Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

It's hard to believe you take yourself seriously with such a post, most of which I've already answered. Contortions and rationalizations so weird again I have to take a nap to recover.

I think it's possible that Christian businesses are specifically targeted, yes. Not even necessarily by the gay couple, more by legal entities who step in to make an issue of it, like the ACLU.

In reality probably a leftie false flag to mock and discredit the right.

What? What? 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.) You're all heart.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's implied in the passages that speak of two as one flesh, and a strong union not to be "put asunder" by man; and prohibiting remarriage unless the spouse has died Have to stop here for now.

It's normally understood to prohibit divorce, and there is no other NT mention of anything even remotely suggestive of accepted polygamy.I believe all the passages I quoted clearly prohibit polygamy.

Doesn't seem too likely that divorce was a problem with polygamists. Well, there isn't a shred of a hint of polygamy among the Jews in Jesus' or Paul's time. Even Herod only had one wife, and you'd expect the rulers and the rich to be the polygamists if it was tolerated.Maybe it existed among the Greeks and Romans? But there is a reference to Pilate's wife -- singular -- so you'd probably have to look at secular histories to find that out. I don't even think the Caesars had more than one wife, though of course the craziest of them lived wildly promiscuous lives.Certainly, when Christianity spread to other parts of the world it might have been read as prohibiting polygamy in places where it existed but then that wouldn't account for the odd phrasing.

That's interesting, thanks.I'm right a lot, it just doesn't get acknowledged.

Ringo answered it from Wikipedia quoting Josephus. There is nothing in the NT -- except that one verse you brought up -- to suggest polygamy was still practiced among the Jews, but Josephus says it was, so that verse probably does imply that it was, as you thought.But there is absolutely no doubt that God's ordinance forbids it, none whatever. And that verse itself is evidence since there would have been no reason to forbid it to bishops or anyone else if God approved of it.

I don't know, I've wondered about that too. But gay marriage violates the meaning of marriage itself and this situation doesn't so it might not become a problem in the baker's mind. As I've said it isn't about sin, it's about the ordinance of marriage itself. But it's possible that a baker's conscience might also be engaged about a remarriage, I suppose it depends on the individual. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not interested in the intricacies of the law. All that matters in this discussion is whether a Christian can legally refuse to serve a gay marriage in any way that violates his/her conscience, and I've understood that legally they cannot -- anywhere in the country. That's the only thing relevant here.
/
/ /
SO WHAT? That is utterly irrelevant. They were wrong because as I said already the Bible teaches that we are all descended from the same parents. If they wanted to claim their conscience was wounded, however, that's up to them, but obviously they'd have to take the punishment exactly as i'm describing in this situation.
/ /
NO! NOT ON THE BASIS OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE! I've said that at least twice now in this discussion. .
.
DIDN'T I JUST WRITE THE WORDS "This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment." yet you ask if I think Christians have an exemption after I said that????I think we SHOUJLD have an exemption, of course, and I think there should be no such law in the first place too, of course, BUT I KNOW CHRISTIANS HAVE NO EXEMPTION TO THIS LAW NOW. THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS ALL ABOUT! .How have you managed to miss so much of this discussion?This discussion is not about the law, it's about how one law affects Christians.Just follow the argument for pete's sake.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why should I care about the specifics of the law? The point is that UNDER THIS LAW THAT SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS TO BE TREATED AS LEGITIMATE, if asked to perform a special service for a gay wedding or anything else that puts us in the position of treating gay marriage as legitimate, Christians have to refuse, and whatever the law is we are punishable under it for that refusal. Everything else is irrelevant nitpicking. You spend a lot of time, just as Leftists always do, conjuring up anything you can to accuse conservatives of. Everything in your post is an invented accusation that has no actual purpose in relation to this topic. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.