Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dancer67

Can you be a Christian and still

Recommended Posts

Hi, Shawna.

 

I don't know if this was in response to me.

 

If it was, I'm not making my case well.

 

(I'm tired. It's a bad excuse, and I really need to leave this thread. I meant to, but I needed to reply to HistoryMom because I may have invoked her name erroneously. :)

 

IMHO

 

The word "marriage" should be for all legal unions, Christian, Jewish, Atheist (including me), etc.

 

If Christian (I'm sure some other religious people too, but I've only heard from Christians on this point, I believe) people want to distinguish their religious union as different from "a legal union that also includes gays" the onus should be upon them to create their own word, meaningful to their religion--rather than taking the word "marriage" for their own and requiring everyone else to create a new word.

 

I was agreeing with you. Just trying to help them with a name. :001_smile:

 

Because I'm an atheist. And I'm Married. I have a certificate to prove it. :tongue_smilie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was agreeing with you. Just trying to help them with a name. :001_smile:

 

Because I'm an atheist. And I'm Married. I have a certificate to prove it. :tongue_smilie:

 

Gotcha! :lol:

I'm getting slap-happy.

 

g'night!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One issue for plural marriages. Insurance. Would my husband's employer be required to offer insurance for all his wives and their kids if he were to have many wives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One issue for plural marriages. Insurance. Would my husband's employer be required to offer insurance for all his wives and their kids if he were to have many wives?

 

Sure, but it's probably cost prohibitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would ANY couple choose to belong to ANY organization that refused to recognize their freedom to marry?

 

I am friends with a lesbian couple who have joint conservatorship, with right to establish primary residence, (known alternatively as primary custody) of young children of one of the women (previous heterosexual marriage).

 

They both believe in Jesus, and wish to bring the children up in a traditional church setting.

 

They attend church at a place where they can't come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One issue for plural marriages. Insurance. Would my husband's employer be required to offer insurance for all his wives and their kids if he were to have many wives?

 

Employers are not *required* to offer it now, to you. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am friends with a lesbian couple who have joint conservatorship, with right to establish primary residence, (known alternatively as primary custody) of young children of one of the women (previous heterosexual marriage).

 

They both believe in Jesus, and wish to bring the children up in a traditional church setting.

 

They attend church at a place where they can't come out.

 

It just makes me sad that the two are seen as being mutually exclusive, I guess.

 

I watched a good friend fight with himself for years before he came to a place where he could reconcile his love of Christ and living with himself as a gay man. He is married (well, as married as he can be in Minnesota) to a wonderful man and they are happy and living the same Christian life he was living before he came to terms with himself-- only without the daily crying fest begging God to please take it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Employers are not *required* to offer it now, to you. ;)

 

 

I was going to say this, and you beat me to it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was married by a JP in the state of FL. I have a piece of paper that is called a "Marriage Certificate" and a state record called a "Marriage Record of the State of Florida". I do believe that the state of FL and therefore the United States considers me married. I would say that I am married. I was not married in a church by a religious offical nor do I need the blessing of a religious organization to be legally married. In America, married is a legal state not a religious one. I see no reason why this right can not be extended to homosexual couples. It in no way effect someone else's religious marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't listen to anyone's interpretation. One is our Leader, Teacher and Mediator. I have a lot of Christians and non-Christians alike calling me stiff-necked because I will not ever submit to authority other than Christ. NEVER NEVER. I don't care what their claim.

 

The Spirit has been changing my viewpoint on a great many things and this is one of them. As long as I stay away from man's wisdom, whether my own or someone else's I fair much better.

 

As for those that argue about this and that scripture and telling others that they are not interpreting them correctly, and telling me that I need to learn from them... yada, yada... I have this to say:

 

You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to Christ! Yet you refuse to come to Him to receive this life. Your approval means nothing to me, because I know you don’t have God’s love within you. --John 5:39

:iagree:I'll throw a little Jude 4 and 10. Some James 5:19-20, 2Peter 3:15-17, and finally 2John 1 and 2 :p

I'll try and help...this is a tough subject, but biblically, it is very clear how we should respond.

