resolution filed in Tennessee to avoid Gods Judgement on gay marriage

[muichimotsu]

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.

Not sure if you can speak for all Christians, first off. But even if that were universally agreed upon, that says nothing about what is being discussed in the first place, which is civil marriage. A partner is a spouse, a mate is a spouse, I'm not suggesting polygamy or polyamory in the slightest, that's a separate discussion entirely.

 

[William67]

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?

A Christian is someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus was the Son of God, and a Jew. Jesus said that He came, not to change the law, but to fulfill it. What was a carnal sin in the Old Testament was still a sin in the New Testament. Lust, theft, murder, rape, fornication, adultery, etc., were/are still sins. Nowhere, in any part of the Bible, is homosexual marriage allowed. Nowhere. There are a lot of sins that Christ never specifically mentioned, but yet they are still sins. Like rape. What Christ changed was the "punishment" of sins. Before Christ, we lived according to the law. Well, we are still to obey the law when it comes to carnal sins, but because we are under Grace, we are no longer put to death, or punished by the law/state/Caesar/govt., for our sins.

Only a handful of minor religions allow homosexuality. The major religions espouse heterosexual marriage.

There are also several denominations that call themselves Christian that allow plural marriage and pedophilia. Doesn't actually make them Christians.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

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 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).

Lust is not unique to homosexuals, my point still stands that sexual immorality doesn't equal homosexuality within basic bonds of fidelity and such.

Toevah in Sodom wasn't specifically homosexual behavior: you've failed to support that claim with a simple quotation. Where does it say this and how is it specifically referring to that act? Even if it was referring to the attempted rape of the angels, that's not a condemnation of homosexuality in itself anymore than a heterosexual rape is condemnation of heterosexuality.

Sexual perversion in the sense of rape, sure, not in a specific claim that homosexuality in itself is wrong, merely that the acts they performed were abhorrent to anyone with a basic sense of compassion towards humans. It's not about whether it can't make babies or such modernist notions of why homosexuality would be considered immoral in an Abrahamic context.

Condoning homosexual behavior is not the same as condoning rape, homosexual or otherwise. I can't pretend to understand a gay man's attraction to men, but if they rape a man, that doesn't mean I condone it merely because I said I didn't see anything immoral with them being attracted to men and wanting to be in a relationship with them.

 

[William67]

Not sure if you can speak for all Christians, first off. But even if that were universally agreed upon, that says nothing about what is being discussed in the first place, which is civil marriage. A partner is a spouse, a mate is a spouse, I'm not suggesting polygamy or polyamory in the slightest, that's a separate discussion entirely.

I don't claim to speak for all Christians, but the end game of the homosexual movement (aka gay mafia) isn't about acceptance or legality. When California voters overturned the activist judges ruling allowing homosexual marriage, homosexuals issued death threats to religions groups and individuals. This has never been about equality, its been about destroying Christianity. You see it when homosexuals specifically target Christian owned businesses and individuals. You see it when they start screaming that religions groups, churches, should have their tax exempt status revoked for opposing them.

 

[Armoured]

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.

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 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).

You don't think rape is sexual immorality?

 

[William67]

Lust is not unique to homosexuals, my point still stands that sexual immorality doesn't equal homosexuality within basic bonds of fidelity and such.

Toevah in Sodom wasn't specifically homosexual behavior: you've failed to support that claim with a simple quotation. Where does it say this and how is it specifically referring to that act? Even if it was referring to the attempted rape of the angels, that's not a condemnation of homosexuality in itself anymore than a heterosexual rape is condemnation of heterosexuality.

Sexual perversion in the sense of rape, sure, not in a specific claim that homosexuality in itself is wrong, merely that the acts they performed were abhorrent to anyone with a basic sense of compassion towards humans. It's not about whether it can't make babies or such modernist notions of why homosexuality would be considered immoral in an Abrahamic context.

Condoning homosexual behavior is not the same as condoning rape, homosexual or otherwise. I can't pretend to understand a gay man's attraction to men, but if they rape a man, that doesn't mean I condone it merely because I said I didn't see anything immoral with them being attracted to men and wanting to be in a relationship with them.

Throughout the Bible, not only is homosexuality condemned, but also cross-dressing and effeminate behavior.

 

[Armoured]

I don't claim to speak for all Christians, but the end game of the homosexual movement (aka gay mafia) isn't about acceptance or legality. When California voters overturned the activist judges ruling allowing homosexual marriage, homosexuals issued death threats to religions groups and individuals. This has never been about equality, its been about destroying Christianity. You see it when homosexuals specifically target Christian owned businesses and individuals. You see it when they start screaming that religions groups, churches, should have their tax exempt status revoked for opposing them.

