Originally Posted By: LuvMyCatsAlright, the only time I've even heard reference to Adam and Steve, was in Will & Grace, and I hardly see that TV show, as educational, but I suppose it could be, too.I haven't seen gay activists anywhere teaching that it was A&S, not A&E. Show me?And as far as different beliefs go, doesn't that happen all the time in school? You can still tell your kids, "Even though Mr./Mrs. whoever says this is right, I say it is not, and that's what you should believe?" But even that, I have a hard time saying.Children aren't coloring books, you don't get to fill them with all your favorite colors. Children are like flowers...you have to shield them enough so that they grow up straight (no pun intended), tall and healthy....but not so much that you stifle who and what they are. In other words, they get to fill in their own colors...but you have to teach them to stay inside the lines.As for the whole "Adam & Steve" thing, I didn't literally mean that that is what is being taught. It is the concept that is being taught...specifically, on a website where families are depicted as having two male or two female parents. Textbooks with this depiction are also currently in use by some schools.
-
Maine Senate Passes Same-sex Marriage Bill
-
Maybe because I'm busy here at work and my brain is swimming or what... but accepting and tolerating someone is about the same damn thing in my book. If you accept someone than you tolerate him or her, hence if you tolerate him or her than you accept him or her.As I said in a post about tolerating/accepting someone one does not mean you have to like his or her actions. It's about accepting that person for who and what they are. THAT is what is being taught and should be taught to avoid these unneeded and tragic suicides.
-
Right on eddie! You're so right.
-
Okay, I revoke my A&S comment, my apologies. But as for textbooks, such as health books, where such things WOULD be taught, I see that as being okay. besides health books teach healthful practices, and having a stable group of people you love is healthful, no?. A family, in my opinion, is a group of people who love each other unconditionally. What about the people that have no biological family, but they still consider their best friends to be family? The fill them out as family on forms, and such. I consider my best friend to be a part of my family. What's wrong with that?I can see where you would go with this, being you(no offense, truly), but as long as love is there, and in one's eyes, the other could do nothing wrong, why isn't that good enough?
-
And i was just going to say that too....cheat...
-
Originally Posted By: thorIt goes further than just tolerance...it's about teaching that it is acceptable behavior, which is in contradiction to what many Christians believe (and what is in the Bible). So, as a Christian, I see it as anti-Christian teaching. In addition, teaching about tolerance is not Biblical. Teaching acceptance is. I accept you...absolutely no problem. What I do not accept is homosexual behavior, and I certainly do not accept it being taught to children as acceptable behavior. Find another way of teaching tolerance than by giving examples of Adam and Steve (instead of Adam and Eve).So your saying you don't have a problem with Eddie and Adam you accept them but you don't think they should be entitled to equal protection under the law because your god says what they're doing should not be tolerated. Is that right?
-
Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself
I love how you pick and choose what you wish to follow from the bible (Well not just you, but people like you who preach this crap). Do you eat pork? Wear poly-blend clothing? Do you tell female teachers/pastors they need to give up their jobs? If your brother(s) (if you have any) dies before giving his wife a child are you willing to have sex with her until you bear her a child? These are all rules that are to be followed in the bible... so you practice what you preach, Thor?
I will answer this just once...so that you will know I am serious.
I eat pork...this was changed from the time of the Israelites by Christ who said that we now may eat all things as long as it is with thanksgiving. Since the Jews do not believe as Christ being the Messiah, they must still avoid the pork.
I must admit I have no idea what you're getting at regarding the poly-blen clothing.
Females are not to be teachers of men in church (or the congregation as a whole), or be pastors. Outside of church they can teach what they want...so long as it is not under the authority of the church. That's the way I believe, and that's how the church I attend believes. BTW, it's a North American Baptists church, if you want to know...though I don't specifically hold to any particular denomination.
The bit about going in unto a dead brother's wife applies only if the brothers live together...it would be rare for such a thing to have an opportunity to take place in this day and age; at least not in this country. That is one passage in the Bible I'm not comfortable with, but would fortunately never have to face. Not only because I don't live with my brother, but also because he already has a son. If we did all live together in a communal arrangement and my brother had no children, it's something I'd have to consider, I guess. I wouldn't have to marry the woman, so I guess it would be legal....? Strange.
Now, if you really care about an answer to the clothing thing, you'll have to reference the chapter and verse...I've never heard of it before.
-
Originally Posted By: OldFolks Originally Posted By: thorIt goes further than just tolerance...it's about teaching that it is acceptable behavior, which is in contradiction to what many Christians believe (and what is in the Bible). So, as a Christian, I see it as anti-Christian teaching. In addition, teaching about tolerance is not Biblical. Teaching acceptance is. I accept you...absolutely no problem. What I do not accept is homosexual behavior, and I certainly do not accept it being taught to children as acceptable behavior. Find another way of teaching tolerance than by giving examples of Adam and Steve (instead of Adam and Eve).So your saying you don't have a problem with Eddie and Adam you accept them but you don't think they should be entitled to equal protection under the law because your god says what they're doing should not be tolerated. Is that right? No it's not...and you know it. Everyone should be entitled to equal protections and equal rights. But this is different from being allowed to do whatever they want. This gets back to the discussion on freedoms and how the exercise of yours might infringe upon mine, and so on. You folks avoid this one like the plague because it can't be made to fit your models of what society should look like, in your eyes. Bottom line is that there has to be lines...certain rules that all must adhere to. It is the question of where you place those lines that is the matter of discussion. So don't give me any BS about a society not having any rules. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a society.You, an others, just don't like where the lines are drawn. Your argument is no more and no less valid than a rapists would be. We all need a set of rules handed to us that creates the best possible outcome for all concerned...not catering to just a few. The Bible lays out just that set of rules...and most of the basis of the laws we now adhere to in this country are based on the Bible (review the Ten Commandments if you doubt this). Believing we can create this set of rules for ourselves implies that we all have the majority in the best interest, regardless of anything else. I'd say we fail at that all the time, which is why the rules must be handed to us by an impartial, objective determination. That's where the Bible comes in. No other religious book is set up to do this quite like the Bible...one of its rules being that you cannot add to or take away from any of the rules already written.Man cannot successfully govern himself fairly and impartially. Believing that we can do so is to ignore the nature of who and what we are.
