9inches:
This your mental gymnastics is from 6 months ago on this forum

So now, you see why I was advising you not to go down the path of asking me to post refuting the meaning of ekklesia.

9inches:
Nonetheless, your ended up affirming the definition I gave.
Ekklesia = congregation = assembly of believers = church.
The church here is not a physical building.

SMH, you would say something like this, wouldnt you.
I know you're smart enough and capable of reading to comprehend

I will reduce the volume of the post, as it seems exposure to too much information at a go, is the main challenge for you here

So, 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, "ekklesia" wasn't used in either of those Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37 verses mentioned.

MuttleyLaff:
So now, you see why I was advising you not to go down the path of asking me to post refuting the meaning of ekklesia.

SMH, you would say something like this, wouldnt you.
I know you're smart enough and capable of reading to comprehend

I will reduce the volume of the post, as it seems exposure to too much information at a go, is the main challenge for you here

So, 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, "ekklesia" wasn't used in either of those Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37 verses mentioned.

My guy, next time you want to find the a definition of a word, use the dictionary, not the Bible. The Bible was meant for a different purpose than an English language textbook.

9inches:
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.

The point 9inches, is the misused and/or misleading information, apart from "church" have crept in to the bible

Take for example, the word "homosexuality" that was not around in Biblical times
or the word "homosexual" was invented in 1868, less than 200 years ago.

Here are another examples and with questions
1/ "malakois" and "arsenokoites" in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, what do they in the real and actual sense mean?
2/ Also what does, "sodomites", in the bible OT and NT original text mean and/or refers to?
3/ I'll leave out number three for now

PS: Sorry I got caught up in your meaning of church dispute, and so didnt give you an answer
No, I am not gay. I am heterosexual.

9inches:
My guy, next time you want to find the a definition of a word, use the dictionary, not the Bible.
The Bible was meant for a different reason than to be an English language textbook.

I cant believe you wrote this
1/ What came first? Is it the bible or the dictionary?
2/ In what original text is the OT and NT written in, is it English?
3/ When you need to find the definition and etymology of word(s) in the Bible, what should be your most reliable port of call?
I hope you arent going to say "an English language textbook" or anything else similar

MuttleyLaff:
The point 9inches, is the misused and/or misleading information, apart from "church" have crept in to the bible

Take for example, the word "homosexuality" that was not around in Biblical times
or the word "homosexual" was invented in 1868, less than 200 years ago.

Here are another examples and with questions
1/ "malakois" and "arsenokoites" in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, what do they in the real and actual sense mean?
2/ Also what does, "sodomites", in the bible OT and NT original text mean and/or refers to?

PS: Sorry I got caught up in your meaning of church dispute, and so didnt give you an answer
No, I am not gay. I am heterosexual.

New words or phrases will keep emerging but will only portray a clearer understanding or meaning of what they are meant to describe. So, it does not matter how new or old a word or phrase is, what matters is the usage and it's application in showing a clearer understanding of the subject being described.

9inches:
New words or phrases will keep emerging
but will only portray a clearer understanding or meaning of what they are meant to describe.
So, it does not matter how new or old a word or phrase is,
what matters is the usage and it's application in showing a clearer understanding of the subject being described.

Exactly the point

New words or phrases do not deviate from the original meaning or original intent
Do not make the bible, with new words or phrases, say things, it didnt say, doesnt say, never said or mean

So what are the following meant to describe then:
1/ "malakois" and "arsenokoites" in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9?
2/ Also what does, "sodomites", in the bible OT and NT original text mean and/or meant to describe?
3/ I'll leave out a third one in number three for now

MuttleyLaff:
Exactly the point

New words or phrases do not deviate from the original meaning or original intent
Do not make the bible, with new words or phrases, say things, it didnt say, doesnt say, never said or mean

Now that you have finally come around, you now acknowledge that ekklesia = church.

9inches:
Now that you have finally come around, you now acknowledge that ekklesia = church.

9inches I know you're smart enough and capable of reading to comprehend

I have reduced the volume of the post, as it seems exposure to too much information at a go, is the main challenge for you here

So, again 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, "ekklesia" wasn't used in either of those Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37 verses mentioned.

Just because you put a ring on the nose of a pig, doesn't mean it's right, dandy, good and beautiful.

9inches you asked that I show you that ekklesia does not come from the word church.

I have in detail, via mental gymnastics, as you unashamedly put it, shown you that ekklesia does not equal to church, did not come from the word church, ekklesia is Greek and church comes from a German/Scottish word "circe"; with pagan origins
but your bruised ego, won't let you acknowledge the facts.

MuttleyLaff:
So what are the following meant to describe then:
1/ "malakois" and "arsenokoites" in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9?
2/ Also what does, "sodomites", in the bible OT and NT original text mean and/or meant to describe?
3/ I'll leave out a third one in number three for now

The arsenokoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians

The other biblical passages that condemn same-sex intercourse are 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and its repetition in 1 Timothy 1:10. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul says: “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” The Revised Standard Version Bible notes that Paul is not condemning the possession of same-sex attractions, or homosexuals as persons, but only those who engage in immoral sexual activities.

Revisionists usually argue that the word “homosexuals” is not in this passage but rather two unique Greek words: arsenokoitai and malakoi. They claim that malakoi is ambiguous and could mean simply “weak” or “soft,” while arsenokoitai refers to some kind of sexual exploitation of children or pederasty (Sharpe, The Gay Gospels, 55).

Christian ethicist David Gushee writes in his book Changing Our Mind, “How might the history of Christian treatment of gays and lesbians have been different if arsenokoitai had been translated ‘sex traffickers’ or ‘sexual exploiters’ or ‘rapists’ . . . such translations are plausible, even if not the majority scholarly reconstruction at this time” (79).

But proposals that seek to exclude consensual same-sex relations from the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi are not plausible. If Paul was condemning predatory man-boy love, then why didn’t he use the Greek word for pederasty (paiderastes)? Also, if this is what Paul condemned, then why did he single out female same-sex couples in Romans when he was only concerned with predatory man-boy sex and not same-sex relations in general?

Keep in mind that before Paul condemns the malakoi and arsenokoitai for their persistence in sin, he condemns idolaters and adulterers and then condemns thieves and greedy people. Adultery and idolatry are often associated in the Bible and thievery and greed certainly go together. This makes it likely that arsenokoitai goes hand-in-hand with malakoi.

The fact that arsenokoitai matches the Greek words in the Septuagint’s translation of Leviticus 20:13 is unmistakable. The word breaks down to arseno (or “male”) and koite (or “bed”). It literally means “man-bedder.” It makes more sense to say that malakoi referred to the soft or effeminate passive recipient of same-sex behavior, while arsenokoitai referred to the active partner in that kind of intercourse, and not just sexually exploitative relationships.

Full read here: https://www.catholic.com/index.php/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on-homosexual-behavior

Arguments for a reference to homosexual behaviour

Some scholars argue against the restriction of the word to pederasty. For example, Scobie states that "there is no evidence that the term was restricted to pederasty; beyond doubt, the NT here repeats the Leviticus condemnation of all same-sex relations". Similarly, Campbell writes, "it must be pointed out, first, that arsenokoitēs is a broad term that cannot be confined to specific instances of homosexual activity such as male prostitution or pederasty. This is in keeping with the term's Old Testament background where lying with a 'male' (a very general term) is proscribed, relating to every kind of male-male intercourse." Campbell (quoting from Wenham) goes on to say that, "in fact, the Old Testament bans every type of homosexual intercourse, not just male prostitution or intercourse with youths."

