MuttleyLaff:
On the contrary, you're still "B"
You still fancy both sexes, but you have decided not to follow it through.
As you're now committed in a relationship built on trust, truthfulness, honesty and faithfulness to this person you've chosen to settle down with

Can a person be bi if they've decided to be mono?

Let God himself be the judge.

ATFmedia:
Let God himself be the judge.

And that, is exactly the attitude the Church of England takes on the matter, especially after finding out they do more harm by being the judges themselves.

The Church, including Catholics, have afterall not exactly done a good job stoning themselves so how could they continue justifying the stoning of others?

9inches:
Since we don't know what the people we are referring to, how would I know what they do so as to say if it's sin or not?

"Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4)

On the assumption the phrase "we are referring to" , has a "do" at the end, since you don't "know what they do so as to say if it's sin or not", why the condemnation? And is it for the Church to judge?

By the way, this might be an old Catholic thing. They have tended to play God in the past. However, read my acknowledgement of ATFmedia's comment above.

The CoE has never had such holier than thou attitudes or godlike powers as it has always been subject to the law of the land, which currently is the Equality Act 2010 which makes it illegal to discriminate against anyone because of their:

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation

Effectively, if, as the op claimed, "Members [are] Being ‘forced Out’ Of Church Of England For Being Gay" (and by the way, I know it isn't true because I am a member of the CoE and would raise hell myself if I saw anything of the sort!), then they are committing a crime and would be sanctioned for it!

As an aside, that act also affected primogeniture such that the first born, regardless of gender, would be first in line to the throne of England, and also removed ancient restrictions barring Catholics becoming king or queen.

budaatum:


On the assumption the phrase "we are referring to" , has a "do" at the end, since you don't "know what they do so as to say if it's sin or not", why the condemnation? And is it for the Church to judge?

By the way, this might be an old Catholic thing. They have tended to play God in the past. However, read my acknowledgement of ATFmedia's comment above.

The CoE has never had such holier than thou attitudes or godlike powers as it has always been subject to the law of the land, which currently is the Equality Act 2010 which makes it illegal to discriminate against anyone because of their:

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation

Effectively, if, as the op claimed, "Members [are] Being ‘forced Out’ Of Church Of England For Being Gay" (and by the way, I know it isn't true because I am a member of the CoE and would raise hell myself if I saw anything of the sort!), then they are committing a crime and would be sanctioned for it!

As an aside, that act also affected primogeniture such that the first born, regardless of gender, would be first in line to the throne of England, and also removed ancient restrictions barring Catholics becoming king or queen.

Condemnation of what exactly? I'm not aware the Catholic church judges or condemns anyone just for being gay. Same way Martin Luther wasn't excommunicated for his heresy, but for his subsequent rebellion against the Church. The Catholic church understands that the issue of the christian faith and teachings are more nuanced than non catholics make it to seem. That's why we don't fill every time slot on the airwaves shoving bible verses down people's throat without the sometimes deeply nuanced explanation that should follow it.

My point in essence is that the Church does not know who is a sinner or who isn't. Infact, the church does not ask such question. However, when a liar or an adulterer tries to promote lying or adultery in an attempt to subvert (check meaning) the Church, that's when the Church reacts inorder to protect itself including the congregation from such corruption.

I hope I made it clear enough for you.

budaatum:
Can a person be bi if they've decided to be mono?

Naturally, I love German cars,
but I've been known to have decided, at one time or the other, to go for French, British and Asian cars
Though in my heart, I am a German car person through and through,
sometimes because of situation, circumstance and/or condition I end up having a car that's not German.

9inches:
Brother, there's nothing like sinful enough. Sin is sin. Is there any particular act you want to know if it qualifies as a sin?

MuttleyLaff:
OK, brother, I hear you
Now let me rephrase that then
by saying please, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is the sin, that requires changing.
Please dont make dodging from answering this question turn into a habit
So, tell in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what it is please

9inches:
Since we don't know what the people we are referring to,
how would I know what they do, so as to say if it's sin or not?

"Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4)

budaatum:
On the assumption the phrase "we are referring to", has a "do" at the end,
since you don't "know what they do so as to say if it's sin or not"...

