Are you for a state amendment or Constitutional Amendment?

[shuamort]

No, I understand that. But the Church sees a marriage as a relgious contract. If we simply make a notable distiction between civil unioni and marriage, there would be no argument, at least not as far as I could see.

Yes, but why should a government have to bend to the whims of a church, especially after you just said that there should be a seperation between the two?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Yes, but why should a government have to bend to the whims of a church, especially after you just said that there should be a seperation between the two?

Well, I don't know that I agree that there ought to strive for a complete seperation, just because I think it is impossible. However, I do think that since Christianity has been around for 2000 years, and the tradition of marrying a man to a women under God long predates Christianity, it does not seem necessary for the Church to change simply because the state began to recognize this union in the States, and built laws around it. It is not fair to come to the Church now and say that they must change the rules of marriage because the states now give benefiits based on marriage.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I personally do not think so. I am convinced through my interpretation of the scritpture that no one is to have sex outside of marriage (surely you can understand why, after all the diseases and unplanned pregnanancies that God might have said this) and I honestly interperate the Bible to say that marriage is meant to be between man and woman. It gives specific roles for both the male and the female in the household. I think for obvious reasons of reproduction, but not so apparent reasons regarding perenthood, it is just more logical and more in the direction of God's intention for us as a race as well as His children for marriage, seen as a contract between people before God, as being specific to man and wife. As my fiancee argued, coming from a household where it was just she and her mother, her father having left them, that there is no replacement for a father AND a mother figure in the household. And no matter how similar to that sex the homosexual in question may be, they are, arguably not precisely that sex, and I think that simply cannot replace the actual gender role as a parent (if for nothing more than to be a model for a child). Of course this is my opinion based on my interpretation of the Word. In reality, it is left to the pastor to seek guidance from God regarding the couple, and if he feels led, by God to join them in a Godly union, that is his perogative, and in the end, is his choice and his choice alone.

And who benefits most from that arrangement - men or women?

And who wrote the bible - men or women?

Just a little thought to help the evening pass ...

 

[sebastiansdreams]

And who benefits most from that arrangement - men or women?

And who wrote the bible - men or women?

Just a little thought to help the evening pass ...

I am not suggesting the whole "woman stays at home and takes care of the family" bit. I'm simply saying that a child needs a mother and a father, both active towards the education and spiritual growth of their child through representative roles. This doesn't mean that either parent need to stay home with the child (although I sugggest it) and it certianly doesn't mean it have to be the woman (though I suggest it). The role of marriage, as proposed in the Bible, is meant to be an equal partnership, both eximplifying love to each other, and both submitting to each other. And believe me, though it was my mother who stayed at home with me during the day, my father was incredibly pro-active when it came to me, and wuuld never push me, as a responsibility, off on my mother. I believe in equality, but necessity for difference.
As far as who wrote the Bible, you're correct, it was men. But they also had to come home to their wives every night, and haven't I heard it been said "Behind every great man, there is an even greater woman?" I know I would say that regarding my own life.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

And behind every great woman there's a pile of unwashed laundry.

 

[shuamort]

Well, I don't know that I agree that there ought to strive for a complete seperation, just because I think it is impossible. However, I do think that since Christianity has been around for 2000 years, and the tradition of marrying a man to a women under God long predates Christianity, it does not seem necessary for the Church to change simply because the state began to recognize this union in the States, and built laws around it. It is not fair to come to the Church now and say that they must change the rules of marriage because the states now give benefiits based on marriage.

Do I have to drag out the slavery argument?

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Well, I don't know that I agree that there ought to strive for a complete seperation, just because I think it is impossible. However, I do think that since Christianity has been around for 2000 years, and the tradition of marrying a man to a women under God long predates Christianity, it does not seem necessary for the Church to change simply because the state began to recognize this union in the States, and built laws around it. It is not fair to come to the Church now and say that they must change the rules of marriage because the states now give benefiits based on marriage.

Only slightly off topic:

You know what really annoys me? Here in the UK it is illegal for an employer o descriminate against people on the grounds of sex, and more recently on the grounds of sexual orientation - unless the employer is a religious organisation.