If we judge with an evil heart or dark intent, His judgment of us will reflect it; if we judge nobly with honesty and justice, His judgment of us will reflect that, too, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [if we use extremes or exaggerations or other ignoble means, our judgment will reflect it and judging with fairness and compassion will garner likewise in His judgment of us]. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye [point out his sins, "minor" in Jesus' example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not admit, magnified by our selective blindness...

 

This explains the 'judge not lest ye be judged'...God calls us to judge!! But he calls us to do it with honesty, justice and nobly...reflecting His will not our own.

 

I have had gay friends, but they know that I can not condone their lifestyle and that is where they have the problem. I will continue to love them through their sin...but they want me to accept/condone/or even promote their lifestyle...I serve my God not the desires of man. I would do the same for a friend who is committing adultery or other sin. It is our responsibility to help our fallen brothers/sisters in Christ see their sin and pray for them to be seeking Him not the sin. (James 5:19-20)

 

I have never ended a friendship with a gay person, but they choose not to pursue a deeper one with me because then they would have many questions to face that many do not want to. I have never rejected anyone for their sin, struggling with that right now b/c I have a family issue where my mom is being criminally harassed and when you see your family hurt, it's hard not to want to cut those people from your 'friend/family list'...my heart is heavily burdened in such situations, but I honestly do not think if they sought me out I could refuse anyone...but will I seek them out (those that have harmed my family)..probably not.

 

Hope this helps

:hurray:

They can have Barney the Dinosaur officiate their wedding for all I care.

 

Believe it or not Bill, it is statements like yours that keep the argument going. For people like you it is not enough for a Christian to say "hey, you same-sex couples want to bind yourselves legally together, go for it."

 

No. You ALSO want all Christians to say that homosexual behavior is normal, natural, beautiful and God approves. Well it isn't going to happen and it is not fair of you to ask us to chuck our deeply held religious beliefs out the window.

 

I am willing to concede and have a live and let live attitude about civil unions. That will have to be enough because that is all you are getting out of me. I will not throw away my religious beliefs because they offend you.

:iagree:Colossians 2:8, Jude... :lol: All of it, but 10's a good spot.

 

:grouphug:

 

Jesus fulfilled the Ten Commandments, and so the prohibition against covetousness is no longer binding?

 

Jesus spoke against divorce himself, right? Or at least against remarriage. So that's not solely a Levitical law. And yet Christian churches preside over remarriages all the time.

 

The passage that declares homosexuality "an abomination" is in Leviticus. I hear anti-gay Christians quote that specific phrase all the time, and yet you seem to want me to understand that Levitical laws have been fulfilled.

 

I don't know why I'm pursuing this, because it's come up here before (in a discussion about female ministers) and I have never, ever been able to make sense out of which Biblical laws are supposed to be "fulfilled" and which are supposed to be "God's eternal laws." There may be some sort of internal logic that fundamentalist Christians perceive, but from the outside it looks a h*ll of a lot more like y'all are picking and choosing the ones that suit you.

Sexual immorality is covered over and over and over again in the NT. The Mosaic laws were a matter of purity and cleansing for the flesh - we're not of the flesh, but of Spirit, the concern now isn't what goes into your mouth, but what comes out of it - , the commandments are still in play. While Christ has fulfilled the Law, it's not nullified. It's there to show us what sin is and we are to uphold it.

 

There are warnings again and again that there would be false teachings, Christ would be used as a license for immorality, teachers would come saying Christ was not God or that he didn't come in the flesh. Teachers would come and claim that he had already come back and was hidden somewhere. Teachers would come that would lead their flocks to follow the world, or their instincts, leading them away from following Christ. People would come that would twist Paul's letters in order to suit their own purposes. :shrug: It's not an issue with Christ. It's an issue with someone or something that claims to be Christian, but isn't.

 

The mystery of lawlessness had started then. It's no big surprise that it's prevalent now. However, Christians do have a duty to steer their brothers and sisters onto the right path. With so many false teachings out there, it's no surprise that so many have gone astray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In America, married is a legal state not a religious one. I see no reason why this right can not be extended to homosexual couples. It in no way effect someone else's religious marriage.

__________________

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

Someone who gets it:001_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:

:iagree:Colossians 2:8, Jude... :lol: All of it, but 10's a good spot.

