10 reasons why same sex marriage is harmful

[Sabertooth]

Read in context, don't lift verses out here and there, and let scripture interpret scripture.

Even if you throw out Daniel 2, Acts of the Apostles 1:11 clearly states His physical return to Earth (likely, to the Mount of Olives). And that, in turn, reinforces the previously given interpretation of Daniel 2. That is "Scripture interpreting Scripture."

 

[createdtoworship]

I have done a google search but not of those phrases and an interesting link came up which I bookmarked for my own reference, I am not that interested in defending any position here.

Look up Lewis Sperry chafer on the millenial reign or look up john walvwoord on the millenial reign, that may bring some pop up articles by bible.org

 

[dms1972]

Even if you throw out Daniel 2, Acts of the Apostles 1:11 clearly states His physical return to Earth (likely, to the Mount of Olives). And that, in turn, reinforces the previously given interpretation of Daniel 2. That is "Scripture interpreting Scripture."

I don't wish to throw any scriptures out I want to see them related to each other in the right way. I admit I don't always know what way that is.

Anyway here is an interesting passage of scripture.

Jeremiah 3: 16 - 18

Bible Gateway passage: Jeremiah 3:16-18 - New International Version

 

[Sabertooth]

Acts 1:11, by itself, says that He is physically coming back. (I guess that we could stop there and plead uncertainty about what He will do next, but His physical return is settled.)

 

[createdtoworship]

I have done a google search but not of those phrases and an interesting link came up which I bookmarked for my own reference, I am not that interested in defending any position here.

here is an article I put together about ten years ago on the millenial reign, it will explain some stuff:
SOTERIOLOGICAL JOURNAL Issue #82 Is-the-1000-Year-Reign-Under-Law-or-Grace

 

[Sabertooth]

thearchy is not a theological term but what is called as a secular term to explain a theological principle. I just searched 15000 theological books in my data base, and it didn't come up once. So I don't honor it a as a term.

I can already see that descriptivism will be summarily outlawed in YOUR theocracy...

 

[Jamdoc]

Trump believes same sex marriage is good. Trump is a christian. Many believe because same sex marriage is a constitutional right that it's therefore moral. It is not. Here is a link to start this conversation: 10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed

Sorry OP should say "same sex marriage" sorry. Working on my phone with sausage fingers.


Sources: I was asked where I believe Trump was "pro homosexual marriage" and I believe originally he was not for homosexual marriage, but his daughter and son in law in their advisor role, easily convinced him to back out of rolling back obama era LGBT protections, getting criticism from both the far right and religious conservatives:
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Said to Have Helped Thwart L.G.B.T. Rights Rollback

I don't think Trump is Christian at all. He uses Christians to vote for him, and promises them things they want if it'll get them elected. But the man is an atheist if I've ever seen one. His spiritual advisor is a health and wealth gospel/word of faith televangelist, he couldn't think of a single scripture when called on the spot after declaring his favorite book was the bible, has low church attendance (mostly formality anyway).
as far as Jared and "Yael" Kushner they're Christ rejectors. Not even just unsaved, but a religion that just outright rejects Jesus Christ, and the Talmud depicts Jesus boiling in feces in hell. Not who I'd have as advisors as a Christian President.
On same sex marriage it is sin, but what is legal by man's law is not always in line with what is God's law. The country is founded on religious freedom, not just freedom to be Christian. While it's perfectly understandable to disagree with some of the things allowed by law because of that, because they go contrary to God's law. Realize that it also protects us from an authority like the Catholic church that used to burn people at the stake for not adhering to their theology. Realize that this also protects us from the Jizyah tax that non muslims have to pay in Islamic countries. So it is because of that religious freedom, that we can't base our laws as a nation, on any particular interpretation of any religion's laws. Otherwise, you have to set up a national religion to declare which denomination's views are right. You might think that's great if you agree with that denomination's views, but if you don't, it'd be a source of persecution.

