Freedom to Marry Day Protest Planned

[LuvDuke]

I glad he's back on God's path.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[MassJester]

Sorry I missed your question. Not familar with the Virginia case.

God has nothing against interracial marriage (although the Bible warns against "mixed religions"). He's quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, though.

Interesting, people used to believe that God was against interracial marriage -- they must have been using an older bible.

The original points being made that gave rise to your early comments on this issue (you may look to pages 14 and 15 of this thread), were that courts had meddled by judicial fiat (I believe that was the term used) in issues that were properly left to popular decision.

My question was, were the courts interferring when they decided that segregation wasn't legal (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 1954); and was the country victimized by activist judges, when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1, 1967) which invalidated a Virginia statute which barred blacks from marrying whites?

I asked you this question in response to your earlier assertion that no one was being discriminated against, as any man could marry, and any woman could marry. This was the stand taken by Virginia's attorney general in his argument before the court. In fact, the judge who had convicted the Lovings in 1959 (not so long ago) stated:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." ​

Fortunately, the Court was not persuaded such an absurd position, even if made with the full force of the name of God.

Before you went off into the recitation of platitudes, you were discussing the issue in terms of our Republic and not of the Bible. Would you care to return to that part of the discussion and explain how you find the two issues so completely different?

 

[MassJester]

Again, I ask you, are you a disciple of Jesus?

You betcha

IA with your first statement. However, your mention of tolerance is misguided, IMO. Jesus was/is tolerant of SINNERS, NOT SIN! Are you aware Jesus spoke more about Hell than Heaven?

he spoke more about food than he did about either of those two combined--what's the point?

As far as separating people from Christ:

Hebrews 4:11-13

12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Who has mentioned separating people from Jesus? Just curious, how could one man separate another man from the Lord?

The words of Jesus:

Matthew 10:34-36

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

I prefer Luke's text, but fine. But don't we also hear from Mark 4:28-29

"28 Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin."​

This is one of the places in scripture from which I derive my understanding of a forgiving and tollerant God. I think the real danger is not in sin itself, but in the perversion of God's message. For me, those who kill may be forgiven, but those who kill in the name of God have a more serious problem.

But again, the issue here is not sin, and whether or not it is sinfull to be homosexual or take part in homosexual acts. The issue here, in fact, has naught to do with God, but with government, or in the parlance of the Gospel times, Ceasar.

We allow, by law, many things which seemingly run counter to scripture.

We permit divorce (and not merely for infidelity). The response on this line has been, well, divorsees don't get the good seats in our church (or something to that effect), and yet approval or not, the cross-bearing crowd expresses no inclination to outlaw this sin. I submit to you that it is a disingenuous position that strikes at the intellectual dishonesty of the position.

By all means worship God as your conscience tells you. Feel free to spread the word to me and my neighbors to the best of your ability. But don't use God as an excuse for a political position, particularly when you cannot muster the honesty of a consistent position.

 

[jimmiej]

You betcha



he spoke more about food than he did about either of those two combined--what's the point?



Who has mentioned separating people from Jesus? Just curious, how could one man separate another man from the Lord?



I prefer Luke's text, but fine. But don't we also hear from Mark 4:28-29

"28 Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin."​

This is one of the places in scripture from which I derive my understanding of a forgiving and tollerant God. I think the real danger is not in sin itself, but in the perversion of God's message. For me, those who kill may be forgiven, but those who kill in the name of God have a more serious problem.

But again, the issue here is not sin, and whether or not it is sinfull to be homosexual or take part in homosexual acts. The issue here, in fact, has naught to do with God, but with government, or in the parlance of the Gospel times, Ceasar.

We allow, by law, many things which seemingly run counter to scripture.

We permit divorce (and not merely for infidelity). The response on this line has been, well, divorsees don't get the good seats in our church (or something to that effect), and yet approval or not, the cross-bearing crowd expresses no inclination to outlaw this sin. I submit to you that it is a disingenuous position that strikes at the intellectual dishonesty of the position.

By all means worship God as your conscience tells you. Feel free to spread the word to me and my neighbors to the best of your ability. But don't use God as an excuse for a political position, particularly when you cannot muster the honesty of a consistent position.

The question was addressed to Junie Jay, but I'm glad to know you love Jesus!

The point is God/Jesus is not tolerant of sin! Sin can only be forgiven through the blood of Christ. Food? Prove it.

One poster inferred harsh comments by me, Joe drives people away from Jesus instead of to Him.

The Scripture you quote is from Mark 3. The context is some calling Jesus Beelzebub. Jesus was referring to those who blaspheme Him. He was not referring to sin in general.

If God is tolerant of sin, why did Jesus have to die on the cross?

My position has been very consistent over the years of debating here on the DIS? I have no problem believing God looks unfavorably on homosexuality. My dilemma is, how do I reconcile that with my belief in equal pursuit of happiness by all Americans?