Why should religious organisations be exempt from the law?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Do I have to drag out the slavery argument?

Sorry, but slavery was never a contract made between man and wife before God and honored by a preist or pastor. While some people in the church were wrong on the subject of slavery, it was not something that took place within the church and it certainly wasn't a religious ceremony held by a pastor in front of God. They are not remotely the same thing. And just because the state may find that homosexuals may have a civil union, it is certainly not constitutional for the state to make the church or anyone in the church perform this marriage. That my friend is what the seperation from church and state was originally intended for. To keep politicians from commanding people to perform religious ceremonies or practices that they do not believe in or want to act in.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Only slightly off topic:

You know what really annoys me? Here in the UK it is illegal for an employer o descriminate against people on the grounds of sex, and more recently on the grounds of sexual orientation - unless the employer is a religious organisation.

Why should religious organisations be exempt from the law?

Because of the seperation between church and state. If the state tells the church that they must have women priests, then they are tellling the Church that they must, by law, perform an act that they find against the word of God. I don't agree with the Catholic Church on this matter (my mother is a minister of children at our church), but I do understand their right to practice their religion the way they have done for hundreds of years without having to answer to a government that attempts to seperate them from itself. If you believe in seperation between church and state, you must realize that it swings both ways.

 

[shuamort]

Sorry, but slavery was never a contract made between man and wife before God and honored by a preist or pastor. While some people in the church were wrong on the subject of slavery, it was not something that took place within the church and it certainly wasn't a religious ceremony held by a pastor in front of God. They are not remotely the same thing.

No, but the Bible condones slavery and gives precedent and regulations for how to handle a slave. The issue of slavery was supported by the claims that it was in the Bible, it predates the bible and was accepted by God, since the Bible is the inerrant word of him. If you're using the Bible to support your claims that marriage should be between a man and a woman, you should be out supporting slavery too because that's what God wanted. Right? Otherwise, you think you're better than God and can cherrypick what beliefs he held as being applicable vs. what's not.

And just because the state may find that homosexuals may have a civil union, it is certainly not constitutional for the state to make the church or anyone in the church perform this marriage.That my friend is what the seperation from church and state was originally intended for. To keep politicians from commanding people to perform religious ceremonies or practices that they do not believe in or want to act in.

Sorry, you can't twist the arguments. The government has never mandated churches to perform ceremonies against the churches wishes. Has it? No. Not even during the post Loving Vs Virginia decision to allow for anti-miscegenation laws to be rule unconstitutional did it force churches to marry mixed race couples. Your argument holds no water whatsoever.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

It doesn't condone slavery, it aknowledges that it already exisits, and then put fair and just stipulations on it, so that instead of killing these men the the Hebrews defeated in battle, or sending them off into banishment, they were at least allowed to stay in their own land, with their own familes, and work for food and other such accomodations. God aknowledged a practice that was already in full swing, and simply put stipulations on it so that the men were to be treated fairly. You can twist it any way you like, but the fact stands, what was law in the old testament has now been fulfilled in the New Testament. The customary laws that were applicable at that time were replaced by the laws of Christ when He came (notice he mentions this himself). However, it is the New Testament that speaks of marriage between man and woman and the roles of each in the household.
As far as governments never forcing a religious body to act in a certain way, how can you possibly account for the obvoius abuse and torture of Protastants and the beginning of the reformation? Our government has may have not forced churches to take part in ceremonies, although that too is debatable, but that is so because the Constitution made damn sure that they weren't meant to be allowed to force the Church to do anything. If you don't understand that that's what the first ammendment means, then you have lost sight of history.
Finally, what I am arguing is not that the government does force churches to perform such ceremonies, but to force them to hold homosexual marriages is doing just that. It is using the Government to force a religious body to do something, just because it deams that they ought to, and that is not respecting the rights of a Church to believe as they wish.

