"God only expects man and woman to be
together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with
each other. It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the
altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old."
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
"Woe To Those Who Call Evil Good, And Good Evil; Who Put Darkness For Light, And Light For Darkness; Who Put Bitter For Sweet, And Sweet For Bitter"
"God only expects man and woman to be
together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with
each other. It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the
altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Breaking news. Was Rev. Wright offered $150K to keep silent in 2008?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/14/book_obama_confidant_try_to_bribe_rev_jeremiah_wright.html
IWAIW said....
Long Live Manny!
Pac testing the boundaries of his "great white hope status."
Laws created by God:
Every man must eventually die.
Laws created by Man:
The rest of that shit ya'll talkin about.
I see brothas speaking for God again. Historically, that has always turned out well...
Speaking for God?
Who?
Nahhhhhhh A.
God speaks for himself.
The consequences of Faggotry are an example.
"Who?"
Manny. And you as well if you cosign.
"God speaks for himself."
Agreed.
He provides irrefutable evidence of "his law" in the simple fact that it cannot be broken. No soliloquy necessary.
Every man must eventually die. No man has ever broken that law.
Why?
Because God's law cannot be broken. Lemme see a nigga climb up and stop the sun from setting.
Bickering about who can marry who and "faggotry" have nothing to do with "God's law."
Unless, of course, you can back up you and Manny's life mantra with clear proof.
Don't worry, I'll wait...
Every man must die?
God's only law?
Shiiii.
lol. OK. We'll see.
But anyway...
Two men can no more "marry" than two men can produce a child.
...
...
That law requires no 'bickering'.
It only requires observation.
CLAIMING 2 men can "marry" is an attempt to substitute the will of a few men for God's law.
If 2 dudes want to buy a 'marriage' license from the state of New Jersey or Nevada ... more power to them.
Does that make them married?
No.
It makes them two faggots with a 'marriage' license trying to buy from man what they were not given by the creator.
Funny thing is ...
There is always someone on the scene ready to sell a sucker what he wants but cannot have.
[It makes them two faggots with a 'marriage' license trying to buy from man what they were not given by the creator.]
ha! classic dv, crass but true
Produce a child. God-given.
Marry. Man-given.
Verrrry different.
You have provided humorous, eloquent, and logical commentary--what I have grown to "know" you for.
You have not provided proof of anything, which is cool. I respect your observations.
Positive vibes to everyone who reads these words.
[Positive vibes to everyone who reads these words.]
ha! classic aguey, simple but true
Ag, how do you distinguish what's God-given and what's man-given? Some would argue just the belief in the existence of God is man-given.
I believe I distinguish God from man similar to many--that which we do not understand nor control.
Some create names for it.
Some create methodologies for it.
Some try to use it to influence who can do what.
But that's all to get around the fact that we have no idea.
I embrace that uncertainty and, therefore, navigate by irrefutable evidence.
Man did not make it possible to give birth. Women came like that.
Man did not invent death.
Man did not create the universe or the sun.
All this ideological and religious talk that strengthens one group of people and destroys another has man written all over it.
Yes, some would argue that the existence of God is man-given. And I respect their argument due to the fact that God can mean so many different things for so many different people.
I hope this answers your question.
Well, like death, if you consider the involuntary functions of our bodies i.e. things we do not control, it's a sensory observation of an immutable reality shared by both believers and atheists. Where the phenomenon of death may convince some to be an undeniable manifestation of God's Law, with another it's simply another component of our transient world.
The story of Shaytan or Satan or the Devil is that he has an unwavering belief in God's Existence. The challenge is understanding the purpose of that belief. Does that belief have a function or is it believing in His Existence merely for the sake of believing He exists?
Both supporters & nemesis believe Bro. Malcolm X existed. But only one group can understand his purpose and function. Only one group is willing to transmit the benefits of that legacy whereas the other would impede that legacy.
I can visit Malcolm's grave to substantiate his existence in my own mind but that doesn't unlock a deeper conscious understanding of his purpose. His significance lies in his message and his example; in his instruction, struggle, sacrifice and in his teachings. That transcends the sensory observation of acknowledging his existence.
I can prove that Malcolm existed to a non-English speaking Korean child with a gelatin silver print. Knowing he existed is important, but knowing he existed serves to understand the point of origin in which his message derived. The FBI reject his message but they accept his existence.
From Pac's perspective, to reject the message, it's function and purpose is to reject the point of origin in which it was forged.
Very well put, bruh.
“The challenge is understanding the purpose of that belief.”
I wholeheartedly feel you right there.
And it’s generally during that struggle where we attempt to amend the laws of nature to support our personal ideologies. These laws precede us all, and do not need our self-righteous amendments.
Whether you refer to them as God’s law or “components of our transient world,” they are evident, regardless of my opinion or yours.
To tell two gay men with the necessary funds that they cannot purchase a marriage license is like telling you with cash in hand that you cannot purchase groceries.
To justify either citing “God’s law” is… ridiculous.
I think Pacquiao may have been placed in a position where he was asked about his opinion.
I didn't protest obtaining the license. I see DV's position that it's more paper than a legitimate marriage. As meaningful as obtaining a certificate of courage from Emerald City.
Post a Comment