What are they intolerant of, specifically? How is it hypocritical to demand tolerance of their activities, and of who they are? If they are too loud (I reread the quote, as you asked, and it seems that's the part I overlooked -- correct me if I'm wrong), how loud is just right, for you?
Not as loud as they rage against Obama and Liberals. Maybe 1/10 of that would be acceptable!
__________________ Words: For when an emoticon just isn't enough.
What are they intolerant of, specifically? How is it hypocritical to demand tolerance of their activities, and of who they are? If they are too loud (I reread the quote, as you asked, and it seems that's the part I overlooked -- correct me if I'm wrong), how loud is just right, for you?
Timmy, I love ya bro and should likely keep out of your conversation with n_david buuuuut....
To suggest those attacking DC Comics are not intollerant is nonsense.
They are in fact being both intollerant and hypocritical.
They dont like a guy because he is, in their view, intollerant so they respond in anger and demand he be fired for not believing like they do and threaten the company that hired him with boycott.
They refuse to allow others to have a different view than them. That is the very definition of intollerance. and they complicate it with the hypocracy do doing this in the name of tollerance.
its almost skitsophrenic.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
There are a couple of things I know about marriage.
First it is impossible for the state to sanction marriage. Marriage is a covanant between God, a man, and a woman. There is no room for the state to be involved in the covanant.
Because the church sold its soul on the issue for the sake of government benifits, the Church has removed God from the covanant. The church should not be so shocked at the reality that marriage as an institution is broken.
The second thing I know is that two people of the same sex, cannot be married....provided we work with the definition that marriage is a covanant between God, a man and a woman. It cannot happen. No matter what the individuals or the state that santions the action say.
That leads me to wonder why the church now,
1. is freaked out that what the state has given, the state now seeks to change.
2. is worried what two people who have no spiritual access to the Holy Institution of Marriage may be saying about themselves in relation to the institution.
What the Church is doing is losing. We are losing because instead of being in a position to preach against sin, we are ordering sinners to comply with our list of rules. This is not going to win anyone to the Lord.
What it will eventually lead to is the State doing exactly what the church is opposed to, and then the State will deem the attitude of the church to be HATE. Guess what? then they will tell us we cannot call sin...sin.
What the church needs to do is tell the government to buzz off as it relates to marriage and end the discussion. If two people want to enter into a contract with the state that is on business of the church.
Leave the Church to preach truth. Truth is simple. The wages of sin is death. the Gift of God is eternal life. Let the state continue to fail mankind.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
There are a couple of things I know about marriage.
First it is impossible for the state to sanction marriage. Marriage is a covanant between God, a man, and a woman. There is no room for the state to be involved in the covanant.
Does this imply that a couple might privately sanctify their relationship by professing to be married in God's eyes before witnesses as the Quakers who traditionally don't seek marriage licenses or registration with the state?
Here's where so many problems arise. Timmy's stance on showing tolerance to gays is seen as "pushing the gay agenda". Some of you simply hear what you want to hear.
Obviously, I agree people shouldn't lose their job over their opinion on this issue. But some of you are so convinced the gays are out to get you, that you can't even remotely put yourselves in their shoes in the marriage issue.
__________________
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. — André Gide
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Does this imply that a couple might privately sanctify their relationship by professing to be married in God's eyes before witnesses as the Quakers who traditionally don't seek marriage licenses or registration with the state?
Yes.
More than imply. I firmly believe that we need to change the law so that contract law handles a law of Primary relationship.
such law would allow any two people to inter into such an agreement. Neither marriage, nor sexual involvement would inter into the concept.
two people who are married could create such a thing, as two gay people who represent themselves as such could, or two elderly people who rely on one another but are nothing more than friends could as well.
All extension of benifits that are assumed now as part of the state sanctioned marriage would be part of this.
Marriage however, would be the perview of the individaul entirely and that would allow the church to return to its JOB of insuring its adhearants understand that their marriage is their covanant not just with their spouse but with GOD.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Here's where so many problems arise. Timmy's stance on showing tolerance to gays is seen as "pushing the gay agenda". Some of you simply hear what you want to hear.
Obviously, I agree people shouldn't lose their job over their opinion on this issue. But some of you are so convinced the gays are out to get you, that you can't even remotely put yourselves in their shoes in the marriage issue.
Gay people arent out to get me. but there is this one guy who now works for DC comics that can say for certain that they are out to get him.
The same can be said for Chick-Fil-A.
conversely JC Penny can certainly say that some non-gay people are out to get them.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
More than imply. I firmly believe that we need to change the law so that contract law handles a law of Primary relationship.
such law would allow any two people to inter into such an agreement. Neither marriage, nor sexual involvement would inter into the concept.
two people who are married could create such a thing, as two gay people who represent themselves as such could, or two elderly people who rely on one another but are nothing more than friends could as well.
All extension of benifits that are assumed now as part of the state sanctioned marriage would be part of this.
Marriage however, would be the perview of the individaul entirely and that would allow the church to return to its JOB of insuring its adhearants understand that their marriage is their covanant not just with their spouse but with GOD.
I absolutely agree. I tried to attach a sample private "marriage contract". Tell me what you think.
My and my lady friend have considered a private, government free, marriage. We've both been married before and under NO circumstances do we want to take the risk of having to deal with the family court system again should one or both of us become idiots. Having had to endure a divorce after 12 years of marriage to my high school sweet heart I can say, you never REALLY know a person... and people often change. Our divorces were brutal and expensive. Not to mention, Paul admonishes believers not to take one another before unbelieving courts:
I Corinthians 6:1-7 (ESV)
6 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
Based on this... I believe Paul would have believers settle differences privately among the family of God, not in the courts, and this includes "divorce".
My and my lady friend have considered a private, government free, marriage. We've both been married before and under NO circumstances do we want to take the risk of having to deal with the family court system again should one or both of us become idiots. Having had to endure a divorce after 12 years of marriage to my high school sweet heart I can say, you never REALLY know a person... and people often change. Our divorces were brutal and expensive. Not to mention, Paul admonishes believers not to take one another before unbelieving courts:
I Corinthians 6:1-7 (ESV)
6 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?
Based on this... I believe Paul would have believers settle differences privately among the family of God, including divorce.
I cant get to the link as it is a blocked site. However while I agree with you on the part about the government not being involved for religious reasons.
Marriage is sacred and anyone seeking to be married in the eyes of God needs to look at this as a perminant state. Marriage should be a sacred ceremoney that takes place before a duely appointed minister of God's church. I make no room for wiggling on that point for those working around the state system.
I firmly believe that two people can be married in the eyes of God without the state being involved in the process.
I have reservations with the idea, that one would do this to avoid the costs and headache of dealing with the state if the marriage should fail... The point should be that a marriage that is truely a covanant with God should be done with the intent that it will be stronger and longer lasting than something the state sanctions.
I think you and I are on the same page on this issue though.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Linear Mode
