Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Missouri Pastor Preached On Homosexuality


36 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

http://now.msn.com/r...ch-with-a-twist

(quote)

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That was bold... and saying , Gods' judgement upon our land.

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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://brentwoodchristianchurch.wordpress.com/welcome/staff/

From: http://brentwoodchristianchurch.wordpress.com/welcome/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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

RG, if two homosexual friends of yours, wanted to get married, and asked you if it was a good idea, what would you say?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i don't understand.. he was talking anti gay so what was the end.. ?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes, this was discussed at length in another thread.

There is no civil right to Homosexual Marriage.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[

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

In what way?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

This is true. However, what do we do with the benefits that are government provided? How do we deal with that?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

This is true. However, what do we do with the benefits that are government provided? How do we deal with that?

Care to list a few of those Ruck?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i don't understand.. he was talking anti gay so what was the end.. ?

In the end BigBear he states he was reading something against bi-racial marriages from the 1950's or 1960's. He asks the council to "do the right thing" by giving homosexuals the right to marry or something of that nature.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

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.

This is true. However, what do we do with the benefits that are government provided? How do we deal with that?

Care to list a few of those Ruck?

I got this list from someone else, and it is just a few. I believe that they mentioned there is something like 1000 rights federally, and over 400 state rights..before are some of those listed. Now I'm not saying I agree with the Marriage aspect. But how do we handle some of the government provided benefits that come go along with marriage.

joint parenting;

joint adoption;

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, what to do about this list then? Possible to call it something other than marriage with these same legal rights? Curious.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0