GBLTI Marriage - What's the worst that could happen?

[EddyMabo]

This is a perverse and intentional distortion of what is said. This is the sort of thing that gives Christians the idea that atheists have no morals

It isn't a distortion its a drawn out conclusion.

A group of people are unable to access the same service as everyone else based on something they can't change in a society which is multi-racial/ethnic/religious - the church supports the status quo - the status quo is that a particular group are less equal and free.

 

[pgp_protector]

Ah, thanks. That's mostly done away with surgically at birth here; and not talked about.

physical alteration doesn't change the genetic makeup of an inter-sexed person, so it's hardly done away with at birth, only covered up.

 

[razeontherock]

as for the bully comment, i am not taking it back.

i know exactly what some of the mainstream christians are doing over there in the usa.

You know, what the media tells you. You are not here. It's a big place!

or worse still, gay bullying simply do not exist ( and yes, i have seen users made that claim on this particular forums).

It would be silly to say it has never happened. What do you know about where it happens, and when? How many groups have you spoken with, telling you they are about to go do it? How many of those have you managed to dissuade from doing so?

The main reason it happens, is exactly the sort of thing I discuss with those on CF advancing the homosexual agenda. They should be intelligent enough to be able to put 2 + 2 together, but apparently they are not.

support g w bush

Uh, he is out of office, and has been for some time now.

and please, i am talking about christian general attitude towards the gay community.

There is NO SUCH THING. That's like trying to stereotype every homosexual. It's falsehood, outright.

so tell me, have you ever try to spoke up on those ungodly action by your fellow christians towards gay before?

There is no try. You either do, or do not. And I can be seen doing this very thing, on CF. Successfully. Why do you ask?

i do believe that we are called to hate the sin, but not the sinners? correct?

That does not happen w/o hating the sin. (Which is the hard part for me, until people start lying to me, which has happened A LOT lately)

 

[TrutherAU]

The Hidden Knowledge of Heterosexuality - henrymakow.com

Not Being Gay is Now a Crime - henrymakow.com

Society Blind to Psy War on Heterosexuals - henrymakow.com

Enjoy!!

 

[joey_downunder]

How ''the Illuminati'' manages to brought into those 3 different topics is very creative of the author. And here I thought it was more a spiritual/moral battle within sinful mankind.

 

[DesertScroll]

i choose option C which you left out! I wish greed to be spoken about more than homosexuality as I believe it is by far a bigger problem inside and outside the church. If as you say homosexuality is based upon greed then speaking against greed will be of greater benefit anyway as it will address both at once. however if perhaps in every media statement and every sermon where they mention homosexuality they instead just said sexual sin that would be an improvement. See once again why limit it to homosexuality. Do we not think it wrong if i was to go out and try and sleep with as many different women as possible? Once again by focusing on homosexuality we ignore sinful heterosexual side of things. So once again it is a unhealthy focus.

Heh, let me use your own words.

Do we not think it is wrong if I was to go out and try and sleep with as many different same sex people as possible? Once again by focusing on sinful heterosexual side of things we ignore the homosexual side of things.

The correct answer to the problem is greed and homosexuality should be spoken out against... because they are both sinful. Your own words rebuked you.

i still say i have no problem with gay marriage being legalised. If a person were to marry someone of the same sex and then later become christian well that could be difficult but no reason to ban it in the first place.

And so you are saying you have no problem with stumbling blocks.

"Sure, set that stumbling block up right over there... I don't care."

How can you speak out against sin, if you think it is fine?

Yes after several years of considering the matter and looking at scriptures I do believe it is wrong. Not because of the most typical passages people use to come to that conclusion. I believe everyone is entitled to voice their opinion. Do I believe in forcingthat opinion on others? No.

Opinion from faith = homosexuality is a sin.
Action of faith = homosexuality can be practiced.

If something is wrong, then it is objectively wrong. Homosexuality is evil, yet you want evil in your city/country/world? That's like saying abortion is murder, but I support your right to do it. If you really thought it was murder, you wouldn't allow it, no matter what another thought.

True love cannot embrace evil, it abhors it (Rom 12:9).

If one abhors (X) then one will speak out against (X) not embrace something that supports it. It would be impossible to embrace anything that had (X) in it.

