I love a good meme, I also love poking fun at Politic's. So I decided I'd share some I made for fun.
Please log in to post a reply.
Only if I could double likeQuasi-duck wrote:
You're not meant to lie in court.Diabolical wrote:
In a court of law, that would count as proof by testimony.
And I affirm that I'm telling the truth. I do not lie. If I don't know a thing, I say so. But I am no liar.Quasi-duck wrote:
You're not meant to lie in court.Diabolical wrote:
In a court of law, that would count as proof by testimony.
You don't have to believe me. But I'll swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God, with my hand on a Bible any day.
You can attach lie detector leads on me. You can hold me at gunpoint. You can berate, threaten, bully, torture -- really anything you want -- and use any technical measure you can think of to test me and yet my words will not change. Liars don't continue a lie under enough duress. So, you can choose not to believe me. But I won't change what I'm saying because the truth must not be hidden.
It's too bad the truth bothers you so. But Jesus Christ said that the world would hate and persecute us Christians for His name's sake. Paul says that the cross offends. And this is my cross that I take up to be like Christ. You don't like it. You don't want to hear it. You can deny it. You can deny that I'm telling the truth. You can do anything you want. But I won't stop witnessing to the truth to you and to anyone else that can hear me or see my words on a screen or on paper.
I pray for everyone that I speak to. That includes you. I have no hate in my heart for any man nor do I condemn anyone for their sins...and that goes for you, too. So regardless of whatever you say about me, I will still have the same love and compassion for you that I hold for all of humanity. As my Lord loves me, so too do I love you.
If I did not love each of you reading this, I wouldn't plead for you to accept the free gift of salvation that Jesus paid the ultimate price for. If I did not love you, I wouldn't want you to join with me in Heaven in the presence of the Almighty God. But I do love each of you just as I would love any of God's children. I hate no one and I lie to no one.
So I ask once again, will you not accept the free gift of salvation that Jesus bled and died upon the cross for you? Will you not believe in Him and in His resurrection -- that firstfruits of the perfected eternal life that He offers to each and everyone of you? Perhaps you've heard of John 3:16, well, I will quote you it in the full and more meaningful context of John 3:14-21.
"14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent* in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."
Notes:
[spoiler]
*In roughly 1445 B.C., Moses had made a bronze staff, called the "Nehushtan", with a bronze figure of a snake wrapped around it. While Israel was wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, If anyone were to be bitten by a poisonous snake, they would only need to look upon Moses' Nehushtan staff -- while Moses held onto it -- and they'd be immediately healed. This is the true and original origin of the medical symbol of a snake on a pole and the reason for the use of snake-on-pole symbolism in medicine. This staff also served a dual purpose as a prophecy of the method by which the promised salvation through the messiah would be delivered unto mankind, by being "lifted up" .
Some, however, incorrectly attempt to link the single-snaked pole to the double-snaked pole, the "caduceus", a symbol more commonly used by physicians, today. They wrongly attribute the medical symbology with a staff of Greek and/or Egyptian origin. That image of a winged pole with a double snake seemingly hearkens back to Greek mythological legends where it was first carried by Iris. But Iris used a vessel to carry water from the river Styx to put liars to sleep (death). So she was an executioner, not a healer.
Later, Hermes became associated with the caduceus but his role was that of a deceiver and a betrayer...he too was not a healer. So that whole part of Greek origin is a dead end (pardon the pun). In fact, the original usage of the caduceus in symbology has traditionally been for business and commerce...especially for conniving deals.
The Egyptian origin version is that of Isis who did represent healing. And this goddess was sometimes depicted with wings. But that's the end of the symbolism. The staff of Isis had no wings nor snakes. So this source is also a dead end.
Separately from the other Greek versions, Asclepius was known as a physician and he did supposedly carry a wooden staff with a snake upon it. So this part of Greek origin seems like a fair source of the current day common usage except that his staff had no wings and only the single snake. That actually better-represents the traditional medical symbol rather than the stylized version with double snakes and wings. However, since most Greek mythology (including that of Asclepius) is clearly predated by the first five books of the Bible (the Torah) as well as some other content (like the book of Job), the mythos of Asclepius' staff is obviously based on the much earlier and more sound tradition of Moses which had actually been painstakingly recorded.
