Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 244 of 1484 (802487)
03-17-2017 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
03-16-2017 10:37 PM


You brought up eschatology Faith.
Perhaps you should start a thread about homosexual acts and how you feel it relates to eschatology Faith. I am interested in your view with regards to the tiny book of Jude which quotes the gigantically important Book of Enoch which has fallen angels as an end times issue PLUS a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. I feel the Sodom issue relates to angels and sex but is the possible homosexual angle the reason for your post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 03-16-2017 10:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 254 of 1484 (802502)
03-17-2017 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
03-17-2017 9:17 AM


What about divorce? I mean really now.
This whole obsession with gay "sins" confuses me. Sorry if this was already addressed but all the loaded side issues have larded this discussion and I missed the actual theological specifics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 03-17-2017 9:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 03-17-2017 9:54 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 268 of 1484 (802517)
03-17-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
03-17-2017 9:54 AM


Re: What about divorce? I mean really now.
quote:
It isn't about sin, it's about the definition of marriage. Some Christians may feel it necessary to refuse service to a wedding of a divorced person, or refuse to decorate a cake for "Gay Pride" as somebody else brought up, or for "Wicca Week" or "Satan Day" or whatever, but this thread is about a particular law that puts Christians in the position of having to choose between God's law and human law. Again, there may be lots of situations that put a Christian's conscience to the test, but a law legalizing same-sex marriage is guaranteed to do that.
So it isn't necessary for a businessman to "know" if a person was divorced before they remarry because just being between a male and female is good enough and passes the test?
This applies to wedding cake sellers, land-lords, hotel owners when they decide who to provide services to.
Should certain questions be asked to get certain answers?
Is this all a "don't ask, don't tell issue" or what exactly?
Is the very nature of same sex marriage just too "in your face" to you or what is it exactly?
If "sin" is not the issue, then renting a hotel room to a male and female, with a different last name doesn't bother you, I suppose.
Marriage is a sacred issue and an institution that can't be secular in any way?
This sounds so theocratic.
So would "civil unions" work then? Would cakes be o.k. if it was called a civil union?
These legal issues are really confusing me because I'm sense some massive inconsistency here.
(Everything gets confusing when the law is being discussed, because it is often a high precision - to the letter - technical sort of thing, which makes this inconsistent religious-motivated type of described/proclaimed "really really important" mortal sin and/or sacred institution declaration, over a highly selective type of violation, a really poor fit for a sophisticated law code of allowed/proscribed conduct among individuals and businesses)
Your position seems a poor fit for a non-chaotic type of society we should all want to live in.
Can't you see a minefield of discrimination being opened up by all of this? What if circumcision becomes a requirement for one to become a citizen with rights to marry in order to fit the sacred institution? Christians who couldn't show they were circumcised had to worship the profane Roman Gods, you know. You brought it up.
Don't mix sacred with profane.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 03-17-2017 9:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 286 of 1484 (802535)
03-17-2017 12:41 PM


The Gospel and Acts don't mention homosexual issues
Roman and Greek society allowed same sex marriage. Jesus opposed fornication and divorce. Acts 15 had the old law partly obtained for all gentiles and it covered food prohibition and fornication. Homosexual acts were irrelevant it seems. This is so selective at best to even want to make homosexual marriage some sort of Christian issue AND it is outright discrimination to behave like the Christian faith or Law is at stake if homosexuals are allowed to have rights tthat all others have.

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 03-17-2017 12:53 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 296 of 1484 (802550)
03-17-2017 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Faith
03-17-2017 1:05 PM


ROMANS 6 "LAW" verses not helping Faith's argument so she left out of quote
Read and quote the next 2 verses in Romans. I think it was verses 12 to 13 where Paul said all things are lawful or was that verse 7? The plain reading of your text might not back you up even if you take homosexual acts to be a sin in the said text. Quote the whole context Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 03-17-2017 1:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 03-17-2017 4:25 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 309 of 1484 (802570)
03-17-2017 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Faith
03-17-2017 4:25 PM


