resolution filed in Tennessee to avoid Gods Judgement on gay marriage

A 'sound' objective \o/

Ecclesiastes 3: 15-19 (NIV)

15 That which is hath been long ago; and that which is to be hath long ago been: and God seeketh again that which is passed away.

16 And moreover I saw under the sun, in the place of justice, that wickedness was there; and in the place of righteousness, that wickedness was there.

17 I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked; for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

18 I said in my heart, [It is] because of the sons of men, that God may prove them, and that they may see that they themselves are [but as] beasts.

19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; and man hath no preeminence above the beasts: for all is vanity.
The WORD has it

Hank77 said:

I don't think that those who don't believe will care about what God's word says, that is just silly. What I object to is people who try to say that the Bible condones ss intimate relationships. If they don't care why do they try to argue that it does?

Click to expand...

And I've explained to you that your understanding of those vague verses is wrong. The stories of David and Jonathon and Ruth and Naomi indicate God doesn't have an issue with a level of intimacy (even if only emotional/romantic) between same-sex people being as strong or stronger than opposite-sex people. You'll also notice that nowhere in the Old Testament are Lesbians condemned. Where is the "A woman shall not lay with woman as with man" verse? Why is it non-existent?

So why condemn those who state what they believe, such as this woman in TN?

Click to expand...

For the same reason we criticize the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

Why are you condemning those who worship other gods and practice other religions? Why do you condone atheists getting married with God's permission? Idolatry is a far far bigger sin than same-sex marriage, yet you ignore those sins, which indicates this isn't about the Bible, it's about a deep psychological issue related to same-sex relationships.

Belk said:

Did you miss the long legal battle to get anti-homosexuality sodomy laws off the books?

Click to expand...

I must have. But that's not exactly what I meant. I mean flat-out banning same sex relationships. The way they fight tooth and nail against SSM and the arguments used against it seem to suggest that even just being gay is enough to condemn someone to hell and no good Christian should stand idly by and allow that behavior in our country lest they be condemned themselves.... I guess the sodomy laws were probably more intended to be against gays but plenty of straight people engage in sodomy which is probably more likely why those laws were struck down when they were.

Loudmouth said:

They did at one time. There are still laws in some states that make pre-marital heterosexual sex a punishable crime.

Click to expand...

Is such a law even enforceable?

Marius27 said:

Some continue to try, they just have a better chance of getting hit by a meteor than overturning Lawrence v. Texas. But there are Christians in this country who want all same-sex relationships to be illegal.

Click to expand...

Well, they'd be consistent. I'll have to give them that one.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Is such a law even enforceable?

Click to expand...

There is nothing stopping local law enforcement from putting people in jail for these offences, other than the cost of a lawsuit which they are sure to lose. In order for a law to be found unconstitutional someone has to demonstrate that they have been harmed by a law which isn't occurring because no one is being arrested.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Well, they'd be consistent. I'll have to give them that one.

Click to expand...

They'd still be hypocrites since more heterosexuals engage in that behavior than gays, and the highest rates of gay inappropriate contentography consumption in the US is in the Bible Belt. But they love to ignore their own sins, and condemn to hell the minority of gays just trying to be with the person they love.

GoldenBoy89 said:

But my point was that you never hear of Christians fighting against the legalized and constitutionally protected blasphemy

Click to expand...

But there has been that fight. Christians have been pushing for laws against blasphemy and sexual content in things like television programming. Christians fight against sex education that is centered on birth control with little emphasis on abstinence. Some Christians fought "no fault divorce" but that is much harder to get a consensus on because of the language used in the Bible, God allowing it in the OT, and Paul's statement in the NT. Adultery and sodomy used to be against the law and could get someone jail time. In the 60's, in a fairly liberal New England state, there was a married couple who were arrested for sodomy when some children, who were looking through their bedroom window, reported what they had seen. The parents decided what they had seen was sodomy and reported them to the authorities.

GoldenBoy89 said:

I would think those were bigger transgressions against God but nope. Gay sex. That's what God cares about.

Click to expand...

