AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Current Events (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   eHarmony forced to match homosexuals... (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=748)

Bro. Parrish 11-20-2008 05:47 PM

eHarmony forced to match homosexuals...
 
Even as the proposition 8 battle lines are being drawn in lawsuits all over California, again we see the Pink agendists have forced a private business to cater to homosexual desires... what if this was your business, school, or church...

Dating site originally promoted by
James Dobson bows to lawsuits


Last week, eHarmony agreed to begin providing an eHarmony-affiliated "Compatible Partners" service to gays and lesbians, with listings labeled "male seeking male" and "female seeking female" by March 31, 2009.

For complying, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has dismissed the complaint against eHarmony, and Warren is considered "absolved of liability." Also, the dating site has been ordered to pay the division $50,000 for investigation-related administrative costs and give McKinley $5,000. It has agreed to provide a free one-year membership to its "gay" service to McKinley, plus free six-month memberships to "the first 10,000 users registering for same-sex matching within one year of the initiation on the same-sex matching service," according to the settlement...

An attorney for eHarmony told WND legal battles required a great deal of effort and resources from the dating organization.

"The company spent three years defending against this proceeding," he said. "It was a burden in terms of the high costs of litigation and the time and resources management devoted to it."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=81446

Traditional Anglican 11-20-2008 07:28 PM

...........:eek:, Since it is a private enterprise this is leftist bullying, were I the owner....I would step back, see if I had recovered my up-front capital and made a profit, then I would announce I was closing shutting down the service. I can play hardball too.:cool:

stephanos 11-20-2008 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traditional Anglican (Post 12059)
...........:eek:, Since it is a private enterprise this is leftist bullying, were I the owner....I would step back, see if I had recovered my up-front capital and made a profit, then I would announce I was closing shutting down the service. I can play hardball too.:cool:

Same. I would rather be out of business then help homos find each other and consumate their unholy union.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

tkg 11-20-2008 11:44 PM

I had problems with eHarmony in the first place (I know people who use it just to find partners for one night stands) but this just makes it that much worse in my opinion. Then again, Im not surprised, sodomy is going to pervade every aspect of society soon enough.

kittn1 11-21-2008 08:26 AM

Since it's not a surprise, why is it still so maddening?!?

I'd close down the business too.

How long till a Bible preacher in the US or Canada is before the courts for refusing to "marry" homosexuals?

Sad, sad, sad....even so, come, Lord Jesus!

Here Am I 11-21-2008 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kittn1 (Post 12068)
How long till a Bible preacher in the US or Canada is before the courts for refusing to "marry" homosexuals?

I am aware of a lot of churches reviewing with an attorney their 'statement of faith' in order to show their beliefs more clearly.

At this time, if someone tried to force a church's pastor to marry two sodomites, he can refuse if the church has 'marriage is between man and woman only' listed in their beliefs.

But that's for now. Who knows what's next...


Quote:

Sad, sad, sad....even so, come, Lord Jesus!
Amen, sister. Amen.

kittn1 11-22-2008 08:00 AM

Tweaking the statement of faith is a good idea; I think I'll mention that to our deacons. As it stands now, I know Pastor's policy is that he'll only marry church members. I'm not sure if there's anything on paper about that, though.

MC1171611 11-22-2008 09:19 AM

I would advise every church to review their constitution (or write and ratify one!) and have it reviewed by a lawyer, preferably one from the church. It needs to state that in no uncertain circumstances will the pastor marry someone outside of the church membership (and stick to it) and that the church only recognizes heterosexual couples and individuals for church membership. There must be no loopholes for the sodomites or the ACLU to exploit in order to force churches into marrying queers or prosecute them for not doing so.

It's a messed up world that we live in!

Bro. Parrish 11-22-2008 01:47 PM

Regarding writing down a policy,
why would put something in writing that can be perceived as anti-homosexual?
It seems to me that could be just want these activists are looking for.

Isn't that kind of what eHarmony tried to do?
For years, they had a corporate policy, look at the article...
"Now eHarmony has been compelled to CHANGE its nationwide policy toward homosexuals as part of a New Jersey lawsuit settlement."

I don't know, it seems to me the legal system is treating homosexuals like minorities or disability cases, you can hire all the attorneys you want and go broke in the process, but if one of these perverts attacks your business and it gets into the courts, it's over.
Churches who "discriminate" based on sexual preference will be denied non-profit status or worse. The gears have already started turning on all this...

