Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 871 of 1484 (803668)
04-03-2017 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 865 by Dredge
04-03-2017 3:37 AM


Are we being POE'd again?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 865 by Dredge, posted 04-03-2017 3:37 AM Dredge has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 872 of 1484 (803671)
04-03-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 865 by Dredge
04-03-2017 3:37 AM


Dredge writes:
The Great False God of Equality....
"For ALL have sinned," is a statement of equality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 865 by Dredge, posted 04-03-2017 3:37 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 873 of 1484 (803673)
04-03-2017 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 868 by jar
04-03-2017 6:59 AM


Jesus of course was ...both a communist and a socialist who was very much in favor of equality.
Apart from the fact that Jesus was no such thing, it's so odd that anyone would claim Communism, or socialism either, is in favor of equality, unless of course that means equality of poverty for the masses and extravagant wealth for the bosses.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 868 by jar, posted 04-03-2017 6:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 874 by jar, posted 04-03-2017 12:07 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 874 of 1484 (803674)
04-03-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 873 by Faith
04-03-2017 11:59 AM


Faith writes:
Apart from the fact that Jesus was no such thing, it's so odd that anyone would claim Communism, or socialism either, is in favor of equality, unless of course that means equality of poverty for the masses and extravagant wealth for the bosses.
Once again Faith, you are simply showing that you have not read any of the books written by Marx or Trotsky describing communism just as you have not shown you have read the Bible.
Jesus lived in a commune with needs met by those who could afford the largess expecting the members to produce what they could.
He lived by "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(s)".
Acts:11:29 writes:
Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
Also the parable of the Talents.
Acts 4:32-35 writes:
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Edited by jar, : add biblical passages since it seems they had not been read.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by Faith, posted 04-03-2017 11:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 876 by Faith, posted 04-03-2017 12:43 PM jar has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 875 of 1484 (803676)
04-03-2017 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
04-02-2017 1:49 PM


