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.
When you read the text of the Bible, can you separate within the text from, what God would have His people do, from what the Government would have them do?
Fair point. A lot of ancient (and some modern) religions were used by their respective governments to control the masses, from the Far East, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, Egypt, Rome, Israel, many of the so called Christian kingdoms, and elsewhere. This is partly why the messages of Confucius, Jesus and Mohammad resonated so much with the people, and why existing governments initially tried to stamp them out before eventually turning them to their advantage. Any time you rely on others to interpret these texts for you there is great risk that the message will be twisted and perverted to the advantage of those in power.
When you read the text of the Bible, can you separate within the text from, what God would have His people do, from what the Government would have them do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppyHeel
Fair point. A lot of ancient (and some modern) religions were used by their respective governments to control the masses, from the Far East, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, Egypt, Rome, Israel, many of the so called Christian kingdoms, and elsewhere. This is partly why the messages of Confucius, Jesus and Mohammad resonated so much with the people, and why existing governments initially tried to stamp them out before eventually turning them to their advantage. Any time you rely on others to interpret these texts for you there is great risk that the message will be twisted and perverted to the advantage of those in power.
Which is where you have (sometime around 500 a.c.) Martin Luther, who said he was called by God to be a monk, the Church on the other hand thought differently --- where you speak of God's law in the Old Testament, it is man's interpretation of God's law.
It is not until later we philosophy what God would have us do, vs, what man would have us do.
It is of the wedding planer's conscience, not to provide said service. And those that would call that bigotry. which is where I came in --- that is a door that swings both ways as accusations go.
I fear you are purposely being obtuse here. Whatever helps you sleep at night, eh? Jesus was railing against much of the Old Testament with his teachings. Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody, or allowing slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave or having the town stone her to death if she has premarital sex. Totally contrary to Jesus’ true message of love, acceptance and inclusion.
Deflection never did pose a good argument. Jesus changed the course of many Old Testament writings, but not the one concerning marriage.
"4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder".........which is a direct quote from the Old Testament. He must thought it fairly important to re-emphasize its application.
Quote:
As I said, you are being testing to correctly apply the moral reasoning of his message, so things such as kidnapping and pedophilia can be rightly opposed without needing a “New Testament for Dummies” edition that has to specifically include something on the bad or good list.
Exactly. The same applies to his instructions on marriage.
Quote:
God gave you a brain and expects you to use it.
Obviously we don't share any common ground on the subject and that's ok. We won't be the first to have a difference of opinion.
Here is the bottom line. These business owners as well as others cannot support same sex marriages because they believe it contrary to the teachings of Jesus as we have discussed and therefore to their religious beliefs. They are not saying same sex couples cannot marry, they are simply saying go to a venue which does support the ceremony instead of trampling their right to freedom of religion by attempting to force them to comply with lawsuits or trying to close their business. If you can understand they don't arrive at these decisions for the nefarious reasons you accuse, that may prove a more realistic view. If not, then I guess you will continue with your accusations, and I will continue proposing religious freedom.
Deflection never did pose a good argument. Jesus changed the course of many Old Testament writings, but not the one concerning marriage.
"4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder".........which is a direct quote from the Old Testament. He must thought it fairly important to re-emphasize its application.Exactly. The same applies to his instructions on marriage.
Obviously we don't share any common ground on the subject and that's ok. We won't be the first to have a difference of opinion.
Here is the bottom line. These business owners as well as others cannot support same sex marriages because they believe it contrary to the teachings of Jesus as we have discussed and therefore to their religious beliefs. They are not saying same sex couples cannot marry, they are simply saying go to a venue which does support the ceremony instead of trampling their right to freedom of religion by attempting to force them to comply with lawsuits or trying to close their business. If you can understand they don't arrive at these decisions for the nefarious reasons you accuse, that may prove a more realistic view. If not, then I guess you will continue with your accusations, and I will continue proposing religious freedom.
I don't get that vibe from this couple --- maybe the one of the baker situation, but this couple's agenda is to change an anti-discrimination law, from the State's legislature --- doing this, by making their encounter made public. (did a bit of research and read a few more articles)
Okay so say they get that changed --- say the gay couple or a gay couple open a business and decide not to serve a particular group, they can't, they tied their hands and bind them to a law. That's how that works. (where do my rights end and yours begin?) If we didn't call upon legislature every time we have an issue, we would have more freedom of choice.
I see AppyHeel's (I found an excerpt of one of those books they cited) side of things though. I envision a time where, the people do not see man or woman or race or class --- all are equal in their eyes as the day we enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
That which is flesh, is flesh. That which is spirit is spirit --- neither those two should be seen as one. But one in the Spirit.
If you don't understand that which I speak of the flesh, how can you then understand when I speak of the Spirit --- ? His words, not verbatim (cause I'm lazy and I don't want to look that up)
Marriage is a government construct --- marriage to whom is decided like Martin Luther decided to be a monk --- it is between them and God. That is what it means to have a personal relationship with God and that is what scared the Church --- man being guided by their conscience.