Re: ROMANS 6 "LAW" verses not helping Faith's argument so she left out of quote
I meant to type I Correct 6 spell check won't let me type "1 Cor 6" GOT IT. Romans was a typo, dismiss post title. AnywCorrectr spell check is acting up need to keep post short. I think you should quote all of Paul's relevanti n c hapter 6 instead of dictating what he supposedly meant WHILE FAILING TO QUOTE HIS IMMEDIATE LINES ABOUT THE LAW.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 03-17-2017 4:25 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Phat, posted 03-18-2017 12:50 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 317 of 1484 (802589)
03-18-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Faith
03-18-2017 10:30 AM


What about Paul and the lawfulness of sin Faith?
Paul was talking about sin and marriage in I Corinthians 5-7 and you stopped quoting him just before he said that all things are lawful. Please quote the King James version (which is more accurate PERHAPS than newer translations of 6:12)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 10:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 11:20 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 319 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 11:35 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 320 of 1484 (802595)
03-18-2017 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Faith
03-18-2017 11:20 AM


Re: What about Paul and the lawfulness of sin Faith?
Well, I wanted you to quote a larger context than what you selectively did some dozens of posts ago. At least you are engaging the issue anyway. The commentary should come later. I have seen honest comentators express genuine confusion at how Paul would say what he did at a moment he is discussing the sins he is in chapter 6. If I remember correctly, they often say he is quoting a response to his vice lists. Most modern translations put his words in quotation marks, however selectively. Some feel that Paul's words in chapter 6 got additional lines added to from other texts of Paul ssamea spell chemo Viva giving me hell ERASIng multiple words. Making things short. Some suggest line corruption or sentence transposition. I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 11:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 11:49 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 324 of 1484 (802603)
03-18-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by ringo
03-18-2017 12:08 PM


Re: FYI and meat eating. as "petty"
Please, I am trying to hold back on commenting on this issue. Eventually I will as I now think that Galatians 6:2 or 6:3 and the LAW OF CHRIST might solve the mystery of what law outlawed meat eating. I have found cutting edge journal articles from fundamentalist scholars and they aren"t making a vegetarian argument but admit that1Romans 15:1-3 seems to be a parallel us Corinthians 9 around verse 20 or something. Very complicated additional issues. But this vegetarian requirement might be closer to being explained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by ringo, posted 03-18-2017 12:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 12:35 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 327 by ringo, posted 03-18-2017 12:45 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 328 of 1484 (802607)
03-18-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Faith
03-18-2017 12:35 PM


Re: FYI and meat eating. as "petty"
In no way was I going to say anything more in this thread. I was just responding to the fact that meat eating keeps coming up here.iinsa I was saying it in a partially light hearted manner. I am also about done on the marriage issues too though much more can be said

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 12:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 329 of 1484 (802608)
03-18-2017 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by ringo
03-18-2017 12:45 PM


Re: FYI and meat eating. as "petty"
Again I wasn't going to comment but the constant bringing up of meat in this thread was noteworthy anyway. My post was just an observation. A one time observation and it seemed slightly ironic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by ringo, posted 03-18-2017 12:45 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by ringo, posted 03-18-2017 12:56 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 338 of 1484 (802622)
03-18-2017 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by ringo
03-18-2017 12:56 PM


Re: FYI and meat eating. as "petty"
See posts 302, 7-8, 79, plus your post. I also mentioned Acts 15 in a post. I also suspected Faith would say Corinthians 6:12 was just about meat. I brought up Acts 15 because I see that as the only left over Old Testament law that remained in effect for all. I brought up I Cor 6:12 because of the multiple possible implications such as Paul possibly saying that sins shouldn't be made illegal by the state. I know meat gets brought up and the "ceremonial" excuse quickly rears its head in these types of debates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by ringo, posted 03-18-2017 12:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 3:54 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 405 by ringo, posted 03-19-2017 2:15 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 339 of 1484 (802623)
03-18-2017 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Modulous
03-18-2017 2:03 PM


Re: The Oregon Story
People say New York City is liberal but they are clueless. Blacks and Hispanics are like 55 percent of the population and there are lots of super religious Asians and whites too. The word liberal is the most thrown around, used, and abused cloudy mushroom that blows away any hope of getting an understanding of what is and has been going on in America and the world. I almost prefer b.s. about legal homosexual marriage bringing the fall of Rome in 476 (nevermind theocracy and all the stuff that really happened ) over this endless throwing the L word around to describe the modern United States.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2017 2:03 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 346 of 1484 (802631)
03-18-2017 4:16 PM


