- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,717
- Reaction score
- 75,667
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It has to do with having to actively participate in something one considers a sin, or actively help celebrate something the Bible teaches is a sin.
And it would apply to marrying or remarrying *adulterers and fornicators, for example....but interestingly enough....it doesnt.
*I believe the Catholic Church still does.
I strongly disagree. If I were asked to cater a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood, I would be supporting abortion on demand, and this would be a grave hypocrisy.
OK, then why are there no objections to marry or remarry adulterers and fornicators?
Marrying people that were convicted of murder, rape, pedophilia?
Or serving such people (and these things are often known in communities)?
Not only that, there have been active public well-financed campaigns, by religious organizations to STOP SSM...I'm not aware of them engaging in the same thing regarding the other major sins I just mentioned.
So while I do 'recognize' that people want to object...*say* they are objecting...on religious grounds, I believe that in 99% of the cases they are full of BS and just selectively and hypocritically rejecting gays.
Would you be basing your decision on religious belief?
Did they repent, were you there. Did Jesus say it was a sin. He even loved those that crucified him.
Here is a song for you. Pay close attention to the words being said. Remember the lord moves in mysterious ways
Remember that it's not the Identity - it's the Activity.
Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. So Jesus is on record as identifying gay sex as a sin, and he's on record telling people to repent of their sins (Luke 13:3). And if they don't, they will perish.
Here is a song for you. Pay close attention to the words being said. Remember the lord moves in mysterious ways
Jesus preached love. He would never ever have demanded that people...who are born that way... have to live their entire lives without the love and companionship and intimacy and joys of marriage that other people may have.
He would never have insisted or proclaimed that such people live a lie and have to grow old alone, without a loving spouse.
It has always bothered me, even as a teen, that our society would insist that gays do so....that so many people would insist that people who loved those of the same gender must deny themselves the chance at that, to grow old with someone they love (and enjoy all that entails, including intimacy).
I had not examined gays rights issues as a teen but I knew that was wrong. And I knew Jesus would never want that either.
Yes...this is *my* Christian belief.
On the contrary - it is Progressives who are the aggressors in the culture wars - it's in the name. SSM wasn't the law of the land, Pro-SSM'ers set out to change that. What you are referencing is active public campaigns to defend the previous standard of marriage, as agreeably imperfect as it was.
Are they repentant? Or is the event a celebration of adultery/fornication?
Freedom of Conscience is limited to religion? Atheists don't get it?
No, society demanded that gays be treated equally in marriage and religious organizations came out fighting.
It was a question....I implied no such thing.
Who knows? Are they asked?
It's not a requirement for the marriage apparently.
Sorry, I don't listen to that. Don't some in the Nine Inch Nail crowd think the murderer Che Guevara is cool? If so that's not at all cool.
" Poster boy Che Guevara was particularly keen on "reeducating" gay and effeminate men and dispatched thousands, without charge or trial, to concentration camps."
Read more: Articles: What Would Che Think of Same-Sex Marriage?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Actually He did.
(Matthew 19:12) For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
In the previous paragraph, Jesus gives us His view of marriage:
(Matthew 19:3-6) And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
We all have our temptations, many of which are woven into our genetic makeup, and many of which are malleable (as is sexuality). That isn't an excuse for us to fall to them, we retain agency.
He did that, too, and not just for Homosexuals:
(Matthew 19:9) And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,[a] and marries another, commits adultery.
Well, your "Christian" belief is at odds with what Christ taught. If you are truly seeking to avoid conforming to the world but rather conform yourself to Him by allowing yourself to be corrected in your thoughts, words, and deeds by Biblical truth, then you may want to spend some time praying on that.
I don't like some of it either, to be honest, but it is what it is, and the discrepancy is not His fault, but my own.
That would be covered during pre-marital counseling, if they are going through a Church.
:roll: no, extremist activist elements demanded SSM and society came out in defense of traditional marriage.
"society" is all of us. Within "society", the folks who are the aggressors are the ones who wanted (demanded) change - in this case, the liberal left. The Christian communities and conservative communities were responding to that.
:roll: no, extremist activist elements demanded SSM and society came out in defense of traditional marriage.
"society" is all of us. Within "society", the folks who are the aggressors are the ones who wanted (demanded) change - in this case, the liberal left. The Christian communities and conservative communities were responding to that.
I haven't heard that until now. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.
On the other hand the Bible and the message of Christ himself is offensive to many.
Interpretation
Revelation often seems bizarre and incomprehensible. But understanding the apocalyptic genre, the history of the early Christians, the persecutions they faced, their fears, and the issues they debated makes it much clearer. Many of the images and symbols parallel those in Old Testament books such as Daniel. Others allude to people, places and events that were very familiar to the first century Christians of Asia Minor. Extensive research in these areas has given Bible scholars a good understanding of what John's visions were intended to mean and how they would have been understood by their original audience in Asia Minor.
Its meaning is positive, not fearful or terrifying to those who serve God. While many associate the word “apocalypse” with great disaster, the book of Revelation begins and ends by saying that those who read, understand, and apply its message would be happy for doing so.—Revelation 1:3; 22:7.
Revelation uses many “signs,” or symbols, that are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1.
Even so, many different shades of interpretation are possible, and there is still considerable debate about the meaning of some of the symbols and images. Many of the scenes in Revelation convey a strong sense of God's infinite power and glory, and that may be its most important message of al
OK, then why are there no objections to marry or remarry adulterers and fornicators? Marrying people that were convicted of murder, rape, pedophilia? Or serving such people (and these things are often known in communities)?
Not only that, there have been active public well-financed campaigns, by religious organizations to STOP SSM...I'm not aware of them engaging in the same thing regarding the other major sins I just mentioned.
So while I do 'recognize' that people want to object...*say* they are objecting...on religious grounds, I believe that in 99% of the cases they are full of BS and just selectively and hypocritically rejecting gays.
Many churches do object to remarriage by those known to have committed adultery or whatnot. I know of preachers who have been "defrocked" for adultery. I also know of churches that do not allow anyone to be a deacon or other church officer if they are known to be "living in sin" in some manner.
A buddy of mine and his wife were living together for a year before they got married. During their pre-marital counceling with the pastor, he was quite clear that what they were doing was wrong. He further required them to acknowledge that and to live apart and celibate for three months before he would consent to perform the wedding in church.
Many churches have such standards, including many mainline (not considered Evangelical or fundamentalist) churches.
You know why you don't know about it? Because the media doesn't consider it newsworthy.
As for your final remark, I can't speak for anyone but myself when I say my sole objection to SSM is based on a sense of religious obligation to view it as a sin, based on the Bible. Even so, I do not actively oppose it politically... I just want to be left out of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?