|
Post by Roselyn T on May 25, 2015 6:38:20 GMT -5
Again Felicity, maybe do some research, Ross has stated the same. Just because we are ex's doesn't mean we don't know what is going on in our own area ! Yes, I am aware that Ross stated the same, though when pressed for further details he didn't respond. Are you saying that you could name someone currently in the work in Australia who is a practising homosexual? Or someone whose inclination would be for a same-sex relationship but who is practising celibacy? Or is this just a whisper-campaign? Yes Felicity I do, but I am not naming any names on here !
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 25, 2015 6:39:45 GMT -5
I haven't seen any more than unsupported allegations that there are such. However, as long as they are resisting temptation and remaining celibate, keeping pure in thought and deed, it's no different to anyone else. Fornication is a sin no matter who does it. Again Felicity, maybe do some research, Ross has stated the same. Just because we are ex's doesn't mean we don't know what is going on in our own area ! Problems in his own church should prevent Ross from being overly critical of anyone else's church:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 6:42:41 GMT -5
Yes, I am aware that Ross stated the same, though when pressed for further details he didn't respond. Are you saying that you could name someone currently in the work in Australia who is a practising homosexual? Or someone whose inclination would be for a same-sex relationship but who is practising celibacy? Or is this just a whisper-campaign? Yes Felicity I do, but I am not naming any names on here ! What do you mean by "I do"? I mentioned 3 options in my comment, which one are you agreeing to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 6:44:20 GMT -5
the verse you quoted has nothing to do with ruth or Naomi... You will need to narrow that down a little. The original verse quoted was Ruth 1:14 and describes the relationship between Ruth and Naomi. I thought it had at least a little to do Ruth and Naomi. Ruth 1 v 14 says "And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her." What does that have to do with loving each other as Adam loved Eve?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 25, 2015 6:47:07 GMT -5
the verse you quoted has nothing to do with ruth or Naomi... You will need to narrow that down a little. The original verse quoted was Ruth 1:14 and describes the relationship between Ruth and Naomi. I thought it had at least a little to do Ruth and Naomi. Rational, that verse does not insinuate that Ruth and Naomi are gay! How have you come up with that from this verse? Ruth 1:14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her. How about ruth loved Naomi like a mother, and couldn't leave her. She wanted to stay because she loved her God and she was her dead husbands mother. Who had also lost her other son and husband. I would cleave to my mother in law too in that situation! Also Ruth married Boaz so I think she was very much straight, as she the grandmother of king David!
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 25, 2015 6:54:59 GMT -5
Lowering the age of consent does nothing to change the legality of one person abusing another. The age of consent and whether a person can give their consent is a legal constraint only. Do you really believe that a 16 year old cannot give or withhold consent? No, abortion was not only a suggestion in the 1920s it was an illegal operation that resulted in the death and harm to many women. It also resulted in many unwanted children being born because, in addition to the ban on abortion, there was virtually no sex education and the sale of contraceptives was limited and, in some locations, illegal. I am guessing that a comment like that brings the conversation to a quick halt. I seriously doubt this. You really do not have a handle on the definition of pedophilia. I am guessing what you really mean is sexual child abuse and fail to realize that sexual assault is illegal no matter what the age of consent has been set at. The logical fallacy of the slippery slope.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 25, 2015 6:59:58 GMT -5
Yes, I am aware that Ross stated the same, though when pressed for further details he didn't respond. Are you saying that you could name someone currently in the work in Australia who is a practising homosexual? Or someone whose inclination would be for a same-sex relationship but who is practising celibacy? Or is this just a whisper-campaign? Without having to name names consider that the workers are humans. In the human population there is a certain percentage of individuals that are homosexuals. There is no reason to believe that in a group of workers that percentage would be greatly different.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 25, 2015 7:25:08 GMT -5
I agree rational, also as I have said I personally have nothing against gay people, but I do have a problem with people saying gay people shouldn't have equal rights etc, yet they are not aware of what happens in their own church !
