Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 19/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 76 of 1484 (802173)
03-12-2017 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous
03-12-2017 5:54 PM


Re: related issues
Who would have guessed it ? A dishonest right-wing propaganda video on YouTube !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2017 5:54 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:52 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2017 8:29 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 77 of 1484 (802176)
03-12-2017 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by PaulK
03-12-2017 6:04 PM


Re: related issues
In reality probably a leftie false flag to mock and discredit the right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 03-12-2017 6:04 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Rrhain, posted 03-13-2017 6:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 1484 (802177)
03-12-2017 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by PaulK
03-12-2017 5:59 PM


Re:
It seems to me that going against this supposed ordinance would require interfering with heterosexual couples marrying. Allowing gay marriage does not do that.
What?
And there is no ordinance prohibiting the government from granting the purely secular legal status of marriage to gay couples.
What?
You'd have a better case that the ban on polygamy is a violation of "God's ordinance"
What?
I can't tell how you are using the word "ordinance" in the first two quotes. I didn't use it for human law but that's what the post is about you are replying to.
You aren't making any sense. There's a US law that says gay marriage is legal across the nation and that it must be accepted by all as legal and valid. Christians cannot in good conscience accept it as valid so when pressed to act in any way that implies agreement with it must refuse to do so. This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment.
That is what this is all about. There's nothing more to it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 03-12-2017 5:59 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 03-12-2017 8:18 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 1:09 AM Faith has replied
 Message 111 by Rrhain, posted 03-13-2017 6:40 PM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 1484 (802178)
03-12-2017 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by frako
03-12-2017 8:05 AM


Well its written in the same place as those silly laws are. Are you sure you are just not a biggot as is your preacher. And this one is also ceremonial, how can you tell what is a moral law and what is ceremonial?
You nailed it. In previous threads when this is pointed out, Faith has responded by making every narrower and narrower distinctions between laws.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible calls out lots of things as abominations, and most gay hatin' Christians give short shrift to nearly all of those abominations other than gay marriage.
I agree with Paul that the "attack on Christianity" aspect of this thread is total nonsense.

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 8 by frako, posted 03-12-2017 8:05 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by xongsmith, posted 03-12-2017 9:32 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 80 of 1484 (802179)
03-12-2017 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
03-12-2017 8:02 PM


Christian Conscious
Faith writes:
Christians cannot in good conscience accept it as valid so when pressed to act in any way that implies agreement with it must refuse to do so.
As a Christian I call bullshit on that assertion. In addition as you have been shown the Bible says that even common courtesy overrides obedience to God's laws. Well golly gosh darn, it was in fact in message 13 Message 13 of this very thread.
2Kings:5 writes:
17 If you will not, said Naaman, please let me, your servant, be given as much earth as a pair of mules can carry, for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord. 18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there alsowhen I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.
19 Go in peace, Elisha said.
Helping others, even in something as major as their worship of a different God is not just forgiven but seen as actually obeying God.
Those who refuse to bake a cake or rent a room or any other act of discrimination because they believe it is a sin are simply ignorant of what we are charged by the Bible to do. God would simply tell them to "Go in peace and bake the finest wedding cake for them that you can."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 8:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 1484 (802181)
03-12-2017 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by PaulK
03-12-2017 6:04 PM


Re: related issues
A dishonest right-wing propaganda video on YouTube
Apparently Steven Crowder is {probably} a leftie false flag operation now. OF course Fox News dropped him after he criticized Sean Hannity so maybe it's true:
quote:
Fox hired Crowder four years ago and gave him a lot of visibility. But the problem was that he was never that funny, and, in addition, he crossed the line more than a few times. So we let him go. It happens. This is a business. But now, sadly, on his way out the door, Crowder is proving his true colors, by being disloyal to the folks who took a chance on him and had him on the payroll for so long. The attack on Hannity only further underscores the wisdom of our decision to part company with him
Breitbart source
Well anyway, Faith should tell Conservative Review - Mark Levin's baby - who feature him on CRTV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 03-12-2017 6:04 PM PaulK has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 82 of 1484 (802183)
03-12-2017 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous
03-12-2017 5:54 PM


Re: related issues
Thanks. About what I expected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2017 5:54 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 83 of 1484 (802184)
03-12-2017 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by NoNukes
03-12-2017 8:09 PM


NoNukes comments:
I agree with Paul that the "attack on Christianity" aspect of this thread is total nonsense.
In fact, if anything at all in this regard, there should be a thread worded the other way. There certain subsets of Christians (meaning that there are more than just Faith) that are exhibiting an attack on Gay Marriage. But I suspect that that thread would be shrugged off as obvious and get little traffic.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 03-12-2017 8:09 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 3:36 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 84 of 1484 (802186)
03-13-2017 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
03-12-2017 8:02 PM


