LOCKED - U-S-A!! U-S-A!!
- Thread starter QuaoarsKing
- Start date
- Status
Remember, I don't really care what the Bible says about it either way, but the Gospels and both Testaments repeatedly condemn divorce, as do most denominations of Christianity. There is a strong correlation between denominations that make it difficult for divorced to remarry and those that forbid gay marriages.
A Christian who singles out gay marriage as so bad they get complete blackballed from service while all other forms of "sin" are tolerated and served strikes me as someone who just has beef with gays, rather than someone who is innocently following sincere beliefs. If he were running his entire business according to a literal reading of the Bible (not that anywhere in Bible says you can't sell food to a gay wedding reception, but whatever), then I'd be more inclined to take him seriously.
Considering how a business owner can become a millionaire overnight simply by "taking a stand" against gays makes me even more cynical about the whole thing.
http://www.usdebtclock.org
I'm laying this all at Obama's feet, but he sure is worried about a lot of things other than this, which to me is still the biggest problem we have.
I'm laying this all at Obama's feet, but he sure is worried about a lot of things other than this, which to me is still the biggest problem we have.
"Remember, I don't really care what the Bible says about it either way" - I know, which makes me wonder why I'm arguing with you.
The main difference is that condoning Gay Marriage is condoning a lifetime of sin. There's no repentance. If a guy came into a church and said "I'm a lifetime drug user, I want to join the church, but I'm not going to repent, I plan on dying a lifetime drug user." I guarantee you, if that Church is based on the Bible, they would first try to change his mind, and if they couldn't, they would turn him away.
The main difference is that condoning Gay Marriage is condoning a lifetime of sin. There's no repentance. If a guy came into a church and said "I'm a lifetime drug user, I want to join the church, but I'm not going to repent, I plan on dying a lifetime drug user." I guarantee you, if that Church is based on the Bible, they would first try to change his mind, and if they couldn't, they would turn him away.
Your denomination says gay marriage/homosexuality is a sin, but lots of denominations disagree. Your denomination does not have sole authority on what is and is not a sin.
Your denomination apparently believes the Bible is inerrant and directly inspired by God, while other denominations disagree. Believe what you want, but at least be aware that there is much disagreement on this idea.
That's coming up next. As for me, I'm married to one woman who changes into a dozen different types of women at a moments notice, so I have my hands to full to take on any more.
OK, we are now to the point. If a "denomination" does not follow the Bible and does not view it as the Truth, it is not a denomination, it is not Christianity, it is a bastardization of Christianity. It is definitely convenient to have some versions of christianity that don't truly follow the Word, I will grant you that.
So Episcopals, UCCs, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians (not the Southern variety on the last 2), etc., aren't really Christian because they don't believe homosexuality is a sin, and they don't believe the Bible to be inerrant?
Ok... Better to have that out in open as your assertion, I guess.
You are really going in deep on this. Either you believe the bible, specifically the NT, is the true word of God or you don't. I don't see how there is a middle ground. Either you're a Christian or you're not. I think you're too hung up on this denomination thing.
The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-denominations-position-on-homosexuality
I would say that leaves Methodists out of your equation.
"While the Churchwide Assembly has not come to agreement on the issue of marriage equality, the ongoing debate has prompted a policy that gives autonomy to individual ministers and their congregations, resulting in the celebration of same-sex marriages at many ELCA churches across the country."
Lutherans - Yes this statement practically says that whatever the majority rule is, that's what they believe. "Hey God, I know you told me that killing was a sin, but we just voted you out 3-5, so I'm killing that *****. See you in heaven"
Look dude, I sin every day, so I am not one to judge. I know you aren't going to see the hypocrisy of what you are saying, but I just wanted to point it out for others. I will not debate this topic any further with you.
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-denominations-position-on-homosexuality
I would say that leaves Methodists out of your equation.
"While the Churchwide Assembly has not come to agreement on the issue of marriage equality, the ongoing debate has prompted a policy that gives autonomy to individual ministers and their congregations, resulting in the celebration of same-sex marriages at many ELCA churches across the country."
Lutherans - Yes this statement practically says that whatever the majority rule is, that's what they believe. "Hey God, I know you told me that killing was a sin, but we just voted you out 3-5, so I'm killing that *****. See you in heaven"
Look dude, I sin every day, so I am not one to judge. I know you aren't going to see the hypocrisy of what you are saying, but I just wanted to point it out for others. I will not debate this topic any further with you.
I wouldn't worry too much about preachers/denominations being forced to perform gay weddings. The First Amendment's freedom of religion/establishment clause won't allow the government to force a preacher to do something he doesn't want to do along these lines. If a straight couple went to their preacher wanting to get married and the preacher decided he wouldn't do it based on a religious objection, the First Amendment would protect the preacher because he's exercising his religious beliefs.
Only way way to change that would be to amend the constitution - good luck getting a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and then getting 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify it. Just my $0.02.
Only way way to change that would be to amend the constitution - good luck getting a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and then getting 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify it. Just my $0.02.
I believe that God created the entire university. I also believe that God is omnipotent and believe in the trinity. With all that said, why would it be such a big leap to believe The Book is what God intended?
I've never understood this argument. There are other ancient and old books like Homer's works and no one questions if these are really his words.
Consider yourself lucky if that's all. Mines gone up 50% each of the past two years, while the coverage has gotten worse and worse. My deductible is so high I'll never use it unless I have some kind of surgery.
They are actually much more likely to be stoned to death than to find an imam who would marry them.
Jesus Christ, half of this thread sounds like something your out of touch grandmother would forward you in an email. Thankfully in 10-20 years, a generation of Fox-News-Americans will die off. Then we'll see who is bitching about minorities..
You can ***** about social change all you want, its coming anyway, hoss. This is no different than the "I don't know wHat the hayull this country's gonna come to if my kids are goin to skool with a darkie" crowd of yesteryear.
Those who question things like authorship question whether or not one man came up with the stories attributed to Homer. However, whether or not Homer wrote those stories is a rather trivial matter because no one is claiming that Homer is omniscient and/or omnipotent and the author of the only truth that really matters.
Last edited:
Maybe because Homer was a literal human person who physically signed his work? And because there is no political movement trying to deny people their civil rights based on the teachings of Homer? Not to just attack Christianity, there are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned, and I believe in the teachings of Christ (who never mentioned gays), but if you're going to dive into Old Testament Jewish law to try a govern a modern nation of +300 million, many of whom aren't Christians, at least be consistent. Therefore, no more shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), no more mixing linen and wool in your wardrobe (Leviticus 19:19), no more tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), and no more working on the Sabbath (Leviticus 23:3). If you guys want a theocracy, you don't get to cherry-pick the parts of the Bible that you like (because they don't affect your lifestyle).
I'm confused by what you said about homer? Are you saying Jesus was not a real person?
I never mentioned the OT. The levitical laws were put in place for the Jews. As a Christian, we do not live under OT covenants. It's true that Jesus never specifically condemned homosexuality but i would suggest you read Matthew 19:4. Jesus is addressing a question about divorce in the text but clearly references man and women. Also, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11. Not from Jesus but still very clear on the topic.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't care if gay marriage is legal. I want everyone to have a opportunity to be happy. But you can't act like the bible is not clear on this.
0
00dog
Guest
No Constitutional amendment needed
Several supreme court decisions, including this one, have shown that neither the Constitution, nor the amendments are enough to prevent a majority of the justices from "deciding" issues based on what they would like for the law to be, instead of what it is. And if these same justices decide to force gay marriages to be performed in churches, or to censor reading of the scripture from the pulpit they will "interpret" the constitution to require it.
Note that the majority of justices in the obama care subsidy case ruling upheld the subsidies - not because the law as passed provided for the subsidies, but because they could tell that the legislature had meant to provide for it.
If you accept intent as a determining factor, consider the founding fathers' intent when writing the constitution and the intent of the amendments. Did the founding fathers intend that gay marriages, for example, be valid? The point that I'm trying to make is not about gay marriages, but about adherence to the constitution, to the law.
roberts is a hoot. he berates the judges for not adhering to the constitution in the gay marriage case, though he didn't let the constitution stand in his way when he gave us obama care.
The justices are creating law, and that without regard to the constitution. And that is a dangerous thing.
Several supreme court decisions, including this one, have shown that neither the Constitution, nor the amendments are enough to prevent a majority of the justices from "deciding" issues based on what they would like for the law to be, instead of what it is. And if these same justices decide to force gay marriages to be performed in churches, or to censor reading of the scripture from the pulpit they will "interpret" the constitution to require it.
Note that the majority of justices in the obama care subsidy case ruling upheld the subsidies - not because the law as passed provided for the subsidies, but because they could tell that the legislature had meant to provide for it.
If you accept intent as a determining factor, consider the founding fathers' intent when writing the constitution and the intent of the amendments. Did the founding fathers intend that gay marriages, for example, be valid? The point that I'm trying to make is not about gay marriages, but about adherence to the constitution, to the law.
roberts is a hoot. he berates the judges for not adhering to the constitution in the gay marriage case, though he didn't let the constitution stand in his way when he gave us obama care.
The justices are creating law, and that without regard to the constitution. And that is a dangerous thing.
0
00dog
Guest
A study of history should change your belief. It wouldn't be the first time a church was forced underground.
0
00dog
Guest
The justices bypass congress by saying 'the law is what i say it is.' Trusting in the infallibility of the government is a good way to lose your freedom. I'm old enough to recognize that I have less freedom than I once had. Our remarkable founding fathers were, with good reason, wary of the evils of government.
0
00dog
Guest
As far as gay marriages are concerned, that could be the saving grace for churches that adhere to biblical scripture. The justices aren't going to tell muslim's that they have to perform gay marriages in their places of worship; that makes it harder, though not at all impossible, to require it of christians.
0
00dog
Guest
This ruling should help the g.o.p.. The gay marriage issue was going to cost them votes. Now it's a non-issue.
Last edited:
0
00dog
Guest
Dude, that is the funniest thing I've read on this board in a while. This post makes it all worth reading the other four pages of this thread. Hilarious!
- Status