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 2007
"This bill, co-sponsored by the NAACP California Conference and Equality California, would update various non-discrimination statutes relating to government-funded programs and business services by adding protections against discrimination on the basis of disability, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status and the like... Opponents contend that the bill inappropriately protects against sexual orientation discrimination and DEPRIVES certain persons of their right to religious beliefs."
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil..._asm_comm.html

MC1171611 11-22-2008 11:14 PM

Mainly because if its in writing, you have a legal defense. eHarmony gave up because they didn't want a long, drawn-out legal battle with the sodomites. If the church's constitution, a legally-binding document, disallows the pastor to marry individuals that are not church members, and allows the pastor and the membership of the church to decide who is allowed to become a member, there should be very few loopholes that queers can take advantage of.

Besides, we all know that very few sodomites want legal marriage because they're monogamous; they simply want public, legal verification of their perversion.

Bro. Parrish 11-23-2008 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC1171611 (Post 12087)
Mainly because if its in writing, you have a legal defense. eHarmony gave up because they didn't want a long, drawn-out legal battle with the sodomites. If the church's constitution, a legally-binding document, disallows the pastor to marry individuals that are not church members, and allows the pastor and the membership of the church to decide who is allowed to become a member, there should be very few loopholes that queers can take advantage of.

Maybe I'm not being clear.
Suppose a church decided that no black people could be members...? Suppose you had a "constitution or charter" that stated no blacks were allowed to be members or be married. What exactly does that document get you? The homosexuals are claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation, as I already showed you in the link: the courts see this as equal to minority status. To me, writing down your plan to "discriminate" only makes it more obvious, but then I'm not a lawyer.

stephanos 11-23-2008 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 12090)
Maybe I'm not being clear.
Suppose a church decided that no black people could be members...? Suppose you had a "constitution or charter" that stated no blacks were allowed to be members or be married. What exactly does that document get you? The homosexuals are claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation, as I already showed you in the link: the courts see this as equal to minority status. To me, writing down your plan to "discriminate" only makes it more obvious, but then I'm not a lawyer.

This is exactly what's going on. These sissified liberals with a victim mentality want everyone to know how much they suffer because they're homos, and they know that when other liberals see a 'victim' they'll have them hook line and sinker.

If the stink really hits the fan: HOME CHURCHES!

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Here Am I 11-23-2008 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 12090)
Maybe I'm not being clear.
Suppose a church decided that no black people could be members...? Suppose you had a "constitution or charter" that stated no blacks were allowed to be members or be married. What exactly does that document get you? The homosexuals are claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation, as I already showed you in the link: the courts see this as equal to minority status. To me, writing down your plan to "discriminate" only makes it more obvious, but then I'm not a lawyer.

Because, as a church, if you can show that something is against your beliefs, and have a way of proving it, then you can discriminate against certain practices.

It needs to be a conviction, however, and not just a preference. The church needs to make clear beliefs against sodomy and those who practice it.

Let me try to explain it this way: a Jewish congregation can state that they believe that eating pork is a sin, and can back it up with the Law. They couldn't be accused of discrimination if they don't allow someone to sell BBQ at a church event.

Some courts have ruled against churches that forbade sodomy, saying that their beliefs could only be enforced during actual ceremonies. A pastor might be 'forced' to marry two sodomites outside the church, but not within the confines of the building.

Bro. Parrish 11-23-2008 06:37 PM

Okay you sorta lost me on the whole pork thing, but thanks for trying.

My point is, if they are using a CIVIL RIGHTS AGENDA to force private companies, I think it's just a matter of time before churches are sued. This has the potential to tear the nation apart.
It seems behind every homosexual there is a lawyer...

From England:
Vicars could be sued for refusing to bless gay weddings,
fears Church

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-Church.html

New Jersey Lesbians to sue Church for Discrimination
A lesbian couple in New Jersey has filed a complaint against a Methodist-owned campground, claiming illegal discrimination because their request for a civil union ceremony on the property was denied...
http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/...iscrimination/

Gay couples file suit in Seattle
Six gay and lesbian couples sued King County for the right to marry after they were denied marriage licenses. The six couples, some with children in arms, were greeted at the door of the fourth-floor King County Administration Building office by County Executive Ron Sims, who said he supports their right to marry but is forbidden by state law from issuing licenses to partners of the same sex... Sims, appearing at a news conference with the plaintiffs and their lawyers, likened the state's ban on gay marriages to anti-miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriages in some states until the late 1960s.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...arriage08.html

MC1171611 11-24-2008 07:40 AM

What I'm saying is that if the church's constitution expressly states Biblical reasons (and convictions, like Here Am I said) for certain things, then those have a chance of standing in a court of law. A constitution is a legally-binding document: in it certain things like nursery procedures, church policies, pastoral authority (limits and allowances), money handling and voting procedures should be laid out and followed to the tiniest detail. That constitution is basically the law of the church: if it were to come to a courthouse issue, then that church would be examined against the law of the land and the church's constitution.

