Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Look at her words : "Second thought : However, as in the passage about meat sacrificed to idols, if my making food for such a festival was a matter of conscience for somebody else I would have to say no to it" ***************************** *************************************,,******************************************* *************************************************** Nevermind that she is back to ceremonial applications of the food prohibitions she desperately wants to ignore( she selectively parses food to be ceremonial and temporary while the fornication and possible "homosexual " parts of I Corinthians 6 and 10, in addition to Acts 15 and 21 and Revelation 2:14, are moral ). I just find it AMAZING that she has the audacity to place the burdens on OTHERS! She doesn't give a flying sh** about scripture but Galatians 6:2 says that the "law of Christ" (nomos Christou ) is about Christians bearing the burdens of others and Romans 15:1 says that meat eaters should cease for ever if vegetarians show a reaction to Christians consuming meat which indicates a conscious taking offense against the very activities which hurt their very real and powerful conscience itself. I know that Faith cares not one bit about what the scripture actually says and means, but her selectively self serving and judgmental slight of hand techniques should be noted for one thing. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Man and woman, man and woman, man and woman. Not religious, not religious, not religious, universal, universal, universal, applies to all peoples in all times and all cultures, whose laws generally reflect this ordinance. Man and woman, nothing to do with circumstance, belief or unbelief, culture or anything else. Man and woman, period. As I've said dozens of times on this thread alone. "Marrying" two of the same sex is a fundamental contradiction with the biblical law since they cannot become "one flesh."

---

Do you know Greek law?Roman law?What about non-western law?Think about the much overlooked Ashoka and the Maurya Empire?You could learn something about the Greek, Roman, and Indian civilisations before you make your claims.(I'm not saying each of these example contradicts your argument mind you)You often use arguments about society to either support your moralistic and historical positions or to attack others. Ringo, in another thread (on immigration?) quoted the nuclear scientist Oppenheimer, when involved a reference to the Bhagavad Gita, and you used it as an opportunity to bash Indian civilization. Interestingly, the Bhagavad Gita seems to have been a polemical defense of Dharma being compatible with an honorable defensive war. The very beginning of the Bhagavad Gita centers around Arjuna saying that fighting a war would violate Dharma. Historians see is as a response to the strongly pacifist tendencies in Indian culture just before the time of Christ.

quote:

---

ASHOKA: THE NEGLECTED INDIAN EMPEROR WHO CHANGED THE WORLD

​

December 18, 2016

​

PART I: THE MYSTERY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORLD’S FIRST WELFARE STATE

​

He and his reign, however, are most often noted solely for establishing the first consolidation of the Indian subcontinent under a single ruler. Ashoka’s Empire was to be broken up time and again — the Huns, the Moguls, the British — but come Indian Independence in 1947, the then modern map of India was pretty much recognizable as the same nation state he that he ruled from around 270 until 230 BCE, some 2,000 years before. Ashoka’s Rock Edicts were still being uncovered in the late 1980’s and other imprints of his rule are still being discovered today. While credited with the consolidation of the Indian state, his influence and his impacts on world history, however, were ever so much more important.

​

The Indian flag, adopted in 1947 at the time of India’s independence from England, has two of Asoka’s most widely recognized ancient symbols: the four headed lion column capital and the great Wheel of Learning of the Buddha. And yet, there were many more well known Hindu and Muslim rulers in India’s long history including such luminaries as Barbur, Akbar and Harsha, but why, then, is it Ashoka’s symbols that fly embedded in the Indian tricolor? The answer to this mystery is easy. India’s first prime Minister and one of the leading voices of Indian independence, Jawaharlal Nehru, was a devoted fan and studied the reign of Ashoka extensively. Nehru instinctively understood the role that this ancient ruler played not only in India’s storied history, but in the history of the world as well. But the story of Ashoka, except for his unification of what at the time was one of the most extensive empires the world has ever known, is not well known even though his revolutionary rule has echoes in today’s modern states with their tenets of tolerance, justice, mutual respect and the care and well-being for the ruled that denotes fair, just and compassionate governance.

​

Sensitive Content Warning

---

Then

quote:

---

One of the more enduring legacies of Ashoka was the model that he provided for the relationship between Buddhism and the state. Emperor Ashoka was seen as a role model to leaders within the Buddhist community.

​

Ashoka - Wikipedia

---

See the edicts of AshokaEdicts of Ashoka - WikipediaThey were translated into Greek and Aramaic and he sent missionaries to the Syrian Palestinian Seleucid embassy as well as Alexandria.Greek:εὐσέβεια, Eusebeia was used to translate Dharma.

quote:

---

Classical Greek usage[edit]

​

The word was used in Classical Greece where it meant behaving as tradition dictates in one's social relationships and towards the gods. One demonstrates eusebeia to the gods by performing the customary acts of respect (festivals, prayers, sacrifices, public devotions). By extension one honors the gods by showing proper respect to elders, masters, rulers and everything under the protection of the gods.[3]

​

For Platonists, "Eusebeia" meant "right conduct in regard to the gods". For the Stoics, "knowledge of how God should be worshiped".[4]

​

In ancient Greek religion and myth the concept of Eusebeia is anthropomorphized as the daimon of piety, loyalty, duty and filial respect. According to one source, her husband is Nomos (Law), and their daughter is Dike, goddess of justice and fair judgment. In other tellings, Dike is the daughter of the god Zeus and/or the goddess Themis (Order).[5] The Roman equivalent is Pietas.