 

[shuamort]

Finally, what I am arguing is not that the government does force churches to perform such ceremonies, but to force them to hold homosexual marriages is doing just that. It is using the Government to force a religious body to do something, just because it deams that they ought to, and that is not respecting the rights of a Church to believe as they wish.

You keep saying the same thing OVER AND OVER WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY PROOF OR BACKUP. Either prove your argument that government would be forcing churches to marry gays (which the government won't) or admit that you're wrong.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

You keep saying the same thing OVER AND OVER WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY PROOF OR BACKUP. Either prove your argument that government would be forcing churches to marry gays (which the government won't) or admit that you're wrong.

Okay, I see what's happened. You are simply missinterpreting my argument and vice versa.
I am not arguing that the government WILL ever attempt to force churches to marry homosexuals, but I was under the impression you were arguing that they ought to.

When you stated You do realize that there are gay people in churches and there are churches that support gay marriage as well. Should a church want to marry two gay people, shouldn't they be able to?
for some reason I thought you were saying that if homosexuals wanted to be married in a church but the church dissapproved the government should intervene. Don't ask me where I got that argument, but that's what I thought you were arguing.
Then to answer your previous questions, I will leave it to a church to decide that. My personal opinion still stands that I believe marraige was for man and woman, but in the end, it is not my call, it is God's.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I personally do not think so. I am convinced through my interpretation of the scritpture that no one is to have sex outside of marriage (surely you can understand why, after all the diseases and unplanned pregnanancies that God might have said this) and I honestly interperate the Bible to say that marriage is meant to be between man and woman.

What would you do if you had a child who was Gay? All of this Rapture Right stuff sounds like Jim & Tammy or Tele-Evangelism. Blindly following anything or anyone is simply unwise. Didn't your God give you a brain so you can make your own decisions?

What would you do if your child was walking to school, and he was lured into a car and you never saw him/her again? How would you reconcile this? Are you willing to sacrifice your child to blindly follow God?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

What would you do if you had a child who was Gay? All of this Rapture Right stuff sounds like Jim & Tammy or Tele-Evangelism. Blindly following anything or anyone is simply unwise. Didn't your God give you a brain so you can make your own decisions?

What would you do if your child was walking to school, and he was lured into a car and you never saw him/her again? How would you reconcile this? Are you willing to sacrifice your child to blindly follow God?

Well, personally, I honestly believe that homosexuality is not just a genetic trate but an enviromental one. But regardless, his choice his is his choice. I cannot, nor would not attempt to force anyone to believe anything. I will hand out my argument, time and time again reiterate the impact of Christ on me, but in the end, I can only make my own decision, and his decision is his decision. Furthermore, blindly following means that I abandon on sense and reasoning and have no idea what I'm doing, just that I'm doing it for God, and that is innacurate. I have an incredibly sound and logical mind. I am not normaly one who accepts something without being able to get my head around it completely. But in this single case, it just happened to be where I finally found myself after looking for answers and meanings of life and such. It affected me in a way that nothing ever has before. And you can call me blindly led, or dillusional, but I argue that every Christian out there has a similar argument, that God exists because they have felt Him and seen Him in the world around them. Surely not every Christian in the world is stupid enough to be fooled by their own psyche?
What do you mean would I sacrifice my child to follow God blindly? I totaly don't understand why any parent would just let their child be taken? Where in the Bible or in the Christian faith does it suggest that if your child is taken that you are to just let him go?

 

[shuamort]

Well, personally, I honestly believe that homosexuality is not just a genetic trate but an enviromental one.

Of course, with your logical mind, you've figure that it's not genetic how?

But regardless, his choice his is his choice.

Ah, but it's not a choice.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Of course, with your logical mind, you've figure that it's not genetic how?

Ah, but it's not a choice.

Right now there is as much evidence for homosexuality being hereditary as there is it being enviromental. But you're right, regardless of whether it is his choice or not, it is still a sin according to the Bible to have homoesexual sex. And that is his choice. And I still firmly believe in loving the sinner but not the sin.

 

[shuamort]

Right now there is as much evidence for homosexuality being hereditary as there is it being enviromental.

