Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

I don't agree with Faith on this subject, as I believe if a Christian wants to make cakes he must know what he is getting into, and at no point is anyone forcing a Christian at gunpoint, to make cakes. So if it bothers Faith that much my suggestion would be not to make cakes.I make toys, and particularly toy wands which people interested in witchcraft sometimes buy from me or I at least guess it might be used as a genuine wand, but I am just making it, my intention is to create a toy, their intention is to wield it, so it doesn't bother me because that's their decision.I don't believe I am contaminated because I made a toy.However, I think this point you make isn't quite a fair comparison; I think there is a clear difference. Christians accept what the bible says, as what God says, and Genesis describes the point in marriage which Christ elaborated, but it doesn't say anything about races.So biblically we can argue that, "God intended marriage for this reason", but you can't make a case that the bible says to be racist.I don't like the way people try and falsely compare racism with a Christian belief that certain things God says, are sins.Yes, homophobia, a fear and hatred of gay people, may be comparable with racism, but being a Christian isn't comparable with either, for if as a Christian I do not fear or hate neither gay nor coloured people, then it is a false accusation.You could say of course, "the bible is homophobic" but then I could respond with an equal epithet; "it is also murdererphobic, and theftaphobic". As Christians we believe God is omniscient and has full knowledge of what is sin and what isn't, so to accuse God and the bible, from our perspective, is futile because mankind is the one with the sin nature and God doesn't have dark motives.We aren't given permission as Christians, to "correct" God, remember. If God says He made it to be a certain way, I don't have the power to refute Him.Most Christians accept what God says because they have to, not necessarily because they want to.If I had not made that wand for that witch I would feel terrible, I would feel very judgemental. Really this is what concerns me about the position many Christians take on these matters. We aren't supposed to judge people like that. But those like Faith are controversial, and are the vocal minority, so it may seem like her position is the, "Christian" position, and she claims it is the Christian position, and that all Christians take her position.I appreciate why you feel you have to take that stance, Faith, and no doubt will think I am not a true Christian if I don't, but I believe your position is an unnecessary judgement on gay people, and you are singling them out in this matter. I know you perhaps do mean well in acting out of loyalty to God, and don't know your full motives, but I don't think you are being purely sinister, I think you have just told yourself this is the correct thing to do, but the bible doesn't say you have to do this thing so try not to argue it is the, "Christian" position, for only what comes from the Christian bible, is the Christian position.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I agree with a lot of things you say in your message. Some problems with this: I don't like it either, but surely you are aware that the idea that black people are the sons of Ham, an idea that prominent Creationist Ken Ham still adheres to, was used to justify racism toward and even slavery of people of color.So yeah, the criticism while repugnant, is quite apt.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Unbelievable. Nothing about marriage in Genesis 2:18-24?(See Message 761)Unbelievable, amazing, astonishing, mind-boggling.Anything about marriage in Jesus' quotation of Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:3-6 (and Mark 10:7)? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The segue into a man leaving his father and mother is a bit odd, since Adam had no father or mother.

Nothing defining it. Talk about it but no actual definition.My main point is there is nothing in the Constitution that says US citizens or US government needs to follow anything in this book of myths.

Actually, no, there isn't anything about marriage. I'm assuming that Matthew reference was th Matt 19, not Matt 1.That has to do with living together. I see "marriage" as referring to the ceremonial ritual and the state sanctioned contract. And neither are mentioned there.However, if you prefer to see "marriage" as referring to living together, then gay marriage has existed for a long time. And the cake was for the ceremonial aspects, or really for the party after the ceremonial ritual. If "marriage" does not refer to the ceremonial ritual then this whole issue is completely bogus.

quote:

---

Man and woman, man and woman, man and woman. Not religious, not religious, not religious, universal, universal, universal, applies to all peoples in all times and all cultures, whose laws generally reflect this ordinance. Man and woman, nothing to do with circumstance, belief or unbelief, culture or anything else. Man and woman, period. As I've said dozens of times on this thread alone. "Marrying" two of the same sex is a fundamental contradiction with the biblical law since they cannot become "one flesh."

