Skip to comments.Olympics: Torch bearer kisses his boyfriend as spectators cheer
Posted on 07/27/2012 10:52:35 AM PDT by scottjewell
click here to read article
Thank you, Elsie for taking the time to post the Word of God. It is the only truth, politics and personal preferences aside.
Christians are in for a bad time now. The Word will be our armor and our solace.
With all due respect to both of you, I don't share your "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" view of the world.
I have found it helpful to not only question the beliefs of others with whom I disagree, but also to reflect and question my own reasons for holding the beliefs that I do. Personally, I don't think that your vitriolic reaction really does credit to Free Republic and may be a reason that a number of prominent conservatives seem to avoid associating themselves with us.
I fully support your right to your position on this issue, but I think your point is much more effectively advanced by reason rather than emotional vitriol.
All the best.
"Go and sin no more."
Spoken a long time ago...
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
2 Timothy 4:3 NIV
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Regardless your assinine arguments attempting to attribute comments you alone made, your support of faggotry is unwelcome here.
Move along now -maybe DU would be more receptive to such...
No not really, remember Sodom & Gomorrah? Everything tends to run in cycles -the progress that progressives think they make ALWAYS end is failure...
LMAO -public perversion by disordered individuals is nothing new..
Try Christianity instead... REGARDLESS your experience with Saudi Arabian homosexuality. Homosexual sex is disordered, unhealthy, and self destructive individually and societally.
P.S. What exactly is "controversial" about not recognizing faggotry as a premise for marriage?
Richard III was executed in the Red Tower of Pontefract castle by the Lords Ordainers with a red-hot poker for his sodomy, and his boyfriend Piers Gaveston was stuffed out a high window of Scarborough Castle.
Nicely done false dichotomy -- just the way GLAAD teaches their werewolf pupae to do it, when they come trolling on FR.s Inappropriate displays of personal affection/sexual attraction (wanna get technical?) are usually handled, among heterosexual people, by an array of public and private feedback mechanisms.
Gays want zero controls on them, zero feedback, and they test their freedom by deliberately offending the straights -- and then bragging and laughing about it.
That needs correcting. Any suggestions? Or are you cheering them on?
That’s Edward II, not Richard III.
You totally miss the point. The agenda to instill communism here includes the demoralization of society and the destruction of the family. The commie wanna bes use the homos to promote their agenda. The anti God, anti Christian agenda... And it’s working. They’ll use the gays, then they’ll kill them. It’s that simple. So it’s not either/or. They are really one in the same.
I believe it was Edward II who got the hot seat. Richard III was killed in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 according to Wikipedia. Was that where he supposedly cried “A horse . . my kingdom for a horse!”
In checking, I discovered there is now a Piers Gaveston Society at Oxford -- a secret society, of course, described by Wiki thusly:
Its members have a reputation for indulging in bizarre entertainments and sexual excess. Traditionally, the society organises secret bacchanalian parties for hundreds of friends, who are whisked away to secret locations (usually grand country mansions) to enjoy a night of Bollinger champagne, beluga caviar, multitudinous illegal drugs, and public copulation.
The rot has run deep in English upper-crusty society for quite some time; it's where the OGPU found their most damaging English spies back in the 30's.
Edward II was lucky his father, Edward Longshanks, didn't pitch him out a window.
Well, if not him; it was SOME one!!
Likewise “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” is still seen on FR every day!!
Actually, I seem to have found myself at the bottom of a hole, so I think I’ll stop digging.
Sorry Elsie but my BS meter starts to go wild when you resort to quoting Bible verses. Are you with the Westboro Baptist Church too?
I have known people over the years who claim to believe that they know the mind of God, I fear they are sadly deluded. I can only venture to say that God is much greater than you imagine and not peevish and petty like my Aunt Hildegaard.
You should go NUTS with THIS; then!!
Since you've been here longer than I; I'll bow to your superior experience.
I, OTOH, have known folks who have read the bible; but then go away and put none of what they read into practice.
(Yes; I have a verse for that, too! ;^)
Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in itnot forgetting what they have heard, but doing itthey will be blessed in what they do.
All the best to you Elsie, but I shall not waste my time any further.
I'll pray that your aunt will gain some insight into inter-personal relationships.
There are many who would rather be praised into Hell, than rebuked into Heaven.
Come back whenever you wish.
I'll still post stuff.
(Nice homepage you've got - it explained a lot.)
That's because I don't reason.
I put data out for folks to make up their own mind.
(Thomas Paine would have loved me.)
“If the guy would have kissed a girlfriend instead, would it have been ok? Of course, but why?”
Natural law. The reason you are squeamish is you still have a functioning conscience. Reason dictates that pre-reproductive behavior belongs in a biological context where reproduction is at least theoretically possible. You are having a natural reaction to seeing something irrational on its face.
It was God Himself who provided us with this rational capacity so we would be accountable for sin even if we didn’t happen to be literate and have a Bible, although those who can read their Bible’s are even more responsible for their rejection of God’s design for our life:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Keep reading that chapter and you’ll notice that homosexuality in a culture is a consequence of rejecting the aforementioned natural revelation of God. To position that as a matter of their preferences versus ours, with no objective, rational moral reference points, is to join in that rejection of divine revelation, to adopt a new religion that is not Christian in content or belief.
It’s a free country, and people can believe what they like under human law, but God’s law is rooted in rational realities that He created, and it does not change to suit our popular trends. The gay revolution is but a flash in the pan. History is not on their side, because history belongs to God, and he will have the last word.
“is it REALLY hurting anybody?”
If it’s identified as a sin, then by definition it harms both God and the sinner.
If we love the sinner, we should give him warning reminding him of God’s law.
My concept of God is not concrete or Christian in content or belief as yours is. Joseph Campbell said something to the effect that the term God is a metaphor for all of the things that we do not understand and cannot explain. That would be closer to my sense of God. However, enough of that as we could argue till the cows come home and neither of us will be moved by the other's argument.
As to why one feels squeamish seeing two individuals of the same sex kissing, I personally seriously question your assertion that it is due to conscience (although, I do have one and I know you do as well). For example I can think of many instances wherein a person might feel squeamish, but it is not related to conscience but rather to custom. As an example, when I see someone eating fried snake skin, drinking snake blood or eating the fertilized duck embryo that my Filipino in-laws eat, I feel very squeamish because it is way outside the range of the foods that I have been accustomed to. I might also feel squeamish if I saw a grotesquely unattractive heterosexual couple kissing. Additionally, many people at one time had strong reactions to two people of different races marrying whereas now it is quite accepted, etc..
In short, you and I are never going to agree but I thank you for sharing your thoughts.
It's been reported that a certain man; oh, about 2k years ago; said that HE was the only way to GOD (the Father I think he called GOD).
What do you think of that claim?
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
What if someone eats feces -is that okay?
Get a clue.
Well, since you ask, if a sane individual wants to eat poop, it's no skin off my noise as long as he does it in the privacy of his own home.
I don't think we need any more laws or punishments on the books for this and, moreover, I am not expecting it to become a big issue anytime soon.