If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian. | Page 25 | Forum

Caelestis Custodis

Offline

Quote
Report Post
Post: 18457471_361 created on Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:15:25 +0000
Posted: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:15:25 +0000

I think I'll leave god to determine what a "bad" or a "good" christian is thank you..

There is nothing wrong with gay marriage. From a christian point of view..even if homosexuality is a sin it is forgiven by the death and ressurection of jesus christ. And as for marriage, homosexuals do not affect the sanctity or how much marriage is honored and revered. Some people are just paranoid and ignorant.

ty_ping

Offline

Quote
Report Post
Post: 18457471_363 created on Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:24:50 +0000
Posted: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:24:50 +0000

Jaaten Syric

ty_ping

Chief Captain Moroni

chrisoya

Chief Captain Moroni

elf lord is wrong

Elf Lord is right.

See, my statement has more truthiness than yours, because I used proper capitalisation and punctuation. If you can't handle such advanced linguistic techniques, could you at least provide some evidence to support your assertion?

He is not my lord, so I will not capitalize his name... sorry. Why don't you prove it's wrong, instead.

Peace out

Part of this makes me think "If someones name is Lord, and you refuse to call them by ther name because they are not `A` Lord, would you take a bite out of someone called Ichigo?"

Are we assuming this isn't a cannibalistic cabal ty?

Eh just curious on taking the litrallities of life, after all Ichigo means Strawberry but there are people named that, So if someone`s name is strawberry, Just as if someones name is Lord you you ignore Lord and eat strawberry?

Makes me think of the old joke with three men blowing `Bubbles`

Al_boy_5

Offline

Quote
Report Post
Post: 18457471_365 created on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:28:21 +0000
Posted: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:28:21 +0000

PoeticVengeance

ty_ping

PoeticVengeance

ty_ping

PoeticVengeance

Elf Lord Chiewn

Making the Church's position an appeal to authority.

I daresay that many of its rules and teachings are less than justified. 3nodding

Hear that boys and girls?

Using the position of the Catholic Church, Catholic Dogma, and the Cathechism to support an argument against homosexuality from the Christian perspective is fallacious.

So don't do it.

And yeah, Elf, I agree the Catholic Church's laws make very little sense from any perspective even a Scriptural one.

(Although they do make sense from the perspective of control and power over the population)

Part of the fun fun of the Catholic Church is that they have this circular scripture from John

Basically they say Jesus says Peter has well.. God`s power.
And because they (Pope) decends from peter and Has Gods Power they have the power to say they they were given the power,

So because they say that the line is true and the line says they tell the truth the line then is true.

...
Yea anyway that is the only thing the RCC has holding them up when it comes to WHY their allowed to make decisions that are not really scripturally founded or add to scripture. Which is a whole OTHER kettle of fish in which I find them suspiciously close to claiming they are God.

I don`t trust the Roman Catholic Church at all. The weirdest thing is most Roman Catholics agree with me but the whole Tradition thing keeps them there...

Yeah the RCC is a fun little paradoxical crazy time.

Yea it`s a little insaine, The funniest thing is they also have this "Tradition" clause hidden away somewhere where basically IT states that because they`ve had *blank* opinion it must be true because yanno it`s old and s**t.

So when people finally turned around and said "Wait! that dosn`t make sense why are we listening to you??" they reply with

Because you did before so why stop now?

And people AGREE with this.

ARGH SHEEP!

I think it comes down to the whole RCC dosn`t make you think, agree with what they say, sign the dotted line, pay some money once inna boo and you don`t acctually have to try and be a good person, just continue ignoring the plight of the world and you`ve still got your golden ticket to hell Heaven.

Its like they're working for the opposite side...

We have a tradition clause thingy? Did not know that.

Catholics are... dumb. That's why I stopped going to church. You know the bible says trat other's equally, don't judge, so on and so forth. And what do we do? We use the most obscure, ambiguous facts to override the most blatant teachings. *rolls eyes* Yeah, that sounds like the way to be! Woot, go us catholics! *sarcasm*

Greenmjolnir

Offline

Quote
Report Post
Post: 18457471_367 created on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 01:30:18 +0000
Posted: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 01:30:18 +0000

Elf Lord Chiewn

Updated: October 12, 2006

Okay ladies and germs, this thread is a rebirth of AcidSniper's "Being against gay marriage makes you a bad Christian" thread. This is also my supported opinion.

