- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
So then you agree that we are to be like Christ in all ways yes?
Upvote
0
10 reasons why same sex marriage is harmful
- Thread starter createdtoworship
- Start date
- Status
- Jul 25, 2005
- 10,509
- 7,068
- 62
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I agree that is where the Holy Spirit is bringing us (through the process of sanctification), and that we are not there, yet.
In your idealized theocracy, which current denomination would you put in charge?
Upvote
0
- Oct 7, 2018
- 9,660
- 7,880
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The Law of God and the law of the land don't always agree as one is Holy and the other is secular.Though there may be some things that are in agreement, there are some things that are against the "Will of God".
Blessings
Upvote
0
- Jul 25, 2005
- 10,509
- 7,068
- 62
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Which God used to set up His Son as King of kings.
"Then as He entered a certain village, there met Him ten men who were lepers, who stood afar off. And they lifted up their voices and said, 'Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!'
So when He saw them, He said to them, 'Go, show yourselves to the priests.' And so it was that as they went, they were cleansed." Luke 17:12-14 NKJV
The requirement to show themselves to the priests is from Leviticus 14. The theocracy remained in place, in spite of having a king. This was true of other theocratic governments, as well.
The whole volume of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. would not have occurred apart from theocracies.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Quartermaine
Well-Known Member
- Sep 16, 2019
- 2,794
- 1,615
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
there are many countries today that are theocracies. if you want to live in one so badly then go ahead and move to Saudi Arabia or Iran.
thank God we have the first amendment to protect us.
my guess is that you only want freedom and legal protections for yourself
because black people don't deserve freedom?
no minister or priest or holy person of any religion is obliged nor can the be forced to marry a couple they don't want to. This is why you still hear of some preacher refusing to marry an interracial couple. he can do so because it's perfectly legal.
again thank God we aren't a theocracy.[/quote]
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Romans 13:1-7
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.
Titus 3:1
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,
Upvote
0
Quartermaine
Well-Known Member
- Sep 16, 2019
- 2,794
- 1,615
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
you mean 10 stupid reasons
Well it is marriage like it or not.
Even in the bible Marriage has not always been between one and and one woman. The bible condones no less than 8 different kinds of marriage only one of which is between one man and one woman.
Procreation has nothing to do with marriage, it is not a requirement of marriage. This is why infertile individuals can get married
It's my experience that people trying to use "natural law" to to justify prejudice and discrimination have no clue what natural law actually is.
Here one is left trying to show that sex has a single purpose among human beings...and no one is dumb enough to think that.
Taking the above "reasoning" one can make the case that heterosexual individuals who are infertile should not ever marry or have sex at all.
Having a child isn't a requirement of marriage.
There are occupations where an individual is at high risk of death, police, or the military for example. If one is really concerned about the possibility of children being denied either a parent then those individuals who are in such high risk professions should also not be allowed to marry.
Can anyone explain what this means?
Civil rights come from the constitution which holds that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law...even people you may choose to hate
a sad repeat of #2.
and obviously a naturally sterile union is what happens when an infertile heterosexual gets married.
the state doesn't have a purpose. and if one wants to lie and say the state's purpose is the creation of children then again you woudl be opposing infertile heterosexuals who what to get married.
garbage. Same sex marriage has been legal for years and bigots and haters are still with us.
this one is dependent on the hate based talking point that minorities are incapable of "true" love and instead are just given over to their animal lusts. It is a sad and stupid thing to say and worse it marks those who use it as sexually obsessed perverts
so do tattoos, lobster bisque, and poly cotton blend shirts
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 24, 2019
- 633
- 597
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
You brought up an interesting post. Here's what comes to mind when I read what you've written, for what it's worth. To begin with, I haven't noticed Trump loudly supporting gay marriage, but some posts have already pointed out that what works for the law of the land and the constitution are laws that work for all people equally. None of those laws force us to go against our own convictions, and of that I am very appreciative.