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 25, 2015 7:27:03 GMT -5
Yes Felicity I do, but I am not naming any names on here ! What do you mean by "I do"? I mentioned 3 options in my comment, which one are you agreeing to? I am agreeing to the first 2 Felicity !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 7:52:08 GMT -5
What do you mean by "I do"? I mentioned 3 options in my comment, which one are you agreeing to? I am agreeing to the first 2 Felicity ! That doesn't make sense, unless you're talking about two different people. I said: 1. Are you saying that you could name someone currently in the work in Australia who is a practising homosexual? 2. Or someone whose inclination would be for a same-sex relationship but who is practising celibacy? 3. Or is this just a whisper-campaign? So the same person could not be a practising homosexual and yet be practising celibacy. I find it difficult to believe in statement 1. If there was any proof of wrong-doing by a worker it seems to me that there would be many people who would be quick to report it, so it wouldn't be an on-going situation.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 25, 2015 7:57:27 GMT -5
Rational, that verse does not insinuate that Ruth and Naomi are gay! How have you come up with that from this verse? The comparison of the feelings between the two women was compared to the feelings between Adam and Eve. Same homosexual feelings being compared to heterosexual feelings. The feelings between two women being equated to the feeling between a married couple. clave - To unite or be united closely in interest or affection; to adhere with strong attachment. You do not think that homosexuals enter into heterosexual marriages? Wasn't the marriage to Boaz one of convenience? This has been debated for centuries. I doubt there is a lesbian slant that could be supported.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 25, 2015 8:14:52 GMT -5
Rational, that verse does not insinuate that Ruth and Naomi are gay! How have you come up with that from this verse? The comparison of the feelings between the two women was compared to the feelings between Adam and Eve. Same homosexual feelings being compared to heterosexual feelings. The feelings between two women being equated to the feeling between a married couple. clave - To unite or be united closely in interest or affection; to adhere with strong attachment. You do not think that homosexuals enter into heterosexual marriages? Wasn't the marriage to Boaz one of convenience? This has been debated for centuries. I doubt there is a lesbian slant that could be supported. There is no lesbian slant to this verse at all! How have you judged maternal love to be the same as sexual love? And how does cleave mean having intercourse with each other? Definition cleave to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually followed by to). How is this gay? You can see clearly that Ruth loves Naomi like a mother, you've completely twisted that in the wrong way, you and by the sound of it, many others through the centuries!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 25, 2015 8:49:22 GMT -5
I am agreeing to the first 2 Felicity ! That doesn't make sense, unless you're talking about two different people. I said: 1. Are you saying that you could name someone currently in the work in Australia who is a practising homosexual? 2. Or someone whose inclination would be for a same-sex relationship but who is practising celibacy? 3. Or is this just a whisper-campaign? So the same person could not be a practising homosexual and yet be practising celibacy. I find it difficult to believe in statement 1. If there was any proof of wrong-doing by a worker it seems to me that there would be many people who would be quick to report it, so it wouldn't be an on-going situation.Sounds like you haven't been reading here very long!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 8:56:56 GMT -5
That doesn't make sense, unless you're talking about two different people. I said: 1. Are you saying that you could name someone currently in the work in Australia who is a practising homosexual? 2. Or someone whose inclination would be for a same-sex relationship but who is practising celibacy? 3. Or is this just a whisper-campaign? So the same person could not be a practising homosexual and yet be practising celibacy. I find it difficult to believe in statement 1. If there was any proof of wrong-doing by a worker it seems to me that there would be many people who would be quick to report it, so it wouldn't be an on-going situation.Sounds like you haven't been reading here very long! I see what you mean, but people are generally quicker to report things when they're not personally involved.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 25, 2015 10:48:35 GMT -5
If you think about it, the only reason people don't want it called "marriage" is to assure that they are a different class of human beings. If two women or two men could be a mother and a father, then they would be the same class of human beings. I know quite a number of gay men and lesbians who are raising children - some biological, others adopted. Friends of mine are getting married in a few weeks who have been together for years and who are raising a daughter who presently is 9 years old. I think it may be just as important to the 9 year old that her moms can get married as it is to her mothers. In that case, decommission "marriage" and simply offer civil unions to everyone across the board with all the same legal rights and obligations, etc for all. Let "marriage" be a non-legally binding ritual that can be carried out as seen fit by those who want to be "married". I mean, really, if one believes in the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of "God" then why sully it with worldly legal baggage? Do what is compelling for yourself and the person you are marrying and know that your "God" will hold you to it if that is how you believe.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 25, 2015 10:57:25 GMT -5
Why did you want to get married?