Others have pointed out that the meaning of arsenokoitēs is identified by its derivation from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, where the component words "with a man (arsenos) do not copulate coitus (koites) as with a woman" refer to homosexual conduct. For example, according to Hays, although the word arsenokoitēs appears nowhere in Greek literature prior to Paul's use of it, it is evidently a rendering into Greek of the standard rabbinic term for "one who lies with a male [as with a woman]" (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). Moreover, despite recent challenges to this interpretation, the meaning is confirmed by the evidence of Sybilline Oracles 2.73. Paul here repeats the standard Jewish condemnation of homosexual conduct. Malick (op cit) writes, "it is significant that of all the terms available in the Greek language, Paul chose a compound from the Septuagint that in the broadest sense described men lying with men as they would lie with women." According to Scobie, "it clearly echoes the Greek of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 in the LXX (arsen = "male," and koite = "bed", so that arsenokoitēs literally means "one who goes to bed with a male".

David Wright argues that the compound word refers to those who sleep with males, and denotes “‘male homosexual activity’ without qualification.” Haas, reviewing the various arguments on both sides, concluded that "an examination of the biblical passages from linguistic, historical and ethical-theological perspectives fails to support the revisionist ethic and reinforces the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong." Via also agrees arsenokoitēs refers to homosexual activity. James B. De Young presents similar arguments.

Standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries understand this word as a reference to homosexual behavior.

Full arguments here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

9inches:
The arsenokoitai and malakoi in 1 Corinthians
Full read here: h t tp s://www.catholic.com/index.php/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on-homosexual-behavior

Arguments for a reference to homosexual behaviour
Full arguments here: h t tp s://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

9inches, I dont signpost you to go read up articles on websites
and so dont expect you to signpost me to go read any.

Now 9inches, in one sentence each and using your own composition, wording and understanding, please tell, what are the following meant to describe:
1/ "malakois" and "arsenokoites" in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9?
2/ Also what does, "sodomites", in the bible OT and NT original text mean and/or meant to describe?
3/ I'll leave out a third one in number three for now

MuttleyLaff:
9inches I know you're smart enough and capable of reading to comprehend

I have reduced the volume of the post, as it seems exposure to too much information at a go, is the main challenge for you here

So, again 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, "ekklesia" wasn't used in either of those Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37 verses mentioned.

Just because you put a ring on the nose of a pig, doesn't mean it's right, dandy, good and beautiful.

9inches you asked that I show you that ekklesia does not come from the word church.

I have in detail, via mental gymnastics, as you unashamedly put it, shown you that ekklesia does not equal to church, did not come from the word church, ekklesia is Greek and church comes from a German/Scottish word "circe"; with pagan origins
but your bruised ego, won't let you acknowledge the facts.

@bolded, that's not what I argued. Straw manning the argument won't help you. I did not say ekklesia came from the word "church". I said ekklesia and church mean and refer to the same thing.

Church: the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.
Ecclesia: a congregation (in formal church usage); church.
dictionary.com

MuttleyLaff:
9inches, I dont signpost you to go read up articles on websites
and so dont expect you to signpost me to go read any.

Now 9inches, in one sentence each and using your own composition, wording and understanding, please tell, what are the following meant to describe:
1/ "malakois" and "arsenokoites" in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9?
2/ Also what does, "sodomites", in the bible OT and NT original text mean and/or meant to describe?
3/ I'll leave out a third one in number three for now

I'd rather not use my own wording or composition. Not because I can't, but because we already have our milk bottled, remember . So, I don't see the need for my input at this time.

The 2 links I posted for your own discretion. I already quoted the parts most relevant to the point I was making.

9inches:
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 haven't been to America, but from what I hear, people there don't seem to be as free as we here in UK are, we after all have our own version of those amendments beginning with the Magna Carta, or don't you see how the Equality Act 2010 is a modern version of it? Even the police can't harass one on the street, as one is protected, but that's not what I hear about gun-totting cops in the US.

But it seems what you are after is the protection of beliefs and thoughts in one's head, and gods, which, in my opinion, do not need protection. Gods, afterall, can just thunder ones ass if threatened, or can't they!?!

Imagine, for instance, that I hate black or gay people, and wish them all dead. No one could arrest me for that, surely, and wherever I am, I can think what I want. The law, in most countries, would definitely get involved though if I went out there and began killing black and gay people! Same with beliefs. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't go exercising your beliefs if it negatively affects the rights of others. And that's as I would rather it be. Imagine if laws are made to protect religion and gods when the dominant religion and god is mine. Should those laws continue to protect religion and gods when the dominant religion or gods are no longer mine?

America is making an error in thinking their religious laws pertain to the desired religion and gods. Those same laws are what others will use to protect their, sometimes, less desirable religion or gods in due time. France currently has a problem similar to this with its hijab laws. I call it hypocrisy.

9inches:
@bolded, that's not what I argued. Straw manning the argument won't help you. I did not say ekklesia came from the word "church". I said ekklesia and church mean and refer to the same thing.

Church: the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.
Ecclesia: a congregation (in formal church usage); church.
dictionary.com

9inches:
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"?

Your nose has stretched through the window to me from where you are. Ah, you go fit lie for Naija die.

9inches, I have reproduced the above statement you made
It's from the statement you started to argue that the word church comes from the Greek word ekklesia.

9inches, see above, how you remarked that, the word, church, comes from the Greek word ekklesia.

This is not just so untrue, but it is dishonest and deceitful
that you 9inches, will now ungentlemanly try to deny you ever said: "the word, church, comes from the Greek word ekklesia"
The evidence of you saying so, is there in black print, the world sees it.

I have in detail shown you what church originally was known to be,
showed you what ekklesia is,
showed why Jesus adopted the term ekklesis
showed what the word church, originally used to mean.

I showed that the first Bible translation in English never used the word church for ekklesia
nor used it for the congregation of God's people
but rightfully used it ONLY for something else.

budaatum:

I haven't been to America, but from what I hear, people there don't seem to be as free as we here in UK are, we after all have our own version of those amendments beginning with the Magna Carta, or don't you see how the Equality Act 2010 is a modern version of it? Even the police can't harass one on the street, as one is protected, but that's not what I hear about gun-totting cops in the US.

But it seems what you are after is the protection of beliefs and thoughts in one's head, and gods, which, in my opinion, do not need protection. Gods, afterall, can just thunder ones ass if threatened, or can't they!?!

Imagine, for instance, that I hate black or gay people, and wish them all dead. No one could arrest me for that, surely, and wherever I am, I can think what I want. The law, in most countries, would definitely get involved though if I went out there and began killing black and gay people! Same with beliefs. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't go exercising your beliefs if it negatively affects the rights of others. And that's as I would rather it be. Imagine if laws are made to protect religion and gods when the dominant religion and god is mine. Should those laws continue to protect religion and gods when the dominant religion or gods are no longer mine?

America is making an error in thinking their religious laws pertain to the desired religion and gods. Those same laws are what others will use to protect their, sometimes, less desirable religion or gods in due time. France currently has a problem similar to this with its hijab laws. I call it hypocrisy.

The fundamental problem with your argument is not recognizing that Western Civilization was borne out of Judeo-Christian values. It has however for a while tolerated other religions that do not violate its values. That's why you see it clashing with Islam because they both are not compatible and cannot co-mingle.