The difficulty is establishing a man-made theocracy on earth is that the law is always subject to interpretation and application, not because the Law of God or even that the Holy Spirit is limited but because our human ability to love God and love our fellow man is limited. I love the law (and Law) of God and study it regularly. It forms the basis for what Jesus was fleshing out for us - and of course, because He gave them (us) that law. The problem with the law has always been sin. On the one hand, much of the Scripture, especially the law, was given for the multitude of transgressions we humans have figured out how to commit. We needed a definition. Not to beat the old horse one more time, but in case any of us were wondering, it's just not right, it's downright wrong to steal from your neighbor or sleep with his wife. There weren't any "his husbands" or "her wives" back then, but in America, one would extrapolate that the same rule applies. But...that's an interpretation, an application. See what I mean?
Where would any set of men (or people) draw the line on the interpretation and application of God's law? Would they ban all American holidays? They are indeed all idolatrous at their roots. How about buying and selling on the Sabbath? That's banned too in the reading of the Scripture unless you subscribe to the replacement doctrines many/most Christians do, which says that somehow that age-old commandment that Jesus Himself kept sinlessly was exchanged for what the Christians now do on Sunday...except none of them do it. The Jews practicing what became Judaism had the same problem with the following concepts evidenced in the Scriptures: if we can define the Law, we can keep it. Let's all fast more often than God said, so we can be more religious and righteous than the once a year He commanded us. Let's not only keep the Sabbath by taking the day off and helping everyone else for whom we are responsible also have the day off, and let's do only what is needful or helpful for our fellow man, but let's make rules that Sabbath starts at a particular point in time and that you can't walk further than a specified distance or carry more than a specified weight. Granted, they lost a lot by not regarding the Sabbath, and all it takes is a read through the OT and you see that story, but the plethora of enforced traditions superseded the law God gave and by following their traditions they missed the point entirely - which is what Jesus showed them when He taught them. Maybe all those obscure commandments (not mixing fabrics, not planting mixed fields) have other applications than what was originally given, but who would decide? In the present system, we get to decide. We get to decide if healing a man on the Sabbath is in agreement with the law as it was given, and that's how Jesus called that shot. Carrying his mat wasn't a violation of any particular written law, but the Pharisees missed seeing the miracle right under their nose when they tripped up over Jesus flagrantly disregarding their interpretation/application of the law as held by their traditions.
In all seriousness, wouldn't we have the same problem now? I'm with you on the definition of marriage and on the general idea of the importance of hearing what God is saying and doing it. God isn't fooled and He has the final say. I'm even with you on the idea that the Holy Spirit will teach us the truth of how we should walk with God because I believe the Holy Spirit (if it's really the Holy Spirit) will remind you of what God said and what Jesus taught - which are one and the same thing. But in all honesty, if you ask a lot of believers today, they'll tell you all kinds of things that they say they are hearing from the Holy Spirit, which things I'd personally be hesitant to accept.
So if you got, say, 100 godly men in the same room to agree on what it looks like for people to be living in a theocracy, I'm not sure you could come up with better than what we already have in our constitution. In light of what could have bee decided, those founding fathers who acknowledged teh Creator of man and the rights that He gave did a rather amazing job of establishing a system that works pretty well. Seriously my concern on the other hand is with the same 100 people, you could end up with something that looks like the domination of power hungry leadership over the masses much like we saw in Hitler's regime or in the oppressed aspects of some Muslim communities. People in those situations did not fare well, whether with beheadings or other forms of destructions. That love of power is rampant. What did Peter warn them about - grievous wolves ready to wreck havoc on the church? They've been doing it from early on, probably thinking they had the right interpretation of the legalism that they defined. Again, we've been offered a perfect law of liberty - that same system God put into place that if we love Him first and foremost and love our neighbor as ourselves we could use the other definitions of transgressions and restitutions to have the best possible earthly life.
One more point here: God gave man ultimate freedom from the beginning. I can't see in any place where Jesus or the disciples/apostles took that freedom away from humans. The Judaizers tried, but for the most part the Christians saw through it thanks to Paul's interesting arguments such as he spelled out to the Galatians. God allows us our choices and our consequences. As for me, I prefer to be self-governed (self-controlled) by my understanding and application of the laws of God, whether by study (as in study to show yourself approved unto God) or by His genuine Holy Spirit (since where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty) within the framework of our present constitution which allows me the freedom to worship God acceptably, knowing that I will account to Him for the deeds done in the body. I look to Him for His grace and mercy with my inevitable sins now washed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, but I hide His word in my heart to avoid sinning not to consider His death a common or casual thing. The kingdom of God starts here and now with our individual obedient submission to our Lord and King. I'm especially appreciative that I don't have to fight a government that requires that I live by their definitions of righteousness instead of having the adventure of obeying for myself and answering to God.
