Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 123 of 123

Thread: Self-Composed-Questionaire

  1. #101
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    The government does not dictate anything to the church. It allows organizations to apply for subsidy. Applicants agree to terms and conditions.
    The church can define marriage any way it wants to, but it can not discriminate at tax payer expense.
    The church knows this from the start. It agrees. It recieves money.
    Why is this so hard to understand?
    As a republic, our elected officials do not always speak on all issues equally.
    The will of the government is not always consistent with the will of the people. It is not a perfect system, but the Catholic Church is a system which is well defined on doctrine and morals. What I think you have to understand is that "government" money is money that is taken from all taxpayers regardless of their religious affiliations or worldview. Hence, when it is making policy, it needs to exempt religious affiliations from redefining their stance on doctrine and morality. When government starts to enforce their idea of morality and belief (particularly secular humanism), they have crossed the boundaries into the Church. If you want full seperation of Church and State, then the State needs to know where to get off the bus.

  2. #102
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    As a republic, our elected officials do not always speak on all issues equally.
    The will of the government is not always consistent with the will of the people. It is not a perfect system, but the Catholic Church is a system which is well defined on doctrine and morals. What I think you have to understand is that "government" money is money that is taken from all taxpayers regardless of their religious affiliations or worldview. Hence, when it is making policy, it needs to exempt religious affiliations from redefining their stance on doctrine and morality. When government starts to enforce their idea of morality and belief (particularly secular humanism), they have crossed the boundaries into the Church. If you want full seperation of Church and State, then the State needs to know where to get off the bus.
    One more time.
    Church. State.
    Church is free to do church stuff without government interference. It's right to do so is protected.
    Government represents tax payers; White and Black, Catholic and Southern Baptist, Deaf and Blind, Old and Young, Gay and Straight, collectively.
    They are separate.
    Your Church asked the government to get involved.
    Your Church asked for money to serve the needs of a community.
    Your Church promised to refrain from discriminatory practices in exchange for the money.

    What a bunch of dishonest hypocrits!
    The church wants tax money and exemption from paying taxes. It wants to benefit from a government contract, yet has no intention of keeping its end of the bargain. It wants public support without oversight. Yeesh!
    If your religious leadership wants full separation from State, then the Church needs to get off the bus----and stay off!!!!

  3. #103
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    One more time.
    Church. State.
    Church is free to do church stuff without government interference. It's right to do so is protected.
    Government represents tax payers; White and Black, Catholic and Southern Baptist, Deaf and Blind, Old and Young, Gay and Straight, collectively.
    They are separate.
    Your Church asked the government to get involved.
    Your Church asked for money to serve the needs of a community.
    Your Church promised to refrain from discriminatory practices in exchange for the money.

    What a bunch of dishonest hypocrits!
    The church wants tax money and exemption from paying taxes. It wants to benefit from a government contract, yet has no intention of keeping its end of the bargain. It wants public support without oversight. Yeesh!
    If your religious leadership wants full separation from State, then the Church needs to get off the bus----and stay off!!!!
    The state does not have to give anything to the Church, it mostly like does because it is providing a public service. Telling the Church to not establish hospitals just because you think it is the Government's *** to be the all benevolant with taxpayer money is not a solution. There are moral stances of the Church that are protected by religious freedom. A government body telling my Church they must accept the definition of ****sexual marriage is a violation of that right.

  4. #104
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    The state does not have to give anything to the Church, it mostly like does because it is providing a public service. Telling the Church to not establish hospitals just because you think it is the Government's *** to be the all benevolant with taxpayer money is not a solution. There are moral stances of the Church that are protected by religious freedom. A government body telling my Church they must accept the definition of ****sexual marriage is a violation of that right.
    Non-profits get public money to provide a public service. They apply for it.
    Who is telling the Church not to establish hospitals?
    No one can tell the Church to accept ****sexual marriage. No one should. No one will.
    If the Church agrees to refrain from discriminatory practices in exchange for substidies, then the Church must refrain. It's no more complicated than that.
    You should really take this up with the Church since they agreed to the terms you find unacceptable.

  5. #105
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    Non-profits get public money to provide a public service. They apply for it.
    Who is telling the Church not to establish hospitals?
    No one can tell the Church to accept ****sexual marriage. No one should. No one will.
    If the Church agrees to refrain from discriminatory practices in exchange for substidies, then the Church must refrain. It's no more complicated than that.
    You should really take this up with the Church since they agreed to the terms you find unacceptable.
    They didn't agree to the terms. They instead restricted the benefits to spouses due to Washington D.C. local government definitions on marriage. They are not required by law, as of yet, to provide health insurance to spouses. Perhap under Obama care, they might have to "fine" the Church if it is forced under its law to provide such care to include ****sexual spouses, which the Church's doctrinal and moral stance is opposed... unless they are exempt due to religious freedom. I cannot really speculate as of yet on Obama care, since it was past without even a thorough discussion of what was in it.

