Ummm..this is Luke 19:27 and Jesus is telling a parable of a hated king and his treatment of his subjects.
1. The right to inherit without a will. 2. The right to visit as a family member in the ICU. 3. Legal recognition of next of kin status. 4. The ability to carry your loved one on your health insurance. 5. Social Security survivor benefits. 6. Survivor benefits in a private pension or annuity. 7. The ability to file a joint bankruptcy case. These are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.
Those would be covered by civil unions which is what I was touting earliler in this discussion. Marriage is really just aa religious overlay. You have to have a marriage license from the state to get married. If people weren't so hung up on the language, I think this could be fixed.
I think every one should have the right to select their next of kin whether single, married, civil union that would get these rights. Either open up the rights to all or nix them for the married people.
Brother I read and study the Bible on a daily basis. I also do study on the other religions of the world, and study their apologetics. I have read the Quran and most, if not all of the hadiths ( not all of the different translations, I must admit.) The truth is all of the verses that I quoted in the previous post regarding Muhummad and slavery were directly taken from the Quran, and not taken out of context. I also provided the Hadith to either give the context or confirm the Quranic verses. To answer your questions (from Deedats apologetics, I might add) From the Geneva Bible study At the time the apostles may have understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spoke only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must arm themselves, as written of in Hebrews and Ephesians. We can see further (Luke22:50-51) into the chapter where one of the Disciples struck a soldier cutting off the soldiers ear, Jesus immediately rebukes the disciple. (New American Standard Bible) But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him. (King James 2000 Bible) And Jesus answered and said, No more of this. And he touched his ear, and healed him. Even if a sword was purchased for self defence, or use in long journeys, would that be wrong? As I said in the previous post, there is nowhere in the Bible scriptures where Jesus promotes, endorses, approves or instructs his followers to use violence, rape, murder or steal. May I ask that since you quoted the chapter in Luke which deals with Jesus being betrayed before his crucifixion, do you now believe that Jesus was Crucified? This post is nonsense. I can see that English isn't your mother language, and I won't hold that against you mate.
You are right. English is my 3rd language. No I don't believe Jesus (peace be up on him) was cruciefied nor I believe he is God. I believe that Torah and the Gospel of John contain words from God but these books have been edited by the men over the time (secret societies) and that the Holy Qu'ran was delivered to ''update'' the religion. Muslims follow the teaching of Jesus (peace be up on him) more than the Christians do. Jesus (peace be up on him) was circumcised, Muslims are but majority of Christians aren't. Jesus (peace be up on him) did not drink alcohol (and the Bible forbids it), Muslims don't drink alcohol but most Christians do (However I Know some that don't). Jesus (peace be up on him) did not eat pork, Muslims don't, majority of Christians do. Neither the words Trinity and Christianity are in the Bible. the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i.e. Muhammad ) who believes In Allâh and his Words [(this Qur'ân), the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and also Allâh's Word: "Be!" - and He was, i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary),], and follow Him so that You may be guided." [7:157 and 158] The point is, why you have to diss Islam? We believe in the same God. We are taught to be kind with people, with orphelins, give to the poor, be respectful with our parents, reject the Devil etc..
Apparently not. Not sure about alcohol being forbidden by the Bible. Where does it say this? Although, personally I don't drink or eat pork and, yes, I am circumcised I don't believe the Bible needed any updating in 632AD, but other than that, thank you. What are the two other languages you speak? Jah love. Rastafari.
I am Bosnian my 1st language is Bosnian, my 2nd is French (perfectly fluent in French as well as writing). I live in Canada though*.
I will get back to you probably tomorrow, I'm busy tonight. It's Friday down under, and I've got a Home Bible Study to go to. In the mean time, maybe you could try to answer the above questions.
You seem to have answered the question that there is more to sex than just pure procreation yet still refuse to acknowledge it by clinging to the rather odd idea that nature discriminates against homosexual sex. If sex is purely for procreation then technically we and other animals wouldn't have sex when females (or males) were fertile. Consider that most animals are like that and only have sex, many aren't even capable of having sex, when they can procreate. Humans though and animals like dolphins and apes, have sex all the time whether they can procreate or not. Therefore if you say that nature discriminates implying that there is some sort of plan to it, why then would animals even have the urge to have sex when there is almost no possibility of procreating and it is a waste of energy that could go to more productive things like getting more food? Sex for social animals sex without procreation plays other roles such as for bonding, improving the survival of young by encouraging males to provide for child rearing females and etc. Even homosexuality might play an important role as noted in the article at the link. http://www.newscientist.com/article...l-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html This idea though that nature discriminates against homosexuality because it doesn't result in procreation is ridiculous as if that was the case then homosexuality wouldn't persist or be prevalent across species. For that matter sex that doesn't result in procreation wouldn't persist for that matter. Let me ask you another question since it sounds like you are a Christian. If nature and God discriminated against homosexuality why would God create animals that engaged in homosexuality? Are penguins engaging in same sex penguin love just sinful penguins?
I don't speak for everyone else regarding this issue but my own opinion is that the terms aren't so important as long as they are applied equally. Wanting to legally keep one term for some and not for others is a "want". Treating all equally is a 'right'
I reckon I'm really seeking to demote the legal status of "marriage" and replace it with a more functional "civil union" which could be applied equally since it is a non-religious, state-licensed merger!
You are trying to get too technical in order to prove a point that can't be proven. The law of nature discriminates against homosexual sex among humans and other animals. Two male species can't produce offspring. It's very simple. Don't try to overthink it because you want to provide support for gay marriage among human beings. I have never even given my views on that. I merely stated the simple fact that the law of nature discriminates against homosexual sex. It is not equal to heterosexual sex. It does not have the same result. Nature will not allow homosexuals to reproduce, unless it is with the opposite gender. I would like to engage in a discussion with you regarding your other comments concerning sex drive and procreation. I must get back to work, however. Allow me some time and I'll come back and address this interesting subject.
