The blood of the lamb.
The new associate pastor is a young, TALL, softspoken kid, who occasionally hits one out of the park, despite his stilted, almost stammering speech. Today he spoke (As the readings directed) about how our sin is a sort of spiritual leprosy, and how the purification ritual for leprosy involved the blood of a lamb. The parallels that can be drawn to Christ are numerous and meaningful. I expect people more educated than I can see even more than I can.
In other news, U R A BIGOT OG! THOSE GAY PEOPLE JUST WANT 2 BE HAPPY!
because there’s NOBODY saying ANYTHING about churches in relationship to gays. Well, this one guy. And his 7 million followers. And the 96,000 people who “Liked” this tweet. Hardly anyone, really. No, nobody is anxious to use the gay rights thing to damage the church, nuh uh.
Sorry. You don’t see this coming, you’re a moron. You see it coming and think it’s OK, you’re evil. There are no other categories.
Yep. When you have people in this country scream death to America, we are doomed.
It is going to get a lot worse.
Having Canadian Connections, you’re probably aware of the hate speech restrictions against Christian Sermons dealing with homosexuality.
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2013/03/supremes-rule-bible-as-hate-speech-in.html
Agree with all… sigh. Buying more ammo!
I’ve long believed that there are two separate aspects to marriage” 1) the state-enforced contract between two individuals and 2) the ritual joining of two people, mind, soul and body. Frankly, if two people wish to enter a contract to hold their possessions in common, make medical decisions on each other’s behalf, share expenses, etc then go for it, and what they do in the privacy of their own home is none of my (or the government’s) business. The government is involved only in the contract, just like any other contract between two or more people. Likewise, if a particular church wants to define marriage as any two (or more) adults, in whatever combination of genders, under the First Amendment clause of not restricting free exercise of religion then go for it. But it a church wishes to define marriage as one man and one woman, they ALSO ought to be left alone by the government. Don’t like it? Don’t go to that church, there are plenty of others to choose from.
But that might make too much sense.
Indeed, Mark, indeed.
Someone needs to remind Gervais that churches don’t pay taxes on the condition of staying out of direct non-issue political action.
And that the very separation of church and state he almost certainly espouses (as do I) is exactly the reason that churches are not taxed as entities; the power to tax is the power to control and destroy.
(And I say this as an atheist who is fine with gays getting married.
But not with the State making anyone who doesn’t want to perform such a marriage do so, or make a cake for them, or compel anyone in any way to do anything for someone else that they find unwholesome.
But then, hey, I also want the State to stop doing marriages at all, because I’m a libertarian as well as an atheist.
Leave marriage to the Church, where it belongs.)
Well put.