Your trying to separate faith from action... you can't as the fruit will always show the tree. Actions reveal faith (Jam 2:18).

You are speaking with two different voices... and they don't come from the same place (Jam 3:11,12).

unless you are part of a baptist church that has broken away from the baptist union then yes they do sorry. This is what I meant when I said the church as a whole.

(A) All dogs bark.
(B)There is a dog that doesn't bark.

So either B isn't a dog or 'not all dogs bark'.

If one person/pastor/church speaks out against greed, then your claim is false. You can say the majority, but not the whole. My examples have shown the whole cannot be true.

Don't know if this is meant to be answered or if it is just for thought. yes I believe our light should fight against darkness. i believe mine does. i guess where we disagree is how to go about that. people are supposed to be able to look at christians and think Wow there is something different about them and I want to know about it. i let people know I am christian and I live by example. I don't believe being a light means making people live the way I say they should.

Making one live by the light is very, very different than living by light.

Living by light will mean everything you do or say conforms to the light (something we fall short of).

Making one live by light is even if the world disagrees, you fight for the light. Which we are commanded not to do as we show mercy (unlike the OT).


Living by the light means when your voice is heard it conforms to light. If the world agrees your light has shown. If it disagrees your light has shown. (One will always abhor evil). The light never changes.

What you are advocating is we alter our light, not let it shine, to conform to the world disagreeing. So your light is not shining out in darkness, but being hidden (Matt 5:15). Your faith says shine, your actions keep it hidden.

no need to respond. You have explained in a clearer way that we are in agreement. it was my point all along that the X was not the issue but rather where it was from.
i guess the only point of difference on this that remains is I believe it is possible for a person to lust after God by the spirit which would mean it is from God. You from what I can tell would not agree with that. of course a person may still err and it may not always be by the spirit.

No you didn't. You said if (X) was the same for both Jesus and those of 1 John 2:16, then it applied to both. Your quote:

it doesn't matter where his lust came from it is still lusting. So if lusting is wrong without question he sinned. if lusting is neither right or wrong then Jesus didn't sin. it really is that simple.

Notice the two bolds.

Where it came from was the issue.
It doesn't matter where his lust came from.

A and not A... a contradiction.


You still don't see it. I have given a Biblical response (2 Cor 7:10) and a logical response... we'll add in another, a linguistic response.


You are saying that no matter what, the word "epithumia" can always be related to lust. This is false, for the sake of argument (Biblical and logical) I kept it simple showing how the same word is not dependant upon the same meaning, but by where it came from.
Here it will be context. If you look in a good Greek lexicon under this word there will be a multiple sections. This particular word can have a good sense or a bad sense. Which is why the same Greek word has different English translations like "desire" "passionate" "longing" "lust".

If you were a student and tried to translate every instance of "epithumia" with the English word lust... you would not get a very good grade.

Let me give you a better example. Take the word "apollumi".

In Matt 2:13 Herod is going to search for the Child of Jesus to destroy (apollumi) Him.
In Luke 15:8,9 a woman rejoices over a coin which was lost (apollumi) and then found.

If you tried to translate "a coin which was destroyed and then found" your grade would not be very good.

Point being same Greek word, different contexts, different English words to convey the meaning.


So Biblically, logically, and linguistically Jesus can be epithumia, and have no connection to the epithumia in 1 John 2:16. Your analysis is false.

So to bring it back to 1 John 2:15,16 the lust of the world, the lust of the flesh, etc... is not from God, but from the world and is evil. And if it is evil you as a Christian should let your light shine into darkness, not hide it under a blanket. You should speak out against it as you would any sin, not embrace its spread.

 

[TrutherAU]

How ''the Illuminati'' manages to brought into those 3 different topics is very creative of the author. And here I thought it was more a spiritual/moral battle within sinful mankind.

Seems your learning then!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Homosexuality is evil

Really? It's gone from being a sin to being evil? Would you care to support that view?

Here it will be context.

I'd be interested to know which of the biblical passages you think support your views against homosexuality remain valid when read in context. It's usually the first thing that goes out of the window!

 

[Born to Watch]

Heh, let me use your own words.

Do we not think it is wrong if I was to go out and try and sleep with as many different same sex people as possible? Once again by focusing on sinful heterosexual side of things we ignore the homosexual side of things.