​

In ancient India[edit]

​

The Indian emperor Ashoka in his 250 BCE Edicts used the word "eusebeia" as a Greek translation for the central Buddhist and Hindu concept of "dharma".[6]

​

New Testament usage[edit]

​

"Eusebeia" enters the New Testament in later writings, where it is typically translated as "godliness," a vague translation that reflects uncertainty about its relevant meaning in the New Testament. For example, "Divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness (eusbeia), through the true (full, personal, experiential) knowledge of Him Who called us by His own glory and excellence" (2 Pet 1:3) Peter. As the following quotation from Bullinger demonstrates, interpreters erroneously adapt the meaning of eusebeia to fit their idea of what is appropriate to Christian practice (and not on philological grounds):

​

The word εὐσέβεια as it is used in the Greek New Testament carries the meaning of "godliness", and is distinct from θρησκεία (thrēskeia), "religion". Eusebeia relates to real, true, vital, and spiritual relation with God, while thrēskeia relates to the outward acts of religious observances or ceremonies, which can be performed by the flesh. The English word "religion" was never used in the sense of true godliness. It always meant the outward forms of worship. In 1Ti 3:16, the Mystery, or secret connected with true Christianity as distinct from religion, it is the Genitive of relation. (This specific meaning occurs only in Act 3:12.) This word arises in the Greek New Testament in 1Ti 2:2, 1Ti 3:16, 1Ti 4:7, 1Ti 4:8, 1Ti 6:3, 1Ti 6:5, 1Ti 6:6, 1Ti 6:11, 2Ti 3:5, Tit 1:1, 2Pe 1:3, 2Pe 1:6, 2Pe 1:7, 2Pe 3:11.[7]
Eusebeia - Wikipedia

---

Look at his view of other religions

quote:

---

Religious exchange[edit]

​

Far from being sectarian, Ashoka, based on a belief that all religions shared a common, positive essence, encouraged tolerance and understanding of other religions.

​

All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)

​

Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice. Rock Edict Nb1 (S. Dhammika)

​

Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-Servant-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions. Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)

​

Edicts of Ashoka - Wikipedia

---

Righteousness involved tolerance.Your trenchant defense of the "Christian" Roman Empire and its Councils (like Nicea) also saw the Bible, you use, get put together for the first time and the outlawing of other religions and homosexual marriage.(You don't dare call this Roman theocracy "Catholic" though! lol)But western civilization had a long history prior.I wish you would show an interest in the actual history itself.Precedents and all.Because you keep making claims (and you constantly change the subject from the historical precedents of the "institution" of marriage itself to the law of Christ and Paul or Christianity itself, though I think your "Christianity" is based on Imperial Church politics and is extra-biblical to the extreme)

I thought you were saying that the governments of the world and various cultures have always opposed gay marriage and that is the institution you feel compelled to defend against radical departures. Perhaps I have confused myself then.

You made it quite a point to have the Council of Nicea taken as some binding and legitimate Doctrine (capital D) that makes up inspired, settled, forever, eternal "Christianity " while you described the Acts 15 council of Jerusalem ( The Apostolic Council ) as a temporary and insignificant meeting just to quickly be rendered obsolete once those ( in your words) confused Jews were able to be ignored. I don't think I have the ability to make it any clearer since you ignore your past comments. I won't be quoting your own past words ( like you arguing with my statement that the Council of Nicea was a Roman rigged vote ) because you already ignored my quotes from you dismissing the Apostolic Council of 50 A. D.

If this thread is still up in a few days or so then I will respond. Do remember that fornication was mentioned in 1 Cor 6 and 10. Josephus and the Samaritan Chronicle have the apocryphal Jannes and Jombras expansion of the Numbers Baalam rebellion and they say the Israelites sacrificed and ate pork and engaged in fornication with strange women which was mentioned in I Corinthians 10. You connected I Corinthians 6 to chapter 10 when I responded to your bringing up chapter 6. You actually brought both up. Not me! I was planning on reminding you of the "ceremonial fornication " excuse I mean explanation of the Acts 15 Apostolic Council as a parallel to the Baalam expansion and I would then suggest that in the interest of consistency you have to see the fornication (gay or straight aside ) as idol ceremonial "making merry" fun in the I Corinthians 6 chapter you brought up. Remember that you are the one who then connected chapter 6 to 10 also. It came about when I showed Paul saying that all things are legal since you stopped justshort of the quote after you quoted him initially to cover his mentioning (possibly ) homosexuality.