I can tell for free, what the people, the thread along, is refering to

The people, the thread all along, is refering to, are consenting adults in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful and meaningful same gender relationship

So now, 9inches, please, tell, in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, if at all there is any,
how consenting adults in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful
and meaningful same gender relationship could and would be committing sin

MuttleyLaff:
I can tell for free, what the people, we all along, are refering to
The people, we all along, are refering to, are consenting adults in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful and meaningful same gender relationship
So now, 9inches, please, tell, in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, if at all there is any,
how consenting adults in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful
and meaningful same gender relationship could and would be committing sin

They could and would be committing sin if they act upon any kind of sinful desire either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out.

You also succinctly nailed it here:

MuttleyLaff:
The gist of your explanation, is that you cant sin a fault until it becomes an action

Greed, covetousness, and lust are improper homo and heterosexual desires and/or faults
that when acted upon not only leads to prostitution, adultery, fornication, lewdness, promiscuity etcetera
but equally is at a detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another or other person(s) whom love, faithfulness, commitment, honesty, lasting that's life-long and loyalty was professed to whilst in a relationship, that's same sex or otherwise.

9inches:
They can could and would be committing sin if they act upon any kind of sinful desire either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out.

I'll like you to give examples of:
1/ any kind of sinful desire
2/ the desire not to act out and/or not to encourage
3/ deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out

9inches:
You also succinctly nailed it here:

So you do accept then,
that there is no ongoing action between consenting adults in a same gender relationship that could and would be faulted
provided the union is honest, truthful, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful and meaningful?

9inches:


My point in essence is that the Church does not know who is a sinner or who isn't. Infact, the church does not ask such question. However, when a liar or an adulterer tries to promote lying or adultery in an attempt to subvert (check meaning) the Church, that's when the Church reacts inorder to protect itself including the congregation from such corruption.

I hope I made it clear enough for you.

I must have mixed you up with the person who was claiming the church must condemn homosexuals.

The facts are that no religious organisation in UK is permitted to discriminate, in any way whatsoever, against gays and homosexuals. And that includes refusing them communion, for an example. They all have to obey the law of the land or they will get prosecuted if found not to and fined if found guilty, and they can't claim God or their holy book says they can.

UK seems to have adopted the attitude that people are more important and need protection and religious institutions and gods can take care of themselves, if you asked me.

9inches:
My point in essence is that the Church does not know who is a sinner or who isn't.
Infact, the church does not ask such question.
However, when a liar or an adulterer tries to promote lying or adultery in an attempt to subvert (check meaning) the Church,
that's when the Church reacts inorder to protect itself including the congregation from such corruption.

I hope I made it clear enough for you.

budaatum:
I must have mixed you up with the person who was claiming the church must condemn homosexuals.

The facts are that no religious organisation in UK is permitted to discriminate, in any way whatsoever, against gays and homosexuals.
And that includes refusing them communion, for an example.
They all have to obey the law of the land or they will get prosecuted if found not to and fined if found guilty, and they can't claim God or their holy book says they can.

UK seems to have adopted the attitude that people are more important and need protection and religious institutions and gods can take care of themselves, if you asked me.

"I accept same sex relationship,
regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved,
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn"
- Page 0 9inches ©

By virtue of what ekklesia means, which is "the called out"
but since over time, the word ekklesia has been exchanged
and that "church" has since then been erroneously used in place of ekklesia (i.e. "the called out'')
May I submit to you bud, that 9inches is ekklesia; the church, and ekklesia; the church, is 9inches

Whoever that person is, the person's position, is that the church must condemn homosexuals,
whilst 9inches' position, from the above inverted commas, condemns same sex relationship, if it involves the act of homosexuality

MuttleyLaff:


• Adam & Eve in Eden, fast forward to Matthew 16:18 and Acts 2:41
• Roman Emperors Constantine and Licinius' Edict of Milan in AD 313 which established a policy of religious freedom for all.
(i.e. a proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire)
• Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire.
• the sell-out and/or shady deal(s)(e.g. "Church" and State collaboration under Constantine

what shady deals is that?