The correct answer to the problem is greed and homosexuality should be spoken out against... because they are both sinful. Your own words rebuked you.




And so you are saying you have no problem with stumbling blocks.

"Sure, set that stumbling block up right over there... I don't care."

How can you speak out against sin, if you think it is fine?



Opinion from faith = homosexuality is a sin.
Action of faith = homosexuality can be practiced.

If something is wrong, then it is objectively wrong. Homosexuality is evil, yet you want evil in your city/country/world? That's like saying abortion is murder, but I support your right to do it. If you really thought it was murder, you wouldn't allow it, no matter what another thought.

True love cannot embrace evil, it abhors it (Rom 12:9).

If one abhors (X) then one will speak out against (X) not embrace something that supports it. It would be impossible to embrace anything that had (X) in it.

Your trying to separate faith from action... you can't as the fruit will always show the tree. Actions reveal faith (Jam 2:18).

You are speaking with two different voices... and they don't come from the same place (Jam 3:11,12).

(A) All dogs bark.
(B)There is a dog that doesn't bark.

So either B isn't a dog or 'not all dogs bark'.

If one person/pastor/church speaks out against greed, then your claim is false. You can say the majority, but not the whole. My examples have shown the whole cannot be true.


Making one live by the light is very, very different than living by light.

Living by light will mean everything you do or say conforms to the light (something we fall short of).

Making one live by light is even if the world disagrees, you fight for the light. Which we are commanded not to do as we show mercy (unlike the OT).


Living by the light means when your voice is heard it conforms to light. If the world agrees your light has shown. If it disagrees your light has shown. (One will always abhor evil). The light never changes.

What you are advocating is we alter our light, not let it shine, to conform to the world disagreeing. So your light is not shining out in darkness, but being hidden (Matt 5:15). Your faith says shine, your actions keep it hidden.



No you didn't. You said if (X) was the same for both Jesus and those of 1 John 2:16, then it applied to both. Your quote:


Notice the two bolds.

Where it came from was the issue.
It doesn't matter where his lust came from.

A and not A... a contradiction.


You still don't see it. I have given a Biblical response (2 Cor 7:10) and a logical response... we'll add in another, a linguistic response.


You are saying that no matter what, the word "epithumia" can always be related to lust. This is false, for the sake of argument (Biblical and logical) I kept it simple showing how the same word is not dependant upon the same meaning, but by where it came from.
Here it will be context. If you look in a good Greek lexicon under this word there will be a multiple sections. This particular word can have a good sense or a bad sense. Which is why the same Greek word has different English translations like "desire" "passionate" "longing" "lust".

If you were a student and tried to translate every instance of "epithumia" with the English word lust... you would not get a very good grade.

Let me give you a better example. Take the word "apollumi".

In Matt 2:13 Herod is going to search for the Child of Jesus to destroy (apollumi) Him.
In Luke 15:8,9 a woman rejoices over a coin which was lost (apollumi) and then found.

If you tried to translate "a coin which was destroyed and then found" your grade would not be very good.

Point being same Greek word, different contexts, different English words to convey the meaning.


So Biblically, logically, and linguistically Jesus can be epithumia, and have no connection to the epithumia in 1 John 2:16. Your analysis is false.

So to bring it back to 1 John 2:15,16 the lust of the world, the lust of the flesh, etc... is not from God, but from the world and is evil. And if it is evil you as a Christian should let your light shine into darkness, not hide it under a blanket. You should speak out against it as you would any sin, not embrace its spread.

I think Dags point is valid, we are of the world but not in it.
Your theology boarders on Dominionism. Its not our place to make demands or judge the worlds sin.
We can acknowledge the sin and contend it, but we cant stop it.
It has to be part of Gods plan if He is sovereign. Our job is protecting the church, calling those chosen out of the world. We let our light shine into darkness, cos its dark.
We are not conforming to the fallen world, just allowing its pre determined failure to come about through sin. Homosexuality, promiscuity or heterosexual perversion, lies whatever.
Let God be God

I disagree with Gay unions being called marriage.

I cant stop choice, I have no mandate. If God wanted Christians to dominate the world, we would.