-
My pastor is female...
-
Quote:Who else shouldn't people do?Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) (Sorry I was a bit off on this I guess, but same basic thing)Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). I guess you should kill the animal since they were willing participants. Are they crazy?If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)One must wonder why there are so many people wanting to site Leviticus for gay bashing, but they never mention these rules. How strange. It is common that a Christian will blow off these old rules with "Jesus came to change the laws, so these are outmoded, and we don't need them", but throughout Leviticus God states that these laws are to be followed forever. Hmmm.
-
Originally Posted By: StephieJ
My pastor is female...
You'll forigive me if I'm not too surprised. I wouldn't be going to your church.
-
Quote:Females are not to be teachers of men in church (or the congregation as a whole), or be pastors. So.. than you believe women should not be pastors, or at least not in a church that has men as part of the congregation?(And I could be wrong, but I believe the scripture was more than just in a Church setting but also in school settings.... teachers in general; academic and/or biblical)
-
Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: StephieJMy pastor is female... You'll forigive me if I'm not too surprised. I wouldn't be going to your church. Wow................................. guess that answers my question......
-
I think that was for cotton, or something, I'm not really too sure either...Unrelated to this reply...I'm feeling bored-ish, so I will explain my last post, (you know, the one that was game related? Why all you old people don't play video games, yo! )The whole thing with the teachings, ((( Quote: The church has continued to remain in power. were implemented by [head-church] to maintain order through giving the people hope that [mankind] may someday be free of Sin should they atone for their "sins". In actuality, [gods-on-earth-child] and [god] are believed to have planned it this way from the start. .....and the temples of [god] were born, teaching that machines were forbidden that [great-problem] was a result of humanity's pride and use of machines in the first place, and that Sin could only be vanquished when humanity had attained purity and been cleansed of its past sins. ))) pretty much just is to say that, there's no way to really know what's going to happen after you die, so don't atone or repent for EVERYTHING, but life your life the way you want, that's what free will is for.This Quote: The Yevonite clergy taught that Sin was a divine punishment set upon the people for their pride in the use of machines. Yevon picks and chooses what machina it allows the people to use. choosing to leave out the fact that... was meant to show that most people, religious or not, just pick and choose things to say or quote from the bible, or their religious book, without really examining everything else around it, i.e. the whole thing. Quote:Since the church is the only power in Spira with machina weapons, it can easily squash any rebellion its citizens might try to enact, ensuring its dominance. It is for this reason that the Al Bhed are so dangerous to the Yevon clergy: since the Al Bhed also freely use machina as well, they are a threat to the church’s previously uncontested control of Spira. I quoted this whole piece, because, they way I interpret this statement, to equate to the discussion, is that: now that gay people are standing up for themselves, the weapon wielding Albhed if you will, instead of past times when they didn't, the church sees it as a threat, whereas before, they had their TEACHINGS to bend people into submission, and fear, that living they way they want, is bad.And this: Quote:The priests know full well of this deception, but continue to instill it in the people to remain in power...then when the Operation was a disaster any survivors would come to the conclusion that the only path to destroy Sin lay in the teachings...the church has continued to remain in power. is just going back to, no one really knows, not even priests, fathers, reverends, what-have-you, and yes, I understand that it's also for HOPE, as I take it, but also to bend people, and say that doing what makes them happy, is bad.And with that, I'm off for now.
-
Would you not be going to Steph's Church solely on the basis of women pastors? And if so, why?
I'm only asking, not picking a fight.
-
Lev.19[19] Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.Hmmm...my version has it a little more specific. Says wool and linen only...other blends not mentioned. I don't take great pains to follow this, but nor do I believe I violate it, either. I don't wear any linen anyway, and have only one wool coat...100% wool. A few pairs of nice woolen sox, though.
-
Originally Posted By: sunshine_babyWould you not be going to Steph's Church solely on the basis of women pastors? And if so, why?I'm only asking, not picking a fight. Because the Bible says women are not to teach over men. A pastor is a teaching position in a church...it's called a sermon. It also says a pastor can be the husband of only on wife. You still have to be male to be a husband (though some folks are trying to change that).
-
Originally Posted By: thorIf we did all live together in a communal arrangement and my brother had no children, it's something I'd have to consider, I guess. I wouldn't have to marry the woman, so I guess it would be legal....? Strange.I'm sorry about this, but...HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!Ok, had to get that out of my system. I just don't understand how anyone can believe such bullshit, obviously written by some guy who needed an excuse to fuck his brother's widow.
-
Do you have a garden? I know I personally have all types of crops in the same "field".. tomatoes, peppers, onions, squash, Strawberries, cucumbers... I suppose I am going to hell for that too huh?I know when I was a teenager I told my parents off a few times... I suppose I should be put to death, huh?.......
-
Originally Posted By: thor
Originally Posted By: sunshine_baby
Would you not be going to Steph's Church solely on the basis of women pastors? And if so, why?
I'm only asking, not picking a fight.
Because the Bible says women are not to teach over men. A pastor is a teaching position in a church...it's called a sermon. It also says a pastor can be the husband of only on wife. You still have to be male to be a husband (though some folks are trying to change that).
So your religion demands that you be homophobic and sexist? Yup, oh what a wonderful thing it is...