Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Missouri Pastor Preached On Homosexuality

* * * * * 1 votes fire and brimstone speech

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
35 replies to this topic

#1
LOVE SONGS

LOVE SONGS

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,130 posts
http://now.msn.com/r...ch-with-a-twist




(quote)
This Missouri pastor's speech on homosexuality ends with a twist

#2
LOVE SONGS

LOVE SONGS

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,130 posts
That was bold... and saying , Gods' judgement upon our land.

He spoke truth ... even if he got his notes , misplaced at the end.

#3
Steve_S

Steve_S

    Senior Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,936 posts
This guy was trying to equate people who are anti-gay marriage with people who were pro-segregation. Common tactic.

#4
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,501 posts

I knew something was up when he was making a sustained religious argument in front of a secular city council in a country with "Separation of Church and State." His argument is invalid. And, it was good to see that hardly anyone applauded him.

I checked out his church's website and it doesn't meet even my loosest definition of "Christian." Their statement of beliefs openly invites people to not confine their faith to Jesus. It goes down hill from there.


I agree Eisleben. A very poor excuse for a church. Phil Snider is a big proponent of the Emergent Church movement and a poster child for post-modernism.

http://brentwoodchri.../welcome/staff/

From: http://brentwoodchri...elcome/beliefs/
Many Disciples like to say their faith is “defined by Jesus, but not necessarily confined to Jesus.”


I don't think this can be considered a Christian Church.

God bless,
GE

#5
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,501 posts

This guy was trying to equate people who are anti-gay marriage with people who were pro-segregation. Common tactic.


Common tactic yet it get's attention... I wonder why?

The arguments aginst same-sex marraige do sound very much like the arguments used against interracial marriage not long ago.


This is the second time in a thread you've brought this up RunningGator as a "valid" argument regarding segregation and homosexuality. What's your point?

#6
Tinky

Tinky

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts
RG, if two homosexual friends of yours, wanted to get married, and asked you if it was a good idea, what would you say?

#7
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,501 posts
Apparently the United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, The Disciples of Christ, and the Episcopalian Church are all approved by Phil Snider… Interesting.

I just think this was a publicity stunt by Phil Snider.

#8
deleted *

deleted *
  • Members *
  • 0 posts
I believe that if homosexuals could get the benefits of being married without it being called a marriage, 95% of marriage talk would cease.

#9
GoldenEagle

GoldenEagle

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,501 posts

I believe that if homosexuals could get the benefits of being married without it being called a marriage, 95% of marriage talk would cease.


I would tend to agree Ruck. :thumbsup: Problem is that most people who are pro-homosexual wouldn't stand for it being called anything else IMO. :hmmm:

#10
Tinky

Tinky

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts

Let me ask you, if two homosexuals that you knew came to you and said “on what legal, non-religious basis do you think you have the right to tell me who to marry”, what would you say?



DOMA


Even though the Obama administration refuses to enforce this law.

#11
Tinky

Tinky

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts


Let me ask you, if two homosexuals that you knew came to you and said “on what legal, non-religious basis do you think you have the right to tell me who to marry”, what would you say?



DOMA


Even though the Obama administration refuses to enforce this law.


that does not really answer the question.

what is the legal basis that DOMA stands on?



Yes it does answer the question. That's the legal reason why two homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Just because Obama's Justice dept. refuses to enforce this law does not make it any less valid.

The legal basis for DOMA is it is a Federal law passed by both houses that has not been rescinded.


You may not agree with the law, but that does not make it any less a law of the land.

#12
Tinky

Tinky

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts

do you believe that this Federal Law should trump the power of the states to define marriage as they choose?



Doesn't all Federal law trump State law? Isn't that how our system is set up?


And, if the laws every change and allow same-sex marriage, will you still be saying “You may not agree with the law, but that does not make it any less a law of the land.



Yes, I'll still be saying that. But as a Christian, we are to obey God rather than man when they conflict with each other. I'd never attend, or support, a same-sex wedding - ever.

#13
bigbear

bigbear
  • Members
  • 23 posts
i don't understand.. he was talking anti gay so what was the end.. ?

#14
Steve_S

Steve_S

    Senior Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,936 posts


This guy was trying to equate people who are anti-gay marriage with people who were pro-segregation. Common tactic.


Common tactic yet it get's attention... I wonder why?

The arguments aginst same-sex marraige do sound very much like the arguments used against interracial marriage not long ago.


This is the second time in a thread you've brought this up RunningGator as a "valid" argument regarding segregation and homosexuality. What's your point?


It gets attention because racial segregation was a low point in our history and elicits an emotional response. In the case of racial segregation the country was attempting to do something that was morally wrong. In the case of a prohibition of gay marriage, it is morally correct. People can't choose their race and therefore cannot be penalized by it. Gay men and women have just as much right to marry as anyone else, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Intersex marriage is an established covenant that has persisted throughout the very entirety of human history. Same sex marriage (though not same sex relationships) is a very new concept on the social stage and is societally destructive.

#15
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts
With segregation, one has to play mental and theological gymnastics in order to equate morality with the mixing of races.

With homosexuality, it is quite clear what God thinks and feels about sexual immorality, which includes same genders having sex with each other.

#16
Matthitjah

Matthitjah

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,514 posts
Yes, this was discussed at length in another thread.

There is no civil right to Homosexual Marriage.

#17
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,590 posts
[

The arguments aginst same-sex marraige do sound very much like the arguments used against interracial marriage not long ago.


In what way?

#18
Leonard

Leonard

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,890 posts
If 'marriage' is merely a constract between parties, as our secular government wishes to 'define' it, then that federal government which has assurped the right to define marriage can certainly decide who can be 'married' in its view.

If marriage is a spiritual covenant entered into before God, then the government has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY IN IT WHATSOEVER.

#19
Matthitjah

Matthitjah

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,514 posts

This truly has nothing to do with God since the Bible does not tell us that we should get a tax break or visitation rights or inheritance rights due to marriage...these are all legal items not religious.


However, These benefits were given in the past for God ordained Covenant Marriage because we wanted to encourage it as a society as we used to understand the benefit of it.

#20
Matthitjah

Matthitjah

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,514 posts


[


The arguments aginst same-sex marraige do sound very much like the arguments used against interracial marriage not long ago.


In what way?


watch the video


Sorry doesn't answer the question.

The basis in fact is that Homosexuality is a choice while the color of someones skin is not.

It does nothing to explain how the two are similar other than in a cleverly designed ruse used by someone abusing their position.




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network