 

[ken777]

Lust is not unique to homosexuals, my point still stands that sexual immorality doesn't equal homosexuality within basic bonds of fidelity and such.

Toevah in Sodom wasn't specifically homosexual behavior: you've failed to support that claim with a simple quotation. Where does it say this and how is it specifically referring to that act? Even if it was referring to the attempted rape of the angels, that's not a condemnation of homosexuality in itself anymore than a heterosexual rape is condemnation of heterosexuality.

Sexual perversion in the sense of rape, sure, not in a specific claim that homosexuality in itself is wrong, merely that the acts they performed were abhorrent to anyone with a basic sense of compassion towards humans. It's not about whether it can't make babies or such modernist notions of why homosexuality would be considered immoral in an Abrahamic context.

Condoning homosexual behavior is not the same as condoning rape, homosexual or otherwise. I can't pretend to understand a gay man's attraction to men, but if they rape a man, that doesn't mean I condone it merely because I said I didn't see anything immoral with them being attracted to men and wanting to be in a relationship with them.

When you read both 2 Peter 2:7 and Jude 1:7 it is obvious they are referring to the same behavior, and that was homosexual lust, which is the type of lust indicated in the Genesis account of Sodom.

Their homosexual behavior was not limited to the desire to have sex with the men/angels sent into Sodom because God had condemned Sodom before the angels arrived (Genesis 18:20).
God condemned all same sex behavior as an abomination whether it was rape or not (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27).

 

[William67]

Their attacks on Christians and Christianity isn't about "returning the favor". As Christians, we cant stop people from engaging in sinful behavior. What we do is try to get them to stop such behavior by telling them about the Word of God. If they don't listen, that's on them.

However, if we had tried to destroy them, that would be one thing. That is what they are trying to do to us. Not only are they trying to violate our Constitutional right to exercise our religion, but they are also trying to violate our freedom of speech.

 

[Armoured]

Their attacks on Christians and Christianity isn't about "returning the favor". As Christians, we cant stop people from engaging in sinful behavior. What we do is try to get them to stop such behavior by telling them about the Word of God. If they don't listen, that's on them.

However, if we had tried to destroy them, that would be one thing. That is what they are trying to do to us. Not only are they trying to violate our Constitutional right to exercise our religion, but they are also trying to violate our freedom of speech.

Destroyed, huh? [insert Inigo here]

 

[William67]

Destroyed, huh? [insert Inigo here]

Ive heard homosexuals claim Christians have tried to destroy them and their "rights".

 

[ken777]

Ive heard homosexuals claim Christians have tried to destroy them and their "rights".

I am not aware of heterosexuals taking homosexuals to court to destroy their livelihoods. There is an increasing number of the reverse though.

 

[Armoured]

Ive heard homosexuals claim Christians have tried to destroy them and their "rights".

Um, well, we did, pretty well. We used to execute them.

 

[ken777]

You don't think rape is sexual immorality?

Perhaps you should have sent that to the poster (#297) who claimed Peter was not referring to sexual immorality at all.

 

[Armoured]

I am not aware of heterosexuals taking homosexuals to court to destroy their livelihoods. There is an increasing number of the reverse though.

Cite or retract?

Edit: I suppose a long history of firing people for being gay or just refusing to emply them in the first place doesn't count?

 

[Oafman]

Ive heard homosexuals claim Christians have tried to destroy them and their "rights".

Christians have been denying homosexuals equal rights for millenia. The 'right' to continue to deny them equal rights is what you are arguing for.

 

[William67]

I am not aware of heterosexuals taking homosexuals to court to destroy their livelihoods. There is an increasing number of the reverse though.

They claim we have been trying to "destroy" them for centuries. I know one who told me that homosexuals had suffered more than blacks have since slavery began. It has already began in other countries. In some countries, you cant even mention that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Ministers have gone to jail for preaching the Word of God.

 

[Armoured]

They claim we have been trying to "destroy" them for centuries. I know one who told me that homosexuals had suffered more than blacks have since slavery began.

There was this thing called "the Holocaust", very popular in Europe at one time...

It has already began in other countries. In some countries, you cant even mention that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Ministers have gone to jail for preaching the Word of God.

[citation needed]

 

[William67]

Christians have been denying homosexuals equal rights for millenia. The 'right' to continue to deny them equal rights is what you are arguing for.

The US hasn't existed for millennia. But, if the truth be told, they aren't equal to heterosexual marriages. Never will be. No matter what the law says.

 

[ken777]

Cite or retract?

Aaron & Melissa Klein & their 5 children ... for just one.

Edit: I suppose a long history of firing people for being gay or just refusing to emply them in the first place doesn't count?

Sounds like you're talking payback.