The Tension of Faith

Mostly it's not a complaint, it's just a statement about the reality of the situation. When a law can be written that forces Christians out of business for holding to our Christian beliefs, we've turned some kind of corner in American life. Instead of dwise's worry that we're going to force our views on others, what is happening is the exact reverse and it needs to be acknowledged. This country was formerly strongly Christian at every level, and if anyone is losing power to the other side, we're the losers. The pagans are winning. The secularists are winning. If the same laws "protect Christians" they don't protect us from THIS masterpiece of Satan's.All this attempt to deny this is happening is absurd. Give it up. It's happening and you should be cheering.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

One lives one's Christian faith everywhere, and you certainly can't restrict us to some corner that you think appropriate. The Law of God applies to everyone everywhere at every moment, in every activity and every undertaking and every business.

I'm talking about the Supreme Court decision to declare gay marriage the law of the land. It was not a decision of Congress but of the activist Supreme Court. Really it isn't even legal but it is treated as if it's the law of the land anyway. I didn't say it was written for this specific purpose, except of course as manipulated by Satan himself. Are you all this dense that you need this spelled out? The law forces Christians when put in certain positions such as being asked to provide services for a gay wedding to violate our Christian conscience if we comply. It hasn't yet come to requiring us to swear an oath to honor gay marriages but I suppose it could happen.By defining gay marriage as a civil right the nation has committed a serious violation of common sense as well as God's Law, that was not committed by any nation or tribe on earth until recently.What do you hope to accomplish by trying to talk us out of something we can't be talked out of? There is NO argument whatever that could make us violate God's Law. What's sad is that there are so many Christians who don't think it's a problem.No, I don't know any Christian Reconstructionists that I'm aware of.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is incredible that anyone would be allowed to say such things on a forum debate board about another member, a member who is doing nothing but affirming her Christian faith, and allowed especially by the owner of the board who wrote the rules against personal attack. Not only is it a violation beyond reason, it is done by the one person who is not subject to censure. Talk about tyranny. Heil Percy.I'm grateful, however, that I have the faith that God will judge you for it. If that's a threat, which would be a strange idea considering that I can't do anything about it myself, though I know your mind can't make such a fine distinction, I'll leave it at that. Call it a prophecy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your report on Phillips' refusal to make a cake for a gay wedding.The cake would have to have been custom made. I don't see a problem with a cake off the shelf and from what he said Phillips wouldn't either since he said anything else in the shop was available.There is no Christian justification for denying black people or any racial group anything and it's wrong wherever it's been done. The Bible says we are all descended from Adam and Eve. Racism is unchristian.But marrying two people who are not designed for marriage, which was ordained by God for uniting the two sexes for the purpose of procreation, is against God's Law and must be refused by Christians.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Civics has nothing to do with this. I don't care what the source of the tyrannical law is, it forces a Christian to violate God's Law when pushed.If you're calling me a Christian Reconstructionist, I don't know what you are talking about. the view that I would LIKE to live in a theocracy perhaps? But in this fallen world I wouldn't advocate it. I expect to wait for God's Kingdom.What's "amazing" is the inability of my opponents to make accurate distinctions.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You don't get to define Christianity and you are wrong about all the differences among us. But what you think is utterly irrelevant. Those of us who understand the Bible RIGHTLY, yes I dare say I know how to judge that, have to refuse anything that would lend validity to gay marriage.Oh now even that absurd canard about situational inability to procreate. Why are you all so STUPID.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm pretty sure what I said about the Supreme Court is true enough but IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THE LAW CAME FROM. IT EXISTS AND IT HAS BEEN USED TO DRIVE CHRISTIANS OUT OF BUSINESS, THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.Maybe I tried to defend a theocracy somewhere?> I'm surprised because it would be so unworkable. But it is true I would love to live in a theocracy if it were possible.

"more to marriage than procreation?" I can't believe you'd try that one either. It's fundamental, not exhaustive. WHat IS the matter with your head?

the Oregon bskers had to close their doors. They were harassed and their business was vandalized. Their business WAS wedding cakes. No more. Phillips gave up making wedding csakes. Yes they were driven out of the wedding business. Stop lying. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is a Christian position, It is a blblical position.There is no such thing as "Club Christian" except in your mind. I don't even know what the term means, except that you hate true Christianity. the people who have been sued under this law are genuine Christians who will not violate God's Law.Of course there's always the solution of giving up the freedom to make wedding cakes. The Oregon bakery was ALL wedding cakes because that was her love.Face it, you're all supporting a travesty of a law that is against Christians. The law is the villain but Christians are being made the villains in the service of legalizing sin yet.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Instead of repeating that utterly false and irrelevant nonsense, all you have to do is admit that biblical Christians must refuse to do anything to legitimize gay marriage because we understand it to violate God's Law, and this means refusing to legitimize it in many ways, such as by performing a service for a gay wedding for instance. It's so simple. Nothing else is relevant. Just concede it and all this silly stuff can stop. These discussions usually end anyway with someone saying "Right and you SHOULD be punished for that." Get it over with already.

Not according to God, Percy, or Christians. Secular law may say so but we obey God, not secular law, if secular law has put us in the position of having to choose. That is an absurd misreading of separation. Christianity is also in favor of separation. The First Amendment includes this phrase: "Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion"] which means that we are free to live our beliefs wherever we are without government interference, as God tells us to, and your misreading would prohibit us from that. This is not "imposing" anything on the state, this is merely the freedom that the Constitution guarantees us. I understand, however, that hostile forces have been rewriting the Constitution for a long time and twisted it into something to suit themselves.

I suppose you can, since anything can be twisted to mean anything these days. As scripture says, the Antichrist will be welcomed by all while true Christianity is rejected.

I am not lying. I don't know all the arguments everybody has made. What I object to is specifically the concept of marriage being applied to gay couples. I'd be for some kind of legal contract that provided the benefits without the shadow of marriage being involved in it, especially the right to hospital visitation. Never heard of that, can't say much without knowing their thinking, but gay marriage is just the latest in the social program to destroy marriage, and their action would just add to the destruction. I probably didn't see that question because your posts are so obnoxious I sometimes skip them. I have no problem with people making legal contracts between them which include some form of commitment to each other. I don't know much about the legal situation but I'd think such things as putting someone on your insurance and legally granting the right to visit in the hospital should be possible. There's no reason why gays SHOULD get all the benefits of marriage though since those benefits were given to encourage marriage and children for the sake of society.ABE: And that being the case I might end up against extending insurance to a gay partner. Some conditions would have to be met in any case, because gay marriage does NOT benefit society which was the whole point of the marriage benefits. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.