Basically, the Hebrew version predates the Mycenaean (pre-Hellenistic) Greek version by several hundred years and the Greek version was probably adapted from the Hebrew one when Greek travelers heard legends of the wandering Semitic peoples that had left their bondage in Egypt before establishing their nation by conquering the Canaanites. Like other contemporary nations at the time, Grecian peoples were aware of the nation of Israel and probably vaguely aware of their origin since the Israeli national origin was a widely-known and understood historical event as recorded among other nations of the time (like Canaan, Sumeria, Assyria, Egypt, and Hatti (the Hittites)).
[/spoiler]
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Y'know, just last night, I was spoken to in my sleep by a mysterious figure with an eye-patch and one robotic arm. He told me Big Boss from Metal Gear Solid is the real God. If I play MGS at least 30 minutes a day from this point on, I can go to Mother Base when I die. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a dream.
I will have strangers write down my experiences 60 years after I die in a book which will be published to spread the word about Big Boss. I hope it will help you learn the truth.
I am faithful to my lord, Big Boss. I know it is the truth.
Still on this? Jezz,
@Diabolical why would you oppose 2 people getting married, and why do you oppose scientific proof?
Btw the Beatles, had it sorted, they were learning a lot of it!
The Beatles, actually had this all figured out, believe it or not, google it
All you need is love? Hey Jude? We're all living in a yellow submarine?oceanhawk wrote:
The Beatles, actually had this all figured out, believe it or not, google it
I'm not opposed to scientific proof, I just interpret the evidence from a different world-view than you do. Also, I see physical evidence only where it is actual proof and not conjecture-based.oceanhawk wrote:
Still on this? Jezz,@Diabolical why would you oppose 2 people getting married, and why do you oppose scientific proof?
Btw the Beatles, had it sorted, they were learning a lot of it!
**************************************
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is between a man and a woman and God is the Lord over them and thus is a part of their marriage in spirit. When God is at the center of your marriage, and the happy couple try to live their lives for God and for each other, they have a better chance at marital bliss and at staying married as well as raising well-adjusted children who in turn are more likely to believe in the Lord, themselves.
I do not believe that marriage should be sanctioned in any other manner and for any other people. I don't believe the government has any say in marriage one way or another. But I also don't think a Christian society should allow any marriage that is centered on a sexual paring of two (or more) people that are specifically prohibited in the Bible.
So, that means that two males cannot marry. That also means that a man may not marry his mother or aunt and a few other incestual relations. That also means that a woman may not marry her mother, aunt, or daughter. By extension, the incestual relations would be for grandparent/grandchildren, etc.
There is no specific mention that says two women (in general) may not be together, even for sisters, but since there is no possibility of defiling a male gonad (which seems to matter), I don't think there is any ceremonial defilement. However, there is mention in the Bible of how a woman is not to exchange the natural for what is unnatural in sexual relationships. So, most Christians interpret this in part to mean no lesbianism. However, while I can accept that, I find it much more obvious that this prohibits sodomy of the woman by the man (which would defile her) and it might also prohibit oral sexual acts, though that last part I'm unsure about. Furthermore, bestiality is specifically prohibited as a defilement of the human body and it is forbidden for both men and women.
**************************************
Because of the specific rules mentioned above, polygamy between males is naturally not allowed but -- technically -- polygamy is allowed between one man and multiple women. However, since all women are daughters of Eve, it is assumed that each woman's natural tendency will be for her man so that jealousy among wives makes the whole "sister wives" concept very impractical, let alone the fantasy of three-way wives. But, I'm no expert on that.
However, there is one specific rule against polygamy among the elders (or bishops) of the Church. "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;..." (I Timothy 3:2 KJV). But, apart from that, the Bible naturally indicates that polygamy shouldn't happen because of the model relationship that was established between Adam and Eve.
Some Christians interpret that scriptural passage from I Timothy 3:2 to refer to post-first wife marriage (i.e., after the death of a spouse or after a divorce ... as well as polygamy) and many Catholics take this passage to refer to the concept that priests are married to the Church and should be celibate and not married to any person.