 

[createdtoworship]

I can already see that descriptivism will be summarily outlawed in YOUR theocracy...

sir you literally said I was talking about a thearchy not a theocracy. And I think I know what I am talking about, I was referring to a theocracy. Thearchy is not technically a thing. It may be something in the internet. But no commentators have used that term that I know of. But by all means use it. But see that I don't personally have to honor the term. I am simply choosing to use the word theocracy which is what people usually use to refer to what I am talking about here. So again that is why I said it was mere semantics. When debating evolution and creation I would quote all these scientists that said evolution was unproven and wrong, and evolutionists would say "that's a quote mine." I said "what's a quote mine?" I come to find out that this is a term the skeptics arbitrarily made up to battle the volumes of quotations we have against evolution. They don't have to answer, it they just say it's a "quote mine." But no official dictionaries include the term, I could only find it on wiki based search engines, which are mainly publically edited and have no authority. So I have run into others that have created terms. I don't know why people do it, they are certainly free to do so. But we are not compelled to use said terms until at least some official dictionaries start to include them. By the way "quote mine" is just an alternative to "miss quote, or quote out of context." But dictionaries do have those terms, so quote mine is redundant. And I can say that in this situation too, we already have the term theocracy, so thearchy is sort of redundant.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't think Trump is Christian at all. He uses Christians to vote for him, and promises them things they want if it'll get them elected. But the man is an atheist if I've ever seen one. His spiritual advisor is a health and wealth gospel/word of faith televangelist, he couldn't think of a single scripture when called on the spot after declaring his favorite book was the bible, has low church attendance (mostly formality anyway).
as far as Jared and "Yael" Kushner they're Christ rejectors. Not even just unsaved, but a religion that just outright rejects Jesus Christ, and the Talmud depicts Jesus boiling in feces in hell. Not who I'd have as advisors as a Christian President.
On same sex marriage it is sin, but what is legal by man's law is not always in line with what is God's law. The country is founded on religious freedom, not just freedom to be Christian. While it's perfectly understandable to disagree with some of the things allowed by law because of that, because they go contrary to God's law. Realize that it also protects us from an authority like the Catholic church that used to burn people at the stake for not adhering to their theology. Realize that this also protects us from the Jizyah tax that non muslims have to pay in Islamic countries. So it is because of that religious freedom, that we can't base our laws as a nation, on any particular interpretation of any religion's laws. Otherwise, you have to set up a national religion to declare which denomination's views are right. You might think that's great if you agree with that denomination's views, but if you don't, it'd be a source of persecution.

Thanks for your reply. I don't know if Trump is a Christian but I certainly am not in the place of God to say He is not a Christian. The Bible says "do not judge, lest you be judged." But I can say that I don't believe ivanka or husband are christians, they are orthodox jewish. But trumps religion is not based on his daughters religion. His advisors he wanted we his family. And for that I actually applaud Him. He put family first.

So it is because of that religious freedom, that we can't base our laws as a nation, on any particular interpretation of any religion's laws.

so we are not to pray for Christ's coming theocracy simply because the muslims have a religious gov't and tax the infidels, or because the catholics messed up? But the Bible is not about either of those religions, so we are good yes?

you have to set up a national religion to declare which denomination's views are right. You might think that's great if you agree with that denomination's views, but if you don't, it'd be a source of persecution.

No need for dogma, just systematic theology. I don't give any honor to mans creeds, just the Bible. We would only legislate the Bible, but I can see a need for some type of systematic theology to dictate which laws still apply in the new testament etc. I would appoint 12 apologetics directors, ravi zacharius, norman geisler, June hunt, John ankerburg, and some others I can't rememeber. They would all have a single vote to see if a certain church was considered "orthodox.' Then churches would recieve federal tax dollars to take care of social issues such as the entire wellfare system as well as ophanages, and probably healthcare. I would put a lot of responsibility on the church, but they would have federal funding. the tithe money would go to the government because it was a theocracy. I would require a 10% tithe, but I would also require a 7 year jubilee. So they would average out. Every seven years they had one year debt free. And every 50 years they had all loans forgiven. So those little perks would help the economy. Also I would require the farmers to give the land 1 year rest in 7. You let it over grow and allow homeless or charities to glean from the land, and the rest you let fall. But they could not use equipment on it. They have to do it by hand. There are various old testament rules I would establish, but I am not fully fully all knowleagable so I don't exactly know how a theocracy would work, however I would pray over every law, and presumably fast. And all advisors would be required to read through the Bible every year. And all churches would be required to teach expositorily through the Bible every 7 -10 years. to gain federal funding.