If there is no "anti-discriminatory" laws that force pastors to marry whomever wants to be married, the church's constitution will safeguard the church leadership as long as it is expressly stated that homosexual couples are not to be married by the pastor of the church. That's a legal document that a situation will be judged by in addition to the city/county/state/national laws.

If you live in a place with "anti-discriminatory" laws like that...MOVE!! :(

aussiemama 11-24-2008 09:01 AM

Is this even much of an issue yet? As far as I understand, homosexual marriage is still illegal in most states, therefore pastors don't have to and can't marry them. Times they are a changin though.

JaeByrd 11-24-2008 01:54 PM

I would probably close up shop. They probably can't do that right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkg (Post 12062)
I had problems with eHarmony in the first place (I know people who use it just to find partners for one night stands) but this just makes it that much worse in my opinion.

That isn't a surprise since people use regular "dating" to hook up just for fun. For the most part that is what dating is these days. Having a good time... maybe we'll like each other enough to join our households and bank accounts...

I know several couples who have gotten married to someone they met through eHarmony and I find they know each other better than most couples that go through "today's conventional methods" of finding someone.

Most are too wrapped up in the physical: looks & warm fuzzy feelings, etc to really find out how compatible they are on the important things: God, Bible, morals, family, etc.

Then again I married my pen-pal (before eHarmony was a thang) and I am a strong believer in getting to know the real person before you actually get involved with the person. Cause lets face it once they form an emotional bond with someone they aren't seeing clearly... and those things they ignore while dating don't surface until AFTER they have kids and the differences really become important.

Bro. Parrish 11-24-2008 02:52 PM

Lawsuit filed against priest for
denying communion to gay activist

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=3136

Doctors Can't Deny Lesbians
Care on Religious Grounds

Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.
http://current.com/items/89214762/do...us_grounds.htm

MC1171611 11-24-2008 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaeByrd (Post 12114)
Then again I married my pen-pal (before eHarmony was a thang) and I am a strong believer in getting to know the real person before you actually get involved with the person. Cause lets face it once they form an emotional bond with someone they aren't seeing clearly... and those things they ignore while dating don't surface until AFTER they have kids and the differences really become important.

KJB Princess and I met on a very similar forum to this one (run by Luke :D ) in April of 2006; it took me over a year to convince her that she loved me, and (exactly) two years before she finally married me ( ;) ), but I must say we have probably the best relationship of any newlywed couple I've ever known. There have been some bumps, but those are from outside of our marriage (though related thereto) and not explicitly related to the internet-ish nature of our meeting.

That being said, we haven't have had kids yet...but I don't really think that'll change much. Of course our meeting and relationship is extremely different from that of most internet relationships...we didn't meet on a secular site: we became friends on a Bible discussion site and developed a romance from there. (We're far from shy...people still tell us to "get a room!!" :p )

I'd say to avoid the internet stuff if possible, though for us it was a safeguard: it's hard to get into trouble from 2,300 miles away. :D

Bro. Parrish 11-24-2008 02:53 PM

Malkin cuts through the haze...

The eHarmony shakedown
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

"Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a Christian-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable “right” to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh? New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide.”Men seeking men” has now been enshrined with “I have a dream” as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

eHarmony founder Neil Warren is the gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A Focus on the Family author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages lasting, healthy unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths, or no faith at all. Don’t like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Web that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it. No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony’s right to operate a lawful business that didn’t give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights in 2005.

To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great “sin” was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley’s legal shakedown artists — and staved off other opportunists as well. eHarmony had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey Attorney General intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000, and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey’s Civil Rights division “to cover investigation-related administrative costs.” Oh, and that’s not all. Yield, yield to the grievance-mongers:

Additional terms of the settlement include:

* eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the “Diversity” section of its Web site as successful relationships are created using the company’s same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services;

* eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company Web sites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation;”

* the company has committed to advertising and public relations/ marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service, and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the “fair, accurate and inclusive” representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.


I have enormous sympathy for eHarmony, whose attorney explained that they gave in to the unfair settlement because “litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.” The recent mob response to the passage of Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure in California, must have also weighed on the eHarmony management’s minds. But capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: More shakedowns of private businesses who hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-At-All-Costs Brigade. Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their businesses. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways."
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/21...e-mau-mau-ers/

JaeByrd 11-24-2008 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC1171611 (Post 12118)
it's hard to get into trouble from 2,300 miles away. :D

We had about 2,600 miles of ocean between us and while RIME did work we did most of our correspondence through snail mail and a few long and expensive phone calls. We wrote just about every day though. We covered almost every topic/issue that came up in later years of marriage, at least the major ones we could think of, before we saw each other face to face.

