resolution filed in Tennessee to avoid Gods Judgement on gay marriage

[muichimotsu]

Christians don't deny their responsibility as actors in life.

Nor do they deny that God is there as they act and that the laws set in place by him when violated cause repercussion. Just as in man's law when the laws are set down and non-compliance or violation results in judgment and punishment.

Never made claims regarding a denial of responsibility; try not to put words in my mouth.

Just saying there will be repercussions is hollow threats of punishment with no grounding or support.

Violation of laws doesn't always mean the laws are infallible, let's make that clear. I'm not advocating a pure adherence to law for its own sake, but for what it stands for, which is order in the world.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm sure any atheist can assume the term eupraxophy if they choose to.

I think if you'd have been in enough of these threads you'd know what was being discussed and to whom the observation applied, as those observations were defined already.

Assuming the term requires a general knowledge about it, which isn't necessarily there for all.

So you're not making generalizations about nonbelievers at all? Not even something like that they cannot perceive the spiritual and thus it's pointless to talk about such things with them? Or do you accept that a nonbeliever can love themselves and others in some meaningful sense, even if you patronizingly try to twist it in a way that sounds more verbose than profound?

 

[muichimotsu]

Nowhere does it speak FOR gay marriage, but Jesus did say, "a man shall leave the house of his father and mother and take unto himself a wife". Nope, not one word about a man taking a husband or a woman taking a wife.

Pretty sure you can get married without taking a husband or wife in the technical sense of what the union entails. I can take a partner, a mate, a lover, and I can still be in what you consider "natural" marriage as a male marrying a female.

 

[muichimotsu]

The trouble is that America has a long religious tradition for being the drop zone for all the religions that Europe evicted during their own religious despotism, which is probably why many in Europe look down upon America as a socially backward country. They already went through the growing pains that we are just now going through and came out of that time so long ago that they've had the time to recover from it.

Many theists think that just because America is saturated with a deep history of all forms of Christianity that by principle Christianity owns the U.S. lock, stock and barrel, but to me Christianity is not a body which governs any portion nof the world, not even the holy land.

God created the entire world. Why should anyone think that he would see any portion of it as better than any other. The idea of the crusades was mind boggling to me, since it assumed that slaughtering 1000's so that one flag stood over and area was religiously preferable to any other flag, because of the faith the flag represents. I look at America the same way.

It's the same idea of praying that god will grant you victory over a foe who is praying the same prayer as you, only they are praying for your demise as if the idea of killing is not repugnant to the religion both side profess to adhere to. There is a reason that Prayer is spelled with an "A" as in PRAYING for something, instead of an "E", as in PREYING on something. Unfortunately, far too many people seem not to know there is a difference in the two meanings.

America was a secular concept that gave homage to the history of it's more technologically advanced cultures, because those within that culture just banished and equally aggressive culture from the soil it now resided on. Lets face it. If the indigenous people of this land had better weaponry, we would be the one's setting on reservations instead of they and I don't think we would be having this conversation, right now.

I've always been burdened by the idea that people would actually think that God would approve of America simply because those within it profess to be Christian in more than just the name, itself. We certainly haven't reflected it, but we surly have reflected our own version of mass delusion, because far to many people have justified the evil deeds we've done to ourselves and our fellow man by deeming targets of our hate as evil and ourselves as righteous, even unto today.

Seems the pull of property is far too enticing to even overcome religion. We simply place religion on that which we want to possess and call it America.

More Christendom than anything that could be meaningfully called a Christian nation, though neither of them are necessarily based in any scripturally valid position anyway, I imagine.

 

[muichimotsu]

Most I have seen who believe America is a God anointed land seem to believe in prosperity doctrine. That simply because we are prosperous God must approve of us. Seems rather silly to me given Gods focus on the poor throughout the bible but I am not a Christian so... <shrug>

And by association you have the manifest destiny doctrine, which might explain why people still support a more invasive and interventionist foreign policy.

 

[katerinah1947]

The First amendment says that you can worship Vishnu and the other gods of the Hindu pantheon if you want.