 

[Sabertooth]

we already have the term theocracy, so thearchy is sort of redundant.

I deliberately used Thearchy to distance it from a theocracy.
Thearchy = "God ruling," directly.
Theocracy = "Religious leaders ruling," at least, in some capacity.

 

[Paidiske]

so we are not to pray for Christ's coming theocracy simply because the muslims have a religious gov't and tax the infidels, or because the catholics messed up? But the Bible is not about either of those religions, so we are good yes?

Praying for Christ to rule is very, very different from trying to rule in his name.

And all churches would be required to teach expositorily through the Bible every 7 -10 years. to gain federal funding.

So you won't even recognise churches which use a lectionary system?

Your theocracy is shockingly narrow. The fact that you'd seek to dictate how churches read and learn from Scripture shows just how deeply problematic your proposals are.

 

[createdtoworship]

I deliberately used Thearchy to distance it from a theocracy.
Thearchy = "God ruling," directly.
Theocracy = "Religious leaders ruling," at least, in some capacity.

who told you in a theocracy the religious leaders rule? That is not what the term actually means. Theocracy literally means when you break it up into the original words, "ruled by God."

 

[Paidiske]

who told you in a theocracy the religious leaders rule? That is not what the term actually means. Theocracy literally means when you break it up into the original words, "ruled by God."

Yes, but in the current state of affairs, direct rule by God is not possible. Therefore theocracy ends up being rule by religious leaders.

 

[Jamdoc]

Thanks for your reply. I don't know if Trump is a Christian but I certainly am not in the place of God to say He is not a Christian. The Bible says "do not judge, lest you be judged." But I can say that I don't believe ivanka or husband are christians, they are orthodox jewish. But trumps religion is not based on his daughters religion. His advisors he wanted we his family. And for that I actually applaud Him. He put family first.



so we are not to pray for Christ's coming theocracy simply because the muslims have a religious gov't and tax the infidels, or because the catholics messed up? But the Bible is not about either of those religions, so we are good yes?



No need for dogma, just systematic theology. I don't give any honor to mans creeds, just the Bible. We would only legislate the Bible, but I can see a need for some type of systematic theology to dictate which laws still apply in the new testament etc. I would appoint 12 apologetics directors, ravi zacharius, norman geisler, June hunt, John ankerburg, and some others I can't rememeber. They would all have a single vote to see if a certain church was considered "orthodox.' Then churches would recieve federal tax dollars to take care of social issues such as the entire wellfare system as well as ophanages, and probably healthcare. I would put a lot of responsibility on the church, but they would have federal funding. the tithe money would go to the government because it was a theocracy. I would require a 10% tithe, but I would also require a 7 year jubilee. So they would average out. Every seven years they had one year debt free. And every 50 years they had all loans forgiven. So those little perks would help the economy. Also I would require the farmers to give the land 1 year rest in 7. You let it over grow and allow homeless or charities to glean from the land, and the rest you let fall. But they could not use equipment on it. They have to do it by hand. There are various old testament rules I would establish, but I am not fully fully all knowleagable so I don't exactly know how a theocracy would work, however I would pray over every law, and presumably fast. And all advisors would be required to read through the Bible every year. And all churches would be required to teach expositorily through the Bible every 7 -10 years. to gain federal funding.

Christ will establish His rule of law in the Millennium. That's different, it won't be based on any denomination's doctrine. Christ Himself won't allow for us to make interpretations of His law, it will just be His laws, His justice. Completely different world vs what we'd have now if we tried to implement human laws based on the bible, because God is perfect, we are not, 3 people read the bible, they will often come to 3 different opinions, because they interpret scripture based on their own prejudices and expectations and opinions. That's why we have so many denominations. That's why we have all these people saying they're Christian but they don't all believe exactly the same thing.
That's a big part of why I'm a premillenialist, because I believe that Christ Himself will set the record straight before eternity, to get us all on the same page with our theology. Our own imperfections prevent us from being 100% right on the bible, no matter how hard we try. We will be glorified in His image and we will serve Him without our own prejudices and our own opinions of His word, because there will no longer be imperfection in us and misunderstanding.
But until that day... Matthew 22:21
I for one, appreciate our religious liberty and not a mandate to conform to ANY MAN'S doctrine. I will only conform to Christ's doctrine when He can straighten it all out for me, until then, I have opinions on doctrines and humble myself that I could be wrong on any number of things, I just do the best I can.