 

I'll take human reason and kindness towards our brothers and sisters over using religion as an excuse to deny others their fundamental human rights any day of the week.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll take human reason and kindness towards our brothers and sister over using religion as an excuse to deny others their fundamental human rights any day of the week.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

 

Me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:iagree:I'll throw a little Jude 4 and 10. Some James 5:19-20, 2Peter 3:15-17, and finally 2John 1 and 2 :p

 

:hurray:

:iagree:Colossians 2:8, Jude... :lol: All of it, but 10's a good spot.

 

:grouphug:

 

 

Sexual immorality is covered over and over and over again in the NT. The Mosaic laws were a matter of purity and cleansing for the flesh - we're not of the flesh, but of Spirit, the concern now isn't what goes into your mouth, but what comes out of it - , the commandments are still in play. While Christ has fulfilled the Law, it's not nullified. It's there to show us what sin is and we are to uphold it.

 

There are warnings again and again that there would be false teachings, Christ would be used as a license for immorality, teachers would come saying Christ was not God or that he didn't come in the flesh. Teachers would come and claim that he had already come back and was hidden somewhere. Teachers would come that would lead their flocks to follow the world, or their instincts, leading them away from following Christ. People would come that would twist Paul's letters in order to suit their own purposes. :shrug: It's not an issue with Christ. It's an issue with someone or something that claims to be Christian, but isn't.

 

The mystery of lawlessness had started then. It's no big surprise that it's prevalent now. However, Christians do have a duty to steer their brothers and sisters onto the right path. With so many false teachings out there, it's no surprise that so many have gone astray.

 

:iagree:

Well put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One issue for plural marriages. Insurance. Would my husband's employer be required to offer insurance for all his wives and their kids if he were to have many wives?

 

I imagine that employers who did offer insurance to all spouses could find way to deal with that.

 

My husband's employer offers insurance for his family, including all children. But, the more people you have in your family, the more you kick in. We could, theoretically, have 15 children and his employer would, AFAIK, cover all of them. But we'd be paying a huge amount out of pocket because of the additional expenses incurred for each additional family member.

 

I think, though, that part of the issue is that we're talking about choices very few people would make, so the costs would not be a significant issue. Sure, my husband's insurance would cover those who have 15 kids, but so few people are choosing to have 15 kids that it's a non-issue. I imagine plural marriage would be the same thing. So few people would choose it that it would be pretty much a non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I imagine that employers who did offer insurance to all spouses could find way to deal with that.

 

My husband's employer offers insurance for his family, including all children. But, the more people you have in your family, the more you kick in. We could, theoretically, have 15 children and his employer would, AFAIK, cover all of them. But we'd be paying a huge amount out of pocket because of the additional expenses incurred for each additional family member.

 

I think, though, that part of the issue is that we're talking about choices very few people would make, so the costs would not be a significant issue. Sure, my husband's insurance would cover those who have 15 kids, but so few people are choosing to have 15 kids that it's a non-issue. I imagine plural marriage would be the same thing. So few people would choose it that it would be pretty much a non-issue.

 

See, ours has four options: employee, employee + spouse, employee + kids, and employee + spouse and kids. So we pay the same now, with 6 kids, that we did with 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! my internet connection has been down for a few days and I'm suprised that this is still going strong!! I was reading the Bible this morning and stumbled upon this verse while looking for something else. I immediately thought of this discussion so I thought I would post it and get your feelings.

 

It is the message that Jesus speaks to the angels of the seven churches in the book of Revelation, particularily to the church in Pergamum:

 

12"And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: 'The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.

13"'I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. 14But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. 15So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth. 17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.'

 

Jesus also mentions the tolerance of sexual immorality being a stain in his message to the church in Thyatira.

 

These passages really make me aware of the times in which we are living and the prominent world views of these times. "Can you be a Christian and still..." The answer to that question is not on this board but is with Him. As described to the seven churches "the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands"; "the first and the last who died and came to life"; "him who has the sharp two edged sword"; "the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are burnished bronze"; "him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars"; "the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens"; "the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation."

 

What I can say is seek him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow! my internet connection has been down for a few days and I'm suprised that this is still going strong!! I was reading the Bible this morning and stumbled upon this verse while looking for something else. I immediately thought of this discussion so I thought I would post it and get your feelings.