America is as free as any country could get. 1st Amendment still works well. The American principle was predicated on the notion of sovereignty of an individual. And that individual sovereignty takes precedence over group identity. It was group identity that killed hundreds of millions in the last century when men bound together in a dangerous ideology and made a mess of the very fundamental right of a human being- right to life. Same idelogy (Marxism, Trotskyism, etc) that was rearing it's ugly head again steadily until Trump helped embolden a pushback from the Conservative right; and rightly so.

Tommy Robinson or Count Dankula or Lauren Southern or Brittany Pettibone, even the once notorious Anjem Choudary, etc would not have been jailed in America for what they say. When a country makes a law that says that makes it illegal to SAY OFFENSIVE THINGS to people, there goes free speech.

There is police harassment in every country including the UK. To be able to do their jobs, law enforcements will sometimes step on toes and essentially harass individuals. However, I will agree with you that it's more rampant in the US due to the culture.
Likewise, when a country makes it illegal for a sovereign entity (individual) to be able to justly protect his life when under threat, then freedom is gone and the right to life becomes meaningless. Also, when the state determines what happens to your child against your will, and goes to the extent of preventing your child from seeking cure outside NHS, the idea that life is sacred then become nonsense.

The UK is metamorphoszing into a full police state where individuals have no right to say what they think, even the thought police could impugn what one thinks and charges him. I think you are looking at the texts, you are abreast of what's happening around you.

MuttleyLaff:


Your nose has stretched through to the window to me from where you are. Ah, you go fit lie for Naija die.

9inches, I have reproduced the above statement you made
It's from the statement you started to argue that the word church comes from the Greek word ekklesia.

9inches, see above, how you remarked that, the word, church, comes from the Greek word ekklesia.

This is not just so untrue, but it is dishonest and deceitful
that you 9inches, will now ungentlemanly try to deny you ever said: "the word, church, comes from the Greek word ekklesia"
The evidence of you saying so, is there in black print, the world sees it.

I have in detail shown you what church originally was known to be,
showed you what ekklesia is,
showed why Jesus adopted the term ekklesis
showed what the word church, originally used to mean.

I showed that the first Bible translation in English never used the word church for ekklesia
nor used it for the congregation of God's people
but rightfully used it ONLY for something else.

9inches:
The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia

9inches:
I did not say ekklesia came from the word "church".

Now read, this time s.l.o.w.l.y and tell me if there is any contradiction in the above statements.

I don't know how hard it is for you to understand that introduction of a new term to explain something already in existence DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUE MEANING. Due to translation, the true meaning could be muffled or vague but it does not change. In most cases, introduction of a new term brings out a clearer meaning especially if the previously used term is more vague or muffled.

My argument is not how or when the word "church" and "ekklesia" came to be used. My argument is that both words share common meaning although they can refer to other meanings on their own.

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

9inches:
Now read, this time s.l.o.w.l.y and tell me if there is any contradiction in the above statements.

9inches, I likewise, will now, like you to self medicate, take your own medication.
Force yourself to read S L O W L Y, in order to comprehend, what is about below and next, to follow.

9inches:
I did not say ekklesia came from the word "church".
I said ekklesia and church mean and refer to the same thing.

You said word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia though.
Or are you going to deny that?

C'mon now, what do you plan to gain, from lying that you ever said "ekklesia and “church” mean and refer to the same thing"
You never said "ekklesia and church mean and refer to the same thing"

Even if I am to give you, that you imply that "ekklesia and church mean and refer to the same thing", you are still wrong for implying that
because ekklesia and “church” DOES NOT mean and DO NOT refer to the same thing
Making any remark or suggestion like that, is done borne out of ignorance and ill-information

I am glad you accept and have admitted to typing that:"The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia"
which I immediately responded to, that you're wrong in saying "The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia"
as the word “church” NEVER came from the Greek word ekklesia

I had in detail shown you what the word, “church”, originally was known to be
I showed what the English word “church” came from

I showed you how the English word “church” on it's self, actually has pagan origins.
Showed that it has its derivation from the Old English word cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce,
it is related to the Anglo Saxon word circay, it's related to the word kirk, in Scottish, related to the Latin word circus/circulous,
related to the Dutch word kerk, even related to the German word kirche.
I even, pointed out to you, that these words, all have associations, with "gathering in circles"

All these information gives some insight into Tyndales' understanding
Tyndale being aware of the sharp distinction between “church” and ekklesia
selected the word “church” to refer ONLY to buildings; and that is pagan temple(s) included
and used congregacion (i.e. congregation) to mean AND refer to "ekklesia"

I also showed you what the word, ekklesia is,
I showed why and how Jesus adopted the term ekklesis
I showed what the word, “church”, originally, used to mean.

I showed that the first Bible translation in English, has mentioned above, NEVER used, the word “church” for ekklesia
nor used the word “church” for any congregation of God's people
but the first Bible translation in English, rightfully used the word, “church”, ONLY for something else
That something else, clearly and without a doubt, was a temple for a gathering of pagans

Search the first bible translation to English, then share your finding
1/ Check to see how many times, the English word “church” was used or appeared in it
2/ Confirm what in reference to, was/were the number of times that the word “church” was used in it

Please, if you read slowly, you stand a much chance of taking the info in and understanding
Otherwise you'll keep on understanding nothing
and remaining ignorant about the word “church” plus other subject matters

MuttleyLaff:

You said word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia though.
Or are you going to deny that?

C'mon now, what do you plan to gain, from lying that you ever said "ekklesia and “church” mean and refer to the same thing"
You never said "ekklesia and church mean and refer to the same thing"

I don't deny what I say.

9inches:
I said ekklesia and church mean and refer to the same thing.

You see how bad a liar you are?

I am glad you accept and have admitted to typing that:"The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia"
which I immediately responded to, that you're wrong in saying "The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia"
as the word “church” NEVER came from the Greek word ekklesia

I never denied what I said. Your mind is playing a fast one on you.

I had in detail shown you what the word, “church”, originally was known to be
I showed what the English word “church” came from

I showed you how the English word “church” on it's self, actually has pagan origins.
Showed that it has its derivation from the Old English word cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce,
it is related to the Anglo Saxon word circay, it's related to the word kirk, in Scottish, related to the Latin word circus/circulous,
related to the Dutch word kerk, even related to the German word kirche.
I even, pointed out to you, that these words, all have associations, with "gathering in circles"

All these information gives some insight into Tyndales' understanding
Tyndale being aware of the sharp distinction between “church” and ekklesia
selected the word “church” to refer ONLY to buildings; and that is pagan temple(s) included
and used congregacion (i.e. congregation) to mean AND refer to "ekklesia"

I also showed you what the word, ekklesia is,
I showed why and how Jesus adopted the term ekklesis
I showed what the word, “church”, originally, used to mean.

I showed that the first Bible translation in English, has mentioned above, NEVER used, the word “church” for ekklesia
nor used the word “church” for any congregation of God's people
but the first Bible translation in English, rightfully used the word, “church”, ONLY for something else
That something else, clearly and without a doubt, was a temple for a gathering of pagans

Search the first bible translation to English, then share your finding
1/ Check to use how many times, the English word “church” was used or appeared in it
2/ Confirm what in reference to, was/were the number of times that the word “church” was used in it

I wasn't arguing about what it used to be known or understood as. The real meaning of a word or term does not change regardless of what people like Tyndale understood it to be.

The word "Church" (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to "call out of" ) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose. Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.

By calling itself "Church," the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is "calling together" his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means "what belongs to the Lord."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm

9inches:

I don't deny what I say.

You see how bad a liar you are?


I never denied what I said. Your mind is playing a fast one on you.


I wasn't arguing about what it used to be known or understood as. The real meaning of a word or term does not change regardless of what people like Tyndale understood it to be.

The word "Church" (Latin ecclesia, from the Greek ek-ka-lein, to "call out of" ) means a convocation or an assembly. It designates the assemblies of the people, usually for a religious purpose. Ekklesia is used frequently in the Greek Old Testament for the assembly of the Chosen People before God, above all for their assembly on Mount Sinai where Israel received the Law and was established by God as his holy people.

By calling itself "Church," the first community of Christian believers recognized itself as heir to that assembly. In the Church, God is "calling together" his people from all the ends of the earth. The equivalent Greek term Kyriake, from which the English word Church and the German Kirche are derived, means "what belongs to the Lord."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm

this is semantics.

words take meanings that are different from their etymological sources, Church may be related to kirche in German and may simply mean gathering in a circle but the people of God has also used that same word with a different meaning I.e the gathering of Christians.


in meaning the Greek ekklesia is equivalent to the Latin ecclesiam and translated Church in English

Ubenedictus:


this is semantics.

words take meanings that are different from their etymological sources, Church may be related to kirche in German and may simply mean gathering in a circle but the people of God has also used that same word with a different meaning I.e the gathering of Christians.


in meaning the Greek ekklesia is equivalent to the Latin ecclesiam and translated Church in English

Thank you for agreeing at last!

9inches:

The fundamental problem with your argument is not recognizing that Western Civilization was borne out of Judeo-Christian values. It has however for a while tolerated other religions that do not violate its values. That's why you see it clashing with Islam because they both are not compatible and cannot co-mingle.

The actual truth however is that Western Civilization had values way before the invention of Judeo-Christianity, and only a person who doesn't know about Homer, Plato, Socrates, the Greek and Roman gods etc would claim otherwise. Do you not know that the writings of Homer were read and taught like the Bible is taught today?

In UK, Islam very easily exists alongside Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. The current Mayor of London is a Muslim despite London having less than 10% Muslim. The Home Secretary of the entire UK is a Muslim too, to name just two of the very many.

In the Orolu Kingdom, where buda hails from, Islam and Christianity very easily exist alongside each other. In fact, most families have Muslims and Christians in them coexisting very nicely together. I even have cousins, five sisters - 3 cover their head Muslims and 2 born again Christians who grew up in the same bedroom!

Can't say I get where you get your "not compatible and cannot co-mingle" from.

9inches:
America is as free as any country could get. 1st Amendment still works well. The American principle was predicated on the notion of sovereignty of an individual. And that individual sovereignty takes precedence over group identity. It was group identity that killed hundreds of millions in the last century when men bound together in a dangerous ideology and made a mess of the very fundamental right of a human being- right to life. Same idelogy (Marxism, Trotskyism, etc) that was rearing it's ugly head again steadily until Trump helped embolden a pushback from the Conservative right; and rightly so.

That does not sound like it's free if one were not a Christian!

Are you aware by the way, that long after these so called "ammendments" you hold so dearly, black people were still slaves, and that its been less than 50 years, long after the "ammendments," that blacks started being considered as human beings?

9inches:
Tommy Robinson or Count Dankula or Lauren Southern or Brittany Pettibone, even the once notorious Anjem Choudary, etc would not have been jailed in America for what they say. When a country makes a law that says that makes it illegal to SAY OFFENSIVE THINGS to people, there goes free speech.

It is not illegal to say "OFFENSIVE THINGS to people" in UK! But lets look at the people you mentioned, shall we.

In May 2018, [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_%28activist%29?wprov=sfla1]Robinson[/url] began serving a 10-month prison sentence for contempt of court after publishing a Facebook Live video of defendants entering a law court, contrary to a court order to prevent reporting those specific trials while proceedings are ongoing.

Count Dankula, posted a video of his girlfriend's pug performing a Nazi salute and reacting to the phrase 'gas the Jews?'. The video subsequently resulted in Meechan being arrested and convicted of being "grossly offensive" under the Communications Act 2003 in March 2018, an outcome which in turn generated significant controversy and discussions about free speech.

In February 2018, Lauren Southern, along with Brittany Pettibone and Caolan Robertson, distributed flyers in the English town of Luton that said, "Allah is a Gay God". In March 2018, Southern, Pettibone, and Pettibone's boyfriend Martin Sellner were all denied entry to the United Kingdom. Southern was also questioned under the Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Her denial of entry was on the same grounds as Pettibone and Sellner. A representative from the British Home Office stated, "Border Force has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good."

Choudary praised those responsible for the 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005 attacks. He supports the implementation of Sharia law throughout the UK and Poland. He marched in protest at the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy, following which he was prosecuted for organising an unlawful demonstration. During a protest outside Westminster Cathedral in 2006, Choudary told demonstrators that the Pope should be executed for insulting Islam.On 6 September 2016, Choudary was jailed for five years and six months following conviction for inviting others to support the proscribed organisation ISIS.

Can you see why these people should be proscribed or not. Let's take Lauren Southern, convicted for distributing flyers in the English town of Luton that said, "Allah is a Gay God". Luton, is heavily populated with Muslims by the way, and has had anti Muslim and counter riots in the past. Can you see how she might have been disturbing the peace by insulting Allah in a heavily Muslim populated area? Do you seriously think some of her cohorts would not have attacked Muslims who stood up to her? If nothing was done about her, might Muslims not take the law into their own hands?

Now, I am certain you went to a lot of trouble coming up with those names, all related to activities in UK. Do you think you could do me a favour and come up with five people who have been proscribed in America for similar crimes? Or at least consider what would happen to me if I were yelling "Yahweh is a prick" in busy New York. You owe me that much considering the work you gave me above!

9inches:
There is police harassment in every country including the UK. To be able to do their jobs, law enforcement
s will sometimes step on toes and essentially hara
ss individuals. However, I will agree with you that it's more rampant in the US due to the culture.
Likewise, when a country makes it illegal for a sovereign entity (individual) to be able to justly protect his life when under threat, then freedom is gone and the right to life becomes meaningless. Also, when the state determines what happens to your child against your will, and goes to the extent of preventing your child from seeking cure outside NHS, the idea that life is sacred then become nonsense.

"Justly protect your life when under threat", is not exactly the same as inciting people to attack you or others! If you call me a black bastard in UK, I will call the cops to come and arrest and charge you. That is the state protecting me! The US alternative is for me to get my gun and protect myself by shooting you. Except being that I'm black, I probably don't have a gun!

The people you listed above were not protecting themselves! They were provoking others to attack them and others!.

9inches:
The UK is metamorphoszing into a full police state where individuals have no right to say what they think, even the thought police could impugn what one thinks and charges him. I think you are looking at the texts, you are abreast of what's happening around you.

I live here, so I don't think I need to get my information from texts when my eyes work! You can say whatever you want as long as you don't incite hatred, be in contempt of the law, disturb the peace, and so on! I wouldn't call where I live a police state! We are way more liberal than Nigeria, for instance, and not many call there a police state!

Incidentally, I went to Church today, Saint John's was celebrating it's 163 birthday with a bbq and I went to take photos. The Venerable Alastair Cutting, Archdeacon of Lewisham and Greenwich, preached. He said he sometimes goes to a primary school to teach and one day taught about rules.

"Who likes rules?" He said he asked the kids, and they all said they don't. So he told them he doesn't either, and on his way home later, he would disobey the rule that said "drive on the left hand side of the road". But all the kids told him he mustn't. They told him the consequences of his actions and told him that he must obey the rules!

UK laws are not made to be oppressive, or to stop people saying whatever they want, but I am most certain you can appreciate how people might appreciate rules that are for the general good, despite your freedom to say anything you want. Some idiots might decide it is their right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema! Hopefully, you can appreciate why the law says doing so is a crime.

budaatum:

I wish it was my opinion, that humans decide the morals (right and wrong) of their own society. But let''s consider the evidence, shall we, and by 'morals' I will be very loose.

Slavery, let's start there. It is immoral to enslave another human being, or at least, that's the position today. It wasn't always immoral however, and was highly practised in antiquity, and some claimed justification from the gods. Today, however, would one say the gods changed their minds perhaps, or maybe humans did not understand where it says "thou shalt not enslave a human being" ? Thankfully, humans decided (or finally heard the gods say), "slavery is bad", and it got abolished.

Let's try homosexuality. Did you know it used to be a highly valued act in the Greek society long before the arrival of Jesus? It was not unusual for wealthy Greeks, and Romans, to have their favorite male on the side, and for centuries after. It was considered beneficial for the young male who acquired a teacher and benefactor (a "sugerdaddy", effectively), and for the benefactor who acquired a soyoyo of the male form. However, there were always those who stood against it and the history of the Greeks and the Romans is replete with acceptance of homosexuality, and its non-acceptance, and the laws were written accordingly. Britain is a classic example of this.

If you were gay in and up to the 70-80s in Britain, you better not let anyone know. Many gay people got married just so no one would know they were gay! If it was known, well, just better leave the country as you were fair game for a beating on the street. But that was still an improvement. Up till the 1900s, you'd have gone to jail. Today, however, many nations around the world are apologising for treating gay people so badly in the past. And its illegal to discriminate against gays

Here's another. All the way up to the 90s, though less obvious, "dogs, irish and blacks" were barred from certain places. You'd come across it if you wanted to rent a house or when you applied for a job, though the exceedingly polite English person would never tell you to your face. Funny thing is, when Americans came over during the second world war claiming their own G.I. blacks mustn't be sitting in the same places as G.I. Joes, the same English were not having it. Today however, you call me a black bastard on the streets of London, and your ass is going to jail.

Also consider numerous things humans have at one time or the other deemed moral, but not so anymore - exploitation of women, killing of witches, killing of twins, state legitimised human sacrifice, persecution of Catholics (Britain 1500s), persecution of Protestants (about the same time) and many more that laws have helped eradicate.

Now, if you look closely, it does sound like I am talking about the law, and not morality. However, laws are what have always been used to teach morals, after all those "thou shalt nots", are laws that are meant to teach morality. One wise person even went and wrote "Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."" Effectively, there is no sin if there is no law

The law in UK today is that "thou shalt not discriminate against a person because of their gender, race, sexual orientation and so on". The Church of England had an exemption to allow people to adjust but its run out, and they too have to now obey the law. And in my opinion, the world is a better place for it.

Here's a little secret however. The battle mentioned in the op is happening in the CoE and the Catholic Church. The CoE has no choice but to obey the law as it has 'established status', and the Catholic Church too, as it would not like to seem less 'established'. But go to a pentecostal church or a mosque in England and see how you'd get treated. And the amazing thing? While you would be arrested for calling a gay person on the street derogatory names, the police would not follow you to arrest a pentecostal preacher or imam denigrating homosexuality in his church or mosque. God help either of them if they preach homosexual hatred on the streets however. They be whisked off in handcuffs before you could say Allahu Akbar, or Jesus is Lord!

All said, I think when Christians say their morals come from God, they mean they learn their morals from the teachings written in their Holy Book. It would find agreement with the wise quotes above. Unfortunately, someone claimed he did not learn their morals, and by "from god" they claimed it was written into their dna from before they were born. It was in response to that claim that my response is what muttley quoted me as saying.

then we are in agreement. I do mean that as a Christian I learn morals through that which God has revealed.


as a side note there is a basic sense in which morality is innate, man is a thinking being and will to an extent know behaviours that are communally unacceptable, stuff like stealing will be considered immoral in every society.. hence the idea of natural law

MuttleyLaff:
Before responding,
bear in mind, what's at hand, isn't a perfect world order, brother
We can later and/or further talk about other matters relating, besides this fact and truth

Ubenedictus, thank you for raising your head above the parapet and of much the thank you is for your honesty.
You dont condone consenting adults faithful, committed, honest, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship having no detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another person
but do you condemn consenting adults faithful, committed, honest, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship having no detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another person?

Or you neither condone nor condemn, consenting adults faithful, committed, honest, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship having no detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another person?

What such, exactly, would you strongly advise against?

Good, to see, someone for a change, giving ground
Now, explain what and all you mean by "unless of course it is non sexual"?

Ah, what is right.
Now, you will tell me, criminal gangs manage to do what is right,
and do so without a detriment to, betrayal of or cheating on another or other person(s), abi?

it seems we come to the discussion from different perspectives of morality, it seems for you something is OK if no one is hurt... my thought on morality is more like the virtue model. an action can be immoral even though it seems no one is cheated. a loving, committed.... honest but unmarried heterosexual relationship/cohabitation may not hurt anyone but it will still be formication still morally wrong.

Ubenedictus:
then we are in agreement. I do mean that as a Christian I learn morals through that which God has revealed.


as a side note there is a basic sense in which morality is innate, man is a thinking being and will to an extent know behaviours that are communally unacceptable, stuff like stealing will be considered immoral in every society.. hence the idea of natural law

If you wish to get me in a rage, you just mention "innate" or "natural law" in my presence, and see my red eye!

I used to have this friend of mine, now dead, who used to pull that one me and claim Mozart had natural piano playing talent. I'm always like, so why did his father have to sit him at the damn thing and make him practise for so long? And who or what dished out these talents?!

People who are not taught to steal, either by laws in their society or whatnot, would steal because it would be the norm. Thankfully, one person would eventually like to keep what they have and realise that perhaps it would be advantageous to abolish theft and so laws would be passed against it. But those humans who benefit from theft would like it to continue, so someone would invent prison or hell to make them desire not to steal. And someone will devise a book and school to promote the antistealing ideology, which is the reason you, today, get to say, "I learn morals through that which God has revealed". That, is the ingenuity of humans, and why it is written "Ye are gods". And don't go quibbling about small letter 'g' gods or big letter ones. God is god!

Before gods, religion, school, were devised to teach humans not to steal, theft was so rampant that we stole complete human beings, body, life and soul! If there's anything natural about us learning and devising institutions to teach not to, it's the realisation that it benefits no one in the end as it leads to extinction just about as quick as murdering one another.

My position is that abilities that are innate - breathing, pooing, blinking, etc - do not need to be taught, and anything that has to be learnt and taught - not stealing, not picking your nose at the dinner table, homosexuality], [i]Mozartishnness, your morals taught to you by your virtue of being a Christian, and mine learned from societal mores and my ability to reason, etc - are not innate since they are taught and learned behaviours.

budaatum:

I used to think the same way. But concluded that where other people put their bits is none of my business as long as they weren't putting it into me or I wasn't putting my bits into them.

Are you a christian? Just asking

budaatum:

So, only those who are sinless should be in your church? Only the "righteous" should be in your congregation? While I wonder how you intend to check for this sinlessness and righteousness, I wonder if you wouldn't end up with empty pews singing aleluya. I guess you wouldn't need stones as there'd be no one to stone with them. You probably wouldn't have anyone to do the stoning either, with those empty pews.

The point that person was making is not that the doors should be shut at gay people. The bone of contention in that church is that gay people want the church to see their lifestyle as normal and okay and should not be challenged. Now, the fact is those churches do not find their lifestyle okay and believe that they are living in sin and if they do not want to accept it, they can not fellowship with them. Unless you are like others who hold the belief that gayness is natural and nothing to be challenged then you will not support the church for what it did. I agree that a church should be open for any one to step in and find christ but at the same time the brethren are also careful not to be caught endorsing sodomy by accepting it as normal and okay life style which the gays are pushing for.

delishpot:


Are you a christian? Just asking

No delishpot, I am not a Christian. Today, I am a CoE atheist, being that I was in Church yesterday.

delishpot:


The point that person was making is not that the doors should be shut at gay people. The bone of contention in that church is that gay people want the church to see their lifestyle as normal and okay and should not be challenged. Now, the fact is those churches do not find their lifestyle okay and believe that they are living in sin and if they do not want to accept it, they can not fellowship with them. Unless you are like others who hold the belief that gayness is natural and nothing to be challenged then you will not support the church for what it did. I agree that a church should be open for any one to step in and find christ but at the same time the brethren are also careful not to be caught endorsing sodomy by accepting it as normal and okay life style which the gays are pushing for.

I believe I perfectly understand the point the "person is making". I hope you understand that I disagree with the person's point.

Historically, the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, have held the position the person holds. They have imposed their wishes on societies too, ensuring laws existed that make homosexuality not only a sin, but a punishable crime in society. However, the Church itself has committed even worse crimes, including homosexuality and sodomy even amongst the clergy, and child abuse and the likes. So who are they to be the adjutants of God with the rights to punish sinners? If homosexuality is a sin against God, then surely God would punish them in due course.

In Nigeria, the law of the land makes homosexuality a crime so the churches in Nigeria can very safely exclude homosexuals. But in UK, homosexuality is no more a crime, and in fact, discriminating against homosexuals is now the crime. The 30 or so Bishops in the House of Lords had their say when the law was being passed for society in general, and even got exemption giving them time before the Church itself had to comply. But now the exemption given them has run out, and everyone must comply with the law. And now anyone in UK, including the churches, would be acting illegally if they hold the position the person holds.

I would suggest you read up on the battles that were fought to get this new position. The majority Church goers eventually voted at Synod to abolish the discrimination of homosexuals after much debate, opposition and battles. The Church did lose people over it. Those who did not wish to fellowship with homosexuals stopped going to Church en masse. But the Church now has gay and lesbian vicars and bishops ministering to congregations. And those who hold the person's position better hold their tongues or they would be asked to leave! The CoE even goes as far as performing same gender marriages these days! And even Muslims cannot discriminate against gay people who wish to attend their mosques!

Please note that people do not perform sex acts in Church. Whether it be sodomy, or toto licking, people do tend to do them in private, so I do not understand why anyone has to be uptight about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And I do not see why, even if one were against what gays might do, in private, that it bothers anyone. And no gay person needs anyone to accept what they do as "normal and okay life style". Sex in public is a crime which comes under indecency laws. So if you see gay people sodomising in church, or anyone, for that matter engaging in sex inside a church or even in the street, just call the cops and they would arrest them.

Apart from that, it's their ass and poker, and they decide what they do with it "as long as it doesn't scare the horses", is how we put it down here to denote, " in private". And if they stick their pokers in asses in private, perhaps that person should stop behaving as if it is that person's poker, that ends up stinking of poo!

I hope I have shown that I fully understand that person's position and have explained mine adequately. I end with the following from cnn. Its not from UK nor is it related to CoE, but it shows how sentiment is swinging.

Members of the Church of Freedom in Christ Ministries stood at the main entrance of the parade holding signs that offered apologies for how the LGBT community has been treated by Christians.
A group of Christians attended a pride parade to apologize for how they've treated the LGBT community

budaatum:

I believe I perfectly understand the point the "person is making". I hope you understand that I disagree with the person's point.

Historically, the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, have held the position the person holds. They have imposed their wishes on societies too, ensuring laws existed that make homosexuality not only a sin, but a punishable crime in society. However, the Church itself has committed even worse crimes, including homosexuality and sodomy even amongst the clergy, and child abuse and the likes. So who are they to be the adjutants of God with the rights to punish sinners? If homosexuality is a sin against God, then surely God would punish them in due course.

In Nigeria, the law of the land makes homosexuality a crime so the churches in Nigeria can very safely exclude homosexuals. But in UK, homosexuality is no more a crime, and in fact, discriminating against homosexuals is now the crime. The 30 or so Bishops in the House of Lords had their say when the law was being passed for society in general, and even got exemption giving them time before the Church itself had to comply. But now the exemption given them has run out, and everyone must comply with the law. And now anyone in UK, including the churches, would be acting illegally if they hold the position the person holds.

I would suggest you read up on the battles that were fought to get this new position. The majority Church goers eventually voted at Synod to abolish the discrimination of homosexuals after much debate, opposition and battles. The Church did lose people over it. Those who did not wish to fellowship with homosexuals stopped going to Church en masse. But the Church now has gay and lesbian vicars and bishops ministering to congregations. And those who hold the person's position better hold their tongues or they would be asked to leave! The CoE even goes as far as performing same gender marriages these days! And even Muslims cannot discriminate against gay people who wish to attend their mosques!

Please note that people do not perform sex acts in Church. Whether it be sodomy, or toto licking, people do tend to do them in private, so I do not understand why anyone has to be uptight about what others do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And I do not see why, even if one were against what gays might do, in private, that it bothers anyone. And no gay person needs anyone to accept what they do as "normal and okay life style". Sex in public is a crime which comes under indecency laws. So if you see gay people sodomising in church, or anyone, for that matter engaging in sex inside a church or even in the street, just call the cops and they would arrest them.

Apart from that, it's their ass and poker, and they decide what they do with it "as long as it doesn't scare the horses", is how we put it down here to denote, " in private". And if they stick their pokers in asses in private, perhaps that person should stop behaving as if it is that person's poker, that ends up stinking of poo!

I hope I have shown that I fully understand that person's position and have explained mine adequately. I end with the following from cnn. Its not from UK nor is it related to CoE, but it shows how sentiment is swinging.

Members of the Church of Freedom in Christ Ministries stood at the main entrance of the parade holding signs that offered apologies for how the LGBT community has been treated by Christians.
A group of Christians attended a pride parade to apologize for how they've treated the LGBT community

Well, if the people of the world and some bishops agree that Aduktery and fornication are no more considered sins. If they eventually say pedophilia is now a natural sexual orientation it doesnt mean everyone must agree. If some chirches open their doors to pedophiles with a welcome God got your back sign, it doesnt mean we should all agree. These people stand firm in their faith. All those who welcome gays and acvept their life style as natural have thrown away faith to favour men. Others have a right to Say NO. Because 10 of your friends agree to do weed and only you said NO doesnt mean you must go with the flow and smoke weed with them. The few that say NO sodomy is not right have a right to their own worship. It is a tricky situation but ones faith is ones faith and I believe there is freedom in that so far as it isnt hurting or harming anyone. Muslims dont eat pork now of down tbe line some muslims accept followers who eat pork openly and even in their mosques and a law was placed to welcome all pork eaters into mosques I will still support the ones who stand their grounds to say NO we shall not betray our faith to please men and close theor doors to pork eaters. Sodomy is a sin if the whole bishops and pastors decide they shall not see it as such and conclude that God must have meant something else I still will consider it a sin. Sodomy is a sin.

delishpot:



Well, if the people of the world and some bishops agree that Aduktery and fornication are no more considered sins. If they eventually say pedophilia is now a natural sexual orientation it doesnt mean everyone must agree. If some chirches open their doors to pedophiles with a welcome God got your back sign, it doesnt mean we should all agree. These people stand firm in their faith. All those who welcome gays and acvept their life style as natural have thrown away faith to favour men. Others have a right to Say NO. Because 10 of your friends agree to do weed and only you said NO doesnt mean you must go with the flow and smoke weed with them. The few that say NO sodomy is not right have a right to their own worship. It is a tricky situation but ones faith is ones faith and I believe there is freedom in that so far as it isnt hurting or harming anyone. Muslims dont eat pork now of down tbe line some muslims accept followers who eat pork openly and even in their mosques and a law was placed to welcome all pork eaters into mosques I will still support the ones who stand their grounds to say NO we shall not betray our faith to please men and close theor doors to pork eaters. Sodomy is a sin if the whole bishops and pastors decide they shall not see it as such and conclude that God must have meant something else I still will consider it a sin. Sodomy is a sin.

You have been doing very well getting me to use my brain. Do not stop now please.

First, homosexuality is not pedophilia. There is a little difference regarding age and consent.

Second, I do not think anyone is claiming homosexuality might not be a sin. If it is, God can bloody well throw them in it's hell prison in due time. What is being said is that it is not a crime. No one shall be jailed for it. And treating them different to anyone else is a crime which one can be jailed for.

Third, 10 of my friends smoking weed does not make them any less my 10 friends! Nor do I have to "go with the flow and smoke weed with them" to be their friends! And their smoking weed has nothing to do with my faith, after all, they are my friends. Don't you think my friends would have respect for me and not blow their smoke in my face?

A law saying pork must be eaten in a Mosque is a stupid law and I would fight against it just as much as I would fight against a law saying sex must be performed in a church! But excluding people who eat pork from coming to a mosque is equally as stupid, though in this instance, I would not fight, I would just laugh. Do you plan to come to my home to come check if I ate pork before I come to the mosque? Or do you think I will come to the mosque with a rash of bacon plastered to my forehead? Same with being gay. I could be gay, do my sodomy Sunday morning, then come to Church without the sign on my head saying "hey, dude! I am gay. I did sodomy this morning and now I am sitting beside you in church." Please tell me how you would know without my sign?

Sodomy may well be a sin. But you must remember that you are not some god who gets to throw people in jail for it! There is no jail for sin. They can go to hell in due time, but that's for God to decide, and not you!

If a a same gender person dare pull down your trousers and try to poke you anywhere without your consent, please note that the crime is rape! Call the police, or even, beat the crap out the rapist bastard with my consent! But don't go not thinking straight by making out some other persons smelly prick has anything to do with you. You will not go to hell for the sin of others!

budaatum:



You have been doing very well getting me to use my brain. Do not stop now please.

First, homosexuality is not pedophilia. There is a little difference regarding age and consent.

Second, I do not think anyone is claiming homosexuality might not be a sin. If it is, God can bloody well throw them in it's hell prison in due time. What is being said is that it is not a crime. No one shall be jailed for it. And treating them different to anyone else is a crime which one can be jailed for.

Third, 10 of my friends smoking weed does not make them any less my 10 friends! Nor do I have to "go with the flow and smoke weed with them" to be their friends! And their smoking weed has nothing to do with my faith, after all, they are my friends. Don't you think my friends would have respect for me and not blow their smoke in my face?

A law saying pork must be eaten in a Mosque is a stupid law and I would fight against it just as much as I would fight against a law saying sex must be performed in a church! But excluding people who eat pork from coming to a mosque is equally as stupid, though in this instance, I would not fight, I would just laugh. Do you plan to come to my home to come check if I ate pork before I come to the mosque? Or do you think I will come to the mosque with a rash of bacon plastered to my forehead? Same with being gay. I could be gay, do my sodomy Sunday morning, then come to Church without the sign on my head saying "hey, dude! I am gay. I did sodomy this morning and now I am sitting beside you in church." Please tell me how you would know without my sign?

Sodomy may well be a sin. But you must remember that you are not some god who gets to throw people in jail for it! There is no jail for sin. They can go to hell in due time, but that's for God to decide, and not you!

If a a same gender person dare pull down your trousers and try to poke you anywhere without your consent, please note that the crime is rape! Call the police, or even, beat the crap out the rapist bastard with my consent! But don't go not thinking straight by making out some other persons smelly prick has anything to do with you. [s]You will not go to hell for the sin of others![/s]

Hahaha it will surprise you to know that pedophilai is legal in some religions and judging how sodomy has gained grounds we shall soon accept pedophilia. But dont worry you are too love and light to see that.

LoL joke is on you then. No one is talking about it being a crime here. The subject of contention is if it is a sin or not. Maybe you have not been following the post. Well now you know. Someone here says it is not a sin and Jesus even endorsed it and was in support of gay couples. He said he can show proof from the bible where Jesus endorsed and assisted with the life style. That people are getting things mixed up. LOL to force someone to accept what his faith says not to or else he be thrown in jail? Indeed the persecution of the church has started and true to the word of God even the ellect have been decieved and the false prophets have arosen. Yes Revelation is at hand. The ones who keep Gods laws are being persecuted, mocked, jailed and punished for their faith

2 Timoty 3 vs 10 - end

10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,

11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!

12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

14 You, however, acontinue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


* If your friends respect your decision to keep their weed from your home and from your children then they will still be your friends even though you have let them know that weed smoking is not welcome by you and you find the lifestyle not befitting. It is their choice to respect your decision and mantain the friendship if they do not find your rejection of their life choice as an attack on them or leave if they dont like it. If they on the other hand insist that weed has been legalised and as such they have a right to smoke it anywhere and around anyone and if you oppose you are sent to jail or sued dont you see a problem with that? how tight will this noose go? Where do we draw the line?


Now regarding your pork analogy if someone eats pork and comes to your mosque, keeping it a private affair saying his prayers and leaving the place; that is a different thing. If he eats pork and openly shows that he eats pork, insists he is a muslem and he has decided that the "no eating pork rule is obsolete" God is love, do what thou wilt so long as you are hurting no one is the new law etc and as such he should not be made to hide his feeding habits and insists that he must be welcome and not criticised. Dont you think the mosque has a right to say ok you are not following our faith to the letter hence you are not welcome as one of us? If they decide to ask such a man to leave because they believe his openly accepting stance towards unclean meat might mean they endorse his lifestyle or that they see something bad and turned a blind eye to it. Dont they have a right to wash their hands off him? Such a man is free to go join other mosques where he is welcome to bbq his pork inside their building if they so agree. You see this is not about closeted sodomy.

This battle is about people in the act insisting it is right and should not be judged. Did you know that some schools have started teaching kids from kinderghaten that Gay is right and they are free to cross dress if they so desire? Did you know that some schools have started doing cross dressing day for their pree schoolers where boys are made to dress as girls and vice versa? Did you know that in some countries if your son decides to wear a pink dress and a pink bow like his sister has on and you say no Tom, you are a boy and boys dont wear dresses he might disciss it with his teacher who will say you are mentally disrupting his natural instinct and as such you are dicriminating against his orientation? Unless you do not find the devil working at the background the aim of sodomy is not what you think it is but lets leave it at that.

delishpot:


Hahaha it will surprise you to know that pedophilai is legal in some religions and judging how sodomy has gained grounds we shall soon accept pedophilia. But dont worry you are too love and light to see that.

LoL joke is on you then. No one is talking about it being a crime here. The subject of contention is if it is a sin or not. Maybe you have not been following the post. Well now you know. Someone here says it is not a sin and Jesus even endorsed it and was in support of gay couples. He said he can show proof from the bible where Jesus endorsed and assisted with the life style. That people are getting things mixed up. LOL to force someone to accept what his faith says not to or else he be thrown in jail? Indeed the persecution of the church has started and true to the word of God even the ellect have been decieved and the false prophets have arosen. Yes Revelation is at hand. The ones who keep Gods laws are being persecuted, mocked, jailed and punished for their faith

2 Timoty 3 vs 10 - end

10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,

11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!

12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

14 You, however, acontinue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


* If your friends respect your decision to keep their weed from your home and from your children then they will still be your friends even though you have let them know that weed smoking is not welcome by you and you find the lifestyle not befitting. It is their choice to respect your decision and mantain the friendship if they do not find your rejection of their life choice as an attack on them or leave if they dont like it. If they on the other hand insist that weed has been legalised and as such they have a right to smoke it anywhere and around anyone and if you oppose you are sent to jail or sued dont you see a problem with that? how tight will this noose go? Where do we draw the line?


Now regarding your pork analogy if someone eats pork and comes to your mosque, keeping it a private affair saying his prayers and leaving the place; that is a different thing. If he eats pork and openly shows that he eats pork, insists he is a muslem and he has decided that the "no eating pork rule is obsolete" God is love, do what thou wilt so long as you are hurting no one is the new law etc and as such he should not be made to hide his feeding habits and insists that he must be welcome and not criticised. Dont you think the mosque has a right to say ok you are not following our faith to the letter hence you are not welcome as one of us? If they decide to ask such a man to leave because they believe his openly accepting stance towards unclean meat might mean they endorse his lifestyle or that they see something bad and turned a blind eye to it. Dont they have a right to wash their hands off him? Such a man is free to go join other mosques where he is welcome to bbq his pork inside their building if they so agree. You see this is not about closeted sodomy.

This battle is about people in the act insisting it is right and should not be judged. Did you know that some schools have started teaching kids from kinderghaten that Gay is right and they are free to cross dress if they so desire? Did you know that some schools have started doing cross dressing day for their pree schoolers where boys are made to dress as girls and vice versa? Did you know that in some countries if your son decides to wear a pink dress and a pink bow like his sister has on and you say no Tom, you are a boy and boys dont wear dresses he might disciss it with his teacher who will say you are mentally disrupting his natural instinct and as such you are dicriminating against his orientation? Unless you do not find the devil working at the background the aim of sodomy is not what you think it is but lets leave it at that.

Do you know that it is a sin to bear false witness? Why don't you exclude me from your Church for lying then? Or is it not written that in as much as I have broken one law I have broken them all? Please provide evidence for "pedophilai is legal in some religions" !

If you had been following the thread, you will note that the person who claimed Jesus endorsed homosexuality could not provide any evidence to support the claim despite him continously being asked to. Those of us who asked swept him aside, go read what responses he got.

Whether it is a sin or not only applies if I myself were choosing whether to commit the 'sin' or not. The punishment for sin is clearly laid out. If other persons choose to sin and go to hell, please explain to me when I, buda, changed my name to Jesus and decided to shed my blood to save them? Is my duty at best not just to cast my seeds and hope they fall on good soil? And if they don't fall on good soil, am I not told to say "shalom" and shake off their dust as I depart from them?

If my friends are smoking dope, they are not doing so with my lungs or my money so I don't quite see how they are asking me to "endorse, assist" or "accept" their lifestyle. Hopefully, I am friends with them for reasons way more important than the dope they smoke. The mere fact that I am their friends is sufficient for them to respect and have regard for me and not do their smoking in my face. And they are my friends because I respect them and have regard for them despite their weed smoking or sodomising.

They can only be asking me to assist their lifestyle if they ask me to pull down my trousers, bend over and let me fuq you, or ask me for money to buy their weed. And a simple "No thank you" should suffice if they are my friends. Forcing me is against the law! But more importantly, they can't be my friends if they resort to forcing me to do something against my will. And if I don't understand that, then something must definitely be wrong with me, and perhaps I should learn to be more cautious in the choice of friends I keep.

Just imagine if those dope smokers were my boss, would I tell them to resign because I don't like their smoking? Or if they tell me to go do something, should I say, "fuq off dope smoker. Go do it yourself"? If I don't like their lifestyle, I can bloody go work elsewhere, is the only recourse I have, unless their smoking is illegal in which case I call the cops on their ass. Otherwise, it's their lungs and their money and I should mind my own goddamn business! But if I can't, please know that I do have the choice of whom I am friends with and can very easily make them ex-friends if I wish to. The choice is not their's whether they are my friends. That choice is mine!

If my son reports me to his teacher for my not allowing him to wear a girls clothes, then I cannot really be a good parent now, can I? As far as my son should be concerned, I am god, and if my son does not understand "Honour your father and your mother", and "I am a jealous god", then perhaps its time for me to intensify my child's education in the path I want it to follow or just admit I am a crappy parent.

But just think, is the teacher going to come and tell me that I should spend money that I work for on things I do not support? Please be real and stop with the scaremongering! No one can come in my house and insist my son were a pink dress if I don't want him to. No school can ask a child to cross dress either. If you insist on these claims, provide evidence in support please. If my son reports me to his teacher, then my son has decided it wants different parents so the bastard should get the fuq out of my house and go live with it's teacher, and "sayanora ex-son!"

Do note, and I keep saying this but you ignore it. No one is persecuting anyone for their faith. If my faith or my god says smoking dope or performing sodomy is a sin, then no one can force me to commit that sin if I am concerned about my god. But I must understand that it's my god and my faith, and that I too cannot force other people to worship my god or adopt my faith. My god never said I must punish them. It in fact said I should love them despite their sin, and even that I should forgive them 70 times 70 times knowing full well that I would soon lose count and hopefully recognise the errors of my ways in bothering more about the twig in other peoples' eyes but ignoring the forest that is blinding me!

If I think other people commit a sin against my god, I can only tell them. Hopefully, my god keeps better records than I can, and can decide to thunder their ass when their 70 times 70 is up. But knowing my god, whom a day is like a thousand years to, I wouldn't be surprised if it's 70 times 70 is more like 70 million times 70 million. My god can be crazy like that sometimes!

The choice is mine whether I chose to continue engaging with people I judge to be committing sins against my god or not and not their's as you seem to assume. But I myself should be careful of the sin of hubris that makes me think its okay to say "thank you lord that I am not like that sodomiser over there." I might find my own teeth are the ones that are doing the gnashing!

O, and one last thing. I am an atheist, I don't do devils. If gods builds a house, the devils can't move in!