  6. #106
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    They didn't agree to the terms. They instead restricted the benefits to spouses due to Washington D.C. local government definitions on marriage. They are not required by law, as of yet, to provide health insurance to spouses. Perhap under Obama care, they might have to "fine" the Church if it is forced under its law to provide such care to include ****sexual spouses, which the Church's doctrinal and moral stance is opposed... unless they are exempt due to religious freedom. I cannot really speculate as of yet on Obama care, since it was past without even a thorough discussion of what was in it.
    They agreed to terms. They chose to keep the money.

  7. #107
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    ...Obama care, since it was past without even a thorough discussion of what was in it.
    I read most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) before it was p***ed into law. You had every opportunity to do so, also—as did your elected representatives.

    If a thorough, good-faith discussion and debate on the Act's merits was not forthcoming, presumably it may have had something to do with ****hards bloviating about "death panels" and other such nonsense.

  8. #108
    TRiG
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GiGi View Post
    What a bunch of dishonest hypocrits!
    Phantom rep point since I can't give you a real one.

    TRiG.

  9. #109
    GiGi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    They didn't agree to the terms. They instead restricted the benefits to spouses due to Washington D.C. local government definitions on marriage. They are not required by law, as of yet, to provide health insurance to spouses. Perhap under Obama care, they might have to "fine" the Church if it is forced under its law to provide such care to include ****sexual spouses, which the Church's doctrinal and moral stance is opposed... unless they are exempt due to religious freedom. I cannot really speculate as of yet on Obama care, since it was past without even a thorough discussion of what was in it.
    Just to clarify; they had to agree to certain terms to get subsidies.

  10. #110
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    My answers in BLACK



    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Question # 1:
    Why is ****sexuality a sin?
    A- The Bible says so, Case Closed!

    Question # 2:
    Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell?
    A - Yes, any sin not covered under the blood of Christ will cause the person to burn forever in Hell



    Question # 3:
    Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health?
    A- it could be, but the objections against it are not based on health, but on scripture.

    Question # 4:
    What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality?
    A - Its a sin

    Question # 5:
    Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?
    A - because of so many gay and pro-gay people in the liberal media that seek to push their ideas onto the rest of us.



  11. #111
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    A- The Bible says so, Case Closed!
    Yawn.

  12. #112
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    answers in BLACK



    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Question # 1:
    Why is ****sexuality a sin?
    Because God says so...


    Question # 2:
    Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell?
    Yes,


    Question # 3:
    Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health?
    With the issue of HIV and AIDS known to all, do we even need to ask this question anymore?


    Question # 4:
    What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality?
    "Personally?"......Personally the subject never much comes up so its a non-issue.

    Question # 5:
    Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?
    The liberal media is filled with the GAYS.

  13. #113
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    My answers in BLACK
    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    Yawn.
    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    answers in BLACK
    Just as boring this time 'round.

  14. #114
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    Just as boring this time 'round.
    It must be a bit disheartening to find that the Bible's views do not change on the GAYs..



    REMEMBER:.....He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 03-18-2013 at 09:06 AM.

  15. #115
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    It must be a bit disheartening to find that the Bible's views do not change on the GAYs..
    No, fortunately I can tell the difference between "the Bible's views" and alanmolstad's views, so I'm not disheartened in the least.

    REMEMBER:.....He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
    Wow, people still say that unironically? That was a tired pun twenty years ago.

  16. #116
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Agreed. . However, I have to be frank, I think I may be a ****sexual myself. I don't want to be, I want God to take the sin out of my life and I am celibate. What if ****sexuality is nothing but a corruption of an innocent person through a consequence of being raped/sexually abused?

    .
    I was a guest on a Christian radio show back in the mid 90s and this topic came up.
    There were 3 gays with me along with another Christian and myself on a panel.
    There was a guy there that was from ACT UP, who did not want to even talk about the fact that being Gay might be the result of anything but their own free choice.

    There was a Lesbo there who also believed she was **** from birth.

    and there was a gay lawyer type guy who was there to push Gay Rights.

    At first all 3 of them stated very flatly that they were gay from birth, and that it was their own natural way...

    However later in the show we got off on some other topics, and suddenly the girl started to cry and confess that she had been ***aulted as a very young child.
    The show then took a turn as the other two GAYS also confessed to having been a victim of rape and sexual abuse by family members.

    Later they asked me if being GAY was natural?...or was it a choice?....I paused before I answered....

    "Looking at the other members of this panel has shown me tonight that there is unspeakable damage that can be done to the psyche of a person should they be harmed to this extend as a child."....I went on.... "Do I believe any of these 3 people were born Gay?, no, not for a second. But what has become clear is that they have been messed up, and their being Gay is simply the after-effect of things they were beyond their control and understandings"

  17. #117
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    No, fortunately I can tell the difference between "the Bible's views" and alanmolstad's views, so I'm not disheartened in the least.