However, in comparing the Body of Christ (which is the Church) to marriage, in his letter to the Ephesian Church -- when dealing with marriage in general -- the Apostle Paul continues by saying "...for we are members of his [Christ's] body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (Ephesians 5:30-31 NIV). Since this principle is mentioned in multiple places in the Bible, the exclusion of polygamy seems to be normative if not mandatory.
**************************************
One thing is for sure, though. God hates sin and He definitely hates unnatural sexual acts (like sodomy, non-sister incest, and bestiality and maybe oral acts, too). This is why the extremely perverse cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their surrounding region were completely obliterated by fire and brimstone (burning sulfur) falling from the heavens.
The devastation was so complete that God magnified the punishment to include a complete disintegration of anyone at a distance even just looking upon the destructive fires. Though warned against looking at the cities during their flight from the region, Lot's wife disobeyed and turned around to witness the destruction and was herself turned into a pillar of salt (presumably, a pile of her fully-dehydrated minerals and salts left over from sudden and instantaneous irradiation of her body).
The effect on the whole region is not unlike that of an atomic blast. Though there were no nukes in the ancient world (hopefully), the total glassification of the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah found by the Dead sea could only have happened by actual raining fire from super-hot sulfur or some other burning mineral like phosphorous. Some speculate this was accomplished by a dense meteor storm. But I don't ascribe to that thinking.
I do believe that God can and will rain destructive burning sulfur from the heavens and He has promised that He will do so again during the "Wrath of the Lamb" world-wide earthquake that happens during the the fifth seal judgement found in the book of Revelation during the end times.
**************************************
Now, all of that information backs up my assertion that marriage is between a man and a woman. But for two men, homosexuality is the problem, not gay marriage. God treats sodomy as a detestable defilement of the human body. Though I'm unsure about oral acts, I would err on the side of caution and assume that God detests that also. So, though some people -- males in particular -- may have tendencies toward homosexual attraction and may have not learned to listen to their body's natural draw toward the opposite sex, I have no sympathy for them to be permitted to act on their prohibited desire.
The Bible prohibits homosexuality (at least for males), incest (except for sisters?), polygamy (at least for men) bestiality, sodomy, and [maybe] oral sexual acts. But the Bible also prohibits adultery (sex with another person's spouse) and fornication (sex out of wedlock). And God treats all sins as equally bad when it comes to our innate sin nature and open rebellion against God. So, even though God hates sodomy and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah on account of it, He also hates bestiality just as much and He hates incest between multiple generations. In fact, God hates all sin. But, God is love and -- even though He hates the rebellious sinful acts of sinners -- He loves the sinners despite their detestable behavior.
For that reason, because God loves the sinner and hates the sin, so too do I love the sinner and hate the sin. But you might ask, "what then? What is a gay person supposed to do to satisfy their desires?" To that I would offer two answers. One, abstain from all sex if the only sex you desire is homosexual in nature. This is true of all people in that sexual acts outside of marriage are fornication and thus are sin. Two, force yourself to accept sex with a member of the opposite gender who you've agreed with and is then married to you (in God's eyes) and learn to enjoy the act as well as the intimacy.
If a person can choose to accept homosexual desires, they can choose to accept heterosexual desires. I do not believe in -- nor accept -- the concept that a homosexual-leaning person has no choice and I don't believe that they are born "that way". Sexual desire is both part-learned and part-matured-into and the confusion of one type versus another is usually influenced exclusively by nurture, not nature.
That any man is destined to be gay because he played with dolls is not what I'm inferring. Rather, if he (or she) is constantly bombarded with wrong sexual stereotypes before they mature, they are far more likely to choose (and feel as if they are born into) homosexual obsessions. However, any child that is not bombarded with any sexuality and only witnesses naturally normative gender stereotypes, they are much less likely to choose homosexual obsessions as they mature. The choice of obsessions in a maturing young person will directly influence the development of their desires. That is a strong reason for accepting the nurture argument (in that case, self-nurtured behavior) for the origin of heterosexual vs. homosexual desire.