If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:

likely violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.
judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).
inaccurately referencing the bible and making a false case, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't worry, we'll get to this in great detail, I'm sure. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions.
arguing against rights which would clearly benefit a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you. Only recognizing heterosexual unions means that homosexuals will be hurt. I wouldn't want to have to marry someone I didn't love and wasn't attracted to in order to get those nifty things like tax writeoffs, health care, adoption rights, and (oh yeah) the dignity of being referred to as a married person, which carries great social meaning.

You may also be under the misconceptions that marriage is a purely Christian term, or that Christian marriage is a church affair. Both are false, as marriage is a legal term, and does not mean "Christian partnership" or any other such nonsense, and marriage in the biblical sense consists of two people getting to know one another in the biblical sense, and sticking around to spend the rest of their lives with one another afterward.

There was not even a Greek or Hebrew word for homosexuality in biblical times, and just because it is used in popular mistranslations does not make it an actual part of the bible. Every word taken to mean "homosexuality" has either been twisted or misconstrued in a way that cannot reasonably be considered to be definitive.

Additionally, before you start citing Leviticus, the Mosaic Law is moot according to Acts (the Council of Jerusalem), Galatians (Paul), and Collossians 2 (Paul). If these three references are in any way correct, the Old Law no longer applies, and certainly not to non-Jews. Were your ancestors enslaved in Egypt? Did they wander in the desert? Did they do dumb things with a golden idol? Because if not, there isn't even the beginning of a case for the continuity of Mosaic Law.

Please observe the forum rules and subforum rules at all times.

Oh wait fun. Time to crack open you bibles children, and gather round. Take notes, there will be a test on this later in the Semester.

Homosexuality is not a new idea, although only in the past few years has it come to front and center in America. It was at first tolerated, then accepted, and now encouraged, as an legitimate, even desirable, lifestyle. We are constantly be told to "be tolerant" of homosexuals, and to accept their deviance because to do less would be "homophobic" and "mean-spirited". You know the buzz words - you hear them every day. The push to normalize homosexuality has permeated our schools to the point that students are taught not only tolerance and acceptance, but also given detailed descriptions of and instructions for the practice. Our children are taught that homosexuality is good and normal, and an acceptable lifestyle. This is common in elementary schools, and often begins with students as young as Kindergarten, all under the guise of "Health Education" or "Sex Ed". Homosexual groups are organized in high schools and universities, and there they are afforded protection, priviledges and cooperation far beyond what is granted any other organization (least of all Christian). They are allowed to adopt children, both as a single person and as a same-sex couple. Legalizing marriage is merely the next logical step in their agenda to normalize their homosexual lifestyle and elevate it to the level of man/woman marriage with all it's respect, acceptance, rewards, and priviledges.

For years the cry was "It's none of your business what goes on in my bedroom." As long as it remained in their bedroom that was one thing, but they have brought their bedroom activities into my home, my workplace, my social activities, my school, and my church, and now it is my business. We are expected to accept it, reward it, and to teach our children it is good regardless of our religious and personal beliefs. I don't think so.

The final blow came when we were instructed to "Celebrate Homosexuality"! Celebrate it? Does this bother anyone else as much as it does me? Have we had enough yet? But my views are not the issue because I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything or change any minds. My research yielded much information on other people's views of the subject.

Let's start with the Bible. We have all heard "It isn't even mentioned in the Bible" so often we have ceased questioning that statement. But that's not true - it is mentioned in the Bible. To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time - such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies - that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament's ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Well so much for that old "it's not in the Bible" argument. It's there alright - and that is best said by one of my favorite and most-trusted writers:
Posted: March 11, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. John Kerry suggested to an audience in Mississippi recently that the Bible is ambiguous on the topic of homosexuality.

"Well, I know the deep beliefs, I respect, I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible, and I know you can find the clauses that go both ways," he said. "I'm not here to argue that with you." Well, I'm here to argue with Kerry. The Bible is clear on homosexuality. Old Testament and New Testament: Homosexuality is an abomination.

Kerry may not believe it. You may not believe it. But the Bible states it clearly and unambiguously. And, despite what Kerry says, there are no "clauses" that suggest anything else.

Here's a brief Bible study for the man who would be president.

It begins in Leviticus 18:22 (KJV):
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
That seems pretty clear to me. Maybe Kerry has another interpretation. The chapter goes on to state that people who commit these acts, and others God considers abominations, causes the land itself to be defiled.

Then, in the New Testament, Paul writes in Romans 1:22-27:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
I'm still waiting for any Bible student to show me even one verse that suggests a more "tolerant" view of homosexuality. Generally speaking, the best they can do is to suggest Jesus Himself never spoke out against homosexuality.

There are two problems with that statement:
First, Christians believe Jesus came not to overturn the law but to fulfill it. They believe He is the Word – its living fulfillment. They believe He is eternal and part of the Godhead that created the Heavens, the Earth and Man. Therefore, Jesus never contradicted any of the law. He quoted from it. He taught from it. He explained it. He affirmed it. Second, Jesus did speak out, as recorded in Matthew 19:4-6:

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Here Jesus had an opportunity to explain any middle ground in this issue of men and women. As if to underscore the point, he did later provide something of an exemption for eunuchs – men who do not have testicles. But he doesn't suggest God made homosexuals, lesbians, transgendereds, transvestites or bisexuals.

Kerry likes to be on both sides of all the issues. But that's difficult when it comes to God's unambiguous Word on relations between men and women. Maybe Kerry can let the American people in on which "clauses" he's found in the Bible that would justify homosexuality as anything other than an abomination.

You can choose to believe the Bible. You can choose to disbelieve it. But you cannot say it says something it does not say.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Another site (I lost the name and web address) gave me the following list of quotes from the Bible:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." http://www.carm.org/questions/homosexuality.htm 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

Confirming this fact is the New Testament's forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357). Catholic

THE POPE

VATICAN CITY -- Pope John Paul on Wednesday repeated his condemnation of gay marriage, calling it but one of many threats to the family, and by extension, society. The Pope said that holy matrimony between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation and companionship were the only intimate relationships sanctioned by God. He repeated his insistence that homosexuality and sexual companionship pursued outside the bonds of marriage were unacceptable in the eyes of the church.

In speaking to the Bishops of Columbia, the Pope highlighted the bishops' efforts "to defend and promote the institution of family" and he emphasized the "need to continue to proclaim firmly the truth about marriage and family, established by God, as an authentic service to society."

The Pope added, "Not doing so would be a grave pastoral omission that would induce believers to error, as well as those who have the serious responsibility to make decisions for the common good of the nation." The above article can be found at LifeSite

The Vatican yesterday urged Catholic politicians to actively campaign against legalising gay marriages which it said were evil, deviant and posed a grave threat to society.

In a document which was immediately condemned by gay rights campaigners as shocking and inflammatory, Catholic lawmakers were warned that any support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral" and there was a moral duty on them to publicly oppose moves towards legal recognition of such marriages.

The Vatican defines matrimony as a divine union between man and woman, and in July it launched a global campaign to stem the tide of widening legal recognition for same-sex marriages

A Vatican document, released with Pope John Paul II's approval, warned Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions is "gravely immoral" and urged non-Catholics to join in combatting such unions.

(CBS/AP) July 28, 2004
The Vatican launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral" and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive. The Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America. "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," the document said. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law." The document says Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to publicly oppose laws granting recognition to homosexual unions and to vote against them if proposals are put to a vote in legislatures. If the laws are already on the books, politicians must speak out against them, work to repeal them and try to limit their impact on society, it said. "To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral," the document said. This article is from CBS NEWS

THE BISHOPS - WHAT DO THEY SAY?

A Massachusetts bishop has warned Catholics that they should not be involved in the legal recognition of same-sex unions.

Just a week after his installation as head of the Worcester diocese, Bishop Robert McManus issued a strong statement teaching same-sex "marriages" are "clear and serious violations of the law of God and moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The Administrative Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for a constitutional amendment to protect the unique social and legal status of marriage. In Catholic belief, "marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love," the 47-bishop committee said in a statement released Sept. 10.

"What are called 'homosexual unions,' because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently nonprocreative, cannot be given the status of marriage," the committee said.

It warned that "the importance of marriage for children and for society" is under attack in U.S. courts and legislatures and in popular culture and entertainment media, which "often undermine or ignore the essential role of marriage and promote equivalence between marriage and homosexual relationships." This article can be found at American Catholic

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In the May 6, 2004 issue of The Sentinel Archbishop Vlanzy wrote:
What about the reception of Holy Communion by those who stand in public opposition to church teaching? Some of you have called upon me to establish a policy whereby such Catholics would be refused the sacraments if they seek them. Speaking as a pastor, it is less abrasive to refuse to baptize a child or to marry a couple when the request is made beforehand than it is to refuse Holy Communion during a public liturgical service. The latter places a questionable burden on all who are ministers of the Eucharist, both ordinary and extraordinary. Public perception will inevitably weigh heavily in favor of the "victim" of the refusal rather than the church minister trying to be faithful to church policy.

We bishops, like most Catholics, hope and expect that our fellow Catholics in political life will be guided by and live out the truths of the faith which God has given us. But many prominent Catholics in the political realm continue to fail to deliver on these hopes and expectations. Some probably do this to pursue political advantage. After all, it is difficult to take an unpopular position, particularly when one is seeking the votes of a majority of citizens. But integrity is a quality all people rightfully expect from their political leaders. In my judgment, Catholics who publicly ignore or oppose clear church teaching in serious matters fail the litmus test with respect to integrity. This becomes a problem for Catholic and non-Catholic voters alike. Most of you are quite familiar that we American bishops have been working through our national and state conferences to support efforts to preserve marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Even though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it is not a creature of either church or state but of God. The divine institution of marriage is at the heart of our concern about trying to include relationships other than those between a man and a woman as something legally equivalent to marriage.

The "litmus test with respect to integrity"? How about the litmus test with respect to morality. How about the litmus test with respect to upholding God's law? Well yeah, it is definitely hard for politicians to "take an unpopular position, particularly when one is seeking the votes of a majority of citizens." Having grown up in a small town in the 50's, it was hard for us very few Catholic students to refrain from eating hot dogs after the Friday night football game, too, especially when we were seeking the votes (approval?) of the majority of citizens (fellow students?). But we did it and survived, and now we expect our politicians to adhere to the rules of the Church and God's law just like we did. Or did all the rules change somewhere along the way?

JOHN KERRY

From Newsmax.com, dated July 14, 2004:
Several senators crossed party lines in the vote today that sank the proposed constitutional amendment that would have limited marriage to one man and one woman.

Three Democrats joined 45 Republicans in supporting the amendment, according to C-SPAN: Robert Byrd of West Virginia, lame duck Zell Miller of Georgia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and pro-Democrat alleged "independent" Jim Jeffords of Vermont in opposing the proposal: lame duck Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and John Sununu of New Hampshire.

John Kerry has accused President George Bush of seeking "the lowest common denominator in American politics" by calling for a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage.

When the Pope said Catholic legislators have a duty to oppose gay marriage, Kerry said he had ``crossed the line'' because ``it is important not to have the Church instructing politicians.''

In 1996, Kerry gave an impassioned 10-minute speech on the Senate floor against an effort in Congress to define marriage only as a union between a man and a woman:

March 4, 2004:
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry assured San Francisco Democrats that he supports granting gay and lesbian couples in state-sanctioned partnerships exactly the same 1,049 federal rights provided to married heterosexuals -- and would try to do so if elected president, one of Kerry's leading Bay Area supporters in the gay community said Wednesday. Read it on the San Francisco Chronicle

Kerry was one of just a few senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which then-President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. In a 1996 column for the homosexual publication The Advocate, Kerry slammed the act, known as DOMA, calling it "as unconstitutional and unnecessary as it is mean-spirited and malicious." Read the whole article at WorldNetDaily

"I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy," Mr. Kerry said during the presidential primaries. DOMA therefore was nothing more than a needlessly divisive form of "gay-bashing." The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which Mr. Kerry invoked eight years earlier, apparently no longer applies. So, all in all, it appears that Mr. Kerry voted against leaving same-sex "marriage" up to the states before he said that the issue should be left up to the states. He's said that the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to marriage before he said that it doesn't. And he's declared all along that he opposes same-sex "marriage," but he also opposed a Massachusetts marriage amendment limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman. Now, he flip flopped on that as well. It's a tangled mess. So, where does Mr. Kerry really stand? Everywhere, as usual. Read at Washington Times

GEORGE BUSH

By Michael Foust Aug 1, 2003
Bush won't compromise on same-sex 'marriage,' spokesman says WASHINGTON (BP)--President Bush is taking a principled stand against same-sex "marriage," a White House spokesman said July 31, noting also that the president will not compromise on the issue and is considering a constitutional amendment that would ban homosexuals from "marrying." Bush told reporters July 30 that he believes in the "sanctity" of traditional marriage and that government lawyers are studying "the best way" to protect the definition by law.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan to defend Bush's position. "[T]his is a principled stand," McClellan said. "This is a view he feels very strongly about. And the president will not compromise on that view. ... Make no mistake about it, the president is strongly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage and defending a sacred institution that he believes is between a man and woman." Read this entire article at BPNEWS

President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage
Remarks by the President
The Roosevelt Room
February 24, 2004 10:43 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty. After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

AciDSniper

Offline

Quote
Report Post
Post: 18457471_369 created on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:08:31 +0000
Posted: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:08:31 +0000

Greenmjolnir

Elf Lord Chiewn

Updated: October 12, 2006

Okay ladies and germs, this thread is a rebirth of AcidSniper's "Being against gay marriage makes you a bad Christian" thread. This is also my supported opinion.

If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:

likely violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.
judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).
inaccurately referencing the bible and making a false case, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't worry, we'll get to this in great detail, I'm sure. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions.
arguing against rights which would clearly benefit a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you. Only recognizing heterosexual unions means that homosexuals will be hurt. I wouldn't want to have to marry someone I didn't love and wasn't attracted to in order to get those nifty things like tax writeoffs, health care, adoption rights, and (oh yeah) the dignity of being referred to as a married person, which carries great social meaning.

You may also be under the misconceptions that marriage is a purely Christian term, or that Christian marriage is a church affair. Both are false, as marriage is a legal term, and does not mean "Christian partnership" or any other such nonsense, and marriage in the biblical sense consists of two people getting to know one another in the biblical sense, and sticking around to spend the rest of their lives with one another afterward.

There was not even a Greek or Hebrew word for homosexuality in biblical times, and just because it is used in popular mistranslations does not make it an actual part of the bible. Every word taken to mean "homosexuality" has either been twisted or misconstrued in a way that cannot reasonably be considered to be definitive.

Additionally, before you start citing Leviticus, the Mosaic Law is moot according to Acts (the Council of Jerusalem), Galatians (Paul), and Collossians 2 (Paul). If these three references are in any way correct, the Old Law no longer applies, and certainly not to non-Jews. Were your ancestors enslaved in Egypt? Did they wander in the desert? Did they do dumb things with a golden idol? Because if not, there isn't even the beginning of a case for the continuity of Mosaic Law.

Please observe the forum rules and subforum rules at all times.

...

First let's start with end of the old law in Colossians 2, Acts 15 and the beginning of Leviticus to show who Moses actually meant the law to apply to. If still don't believe me read Deuteronomy 28 and you'll see a stark contrast between a certain civil law and the teachings of Christ. Then you have to take a look at the translational issues of the New Testament condemnations which hinge completely on a word Paul made up and only used twice and a reference to what could easily be pederasty. All of which is explained here in Ananel's thesis.
The word Christ used for fulfil can be translated to mean to render complete although if the old law did stand it wouldn't apply to gentiles in the first place. Otherwise it would conflict with the Law of Agape and his stance on the Sabbath laws. It has remained the doctrine since the early church that you do not have to convert to judaism before you become a Christian. If homosexuality were a sin under the new covenant it would be an issue of relationship with God related to the risk of sexual idolatry which would only apply to believers.
I'm not Catholic so could really care less how the Pope and the Bishops are suggesting people interpret the text. Now as for the political side of this there is no evidence to support these insane predictions such as drastic drops in marriage rates, birth rates or the supposed over strain of the medical care system. While on the over side it is a horrible injustice deny people basic equal rights such as joint insurance, tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, custody issues, joint pension plans, etc.

Deep Vermillion

Offline

Quote
Report Post
Post: 18457471_371 created on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:28:31 +0000
Posted: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:28:31 +0000

Greenmjolnir

But the simple fact is that Jesus never addressed Homosexuality, there for he never overturned the former law from the Old Testimate. Therefore, the old laws that applyed to Homosexual acts, would still apply in the new form of worship that he created.

Romans 10:4

4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

sad

I'm sorry, but no matter how much Judaizers want the Old Law to remain, Jesus ended it.

Elf Lord Chiewn

Offline

Quote
Report Post
Post: 18457471_373 created on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:31:37 +0000
Posted: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:31:37 +0000

Greenmjolnir

AciDSniper

Greenmjolnir

Elf Lord Chiewn

Updated: October 12, 2006

Okay ladies and germs, this thread is a rebirth of AcidSniper's "Being against gay marriage makes you a bad Christian" thread. This is also my supported opinion.

If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:

likely violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.
judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).
inaccurately referencing the bible and making a false case, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't worry, we'll get to this in great detail, I'm sure. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions.
arguing against rights which would clearly benefit a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you. Only recognizing heterosexual unions means that homosexuals will be hurt. I wouldn't want to have to marry someone I didn't love and wasn't attracted to in order to get those nifty things like tax writeoffs, health care, adoption rights, and (oh yeah) the dignity of being referred to as a married person, which carries great social meaning.

You may also be under the misconceptions that marriage is a purely Christian term, or that Christian marriage is a church affair. Both are false, as marriage is a legal term, and does not mean "Christian partnership" or any other such nonsense, and marriage in the biblical sense consists of two people getting to know one another in the biblical sense, and sticking around to spend the rest of their lives with one another afterward.

There was not even a Greek or Hebrew word for homosexuality in biblical times, and just because it is used in popular mistranslations does not make it an actual part of the bible. Every word taken to mean "homosexuality" has either been twisted or misconstrued in a way that cannot reasonably be considered to be definitive.

Additionally, before you start citing Leviticus, the Mosaic Law is moot according to Acts (the Council of Jerusalem), Galatians (Paul), and Collossians 2 (Paul). If these three references are in any way correct, the Old Law no longer applies, and certainly not to non-Jews. Were your ancestors enslaved in Egypt? Did they wander in the desert? Did they do dumb things with a golden idol? Because if not, there isn't even the beginning of a case for the continuity of Mosaic Law.

Please observe the forum rules and subforum rules at all times.

...

First let's start with end of the old law in Colossians 2, Acts 15 and the beginning of Leviticus to show who Moses actually meant the law to apply to. If still don't believe me read Deuteronomy 28 and you'll see a stark contrast between a certain civil law and the teachings of Christ. Then you have to take a look at the translational issues of the New Testament condemnations which hinge completely on a word Paul made up and only used twice and a reference to what could easily be pederasty. All of which is explained here in Ananel's thesis.
The word Christ used for fulfil can be translated to mean to render complete although if the old law did stand it wouldn't apply to gentiles in the first place. Otherwise it would conflict with the Law of Agape and his stance on the Sabbath laws. It has remained the doctrine since the early church that you do not have to convert to judaism before you become a Christian. If homosexuality were a sin under the new covenant it would be an issue of relationship with God related to the risk of sexual idolatry which would only apply to believers.
I'm not Catholic so could really care less how the Pope and the Bishops are suggesting people interpret the text. Now as for the political side of this there is no evidence to support these insane predictions such as drastic drops in marriage rates, birth rates or the supposed over strain of the medical care system. While on the over side it is a horrible injustice deny people basic equal rights such as joint insurance, tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, custody issues, joint pension plans, etc.

But the simple fact is that Jesus never addressed Homosexuality, there for he never overturned the former law from the Old Testimate.

That's incredibly silly.
Also, the Apostles disagree with you.
Also, Yeshua disagrees with you.

Greenmjolnir

Therefore, the old laws that applyed to Homosexual acts, would still apply in the new form of worship that he created.

He didn't create a new kind.
He removed the old rules that everyone kept breaking.

So people should still be stoned for it?
And shrimp should not be eaten?
And we should send away women on their periods?
And masturbation is a death-worthy offense?
Also, we'd all have to be Israelites for the law to have potentially applied to us at all.

Greenmjolnir

Offline

Quote
Report Post
Post: 18457471_375 created on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:41:46 +0000
Posted: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:41:46 +0000

Elf Lord Chiewn

Greenmjolnir

AciDSniper

Greenmjolnir

Elf Lord Chiewn

Updated: October 12, 2006

Okay ladies and germs, this thread is a rebirth of AcidSniper's "Being against gay marriage makes you a bad Christian" thread. This is also my supported opinion.

If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:

likely violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.
judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).
inaccurately referencing the bible and making a false case, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't worry, we'll get to this in great detail, I'm sure. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions.
arguing against rights which would clearly benefit a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you. Only recognizing heterosexual unions means that homosexuals will be hurt. I wouldn't want to have to marry someone I didn't love and wasn't attracted to in order to get those nifty things like tax writeoffs, health care, adoption rights, and (oh yeah) the dignity of being referred to as a married person, which carries great social meaning.

You may also be under the misconceptions that marriage is a purely Christian term, or that Christian marriage is a church affair. Both are false, as marriage is a legal term, and does not mean "Christian partnership" or any other such nonsense, and marriage in the biblical sense consists of two people getting to know one another in the biblical sense, and sticking around to spend the rest of their lives with one another afterward.

There was not even a Greek or Hebrew word for homosexuality in biblical times, and just because it is used in popular mistranslations does not make it an actual part of the bible. Every word taken to mean "homosexuality" has either been twisted or misconstrued in a way that cannot reasonably be considered to be definitive.

Additionally, before you start citing Leviticus, the Mosaic Law is moot according to Acts (the Council of Jerusalem), Galatians (Paul), and Collossians 2 (Paul). If these three references are in any way correct, the Old Law no longer applies, and certainly not to non-Jews. Were your ancestors enslaved in Egypt? Did they wander in the desert? Did they do dumb things with a golden idol? Because if not, there isn't even the beginning of a case for the continuity of Mosaic Law.

Please observe the forum rules and subforum rules at all times.

...

First let's start with end of the old law in Colossians 2, Acts 15 and the beginning of Leviticus to show who Moses actually meant the law to apply to. If still don't believe me read Deuteronomy 28 and you'll see a stark contrast between a certain civil law and the teachings of Christ. Then you have to take a look at the translational issues of the New Testament condemnations which hinge completely on a word Paul made up and only used twice and a reference to what could easily be pederasty. All of which is explained here in Ananel's thesis.
The word Christ used for fulfil can be translated to mean to render complete although if the old law did stand it wouldn't apply to gentiles in the first place. Otherwise it would conflict with the Law of Agape and his stance on the Sabbath laws. It has remained the doctrine since the early church that you do not have to convert to judaism before you become a Christian. If homosexuality were a sin under the new covenant it would be an issue of relationship with God related to the risk of sexual idolatry which would only apply to believers.
I'm not Catholic so could really care less how the Pope and the Bishops are suggesting people interpret the text. Now as for the political side of this there is no evidence to support these insane predictions such as drastic drops in marriage rates, birth rates or the supposed over strain of the medical care system. While on the over side it is a horrible injustice deny people basic equal rights such as joint insurance, tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, custody issues, joint pension plans, etc.

But the simple fact is that Jesus never addressed Homosexuality, there for he never overturned the former law from the Old Testimate.

That's incredibly silly.
Also, the Apostles disagree with you.
Also, Yeshua disagrees with you.

Greenmjolnir

Therefore, the old laws that applyed to Homosexual acts, would still apply in the new form of worship that he created.

He didn't create a new kind.
He removed the old rules that everyone kept breaking.

So people should still be stoned for it?
And shrimp should not be eaten?
And we should send away women on their periods?
And masturbation is a death-worthy offense?
Also, we'd all have to be Israelites for the law to have potentially applied to us at all.

You take this wrong. Those were of the rules of the Religous Officals. And those were not changed, but modified upon. Fogiveness is what modified those. If you do something as that, it can be forgiving, and the eating habits as well as the period thing was for health reasons at the time. Things were alot more diseased then.

And the old Isreali laws were mostly made by man.

Welcome to Gaia! ::

Quick Reply

More Information