The First Commandment says that worshipping these gods is a sin.

Yes, the first amendments says that those who wish to worship may, those who don't may not, and it agrees with The Bible in that if one does not know God totally, they are not to punish them, as is said in Mark 9:38-42, and that not everyone is to be of the class like prophets who personally know God, or salt, who know God in another personal way.

Yes, the First Commandment says that to those who God calls to believe in Him, it is now improper to switch Gods as the Israelites did.

In the United States, the government is authorized by the people. We use the US Constitution, not the Bible.

God authorizes the government. Not knowing God does that, of course would lead an honest person to say that the people authorize the government, when in reality, not an agnostic's reality, nor an atheist's reality, but in a Christian's reality God authorizes the governments.

LOVE,

 

[heatedmonk]

Fancy yourself a theologian now, do you?

It doesn't take a theologian to realize in a Christian forum in a thread full of salvation scripture that ignorance states, as what is thought to be a cutting remark concerning Christianity and Christians: They just disregard those people they think are elected to hell already.

Thinking that statement denigrates Christians is a mistake.

What that statement does accomplish is describe atheists and non-Christians who argue , due to the topic at hand, SS people are entitled to be left alone so they can died damned.

And while it should go without saying, that observation applies because this is a Christian community and Christians holding to Christian doctrine have a world view that generates a perspective that includes that doctrine. Christianity isn't a label it is a lifestyle for the Christian.

That's why when red herrings and non-sequiturs are interjected in this thread , like Islam and Sharia Law, they're dismissed as irrelevant. Because they are.

The fact is the non-Christians that argue on behalf of sin are those whom your statement/sentence applies to. The entire point of Christians referring to scripture, repentance, salvation, is to save those who are bound to Hell from that fate.

Christian is about salvation.
Not advocacy for damnation.

You've been a member here long enough to know that. And that is why I'm quite satisfied we've concluded our business.

 

[muichimotsu]

It doesn't take a theologian to realize in a Christian forum in a thread full of salvation scripture that ignorance states, as what is thought to be a cutting remark concerning Christianity and Christians: They just disregard those people they think are elected to hell already.

Thinking that statement denigrates Christians is a mistake.

What that statement does accomplish is describe atheists and non-Christians who argue , due to the topic at hand, SS people are entitled to be left alone so they can died damned.

And while it should go without saying, that observation applies because this is a Christian community and Christians holding to Christian doctrine have a world view that generates a perspective that includes that doctrine. Christianity isn't a label it is a lifestyle for the Christian.

That's why when red herrings and non-sequiturs are interjected in this thread , like Islam and Sharia Law, they're dismissed as irrelevant. Because they are.

The fact is the non-Christians that argue on behalf of sin are those whom your statement/sentence applies to. The entire point of Christians referring to scripture, repentance, salvation, is to save those who are bound to Hell from that fate.

Christian is about salvation.
Not advocacy for damnation.

You've been a member here long enough to know that. And that is why I'm quite satisfied we've concluded our business.

I'm not saying that's the attitude of those people, though there are some that seem to have that perspective. If anything, it seems like you're just fighting a losing battle, so my observation is...why even bother if you're convinced by your communion and such with your god that the reprobates are as such and won't change their mind?

How can you save that which God has already elected not to save? Seems like you're going against the very entity you claim to be indebted to in asking for what amounts to the impossible for a deity who, supposedly, doesn't change its mind.

 

[Marius27]

Nowhere does it speak FOR gay marriage, but Jesus did say, "a man shall leave the house of his father and mother and take unto himself a wife". Nope, not one word about a man taking a husband or a woman taking a wife.

Jesus was addressing divorce among a heterosexual audience. Why would he feel the need to mention a concept that back then was largely unknown? Jesus doesn't mention intersex people either. Who are they allowed to marry?

That verse on marriage is not mutually exclusive. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

 

[Marius27]

Interesting that the tone of many posts in this thread is not that dissimilar to the response of some who perished in Sodom: Genesis 19:14

Interesting how people butcher that story to attack gays.

