Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

[rbell]

Anti-discrimination laws do not mean that you celebrate the lifestyle. For example, I do not celebrate a Muslim's religious beliefs. However, I respect his or her right to practice religion, even when it differs from mine. I also do not think that we should discriminate against them.

So, you as a business owner cannot refuse to hire a person because they are homosexual?

What if you run a religious organization?

You might need a napkin. That camel you let under the tent is slobbering on you. :thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
For the record you are wrong! Obedience to what GOD teaches is certainly determinative of one's Christian faith. When GOD created a help mate for Adam HE did not create another Adam; HE created a woman. Both the Old Testament [Genesis 2:24] and Jesus Christ in the New Testament [Mark 10:6-9] teach that marriage is between a man and a woman. For a "professing Christian" to claim otherwise is certainly an indication of his standing with God.

Response Posted by StefanM
Obedience would be not entering into a same-sex relationship.

The other would simply be incorrect interpretation.

I say again:
When GOD created a help mate for Adam HE did not create another Adam; HE created a woman. Both the Old Testament [Genesis 2:24] and Jesus Christ in the New Testament [Mark 10:6-9] teach that marriage is between a man and a woman. For a "professing Christian" to claim otherwise is certainly an indication of his standing with God.

The above Scripture is very straightforward. To imply that I have interpreted the scripture incorrectly is disingenuous at best and untruthful at worst.

 

[OldRegular]

Laughter is the best medicine and I feel great when I read your comments OldRegular! What makes it even more funny is that I know you honestly believe the things you type.

I believe the punishment for homosexuality under Shiria Lay is the same as that for adultery: DEATH.

Of course it was the same under Old Testament Law.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I believe the punishment for homosexuality under Shiria Lay is the same as that for adultery: DEATH.

Of course it was the same under Old Testament Law.

Good reason to have our separation of church & state. Those founding fathers were wise fellows.

 

[StefanM]

So, you as a business owner cannot refuse to hire a person because they are homosexual?

What if you run a religious organization?

You might need a napkin. That camel you let under the tent is slobbering on you. :thumbs:

Appropriate protection of religious freedom would allow religious organizations to make hiring criteria that reflect the beliefs of the organization, as long as the position in question requires such belief.

I do not believe that a for-profit business venture should be allowed to refuse to hire a person because he or she is homosexual.

 

[StefanM]

I believe the punishment for homosexuality under Shiria Lay is the same as that for adultery: DEATH.

Of course it was the same under Old Testament Law.

I guess it's too bad we have all those verse in the NT that talk about love. Wouldn't it just be easier to stone them?

(end sarcasm)

 

[StefanM]

Good reason to have our separation of church & state. Those founding fathers were wise fellows.

DING DING DING! We have a winner. :thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

The country was not founded on biblical principles--it was founded on enlightenment principles. If you sat in a room with the founding fathers, I would bet that you would not theologically agree with more than 2 or 3 of them. You have the Deists like Ben Franklin and Jefferson, along with the Unitarians like John Adams--not exactly representative of the theological tenor of this board.

Your example does not make your point.

And the Creator referenced in the DoI could be any god. Sure, many of the states had official religions, even...you know...the kind that liked to persecute Baptists.

But it wasn't and everyone knows it.

And it can be claimed that certain state governments have had theocratic government, especially pre-Constitution.

Irrelevant, what does their current constitution say right now.

Passing laws based on biblical principles may not be a theocracy per se,

But you said it was as a matter of fact

In the USA, the government is the government of the people--not just of Christians. After all, we rebelled against an explictly Christian nation with its monarch in charge of a church.

And we all have a right to vote our conscience. And a Christians conscience does lean toward biblical principles. Withholding them from the voting booth is contrary a Christian judgment.

 

[StefanM]

Your example does not make your point.



But it wasn't and everyone knows it.



Irrelevant, what does their current constitution say right now.



But you said it was as a matter of fact



And we all have a right to vote our conscience. And a Christians conscience does lean toward biblical principles. Withholding them from the voting booth is contrary a Christian judgment.

Newsflash---when a Deist is talking about the Creator, he's not referring to the Christian God.

History is not irrelevant. If the states had past histories of religious intolerance, it goes to show exactly what kind of dangers can exist when religion and politics are mixed. Of course, your assertion that the nation was founded on biblical principles is acceptable to you because it is your point, even if it is questionable historically.

My point regarding theocracy is that principles-based legislation does not necessarily lead to theocracy in every instance, but if you take it too far, it does go in that direction.

Example: a law outlawing rape can be considered as based on biblical principles, but it is also far from theocratic, as it enjoys broad based religious and secular support.

 

[Revmitchell]

My point regarding theocracy is that principles-based legislation does not necessarily lead to theocracy in every instance, but if you take it too far, it does go in that direction.

Example: a law outlawing rape can be considered as based on biblical principles, but it is also far from theocratic, as it enjoys broad based religious and secular support.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[BigBossman]

Without the Great Compromise, we would not have a country. Compromise is not always weakness, but give and take to resolve and impasse. Republicans and Democrats must compromise with one another in order to pass legislation. Otherwise you get a logjam that will not budge.

Of course, in Congress' case, maybe that would be a good thing. :laugh:

I think you're right to a degree. I don't like the fact that Republicans & Democrats have to do that to get their bills passed. To me, that's almost like taking one step forward & two steps backward.

I didn't think about until now, but in marriage that is also the case where compromise is accepatble. The husband & wife have to meet each other half way to ensure that their marriage is a happy one. The whole concept of "my" or "mine" has to be thrown out the window & replaced with "our" or "ours".

I can't believe that I just compromised on compromise. Okay, you got me.

I was simply referring to a person's beliefs. One should never compromise what they believe.

 

[OldRegular]

I guess it's too bad we have all those verse in the NT that talk about love. Wouldn't it just be easier to stone them?

(end sarcasm)

I assume you are implying that the Old Testament does not speak of love. May I say that ignorance of Scripture is no excuse for childish sarcasm!:laugh::laugh:

 

[StefanM]

I assume you are implying that the Old Testament does not speak of love. May I say that ignorance of Scripture is no excuse for childish sarcasm!:laugh::laugh:

I'll go with the grace and truth that came through Christ (cf. John 1) over the violence of the law any day.

And for the record, stoning someone isn't loving, regardless of whether or not the law speaks of it.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So Joseph didn't love Mary ?

 

[StefanM]

So Joseph didn't love Mary ?

What is your point?

I never said that no love existed, only that some parts are not loving.

 

[OldRegular]

I'll go with the grace and truth that came through Christ (cf. John 1) over the violence of the law any day.

And for the record, stoning someone isn't loving, regardless of whether or not the law speaks of it.

The grace and truth of GOD is revealed throughout the Bible beginning with GOD seeking out Adam and Eve after their rebellion. If you cannot understand that truth you are to be pitied.

 

[StefanM]

The grace and truth of GOD is revealed throughout the Bible beginning with GOD seeking out Adam and Eve after their rebellion. If you cannot understand that truth you are to be pitied.

If you cannot understand that Christ is the pinnacle of grace and truth that dwarfs all previous expressions, then you are to be pitied.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

What is your point?

I never said that no love existed, only that some parts are not loving.

I made no point, I asked a question.

 

[StefanM]

I made no point, I asked a question.

Then, yes, Joseph did love Mary.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

OK, so now I can make a point. It seems stoning is ordained of God, and since God is love, the jump that stoning can be an act of love is a short one.