Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

It is interesting to hear the whole story from the couple's side. I'd heard they were turned down very politely but if what they say is true it wasn't so polite.However, I don't get why someone who had lived as a lesbian for so many years would be so nave as not to know there could be problems with setting up a wedding to her lesbian partner, or why it would have such a devastating emotional effect on her, especially since her own mother had been opposed to her relationship until recently. And correct me if I misread, but I gather this all happened before the SCOTUS ruling too?Seems to me she could have been spared such pain, however, if some prudent forethought had been applied in order to avoid the painful situation. They ended up calling around and finding a bakery that wouldn't have a problem with a gay wedding. Shouldn't that have been done in the first place? As Moose pointed out, Oregon is a very liberal state, there must be hundreds of options for a gay wedding. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Paul was talking about sin and marriage in I Corinthians 5-7 and you stopped quoting him just before he said that all things are lawful. Please quote the King James version (which is more accurate PERHAPS than newer translations of 6:12)

He said all things are lawful FOR HIMSELF, which is the same thing he'd said about eating meats sacrificed to idols. This is about a liberty CHRISTIANS have, though it is clear from pages of NT text that we are to give up all sin so it can't be treating fornication or any other sin as optional. In any case it is not about unbelievers, which is who that list applies to, who will not inherit the kingdom of God, followed by the BUT that says many believers HAD BEEN in those categories abut are now sanctified. Now that you are sanctified you no longer do what you did as unbelievers. That's a theme throughout the NT.No commentator thinks he is saying that even Christians can do the things that keep a person from the kingdom of God. The whole point is to teach them that those things are outside the kingdom and they must not do them. He is teaching the Corinthians, a notoriously wild bunch because the city of Corinth was given over to an amazing variety of sins. Because of the rampant sin in their city they kept having to be taught against all kinds of things that a Christian would have to give up. Being used to that life, according to one commentary I read, they may even have thought that visiting prostitutes wasn't a problem but one of those things Christian freedom allowed to them. He's saying no, that would be joining Christ to a whore, clearly saying that's a bad thing, not an option because of Christian liberty.I quoted the paragraph just to show, in some context that came up that I've forgotten, that homosexuals are included among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, until they repent and become sanctified by Christ, which ALWAYS means giving up your sin. How you can manage to turn it around as if it says such things are good in any context is quite the word magic. If you find the passage ambiguous enough to allow for such a bizarre interpretation. you need to at least realize that it is perfectly clear elsewhere in the NT that no such practice could possibly be acceptable in the Christian life.

To say it as clearly as I can: There is no way sin is ever lawful, it is the definition of lawlessness. It is what gets us sent to Hell. There is no way that could be what Paul meant. He was writing in a specific context to the unruly Corinthians, and it may be hard to understand because we don't have the complete context of the statement, but there is no way he is saying sin is lawful.

Well, I wanted you to quote a larger context than what you selectively did some dozens of posts ago. At least you are engaging the issue anyway. The commentary should come later. I have seen honest comentators express genuine confusion at how Paul would say what he did at a moment he is discussing the sins he is in chapter 6. If I remember correctly, they often say he is quoting a response to his vice lists. Most modern translations put his words in quotation marks, however selectively. Some feel that Paul's words in chapter 6 got additional lines added to from other texts of Paul ssamea spell chemo Viva giving me hell ERASIng multiple words. Making things short. Some suggest line corruption or sentence transposition. I don't know.

Accepting that the text is unaltered, my guess is that he didn't include enough of the context for us at such a remove from the experiences of the Corinthians to understand his meaning.In such a case we are to apply the principle that we aren't to base our theology on unclear passages like this one, especially since there are plenty of others which make it quite clear that the whole point of Christian salvation is to be saved from SIN, and there is no doubt what sin is either, the Bible from beginning to end makes it quite clear.

You're making a very petty nitpick about a very petty situation. You're singling out homosexuality from a wide variety of Old Testament infractions. Homosexuality is NOT a big issue in the Bible. It's on a par with eating shellfish. (Note that the children of Israel would not have been exposed to a lot of shellfish while wandering in the desert, which was when the law was given. It looks like they just threw in a few insignificant "abominations" to fill up the page.)

THIS IS NOT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY AS SUCH. Which I've said so many times already I'd think even you would know that.HOWEVER, homosexuality is no trivial thing in the Bible either, as you are trying to claim. Homosexuality was practiced as part of the religious rituals in many of the heathen idolatries, it was thoroughly forbidden to the Jews for that reason as well as being a category of the sin of adultery.But again, I keep trying to say this is about God's definition of marriage far more than it is about the particular sin of homosexuality. The SCOTUS ruling made GAY MARRIAGE legal across the country, not homosexuality as such but gay MARRIAGE. This is why the county clerk, forgot her name, wouldn't sign marriage licenses for gays. She would also have to refuse to sign a license for a polygamous marriage if it was known to her, or for a marriage to an underage person and so on, whoever is excluded from the "right" to marriage. In those cases the secular law already excludes them.As a Christian she knows the SCOTUS ruling permits a marriage that God denies so she has to refuse it.The bakery, the florist and the photographer all refused their services to a GAY WEDDING, NOT TO GAYS, who, as I've said over and over and over and over and over, are not refused any service that isn't about a gay wedding, all the baked goods they want, all the flowers they want, all the photography of any other event they want.

Please, I am trying to hold back on commenting on this issue. Eventually I will as I now think that Galatians 6:2 or 6:3 and the LAW OF CHRIST might solve the mystery of what law outlawed meat eating. I have found cutting edge journal articles from fundamentalist scholars and they aren"t making a vegetarian argument but admit that1Romans 15:1-3 seems to be a parallel us Corinthians 9 around verse 20 or something. Very complicated additional issues. But this vegetarian requirement might be closer to being explained.

This is off topic LNA and your discussions normally go so far afield from standard Christian theology they are a pain in the neck anyway. We don't need some special context for forbidding the eating of MEAT SACRIFICED TO IDOLS because that involves a person in that satanic idolatrous religion, and it's not a "petty" thing. But Christ conquered Satan and the eating of sacrificed meat doesn't compromise the conscience of a strong Christian believer - it's just meat, not a religious ritual in that case. If it compromises the conscience of a weak believer, however, we are to respect the conscience of that weak believer and not tempt him by eating such meat, but as a general principle it no longer affects Christians, and now that we no longer live surrounded by such idolatrous satanic religions it doesn't apply to us at all.There is no problem here and it has nothing to do with violating God's law of marriage.

Chapter and verse, please. It has nothing to do with "God's definition of marriage". The Bible does NOT define marriage the way you claim it does. Then why are homosexual marriages the only ones you are complaining about? Why not refuse to bake a wedding cake for an adulterer? Adultery is a pretty big issue in the Bible.

The topic has nothing to do with meat eating.

In no way was I going to say anything more in this thread. I was just responding to the fact that meat eating keeps coming up here.iinsa I was saying it in a partially light hearted manner. I am also about done on the marriage issues too though much more can be said

Again I wasn't going to comment but the constant bringing up of meat in this thread was noteworthy anyway. My post was just an observation. A one time observation and it seemed slightly ironic

YOUR understanding of how the Bible defines marriage is absolutely utterly and completely irrelevant. Conservative Christians know it forbids gay marriage and it doesn't matter in the slightest what YOU think about it.THIS IS NOT ABOUT JUDGING PERSONAL SINS, IT IS ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. GAY MARRIAGE CHANGES THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, EVEN ADULTERY, THOUGH A SIN, DOES NOT.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.