• The [b]regularisation and formation of the Roman Catholic Church

please provide the document used in creating the Church and tell us who did
•

Roman Empire's adoption of RCC as "official" church during Constantine's reign
• The supremacy of the Roman bishop (i.e. the papacy) created/aided with the support of the Roman emperors

you mind telling us how the emperors created the papacy
•

Constantine calling the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, in an attempt to unify Christianity when doctrinal disputes arose
(e.g. Arianism, doctrines named after Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D) and presiding over this first ecumenical church council
• the exploits of the apostles, all charged up in their faith, preaching the Gospel and like Jesus willing to die horrible deaths because of it.
• The apostolic period (i.e. including The "patristic writings'') - about contemporaries of the apostles like Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, and who became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred
• the ante-Nicene (i.e. before Nicaea) period - about the likes of Ignatius and his "ekklesia katholicos" phrase, he was a disciple of the apostle John
• the post-Nicene "church" period - about the likes of Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine

Augustine is considered father of the Church by all ancient Church both Catholic and Orthodox calling him Roman Catholic is father is just insulting

• The term "Roman Catholic" defined by Emperor Theodosius on February 27th, 380 in the Theodosian Code.
In that document, he referred to those who hold to the "religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter"
as "Roman Catholic Christians" and gave them the [b]official sanction of the empire

this is untrue, the code of Theodosius actually defined what it means to be Catholic as believing in the Trinity as held in Rome Alexandria, Constantinople, Egypt, caesaria etc. this is what the code says.

It is our will that all the
peoples whom the
government of our
clemency rules shall follow
that religion which a pious
belief from Peter to the
present declares the holy
Peter delivered to the
Romans, and which it is
evident the pontiff
Damasus and Peter,
bishop of Alexandria, a
man of apostolic sanctity,
follow; that is, that
according to the apostolic
discipline and evangelical
doctrine we believe in the
deity of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Ghost of
equal majesty, in a holy
trinity. Those who follow
this law we command shall
be comprised under the
name of Catholic
Christians;


We command that all
churches be forthwith
delivered up to the
bishops who confess the
Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost to be of one
majesty and power; of the
same glory and of one
splendor, making no
distinction by any profane
division, but rather
harmony by the assertion
of the trinity of the
persons and the unity of
the Godhead, to the
bishops who are
associated in communion
with Nectarius, bishop of
the Church of
Constantinople, and with
Timotheus in Egypt,
bishop of the city of
Alexandria; in the parts of
the Orient, who are in
communion with Pelagius,
bishop of Laodicaea and
Diodorus, bishop of
Tarsus; in proconsular Asia
and in the diocese of Asia,
who are in communion
with Amphilochius, bishop
of Iconium, and Optimus,
bishop of Antioch; in the
diocese of Pontus, who
are in communion with
Helladius, bishop of
Caesarea, and Otreius,
bishop of Melitina, and
Gregory, bishop of Nyssa,
Terennius, bishop of
Scythia, Marmarius, bishop
of Marcianopolis. Those
who are of the communion
and fellowship of approved
priests ought to be
admitted to possess the
Catholic churches;



•

the first canon[/b] (i.e. Muratorian Canon), the progressive acceptance of other books as canonical and have them make up the 66 books of the bible
• The fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476 and the rise of the Roman Catholic Church
• the Pontifex Maximus; the highest office in the state religion of ancient Rome and at the collapse of the Roman Empire, RCC popes taking on this title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors

actually the Church accepted 73 books in the Bible not 66.

the western empire alone fell, the roman empire was moved to Constantinople and continued till the crusaders and Islam and during that time the roman Church suffered invasion not rise.

• the tragic compromise of believers with the [b]introduction of pagan religions and assimilation of paganism influences
(i.e. the Romanization and paganization of Christianity and the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs)
• Apostolic succession and Pope Gregory in AD 590, upon assuming office denying any responsibility or support for any ambition to the throne of Peter
• "Church" and State fully merged as the Holy Roman Empire

what pagan religion was introduced? making claims don't make it true... funny enough Church and state were never fully merged in Rome

Preemptively, I provided the above bullet points, highlighting the gradual development of RCC.
Notice from the bullet points that, its Ignatius who first used the "ekklesia katholicos" phrase
(i.e. "ekklesia katholicos" means "the universal called out'')
and its Emperor Theodosius, on February 27th, 380 in the Theodosian Code, who defined the term "Roman Catholic" .

Ignatius actually used that term to differentiate between those who gathered in communion with the bishops and those who don't.

MuttleyLaff:
I'll like you to give examples of:
1/ any kind of sinful desire
2/ the desire not to act out and/or not to encourage
3/ deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out

I can't. Do you have any in mind for consideration?