**************************************
Now, even though I'm not gay, I am single. Therefore, were I to have sex outside of marriage, I would be guilty of the sin of fornication which is considered to be no less rebellious than sodomy. Thus I choose to remain celibate until I find and marry a wife. Until I do so, I will remain true to my promise to God to be celibate to obey Him in this matter fully.
So, because I have chosen to be faithful to my Lord I will not know the touch of a woman apart from marriage. Now, if I can deny myself to keep from sinning, then I am justified in asking a gay person to deny him or herself to keep from sinning. Because desire is not a sin -- even if it is misguided or misdirected -- but acting sinfully to sate that desire is rebellion against God.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Can you give that a TL;DR?Diabolical wrote:
I'm not opposed to scientific proof, I just interpret the evidence from a different world-view than you do. Also, I see physical evidence only where it is actual proof and not conjecture-based.oceanhawk wrote:
Still on this? Jezz,@Diabolical why would you oppose 2 people getting married, and why do you oppose scientific proof?
Btw the Beatles, had it sorted, they were learning a lot of it!
**************************************
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is between a man and a woman and God is the Lord over them and thus is a part of their marriage in spirit. When God is at the center of your marriage, and the happy couple try to live their lives for God and for each other, they have a better chance at marital bliss and at staying married as well as raising well-adjusted children who in turn are more likely to believe in the Lord, themselves.
I do not believe that marriage should be sanctioned in any other manner and for any other people. I don't believe the government has any say in marriage one way or another. But I also don't think a Christian society should allow any marriage that is centered on a sexual paring of two (or more) people that are specifically prohibited in the Bible.
So, that means that two males cannot marry. That also means that a man may not marry his mother or aunt and a few other incestual relations. That also means that a woman may not marry her mother, aunt, or daughter. By extension, the incestual relations would be for grandparent/grandchildren, etc.
There is no specific mention that says two women (in general) may not be together, even for sisters, but since there is no possibility of defiling a male gonad (which seems to matter), I don't think there is any ceremonial defilement. However, there is mention in the Bible of how a woman is not to exchange the natural for what is unnatural in sexual relationships. So, most Christians interpret this in part to mean no lesbianism. However, while I can accept that, I find it much more obvious that this prohibits sodomy of the woman by the man (which would defile her) and it might also prohibit oral sexual acts, though that last part I'm unsure about. Furthermore, bestiality is specifically prohibited as a defilement of the human body and it is forbidden for both men and women.
**************************************
Because of the specific rules mentioned above, polygamy between males is naturally not allowed but -- technically -- polygamy is allowed between one man and multiple women. However, since all women are daughters of Eve, it is assumed that each woman's natural tendency will be for her man so that jealousy among wives makes the whole "sister wives" concept very impractical, let alone the fantasy of three-way wives. But, I'm no expert on that.
However, there is one specific rule against polygamy among the elders (or bishops) of the Church. "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;..." (I Timothy 3:2 KJV). But, apart from that, the Bible naturally indicates that polygamy shouldn't happen because of the model relationship that was established between Adam and Eve.
Some Christians interpret that scriptural passage from I Timothy 3:2 to refer to post-first wife marriage (i.e., after the death of a spouse or after a divorce ... as well as polygamy) and many Catholics take this passage to refer to the concept that priests are married to the Church and should be celibate and not married to any person.
However, in comparing the Body of Christ (which is the Church) to marriage, in his letter to the Ephesian Church -- when dealing with marriage in general -- the Apostle Paul continues by saying "...for we are members of his [Christ's] body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (Ephesians 5:30-31 NIV). Since this principle is mentioned in multiple places in the Bible, the exclusion of polygamy seems to be normative if not mandatory.
**************************************
One thing is for sure, though. God hates sin and He definitely hates unnatural sexual acts (like sodomy, non-sister incest, and bestiality and maybe oral acts, too). This is why the extremely perverse cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their surrounding region were completely obliterated by fire and brimstone (burning sulfur) falling from the heavens.
The devastation was so complete that God magnified the punishment to include a complete disintegration of anyone at a distance even just looking upon the destructive fires. Though warned against looking at the cities during their flight from the region, Lot's wife disobeyed and turned around to witness the destruction and was herself turned into a pillar of salt (presumably, a pile of her fully-dehydrated minerals and salts left over from sudden and instantaneous irradiation of her body).