I realize your post started with same-sex marriage, but if I address that part, then don't I also have to address things like Swaggart's sin, Baker's sin, and countless other sins that people who have read the Book and should have known better, have committed? David should have known better too having all those wives to begin with and then stealing his faithful warrior's wife and arranging his murder. What else is there but to repent when we realize our absolute awful error? Gays aren't alone in this sin-thing. I think if we were honest, we would conclude, as the Scriptures do, that we are all in sin - I'm in that group - and I wonder if most of the people in the same-sex category have even heard the good news that God showed us His love in His mercy, because while we were yet sinners, Jesus Christ died for us. At this point, we have the freedom to share the good news.
Upvote
0
our legal rights do not equal morality. Paul tells us that although all things may be lawful not all things are as they are designed to be. Constitutionally there is a place for same sex, but this doesn't define morals.
BTW option 3 in the poll is against CF rules
Upvote
0
SoldierOfTheKing
Christian Spenglerian
- Jan 6, 2006
- 9,230
- 3,041
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
Prior to 1962, homosexuality was a crime in all 50 states of the Union. There certainly was a way...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jul 25, 2005
- 10,509
- 7,068
- 62
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I agree that it is sexual sin, but even in 1962, the written law could not justify criminalizing sexual behavior between two consenting adults. Prevailing culture just didn't question it at that time. If a husband & wife invites a third consenting adult into their bed, it is still adultery to God, but it is out of the jurisdiction of the law.
Upvote
0
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
The person in charge would have to appoint a board. Until I could find someone.more suitable I could take the helm. Not that I am that good. But to be honest I don't like sectarianism and people would tend to appoint their denominations to the highest order. On my defense I do pray over every decision. And have been fasting since the new year and have no inclination of stopping any time soon. PrAyer would be key, it's about finding what God's heart is.
Upvote
0
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes and any theocracy would have to criminalize homosexuality. As well.as any other violations of the ten commands.
Upvote
0
- Jul 25, 2005
- 10,509
- 7,068
- 62
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
That was law with a little "L."
So, you think that it was reasonable that the Puritans punished the Anabaptists because the latter wouldn't get on the same page about "infant baptism is good; Believer's baptism is bad?"
Or was that just an "oopsey?"
If everyone was compelled to maintain the same doctrine (under threat of punishment), would the Believer's Baptism ever been considered?
How about Luther's 85 Theses?
How about the Pharisees who were offended at Jesus (while they waited for the "real" Messiah to show)?
The living, developing Church needs visionaries & trailblazers. Theocracies do not.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
infant baptism is from church tradition and apocrypha, so that does not count. I was talking about legislating what is in the canonized scripture. Apocrypha is not canon.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,226
- 19,070
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
We see accounts of the baptisms of whole households in Acts. Which suggests that infants were not excluded.
The idea that we could even agree on what to legislate for a theocracy is fairly clearly beyond optimistic.
Upvote
0
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
That may be the case that infants were not excluded. for children to make a public profession of baptism before walking or talking, is odd because you are assuming their faith. You don't know if they believe in Christ or not. Why baptize them. Isn't it strange to baptize an infant, for example, one that turns into a heathen later in life, no penitence, no remorse over sin, living in homosexual sin for example. And that baptism is supposed to give some eternal merit? No, it reminds me of matthew 23:16. Ritual that is not found in the Bible is just empty religion, with no merit. And a theocracy while it would support the merits of beneficial religion, feeding the homeless, taking care of the widow for example, it would not merit empty religion based on tradition alone.
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,226
- 19,070
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
This really isn't the place to rehash all the arguments for infant baptism (which can take several different directions). The point I was making was simply that Christians can argue in good faith for either position from the Scriptures, so the Scriptures do not provide enough to go on for a theocracy to mandate one or the other practice.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
well I am debating on another thread that public nudity is endorsed from scripture, so there are alot of arguments people can make from scripture. But not valid arguments, and they would need validation to be considered legally speaking in a theocracy.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