So you do accept then,
that there is no ongoing action between consenting adults in a same gender relationship that could and would be faulted
provided the union is honest, truthful, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful and meaningful?

Nothing is impossible.

budaatum:

I must have mixed you up with the person who was claiming the church must condemn homosexuals.

The facts are that no religious organisation in UK is permitted to discriminate, in any way whatsoever, against gays and homosexuals. And that includes refusing them communion, for an example. They all have to obey the law of the land or they will get prosecuted if found not to and fined if found guilty, and they can't claim God or their holy book says they can.

UK seems to have adopted the attitude that people are more important and need protection and religious institutions and gods can take care of themselves, if you asked me.

Take a look at these two countries and tell me which one still protects the Freedom of Speech and Religion of its citizens.

UK

The judges acknowledged that there was a “tension” in the case of Mr and Mrs Johns between the rights of individuals to maintain their religious beliefs and the rights of homosexual people to live free from discrimination.

However, when fostering regulations were taken into account, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence” over religious rights, they said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html

US

House Bill 3859 would allow faith-based organizations to place a child in a religion-based school; deny referrals for abortion-related contraceptives, drugs or devices; and refuse to contract with other organizations that don't share their religious beliefs. If a faith-based group refuses services to children or prospective homes on religious grounds, they would be required to refer the child or parent to a different organization that can help them.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/21/senate-passes-religious-protections-child-welfare-agencies/

9inches:
I can't.

Or you dont, you can't bring yourself to say

9inches:
Do you have any in mind for consideration?

"I accept same sex relationship,
regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved,
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn"
- Page 0 9inches ©

No, I dont have anything for consideration crossing my mind,
not when it's to do with consenting adults of same gender, faithful and committed to each other
whilst being in relationship that's meaningful, honest, truthful, loving and lasting a lifetime,

but you apparently, as you put it and wrt to the above inverted commas, condemn the act of homosexuality.
1/ What exactly, in the act of homosexuality, do you condemn?
2/ Why do you deem what the act of homosexuality is in #1/ above, deserves to be condemned?
3/ How and/or why did you arrive at this position of condemning the act of homosexuality?

9inches:
Nothing is impossible.

Nothing is impossible, especially with God.

MuttleyLaff:


"I accept same sex relationship,
regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved,
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn"
- Page 0 9inches ©

By virtue of what ekklesia means, which is "the called out"
but since over time, the word ekklesia has been exchanged
and that "church" has since then been erroneously used in place of ekklesia (i.e. "the called out'')
May I submit to you bud, that 9inches is ekklesia; the church, and ekklesia; the church, is 9inches

Whoever that person is, the person's position, is that the church must condemn homosexuals,
whilst 9inches' position, from the above inverted commas, condemns same sex relationship, if it involves the act of homosexuality

The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.”

Where did you get the notion that the church "must condemn homosexuals"?

9inches:
The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia
which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.”

Wrong 9inches.
The word “church” DOES NOT, DID NOT & NEVER came from the Greek word ekklesia.

Why are people so ill-informed about something like this
and other terms used in relation to the thread's subject matter

9inches:
Where did you get the notion that the church "must condemn homosexuals"?

"I accept same sex relationship,
regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved,
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn"
- Page 0 9inches ©

Whoever that person with the notion that the church "must condemn homosexuals", I am yet to know
Budaatum seems to have mistaken you for the person with the notion that the church "must condemn homosexuals"?

You, apparently, as you earlier put it, as can be seen with respect to to the above inverted commas,
condemn the act of homosexuality or dont you anymore?

That's why, I earlier asked the following questions, to solicit clearer and more information
1/ What exactly, in the act of homosexuality, do you condemn?
2/ Why do you deem what the act of homosexuality is in #1/ above, deserves to be condemned?
3/ How and/or why did you arrive at this position of condemning the act of homosexuality?

9inches:


Take a look at these two countries and tell me which one still protects the Freedom of Speech and Religion of its citizens.

UK

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html

US

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/21/senate-passes-religious-protections-child-welfare-agencies/

The US protects religion (from the above). Religion is not protected in UK! UK's concern is for the person. Nor does UK allow your freedom of speech to be discriminatory. You cannot call someone a "black bastard" in UK, for instance, and get away with it. You can be called the n-word in America and there's not much you can do about it.