:D You're slow. ;) It only took 3 months for Diligent to convince me. Another 3months to actually meet me. And 2 months after that to marry me. :D It has been about 14 1/2 years since we married and people still wonder if we're newlyweds.

tkg 11-24-2008 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaeByrd (Post 12120)
We had about 2,600 miles of ocean between us and while RIME did work we did most of our correspondence through snail mail and a few long and expensive phone calls. We wrote just about every day though. We covered almost every topic/issue that came up in later years of marriage, at least the major ones we could think of, before we saw each other face to face.

:D You're slow. ;) It only took 3 months for Diligent to convince me. Another 3months to actually meet me. And 2 months after that to marry me. :D It has been about 14 1/2 years since we married and people still wonder if we're newlyweds.


Amen, thats the way to go about it. Recreational dating, which is what dating is these days, is just what it sounds like, recreation. People go out to have a good time. The problem behind it is this, They go meet someone, "hook up" get emotionally involved, and then break up. This process repeats itself over and over and over, until finally, they do decide to marry someone, and when things get tough they see no trouble with a divorce, they just see it as breaking up again, and its becomes meaningless. Divorce literally means nothing in this day and age, people just shrug at it.

As for me, Im gonna do the whole courtship thing, which I imagine will be an experiance in itself. Going to someones father and saying, "hey, Im interested in your daughter, lets talk" Thats going to be akward. :D Then again Im 19, so I still have time to figure stuff out.

MC1171611 11-24-2008 04:44 PM

tkg, I've often said that dating, even in Baptist circles ("we're 'going out,'" etc.) is nothing but practice for divorce and emotional fornication. Sure, usually nothing actually sexual happens, but the bond between a man and a woman has more to do with than just sex. Their hearts become one (emotionally) as well, and when kids are going out with all the other kids in the church constantly, all that does is create adults with emotional scars from all those little "relationships."

My wife and I were each others' real first relationship; she had another guy interested, but nothing came of that (he was an absolute looser!!). While we went on "dates" alone when we got the chance (I only saw her three different times before we got married :p ), we kept everything pure and clean before God, to the best of my knowledge. Some people and their parents choose that the young people shouldn't be alone, and that's perfectly fine, not to mention advisable in almost all cases.

One more thing: don't look for a bride; let God show you the one. Waiting is a pain in the tush (I was married when I was your age :p) I know, but it's more than worth it. God knows what He's doing.

tkg 11-24-2008 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC1171611 (Post 12124)
tkg, I've often said that dating, even in Baptist circles ("we're 'going out,'" etc.) is nothing but practice for divorce and emotional fornication. Sure, usually nothing actually sexual happens, but the bond between a man and a woman has more to do with than just sex. Their hearts become one (emotionally) as well, and when kids are going out with all the other kids in the church constantly, all that does is create adults with emotional scars from all those little "relationships."

My wife and I were each others' real first relationship; she had another guy interested, but nothing came of that (he was an absolute looser!!). While we went on "dates" alone when we got the chance (I only saw her three different times before we got married :p ), we kept everything pure and clean before God, to the best of my knowledge. Some people and their parents choose that the young people shouldn't be alone, and that's perfectly fine, not to mention advisable in almost all cases.

One more thing: don't look for a bride; let God show you the one. Waiting is a pain in the tush (I was married when I was your age :p) I know, but it's more than worth it. God knows what He's doing.

Im not looking, Ive prayed about it and I know im not ready to be in charge of my own family, Theres a lot I need to do in my own life before I ever even consider that, I just find it funny to muse about sometimes, but right now my focus is God and that alone. Im sure he will hit me on the head if the one He wants for me comes along. :P But I totally agree with you on that about emotional fornification. Theres a brother in my church that I have had a talk with twice now about it. He goes around, gets attached to a girl and gets an emotional high off it (Nothing physical) and then when she gets attached and wants to be around him all the time he just quits talking to her. Its scary because he thinks hes good because hes not doing anything physical. Alas, I just pray the Lord wakes him up to that soon enough.

Here Am I 11-24-2008 08:05 PM

Thanks, I'm glad someone 'got' what I was trying to say...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC1171611 (Post 12101)
What I'm saying is that if the church's constitution expressly states Biblical reasons (and convictions, like Here Am I said) for certain things, then those have a chance of standing in a court of law. A constitution is a legally-binding document: in it certain things like nursery procedures, church policies, pastoral authority (limits and allowances), money handling and voting procedures should be laid out and followed to the tiniest detail. That constitution is basically the law of the church: if it were to come to a courthouse issue, then that church would be examined against the law of the land and the church's constitution.