King James and ESV 1 Corinthians 6 in its total context
The first 3 verses Faith quoted. I will take it to the end.
(this post is NOT REALLY about meat mind you)
King James
quote:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
ESV
quote:
I Corinthians
chapter 6:9-end
9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Flee Sexual Immorality
12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for foodand God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined[d] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, The two will become one flesh. 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin[e] a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
ESV
The issue of drinking among the vices seems to go against this whole idea that what goes inside isn't an issue. Faith wants to have it both ways.
I am really not making this an issue of flesh/meat consumption but here is a verse people will look at (Jerome used this to justify that vegetarianism is a sin and mind you that he hated the Jewish Christian Ebionites/Nazarines/ Elkesaites as well as Manicheans) to argue what Faith argued earlier. (though it is open to multiple interpretations)
Romans 14:21
quote:
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Mark 7 and Matthew 15 have a Jesus quote. The Mark version is used to justify Jesus allowing all meat to be eaten - thus annulling Leviticus and Deuteronomy - (though even modern fundamentalist scholars will admit there are other interpretations and I can show quotes when I get back to Nebraska), though modern scholars will quickly add that Jesus didn't say it and the evangelist added to it ("Mark" in c.70 A.D.). The Matthew version is generally taken to only apply to the oral law and not Leviticus or Deuteronomy's written laws.
Actually, the King James translation of Mark 7 actually didn't take it to "cleanse" all meats (like modern translations) but just referred to crapping out the food, and that translation (which is what the old Syriac said) would be compatible with Jesus actually saying it. "Cleaning: is the much better translation than "purging" or "removing" though.
quote:
Mark 7
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Matthew only has the quote that says something like "nothing that goes into the mouth defilith, but what comes out" which scholars, like Steve Mason, say is a Semiticism which means that certain foods are less important than other sins, but still doesn't mean it isn't a sin. Similar to "mercy, not sacrifice" not ending sacrifice. He and others say Matthew only had Jesus rejecting the oral law. Not written law.
But, this is all irrelevant to an extent (except the Paul quote) because Paul didn't base his "outside the body" type of prohibitions on the clean/unclean issue.
MY POINT?
The drinking issue in Paul's I Corinthians 6 vice lists means that Faith can't really have it both ways on her "outside the body" issues (whether taken to be ceremonial issue or a table fellowship issue or whatever) THAT IS F-O-O-D!
It's all the same thing!
If food is a temporary and in essence "cultural", as opposed to "moral", issue then so is the sexual part.
That is the religious aspect.
There is also the possibility that Paul is saying that marriage issues (which are covered fully in chapter 7) as well as all other sexual issues shouldn't be made illegal by the state.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2496
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 347 of 1484 (802632)
03-18-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Faith
03-18-2017 3:54 PM


Re: FYI and meat eating. as "petty"
quote:
Good grief, it isn't "just about meat!!" What Paul said about all things being lawful to him simply happens to refer back to that one passage about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Because that's where he said those very same words. But in the context of 1 Cor 6 he must be using it to refer to some view held by someone in the Corinthian Church. Since he mentions being joined to a harlot it is frequently guessed that he was dealing with the opinion that visiting prostitutes was lawful for a Christian. Not meat, visiting prostitutes. As I argued, there is so much in the Bible that makes it clear that sin cannot ever be "lawful" let alone Paul's remark in this very context that it would mean joining Christ to a harlot, which is a clear statement that it isn't lawful, there is no way to justify the lawfulness of sin from this passage, and if it doesn't suffice for you, read the reast of the Bible which should leave no doubt.
Lets ignore 1 Corinthians 8 (like verses 10-13,as well as Romans 15:1,14:14, 14:1, Galatians 6:2-3, 1 Corinthians 9 around verse 20) and look at chapter 10
quote:
1 Corinthians 10
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
....
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
....
31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
Now do you think Paul's describing drinking (to get drunk anyway) in the chapter 6 vices supports your argument about sacrifices to idols?
It is possible that Paul is speaking on multiple levels here.
You keep using special pleas to make your point.
Endless selectivity and parsing.
I admit the issue is complicated, but you didn't even want to address the complications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 3:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 4:34 PM LamarkNewAge 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