Sex is for married heterosexual couples only - C of E

[johnofgwent]

Who has denied you this event?







Two of the most popular candidates for the Democrat ticket (despite any number of personal issues) are Biden and Sanders, who as far as I am aware are both white, male, heterosexuals, no?

The council in charge of the land turned down an application from me and a few other interested parties about a decade ago on the grounds it would not be inclusive.



As to the other point, I was rather referring to.the was Saunders got pushed aside to.allow a woman candidate.



But this is drifting off the mainstream topic.

[Barry]

Here you go



Leviticus 18:22

Old Testament

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.



Leviticus 20:13

Old Testament



13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



Romans 1:27

New Testament



27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Now I'm joking here, but some people think that was all abolished by the Sexual offences act 1967. But God is timeless and does not respect our laws. He made his own.

[T00ts]

Here you go



Leviticus 18:22

Old Testament

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.



Leviticus 20:13

Old Testament



13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



Romans 1:27

New Testament



27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

[cromwell]

Well that's a view.

Personally I don't think we have free will, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Interesting,so what are you waiting for? :thup:

[Nalaar]

We all have free will and the only judge will be God.

Well that's a view.

Personally I don't think we have free will, but that's a discussion for another thread.

[T00ts]

Okay.

So the judgment of sin should be left to the god, and not to say...some human on earth deciding what sort of sex is acceptable and with who?

We all have free will and the only judge will be God.

[Nalaar]

In my Father's house are many mansions. It isn't as simple as hellfire and Heaven. God's judgement is His alone and it will be fair.

Okay.

So the judgment of sin should be left to the god, and not to say...some human on earth deciding what sort of sex is acceptable and with who?

[T00ts]

Well ah apparently god cares, so nice idea, but those people gotta spend eternity in hellfire etc ¯_(ツ)_/¯

In my Father's house are many mansions. It isn't as simple as hellfire and Heaven. God's judgement is His alone and it will be fair.

[Nalaar]

Does it really matter? I got married because I wanted to,however if any two people want to enter a union where neither intends to subjigate the other and they are not harming anyone else,who cares? not me.

Well ah apparently god cares, so nice idea, but those people gotta spend eternity in hellfire etc ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[Baron von Lotsov]

Be careful there. Once again you have taken this out of context. There is no general anti kingship it was particular to them at that time. They were once again pulling away from the Gospel teachings. You have to read things in context. Sadly what is referred to as Christian is not strictly so. Throughout time it has wandered so far from Jesus' original Church and teaching it no longer bears much resemblance.

Ah well we would have to make the distinction. Going right back to the times in this country where Christianity became the dominant force, the kings took their instruction from god, so in effect they were playing an administrative role in upholding god's law. So in this context i agree there is nothing wrong with that, because the bible says it is a good thing to be pro-active in upholding god's law and fighting evil. But, by your own admission we are in the context I refer to where the state is acting against god's law and going awry. If someone says to someone else now that they are married, that someone else might suspect they are homosexual, so they would have to add something to clarify. It's rather uncanny.

[cromwell]

Does it really matter? I got married because I wanted to,however if any two people want to enter a union where neither intends to subjigate the other and they are not harming anyone else,who cares? not me.

[T00ts]

The thing is that if you go back in time to where Christianity spread across our country then in the early days marriage itself was nothing like as bureaucratic as it is today. It was an agreement between a man and a woman, but they could decide what that agreement would be. Of course if they were Christian then the agreement would be compatible with Christian morals, such as thy does not cheat on thy husband or wife and so on.



Now the situation is entirely the reverse, where the state decides what that agreement should be, and the state is known to be very sexist. Rather than the man making an agreement  with the woman, he is making one with the state, and terms and conditions apply. The state's version is very different from the biblical teachings, therefore the number of men who wish to be married continues to fall. I think many men practice the old version, where they think it is none of the state's business. Indeed if we look at what the bible has to say about rulers, it is not very pro-kings. In the bible god warns of what would become of the people if they were granted a king. The Christian way is that one does not need a state bearing down on them if one behaves well in the first place.

Be careful there. Once again you have taken this out of context. There is no general anti kingship it was particular to them at that time. They were once again pulling away from the Gospel teachings. You have to read things in context. Sadly what is referred to as Christian is not strictly so. Throughout time it has wandered so far from Jesus' original Church and teaching it no longer bears much resemblance.

[Nalaar]

I'm glad they're pressing it



Because it cannot be right that I am denied a straight pride event... underneath the cerne Abbas giant.

Who has denied you this event?

Seriously, the pendulum has swung too far. We are already in the position that no democratic candidate for the presidency of the USA can be a white make heterosexual.

Two of the most popular candidates for the Democrat ticket (despite any number of personal issues) are Biden and Sanders, who as far as I am aware are both white, male, heterosexuals, no?

[Baron von Lotsov]

For me it is very clear. In Luke 9:23 it says  

23 Then he said to them all: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.



We all have different challenges but we are told many times that belief in God must come before all things and if we are not prepared for that then we will never be true believers. He never once said it would be easy. I am not CofE or Catholic but it has always been mystifying to me that any church can condone practising homosexuals. We can love the sinner but not the sin.

The thing is that if you go back in time to where Christianity spread across our country then in the early days marriage itself was nothing like as bureaucratic as it is today. It was an agreement between a man and a woman, but they could decide what that agreement would be. Of course if they were Christian then the agreement would be compatible with Christian morals, such as thy does not cheat on thy husband or wife and so on.



Now the situation is entirely the reverse, where the state decides what that agreement should be, and the state is known to be very sexist. Rather than the man making an agreement  with the woman, he is making one with the state, and terms and conditions apply. The state's version is very different from the biblical teachings, therefore the number of men who wish to be married continues to fall. I think many men practice the old version, where they think it is none of the state's business. Indeed if we look at what the bible has to say about rulers, it is not very pro-kings. In the bible god warns of what would become of the people if they were granted a king. The Christian way is that one does not need a state bearing down on them if one behaves well in the first place.

[johnofgwent]

I'm glad they're pressing this narrative.

The more the church publicly doubles down on positions like this the more outdated and out of touch with the general population they become.

I'm glad they're pressing it



Because it cannot be right that I am denied a straight pride event... underneath the cerne Abbas giant.



Seriously, the pendulum has swung too far. We are already in the position that no democratic candidate for the presidency of the USA can be a white make heterosexual.