 

[TheDag]

Heh, let me use your own words.

Do we not think it is wrong if I was to go out and try and sleep with as many different same sex people as possible? Once again by focusing on sinful heterosexual side of things we ignore the homosexual side of things.

The correct answer to the problem is greed and homosexuality should be spoken out against... because they are both sinful. Your own words rebuked you.

no my words do not condemn me unless they also condemn you. What you said here is what i said. I said both should be spoken against. With such an error in understanding I'm not sure I should continue the discussion. it could just lead to a whole lot of angst.

 

[TrutherAU]

We are not conforming to the fallen world, just allowing its pre determined failure to come about through sin. Homosexuality, promiscuity or heterosexual perversion, lies whatever.
Let God be God

Mainstream christianity is conforming to the world though, Religions are tax exempt organisations they know which side of daulity their bread is buttered on.

 

[Born to Watch]

Not every church is mainstream, not every Christian conforms to the world.

The bible promises a rising of the lukewarm church, is this not Gods will? Is this not what we hold out for?

 

[TrutherAU]

Is this not what we hold out for?

Religious leaders imposters, most simply love power most simply wish to have power over others!.
As for flock the reasons are varied however i would say its mainly parents that want control over their kids and people whom see attending church as a good way to socially network atleast as good as any other club!.

 

[Grace51]

You know, what the media tells you. You are not here. It's a big place!



It would be silly to say it has never happened. What do you know about where it happens, and when? How many groups have you spoken with, telling you they are about to go do it? How many of those have you managed to dissuade from doing so?

The main reason it happens, is exactly the sort of thing I discuss with those on CF advancing the homosexual agenda. They should be intelligent enough to be able to put 2 + 2 together, but apparently they are not.



Uh, he is out of office, and has been for some time now.



There is NO SUCH THING. That's like trying to stereotype every homosexual. It's falsehood, outright.



There is no try. You either do, or do not. And I can be seen doing this very thing, on CF. Successfully. Why do you ask?



That does not happen w/o hating the sin. (Which is the hard part for me, until people start lying to me, which has happened A LOT lately)

ok for the gay bullying comment it is backed up by researchs, i dont have time right now it is 11 35 pm local time, but i'll get back to you.

as for the rest, you statements speaks for themselve.

well done.

 

[TheDag]

Not every church is mainstream, not every Christian conforms to the world.

The bible promises a rising of the lukewarm church, is this not Gods will? Is this not what we hold out for?

Not me. i don't want to be alive when the end times hit!

 

[DesertScroll]

Really? It's gone from being a sin to being evil? Would you care to support that view?

Sin is evil.

Everything is judged in relation to God. It is either good or evil and its been described as such from the first people (Gen 2:16,17). Sinning is practicing evil.

"Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God." 3 John 1:11

I'd be interested to know which of the biblical passages you think support your views against homosexuality remain valid when read in context. It's usually the first thing that goes out of the window!

Sure.

-Gen Gen 1:27 and Matt 19:4 God created them male and feamle.

To be honest that is all one needs, as to get from male and female to anything else requires corruption (sin). Something must go wrong in order for homosexuality to exist; it needs sin to be. In a perfect world, homosexuality could not exist.

-Rom 1:20-32. Since creation reveals God (v20) there is no excuse, both for homosexuality as well as who God is. In violating who God is (v23) God gave them over to their lusts of the hearts (v24) which ended up in degrading passions in regards to their women (v26) and for men with men (v27). The natural (God's created intent) versus the unnatural (people's degrading intent).

- For Paul's words against homosexuality one needs first the OT and the Law. Lev 18:22 says "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

The LXX (Greek translation of Paul's day) uses the words 'apsenos' [male] and 'koiten' [lie,bed]. Paul coined a new word 'arsenokoites" (the combination of both words used in the LXX) and used it in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. Both condemn the practice.


But as I said, the first one is what I use the most. There is no ambiguity and it also shows that no matter what belief system it is impossible for homosexuality to be objectively good and still be logically sound, because it needs corruption. And if one goes subjective in order to make it 'good' one loses any objective morality. It is impossible to defend.

Which is why, because of creation, no one has an excuse.

