Ministers threatened with jail and thousands in fines for refusing to marry gays

[TLK Valentine]

The law here guarantees the free exercise of religion

Is the law here absolute?

 

[MachZer0]

Which is restricted when it comes to places of public accommodation.

You do know that all freedoms in the Bill of Rights are subject to restrictions, right?

What other restrictions force people to violate their religious beliefs. For instance, there is no limitation I can think of that forces you to speak against your own beliefs, or to publish against your own beliefs

 

[MachZer0]

Cite the portion of the Constitution that states unequivocally that "free exercise of religion extends to your business operations".

The First Amendment

 

[elliott95]

If a person holds the religious belief that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and wishes to conduct the ceremony, should the government prevent him from doing so and refuse to recognize the marriage as legal?

There are Christian denominations that wish to perform SSMs but are prevented by the state from doing so. Pastors in those denomination are in fact in danger of fines or jail time if they perform a same-sex wedding ceremony.

What is your opinion on the state persecuting those Christians based on their religious beliefs?

No church has a mandate to impose its own laws on the state.
No state likewise ought to mandate to a church what rites its can or cannot perform.

 

[David Brider]

He is the Bible David.

No. He is God. The Bible is the Bible.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

John 1:1,14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Unfortunately, none of those passages (nor any others that I've found) support the belief that God wrote the Bible.

It is honest to KNOW that God is The Author, is The Word...regardless of the number of men that penned the Words.

You might like to believe that, but it's not really honest when there's no supporting evidence for it within the pages of the Bible itself.

The genealogies don't conflict...man fails to understand. If man would only acknowledge (when he sees something that doesn't click just think to himself...well I know God isn't wrong so it must be me and then search for the answer) so much wisdom would be gained.

Here's part of the family tree of Jesus as given in Matthew 1:

Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Abihud
Eliakim
Azoe
Zadok
Akim
Elihud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph
Jesus

And the corresponding part from Luke 3:

Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Rhesa
Joanan
Joda
Josek
Semein
Mattathias
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melki
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus


Both purport to show the male line of descent from Shealtiel through to Joseph to Jesus (which one could argue is a futile exercise, given that Joseph wasn't actually Jesus' father), and yet both are almost completely different.

Seems to me there are three choices in our approach to these kind of contradictions. Firstly, believe that God wrote it, God got it right, and any discrepancies are just down to our perception; secondly, believe that God wrote it, but God got it wrong; thirdly, believe that men (in this case Matthew and Luke) wrote it, and tried to record things as accurately as possible, but made mistakes.

It seems to me that only the third approach really works, because the first two create problems - the first in our relations with non-Christians, who point out the contradictions only to be fobbed off with excuses; and the second in our relationship with God.

But, regardless...this is not the topic. It is related in that when we believe His Word and know it is truth we then approach all things, including homosexual marriages and men being forced to officiate at such events as being against God and therefore despicable and not to be tolerated.

Well, you can see same-sex marriages as despicable and not to be tolerated. I don't agree with you, but there you go. As for men being forced to officiate at same-sex marriages, I wouldn't want that to happen either. But there doesn't seem to be any sound evidence that it has happened.

 

[David Brider]

What other restrictions force people to violate their religious beliefs. For instance, there is no limitation I can think of that forces you to speak against your own beliefs, or to publish against your own beliefs

If you believe that it's acceptable to say something slanderous, or to publish something libelous, against someone, the law will soon pull you up sharpish on those.

 

[YeShallTread]

No. He is God. The Bible is the Bible.

​

Unfortunately, none of those passages (nor any others that I've found) support the belief that God wrote the Bible.

You might like to believe that, but it's not really honest when there's no supporting evidence for it within the pages of the Bible itself.

We will have to disagree on the above points.

Here's part of the family tree of Jesus as given in Matthew 1:

[snip]

Both purport to show the male line of descent from Shealtiel through to Joseph to Jesus (which one could argue is a futile exercise, given that Joseph wasn't actually Jesus' father), and yet both are almost completely different.

One is giving us the line to Joseph (father, not husband as written, of Mary) while the other is that of Joseph, husband of Mary. One is the "as was supposed" or legal line to king David (through Joseph, the step-father of Jesus.) The other is the blood lineage.

Matthew 1:1-6 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

1:7-11 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

1:12-16 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begatJoseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.​

Count each 14 generations. Only if we understand that "Joseph the husband of Mary" was mistranslated and should be Joseph the father of Mary...do we have the fourteen generations stated three times. Mary's father and husband were both named Joseph.

The two accounts cannot be compared as both are not the earthly lineage of Jesus once it separates in the sons of king David.

"Husband" is aner and can carry the meaning of "any male, a male, husband." As we know she married a man named Joseph the mistake was understandable and yet...it was a mistake.

Seems to me there are three choices in our approach to these kind of contradictions. Firstly, believe that God wrote it, God got it right, and any discrepancies are just down to our perception; secondly, believe that God wrote it, but God got it wrong; thirdly, believe that men (in this case Matthew and Luke) wrote it, and tried to record things as accurately as possible, but made mistakes.

It seems to me that only the third approach really works, because the first two create problems - the first in our relations with non-Christians, who point out the contradictions only to be fobbed off with excuses; and the second in our relationship with God.

God isn't wrong. Man mistranslated the text.