Could it be that he could find conduct sinful but still not want the state to outlaw it? You never considered that possibility yet so far as I can tell. I have been asking for as long as I responded to your I Corinthians 6 quote which stopped at verse 11. I had to struggle mightily to get you to acknowledge the "all things are lawful" verse 12. You refuse to consider that the word can refer to support for a policy of sinful conduct a NOT being legislated as illegal but infact could indicate support for legality at the secular level. I am going to have to go ahead and tell you that your lack of consideration of that possibility is very scary. Sorry.

Faith. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, you did draw a distinction between "moral" law and what not? I see you are using the ceremonial argument. I can see why you keep ignoring Acts 15 since the kosher slaughter practices and fornication are present which complicates your ceremonial cleaness argument. The lack of requirement for circumcision eliminates the claim that gentiles were required to follow the commands just for Temple sacrifice . The uncircumcised could NOT enter the Temple. Paul said all things are lawful but you claim that broma or bread for the stomach (which God will destroy both ) is what is covered by "all things ". Perhaps he is saying it all comes to nothing when the world ends or people die? Everything profane and worldly? I love how you can be so happy for such a certain brushing aside of "all" things only refering to idol meat and discount his other possible meanings.

Civil Unions were opposed by 57 to 40 by all Americans in around 2003-2004 and opposition was fierce and long lasting by conservatives. The public swung strongly in favor of gay marriage suddenly around a 5 year period from 2008 to 2013. It was so fast of a sudden swing that the wave has clowded the recollection of strong opposition to even civil unions just a few years prior.

You are allergic to Acts 15, aren't you.? And you make arguments about I Corinthians 6:12-13 that are totally contrary to literal definitions of several words and critical ones at that. The "all" part is supportive of your claims how?

"can you think of any human government or state that explicitly legalizes any of the sins Paul lists as keeping a person out of the kingdom of God ? Don't nations tend to have laws against such things-- or just don't have any laws about them at all?" *************** *****+********* ****,**** +++++++*,******++ +** ***********+** ********* The I Corinthians 6 says Kingdom of Heaven and it is a Hindu and Zoroastrian concept. Svarga ( or Swarga) is the concept. Asvarga means your conduct is not kingdom of heaven bound. Krishna told Arjuna he could break the cycle of birth and rebirth if he fulfilled his duty to Dharma or righteousness by fighting the war of defense. (I think that might be the "violent take it by force" Jesus talked about ). The Hindu religions tend to be in a part of the world where Asvarga is tolerated though. Asvarga is NOT good conduct. NOT heavenBound Edited by LamarkNewAge, : The multiple heavens Paul famously mentioned in 2 Corinthians is undisputedly related to Zoroastrian and Hindu influences.

Three children of Noah on ark that repopulated earth. Ham was father of Canaan (northern Egypt population and Canaanite population of Palestine plus Tarshish and other colonies ) and he uncovered Noah nude while drunk. Cush or Nubia Ethiopia were the typical black slaves though. I am thus not sure skin color was reason for story initially though later Midrash stories had Canaan represent black skinned people. The view became the Christian American view of choice in the first century of the nation's founding.

My response to your oft repeated I Corinthians 6:12-13 keeps getting ignored by yyou. This makes like 50 times. What part of Paul saying "all" (things are lawful ) supports your claim that he is simply talking about idol meat? Paul didn't even mention "meat" but said "bread for the stomach and God will destroy both (stomach and bread) but god will raise you in a spiritual body so don't fornicate " or something like that. ALL keeps getting ignored by you. I can see why because it makes your idol meat excuse weak.

You are asking me if "moral " sins, from 1 Corinthians 6 are legal in any nation? The first thing is that Paul said every other sin , aside from fornication , is outside the body, and Jesus Christ is said by fundamentalist folk to have used "outside the body" as a technical term for non-moral sin in Mark 7. So that would make fornication the ONLY single moral ssin according to Paul. See around verse 6:18 or 6:19

Paul said all things are lawful in chapter 10 in a single verse and the single verse isn't a precise match for 6:12 anyway. You never quoted the verses to compare the two. I would suggest you quote from them plus surrounding verses for context. You have proven nothing. I mean you haven't proven what exactly the chapter 10 words mean exactly. You are using your chapter 10 assertion to then make a bigger leap with chapter 6 by connecting the 2 in a 100% identical fashion. You already told me that Paul wanted a theocracy where sin is illegal so that is the only new detail you have brought in since the first 40 times you ignored my questions.

"Sins of the body have consequences IN THE BODY -- illness of some sort. That's all that means. ...It does not mean sins outside the body are not sins" ******************** ************ ********************** *************** So drunk intoxicating drinks are moral sins? You are asking if this "outside the body " sin is legal in say India? I know that the SOMA was an intoxicating sacred drink and it was legal because it was a sacrificial drink. Bhagavad Gita saw Krishna say he is the SOMA and the sacrifice (mentioned in the Vedas) so drink the SOMA to him. "SOMA" is the word (scholars have expressed doubt Paul wrote Colosians) Paul used in I Colossians verse 16 (?) for BODY of Christ in the Lords Supper. Is that moral or ceremonial though?