facts am I not believing??? Where in the bible is there one date????? Other than the flood what facts are there?????? (And all ancient civilizations had record of a flood). We do not even have the birth of Jesus in the right month. So if you are saying the bible is a history book filled with facts well you might be a little off there. And keep on waiving that hand in the air
..
For a nonbeliever you sure do spend an awful lot of time attacking people's religion. Most agnostic and atheist don't care enough to even debate it. Well unless it's getting in the way of their Marxist Utopia.
For a nonbeliever you sure do spend an awful lot of time attacking people's religion. Most agnostic and atheist don't care enough to even debate it. Well unless it's getting in the way of their Marxist Utopia.
I think our difference of opinion is you are defining "marriage" as a Christian thing (i.e., Bible reference).. whereas I am not since "marriage" or the concept of marriage exists in many religions, and non-religions, and purportedly pre-dates Christianity. I respect your right to your views and we can ultimately just to agree to disagree, no biggie.
It's not just a Christian definition. Each religion or group has their own. Each can institute it how they desire.
Government doesn't have the right to override all of them.
I would have to say the opposite.
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them,” (Leviticus 20:13).
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,” (Romans 1:26-28).
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God,” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
“But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted,” (1 Timothy 1:8-11).
So, while homosexuality is not a primary focus for most of the Bible, it is plainly identified in several places as a sin. What’s more, it is a clear violation of the specific, positive sexual ethic that is a major focus throughout Scripture.
That being said, I am not the or even a judge. Whether you're a person of faith or not, you make your own choices. I'm a sinner just like everyone else on this Earth. Who am I to judge? I don't think I'm better than anyone. I am, however, a person of faith. I am of no religion. Religion is man-made. God hates religion.
If you don't believe in God, I feel sorry for you, but I'm not going to judge or ridicule you over it. It's none of my business. If you're gay that's between you and God. I have nothing to do with it. Free will and a free country, have at it. The same should be for me as well. Because I am a person of faith and believe in God, it shouldn't be shoved down my throat nor should I be ridiculed and judged.
Are you proud of your ignorance or just how thoroughly you display it on this forum?
Those Scriptures you quoted (which is almighty God himself speaking) are just made up by a bunch of homophobes.
"Shoved down your throat " lmao
Nice just real nice ...
I can't judge what I don't understand. Keep government out of it and it all goes away
May I ask you a question without you responding by calling me some sort of dismissive name? If "being born gay" is a natural state, and a condition one has no control over how do they reproduce naturally? In other words if one can be "born gay" naturally how does that happen naturally between two gay people?
Just explain that to me and I'll stop thinking it's NOT natural.
so your view is that marriage should not have any legal context to it, but should be just a religious designation, etc.. and civil unions would be the path to have legal rights? would people married in a church also then need to go through the civil union process to be afforded legal rights like tax filing, divorce, etc, etc?
For me personally, I have no problem with homosexual folks who prefer to committ to a monogamous relationship. However I strenuously object to their attempts to redefine marriage by doing so!
If they prefer to committ themselves to a union as Married heterosexual folks do, then they need to call that something else besides "marriage". That by its natural connotation denotes a permanent union between a man and a woman. If you redefine what that natural union is, you are making what is in reality abnormal (two men or two women marrying) in fact normal. I asked earlier ITT if being gay is normal, how do they reproduce?
The fact is every self created homosexual came out of a heterosexual union...either in marriage or out of it. That is what's normal and in fact natural. Two men cannot reproduce. Nor can two women. So if those folks want to committ to permanent relationships (which is fine with me) they need to call those unions something else besides marriage. We should not allow the abnormal to redefine the normal. Gay people cannot naturally reproduce, nor can they naturally committ to someone of the opposite sex which is called Marriage.
They cannot redefine what is normal and natural to call their deviant behavior "natural" in a monogamous union or in any other relationship. If they want to be considered normal, then they have to reproduce normally as normal heterosexual folks in monogamous unions can easily do.
If they prefer to committ themselves to a union as Married heterosexual folks do, then they need to call that something else besides "marriage". That by its natural connotation denotes a permanent union between a man and a woman. If you redefine what that natural union is, you are making what is in reality abnormal (two men or two women marrying) in fact normal. I asked earlier ITT if being gay is normal, how do they reproduce?
The fact is every self created homosexual came out of a heterosexual union...either in marriage or out of it. That is what's normal and in fact natural. Two men cannot reproduce. Nor can two women. So if those folks want to committ to permanent relationships (which is fine with me) they need to call those unions something else besides marriage. We should not allow the abnormal to redefine the normal. Gay people cannot naturally reproduce, nor can they naturally committ to someone of the opposite sex which is called Marriage.
They cannot redefine what is normal and natural to call their deviant behavior "natural" in a monogamous union or in any other relationship. If they want to be considered normal, then they have to reproduce normally as normal heterosexual folks in monogamous unions can easily do.
So what could we call two homosexuals who want to join in union as a man and woman do in Marriage?
I suggest calling them "committed". Folks would instantly recognize and in my opinion honor what that means. Steve and Paul are "committed" .
Other possible names you can call that besides "Marriage":
"Joined"
"Recognized"
"Confirmed"
"Locked"
"Consummated"
"Bonded"
"Pronounced"
"Dedicated"
"Affirmed"
"Co-joined"
"Legal"
All of these can mean the same as traditional "marriage" and can be instantly recognized in society as same without redefining what "Marriage" actually is. A union between one man and one woman!