Christians not being tolerate of sexual sin is not new it is very old and has never been specifically directed at ss couples.
I think that ssm was the straw that broke the camels back and many Christians have said enough is enough.
I think there are some who think that somehow this change in law has corrupted marriage and maybe even somehow harmed their marriage, that the spiritual significance of marriage has been tarnished and I cannot say that I disagree with them entirely. I don't know for sure, but I think that if gays had been willing to accept civil unions and not insisted on validating their relationship as a marriage there wouldn't have been such a fight. In my state, civil union laws passed but ssm did not, the people spoke through their voting and we have a large Christian and Republican citizenry. So I feel that my state voted with understanding and compassion when it came to legal matters for ss couples, but were not willing to allow ss couples the same spiritual and community status of male/female marriage.

GoldenBoy89 said:

I must have. But that's not exactly what I meant. I mean flat-out banning same sex relationships. The way they fight tooth and nail against SSM and the arguments used against it seem to suggest that even just being gay is enough to condemn someone to hell and no good Christian should stand idly by and allow that behavior in our country lest they be condemned themselves.... I guess the sodomy laws were probably more intended to be against gays but plenty of straight people engage in sodomy which is probably more likely why those laws were struck down when they were.

Click to expand...

Ah. Apologies. You don't really know the history of SSA in America. Not only did it used to be illegal to be gay there were active stings and PSA's against homosexuality. A person who was discovered to be homosexual would likely lose their job, family, and be ostracized from society. After the stonewall riots this slowly started to change.

The sodomy laws were an attempt to do a "back door" ban on homosexuality. As you said they could be applied to both sexes (hence how they got around equal protection) but were usually only enforced against homosexuals.

http://1967andallthat.blogspot.com/2007/05/gay-life-in-1950s-and-1960s.html

Marius27 said:

The stories of David and Jonathon and Ruth and Naomi indicate God doesn't have an issue with a level of intimacy (even if only emotional/romantic) between same-sex people being as strong or stronger than opposite-sex people.

Click to expand...

When I say intimacy, I am referring to sexual intimacy which is not seen between David and Jonathon or Ruth and Naomi, bad argument on your part, even rather disingenuous. Where did D & J or R & N, turn away from intimacy with the opposite sex in order to have a sexually intimate relationship with the other person? Bizarre to say the least.

Marius27 said:

You'll also notice that nowhere in the Old Testament are Lesbians condemned. Where is the "A woman shall not lay with woman as with man" verse? Why is it non-existent?

Click to expand...

You are talking about in Moses' Law, correct? In the nation of Israel women were all about having children, that was their status symbol. One cannot have kids with another woman. Women did not have the means to support themselves either. They had to rely on men for their food, clothing, and shelter. So what I am saying is that they weren't prone to this behavior.
Moses' Law was not given to the pagan nations. But Romans 1 is very clear about how God sees it. You can jump through all kinds of hoops, you can add the word heterosexual to the scripture and it won't make it so. But you are correct in that, they were definitely pagans and God allowed them to be so, because they insisted that was what they wanted.

Marius27 said:

For the same reason we criticize the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

Click to expand...

Her actions are like the actions of the KKK, really?

Marius27 said:

Why are you condemning those who worship other gods and practice other religions?

Click to expand...

Where have I done that? They are free to worship any thing they choose and practice any religion they choose to. Just don't say they are practicing Christianity.

Marius27 said:

Why do you condone atheists getting married with God's permission?

Click to expand...

Who says they have God's permission? What has God got to do with atheists or anything that they decide to do without God?
In Corinthians Paul points out the it is the Christian who causes the pagan spouse and the children to be sanctified by God. Otherwise the children would be considered illegitimate. So it seems to me that the marriage of two pagans isn't a legal one in God's eyes, otherwise the children would be sanctified and not illegitimate.

Marius27 said:

Idolatry is a far far bigger sin than same-sex marriage, yet you ignore those sins, which indicates this isn't about the Bible, it's about a deep psychological issue related to same-sex relationships.

Click to expand...

Where have I ignored any sins? Where is your evidence for such a statement?