Did you only exchange vows before a minister? Didn't you also register with some legal government agency? If you didn't , you aren't legally married and none to the legal rights of marriage apply to you, -no inheritance rights. Your children are even illegitimate .
Many Christians simply do not believe as you do that same sex marriage is "wrong in God eyes!"
We know a lot more about sexuality today than they did in "bible" days.
We know that there is no absolute f/m genders but more of a continuum.
Quote Many Christians don't believe same l sex marriage is " wrong before God "............. Then they don't believe in their own bible and God, because it says it clearly in there! Marriage is from the bible! It's a union between a man and a woman before God! So if someone is gay and believes in God, then they wouldn't be fighting for Gay marriage to become legal because God says it's wrong! Also because marriage is from the bible, and it's what God requires us to do, why do atheists marry? If God doesn't exist why marry? Marriage is from God! Why not just update civil laws so that they match marriage laws? I don't have anything material to pass to my children, as my mother doesn't have anything for me, (thank God), the inheritance I have for my children, is Christ in the heart. And the holy spirit from God! That's the inheritance I'll be giving. Money means nothing to me! Marriage was around long before the Christian God was even thought of. Marriage was a sacred union for Hindus which is the oldest religion there is that is currently still in existence. www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_marriage.asp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 11:03:13 GMT -5
Clearly there are different views as to what God thinks. Is there any reason why the laws of he state should be influenced more by what your God says than what anyone else's God says? Is there any reason why your interpretation of the bible is any more valid than those who interpret it differently? Is there any reason why you should be deemed to have a more accurate understanding of what God thinks than anyone else? Matt10 How can you interpret it differently when is says clearly man should not sleep with man, and marriage is between a man and woman? It says it loud and clear! In Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1. How much clearer do you need it? It's saying it word for word how is that wrong? If you don't believe in God then ok. But I do! You can't believe in God and say it's ok to do something written in the bible when clearly it said it's wrong! That goes for me too! Stating your beliefs over and over again is fine but it doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. I'm not sure if you realise that you haven't responded to any of the questions. I'll try again as the questions remain as relevant to this post as they did to your last one. Clearly there are different views as to what God thinks. Is there any reason why the laws of the state should be influenced more by what your God says than what anyone else's God says? Is there any reason why your interpretation of the bible is any more valid than those who interpret it differently? Is there any reason why you should be deemed to have a more accurate understanding of what God thinks than anyone else? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 25, 2015 11:04:40 GMT -5
If two women or two men could be a mother and a father, then they would be the same class of human beings. It would make more sense if civil unions were given the same legal rights and obligations as married couples. If you think producing children is the reason to get "married", why do they give marriage licenses to (1) virgins, (2) 70-year olds, and (3) couples who intend not to have children. Maybe couples shouldn't have their marriage certificate finalized until they can produce a child, just so they can be found worthy of marriage. Married heterosexual couples who either can't or won't produce children - does that make them of a different class? That's your criterion for refusing to call same-sex couples married. Wasn't there something about that in the Hebrew ritual of marriage. There was a first marriage where the woman gets pregnant and the second marriage which was the binding one was after she produced a child/heir? Seems I read about that somewhere and you would like be the one that knows about it if it's true.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 25, 2015 11:08:15 GMT -5
I would be quite interested in what you think a marriage is. Marriage in the modern sense isn't "biblical" anyway -- it's civil. Proof of that fact is that there's no way out of it except through a civil legal process. Biblical marriages in the Old Testament would be called fornication these days. You sound like you have something against marriage for atheists. Do you know any married atheists. Lots of them want to be married. Anyway, the law doesn't require anyone to be married -- atheists know that, and they still want to be married. I know lots of them. I know married witches too. Bob, I believe in God, therefore I believe in the bible. And marriage is from the bible! Marriage isn't biblical in the "modern sense" because man has twisted it to suit themselves! And if modern marriage is civil anyway, why not just update modern civil laws for atheists? Then they don't have to do something that is required by God! I would have thought this would be a good idea to all the atheists on here? Then that's one more thing that they don't have to do, that it says to do in the bible! And I'm not advocating that the government so something that's required by God, I'm saying they should make a law that is required by man, and update civil laws to match marriage laws, so that people who don't believe in God don't have to go through the trauma of anything biblical. Like marriage! Because from what I've read on here, many people don't marry for love, but for financial security! So updating civil laws would cover that! I think what you are advocating interesting. The 2x2's have civil marriages. They get married before a judge. They aren't married before God or a church wedding. They get all the rights of a wedding even though it wasn't performed in a church, in Canada at least. But they are not married before God, but a Judge in a court house usually.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 25, 2015 11:17:22 GMT -5
Ever heard of NAMBLA? The wheels are turning... Emy,
What do you know about NAMBLA?