Re:
quote:
What?
It seems pretty simple. If God ordained that couples in a particular situation should get married the only way to go against that ordinance is to prevent such marriages.
Extending the marriage laws to cover other couples doesn't do that.
quote:
What?
It seems pretty simple. Ordaining that gay couples should be forbidden the legal status of marriage is rather different from setting up marriage as an institution. Especially given that the present marriage laws were hardly ordained by God.
quote:
What?
Polygamy is accepted in the Bible. Therefore a ban on polygamy band marriages that would be acceptable - and arguably, in some cases at least, desirable according to the original ordinance.
quote:
I can't tell how you are using the word "ordinance" in the first two quotes. I didn't use it for human law but that's what the post is about you are replying to.
I am using it in the same sense you are - and definitely not referring to human law.
It is amazing how your brain shuts down when faced with arguments you can't answer (and this is not even the first example in this thread)
quote:
You aren't making any sense
The fault is at your end.
quote:
There's a US law that says gay marriage is legal across the nation and that it must be accepted by all as legal and valid
In so far as marriage is a legal status, yes.
quote:
Christians cannot in good conscience accept it as valid so when pressed to act in any way that implies agreement with it must refuse to do so. This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment.
That does not seem to be true. There is no clear problem for Christians accepting it (which is why many do). And it is rather unlikely that you could be in violation of that law - you haven't posted any examples to this thread.
quote:
That is what this is all about. There's nothing more to it.
Seems to me that this is more about lying bigots being upset that they didn't get their way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 8:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 4:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5982
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 85 of 1484 (802187)
03-13-2017 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:48 AM


Re: False equivalence
How amazing that nonChristians believe they can tell us what it means to be obedient to God or not.
You and other "true Christians" instruct everybody constantly in those things. So we do know all to well what you believe it means to be obedient to God or not.
And it doesn't take a genius to observe how you yourselves fail utterly. That is called "hypocrisy", something which I have observed normals deride "true Christians" for.
Everybody should be judged by the standards of their own religion. You (pl.) have been so completely in our face about your standards that we cannot help but know what they are. And we cannot help but observe how you do not live by your own standards. AKA, hypocrisy.
What chutzpah.
Do you want to talk about chutzpah, shiksa? How dare you defame Yiddish with your ignorance and bigotry!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5982
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 86 of 1484 (802188)
03-13-2017 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
03-12-2017 5:20 PM


Re: related issues
I think it's possible that Christian businesses are specifically targeted, yes.
How exactly? Please be very specific.
How exactly were those businesses identified as being exclusively Christian? After all, for anyone to specifically target a specifically Christian business, that business would have had to have specifically and explicitly identified itself as such.
So did any of these businesses you speak of make such an explicit and specific public statement? Any of them?
Or did they offer their services to the general public? Without any explicit restrictions.
Not even necessarily by the gay couple, more by legal entities who step in to make an issue of it, like the ACLU.
The injured parties, eg that gay couple, had to seek legal representation. Such as the ACLU.
Here's a question, since I encountered it just a few days ago. Following Google links which proved to be old, I contacted a windshield repair company that used to be local, but no longer is. On the telephone, I asked if they could recommend someone who could do the repair for me. They did and I'm going in to have the work done first thing in the morning.
So, that gay couple rejected by a secretly Christian company who had been falsely advertising as serving the general public. Were they ever given any reference to another baker who would be able to serve them? Or did they just get a typical "true Christian" glare of hatred (sorry, of "Christian Love") communicating "just get the fuck out of our face, you perverts!"
So if you want to claim that those business were specifically targeted, then do please present the facts to support that claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 5:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 3:32 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 1484 (802189)
03-13-2017 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by dwise1
03-13-2017 3:05 AM


Re: related issues
It would be the legal system targeting them, as I said, including the original Supreme Court legalization of gay marriage. Or the couple if they were gay activists. I would doubt the offended gay couple would go straight to the ACLU unless they were gay activists, but if not I'd guess it more likely the ACLU got into it when they became aware of the situation.
I'd have to look it up but as I recall the lesbian couple were known to the Oregon bakery as regular customers. That's one way they could find out they're Christians. Although in that case I don't think they were activists.
I believe it possible, as I said, I believe it would be the legal system in most cases, and no, I can't prove it. The law itself is enough to make me wonder, but since it's so hard to get anyone here to recognize the situation from the Christians' point of view, maybe SCOTUS is that ignorant too. Maybe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by dwise1, posted 03-13-2017 3:05 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 03-13-2017 7:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 1484 (802190)
03-13-2017 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by xongsmith
03-12-2017 9:32 PM