---

Do you know Greek law?Roman law?What about non-western law?Think about the much overlooked Ashoka and the Maurya Empire?You could learn something about the Greek, Roman, and Indian civilisations before you make your claims.(I'm not saying each of these example contradicts your argument mind you)You often use arguments about society to either support your moralistic and historical positions or to attack others. Ringo, in another thread (on immigration?) quoted the nuclear scientist Oppenheimer, when involved a reference to the Bhagavad Gita, and you used it as an opportunity to bash Indian civilization. Interestingly, the Bhagavad Gita seems to have been a polemical defense of Dharma being compatible with an honorable defensive war. The very beginning of the Bhagavad Gita centers around Arjuna saying that fighting a war would violate Dharma. Historians see is as a response to the strongly pacifist tendencies in Indian culture just before the time of Christ.

quote:

---

ASHOKA: THE NEGLECTED INDIAN EMPEROR WHO CHANGED THE WORLD

​

December 18, 2016

​

PART I: THE MYSTERY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORLD’S FIRST WELFARE STATE

​

He and his reign, however, are most often noted solely for establishing the first consolidation of the Indian subcontinent under a single ruler. Ashoka’s Empire was to be broken up time and again — the Huns, the Moguls, the British — but come Indian Independence in 1947, the then modern map of India was pretty much recognizable as the same nation state he that he ruled from around 270 until 230 BCE, some 2,000 years before. Ashoka’s Rock Edicts were still being uncovered in the late 1980’s and other imprints of his rule are still being discovered today. While credited with the consolidation of the Indian state, his influence and his impacts on world history, however, were ever so much more important.

​

The Indian flag, adopted in 1947 at the time of India’s independence from England, has two of Asoka’s most widely recognized ancient symbols: the four headed lion column capital and the great Wheel of Learning of the Buddha. And yet, there were many more well known Hindu and Muslim rulers in India’s long history including such luminaries as Barbur, Akbar and Harsha, but why, then, is it Ashoka’s symbols that fly embedded in the Indian tricolor? The answer to this mystery is easy. India’s first prime Minister and one of the leading voices of Indian independence, Jawaharlal Nehru, was a devoted fan and studied the reign of Ashoka extensively. Nehru instinctively understood the role that this ancient ruler played not only in India’s storied history, but in the history of the world as well. But the story of Ashoka, except for his unification of what at the time was one of the most extensive empires the world has ever known, is not well known even though his revolutionary rule has echoes in today’s modern states with their tenets of tolerance, justice, mutual respect and the care and well-being for the ruled that denotes fair, just and compassionate governance.

​

Sensitive Content Warning

---

Then

quote:

---

One of the more enduring legacies of Ashoka was the model that he provided for the relationship between Buddhism and the state. Emperor Ashoka was seen as a role model to leaders within the Buddhist community.

​

Ashoka - Wikipedia

---

See the edicts of AshokaEdicts of Ashoka - WikipediaThey were translated into Greek and Aramaic and he sent missionaries to the Syrian Palestinian Seleucid embassy as well as Alexandria.Greek:εὐσέβεια, Eusebeia was used to translate Dharma.

quote:

---

Classical Greek usage[edit]

​

The word was used in Classical Greece where it meant behaving as tradition dictates in one's social relationships and towards the gods. One demonstrates eusebeia to the gods by performing the customary acts of respect (festivals, prayers, sacrifices, public devotions). By extension one honors the gods by showing proper respect to elders, masters, rulers and everything under the protection of the gods.[3]

​

For Platonists, "Eusebeia" meant "right conduct in regard to the gods". For the Stoics, "knowledge of how God should be worshiped".[4]

​

In ancient Greek religion and myth the concept of Eusebeia is anthropomorphized as the daimon of piety, loyalty, duty and filial respect. According to one source, her husband is Nomos (Law), and their daughter is Dike, goddess of justice and fair judgment. In other tellings, Dike is the daughter of the god Zeus and/or the goddess Themis (Order).[5] The Roman equivalent is Pietas.

​

In ancient India[edit]

​

The Indian emperor Ashoka in his 250 BCE Edicts used the word "eusebeia" as a Greek translation for the central Buddhist and Hindu concept of "dharma".[6]

​

New Testament usage[edit]

​

"Eusebeia" enters the New Testament in later writings, where it is typically translated as "godliness," a vague translation that reflects uncertainty about its relevant meaning in the New Testament. For example, "Divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness (eusbeia), through the true (full, personal, experiential) knowledge of Him Who called us by His own glory and excellence" (2 Pet 1:3) Peter. As the following quotation from Bullinger demonstrates, interpreters erroneously adapt the meaning of eusebeia to fit their idea of what is appropriate to Christian practice (and not on philological grounds):