Where did you hear about it?
It stands for North American Man Boy Love Association. It's a group seeking acceptance for men who are attracted to boys. Why do you ask? Is it some dark secret I shouldn't know about?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 25, 2015 11:37:11 GMT -5
Emy,
What do you know about NAMBLA?
Where did you hear about it?
It stands for North American Man Boy Love Association. It's a group seeking acceptance for men who are attracted to boys. Why do you ask? Is it some dark secret I shouldn't know about? It was a fringe group, at best. Not representative of any "mainstream" LGBT movement or "agenda".
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 25, 2015 12:32:11 GMT -5
How have you judged maternal love to be the same as sexual love? I didn't judge it. The bible states what kind of love it was. The same Hebrew word was used to describe the love between Adam and Eve and Ruth and Noami. When describing the relationship between Adam and Eve Genesis states: Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.So they will cleave and be as one flesh. Isn't 'be one flesh' a biblical euphemism doe having intercourse? So they cleaved and has sex. Even the punctuation supports this. A colon after a man cleaving to his wife followed by the explanation that they became one flesh. English grammar and usageUse a colon [:] before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself.Two people loving each other described with the same Hebrew phrase as used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve. That is your opinion. I think others could put forth an argument that would counter yours. BTW - you never said what you thought " ...for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:..." really meant. What is the unnatural use that is replacing the natural use?
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 25, 2015 12:36:15 GMT -5
It stands for North American Man Boy Love Association. It's a group seeking acceptance for men who are attracted to boys. Why do you ask? Is it some dark secret I shouldn't know about? It was a fringe group, at best. Not representative of any "mainstream" LGBT movement or "agenda". Are they disbanded? Never said they were associated with LGBT. They actually were "shunned" by them for fear they would taint that group. Maybe they went 'underground' due to some "rumors" but I am thinking they are probably still working behind scenes.
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 25, 2015 12:54:57 GMT -5
How have you judged maternal love to be the same as sexual love? I didn't judge it. The bible states what kind of love it was. The same Hebrew word was used to describe the love between Adam and Eve and Ruth and Noami. When describing the relationship between Adam and Eve Genesis states: Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.So they will cleave and be as one flesh. Isn't 'be one flesh' a biblical euphemism doe having intercourse? So they cleaved and has sex. Even the punctuation supports this. A colon after a man cleaving to his wife followed by the explanation that they became one flesh. English grammar and usageUse a colon [:] before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself.Two people loving each other described with the same Hebrew phrase as used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve. That is your opinion. I think others could put forth an argument that would counter yours. As I'm sure you know, the punctuation used in the KJV is quite wacky compared to modern punctuation. So I wouldn't put too much stock in the colon. I did look up the various uses of 'cleave' in Young's concordance and found that the Hebrew word translated as cleave in both Gen. 2 and in Ruth was the same word used to describe cleaving to the Lord, tongue cleaving to the roof of the mouth, hand cleaving to a sword. In view of that, I'll pass, on your thought of Ruth and Naomi being lesbians.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 25, 2015 13:09:17 GMT -5
How can you interpret it differently when is says clearly man should not sleep with man, and marriage is between a man and woman? It says it loud and clear! In Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1. How much clearer do you need it? It's saying it word for word how is that wrong? If you don't believe in God then ok. But I do! You can't believe in God and say it's ok to do something written in the bible when clearly it said it's wrong! That goes for me too! Stating your beliefs over and over again is fine but it doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. I'm not sure if you realise that you haven't responded to any of the questions. I'll try again as the questions remain as relevant to this post as they did to your last one. Clearly there are different views as to what God thinks. Is there any reason why the laws of the state should be influenced more by what your God says than what anyone else's God says? Is there any reason why your interpretation of the bible is any more valid than those who interpret it differently? Is there any reason why you should be deemed to have a more accurate understanding of what God thinks than anyone else? Matt10 Matt 10, One of you're questions was. Is there any reason why your interpretation of the bible is any more valid than those who interpret it differently? And I answered, How can you interpret it differently when is says clearly man should not sleep with man, and marriage is between a man and woman? It says it loud and clear! In Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1. I don't remember writing that on this board before matt10? Are we talking about the same bible? 