Once again, you're going to have to prove your claims.

But you're right, regardless of whether it is his choice or not, it is still a sin according to the Bible to have homoesexual sex. And that is his choice. And I still firmly believe in loving the sinner but not the sin.

A sin is also working on the Sabbath
A sin is also saying "God Damn It"
A sin is also being rebelious against one's parents.
A sin is also overeating
A sin is also gossiping
A sin is also greed
A sin is also worshipping a different god than the one of the bible.
A sin is also just being a human.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Once again, you're going to have to prove your claims.

A sin is also working on the Sabbath
A sin is also saying "God Damn It"
A sin is also being rebelious against one's parents.
A sin is also overeating
A sin is also gossiping
A sin is also greed
A sin is also worshipping a different god than the one of the bible.
A sin is also just being a human.

Why need I prove my claim any more than you should have to prove yours? But fine, if you're really going to make me go searching through the research then so be it.

As for the rest, minus the last, you are dead on. You are very right, it is a sin to do all of those things, and I will be equally dissaopinted in my son or myself if/when they are committed. The only problem about homosexuality is that it tends to be a lifestyle, which means committing the same sin over and over again. Which is no different than being a compulsive liar, but none the less, not the most desirable lifestyle one can choose.

 

[Fantasea]

You do realize that there are gay people in churches and there are churches that support gay marriage as well. Should a church want to marry two gay people, shouldn't they be able to?

Yes, and and if one wishes, one may join churches that feature snake biting, smoking piute, polygamy, and a host of other interesting religious concepts.

If one can't find an existing church that caters to one's particular proclivities, one is always free to organize a new church to include one's own specifications, isn't one?

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Why need I prove my claim any more than you should have to prove yours? But fine, if you're really going to make me go searching through the research then so be it.

As for the rest, minus the last, you are dead on. You are very right, it is a sin to do all of those things, and I will be equally dissaopinted in my son or myself if/when they are committed. The only problem about homosexuality is that it tends to be a lifestyle, which means committing the same sin over and over again. Which is no different than being a compulsive liar, but none the less, not the most desirable lifestyle one can choose.

So, your child is sadly in a critical condition on ITU, and the doctors and nurses are working hard to keep him alive. Then the clock strikes midnight, Saturday night, and suddenly it's Sunday, the Sabbath.

Do you demand that the doctors and nurses stop working on your son and hope that god will see fit to keep him alive until Monday?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

. I have an incredibly sound and logical mind.

We're yet to see it in action

 

[shuamort]

Yes, and and if one wishes, one may join churches that feature snake biting, smoking piute, polygamy, and a host of other interesting religious concepts.

If one can't find an existing church that caters to one's particular proclivities, one is always free to organize a new church to include one's own specifications, isn't one?

Yup, and your point being?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

So, your child is sadly in a critical condition on ITU, and the doctors and nurses are working hard to keep him alive. Then the clock strikes midnight, Saturday night, and suddenly it's Sunday, the Sabbath.

Do you demand that the doctors and nurses stop working on your son and hope that god will see fit to keep him alive until Monday?

Okay, you really want to know my interpretation of the Sabbath? To be breif: the Ten Commandments are kind of an owner's manual to life. (They are in the end more than that, but I don't see the need to go into it). The commandments are there so that we better understand how to live our lives. By saying don't work on the Sabbath day and keep it holy, technically God would have been talking about Monday, as it is the first day of the week in the Hebrew custome. But regardless of all that, the important message that this commandment offers is that you should not be so engaged in your work that you do not take a day to yourself to relax, regain sanity, and spend the day remembering how wonderful life is that God has given you. My mother, who works as a Children's Minister at our church, takes Fridays as her sabbath since she has to work on Sundays.
As far as healing on the Sabbath, I think if Jesus is any example at all, then of course it is not sinful.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

We're yet to see it in action

Oh right, because I have yet to abandon my faith and come and adopt your side of the argument. Last I checked the measure of having a logical and sound mind was not how close one is to agreeing with YOU!