 

[ken777]

Interesting how people butcher that story to attack gays.

Including Peter & Jude.

 

[Marius27]

Including Peter & Jude.

Peter and Jude say nothing about homosexuality.

 

[ken777]

Peter and Jude say nothing about homosexuality.

2 Peter 2:7
Jude 1:7
Genesis 19:5
Ezekiel 16:50


.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

Jesus was addressing divorce among a heterosexual audience. Why would he feel the need to mention a concept that back then was largely unknown? Jesus doesn't mention intersex people either. Who are they allowed to marry?

That verse on marriage is not mutually exclusive. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

Marius, do you believe scripture is clear about divorce?

Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. Luk 16:18, Mat 19:9, Mat 5:32

1Co 7:10-1Co 7:11 Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Are you in agreement with what it says about divorce?

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

Would you be convinced by the same types of verses from the Koran?

No

 

[muichimotsu]

2 Peter 2:7
Jude 1:7
Genesis 19:5
Ezekiel 16:50


.

2 Peter just refers to them as wicked, it isn't saying anything specifically about sexuality. Ezekiel just says abomination, which has a long list of actions that can fall under such a condemnation. Jude and Genesis are the closest you have to such things, but Ezekiel isn't saying that they want a consensual thing, they want to rape them. And Jude says sexual immorality and strange flesh, which I don't think automatically suggests it was because they were gay, but because they were raping people in general.

 

[William67]

Pretty sure you can get married without taking a husband or wife in the technical sense of what the union entails. I can take a partner, a mate, a lover, and I can still be in what you consider "natural" marriage as a male marrying a female.

Not if you are a Christian. Taking anything other than a spouse of the opposite gender is forbidden. And having a partner, a mate, or a lover, other than you spouse is adultery and is also forbidden.

 

[Armoured]

Not if you are a Christian.

First of all, that's not correct, what you mean is "what I think of as Christian", as there are now several denominations that accept SSM. Second, even if, for the sake of argument, we agree that "Not if you are a Christian. Taking anything other than a spouse of the opposite gender is forbidden." is correct, what of non-Christians?

 

[William67]

Interesting how people butcher that story to attack gays.

So, Lot is sitting by the city gate when two Angels of the Lord come. Lot begs the men to come to his house, and after much persuasion, they go with him. It is after they have eaten and are just about to go to bed, the men of the city surround Lot's house and demand he send out the "men" so that they may "know them". Lots begs them not to do this "wickedness" and offers his virgin daughters to the crowd so that they may " do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof". (Now what do you think they wanted to do to the Angels? Chat about the price of grain? Why did Lot offer his virgins daughters, and explicitly mentioned that they had "not known men", if it wasn't sex the men of the town were after.)

The men threaten Lot. They threaten to "deal worse with thee, than with them". They then press Lot so hard against the door that it almost breaks.

Now, here is the interesting part. The Angels could have paralyzed the men, so they couldn't move. Or they could have just killed them, since they were going to die when God destroyed Sodom. But they struck them blind. Why blindness? Because sight is associated with lust.

This claptrap about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah being about "hospitality" is nonsense.

 

[ken777]

2 Peter just refers to them as wicked, it isn't saying anything specifically about sexuality.

If you look more carefully you will see Peter refers to the type of wickedness: "aselgeia". This is usually translated as licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantoness, lust.

Ezekiel just says abomination, which has a long list of actions that can fall under such a condemnation.

There is only one "tow`ebah" (abomination) recorded in the story of Sodom in Genesis 19. The same word is used in Leviticus 18:22 & Leviticus 20:13 ("Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination ("tow`ebah").

Jude and Genesis are the closest you have to such things, but Ezekiel isn't saying that they want a consensual thing, they want to rape them. And Jude says sexual immorality and strange flesh, which I don't think automatically suggests it was because they were gay, but because they were raping people in general.

Jude says nothing about rape - he says they "gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion" (Jude 1:7). The story of Sodom indicates what kind of sexual perversion that was.
Of course not everyone in Sodom indulged in homosexual behavior but they all condoned it (Genesis 19:4).