In fact, if anything at all in this regard, there should be a thread worded the other way. There certain subsets of Christians (meaning that there are more than just Faith) that are exhibiting an attack on Gay Marriage. But I suspect that that thread would be shrugged off as obvious and get little traffic.
Christians have said plenty against the legalization of gay marriage both before and after. It makes no sense that a Christian business would intentionally set up a situation to be sued and put out of business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by xongsmith, posted 03-12-2017 9:32 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 1484 (802191)
03-13-2017 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by PaulK
03-13-2017 1:09 AM


Re:
It seems pretty simple. If God ordained that couples in a particular situation should get married the only way to go against that ordinance is to prevent such marriages.
I still don't get your thinking on this. Seems to me the first and main way it was abused was probably by polygamy, which was common in OT times. The next violation was probably frequent divorce. Both are violations of the ordinance of marriage.
Extending the marriage laws to cover other couples doesn't do that.
This makes no sense. The wording of the ordinance is clear: polygamy is excluded by the definition of one man and one woman, gay marriage is certainly excluded by the specification of a man and a woman, and becoming "one flesh" makes divorce a violation.
As I keep saying, specific human laws don't affect the ordinance itself. They are either local variations on its fulfillment, or if they permit polygamy or gay marriage or divorce or any other marital situation not defined in the ordinance, they are a violation of it, but that doesn't affect the ordinance itself.
I am using it in the same sense you are - and definitely not referring to human law.
Well then you are misusing it based on the post you were answering, but you don't quote enough for me to say why until I go back and reread your post.
Polygamy is NOT "accepted" in the Bible. Just because it was practiced doesn't mean it was acceptable to God. It was a violation of the ordinance just as gay marriage is. Divorce was also common, but Jesus said it was merely allowed because of "the hardness of your hearts," which means it was wrong but tolerated rather than put too heavy a burden on fallen human nature. That's why slavery was also tolerated. God knows what He's doing. We're all sinners anyway and it makes for less disruption and chaos to tolerate some sins. Romans 1 talks about God tolerating some sins too. Then goes on to say things are now changing. The Sermon on the Mount is also a statement of a stricter requirement of obedience than before Jesus came, against divorce in particular, but also against lax laws about such things as being kind only to your friends and family: now you have to be kind to everyone. And so on.
Christians cannot in good conscience accept it as valid so when pressed to act in any way that implies agreement with it must refuse to do so. This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment.
That does not seem to be true. There is no clear problem for Christians accepting it (which is why many do). And it is rather unlikely that you could be in violation of that law - you haven't posted any examples to this thread.
All you are saying is that there are categories of "Christians" who aren't in a position to run afoul of the law, but the principle stands: it's Christians who would be most affected because of the Biblically revealed ordinance of God. Just because at the moment it's only Christian business owners who are affected, and just because there are "liberal" Christians who don't strictly follow the Bible, doesn't change the fact that it IS Christians who are being affected.
(Muslims and Jews should be too I think but so far they may not be in a position to be affected for some reason. And maybe there are other religions or nonreligious people that reject gay marriage too but similarly aren't yet in a position to be affected by it legally. In any case particular Christian business owners are certainly the only ones being affected right now.)
That is what this is all about. There's nothing more to it.
Seems to me that this is more about lying bigots being upset that they didn't get their way.
You're all heart.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 1:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2017 4:24 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 90 of 1484 (802192)
03-13-2017 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
03-13-2017 4:10 AM


Re:
quote:
I still don't get your thinking on this. Seems to me the first and main way it was abused was probably by polygamy, which was common in OT times. The next violation was probably frequent divorce. Both are violations of the ordinance of marriage.
Perhaps you can show how polygamy is a violation. Unlike divorce Jesus is not noted for speaking against it, and it is widely accepted in the OT.
quote:
This makes no sense. The wording of the ordinance is clear: polygamy is excluded by the definition of one man and one woman, gay marriage is certainly excluded by the specification of a man and a woman, and becoming "one flesh" makes divorce a violation.
That's because you're not thinking. The ordinance isn't about applications of the word "marriage", or legal recognition of relationships. Even if it did not include gay relationships it does not demand that a society should refuse to recognise them. And please - quote it - show that it rules out polygamy.
quote:
Well then you are misusing it based on the post you were answering, but you don't quote enough for me to say why until I go back and reread your post.
The fact that I don't say anything about it should tell you that my intent is to talk about the same thing as you.
quote:
Polygamy is NOT "accepted" in the Bible. Just because it was practiced doesn't mean it was accepted.
If it is practiced without criticism or condemnation it is accepted.
quote:
All you are saying is that there are categories of "Christians" who aren't in a position to run afoul of the law
Which includes all the examples of prosecutions you have given. So who is in a position to run afoul of it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 4:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 5:04 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024