The effect on the whole region is not unlike that of an atomic blast. Though there were no nukes in the ancient world (hopefully), the total glassification of the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah found by the Dead sea could only have happened by actual raining fire from super-hot sulfur or some other burning mineral like phosphorous. Some speculate this was accomplished by a dense meteor storm. But I don't ascribe to that thinking.
I do believe that God can and will rain destructive burning sulfur from the heavens and He has promised that He will do so again during the "Wrath of the Lamb" world-wide earthquake that happens during the the fifth seal judgement found in the book of Revelation during the end times.
**************************************
Now, all of that information backs up my assertion that marriage is between a man and a woman. But for two men, homosexuality is the problem, not gay marriage. God treats sodomy as a detestable defilement of the human body. Though I'm unsure about oral acts, I would err on the side of caution and assume that God detests that also. So, though some people -- males in particular -- may have tendencies toward homosexual attraction and may have not learned to listen to their body's natural draw toward the opposite sex, I have no sympathy for them to be permitted to act on their prohibited desire.
The Bible prohibits homosexuality (at least for males), incest (except for sisters?), polygamy (at least for men) bestiality, sodomy, and [maybe] oral sexual acts. But the Bible also prohibits adultery (sex with another person's spouse) and fornication (sex out of wedlock). And God treats all sins as equally bad when it comes to our innate sin nature and open rebellion against God. So, even though God hates sodomy and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah on account of it, He also hates bestiality just as much and He hates incest between multiple generations. In fact, God hates all sin. But, God is love and -- even though He hates the rebellious sinful acts of sinners -- He loves the sinners despite their detestable behavior.
For that reason, because God loves the sinner and hates the sin, so too do I love the sinner and hate the sin. But you might ask, "what then? What is a gay person supposed to do to satisfy their desires?" To that I would offer two answers. One, abstain from all sex if the only sex you desire is homosexual in nature. This is true of all people in that sexual acts outside of marriage are fornication and thus are sin.
**************************************
Even though I'm not gay, I am single. Therefore, were I to have sex before marriage, I would be guilty of the sin of fornication which is considered no less rebellious than sodomy. Thus I choose to remain celibate until I find and marry a wife. And at my age, it looks like I may never find a wife. And if I don't find a wife, I will remain true to my promise to God to obey Him in this matter fully.
So I may one day go to my death having never known the touch of a woman. Such is my lot in life as I have chosen to be faithful to my Lord. Now, if I can deny myself -- lifelong -- to keep from sinning, then I am justified in asking a gay person to deny him or herself to keep from sinning. Because desire is not a sin -- even if it is misguided or misdirected -- but acting sinfully to sate that desire is rebellion against God.
fixed to not be long, so you can delete your very long quote.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.So much for "freedom=fairness", huh, Diabolical?Diabolical wrote:
I'm not opposed to scientific proof, I just interpret the evidence from a different world-view than you do. Also, I see physical evidence only where it is actual proof and not conjecture-based.oceanhawk wrote:
Still on this? Jezz,@Diabolical why would you oppose 2 people getting married, and why do you oppose scientific proof?
Btw the Beatles, had it sorted, they were learning a lot of it!
**************************************
Spoiler
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is between a man and a woman and God is the Lord over them and thus is a part of their marriage in spirit. When God is at the center of your marriage, and the happy couple try to live their lives for God and for each other, they have a better chance at marital bliss and at staying married as well as raising well-adjusted children who in turn are more likely to believe in the Lord, themselves.
I do not believe that marriage should be sanctioned in any other manner and for any other people. I don't believe the government has any say in marriage one way or another. But I also don't think a Christian society should allow any marriage that is centered on a sexual paring of two (or more) people that are specifically prohibited in the Bible.
So, that means that two males cannot marry. That also means that a man may not marry his mother or aunt and a few other incestual relations. That also means that a woman may not marry her mother, aunt, or daughter. By extension, the incestual relations would be for grandparent/grandchildren, etc.