Faith based organisations do not place children anywhere in UK, nor can they foster. Individuals do And while it is not unusual for a child to be placed with religious people, those people are not allowed to compel the child to adopt the foster's religion.

Faith based schools in UK are not allowed to promote religion. Their duty is to educate by teaching the curriculum, and not to indoctrinate. Religion is a subject on the curriculum. You will be taught about the different types of religion, their historical and social development, their doctrines, and so on. At the end of it, you would know what people worship, how they worship it, and so on. You would be less likely to discriminate against a person because of their gods. If a school contravenes this rule, it would be shut down as it would not be allowed to enrol anyone. A religious person may homeschool their child, but they would be monitored to ensure the curriculum is followed. Whatever else you teach your child is up to you, but if it is not passing age and class related exams, your homeschooling rights would be rescinded, and your child will be protected from you as it would be seen as abuse of the child.

Religious organisations are not medical institutions or doctors. They do not refer anyone for abortions or have anything to do with contraceptives, and no one can tell them to. Recently, a religious organisation were told to not stand in front of an abortion clinic campaigning against abortion as they were intimidating clients of the clinic.

No religious organisation is allowed to refuse it's services (communion, yoga classes, schooling, parking, giving food out at foodbanks etc) to anyone because of their religion, colour, sexual orientation, gender etc, in UK. You most definitely can't refuse to serve people because they do not believe in your god. If any organisation discriminates on the basis of the nine protected classes as described in the Equality Act 2010, you will be sanctioned.

UK does not consider a person's religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc to be a thing that makes you any more special than a person of a different, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc, or a person devoid of those things. Every one is to be treated equally, regardless, by all institutions. You can't be an employer and say you would only hire Muslims, or Hindus, or women or black people, or gays, for that matter, in the guise of your right to practise your religion. It is against the law.

MuttleyLaff:
Or you dont, you can't bring yourself to say

I can't.

"I accept same sex relationship,
regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved,
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn"
- Page 0 9inches ©

No, I dont have anything for consideration crossing my mind,
not when it's to do with consenting adults of same gender, faithful and committed to each other
whilst being in relationship that's meaningful, honest, truthful, loving and lasting a lifetime,

but you apparently, as you put it and wrt to the above inverted commas, condemn the act of homosexuality.
1/ What exactly, in the act of homosexuality, do you condemn?
2/ Why do you deem what the act of homosexuality is in #1/ above, deserves to be condemned?
3/ How and/or why did you arrive at this position of condemning the act of homosexuality?

1. I haven't done any homosexual act to know exactly. We can work with any example you provide (I assume you are a homosexual).
2. Maybe you should take it up with the moral giver, not me.
3. Because the moral giver set the rules.

Nothing is impossible, especially with God.

Right.

9inches:
I can't.

"I accept same sex relationship,
regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved,
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn"
- Page 0 9inches ©
1. I haven't done any homosexual act to know exactly.
We can work with any example you provide
(I assume you are a homosexual).
2. Maybe you should take it up with the moral giver, not me.
3. Because the moral giver set the rules.
Right.

[img]https://s1/images/MuttAmin.gif[/img]
This got me cracked up
You no go keel pesin with lafta

MuttleyLaff:
Wrong 9inches.
The word “church” DOES NOT, DID NOT & NEVER came from the Greek word ekklesia.

Why are people so ill-informed about something like this
and other terms used in relation to the thread's subject matter

You are the ignorant one here. Post your source for refuting the meaning of ekklesia.

ecclesia
[ih-klee-zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
noun, plural ec·cle·si·ae [ih-klee-zhee-ee, -zee-ee] /ɪˈkli ʒiˌi, -ziˌi/.

1. an assembly, especially the popular assembly of ancient Athens.
2. a congregation; church.

budaatum:

The US protects religion (from the above). Religion is not protected in UK! UK's concern is for the person. Nor does UK allow your freedom of speech to be discriminatory. You cannot call someone a "black bastard" in UK, for instance, and get away with it. You can be called the n-word in America and there's not much you can do about it.

Faith based organisations do not place children anywhere in UK, nor can they foster. Individuals do And while it is not unusual for a child to be placed with religious people, those people are not allowed to compel the child to adopt the foster's religion.