 

It is the message that Jesus speaks to the angels of the seven churches in the book of Revelation, particularily to the church in Pergamum:

 

12"And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: 'The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.

13"'I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. 14But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. 15So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth. 17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.'

 

Jesus also mentions the tolerance of sexual immorality being a stain in his message to the church in Thyatira.

 

These passages really make me aware of the times in which we are living and the prominent world views of these times. "Can you be a Christian and still..." The answer to that question is not on this board but is with Him. As described to the seven churches "the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands"; "the first and the last who died and came to life"; "him who has the sharp two edged sword"; "the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are burnished bronze"; "him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars"; "the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens"; "the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation."

 

What I can say is seek him.

 

 

 

We are discussing committed relationships between two people. No one is talking about everyone just sleeping around, fornication, prostitution, adultry or taking part in orgies.

 

There are many same sex couples who have been committed to one another for decades, this just seems insulting to them and really dismissive of their commitment to one another.

 

How can one compare ancient sex parties to relationships that have lasted 60 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are discussing committed relationships between two people. No one is talking about everyone just sleeping around, fornication, prostitution, adultry or taking part in orgies.

 

There are many same sex couples who have been committed to one another for decades, this just seems insulting to them and really dismissive of their commitment to one another.

 

How can one compare ancient sex parties to relationships that have lasted 60 years?

 

I tear up every time I see this image--the first two women to be married to one another in NY. 85 and 77 years old. One is in a wheelchair. They've been together for over 20 years.

 

They're just holding each other outside of the court house. You can see their emotion and how happy they are. They have such joy.

 

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-24/local/29831328_1_lesbian-couples-marriage-in-new-york-gay-marriage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tear up every time I see this image--the first two women to be married to one another in NY. 85 and 77 years old. One is in a wheelchair. They've been together for over 20 years.

 

They're just holding each other outside of the court house. You can see their emotion and how happy they are. They have such joy.

 

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-24/local/29831328_1_lesbian-couples-marriage-in-new-york-gay-marriage

 

It tears me up as well.

 

55 years!

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/06/17/MN8C11ACCD.DTL&object=%2Fc%2Fpictures%2F2008%2F06%2F16%2Fba-samesex17_0498643684.jpg&type=gaylesbian

 

To me, it is those people that are the heart of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tear up every time I see this image--the first two women to be married to one another in NY. 85 and 77 years old. One is in a wheelchair. They've been together for over 20 years.

 

They're just holding each other outside of the court house. You can see their emotion and how happy they are. They have such joy.

 

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-24/local/29831328_1_lesbian-couples-marriage-in-new-york-gay-marriage

 

Here's a PSA from an Irish marriage equality organization. It's very painful, but well worth watching.

 

A couple from my church were plaintiffs in a Maryland court case, suing for the right to marry. They've been together for more than 32 years and are now elderly. They'd like to be able to share pensions and health benefits, and they have concerns about being forced to separate if they must enter a nursing home.

 

It pains me that their loving longtime union is not given the same civil protections that, say, Larry King got from his seventh marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll take human reason and kindness towards our brothers and sisters over using religion as an excuse to deny others their fundamental human rights any day of the week.

 

Bill

Was this in response to the verses themselves, if so are you being ironic?

 

No. You ALSO want all Christians to say that homosexual behavior is normal, natural, beautiful and God approves. Well it isn't going to happen and it is not fair of you to ask us to chuck our deeply held religious beliefs out the window.

[snip]

I will not throw away my religious beliefs because they offend you.

This is what I was agreeing with, shrunk to the point. What I responded with where verses to shore Heather up, let her know that I agree and share with her where these sorts of teachings are to be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was this in response to the verses themselves, if so are you being ironic?

 

It is a response to Colossians 2:8 (KJV)

 

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

 

When religious texts urge men to put aside human reason it makes me very concerned. There is nothing ironic in my response.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a response to Colossians 2:8 (KJV)

 

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

 

When religious texts urge men to put aside human reason in makes me very concerned. There is nothing ironic in my response.

 

Bill

 

To me, it is more about philosophy itself and teachings of men, rather than that of God.

 

I don't think it is at all telling people to set aside human reason but that many philosophers deny God, and in their arrogance will rationalize through things.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with the discussion at hand but if it were to be pertinent then IMO it would mean that "don't listen to the heretics, they are trying to make you stumble." It's Bible quote shenanigans.