2. Is there any reason why the laws of the state should be influenced more by what your God says than what anyone else's God says? I don't live in the states, but if it relates to Christian churches then Gods law should come before man's. Here in Britain the government has made it legal to have gay marriages in churches. Mainstream Christianity isn't my religion. Nevertheless it's still wrong especially as it's against the Christian religion. We've had people sent to court because they've gone against the law to uphold their belief in God! As for other Gods, well I don't know of any other religions that hold wedding ceremonies other than between a man and woman, are there any? 3. Is there any reason why you should be deemed to have a more accurate understanding of what God thinks than anyone else? No, I'm quoting the bible, and God is more accurate than any man! But the holy spirit in the heart does help Gods people understand the bible with more accuracy!
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on May 25, 2015 13:40:04 GMT -5
How have you judged maternal love to be the same as sexual love? I didn't judge it. The bible states what kind of love it was. The same Hebrew word was used to describe the love between Adam and Eve and Ruth and Noami. When describing the relationship between Adam and Eve Genesis states: Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.So they will cleave and be as one flesh. Isn't 'be one flesh' a biblical euphemism doe having intercourse? So they cleaved and has sex. Even the punctuation supports this. A colon after a man cleaving to his wife followed by the explanation that they became one flesh. English grammar and usageUse a colon [:] before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself.Two people loving each other described with the same Hebrew phrase as used to describe the relationship between Adam and Eve. That is your opinion. I think others could put forth an argument that would counter yours. BTW - you never said what you thought " ...for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:..." really meant. What is the unnatural use that is replacing the natural use? Rational, cleave means:- Definition cleave to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually followed by to). So even if both Adam and eve, and Ruth and Naomi cleaved to one another it means in the way of the definition above. Their hearts were knitted, and they had a deep connection in their hearts towards each other and God! It's wrong to twist it! Romans 1 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. In the above chapters it mentions like you said:- for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Then it says .... And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly! I feel people have to make their own choices in life, but, believers in the living God have faith in him and believe the bible, and the bible says same sex relationships are wrong. And it's wrong to say people are homophobic because they have their beliefs (which does happen) I care about everyone, whatever they believe in!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 14:57:48 GMT -5
the verse you quoted has nothing to do with ruth or Naomi... You will need to narrow that down a little. The original verse quoted was Ruth 1:14 and describes the relationship between Ruth and Naomi. I thought it had at least a little to do Ruth and Naomi. its says she "clave"(clung) to Naomi it does NOT say she loved her as adam did eve only a perverse mind would think that...
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 25, 2015 15:00:02 GMT -5
How can you interpret it differently when is says clearly man should not sleep with man, and marriage is between a man and woman? It says it loud and clear! In Leviticus 18 and 20, and Romans 1. How much clearer do you need it? It's saying it word for word how is that wrong? Does it say a man shall not marry another man? Or is this still a sexual issue?I have presented some verses clearly written in the bible and your response was that they didn't really mean what they said but had a different meaning. It has to do with the killing of people and stacking their bodies. Clearly talking about the actual killing of other humans and then stacking the bodies, much the same way that it was carried out in the camps in Poland. Yet you came up with another meaning because, I guess, the text given did not agree with your vision of god. You also said that when god commanded the death of every living thing that it rfeally didn't mean killing the women and children. The text there was also clear. If you just consider marriage - where does the bible stand on same sex marriages - ignoring, if you can, what goes on in the bedroom.
|
|