Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

[BigBossman]

No, I'm saying you can believe that homosexuality is wrong but also believe that it is not the government's place to enforce your beliefs.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think the government should have changed that. They should have left things the way it was. What happens is when you bend on one thing, then eventually, they will break you on other things. That's why I don't believe in compromise. Compromise shows weakness & overtime, the other side (or party) will attack it. That's what has happened to America morally.

 

[Revmitchell]

All Christians have to engage in politics at some point. When you go to the voting booth do you support candidates that hold your biblical values or do you allow ungodly candidates because of how it may effect your wallet.

This country was founded on biblical principles. That is completely different from a theocracy. The first textbooks in schools were bibles. Both our Declaration of independence and many if not all of state constitutions recognize God in some way. And yet it can not be claimed that there was ever a theocracy in this country. Passing laws based on biblical principles does not make a theocracy. There should be no point in a Christians life where God and biblical principles are left out. That is a dual hypocritical life.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

That's why I don't believe in compromise. Compromise shows weakness & overtime, the other side (or party) will attack it. That's what has happened to America morally.

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:

 

[rbell]

No, I'm saying you can believe that homosexuality is wrong but also believe that it is not the government's place to enforce your beliefs.

Whose beliefs do you want enforced, then? You do legislate morality. Otherwise, you have anarchy.

 

[StefanM]

Whose beliefs do you want enforced, then? You do legislate morality. Otherwise, you have anarchy.

There are generally accepted principles, such as the right of the individual to be free from harm from others. I'm not saying that some level of morality cannot be enforced, but I do not favor one groups morality being forced on the population, regardless of the group, even if that group is my group.

 

[StefanM]

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think the government should have changed that. They should have left things the way it was. What happens is when you bend on one thing, then eventually, they will break you on other things. That's why I don't believe in compromise. Compromise shows weakness & overtime, the other side (or party) will attack it. That's what has happened to America morally.

Exactly. If those rebellious traitors had left things as they were, we'd all still be serving our God-given monarch!

Long live the Queen! :thumbs:

(joking)

 

[StefanM]

All Christians have to engage in politics at some point. When you go to the voting booth do you support candidates that hold your biblical values or do you allow ungodly candidates because of how it may effect your wallet.

Why do you always assume it is about the wallet?

 

[StefanM]

This country was founded on biblical principles. That is completely different from a theocracy. The first textbooks in schools were bibles. Both our Declaration of independence and many if not all of state constitutions recognize God in some way. And yet it can not be claimed that there was ever a theocracy in this country. Passing laws based on biblical principles does not make a theocracy. There should be no point in a Christians life where God and biblical principles are left out. That is a dual hypocritical life.

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.

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.

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

Passing laws based on biblical principles may not be a theocracy per se, but in the context of a multi-religious, multi-cultural society, basing a law on one particular religion's tenets is neither democratic nor appropriate. If you believe otherwise, just be consistent in claiming that you only care for democracy or representative government if your friends are in charge.

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.

 

[OldRegular]

What do you think that legislation is (in many cases the status quo) that prevents homosexuals from joining the military, getting married, etc? It's the insistence (based on personal belief) that homosexuality is wrong, so it needs to be legally hindered.

Your posts indicate an ambivalence regarding the morality of homosexuality. [By the way, they are not "gay"; they are miserable sexual perverts]. It is not a personal believ that homosexuality is wrong. Scripture is very clear that homosexuality is a sin and a perverted lifestyle. For this reasont God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

As for homosexuals being in the military, have you served in the military? I have and it is no place for a homosexual. As for marriage anyone who professes to be a Christian must acknowledge that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even most pagan religions acknowledge this truth.

 

[OldRegular]

There are generally accepted principles, such as the right of the individual to be free from harm from others. I'm not saying that some level of morality cannot be enforced, but I do not favor one groups morality being forced on the population, regardless of the group, even if that group is my group.

Well Stephan when the Muslims take over you can enjoy life under Shiria Lay and not worry about homosexual rights!

 

[OldRegular]

"More than anything else, these developments may signal the fact that those who, on biblical grounds, are led by conscience to reject same-sex marriage, really will be exposed as a moral minority," the Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a staunch defender of traditional definition of marriage, told TIME recently. "If so, it will expose a great divide over the authority of the Bible among many Christian churches and denominations — perhaps in a way exceeding any other issue."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1893955,00.html?xid=rss-fullnation-yahoo

The question is not will homosexual marriage pit church against church but is a congregation that endorses homosexuality or homosexual marriage really a "church", the body of Jesus Christ?

 

[rbell]

There are generally accepted principles, such as the right of the individual to be free from harm from others. I'm not saying that some level of morality cannot be enforced, but I do not favor one groups morality being forced on the population, regardless of the group, even if that group is my group.

OK then...

Just realize that all systems of law enforce morality. The libertine, raunchy, pagan culture of Rome...had a set of laws that enforced a moral code.

We will choose a moral basis for our code. I want no part of a moral code that not only legalizes homosexuality, but insists that I celebrate the lifestyle (e.g., anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation).

I repeat...you and I will choose what moral basis our legal system is based upon. Choose wisely.

 

[StefanM]

We will choose a moral basis for our code. I want no part of a moral code that not only legalizes homosexuality, but insists that I celebrate the lifestyle (e.g., anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation).

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.

 

[StefanM]

Your posts indicate an ambivalence regarding the morality of homosexuality. [By the way, they are not "gay"; they are miserable sexual perverts]. It is not a personal believ that homosexuality is wrong. Scripture is very clear that homosexuality is a sin and a perverted lifestyle. For this reasont God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

As for homosexuals being in the military, have you served in the military? I have and it is no place for a homosexual. As for marriage anyone who professes to be a Christian must acknowledge that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even most pagan religions acknowledge this truth.

Here you go...the historical and the Christian definition of marriage is heterosexual. Is same-sex marriage a Christian practice? No.

However, I do not believe that the state's standards should necessarily be the same as Christianity's.

For the record, I was not aware that the definition of marriage was determinative of one's Christian faith.

 

[StefanM]

Well Stephan when the Muslims take over you can enjoy life under Shiria Lay and not worry about homosexual rights!

I will stand firm against any imposition of Sharia Law, as should all Americans who believe in freedom.

 

[OldRegular]

I will stand firm against any imposition of Sharia Law, as should all Americans who believe in freedom.

Then you won't be standing very long!

 

[OldRegular]

Here you go...the historical and the Christian definition of marriage is heterosexual. Is same-sex marriage a Christian practice? No.

However, I do not believe that the state's standards should necessarily be the same as Christianity's.

For the record, I was not aware that the definition of marriage was determinative of one's Christian faith.

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.

 

[matt wade]

Then you won't be standing very long!

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.

 

[matt wade]

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.

No laughing on this one. You are right on! :thumbs:

 

[StefanM]

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.

Obedience would be not entering into a same-sex relationship.

The other would simply be incorrect interpretation.