Faith and her Roman Empire "faith" is not Apostolic Christianity
I said this in post 793
quote:
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.
Faith responded in 794 (in an evasive manner)
quote:
It's true that I accept Nicaea as a legitimate council, and it's true that I believe the Jerusalem Council was an accommodation to the Jews in that time that isn't binding on us now, but none of that was on this thread and it goes back a very long way in the forum IRRC, so I really have no idea what it has to do with this topic -- I need some idea why you are bringing it up.
I'm also not exactly inclined to answer you when you keep accusing me of ignoring this or that or other perfidies. It's more likely you just aren't making sense and I stopped responding. If you just say I said this or that I may not recognize it so it's always a good idea to give a direct quote.
I have no idea where "confused Jews" comes from.
I HAVE to ignore such strange and irrelevant comments, there is nothing else to do with them.
Here are your past words
(see post 544 for source and link)
quote:
My understanding of the judgment in Acts 15 is that it was intended to require the Gentile believers to obey certain laws that would have greatly offended the Jewish believers if disobeyed. It's an application of the principle that we are not to act in a way that causes our brother to stumble, even if we have every right to ignore the law altogether because it has been fulfilled. It was important that Gentiles not be required to be circumcised so that was the first judgment; but then they did require obedience to some laws for the sake of the conscience of the Jews:
As one commentator says: "If the decision is that one does not have to be Jewish to be a Christian, it must also be declared that one does not need to forsake the Law of Moses to be a Christian."
So it's not a matter of whether the law was ceremonial or not, but a matter of respect for the conscience of other believers -- in this case the Jewish believers who had been brought up in strict observance of the Law of Moses. When the Jews were later no longer the leaders in the Church it was recognized that there was no longer a need to obey these laws -- because there is no requirement any more to obey any of the laws as the Jews understood it.
You said that Jews had an incorrect understanding or were CONFUSED!
You are the one confused Faith. James the Just was not confused and neither were his fellow Jewish Christians.
Here is you in post 823 (responding to me, when I said you are "allergic to Acts 15")
quote:
[LamarkNewAge said:]
I see you are using the ceremonial argument.
quote:
[Faith responds:]
You keep using that term "ceremonial." It's one of the things that is confusing. There is no concept of ceremonial law in the New Testament; there is in the Old Testament though. But you are using it in relation to the New Testament Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and I do not get what your point is. I'm not aware of using any "ceremonial" argument at all, I don't know what you are talking about.
Keep reading my quotes of you Faith because you then go on to use the ceremonial argument to discount the Post Easter Council decisions.
quote:
[LamarkNewAge:]
I can see why you keep ignoring Acts 15 since the kosher slaughter practices and fornication are present which complicates your ceremonial cleaness argument.
quote:
[Faith]
Huh?
Keep ignoring the fact that the moral issue of fornication is in these supposedly "ceremonial" laws Faith.
quote:
[LamarkNewAge]
The lack of requirement for circumcision eliminates the claim that gentiles were required to follow the commands just for Temple sacrifice .
quote:
[Faith]
Huh? "Temple sacrifice?????"
Wow!
You don't know what got Paul arrested?
Acts 21 was when Paul returned from his final missionary trip, and the Apostolic Council decisions were referenced there (the only other chapter in the Bible they are quoted fully aside from chapter 15) and the rest of Acts centers around his legal issues concerning gentiles and the Temple.
Gentiles weren't given the Apostolic Council rules for the sake of not offending Jews. That is a fiction that isn't in the text.
quote:
[LamarkNewAge]
The uncircumcised could NOT enter the Temple. .
quote:
[Faith responds]
Huh? What ARE you talking about?
....
Have you ever read a Christian commentary or do you just invent all this gobbledygook in your own head?
Acts 15 is about the believing Jews being upset because the Gentiles were getting saved without having to obey any of the laws the Jews had been taught to obey. Paul was trying to teach the Jews that God doesn't requir4e obedience to those laws any more, -- the ceremonial ones anyway
....
they had this council to determine which laws were most important to the Jews in this respect, in order to ask the Gentiles to obey those laws for the sake of the conscience of the Jews. Paul had already taught at great length against the need for circumcision so that one wasn't included. Instead they made a short list of laws for the Gentiles to obey in order to avoid offending the Jews. These included fornication and meats with the blood in them. When the Jews were no longer the leaders of the churches and Christianity had become more Gentile than Jewish, there was no longer a need for these laws because there weren't enough Jews brought up in the Law to be offended any more.
Having said all that I guess you are saying something about the difference between the law of blood and the law of fornication? I guess the law of blood being a dietary law was a "ceremonial" law so I guess you are saying something about that, but I really am not sure what. Fornication of course is against God's Moral Law so we are to obey that in any case, council or no council. But the law of blood no longer applies to us.
Now, if I've managed to sort all that out at least to some extent, can you explain what you keep trying to say about it all?
I am saying you are a Roman Empire "Christian" and you ignore Apostolic Christianity.
And back to the "ceremonial" argument I see. Contrary to your slick lie earlier.
Even Wikipedia articles have a hard time attempt;ting to describe the Apostolic Council being ignored and disparaged by your ilk Faith
quote:
Ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about church councils held before the First Council of Nicaea. For church councils in general, see synod.
Church councils are formal meetings of bishops and representatives of several churches who are brought together to regulate points of doctrine or discipline.[1][2] The meetings may be of a single ecclesiastical community or may involve an ecclesiastical province, a nation or other civil region, or the whole Church. Some of those convoked from the Church as a whole have been recognized as ecumenical councils and are considered particularly authoritative. The first ecumenical council is that of Nicaea, called by the Emperor Constantine in 325.[2][3][4][5]
Pre-ecumenical councils, those earlier than AD 325, were mostly local or provincial. Some, held in the second half of the 3rd century, involved more than one province. The sui generis Council of Jerusalem was a meeting, described in the Bible in Acts 15 and possibly in Galatians 2, of the apostles and elders of the local Church in Jerusalem.
In spite of lacking the authority of the decisions of ecumenical councils, the teachings and decrees of these pre-ecumenical councils are sometimes considered to be binding on the faithful in varying degrees, in particular certain councils held in Carthage and Elvira.[6] But even the Council of Jerusalem's decisions, known as the Apostolic Decree, in particular the obligation to abstain from eating blood or what has been strangled,[7] are not accepted by all Christian churches.
Contents
1 Apostolic Council of Jerusalem
2 Normal pre-ecumenical councils 2.1 Examples of matters discussed
2.2 Participants
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
Apostolic Council of Jerusalem[edit]
The Acts of the Apostles records, without using for it the term "council" or "synod", what has been called the Council of Jerusalem: to respond to a consultation by Paul of Tarsus, the apostles and elders of the Church in Jerusalem met to address the question of observance of biblical law in the early Christian community, which included Gentile converts.[8] This is the only such meeting recorded in the New Testament, and may be referred to also in the Epistle to the Galatians.[9] This meeting of the Church in Jerusalem was not a gathering of representatives coming from all areas, like an ecumenical council. It is called the Apostolic Council, because of the participation in it of the apostles.[10] This gives it a character different from the normal pre-ecumenical church councils.[11] It took place around the year 50.[12]
Ancient church councils - Wikipedia(pre-ecumenical)
They don't mention how strange it is that people like you don't accept the council.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 04-02-2017 1:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 876 of 1484 (803677)
04-03-2017 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 874 by jar
04-03-2017 12:07 PM