    .
    So you think the bible does not support every word I have said?.....You think there is a difference between what Im saying about the eternal ****ation of the GAYs and what the bible says is their eternal fate?

  18. #118
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    So you think the bible does not support every word I have said?.....You think there is a difference between what Im saying about the eternal ****ation of the GAYs and what the bible says is their eternal fate?
    Of course there's a difference. For starters, the words "gay", "****sexual", and "****sexuality" do not occur in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures (to say nothing of your all-caps versions or your use of the slurs "****" and "lesbo")—nor is there any straightforward statement equating attractional orientation with "sin" or with an "eternal fate".

    But you'd know all this if you were using the Bible to form or influence your views, rather than using your culturally ***umed prejudices and projecting them back onto the scriptures.

  19. #119
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    So you really think God has said that being a GAY is a good idea?...LOL...

    Denial, not just a river in Egypt...LOL



    God made them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!...case-closed!

  20. #120
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Yes, bluster, mockery, and rote repetíton are always excellent options if you'd prefer not to deal in good faith with the actual words of my post. Congratulations.

  21. #121
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    It must be a bit disheartening to find that the Bible's views do not change on the GAYs..



    REMEMBER:.....He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    I was a guest on a Christian radio show back in the mid 90s and this topic came up.
    There were 3 gays with me along with another Christian and myself on a panel.
    There was a guy there that was from ACT UP, who did not want to even talk about the fact that being Gay might be the result of anything but their own free choice.

    There was a Lesbo there who also believed she was **** from birth.

    and there was a gay lawyer type guy who was there to push Gay Rights.

    At first all 3 of them stated very flatly that they were gay from birth, and that it was their own natural way...

    However later in the show we got off on some other topics, and suddenly the girl started to cry and confess that she had been ***aulted as a very young child.
    The show then took a turn as the other two GAYS also confessed to having been a victim of rape and sexual abuse by family members.

    Later they asked me if being GAY was natural?...or was it a choice?....I paused before I answered....

    "Looking at the other members of this panel has shown me tonight that there is unspeakable damage that can be done to the psyche of a person should they be harmed to this extend as a child."....I went on.... "Do I believe any of these 3 people were born Gay?, no, not for a second. But what has become clear is that they have been messed up, and their being Gay is simply the after-effect of things they were beyond their control and understandings"
    Interesting. I know this answer was months ago, but it's interesting that I still get answers to this everyonce in a while.

  22. #122
    Tom Boots
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Question # 1:
    Why is ****sexuality a sin?
    It is against God and his word seen in Genesis, Leviticus, Romans.

    Question # 2:
    Does ****sexuality **** a Christian to Hell?
    No, as true Christians are not ****sexuals, ****sexuals are sinners and someone not saved, because they aRe still sin if they are ****sexual.
    Christians are not such, they are saved.

    Note: I think a Christian can be ****sexual, I do however, believe in the Bema Seat.

    I (Tom Boots ) reject both ideas.

    Question # 3:
    Is ****sexual lifestyle choices proven to be detrimental to a gay person's health?

    Yes, mentally, they know they are sinning and against the word if they read it, even those who have never read it, feel insecure and against nature.
    Physically they have in the ****sexual male community suffered terrible diseases, like aids and std's.
    Spiritually they are a undercl***, they know they are not following the God given plan of male with female, that women cannot have babies without some giving in to their false idea (in past) and today using special insemination procedures.


    Question # 4:
    What is your personal opinion of ****sexuality?

    It is sin and sin separates them from God and thus a ability to feel free and correct.
    This is why ****sexuals have committed suicide, lived shorter lives, always seeking some fulfillment and not being able to marry legally.
    Today we see laws changing by liberals and antichrists, but their marriages will not be accepted by God.
    I don't like it, don't treat them hatefully, but believe they must repent what they do and stop and get right with God, I believe it can transcend generations in families because they rejected truth.
    I don't generally ***ociate with any as they don't happen to be in my circles, one attends church now and then, when he is not in a backslider state on drugs and Sexual perversion.

    Question # 5:
    Why does ****sexuality seem to get more attention than the abortion issue?

    Well I see both as sin, both are accepted or being accepted by communists, liberals, Democrats and some Fepublicans,but as far as my church the Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal church....no, we reject it.
    Tom
    Tom Boots Apostolic

  23. #123
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Interesting. I know this answer was months ago, but it's interesting that I still get answers to this everyonce in a while.
    I went over your questions, and the answers that had had for each, and I think they were some of my best works yet.

    I read over the comments by the pro-gays poster, and I find his arguments lacking...
    basically the guy is attempting to make the Bible say anything "but" what it actually says,,,,,LOL

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •