Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

But simply charity and empathy is the essence of communism. Those that have give to those that need.From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(s).Both passages reflect the fact that Jesus and the movement founded around Jesus began as a communist/socialist revolutionary movement.That is clear in passage after passage quoting Jesus.It is only later Christianity that perverted Jesus movement.

We are moving far away from the topic so start a new topic and I will try to educate you but Jesus message is really clear and simple.Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sorrowful, protect the weak, heal the sick.

Fraid not because it is not voluntary it is forced on the people. Communism TAKES from people according to what the bosses say is their ability, and gives to others also defined by them as needy, but mostly to themselves as the bosses get very rich while the nation starves. It was done voluntarily all the believers in Jerusalem, and it was not characteristic of the Church after that. Communism is forced on people against their will and they are killed if they don't comply. You really can't read the Bible. You hve no idea what you are talking about. Marx perverted it into a system. There was no such "movement" in the Church. Jesus talked only to His followers for one thing, who obey Him out of love, but Communism forces people who are not Christians to do things against their will. It's an evil perversion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I understand that you believe what you are asserting but unfortunately it has nothing to do with accuracy or reality. There is nothing in either communism or socialism that says it must be forced on people and in fact almost all communist nations have been democracies.

Me and my wife recently attended a gay wedding of two of our Muslim friends in a Mosque in Manenberg, a majority Muslim suburb of Cape Town.I saw it as a personal attack on Isis!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Well, any kind of rights are an attack on tyranny.

This makes it very clear that if a Christian run business decides to discriminate against some potential customers, and if the law bars such discrimination, then the business should be charged with violation of the law. If somebody thinks that is against their religion, then they should not run that kind of business.

Then, quite clearly, no "biblical" Christian should ever take up a service profession.

WEDDING business, nwr, weddings, not any other kind of service. And just to remind you, some of these Christian wedding businesses were around long before there was any idea of gay marriage. Not that it matters of course. It's a reason to persecute Christians so no doubt it's only going to get worse for Christians.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You say the strangest things. USSR? Communist China? Eh?

Again, start a new topic Faith and perhaps you might learn a little.

Not starting a topic just so you can strut about your invincible ignorance as if it were true.

Just a few sources that may help educate you. The Democracy you didn't know about.Democracy in ChinaCommunism is definitely based on the concept of democracy and a bottom up democracy. Mao in particular was very much in favor of democracy and part of what lead to the later wars (just as in Vietnam) was US intervention to deny the outcome of popular elections.If you do not wish to learn that is fine but you simply have no understanding it seems of even the most basic reality and history.

Here's another case where you impute some statement to me I don't recognize at all, though you don't quote me. That's very underhanded of you, especially since you use it as the basis for some kind of weird accusation. Just for the record I DON'T accept ALL the councils, some were Roman Catholic, but Nicaea spelled out the nature of Christ against a heresy that still exists (Jehovah's Witnesses) and is rejected by Christians, and that's foundational for all Christians. Roman Catholicism didn't even really get underway until the Bishop of Rome was elevated to Pope in 606 A.D.Please try to be clearer about what you are saying because following you is nearly impossible. You treat stuff that is going on only in your own head as something I'm supposed to recognize. NOT fair. Fill in the blanks at the very least, I'm not a mind reader. What? My "support" for having the government OUTLAW same sex marriage? What? What? What?I don't recall "admitting" any such thing, you kept asking me absurd questions about what I think Paul thought about the secular policies of the government of his time and I kept saying he gave no opinion on the subject; he was always and only talking about the Church, who were being persecuted by the Roman government of the day anyway. So NOW what are you accusing me of? I can assure you I know nothing about any of that and have no idea why any of it is relevant in any case. What the Roman Empire did has nothing to do with Christian opposition to gay marriage in America, which is based purely on God's ordinance of marriage as shown in the Bible. Um, two things: 1) It's never existed before in the Western nations of Christendom, called Christendom because it's generally followed Biblical principles; and 2) there is now a law that directly opposes a Biblical principle that requires Christians to refuse to obey it. Haven't I been saying this all along as clearly as possible? That paragraph is like some kind of bizarre foreign language to me, something written by a Martian perhaps. What ARE you talking about? The US has never been a theocracy, but it has been based on Christian principles, and now those principles are being opposed by this supposed "secular government." I'm a Christian, I don't want to see a Christian civilization go under, which it's bound to do under current trends.You could say your piece a lot more simply I think: you're in favor of secular government with no religious influence, as so many others here are; you are in favor of gay marriage, as so many others here are. I'm opposed to gay marriage because of what the Bible says about marriage and about homosexuality and there really doesn't need to be any of this pseudohistorical carrying on that you are doing to explain it. You are making false connections that exist only in your own head. I'm a Protestant, I take nothing from the Roman Empire. And you don't need to argue any of that to make your point anyway. You're for gay marriage, I'm against it based on the Bible, the West is no longer "Christendom" or at least rapidly getting there, and the Bible is no longer of any importance, so Christians are now on the outs and probably very soon to be under serious persecution if nothing happens to prevent it, and you really need no other argument. Can we please get off this confusing and irrelevant treadmill? You keep picking up the wrong end of the stick here. I am not thinking about secular government much if at all. I've been making one simple point all along: The Bible opposes gay marriage and Christians must go with the Bible against anything that requires us to deny it. That could be a secular law and in this case it is. Or it could be a religious force like the Inquisition. It doesn't matter, we have to stand for God's ordinance of marriage and all the rest of this stuff you are carrying on about is some strange pseudohistorical nonsense of your own that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your stuff is so confusing I often miss the obvious: There is no such thing as a "Roman Empire Council" let alone a "church" based on it. The early Councils were strictly a CHURCH MATTER, called to resolve problems within the Church, absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Roman Empire.The Jerusalem council was called to resolve the problems that kept coming up between the strict Law-abiding Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians who were not under the Law because Christ had fulfilled it all. (The Jews weren't either of course but a lifetime of obedience to the Law couldn't be broken overnight, which is why the conflicts kept coming up).Nicaea was called to deal with the heresy of Arius and it dealt with it and its decisions have come down to us as the Church's official resolution of the heresy for all to follow.None of this has anything to do with the Roman Empire as such, it's all in-house decision-making. If you think Constantine's role in calling the council of Nicea and participating in it makes it a Roman Empire thing, it doesn't. He didn't influence the decision of the Council, the Christian leaders did all of that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.