Faith based schools in UK are not allowed to promote religion. Their duty is to educate by teaching the curriculum, and not to indoctrinate. Religion is a subject on the curriculum. You will be taught about the different types of religion, their historical and social development, their doctrines, and so on. At the end of it, you would know what people worship, how they worship it, and so on. You would be less likely to discriminate against a person because of their gods. If a school contravenes this rule, it would be shut down as it would not be allowed to enrol anyone. A religious person may homeschool their child, but they would be monitored to ensure the curriculum is followed. Whatever else you teach your child is up to you, but if it is not passing age and class related exams, your homeschooling rights would be rescinded, and your child will be protected from you as it would be seen as abuse of the child.

Religious organisations are not medical institutions or doctors. They do not refer anyone for abortions or have anything to do with contraceptives, and no one can tell them to. Recently, a religious organisation were told to not stand in front of an abortion clinic campaigning against abortion as they were intimidating clients of the clinic.

No religious organisation is allowed to refuse it's services (communion, yoga classes, schooling, parking, giving food out at foodbanks etc) to anyone because of their religion, colour, sexual orientation, gender etc, in UK. You most definitely can't refuse to serve people because they do not believe in your god. If any organisation discriminates on the basis of the nine protected classes as described in the Equality Act 2010, you will be sanctioned.

UK does not consider a person's religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc to be a thing that makes you any more special than a person of a different, gender, religion, sexual orientation etc, or a person devoid of those things. Every one is to be treated equally, regardless, by all institutions. You can't be an employer and say you would only hire Muslims, or Hindus, or women or black people, or gays, for that matter, in the guise of your right to practise your religion. It is against the law.

I would have liked to see your comparison between the two countries in terms of protection of the Fundamental (God-given) human rights and the freedoms of their citizens. Do you understand why the 1st and 2nd Amendments are what stood America out as the freest country on earth right now?

I find this a good read:

As we have lost our sense of meaning, morality and spirituality, the erosion of our freedoms on virtually every front has accelerated. And, make no mistake about it, freedom in the true sense of the word is always undergirded by a common moral and religious system. As John Adams opined: “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Increasingly, we are headed toward a spiritually dead-end society as our schools and universities, reluctant to teach values, avoid religion as if it were a plague. As a result, in the words of Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “men have forgotten God.” He knew of what he spoke. For a short time, Solzhenitsyn was exiled in the United States where he observed Western culture first hand. As a result, Solzhenitsyn tended to reject the Western emphasis on materialism based largely upon his belief in Christian values.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/have-we-forgotten-god_b_367957.html

Proverbs 1:24-33
"Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you, when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but will not find me."

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://s1/images/MuttAmin.gif[/img]
This got me cracked up
You no go keel pesin with lafta

I do crack people up. You are not the first to say that. Are you gay?

9inches:
You are the ignorant one here.

The ignorant are ignorant of their ignorance.
9inches, the highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects,
and on the subject of the true meaning of church compared with ecclesia, 9inches you're ignorant.

9inches:
Post your source for refuting the meaning of ekklesia.

ecclesia
[ih-klee-zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
noun, plural ec·cle·si·ae [ih-klee-zhee-ee, -zee-ee] /ɪˈkli ʒiˌi, -ziˌi/.

1. an assembly, especially the popular assembly of ancient Athens.
2. a congregation; church.

9inches, please dont go down this path.
I will spare you your blushes, so I pass on posting information on the true meaning of church compared with ecclesia

MuttleyLaff:
The ignorant are ignorant of their ignorance.
9inches, the highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects,
and on the subject of the true meaning of church compared with ecclesia, 9inches you're ignorant.

9inches, please dont go down this path.
I will spare you your blushes, so I pass on posting information on the true meaning of church compared with ecclesia

ecclesia
[ih-klee-zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
noun, plural ec·cle·si·ae [ih-klee-zhee-ee, -zee-ee] /ɪˈkli ʒiˌi, -ziˌi/.

1. an assembly, especially the popular assembly of ancient Athens.
2. a congregation; church.

It's the above definition, not me, that says you are ignorant.

9inches:
ecclesia
[ih-klee-zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
noun, plural ec·cle·si·ae [ih-klee-zhee-ee, -zee-ee] /ɪˈkli ʒiˌi, -ziˌi/.