 

[DesertScroll]

I think Dags point is valid, we are of the world but not in it.
Your theology boarders on Dominionism. Its not our place to make demands or judge the worlds sin.
We can acknowledge the sin and contend it, but we cant stop it.
It has to be part of Gods plan if He is sovereign. Our job is protecting the church, calling those chosen out of the world. We let our light shine into darkness, cos its dark.
We are not conforming to the fallen world, just allowing its pre determined failure to come about through sin. Homosexuality, promiscuity or heterosexual perversion, lies whatever.
Let God be God

I disagree with Gay unions being called marriage.

I cant stop choice, I have no mandate. If God wanted Christians to dominate the world, we would.

I can agree with almost all of what you wrote. But that is not what Dag wrote.

As Chrsitians we always stand for truth. And that truth is Jesus and what He commanded. And our actions are supposed to reflect that faith (summation of a section of my last post).

If a governent agrees with what we proclaim, fine. We still proclaim the same truth.
If a government does not agree with what we proclaim, fine. We still proclaim the same truth.

So we proclaim truth and see what God is doing in the world. And either way we say amen, because God is working towards a goal (Rom 13:1 Dan 4:17,25,32).
If there is any enforcement it comes from government, not the church (who does have the sword Rom 13:1-4).

The point is one does not change the truth proclaimed based upon whether or not society accepts it. What you proclaim never changes. The fruit will match the tree it comes from.


There is no dominionism teaching from me. I don't believe one can give to Caesar that which is God's (Matt 22:21). I keep my view of government very narrow (Rom 13:1-4) and hence what is Caesar's very narrow.


The part I disagree with:

Its not our place to make demands or judge the worlds sin

It depends upon which sense of judge you are referring to. If it is in the sense of throwing stones, i concur.
If it is in the sense of saying sin no more, I disagree. We are to do the latter as not only Matt 7:16 and Luke 6:36-42 show, but also the great commission (Matt 28:19,20) and many other scriptures about exposing lies through God's word. In order to repent, one has to know there is something to repent over.

In proclaiming Jesus, one is proclaiming truth (John 14:6). One cannot embrace a lie and the truth at the same time... that's a contradiction (as well as a stumbling block).

So you can't stop choice, but you can say it is evil.

 

[DesertScroll]

no my words do not condemn me unless they also condemn you. What you said here is what i said. I said both should be spoken against. With such an error in understanding I'm not sure I should continue the discussion. it could just lead to a whole lot of angst.

What you did was make a statement that was too strong... and so condemned yourself. Focusing on homosexuality at a point in time does not take away from talking about other sins at different times. That isn't an error in understanding, but a pointing out of a flaw in your argument.
That doesn't condemn me, I have already stated all sin can and should be talked about, regardless of the society. I just know it doesn't mean all have to be talked about at the same time (the error that made your comment too strong).


Go back and read your arguments, you have changed them in order to meet objections. Some points you have totally dropped (including almost all of the last post).

That should tell you something.

If you wish to respond, either completely reframe your argument or go back and respond to the objections made against your position. You never answered them.

 

[MissIndigo]

No, that's a Catholic idea. Unconsummated marriages may be dissolved by the Pope. Consummation has no bearing in law.

You are somewhat right.

I wasn't referring to Catholic law but English common law. Refusal or inability to consummate marriage can be considered grounds to void a marriage but not an automatic voiding of the marriage contract or the legal "start" of a marriage.

Even though our common law originated from Christian law (read in law history ) it has since evolved into the current fairly secular but still Christian in spirit law, so I do try to refer back to common law as a reference and rule of thumb, since if I'm not wrong there isn't technically a Christian country ruled by a Christian ruler with Christian law, etc etc like Saudi Arabia (Muslim) - at least not that I know of.


Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

-Rom 1:20-32. Since creation reveals God (v20) there is no excuse, both for homosexuality as well as who God is. In violating who God is (v23) God gave them over to their lusts of the hearts (v24) which ended up in degrading passions in regards to their women (v26) and for men with men (v27). The natural (God's created intent) versus the unnatural (people's degrading intent).

- For Paul's words against homosexuality one needs first the OT and the Law. Lev 18:22 says "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Both being perfect examples of context being thrown out. And Leviticus is linguistically obscure, too. Ah well, I wasn't really expecting anything else .