Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

My response to your oft repeated I Corinthians 6:12-13 keeps getting ignored by yyou. This makes like 50 times. What part of Paul saying "all" (things are lawful ) supports your claim that he is simply talking about idol meat? Paul didn't even mention "meat" but said "bread for the stomach and God will destroy both (stomach and bread) but god will raise you in a spiritual body so don't fornicate " or something like that. ALL keeps getting ignored by you. I can see why because it makes your idol meat excuse weak.

Hey, cut it out! I'm doing my best to be as patient as possible with your confusing stuff and all your weird accusations of me when I don't even know what you are talking about. Cut it out already.What you are saying is GARBLED BEYOND COMPREHENSION. At least try to make it make sense!I already answered all that stuff about meat and fornication WAY WAY back there somewhere. I still don't get what you are trying to say. All I said was that Paul's phrase "All things are lawful to me" HAPPENS TO REFER TO HIS STATEMENT ABOUT MEAT SACRIFICED TO IDOLS." That's what it HAPPENS to refer to. Ahd that suggests that he's NOW talking about something SIMILAR -- NO NOT ABOUT MEAT for oete's sake. Since NORMALLY HE COULDN"T POSSIBLY BE SAYING THAT FORNICATION IS LAWFUL TO HIM, because that is the moral law and not a ceremonial law, some of the commentators speculate that somebody in the Corinthian church was arguing that it CAN be lawful and Paul is going along with it in order to make the bigger point that we must give up some practices because they aren't good for us or for the church community.That's the best I can do with it and I still don't know what on earth you are trying to get at but STOP ACCUSING ME OF THINGS THAT EXIST ONLY IN YOUR OWN MIND. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are asking me if "moral " sins, from 1 Corinthians 6 are legal in any nation? The first thing is that Paul said every other sin , aside from fornication , is outside the body, and Jesus Christ is said by fundamentalist folk to have used "outside the body" as a technical term for non-moral sin in Mark 7. So that would make fornication the ONLY single moral ssin according to Paul. See around verse 6:18 or 6:19

Sins of the body have consequences IN THE BODY -- illness of some sort. That's all that means. It means sexual sins injure the body in some way. It does not mean that sins outside the body are not sins, but their consequences are also outside the body -- bad things happening to you in other ways.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Paul said all things are lawful in chapter 10 in a single verse and the single verse isn't a precise match for 6:12 anyway. You never quoted the verses to compare the two. I would suggest you quote from them plus surrounding verses for context. You have proven nothing. I mean you haven't proven what exactly the chapter 10 words mean exactly. You are using your chapter 10 assertion to then make a bigger leap with chapter 6 by connecting the 2 in a 100% identical fashion. You already told me that Paul wanted a theocracy where sin is illegal so that is the only new detail you have brought in since the first 40 times you ignored my questions.

Where did I say Paul wanted a theocracy?
That's ridiculous. Quote me, I need to see the context.You are continuing to accuse me of stuff you invented in your own head. I'm through with this nonsense.Unless you start making sense there's nothing more to say. It has nothing to do with the thread that I can see anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Sins of the body have consequences IN THE BODY -- illness of some sort. That's all that means. ...It does not mean sins outside the body are not sins" ******************** ************ ********************** *************** So drunk intoxicating drinks are moral sins? You are asking if this "outside the body " sin is legal in say India? I know that the SOMA was an intoxicating sacred drink and it was legal because it was a sacrificial drink. Bhagavad Gita saw Krishna say he is the SOMA and the sacrifice (mentioned in the Vedas) so drink the SOMA to him. "SOMA" is the word (scholars have expressed doubt Paul wrote Colosians) Paul used in I Colossians verse 16 (?) for BODY of Christ in the Lords Supper. Is that moral or ceremonial though?

You said Paul wanted sin to be illegal as a state matter. The statement is your justification for denying that Paul meant government should not legislate morality when he said ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL in I Corinthians 6:12

Quote me. And provide a link.

You kept saying sin wouldn't ever be allowed to be legal in any secular way. This was you who said that separation of moral and state law was absurd. You told me that my suggestion that Paul felt fornication and gay marriage should be legal as a state matter was so foolish that you probably misunderstood my earlier questions specific to the suggested interpretation. You said this recently and it was a new revelation and it is duely noted now. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Also, you ignore that the Torah allows Israelites to sell sinful food. Jews were allowed to sell meat that wasn't slaughtered properly as long as it wasn't an intentional killing. Jew's can't shoot an animal and sell it (and sure can't eat it). Deuteronomy 14:21 is the scriptural basis but the few who care to understand the slaughter law development see good evidence of humane concerns. The Persian Empire issue seals the deal to me. There is undercover video of the suffering cows go through when not slaughtered properly (an Iowa kosher plant ironically ). They throw themselves all over the floor violently in terrible pain in their remaining minutes. That is even in the theocracy. Legal sin for gentiles.

Fracko quoted Lev 20:11 "If a man sleeps with his father's wife... [it is a sin that is illegal in Ancient Israel to be punished by the state ]" Now in light of I Corinthians 5-7 (chapter 5 has Paul discussing exact same activity ) should it be illegal? In Corinth? In the USA? You said Paul didn't comment on the state and secular legality issues. What do you think he felt about legislating morality in the port of Corinth? (I raised this question as far back as post 338).

That's pretty much an admission that the whole "baking cakes" argument is bogus.

PLEASE QUOTE ME. None of that makes any sense, but if you quote me maybe I'll at least recognize what I meant in context. If you are getting anything right at all, that is, and that is questionable.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, I could tell you were lost at sea on this subject, you weren't making any sense, but I tried my best to answer you clearly anyway. I don't know what your problem is but there is nothing bogus about the problem for Christians of making a wedding cake for a gay wedding and I have no idea why you think so.Why it should make a difference what the cultural expression of a wedding is I have NO idea. If the custom for weddings in some culture was meat pies I assume a biblical Christian in that culture would have to refuse to make meat pies for a gay wedding. If the custom was marching through the streets with sparklers I assume the Christian supplier of sparklers would have to refuse to sell them for a gay wedding.