1. an assembly, especially the popular assembly of ancient Athens.
2. a congregation; church.

It's the above definition, not me, that says you are ignorant.

OK, but it is misleading 9inches
If that can be misleading, what else that you've learned is misleading too

9inches:
You are the ignorant one here.

Post your source for refuting the meaning of ekklesia.

Your wish is my command

9inches:
ecclesia
[ih-klee-zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
noun, plural ec·cle·si·ae [ih-klee-zhee-ee, -zee-ee] /ɪˈkli ʒiˌi, -ziˌi/.

1. an assembly, especially the popular assembly of ancient Athens.
2. a congregation; church.

But if I tarry long,
that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} of the living God,
the pillar and base of the truth.
- 1 Timothy 3:15 Jubilee Bible 2000

For all it's worth, it's necessary and important to be familiar with this word "church"
because as we start to read about or know things done in the past,
we can begin to learn from them, learn a thing or two, would have become wiser and wise enough to make re-adjustments, where if applicable, to our theology

To start with and as a matter of fact, "ekklesia" is the proper and correct noun word for believers called out and/or gathering together, which the word "church", as it is, presently or currently represents.

"Ekklesia" actually, is a Greek word,
which in Athens and in most Greek poleis (i.e. Greek cities or states) means an assembly of demo
(i.e. yes, demo, is Greek for people, as like the demo in democracy)

"Ekklesia" is an assembly of summoned free people or gathering of those summoned.
The word is derived from “ekkletos” meaning summoned and “ekkaleom” meaning to summon or call out.

"Ekklesia" in Strong's Greek Concordance, is defined as "an assembly, congregation, the whole body of Christian believers"
and says it’s formed from a compound of "ek" which means "out of or out from and to" and a derivative of "kaleo" which means "to call or a calling"

"Ekkletoi" refers to the called-out inhabitants or citizens of Athens or any of the Greek poleis, assembled together, as a result of a call out request done by a herald, announcer or town crier.

"Ekklesia" appears 114 times in the NT.
It first appeared in Matthew 16:18,
and that's where it was first mentioned and first used by none other than Jesus
Now here's a sense of biblical déjà vu repeating itself , Eve out of Adam, Israelites out of Egypt etc
and this is, God, again, in the person of Jesus Christ doing a "call out from... and to assembly"

"Ekklesia" as far back in the Old Testament wilderness, has always been an assembly or congregation of called-out people
(i.e. Acts 7:38 is referring to the congregation in Deuteronomy 9:10)
and it's no different in the original Greek New Testament whether in non-secular and secular capacities
(i.e. Matthew 16:18, Acts 7:38 non-secular and Acts 19:32, 39 and 41 for secular)

Notice in Acts 19:32, 39 and 41, that "ekklesia" is used three times, for people not connected with religious or christian matters, assembling or gathering together.

This so far, is showing that, "ekklesia" represents something totally different to what we've commonly perceived what "church" is.

Also, the true meaning, import or connotation of "ekklesia" is lost or eroded when it is used or translated to/as "church"

"Ekklesia" isn't about physical structures, and the Greeks; originators of the word, never referred it, to be a building or place of worship, so at least Freeze got something right

At this juncture, some might say, all this etymology stuff is bunkum and time wasting, it's nitpicking over minute details, and that it's pedantic fault-finding or say church or ekklesia, whatever the noun used, it doesn't matter.

Others, like 9inches possibly, delighting in their ignorance(s), could say, church or ekklesia, it makes no difference,
it's much ado about nothing and so what's the big deal.

Well, 9inches, FYI, in 1526 AD, William Tyndale's New Testament, was the first New Testament printed in the English Language
and the fact about this translation, is that, not a single occurrence of the word "church" is found used for congregation in it.

9inches note here that, William Tyndale did however, use the word "church" twice in Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37 for something else.
It was in reference to pagan Temples;
9inches, I hope you noticed that "ekklesia" wasn't used in either of those Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37 verses mentioned.

Then Iupiters Preste which dwelt before their cite brought oxe and garlondes vnto the churche porche and wolde have done sacrifise with the people
- Acts 14:13 William Tyndale.

Zeus' temple was at the entrance to the city. The priest of the god Zeus brought bulls with flowery wreaths around their necks to the temple gates. The priest and the crowd wanted to offer a sacrifice [to Paul and Barnabas].
- Acts 14:13 GOD'S WORD® Translation.