If there is no "anti-discriminatory" laws that force pastors to marry whomever wants to be married, the church's constitution will safeguard the church leadership as long as it is expressly stated that homosexual couples are not to be married by the pastor of the church. That's a legal document that a situation will be judged by in addition to the city/county/state/national laws.

If you live in a place with "anti-discriminatory" laws like that...MOVE!! :(


kittn1 11-24-2008 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiemama (Post 12106)
Is this even much of an issue yet? As far as I understand, homosexual marriage is still illegal in most states, therefore pastors don't have to and can't marry them. Times they are a changin though.

It's legal in Canada and I live in Ontario. It could become a very real issue in a very short time for Bible preachers here if we're not proactive.

Bro. Parrish 11-25-2008 02:44 PM

Legal experts puzzled over California justice's
seeming reversal on Prop. 8


Justice Joyce L. Kennard has been a reliable supporter of gay rights in the past, but last week she was the only Supreme Court jurist to vote AGAINST hearing legal challenges to the gay-marriage ban.

a close reading of the court's one-page order suggests that gay-rights advocates may have lost a usually predictable ally in their effort to overturn Proposition 8.

"It definitely isn't a good sign," said UCLA Law Professor Brad Sears, an expert on sexual-orientation law...

Although it is impossible to know Kennard's thinking -- justices cannot comment on pending cases -- others saw reason to suspect that Kennard may not be buying the argument that Proposition 8 was an improper revision of the state constitution.

The order said Kennard would hear a new case to resolve the validity of the 18,000 same-sex marriages "without prejudice" -- a phrase that indicates she was open to arguments on the issue. But she declined to modify her denial of the Proposition 8 challenges with those same words.

"What she seems to be saying is that she doesn't think it is worth reviewing," said UC Berkeley Law Professor Jesse H. Choper.

The legal challenges are novel. Many scholars believe the court is more likely to uphold the validity of the marriages that occurred before the election than to overturn Proposition 8. The court will decide both questions in a single ruling next year, probably in the spring or early summer.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,1631563.story

Bro. Parrish 12-03-2008 08:40 PM

Here it comes folks, the pink agendists have already chosen their first official target, I don't care for Mormon doctrine, but I think you can expect this type of slander against the Baptists next...

Mormon anti-gay home invasion!
WATCH THE VIDEO LINK...
"This hysterical anti-Prop 8 ad really is flat-out scaremongering religious bigotry against Mormons. If the LDS church had produced an ad showing a gay couple breaking into someone's house and stealing or seducing their children, it would be about on this level of obnoxiousness. I appreciate that one opposes the LDS activism, and its goal, on this issue, but making Mormons out to be a theofascist Gestapo is beyond the pale..." --Crunchy Con

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE

stephanos 12-03-2008 10:25 PM

Wow, that's just retarded. Well I shared my thoughts on it in the comments, and posted your comment, well whoever Crunchy Con is.

I think we should make a video like this, something rediculously sensational.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Bro. Parrish 12-03-2008 11:21 PM

Haha, I see your comment over there, good for you.
Crunchy Con is a conservative blogger over at Beliefnet, more here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon...e-mormons.html

stephanos 12-04-2008 02:57 AM

You know, I'm really not sure where we should stand in regards to that attacks against the Mormons, especially in ligtht of 2 Corinthians 6:14. They are our neighbors, and they value some of the things we do, but they are preachers of another gospel. What is the appropriate Biblical stance we Bible Believing Christians should take as we watch these folks take the bulk of the sodomites venom?

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Bro. Parrish 12-04-2008 05:42 PM

Did you read that that last link, I think Crunchy is correct...
we need to stand by them on family issues. And I would also include the Jews and even the Muslims on this. The pink agenda is very dangerous, and they have activists on every hand, from the Federal level on down to the local schools some of our kids attend. Here's that link again:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon...e-mormons.html

stephanos 12-04-2008 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish (Post 12538)
Did you read that that last link, I think Crunchy is correct...
we need to stand by them on family issues. And I would also include the Jews and even the Muslims on this. The pink agenda is very dangerous, and they have activists on every hand, from the Federal level on down to the local schools some of our kids attend. Here's that link again:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon...e-mormons.html

Yeah I read it, that's why I wanted to ask what my fellow Bible Believers think about this issue.

Peace and Love,
Stephen


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study