 

IMO it is an insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll take human reason and kindness towards our brothers and sisters over using religion as an excuse to deny others their fundamental human rights any day of the week.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: with this, irrespective of the post in which it was a response to.

 

Not everyone in our society follows Christianity. Not everyone gets married in a church, even religious people (I was married in my grandparents' house by my pastor great-uncle). It is not okay to make laws based upon *your* religion while *also* using the law of the land to protect your freedoms to practice your religion, homeschool, post on this board, etc.

 

To me, it is more about philosophy itself and teachings of men, rather than that of God.

 

I don't think it is at all telling people to set aside human reason but that many philosophers deny God, and in their arrogance will rationalize through things.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with the discussion at hand but if it were to be pertinent then IMO it would mean that "don't listen to the heretics, they are trying to make you stumble."

 

IMO it is an insult.

 

:iagree: For example, I think most people who believe in evolution do so on faith, not science because most of them I speak to know less about it than I do. They are rationalizing, not reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure you did I just wanted to call it

 

I am not one for subtleties. :lol:

 

We have a commonality of temperament :001_smile:

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me, it is more about philosophy itself and teachings of men, rather than that of God.

 

I don't think it is at all telling people to set aside human reason but that many philosophers deny God, and in their arrogance will rationalize through things.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with the discussion at hand but if it were to be pertinent then IMO it would mean that "don't listen to the heretics, they are trying to make you stumble." It's Bible quote shenanigans.

 

IMO it is an insult.

It could be taken that way, I guess. It was posted in response to someone I agreed with as a way of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:iagree: with this, irrespective of the post in which it was a response to.

 

Not everyone in our society follows Christianity. Not everyone gets married in a church, even religious people (I was married in my grandparents' house by my pastor great-uncle). It is not okay to make laws based upon *your* religion while *also* using the law of the land to protect your freedoms to practice your religion, homeschool, post on this board, etc.

 

 

 

:iagree: For example, I think most people who believe in evolution do so on faith, not science because most of them I speak to know less about it than I do. They are rationalizing, not reasoning.

:shrug: The quotes were about people trying to change what is taught at church to things that jive better with what is accepted by instinct or the teachings of the world. I can see how it could be insulting. It was in support of Heather's post saying that she would not change what she believed and doesn't think that churches should have to change what they believe because it doesn't accept what is being taught outside of the church today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It could be taken that way, I guess. It was posted in response to someone I agreed with as a way of support.

 

Your meaning is clear.

 

15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

 

What could you have meant by Jude 4 and 10 except as an insult?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:shrug: The quotes were about people trying to change what is taught at church to things that jive better with what is accepted by instinct or the teachings of the world. I can see how it could be insulting. It was in support of Heather's post saying that she would not change what she believed and doesn't think that churches should have to change what they believe because it doesn't accept what is being taught outside of the church today.

 

No one asked Heather (or any Church she may be affiliated with) to change their positions. What is asked is they not use their religious beliefs to trample other peoples basic human rights as enshrined in our Constitution.

 

Big difference.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are discussing committed relationships between two people. No one is talking about everyone just sleeping around, fornication, prostitution, adultry or taking part in orgies.

 

There are many same sex couples who have been committed to one another for decades, this just seems insulting to them and really dismissive of their commitment to one another.

 

How can one compare ancient sex parties to relationships that have lasted 60 years?

 

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned Romans 1 yet?

 

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

I post this because the OP was asking primarily about Christianity as it relates to homosexuality. Certainly it would be a different issue is it related to the secular world and homosexuality becuase Christans cannot hold the non-christian world to God's standard since God's righteousness cannot be achieved by our will power.

 

Also, longevity does not prove that something is good or correct. That is a flaw in logic and I'm sure you can think of many examples of things that have been going on for 60 years that are not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:shrug: The quotes were about people trying to change what is taught at church to things that jive better with what is accepted by instinct or the teachings of the world. I can see how it could be insulting. It was in support of Heather's post saying that she would not change what she believed and doesn't think that churches should have to change what they believe because it doesn't accept what is being taught outside of the church today.