For you have brought here these men, who are neither robbers of temples, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
- Acts 19:37 King James 2000 Bible

For ye have brought hyther these me whiche are nether robbers of churches nor yet despisers of youre goddes.
- Acts 19:37 William Tyndale.

Tyndale recognised, "ecclesia or ekklesia" to be congregacion or congregation of "called out people" who are believers
and that churches were buildings for religious practices or purposes, and this includes Jewish or pagan temples.

So, in this first English New Testament translation print, congregation originally was in the place where "church" is presently or currently found in most English translations.

In the beginning, building(s) was what "church" was original identified as,
but now, it's obvious and no denying that, "church" is prevalently also called or known as the body of Christ.
Examples of other churches, we have, as of today are:
The Church of Scientology, Church of Wicca, The National Church of Bey (i.e. Beyonce), Church of Satan,
The Sunday Assembly (i.e. an atheist church), The Church of Humanity etcetera.

1557 AD was the first time "ekklesia" was translated as "church" by William Whittingham in the Geneva New Testament produced, subsequent bible translations, KJV included, began having "church" used to describe people and their place of congregation or place of meetings too
From then to the present, the norm now is, "church" erroneously is the physical structure and people assembling together
(i.e. Matthew 16:18, Acts 14:23, James 5:14)

In the New Testament, we are used to knowing synagogue also to be an equivalent name of the building used for assembling in or congregating in, but the Greek word "sunagogé" means "coming together" and could imply a meeting (i.e. gathering together) rather than a building (i.e. Acts 13:43, James 2:2);
so synagogues were simply gatherings that took place outdoors or in people’s houses or courtyards
(i.e. refer to 2 Thessalonians 2:1 or Hebrews 10:25 Greek Text Analysis for more details)

TB Joshua’s set-up, calls itself synagogue,
but then for good measure, appends the word "church", making it: The Synagogue, Church Of All Nations (i.e. SCOAN)

The English word "church" on it's self, actually has pagan origins.
It's a derivation from the Old English word cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, related to the Anglo Saxon circay, kirk in Scottish, the Latin circus/circulous, Dutch kerk, or German Kirche.

These words all have associations with "gathering in circles"
and researches showed that most pagan religions meetings have worshippers/attendees gathered together round in prayer circles.

This information gives some insight into Tyndales' understanding
and the reason why he selected the word "Church" to refer to buildings; pagan temple(s) included
and used congregacion (i.e. congregation) to mean "ekklesia"

Why was a totally unrelated word to ekklesia, substituted for ekklesia? (i.e. like in Job 14:4)

As so far noticed, the word "Church" has varied origins and different meanings to what we're accustomed to,
but the word in Latin for ekklesia is also ekklesia,
so, if Latin in the absence of a proper word, managed to retain the word ekklesia,
why couldn't the "called out ones" who translated, retain it too?

In light of all these information, why the word "church", is falsely used in place of Christ's ekklesia leaves one literally open-mouthed

No doubt, there are strong indications of foul-play somewhere down the history lanes of church,
as "church" DOESN'T COME from the original Koine Greek word ekklesia like 9inches believes it does

MuttleyLaff:
OK, but it is misleading 9inches
If that can be misleading, what else that you've learned is misleading too

Yeah, the dictionary is misleading. I'll have them apologize to you and also to redact the "misleading" definition.

9inches:
Yeah, the dictionary is misleading.
I'll have them apologize to you and also to redact the "misleading" definition.

I sense some element of sarcasm in the latter part of your post
but hey there isnt the need to apologise 9inches,
afterall, we are all unlearning and thereafter relearning.

As I earlier said, if something like that and/or a perception, is misleading,
what else, is out there, that, you have learned
or we have learned, that is misleading too?

MuttleyLaff:
I sense some element of sarcasm in the latter part of your post
but hey there isnt the need to apologise 9inches,
afterall, we are all unlearning and thereafter relearning.

As I earlier said, if something like that and/or a perception, is misleading,
what else, is out there, that, you have learned
or we have learned, that is misleading too?

Thanks for patronising but it's not sarcasm. Such misleading information in a dictionary is a serious issue. I agree with you; who knows how many more misleading information they have in there in almost every dictionary I have checked.