That does indeed help in the counsel needed to read the words of men and women. Thank you. The last part is something that every Christian here may find beneficial.
May I use that last part as a quote in my signature? "For all the intelligence many non-believers have and all their command of the various logical fallacies, they don't have the Spirit within them. They cannot understand the things of God."

Have you ever wondered how many posts would come to your attention , if you subscribed or watched them, were you to set those who cannot understand the things of God to your ignore list?
I think it a worthy question. And also to ask why would it benefit the Christian who is spirit filled and able to understand the things of God as his elect, to think they can reach at all those who cannot. If you read those who cannot understand the things of God you'll note one common thread. They never concur with the Christian they are in dialog with.
Why make the effort to reach those who are not meant to understand?

An interesting experiment I think. And certainly one that would bring more peace than one already enjoys as a Christian.

dysert said:

I know this won't sit well with some here, but we must remember that of the myriad of things not mentioned in the Bible, Christians have the ability to discern God's will:

1Co 2:10-14
10--> Now God has revealed these things to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
11--> For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? In the same way, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12--> Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who comes from God, so that we may understand what has been freely given to us by God.
13--> We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.
14--> But the unbeliever does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to understand it since it is evaluated spiritually.
​

For all the intelligence many non-believers have and all their command of the various logical fallacies, they don't have the Spirit within them. They cannot understand the things of God.

Click to expand...

Ah, so you've never heard of DOMA. OK then. I'll just leave it here because I just read some very pertinent advise. See, to believe your rhetoric, when you're unaware of DOMA, I'd have to accept that SCOTUS decision does not affect the states.
And being the tenor of this thread is what it is, you may want to stop now.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Actually they did not redefine marriage for the states. The states still get to do that but they ruled that the states cannot discriminate on the basis of gender of the participants. Do you understand what that means? Do you understand how that is not redefining marriage and is certainly not redefining it per your religious beliefs? Because that is important to the discussion at hand.

So maybe it is actually you who is unaware of the topic of discussion and maybe you should stay out of it.


It's not my book. I know that much.

I don't believe this thread is about atheism so please, do try to stay on topic.

Click to expand...

heatedmonk said:

Ah, so you've never heard of DOMA. OK then. I'll just leave it here because I just read some very pertinent advise. See, to believe your rhetoric, when you're unaware of DOMA, I'd have to accept that SCOTUS decision does not affect the states.
And being the tenor of this thread is what it is, you may want to stop now.

Click to expand...

It is no different than the ability of states to define their business codes while also having constitutionally protected rights that prevent discrimination based on race within those businesses.

heatedmonk said:

Ah, so you've never heard of DOMA. OK then. I'll just leave it here because I just read some very pertinent advise. See, to believe your rhetoric, when you're unaware of DOMA, I'd have to accept that SCOTUS decision does not affect the states.
And being the tenor of this thread is what it is, you may want to stop now.

Click to expand...

I am quite aware of it...
DOMA should stand for "doesn't matter anymore" because it has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. The SCOTUS has the legal power to strike down any law that does not follow the outline of the Constitution.

Why you decided to bring up a "non-law", I have no idea.

heatedmonk said:

May I use that last part as a quote in my signature? "For all the intelligence many non-believers have and all their command of the various logical fallacies, they don't have the Spirit within them. They cannot understand the things of God."

Click to expand...

Feel free to quote me in your signature. And your note is very interesting. We have such different world views vis à vis unbelievers that I sometimes wonder why I'm trying to have a spiritual conversation with them.

dysert said:

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech hardly "enshrine" idolatry and blasphemy.

Click to expand...

Loudmouth said:

Then the freedom to marry someone of the same sex is not an enshrinement of homosexuality. Problem solved.

Click to expand...

Wow. I sure don't see how one leads to the other, but don't bother explaining it. We're looking at the world through totally different lenses.

heatedmonk said:

If you read those who cannot understand the things of God you'll note one common thread.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are easy to spot, being unkind. They are not loving their neighbors as themselves. (Mar 12:31, Mat 22:39, Luk 10:27, Lev 19:18)

dysert said:

Wow. I sure don't see how one leads to the other, but don't bother explaining it. We're looking at the world through totally different lenses.

Click to expand...

Your lenses have a double standard, apparently.