Why do Christians accept adulterers' weddings but not same-sex weddings? (Baptist, God)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm thinking about the Christian bakers who refused to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings and the clerk who refused to issue the marriage certificate to a same-sex couple.
And what exactly is a sincerely held religious belief with regard to this topic?
Thanks and God bless.
Being that Mods. Have already stipulated that belief is cognizant and is a given.
That there is a God, And Jesus is the Holy one.
The question is against the mods. Rules.
"This is the Christianity forum, where we discuss issues about Christianity. Obviously, the existence of God/Jesus is a given in such discussions, so arguments against the existence of God are off topic in the Christianity forum. Please confine any such discussions to the main Religion & Spirituality forum."
Being that Mods. Have already stipulated that belief is cognizant and is a given.
That there is a God, And Jesus is the Holy one.
The question is against the mods. Rules.
"This is the Christianity forum, where we discuss issues about Christianity. Obviously, the existence of God/Jesus is a given in such discussions, so arguments against the existence of God are off topic in the Christianity forum. Please confine any such discussions to the main Religion & Spirituality forum."
As usual, you are totally confused. There is nothing in the post you cited that calls into question the existence of God or Jesus.
Fine, if they are willing to pay the price of breaking the law in locations it would be unlawful. I think the OP is asking are their bakers or florists who know that their customer is getting married under which is considered adultery but the bakers do not refuse to sell the cake?
Because even an adulterous marriage is still a marriage.
Because even an adulterous marriage is still a marriage.
So it is not the morality but the change in the definition of the word marriage that offends their deeply held religious beliefs? Serious question because now I am even more confused.
So it is not the morality but the change in the definition of the word marriage that offends their deeply held religious beliefs? Serious question because now I am even more confused.
Since God defined marriage when he created Adam and Eve...yes---that's marriage. It's not whatever we decide to make it.
Since God defined marriage when he created Adam and Eve...yes---that's marriage. It's not whatever we decide to make it.
So if governments replaced the word marriage with a new term, for everyone totally replacing the word marriage except of course what one could have in their church once they got a new term licence,, folks like those bakers would not refuse to bake the new term cake?
This makes it sound like the word rather than the union is what is sacred.
So if governments replaced the word marriage with a new term, for everyone totally replacing the word marriage except of course what one could have in their church once they got a new term licence,, folks like those bakers would not refuse to bake the new term cake?
This makes it sound like the word rather than the union is what is sacred.
By interpreting it their way, fundies get to keep on hating and discriminating against the LGBTQ with what they believe is their god's blessing.
By interpreting it their way, fundies get to keep on hating and discriminating against the LGBTQ with what they believe is their god's blessing.
Thanks TD but I am hoping for a more serious answer as I have heard several reasons other than the use of the word. Just like to know BF views as he posted it.
Originally posted by pinacled wrong,
there is no discrimination where the line is drawn in the definition of marriage.
Nothing even remotely legal about persecuting people for adhering to the definition of marriage only being between male, and female.
…the mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence. Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all transgressions. On the lips of the discerning, wisdom is found, but a rod is for the back of him who lacks understanding.…
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
can you tell me where in the bible a marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman? Sure, it talks about joining as one flesh between male and female, but it doesn't say any other arrangement is not allowed. In fact, one can think of the erotic description of ruth and naomi, as well as johnathan and david, that clearly the writers were aware of other sexual unions. Good grief, there was even incest described.
And then there is the plethora of concubines, slaves and multiple wives that apparently were a-ok and condoned. In fact, your god even told david that he would 'bless' him with that.
Where it concerns King David who committed adultery with Bathsheba and had a man killed for it...
But then God was not pleased. David repented.
The difference is that it is never praised. David repented.
It is a lie the possession of having slaves and concubines was never corrected.
If God said male and female right from the beginning (Genesis 1) that is what He said.
If you can be born of just a father without a mother then why was God crucified?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
