|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religions are fairy tales for adults. Should we encourage them to grow up? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are making a lot of unwarranted assertions and accusations but I haven't yet seen you say anything to prove that she "knew" she was going to be in the position of disobeying her oath. It wasn't until a few months before the SCOTUS ruling that any of us started to see what was coming. So where are you getting your certainty about her frame of mind. You're a mind-reader now? Or perhaps, like the rest of us, she could see what was brewing but hoped against hope it wouldn't go against Christians. BUT AGAIN, it doesn't matter. If a law violates God's law, that law must be disobeyed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are referring to information I'm not up on. All I can say is so what. She anticipated a conflict and she took the chance anyway. So what.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There's no lie involved.
Here's an explanation of why Davis is almost alone in her defiance:
Despite many loud proclamations of defiance after the ruling, the vast majority of counties have accepted the law. One little-known and controversial practice might be behind some of this unexpected compliance. In Utah, North Carolina, Texas and other states, local governments are shifting responsibilities so that employees who object to gay marriage do not have to be involved with wedding licenses at all. In this scenario, the objectors’ co-workers or other government officials rotate to handle the task, allowing clerks who object to fade into the background and not participate. In fact, this might be what happens in Davis’s case: Late Thursday afternoon, five of her deputy clerks offered to begin issuing marriage licensing, a move that could save her from jail. They won’t be the only clerks covering for their bosses. Hood County Clerk Katie Lang denied a marriage license to a same-sex couple in Texas several times after the Supreme Court ruling. But after the pair filed a federal lawsuit, their licenses were quickly granted. Lang released a statement saying she would personally refrain from issuing them, but that other people in her office would do so instead. These kinds of personal exemptions have flourished elsewhere, as well. HERE'S THE STORY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. My point is very simple: if ANY human law, doesn't matter what its source, contradicts God, a Christian must disobey that law. Period.
You can render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, you can't render unto Caesar what is God's. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hebrews 11:35:
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You're as bad as jar when it comes to making up your own theology. You know nothing. Why was the faith of those Hebrews included in the New Testament? Because they ARE "Christians," that is, we include them as believers in the same God, even in the sense that they looked forward to the true Messiah despite their disadvantage of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What I already said. You don't know what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, it is Biblical, and again you don't know what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I missed this earlier post but it's raising the same objections others are raising so I guess I should try to answer it.
The SCOTUS ruling and the Christian casualties as a result of it are the beginning of the attack on Christianity which is only going to get worse and worse in this country. Which I think is what that wager was about with Dr. Adequate. We can wait for more examples but it's already begun. But how is this fundamentally any different than other issues that we may disagree with as Christians? What about an OBGYN nurse when the doctor she works for recommends abortion? What about bureaucrats who are asked to issue divorce papers for frivolous reasons? What about hotel staff who are expected to rent rooms to unmarried couples?I don't see that gay marriage is fundamentally any different than these other issues. The change that it made is quantitative, not qualitative. Apparently many don't see the difference, and with all these cases coming up I do keep thinking, Wow, we should be protesting a lot more stuff than we are. But there is nevertheless a difference. Gay marriage is not just a garden-variety sin, as I keep trying to say. It's not the sin of divorce or the sin of fornication or cohabitation without marriage. If I were a Christian OBGYN nurse I couldn't support a doctor's recommendation of abortion but I don't know how Christian nurses deal with such situations. Something to think about. HOWEVER, gay marriage isn't just a sin against a specific law of God, it's a rewriting of God's law, a complete alteration of God's ordinance of marriage. In the other cases we know the law and we know the sin against it. In this case we're changing the law to obscure the whole category of sin. It goes with redefining homosexuality as not a sin but a normal sexual variation. That's how I've been thinking of it anyway. I suppose if someone asked me to as a baker to make a cake to celebrate someone's occasion of adultery and have it sent to the hotel room I'd have a problem with that, but that isn't going to happen, is it? If you rewrote the Ten Commandments to say Adultery is Permitted, Stealing is Permitted, Murder is Permitted, that's more like what is implied in this new law of Gay Marriage though it's still not quite a perfect definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have not shown what is biblical. As usual you just made up your own personal individual definition and try to impose it on two thousand years of theology to the contrary. You don't know what you are talking about but you don't care do you, anything to contradict the truth that's been hammered out for centuries. Just like jar. Make it all up but accuse US of doing that. What a shoddy bit of lying argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
God's LAW on marriage is the point, not the many different ways marriages were formed. The Bible describes lots of sins committed by people, and shows how those sins led to various disasters too, as God doesn't ignore sin.
Polygamy was always a sin although many people in early Israel practiced it. It was David and Solomon's sins that brought on God's judgment in dividing the kingdom after Solomon, into Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Many evil kings are also described after that, also God's judgment. Eventually the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom and then the Babylonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the southern kingdom and took the people into captivity. This was all God's judgment against the nations for their various sins which included Solomon's polygamies in particular, largely because they led him into committing idolatries with their gods. Sometimes money is exchanged for marriage in many cultures. The dowry for instance was a western arrangement, paid by the father of the bride, the opposite of the man buying the woman. But all that is irrelevant to God's law which Jesus described as a man leaving his parents and cleaving only to his wife. One man, one woman. That's always been the Christian view of marriage, and polygamy in the Bible was always treated as a violation of God's law. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, it doesn't say the polygamy itself was the cause of judgment but the idolatrous results of it. Nevertheless we've always understood that polygamy is a sin even though practiced by early Israelites, and this is because of Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. which Jesus referred to, as reported in Matthew 19: 5 and 6, and Mark 10:8, which Paul also repeats in 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31, all emphasizing that TWO become ONE FLESH. There is also a verse somewhere that I can't find right now that says that a person is not an adulterer if he or she remarries after the death of the spouse but otherwise is considered to be an adulterer. I assume, however, that the polygamies were also part of God's judgment just because sin is the cause of judgment: the wages of sin is death. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: Yes, it doesn't say the polygamy itself was the cause of judgment but the idolatrous results of it. no, not really. i mean, yes, solomon had a lot of wives. but the judgment is on the whole kingdom. Of course.
and besides, there are clear cases of where marriage (even single, solitary, one-man-one-woman marriage) brings about idolatry (ie: ahab and jezebaal). that part of the bible is much more concerned with foreign wives than multiple wives. So what? You are bringing up a bunch of totally irrelevant stuff. The Bible SAYS that Solomon's wives "turned his heart" to their gods away from the God of Israel. That's the subject here. The rest is superfluous.
Nevertheless we've always understood that polygamy is a sin even though practiced by early Israelites
well, thing is, i didn't even reference the early israelites. though much of that narrative is fictional anyways, Forget it then, there's no point in talking to someone who thinks any part of the Bible is fiction.
it's clear that in some sense you're correct and that things that happen in genesis can't be read as the bible condoning those things. THAT'S THE ONLY POINT I WAS MAKING. I was answering whoever claimed that the Bible's view of marriage includes polygamy as a legitimate option. It doesn't. The Bible is full of sinners and although it doesn't always identify a sin as a sin, just telling us what this or that person did, it's not hard to figure it out from many other passages. Much of the meaning of the Bible is to be inferred from context. It doesn't have to say a man can't have two wives when it's said clearly elsewhere that marriage makes one flesh of two, a man and a woman. When the Bible says the wages of sin is death it doesn't always mean IMMEDIATE death for cryin out loud, it just means it puts another nail in your coffin. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024