There is no specific mention that says two women (in general) may not be together, even for sisters, but since there is no possibility of defiling a male gonad (which seems to matter), I don't think there is any ceremonial defilement. However, there is mention in the Bible of how a woman is not to exchange the natural for what is unnatural in sexual relationships. So, most Christians interpret this in part to mean no lesbianism. However, while I can accept that, I find it much more obvious that this prohibits sodomy of the woman by the man (which would defile her) and it might also prohibit oral sexual acts, though that last part I'm unsure about. Furthermore, bestiality is specifically prohibited as a defilement of the human body and it is forbidden for both men and women.
**************************************
Because of the specific rules mentioned above, polygamy between males is naturally not allowed but -- technically -- polygamy is allowed between one man and multiple women. However, since all women are daughters of Eve, it is assumed that each woman's natural tendency will be for her man so that jealousy among wives makes the whole "sister wives" concept very impractical, let alone the fantasy of three-way wives. But, I'm no expert on that.
However, there is one specific rule against polygamy among the elders (or bishops) of the Church. "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;..." (I Timothy 3:2 KJV). But, apart from that, the Bible naturally indicates that polygamy shouldn't happen because of the model relationship that was established between Adam and Eve.
Some Christians interpret that scriptural passage from I Timothy 3:2 to refer to post-first wife marriage (i.e., after the death of a spouse or after a divorce ... as well as polygamy) and many Catholics take this passage to refer to the concept that priests are married to the Church and should be celibate and not married to any person.
However, in comparing the Body of Christ (which is the Church) to marriage, in his letter to the Ephesian Church -- when dealing with marriage in general -- the Apostle Paul continues by saying "...for we are members of his [Christ's] body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (Ephesians 5:30-31 NIV). Since this principle is mentioned in multiple places in the Bible, the exclusion of polygamy seems to be normative if not mandatory.
**************************************
One thing is for sure, though. God hates sin and He definitely hates unnatural sexual acts (like sodomy, non-sister incest, and bestiality and maybe oral acts, too). This is why the extremely perverse cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their surrounding region were completely obliterated by fire and brimstone (burning sulfur) falling from the heavens.
The devastation was so complete that God magnified the punishment to include a complete disintegration of anyone at a distance even just looking upon the destructive fires. Though warned against looking at the cities during their flight from the region, Lot's wife disobeyed and turned around to witness the destruction and was herself turned into a pillar of salt (presumably, a pile of her fully-dehydrated minerals and salts left over from sudden and instantaneous irradiation of her body).
The effect on the whole region is not unlike that of an atomic blast. Though there were no nukes in the ancient world (hopefully), the total glassification of the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah found by the Dead sea could only have happened by actual raining fire from super-hot sulfur or some other burning mineral like phosphorous. Some speculate this was accomplished by a dense meteor storm. But I don't ascribe to that thinking.
I do believe that God can and will rain destructive burning sulfur from the heavens and He has promised that He will do so again during the "Wrath of the Lamb" world-wide earthquake that happens during the the fifth seal judgement found in the book of Revelation during the end times.
**************************************
Now, all of that information backs up my assertion that marriage is between a man and a woman. But for two men, homosexuality is the problem, not gay marriage. God treats sodomy as a detestable defilement of the human body. Though I'm unsure about oral acts, I would err on the side of caution and assume that God detests that also. So, though some people -- males in particular -- may have tendencies toward homosexual attraction and may have not learned to listen to their body's natural draw toward the opposite sex, I have no sympathy for them to be permitted to act on their prohibited desire.
The Bible prohibits homosexuality (at least for males), incest (except for sisters?), polygamy (at least for men) bestiality, sodomy, and [maybe] oral sexual acts. But the Bible also prohibits adultery (sex with another person's spouse) and fornication (sex out of wedlock). And God treats all sins as equally bad when it comes to our innate sin nature and open rebellion against God. So, even though God hates sodomy and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah on account of it, He also hates bestiality just as much and He hates incest between multiple generations. In fact, God hates all sin. But, God is love and -- even though He hates the rebellious sinful acts of sinners -- He loves the sinners despite their detestable behavior.
For that reason, because God loves the sinner and hates the sin, so too do I love the sinner and hate the sin. But you might ask, "what then? What is a gay person supposed to do to satisfy their desires?" To that I would offer two answers. One, abstain from all sex if the only sex you desire is homosexual in nature. This is true of all people in that sexual acts outside of marriage are fornication and thus are sin.