 

And I agree with that, in theory, just not as it is being pushed here. Does that make sense?

 

No one asked Heather (or any Church she may be affiliated with) to change their positions. What is asked is they not use their religious beliefs to trample other peoples basic human rights as enshrined in our Constitution.

 

Big difference.

 

Bill

 

The fact is, marriage *is* a secular institutional in the USA. It's also a religious institution, I don't disagree with that. But, letting homosexuals be married does not prevent religious people from being married. Therefore, the idea that it tramples someone else's rights (which, was something posted by neither lion nor Heather, but a totally different self-described "libertarian" the other day on this board) is sort of silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned Romans 1 yet?

 

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

I post this because the OP was asking primarily about Christianity as it relates to homosexuality. Certainly it would be a different issue is it related to the secular world and homosexuality becuase Christans cannot hold the non-christian world to God's standard since God's righteousness cannot be achieved by our will power.

 

Also, longevity does not prove that something is good or correct. That is a flaw in logic and I'm sure you can think of many examples of things that have been going on for 60 years that are not good.

 

But Romans 1 says

 

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them

 

 

Which is not about Christians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They could get married in a church and have their marriage given religious blessing but choose not to have the marriage legally recognized.

What the hey :confused:

 

I'm pretty sure people who get married in a Church are not doing it for religious reasons only. Why on earth would you get married if you did not want it legally recognised - basically then you would be just be an unmarried couple living together :confused: You would be in the same position as homosexuals are now in - a wedding for show but no legal standing.

 

For what it's worth I am LDS and I was married in the temple by an officiate from our church. If I thought that my marriage had no legal standing then I wouldn't have been married in the temple -in fact nobody who was true LDS would do it either because we believe that a marriage must be recognised by the State as well as by God - otherwise you are not truely married and therefore would just basically be living together as an unmarried couple (something we heavily discourage).

 

We have LDS members in France (the example given by Ipsey). Those members have to follow the States laws when getting married. They have to be "married in the courthouse" FIRST to gain legal standing and THEN they can later be sealed together as a married couple in the temple. LDS do not believe that their "religious ceremony" trumps the State laws.

 

If the US State was suddenly to agree with Ipsey and announce that you had to be married by the State first to gain legal standing then that is what would happen. Legal standing is what is important here - LDS do not believe that their "ceremony" is the only way to be legally married :001_huh: If the State recognises it - then it's legal.

 

As the law stands now clergy can marry couples AND convey legal standing thus LDS can be married and then sealed in a temple ceremony. If the law was to change then LDS policy would change - couples would be required to marry outside the temple by State authorities to gain legal standing FIRST and then would just be "sealed" in the temple -not married - because they would already be married. Sealings can be done at any time -the result is the same. The married part can be done anywhere that allows it to be "legally recognised" whether that is in or out of the temple.

 

Not all LDS people get married in the Temple - the LDS church still recognises their marriage as having legal standing so long as it was done in accordance with the laws of the State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Romans 1 says

 

Well, and if you are claiming that it means if you cannot hang out with homosexu*ls and be Christian, then you must also avoid people like this:

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

 

So...good luck having friends.

 

We have LDS members in France (the example given by Ipsey). Those members have to follow the States laws when getting married. They have to be "married in the courthouse" FIRST to gain legal standing and THEN they can later be sealed together as a married couple in the temple. LDS do not believe that their "religious ceremony" trumps the State laws.

 

Right. When we lived in Germany people would go get married at the courthouse and then some of them would drive to the church for the church wedding. Everyone must have a civil marriage, then you choose whether you also want a religious marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your meaning is clear.

 

15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

 

What could you have meant by Jude 4 and 10 except as an insult?

It was meant as, "Heather, I agree with you and the Scripture does too."

No one asked Heather (or any Church she may be affiliated with) to change their positions. What is asked is they not use their religious beliefs to trample other peoples basic human rights as enshrined in our Constitution.

 

Big difference.

 

Bill

Uhuh, but I posted agreeing with Heather that what was being pushed was the idea that Christians saying that homosexual sex was a sin is hate and has to be gotten rid of, IE, the teachings needed to be changed to what is now commonly accepted. I see this in many posts in this thread where it is not how someone votes that is being attacked, but the belief they hold. As far as voting goes, I guess we're all supposed to vote what we believe is right.

And I agree with that, in theory, just not as it is being pushed here. Does that make sense?

 

If you're going to flog me do it, the suspense is killing me :lol: Bill and Sis were responding to verses I posted in response to Heather's post. So, I guess I'm pushing it here :lol:

 

The fact is, marriage *is* a secular institutional in the USA. It's also a religious institution, I don't disagree with that. But, letting homosexuals be married does not prevent religious people from being married. Therefore, the idea that it tramples someone else's rights (which, was something posted by neither lion nor Heather, but a totally different self-described "libertarian" the other day on this board) is sort of silly.

Sure, I see that. I think Heather and I are both concerned with how it goes from saying we must tolerate to we must accept. However, that fence (between how you vote, versus what you believe) keeps getting hopped. One moment belief is fine, as long as you vote according to whatever someone else believes, the next voting is just a surface issue and the root is the "hate" of the teaching.

 

Not disagreeing with you..... just trying to clarify where I'm at here.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned Romans 1 yet?

 

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

I post this because the OP was asking primarily about Christianity as it relates to homosexuality. Certainly it would be a different issue is it related to the secular world and homosexuality because Christans cannot hold the non-christian world to God's standard since God's righteousness cannot be achieved by our will power.

 

Also, longevity does not prove that something is good or correct. That is a flaw in logic and I'm sure you can think of many examples of things that have been going on for 60 years that are not good.

:iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I see that. I think Heather and I are both concerned with how it goes from saying we must tolerate to we must accept. However, that fence (between how you vote, versus what you believe) keeps getting hopped. One moment belief is fine, as long as you vote according to whatever someone else believes, the next voting is just a surface issue and the root is the "hate" of the teaching.

 

Not disagreeing with you..... just trying to clarify where I'm at here.

 

Ha! I'm not going to flog you. I know that you and I see eye to eye a lot and that you aren't on my...errr...bad list or my "I do not know this person" list.

 

I have conservative values for *myself*, but I think mostly people should be able to do what they want within reason as long as it isn't hurting anyone (this is where the arguments come in, whether it is hurting other people) because we aren't a theocracy. I don't think other people should be made to follow my values with regard to things like with whom they sleep or with whom they choose to build a life.

 

eta: Plus, as I said before, I have friends of all stripes. How can one be expected to influence other people if you don't know anyone outside of your faith? I think door-to-door sales is an extremely poor way to evangelize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha! I'm not going to flog you. I know that you and I see eye to eye a lot and that you aren't on my...errr...bad list or my "I do not know this person" list.

 

I have conservative values for *myself*, but I think mostly people should be able to do what they want within reason as long as it isn't hurting anyone (this is where the arguments come in, whether it is hurting other people) because we aren't a theocracy. I don't think other people should be made to follow my values with regard to things like with whom they sleep or with whom they choose to build a life.

You would greet me in public :w00t:

 

:lol:

 

I understand what you're saying, then. It just seemed like my motives (in the scriptures I posted) were being assumed to be nasty.

 

ETA, to your ETA, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the hey :confused:

 

I'm pretty sure people who get married in a Church are not doing it for religious reasons only. Why on earth would you get married if you did not want it legally recognised - basically then you would be just be an unmarried couple living together :confused: You would be in the same position as homosexuals are now in - a wedding for show but no legal standing.

 

That's part of my point ;)

 

Really, if your church married you, and you hadn't signed the paper yet, you wouldn't actually be married in the sight of your god? If you get married in a temple, you're not doing it for "religious reasons only?" You can be married anywhere. The temple wedding IS for religious reasons.

 

You would never expect heterosexuals to agree to only religious unions, where their god and community recognize their marriage (and therefore make it licit in their eyes and children "legitimate") but never let them have legal standing. People want the secular benefits of marriage.

 

Which is exactly why gay people want to be married.

 

Sure, a religious blessing is nice, and the LDS temple ceremony is of utmost importance to Mormons, but people want the legal marriage, which is why you sign the papers.

 

A religious marriage does not a legal marriage make, no, you're right, but do religious people necessarily require a "secular authority" to make them truly married? (edited to add: Oh! This surprises me! You said that your Church doesn't recognize your marriage if the state doesn't. Wow! I didn't know this. I know some people who consider themselves married, through handfasting and other religious means, who choose not to be part of the state government. They consider themselves married, but they don't demand legal recognition. So, I suppose you have me there.)

 

In other words, when I said my vows with my husband before God, were we not married, even before we signed the legal papers? We were married religiously, but not legally. Not so in your case? I believed us to be married in my religion before we signed the paper. We were married religiously and then legally. I believed my faith to have primacy over the religious part of my marriage. It's the state that has primacy over your marriage? Your not married religiously until the state says you are? That's interesting!

 

 

I didn't say that people who got married in a church didn't want it legally recognized, but we could surely divide the two. You get married legally, so you're married in the eyes of the state, then you can have whatever religious ritual you want on top, if you so desire.

 

Ah, and you've hit the nail on the head, the religious folks DO want legal standing, not just their religious standing. That's what gays are asking for. Legal. It should not be denied them as legal US citizens.

 

Let the church stop being an arm of the state in giving legal status to marriage, and there's no confusion.

 

I'm not saying "religious" marriages should give legal standing. Quite the opposite :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have conservative values for *myself*, but I think mostly people should be able to do what they want within reason as long as it isn't hurting anyone (this is where the arguments come in, whether it is hurting other people) because we aren't a theocracy. I don't think other people should be made to follow my values with regard to things like with whom they sleep or with whom they choose to build a life.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I'm in a monogamous relationship. I know people who aren't. It doesn't stop mine from being so.

 

I go to church. I know people who don't. It doesn't stop me from going.

 

I don't have a problem with a particular group saying that they believe that homosexual acts are sinful. A group should have the right to do so. What they shouldn't have a right to do is to enforce their religious definition of sinful on anyone else. This applies not just to homosexuality, but to extramarital sex, consumption of alcohol, and a lot of other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:iagree:

 

I'm in a monogamous relationship. I know people who aren't. It doesn't stop mine from being so.

 

I go to church. I know people who don't. It doesn't stop me from going.

 

I don't have a problem with a particular group saying that they believe that homosexual acts are sinful. A group should have the right to do so. What they shouldn't have a right to do is to enforce their religious definition of sinful on anyone else. This applies not just to homosexuality, but to extramarital sex, consumption of alcohol, and a lot of other things.

 

I don't disagree.

 

Like someone said, no one is out stopping Larry King from marrying seven times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would greet me in public :w00t:

 

:lol:

 

I understand what you're saying, then. It just seemed like my motives (in the scriptures I posted) were being assumed to be nasty.

 

ETA, to your ETA, I agree.

 

I think when one brings up quotations which are full of condemnations it is easy to postulate that is directed.

 

If I misunderstood I apologize. :grouphug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:iagree:

 

I'm in a monogamous relationship. I know people who aren't. It doesn't stop mine from being so.

 

I go to church. I know people who don't. It doesn't stop me from going.

 

I don't have a problem with a particular group saying that they believe that homosexual acts are sinful. A group should have the right to do so. What they shouldn't have a right to do is to enforce their religious definition of sinful on anyone else. This applies not just to homosexuality, but to extramarital sex, consumption of alcohol, and a lot of other things.

 

I fully agree with all the above. I am absolutely fine with churches not acknowledging gay couples. And even counseling to pray the gay away and demonstrations. That all falls under free speech to me. I just don't think it should be legislated.

 

Like someone said, no one is out stopping Larry King from marrying seven times.

 

ROFL - in this case, maybe a little legislation is in order. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you. :grouphug:

:D Sure thing. :grouphug:

I think when one brings up quotations which are full of condemnations it is easy to postulate that is directed.

 

If I misunderstood I apologize. :grouphug:

No problem. I admit, I can see how it could be taken that way. If I had responded to Bill with those verses, then it would definitely be meant that way. However, I responded to Heather, who understood my meaning quite well. Bill just took it up and responded.

 

It was almost sort-of-kind-of taken out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D Sure thing. :grouphug:

 

No problem. I admit, I can see how it could be taken that way. If I had responded to Bill with those verses, then it would definitely be meant that way. However, I responded to Heather, who understood my meaning quite well. Bill just took it up and responded.

 

It was almost sort-of-kind-of taken out of context.

 

Never mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...