 

[createdtoworship]

Praying for Christ to rule is very, very different from trying to rule in his name.

well when you literally legislate "only" His words you sort of get around that problem. Correct? But ultimately it would boil down as to what laws were considered new testament and which were not. So I would appoint leaders from top seminaries to discuss that. But you don't just give up because it's hard. That does not set right with me, in any fashion.

So you won't even recognise churches which use a lectionary system?

Your theocracy is shockingly narrow. The fact that you'd seek to dictate how churches read and learn from Scripture shows just how deeply problematic your proposals are.

I wouldn't have a problem with lectionaries as a principle. For religious education. But those would really only apply to children. And most children sundays schools get by without using lectionaries, they typically have Bible curriculum of various sorts. So I would appoint leaders who are proficient at those types of things and decide on which curriculums were faithful to the text.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, but in the current state of affairs, direct rule by God is not possible. Therefore theocracy ends up being rule by religious leaders.

I think when you read your Bible, most of it says the being directly ruled by God is very possible. Why have a Bible at all, if it was not 'direct instruction' on how to live? It's the instruction manual.

 

[Sabertooth]

Theocracy literally means when you break it up into the original words, "ruled by God."

-archy means "ruling as a king."
-cracy means "ruling as a body."

 

[Paidiske]

well when you literally legislate "only" His words you sort of get around that problem. Correct?

No, because those words have to be interpreted and applied.

Let's take Matthew 5:22 as an example.

Shall we legislate against anger? All anger, or only some? Is there such a thing as righteous anger, or appropriate anger, and are there ways to express anger which are to be allowed?

Shall we legislate against insults? Is there a threshold level of insult which will attract criminal penalty? How shall we decide where that threshold will be?

And so on. That's one example.

When Christ reigns we won't need to worry about any of those things because Christ will make those decisions and communicate them directly. For now, us trying to legislate them is a recipe for disaster.

I wouldn't have a problem with lectionaries as a principle. For religious education. But those would really only apply to children.

Why? The vast majority of Christians around the world today, adults as well as children, follow a lectionary system of readings in church. Why should they be forced to abandon something which has worked perfectly well for the teaching and nurture of believers for millennia?

I think when you read your Bible, most of it says the being directly ruled by God is very possible. Why have a Bible at all, if it was not 'direct instruction' on how to live? It's the instruction manual.

I can't believe I have to say this, but the Bible is not God. Taking instruction from the Bible is not the same as being directly ruled by God. One is the sovereign creator of the universe making God's will known directly and personally, the other relies on human ability to interpret a collection of texts.

And for what it's worth, my understanding of that collection of texts is that it is not a manifesto for how Christians should try to control everyone else until Christ returns.

 

[createdtoworship]

-archy means "ruling as a king."
-cracy means "ruling as a body."

from your own link on "cracy"
"rule or government by" So it is a rule or government by "theo" or God. hence "theocracy"

sorry sounds like a stretch, it's just redundant.

Here it uses both terms as synonymous:
Definition of THEARCHY

 

[dms1972]

Praying for Christ to rule is very, very different from trying to rule in his name.



So you won't even recognise churches which use a lectionary system?

Your theocracy is shockingly narrow. The fact that you'd seek to dictate how churches read and learn from Scripture shows just how deeply problematic your proposals are.

Two very good points you have made. I share your concerns in this regard, the prosposals are problematic. The use of a lectionary is a very helpful system for balanced scripture teaching combining readings from the Old and New Testament (the Gospel and the Epistles).

I never belonged to a church that uses one regularly, but over the years I come think it is sensible, for giving a balanced diet of scripture. Not saying it should stop at that, of course homilies and exposition are part of that too.