I suggest calling them "committed". Folks would instantly recognize and in my opinion honor what that means. Steve and Paul are "committed" .
Other possible names you can call that besides "Marriage":
"Joined"
"Recognized"
"Confirmed"
"Locked"
"Consummated"
"Bonded"
"Pronounced"
"Dedicated"
"Affirmed"
"Co-joined"
"Legal"
All of these can mean the same as traditional "marriage" and can be instantly recognized in society as same without redefining what "Marriage" actually is. A union between one man and one woman!
Yes this is what I see as perfect.
Why should there be any legal rights for a married couple or people in a civil union. Taxes should not matter divorce should not even be mentioned .
I admit, I laughed at that! Just call gay unions something besides Marriage. That means one thing between a man and a woman. I don't want that redefined for gay folks. They separate themselves out primarily for their sexual preferences by calling themselves "gay", so they can separate themselves out further by who they choose to join in a committed relationship. Call it something else.
Agreed. Marriage is a Holy Matrimony and described as such. It's Godly and for people of faith, between a man and a woman.
Gay people cannot naturally reproduce other gay people, and the Bible is not only 100% historically accurate it is also 100% prophetically perfect. Just a few annoying facts Leftists either try to ignore or simply don't understand.
excerpt
we can know that our present Old Testament text, based on the Masoretic text, is practically identical with the Hebrew text in use at the time of Jesus. There is, therefore, no reason to doubt that what the authors of the Old Testament wrote is substantially the same as what we have in our Bibles today.
...more
excerpt
This webpage deals with the historical reliability of the Holy Scripture, that is, its reliability as a historical document. This matter should be distinguished from the doctrinal reliability of the Holy Scripture. The books of the Bible are historically reliable if they are a true record of historical facts. They are doctrinally reliable if they are true sources of religious teaching or doctrine. The aim of this webpage is merely to show that the Bible, as it is known today, is reliable as a historical document.
excerpt
we can know that our present Old Testament text, based on the Masoretic text, is practically identical with the Hebrew text in use at the time of Jesus. There is, therefore, no reason to doubt that what the authors of the Old Testament wrote is substantially the same as what we have in our Bibles today.
...more
excerpt
This webpage deals with the historical reliability of the Holy Scripture, that is, its reliability as a historical document. This matter should be distinguished from the doctrinal reliability of the Holy Scripture. The books of the Bible are historically reliable if they are a true record of historical facts. They are doctrinally reliable if they are true sources of religious teaching or doctrine. The aim of this webpage is merely to show that the Bible, as it is known today, is reliable as a historical document.
Last edited:
The Bible is also a book of prophecy...it is 100% prophetically perfect!
excerpt
Where has God declared the end from the beginning? He has told it clearly on the pages of the Holy Scriptures. Holy men of God, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote of great world events centuries before they were to come to pass. Since it is inherent in the heart of man to know the future, why should he not examine the prophetic Scriptures with an unbiased mind?
...more
History and Prophecy...the Bible lines up 100% accurate!
excerpt
According to secular sources, crucifixion was invented as a method of capital punishment no earlier than the 6th century BC10. This is 4 centuries after David wrote in Psalms 22:16, “They have pierced my hands and my feet”. Even if critics try to persuade against a 1000 BC date for Psalms 22, they can’t deny this Psalm existed in the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls that were translated around 200 BC11. Does the critic really want to try to convince us that a Jesus pretender would want to self-fulfill such a terrible way to die?
The Old Testament contains 333 prophesies regarding the Messiah, most of which were fulfilled by the first coming of Jesus Christ. Even the most liberal critics acknowledge that these prophesies were written at least 400 years before Christ. Mathematicians have easily shown that the odds of all these prophesies being fulfilled by chance in one man is greater than the number of atoms in the universe many times over.
excerpt
Where has God declared the end from the beginning? He has told it clearly on the pages of the Holy Scriptures. Holy men of God, guided by the Holy Spirit, wrote of great world events centuries before they were to come to pass. Since it is inherent in the heart of man to know the future, why should he not examine the prophetic Scriptures with an unbiased mind?
...more
History and Prophecy...the Bible lines up 100% accurate!
excerpt
According to secular sources, crucifixion was invented as a method of capital punishment no earlier than the 6th century BC10. This is 4 centuries after David wrote in Psalms 22:16, “They have pierced my hands and my feet”. Even if critics try to persuade against a 1000 BC date for Psalms 22, they can’t deny this Psalm existed in the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls that were translated around 200 BC11. Does the critic really want to try to convince us that a Jesus pretender would want to self-fulfill such a terrible way to die?
The Old Testament contains 333 prophesies regarding the Messiah, most of which were fulfilled by the first coming of Jesus Christ. Even the most liberal critics acknowledge that these prophesies were written at least 400 years before Christ. Mathematicians have easily shown that the odds of all these prophesies being fulfilled by chance in one man is greater than the number of atoms in the universe many times over.
Last edited:
Do current events line up with Bible prophecy?
Read this and see what you think?
Where are we in Biblical prophecy, right now, today? And what's going on in the world that's leading up to the next event foretold by God?
Read this and see what you think?
Where are we in Biblical prophecy, right now, today? And what's going on in the world that's leading up to the next event foretold by God?