Well, you can see same-sex marriages as despicable and not to be tolerated. I don't agree with you, but there you go. As for men being forced to officiate at same-sex marriages, I wouldn't want that to happen either. But there doesn't seem to be any sound evidence that it has happened.

I am glad we agree on one of the points.

 

[bhsmte]

We will have to disagree and the above points.







One is giving us the line to Joseph (father, not husband as written, of Mary) while the other is that of Joseph, husband of Mary. One is the "as was supposed" or legal line to king David (through Joseph, the step-father of Jesus.) The other is the blood lineage.

Matthew 1:1-6 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

1:7-11 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

1:12-16 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begatJoseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.​

Count each 14 generations. Only if we understand that "Joseph the husband of Mary" was mistranslated and should be Joseph the father of Mary...do we have the fourteen generations stated three times. Mary's father and husband were both named Joseph.

The two accounts cannot be compared as both are not the earthly lineage of Jesus once it separates in the sons of king David.

"Husband" is aner and can carry the meaning of "any male, a male, husband." As we know she married a man named Joseph the mistake was understandable and yet...it was a mistake.








God isn't wrong. Man mistranslated the text.





I am glad we agree on one of the points.

Precisely the problem with relying on the bible as a rule book. One person interprets it this way another person interprets it another way and we go on and on and on.

This is why, the most fierce battles on these board, come from Christians giving their case of why their interpretation is correct.

 

[YeShallTread]

Precisely the problem with relying on the bible as a rule book. One person interprets it this way another person interprets it another way and we go on and on and on.

This is why, the most fierce battles on these board, come from Christians giving their case of why their interpretation is correct.

May I ask where the interpretation is? I quoted the Bible. It is the ONLY thing in this life we can trust in implicitly. And, when I say "The Bible" I refer to one only. The KJV, which, as shown here, has mistranslations but all can be compared to the text.

 

[bhsmte]

May I ask where the interpretation is? I quoted the Bible. It is the ONLY thing in this life we can trust in implicitly. And, when I say "The Bible" I refer to one only. The KJV, which, as shown here, has mistranslations but all can be compared to the text.

What is the purpose of quoting a book, if there is no interpretation of the quote?

 

[YeShallTread]

What is the purpose of quoting a book, if there is no interpretation of the quote?

There was no need to interpret what was written....only provide the quote.

 

[bhsmte]

There was no need to interpret what was written....only provide the quote.

Quotes are just words on a page without interpretation.

 

[super animator]

There was no need to interpret what was written....only provide the quote.

Nonesense, otherwise there wouldn't be a concept of language ambiguity if that were the case.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

May I ask where the interpretation is? I quoted the Bible. It is the ONLY thing in this life we can trust in implicitly. And, when I say "The Bible" I refer to one only. The KJV, which, as shown here, has mistranslations but all can be compared to the text.

Wouldn't the text be primary, instead of the KJV?

 

[YeShallTread]

Wouldn't the text be primary, instead of the KJV?

Yes Paul it is primary....I am speaking as one that cannot read Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Those that can are blessed indeed but those of us that cannot are blessed by the King James and the Strong's Concordance. I would add that the Companion Bible (KJV with studies by E.W. Bullinger) is a wonderful tool. Bullinger gives us side-notes that have corrections showing mistranslations from the text to the KJV.

 

[YeShallTread]

But the ones who agree with you aren't the fallible ones, right?

How do we know which ones to agree with? Those with Godly rulings are those with whom we should agree. The others will be sorted out.

Psalm 141:6-10 [When] their judges are overthrown in stony places, they shall hear My words; for they are sweet. Our bones are scattered at the grave's mouth, as when one cutteth and cleaveth wood upon the earth. But mine eyes are unto thee, O God the Lord: in thee is my trust; leave not my soul destitute. Keep me from the snares which they have laid for me, and the gins of the workers of iniquity. Let the wicked fall into their own nets, whilst that I withal escape.​

There are wicked and workers of iniquity judges designated as "their judges" and then there are those that hear His Words.

 

[YeShallTread]

Quotes are just words on a page without interpretation.

When something is plainly written one simply understands. There is no need to interpret (to give the meaning of).

 

[YeShallTread]

Originally Posted by YeShallTread View Post
There was no need to interpret what was written....only provide the quote.

=super animator;66560120]Nonesense, otherwise there wouldn't be a concept of language ambiguity if that were the case.

There are many verses than can and should be interpreted. There are many that require no explanation. Why...because there is no ambiguity. [Matthew 1:1-17] is a passage that simply requires reading. It begins by telling us that it deals in the generation of Jesus Christ. It ends by asking us to count fourteen generations three times. There is no ambiguity.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There are many verses than can and should be interpreted. There are many that require no explanation. Why...because there is no ambiguity. [Matthew 1:1-17] is a passage that simply requires reading. It begins by telling us that it deals in the generation of Jesus Christ. It ends by asking us to count fourteen generations three times. There is no ambiguity.

No ambiguity until you read a little further and get to Luke 3:23-38.... then you had best be prepared to do some interpretation...

 

[YeShallTread]

No ambiguity until you read a little further and get to Luke 3:23-38.... then you had best be prepared to do some interpretation...

No for there too it is explained:

Luke 3:23 And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,​

Who is the "son of Heli?" Joseph is the son of Heli and Jesus is the "as was supposed" son of Joseph.

As was supposed meaning by-law, in-law. Jesus was the legal son of Joseph, husband of Mary. This genealogical line, that of Joseph, provides the legal link to King David.