What utter nonsense.
What you are describing is just the ordinary charity of the church in helping to support others in dire need.
Jesus didn't live in a commune. He said He had "no place to lay My head."
There was one time later, after His crucifixion, when the church pooled all their goods. One time. Not the norm.
The parable of the talents is rather a capitalist example it seems to me: each being provided with an original stake and expected to invest it to increase its value.
You need to stop reading your liberal commentaries.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 874 by jar, posted 04-03-2017 12:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 878 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-03-2017 12:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 879 by jar, posted 04-03-2017 1:02 PM Faith has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 877 of 1484 (803678)
04-03-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 804 by Faith
04-02-2017 5:43 AM


Re: Did it occur to you that Paul separated sin and state?
quote:
So if you are trying to find a way in scripture to claim that Paul says it's OK to sin, in spite of that long list of sins that keep people out of the kingdom of God, that's a lost cause.
And again Paul says absolutely nothing about "legality at the secular level" and I haven't used scripture for anything remotely related to that concept at all. I'm struggling even to figure out what you think you are saying and why.
ABE: Here's a thought. Perhaps you ARE confusing "lawful" in relation to the Moral Law of God, with laws as made by nations? Maybe that would explain why there is so much confusion on this point and why I'm not getting what you are saying?
If this is what the confusion is about, then I'd ask, 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?
So why do you oppose gay marriage being legal then?
You care that a small percentage of men (or females) will "sin" so much that you want certain marriage unions made illegal.
Would Paul want it that way?
What do you think?
You like to share your thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by Faith, posted 04-02-2017 5:43 AM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 878 of 1484 (803679)
04-03-2017 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 876 by Faith
04-03-2017 12:43 PM


Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
quote:
[Faith said]
of the church
I don't know what this is about but I always put "church" in quotation marks when a Roman Empire Christian like you invokes the name.
You aren't of the Apostolic faith "Faith"
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 876 by Faith, posted 04-03-2017 12:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by Faith, posted 04-03-2017 1:21 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 881 by Faith, posted 04-03-2017 1:27 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 879 of 1484 (803680)
04-03-2017 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 876 by Faith
04-03-2017 12:43 PM


Faith writes:
You need to stop reading your liberal commentaries.
I don't read commentaries Faith, I read what the Bible actually says. Jesus did have a place to lay his head since he did live within a community made up of followers and outsiders that contributed to support his marketing efforts. It was a classic example of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(s)". Wealth donors provided income and his roadies learned from him and helped market his product. But each left their job to join the commune you will notice.
But again Faith, you have still failed to show any actual support for your assertion that "Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity" has any basis in reality.
You have demonstrated that different chapters of Club Christian have created their own interpretations of what the Bible actually says yet that does not in any way change the fact of what the Bible says. You have only shown that you create the "Christianity" and "Jesus" and "God" that suits your desired beliefs.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 876 by Faith, posted 04-03-2017 12:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 882 by Faith, posted 04-03-2017 1:34 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 880 of 1484 (803681)
04-03-2017 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by LamarkNewAge
04-03-2017 12:49 PM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
I have no idea what weird theology you subscribe to but that long post taking me to task about Acts 15 for some incomprehensible reason quotes me saying things that most Protestants say about that council: the point was to resolve issues raised by Jews about Gentiles not obeying their laws, specifically circumcision; and they eventually decided only to require them to obey the laws Jews would find most offensive if disobeyed. This was asked of them not because it was necessary -- the Gentiles had every right not to obey any of it -- but to show respect for their Jewish brethren -- on the basis of the "Law of Love" rather than the strict law of the Jews. The passage shows that it is not wrong for believers in Christ to obey the Jewish laws and also not wrong not to obey them at all. It's all easily findable in Protestant commentaries online. I said pretty much the same thing in both of those quotes you post of what I said.
It logically follows that when the Church became predominantly Gentile that there would no longer be any reason to obey the laws the council asked of them, and as a matter of history those laws were dropped.
Again, I have no idea what yhou are complaining about. What I said is standard Protestant understanding of that council.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-03-2017 12:49 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 900 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-03-2017 8:56 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 881 of 1484 (803682)
04-03-2017 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by LamarkNewAge
04-03-2017 12:49 PM