**************************************
Even though I'm not gay, I am single. Therefore, were I to have sex outside of marriage, I would be guilty of the sin of fornication which is considered no less rebellious than sodomy. Thus I choose to remain celibate until I find and marry a wife. Until I do so, I will remain true to my promise to God to be celibate to obey Him in this matter fully.
So, because I have chosen to be faithful to my Lord I will not know the touch of a woman apart from marriage. Now, if I can deny myself to keep from sinning, then I am justified in asking a gay person to deny him or herself to keep from sinning. Because desire is not a sin -- even if it is misguided or misdirected -- but acting sinfully to sate that desire is rebellion against God.
I love how nobody hear understands the definition of proof. So far everything that has been presented as 'proof' is far from proof.
I love how Quasi agree with that lolPablo22510 wrote:
So much for "freedom=fairness", huh, Diabolical?
That is the only thing I hate about American conservatives, they give conservatives a bad name, because of their huge religious things when real Conservatives couldnt give less of a crap what religion you are or the government is. You are free to do what you want, how you want provided you respect others right to do the same, and operate within the law.
Then why are you always hating on communism? Besides, this is sounding like a bit of a "No True Scotsman" kinda thing.oceanhawk wrote:
That is the only thing I hate about American conservatives, they give conservatives a bad name, because of their huge religious things when real Conservatives couldnt give less of a crap what religion you are or the government is. You are free to do what you want, how you want provided you respect others right to do the same, and operate within the law.
Communism took away the Church in Soviet Russia, thats even worse than what Dia wants to do.Quasi-duck wrote:
Then why are you always hating on communism? Besides, this is sounding like a bit of a "No True Scotsman" kinda thing.oceanhawk wrote:
That is the only thing I hate about American conservatives, they give conservatives a bad name, because of their huge religious things when real Conservatives couldnt give less of a crap what religion you are or the government is. You are free to do what you want, how you want provided you respect others right to do the same, and operate within the law.
True conservatives dont care about religion, and dont think the Government should have a position on it. Religion is for Church, said one great "Republican Nominee" ( Ficton lol) The American Republican party, put a bad name on Conservatives in the world I think. Not all, but today really. Like Ronald Regan, who's admirable work in the air traffic strike area, he was better. But British Conservatives, care less about religion, and
Religion is not an issue of national interest
Communism, doesnt support the freedom to choice idea of religion, or anything.
Yeah it does. It was just that the Soviets felt religion was a waste of time. Although Stalin quite liked it in WWII. Good for morale. Kinda like "Die for King and Country".oceanhawk wrote:
Communism, doesnt support the freedom to choice idea of religion, or anything.
Besides, I was emphasizing this point:
oceanhawk wrote:
real Conservatives couldnt give less of a crap what ... the government is
Cos Communism is so stupid and doesnt work, they slightly off spring, Hippo talked about was a little better, but still inferior to the power of the free market and freedom!Quasi-duck wrote:
Yeah it does. It was just that the Soviets felt religion was a waste of time. Although Stalin quite liked it in WWII. Good for morale. Kinda like "Die for King and Country".oceanhawk wrote:
Communism, doesnt support the freedom to choice idea of religion, or anything.Besides, I was emphasizing this point:
oceanhawk wrote:
real Conservatives couldnt give less of a crap what ... the government is
But Communism will decide religion, and that second quote, aint making sense
NVM.oceanhawk wrote:
and that second quote, aint making sense
Proof that this always happens?oceanhawk wrote:
But Communism will decide religion
USSR....Quasi-duck wrote:
NVM.oceanhawk wrote:
and that second quote, aint making senseProof that this always happens?oceanhawk wrote:
But Communism will decide religion
So you think it happened once (when it didn't). Another "examples"?oceanhawk wrote:
USSR....
China... they dont have freedom of Religion..Quasi-duck wrote:
So you think it happened once (when it didn't). Another "examples"?oceanhawk wrote:
USSR....
Although a lot freer than USSR, still harsh on certain religions
Please log in to post a reply.
