LOVE SONGS Posted October 20, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 131 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,188 Content Per Day: 0.50 Reputation: 135 Days Won: 8 Joined: 04/10/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted October 20, 2012 http://now.msn.com/r...ch-with-a-twist (quote) This Missouri pastor's speech on homosexuality ends with a twist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOVE SONGS Posted October 20, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 131 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,188 Content Per Day: 0.50 Reputation: 135 Days Won: 8 Joined: 04/10/2012 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 20, 2012 That was bold... and saying , Gods' judgement upon our land. He spoke truth ... even if he got his notes , misplaced at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 This guy was trying to equate people who are anti-gay marriage with people who were pro-segregation. Common tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.82 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.82 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted December 11, 2012 RG, if two homosexual friends of yours, wanted to get married, and asked you if it was a good idea, what would you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.82 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.82 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 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. Problem is that most people who are pro-homosexual wouldn't stand for it being called anything else IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted December 11, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted December 11, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts