Where are the principled business leaders to save Nigeria? Should we threaten their businesses with boycott before one of them would come out and contest for the presidency? Where is Jim Ovia? Where is Elumelu? Soludo, Every 4 years, Nigerians troop to vote same ol folks who lack the will power to propel the nation forward in the right direction. This foolery has got to stop, Nigerians! Igbos will say "if you call your bucket a waste bin, your neighbour will use it for clearing refuse or use it as a trash can." It's time the Nigerian voters stick up for themselves and stop these group of bandits from fuckingg them over every 4 damn years.

Been around the world and studied a lot of countries, Nigeria still has a great system of government. All that needs to be done is put the right people in the right offices, fix loopholes in our system and tackle corruption head-on.

vondaman:

''I remember in a private conversation with him one day, he said ‘if it is the only thing I would do for Nigeria, I would give a free and fair election in this country.’ Look at all the elections that held in states under him – Bayelsa and Anambra, APC lost. APC won Kogi and Ondo. So when you win, win fair and square and when you lose, lose gallantly. He doesn’t interfere with INEC or the other agencies like EFCC, ICPC in anyway. I’m sure if you ask the INEC chairman, he would tell you the President has never picked a call to tell him do this.

I totally agree. He's such a good and honest man. He never interferes in elections, he only allows his cronies to interfere.

She wants the D in Donald.

Shamelessness. Nigeria is a failed state.

The mumu husband just confessed to abortion law violation. Did the judge not notice that? That is 14 years imprisonment.

OLAADEGBU:


If that is what you teach Martin Luther wouldn't have protested with his 95 thesis.

Those weren't Luther's argument.

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.

OLAADEGBU:


Ask your own question and leave 9inches to deal with my response to him. If its the word 'Trinity' that you are looking for in the Bible you will not find it just as you will not find the word 'grandfather' in the KJV Bible but that does not mean it is not there. Show us where Purgatory is both in word and in principle in the Bible and when you are done show us how Mary the mother of Jesus is the Queen of heaven from the Bible.

I can do that if you accept my challenge below.

9inches:
There are tons of argument like that we can delve into and the argument would get no where. Like, bowing to statues, praying to Mary, celibacy, confession, Papacy, priests, doctrines, dogmas, disciplines, etc.

So, let's start from the root and find our way up in a more structured manner. Let's start by determining what the church instituted by Christ is, who the members are and the roles of the members. Then, authority of the church (if there's anything like that). Then we can go to salvation and justification, all according to the Scripture. As we move on, we will cover every question you have including the ones you mentioned above.
ALL EMBEDDED IN THE BIBLE.

Are you down?

OLAADEGBU:


You have to start from salvation. How do you get saved? Is it by faith in Jesus alone or is it together with 'Mary the Queen of heaven'?

Like I said, let's start from the root and find our way up in a more structured manner. Are you scared the credibility of your "church" will go down in flames?

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.

SalamRushdie:


And not vote the candidate with the best chance to beat BUHARI

Who com be the candida kwanu?

SalamRushdie:
This is not time for all this , he should use that time to sensitize his community about the importance of PVC

And vote for who?

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.

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:
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

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.

@Op, discuss with other tenants, you'll be surprised you're not alone. The topic can also be brought up during your neighborhood association meeting. Articulate a clear case of how the early morning disturbance affects your health. Let them understand you have nothing against their preaching and that while you appreciate their dedication to spreading their message, they have to understand the real world consequences in terms of your health and that of your family.

If diplomacy fails, you can then sue. You have a good case of public nuisance/disturbance of public peace here.

God help you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:
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.

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.

TEYA:

I am glad to hear that from you. Buhari is faulty in many places but the national assembly is simply disgusting.

Apportioning blame alone to politicians and public officials hasn't proved to be the effective way of being heard. It's THE PEOPLE who put in to effect the change the desire in the following countries - US (2016 election), UK (Brexit), Italy (2018 election), Poland (2015 election), etc. Many countries in the West are seriously moving right-wing politically while the ones that are already on the right-wing are solidifying their base and becoming more nationalistic. Since Brexit and subsequently, Trump's election, people have realized that the ultimate power actually belongs to the people (the masses); that a government is a creation of its people and not vice versa.

Mariangeles:
Well, next time don't judge a food by it looks because it's been proven that the most delicious foods don't always look appealing...

Ok, but I think looks matter when judging in a cooking competition though?

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"?

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/

cococandy:
that’s shawarma what do you mean by yuck? The picture does not look attractive but as a shawarma connoisseur, I can tell that it’s
a tasty one. Very creamy and filled with meat chunks not only plenty vegetables and scant meat without cream like some stingy fast foods make theirs. Gerrarahia mehn

Looks like all ingredients were mashed together into paste? I wouldn't doubt the taste but....