Re: Your Roman Empire Council "church" Faith?
What is a "Roman Empire Christian" anyway?
I'm a strong Reformation Protestant. What are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-03-2017 12:49 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 882 of 1484 (803683)
04-03-2017 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 879 by jar
04-03-2017 1:02 PM


You did quote a bishop some time ago as having the same views you have, but if you do just get your wacko readings of the Bible on your own, that would make sense. We need preachers and teachers to get it right and you are a poster child for how wrong it's possible to be.
ABE: There is safety in a multitude of counselors says the Bible. Trusting yourself alone to get anything right is sheer foolishness. The more commentaries you read the better able you are to sort out the truth from the errors. The Bible also requires "two or more witnesses" to determine the truth of any claim, usually criminal claim, but the principle applies in general. Loners are not to be trusted. (And that is certainly one strong reason to recognize Mohammed as a false prophet by the way)
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 879 by jar, posted 04-03-2017 1:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 884 by jar, posted 04-03-2017 2:07 PM Faith has replied
 Message 889 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2017 3:57 PM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 883 of 1484 (803684)
04-03-2017 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 822 by mike the wiz
04-02-2017 1:41 PM


Re: Eighth time, Faith
I suppose you also believe creationists eat children. As you can see from the link, there are no races as such, under creationism, so tribes can't be delineated by outer appearance.
What is this supposed to mean? Did not Ken Ham agree that Africans and Chinese were descendants of Ham? Did I attribute anything more to him than that? Did I accuse Dr. Ham of racism?
I note that Dr. Ham denies that there is a curse of Ham. Yet we can read something that appears quite different in Genesis 9:25.
Certain people groups coming from Ham, has nothing to do with being cursed anyway, in the sense of racism.
The question is whether or not folks did actually interpret the Bible as saying that, and whether that interpretation can be textually justified. Of course, it is possible to pick holes in that interpretation, but that is true about other currently mainstream doctrine.
I myself have never read anything racist in the bible, it seems like an open and shut case that wicked people try and get things into the bible so as to justify those agendas by appealing to the bible as the authority which justifies those notions.
That's fine. Of course, a good part of the discussion here is about whether folks are mis-interpreting the Bible to justify yet another notion about wedding cakes. I understand that you are not doing that.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by mike the wiz, posted 04-02-2017 1:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 884 of 1484 (803687)
04-03-2017 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 882 by Faith
04-03-2017 1:34 PM


Faith writes:
You did quote a bishop some time ago as having the same views you have, but if you do just get your wacko readings of the Bible on your own, that would make sense. We need preachers and teachers to get it right and you are a poster child for how wrong it's possible to be.
Actually no, I quoted a Bishop that understood that the Bible actually says what it says instead of relying on what the apologists make up.
But that still does not change the fact that the Bible actually says what it says and not what the commentators wished it said.
But again Faith, you have still failed to show any actual support for your assertion that "Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity" has any basis in reality.
You have demonstrated that different chapters of Club Christian have created their own interpretations of what the Bible actually says yet that does not in any way change the fact of what the Bible says. You have only shown that you create the "Christianity" and "Jesus" and "God" that suits your desired beliefs.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 882 by Faith, posted 04-03-2017 1:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 885 by Faith, posted 04-03-2017 3:08 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 885 of 1484 (803693)
04-03-2017 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 884 by jar
04-03-2017 2:07 PM


Only a total idiot would think he's the only one who can read the Bible correctly. An arrogant total idiot. And as soon as anyone, you or that bishop, gives an opinion about what it says, that makes you or him, a "commentator" or an apologist. Duh. We still have to choose between different interpretations of what it says. My choices are quite consistent back through the Reformers down to the Church Fathers, ignoring a lot of the RCC but following dissident groups. I'd bet you can't trace your own interpretation back more than a few decades if that.
I also think this thread has proved many times the truth of the title.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by jar, posted 04-03-2017 2:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 886 by jar, posted 04-03-2017 3:29 PM Faith has replied
 Message 887 by Tangle, posted 04-03-2017 3:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024