Christianity was a philosophy before it became a religion --- I don't remember who said that, but I do believe it to be true if you look at history and how the Book was created. (Bible Research, is a good place for research into that and it was 70 Septuagint, not 7 as I originally thought and that story is a legend; can't be confirmed, but then I'm OT)
My point is we should be careful what laws we bind ourselves to --- in that doing so we give up our freedoms, but then bind ourselves to law.
I don't get that vibe from this couple --- maybe the one of the baker situation, but this couple's agenda is to change an anti-discrimination law, from the State's legislature --- doing this, by making their encounter made public. (did a bit of research and read a few more articles)
Okay so say they get that changed --- say the gay couple or a gay couple open a business and decide not to serve a particular group, they can't, they tied their hands and bind them to a law. That's how that works. (where do my rights end and yours begin?) If we didn't call upon legislature every time we have an issue, we would have more freedom of choice.
I see AppyHeel's (I found an excerpt of one of those books they cited) side of things though. I envision a time where, the people do not see man or woman or race or class --- all are equal in their eyes as the day we enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
That which is flesh, is flesh. That which is spirit is spirit --- neither those two should be seen as one. But one in the Spirit.
If you don't understand that which I speak of the flesh, how can you then understand when I speak of the Spirit --- ? His words, not verbatim (cause I'm lazy and I don't want to look that up)
Marriage is a government construct --- marriage to whom is decided like Martin Luther decided to be a monk --- it is between them and God. That is what it means to have a personal relationship with God and that is what scared the Church --- man being guided by their conscience.
Christianity was a philosophy before it became a religion --- I don't remember who said that, but I do believe it to be true if you look at history and how the Book was created. (Bible Research, is a good place for research into that and it was 70 Septuagint, not 7 as I originally thought and that story is a legend; can't be confirmed, but then I'm OT)
My point is we should be careful what laws we bind ourselves to --- in that doing so we give up our freedoms, but then bind ourselves to law.
Hmmm. So your point is the gay couple shouldn’t support changes to law to make discrimination against them illegal because they may find themselves subject to similar laws?. Ok. So that means Christians should support removing all the laws the forbid discrimination based on religion. If I don’t like Christian beliefs and find them disgusting, I should be able to refuse service to Christians and not be breaking the law. Right?
Either Christians should be willing to give up the protections they enjoy or they should be willing to extend those same protections to others. Can’t have it both ways.
Hmmm. So your point is the gay couple shouldn’t support changes to law to make discrimination against them illegal because they may find themselves subject to similar laws?. Ok. So that means Christians should support removing all the laws the forbid discrimination based on religion. If I don’t like Christian beliefs and find them disgusting, I should be able to refuse service to Christians and not be breaking the law. Right?
Either Christians should be willing to give up the protections they enjoy or they should be willing to extend those same protections to others. Can’t have it both ways.
People like to boss each other around ---- we should be careful what laws we bind ourselves to --- in that doing so we give up our freedoms, but then bind ourselves to law.
People like to boss each other around ---- we should be careful what laws we bind ourselves to --- in that doing so we give up our freedoms, but then bind ourselves to law.
That’s a non answer if I ever heard one. Christians are the first ones to cry foul if they think their religion is being questioned or attacked. They would never stand for losing their protections. But they’re just fine with denying those same protections to other people. Hypocrisy at its finest.
People like to boss each other around ---- we should be careful what laws we bind ourselves to --- in that doing so we give up our freedoms, but then bind ourselves to law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me
That’s a non answer if I ever heard one. Christians are the first ones to cry foul if they think their religion is being questioned or attacked. They would never stand for losing their protections. But they’re just fine with denying those same protections to other people. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Wedding venues are for couples to get married, e.g. a man & a woman.
There's no such thing as a marriage between two women or two men, therefore there's no point in gay couples attempting to go to a wedding venue.
If the gays want to create their own unique union ceremony of sorts and do so at their own venues or private locations, then fair enough. But marriage is only between a man and a woman and that will never change, regardless of what the government or anyone else says.
The gays who want to get "married" are typically of the spiteful variety who only want to do so to stick a thorn in the eye of Christians or heterosexual people. Considering the rampant promiscuity in the gay community, the idea of them getting married is like a sick joke or something.
Some good points above; straight men don't tend to have as much public nightclub bathroom-stall sex as gays, that's true. There are however, lesbian and gay couples, who practice Christianity, and don't want marriage as a spite towards conservative Christians. I assume Reformed Jews may do the same? Whether God considers them married or not, isn't for me to decide. I suppose Civil Unions would have been less contentious, but it has already been decided by secular Law.
Either. They expect their beliefs and way of life to be championed by the law because they’re a protected class. And yet, they are fine with denying other people the same protections. How do they justified their hypocrisy? From what I can tell, many just don’t care. It’s baffling given they also like to pretend to be all about love and acceptance. Just not for anyone that’s different than them. (I do not include all Christians in this statement. Just the narrow minded bigoted ones who refuse to allow for the importance of any beliefs other than their own.)
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.