​

The word εὐσέβεια as it is used in the Greek New Testament carries the meaning of "godliness", and is distinct from θρησκεία (thrēskeia), "religion". Eusebeia relates to real, true, vital, and spiritual relation with God, while thrēskeia relates to the outward acts of religious observances or ceremonies, which can be performed by the flesh. The English word "religion" was never used in the sense of true godliness. It always meant the outward forms of worship. In 1Ti 3:16, the Mystery, or secret connected with true Christianity as distinct from religion, it is the Genitive of relation. (This specific meaning occurs only in Act 3:12.) This word arises in the Greek New Testament in 1Ti 2:2, 1Ti 3:16, 1Ti 4:7, 1Ti 4:8, 1Ti 6:3, 1Ti 6:5, 1Ti 6:6, 1Ti 6:11, 2Ti 3:5, Tit 1:1, 2Pe 1:3, 2Pe 1:6, 2Pe 1:7, 2Pe 3:11.[7]
Eusebeia - Wikipedia

---

Look at his view of other religions

quote:

---

Religious exchange[edit]

​

Far from being sectarian, Ashoka, based on a belief that all religions shared a common, positive essence, encouraged tolerance and understanding of other religions.

​

All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)

​

Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice. Rock Edict Nb1 (S. Dhammika)

​

Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-Servant-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions. Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)

​

Edicts of Ashoka - Wikipedia

---

Righteousness involved tolerance.Your trenchant defense of the "Christian" Roman Empire and its Councils (like Nicea) also saw the Bible, you use, get put together for the first time and the outlawing of other religions and homosexual marriage.(You don't dare call this Roman theocracy "Catholic" though! lol)But western civilization had a long history prior.I wish you would show an interest in the actual history itself.Precedents and all.Because you keep making claims (and you constantly change the subject from the historical precedents of the "institution" of marriage itself to the law of Christ and Paul or Christianity itself, though I think your "Christianity" is based on Imperial Church politics and is extra-biblical to the extreme)

Yes Matthew 19. But I'm realizing that nobody reads anything I write or you'd already know my answer to all the silly things people keep bringing up on this thread because I've already discussed them.To think Jesus would be talking about living together the way people do today is really really culturally obtuse. Cleave together, become one flesh? Get a clue.In your case what I've already discussed is that marriage is not always created with a ceremony. I don't know about Israel in Jesus' time, though they did have a long feast and partying. In ancient Israel the man took the woman into his house, tent or whatever, it was public, and that was marriage. Different cultures do it differently but it's about the permanent union thus created, not how it was created. Don't force your own cultural bias on the many different forms of marriage around the world. But as I've said, one man and one woman is the norm in most places, sometimes polygamy but hardly ever gay marriage. The crazy Caesars married some gay people but gay marriage has never been the norm or even common in any society. If you can find exceptions, so what? The exceptions are exceptions and very rare in history.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Cultural laws have nothing to do with this as I've said before on this thread. The point I've been trying to make is that marriage as outlined in Genesis 2 is the NORM in all times and places. I've mentioned variations but they are irrelevant to the point. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I thought you were saying that the governments of the world and various cultures have always opposed gay marriage and that is the institution you feel compelled to defend against radical departures. Perhaps I have confused myself then.

dupEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know what you are saying. I USUALLY don't know what you are saying. You make no sense to me. You go on and on and on about this or that horrible thing I've supposedly said and I don't recognize any of it. I'm an Orthodox? Where on earth did you get such an idea? I'm as solidly Reformation Protestant as it's possible to get.; You seem to make it all up in your own head. So I just stopped responding to you. There's no point.; I don't know what your problem is now either so I don't know how to answer you.

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. I don't think I have the ability to make it any clearer since you ignore your past comments. I won't be quoting your own past words ( like you arguing with my statement that the Council of Nicea was a Roman rigged vote ) because you already ignored my quotes from you dismissing the Apostolic Council of 50 A. D.

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.ABE: ALSO, my eyes are bad and long posts that I can't make much sense of just don't get read.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If this thread is still up in a few days or so then I will respond. Do remember that fornication was mentioned in 1 Cor 6 and 10. Josephus and the Samaritan Chronicle have the apocryphal Jannes and Jombras expansion of the Numbers Baalam rebellion and they say the Israelites sacrificed and ate pork and engaged in fornication with strange women which was mentioned in I Corinthians 10. You connected I Corinthians 6 to chapter 10 when I responded to your bringing up chapter 6. You actually brought both up. Not me! I was planning on reminding you of the "ceremonial fornication " excuse I mean explanation of the Acts 15 Apostolic Council as a parallel to the Baalam expansion and I would then suggest that in the interest of consistency you have to see the fornication (gay or straight aside ) as idol ceremonial "making merry" fun in the I Corinthians 6 chapter you brought up. Remember that you are the one who then connected chapter 6 to 10 also. It came about when I showed Paul saying that all things are legal since you stopped justshort of the quote after you quoted him initially to cover his mentioning (possibly ) homosexuality.