• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

NC Marriage Amendment and President Obama

Discussion in 'Christian Philosophy & Ethics' started by Slaol121, May 15, 2012.

  1. Armistead14

    Armistead14 Newbie

    +49
    Baptist
    Married
    Better study the OT again, women were the property of the father or husband and basically had no legal rights, only in certain cases, death of a father or if they were royalty did they have some rights.

    It's only when we protect the rights of all people do we protect our own, even if we are in the minority.

    I see another fight brewing, much of it stemming from the hate speech of the NC pastor wanting to put gays in concentration camps to die out. Many churches are open to the public and with hate speech becoming a crime, if you welcome someone in from the public and then break the law.....trouble could be coming.

    Whatever Christians feel, the hate speech such as in NC is shameful, more shameful his entire church gave him a standing ovation this Sunday.....are we no better than the Taliban wanting prision and death for those we don't agree with, what of other sins, adultery, gossiping, etc....

    I live in NC and have been in many of these fundy churches over the past 25 years, if they had there way they would prefer christian theocracy over the constitution and bill of rights, if they could enforce theocratic law based on morals they would have no problem killing gays off in Gods name

    Our government enforces civil rights by secual law, nor morality based religion.
     
  2. WinBySurrender

    WinBySurrender Well-Known Member

    +144
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Republican
    Thanks for your input. I'll stick to the truth, however.
     
  3. Archivist

    Archivist Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,228
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Republican
    Of course at one time in America blacks and whites could marry anyone they wanted so long as they married someone of their own race. They had the same rights to marriage as anyone else.

    How?

    Such a contract can create certain rights, but it cannot create rights equal to marriage. For example, if many hospitals limit after-hour visiting rights to "family." The type of contract you described cannot create family rights.

    As I have said in other threads, I would oppose any effort to force any religious organization to perform a marriage that would violate the tenents of that organization, be it a church, mosque, temple, or synagogue. However we are discussing civil marriage, and there is no reason to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.
     
  4. Armistead14

    Armistead14 Newbie

    +49
    Baptist
    Married
    It's common knowledge the women was the property of the husband and father in biblical times, deemed so by Covenant Code in Exodus that includes a man's wife among his possessions... all her life she remains a minor.

    The wife does not inherit from her husband, nor daughters from their father, except when there is no male heir. A man had a right to sell his daughter. Women were excluded from the succession." Sons had all rights
    before the mother, only when they too young could the mother inherit part of his estate to raise the son.

    Even if a single women was raped, the rapist had to pay the father and marry the girl he raped and she had to stay with him for life.

    "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)


    The OT is full of codes and laws relating to women as the property of the father or husband, it's not that they weren't loved. Men under the cultural codes could take many wives and concubines as they could afford.

    This continued well until after Christ, even in the NT women could only be educated at home under the husband, were not allowed to speak, etc.
    However, it's clear God made one Covenant in the OT and a new one through Christ, yet men, even biblical men combined parts of both old and new to define the legal status of women.

    Sadly through Christian history the church has looked down upon women and limited their rights, with only secular law intervening to give them equal rights.

    Yes, once our morality and biblical codes for a past culture was the law, it was that same morality that deemed women as inferior and robbed them of civil rights. That's the danger now, spiritual codes of morality defining civil rights. Certainly no one has to like it, each to his own, but we're trending on dangerous ground when any one religious groups morality decides civil rights, rights are best decided by the constitution.

    I prefer it that way, that way I know if one day I'm in the minority my rights will be protected...y enforcing some of the old contract's provisions, and some of the new contract's stipulations, while ignoring many of the old and most of the new contract's aspects, they have in fact created a completely separate and totally illegitimate third contract. The treatment of women by the mainstream church is based almost solely on the provisions of the old contract which, of course, insures total domination by men resulting in the extreme deprivation of women in every aspect of their lives.
    The God who was party to the Old Testament / Contract, became the man Jesus who was party to the New Testament / Contract. It is, therefore, absolute truth that doctrines / provisions of Jesus redefine the old contract with the nation of Israel and those past doctrines are of no effect, being replaced or fulfilled by the new. To deny this is to deny the power and authority of the Holy Spirit which guided Jesus in the formation of this new contract and must be strongly considered in the light of this doctrinal certainty:



    By enforcing some of the old contract's provisions, and some of the new contract's stipulations, while ignoring many of the old and most of the new contract's aspects, they have in fact created a completely separate and totally illegitimate third contract. The treatment of women by the mainstream church is based almost solely on the provisions of the old contract which, of course, insures total domination by men resulting in the extreme deprivation of women in every aspect of their lives.
    The God who was party to the Old Testament / Contract, became the man Jesus who was party to the New Testament / Contract. It is, therefore, absolute truth that doctrines / provisions of Jesus redefine the old contract with the nation of Israel and those past doctrines are of no effect, being replaced or fulfilled by the new. To deny this is to deny the power and authority of the Holy Spirit which guided Jesus in the formation of this new contract and must be strongly considered in the light of this doctrinal certainty:


    By enforcing some of the old contract's provisions, and some of the new contract's stipulations, while ignoring many of the old and most of the new contract's aspects, they have in fact created a completely separate and totally illegitimate third contract. The treatment of women by the mainstream church is based almost solely on the provisions of the old contract which, of course, insures total domination by men resulting in the extreme deprivation of women in every aspect of their lives.
    The God who was party to the Old Testament / Contract, became the man Jesus who was party to the New Testament / Contract. It is, therefore, absolute truth that doctrines / provisions of Jesus redefine the old contract with the nation of Israel and those past doctrines are of no effect, being replaced or fulfilled by the new. To deny this is to deny the power and authority of the Holy Spirit which guided Jesus in the formation of this new contract and must be strongly considered in the light of this doctrinal certainty:
     
Loading...