 

[MassJester]

My position has been very consistent over the years of debating here on the DIS? I have no problem believing God looks unfavorably on homosexuality. My dilemma is, how do I reconcile that with my belief in equal pursuit of happiness by all Americans?

Why, the very same way you reconcile the legality of divorce.

 

[DisneyMommyMichelle]

I guess the "loving" polygomists will be next.

California la la land. Hollywood and Sodom & Gammorah morality.

I just came across this thread and got this far and i CANNOT believe this was posted. It's sad really.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

I consider myself a Christian. But I can tell you right now, I must be worshiping a different God than Joe because as I sat here reading all of his very mean-spririted, condescending, hateful posts, I did not see God's message in ANY of them. The God I believe in would never condemn someone for having true love for another human being, whether they are male or female. Love is NOT a sin. I'm sorry there are so many misguided Christians out there who feel they can take it upon themselves to cast judgement on others for their lifestyle choices. The last time I checked, He is the only one who carries such a responsibility, and to take it upon yourself is not only wrong, but extrememly arrogant.

 

[cardaway]

But I can tell you for certain, one thing that has not aided me as I struggle with this is people belittling my religious beliefs, and telling me I hate homosexuals simply because I'm not prepared to throw away everything I was raised to believe on a whim.

I don't recall anybody targeting you with such statements because unlike some others here you don't follow up a post like this with five more that say exactly the opposite. Unlike some others here you don't post unrelated bible verse after unrelated bible verse to speak for you rather than come up with your own words to explain your position.

People respond in some pretty harsh ways on this topic, but they are only giving back what others put there. As somebody else already posted, so many here are driving people away with their posts.

Is that their goal? Not my place to say. But I will say there used to be more Christians who posted here who didn't have the effect that Joe and jimmiej have. People who actually made non-Christians like myself want to enter into respectful dialogue with them, but sadly they have moved on.

 

[cardaway]

The last time I checked, He is the only one who carries such a responsibility, and to take it upon yourself is not only wrong, but extrememly arrogant.

It's called hubris, and it's a SIN!

 

[Andy B]

Sorry I missed your question. Not familar with the Virginia case.

God has nothing against interracial marriage (although the Bible warns against "mixed religions"). He's quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, though.

I think you will find that God had little to say on many subjects it was his 'Prophets' who wrote those books which hundreds of years later another group of interested parties selected to go in an approved collection. I happen to believe that it is possible that some of the writers and those selecting the texts had their own agendas.

 

[Galactic Emperor]

Why do you wish that my children make destructive choices??

Being homosexual or heterosexual ist not a choice
People can neither choose their sexual orientation nor their parents.

 

[JunieJay]

Again, I ask you, are you a disciple of Jesus?

IA with your first statement. However, your mention of tolerance is misguided, IMO. Jesus was/is tolerant of SINNERS, NOT SIN!

I am a follower of Jesus, yes. But I don't believe two people who love one another who happen to be homosexuals are committing a sin. I also don't believe wives belong to their husbands, or eating shellfish is a sin, or women who braid their hair are sinners. Its as simple as that for me, but again, its not a religious argument. Its a is a civil and equal rights issue. The separation of church and state exists to protect everyone, not just heterosexuals.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I'm a Christian and I've been one all my life. There are a great many things that I've been raised to believe are sinful and they are all quite legal. What about foul language? It makes me cringe when I hear the name of the Lord taken in vain, but that's perfectly legal. If I recall my CCD correctly, that's a major sin against the First Commandment. Cursing in general is a sin. Should we pass laws about that? There are a whole lot of people who don't "Remember the Sabbath Day and Keep it Holy"-should we pass laws to force everyone to go to Church on Sunday? Jesus said that any man that looks on a woman with lustful thoughts is committing a sin. (Remember Former President Carter's discusson about that?) So should we outlaw all the movies, magazines, commercials and TV shows with scantily clad females? That sounds a little like an Islamic country doesn't it?

I was taught that Christians should WANT to obey God out of love, it shouldn't be an obligation or a law. Isn't that what Jesus objected to about the Pharasees? That they were so wrapped up in making laws about being religous that they stopped understanding what it was really about?

I have a lot of Christian friends, but I also have friends, family members and co-workers who cross all boundaries. Gay, straight, Jewish, non-believers...they've all honored my choices in life as I have honored theirs. Would it be easier if we all believed the same thing and followed the same rules, sure. But, I'm not God and if He designed the world this way with all this variety, who am I to tell Him it's wrong? Jesus said, "Love one another as I have loved you" He didn't say "Love one another as long as they behave the way you think they should."

 

[Freyja]

I'm a Christian and I've been one all my life. There are a great many things that I've been raised to believe are sinful and they are all quite legal. What about foul language? It makes me cringe when I hear the name of the Lord taken in vain, but that's perfectly legal. If I recall my CCD correctly, that's a major sin against the First Commandment. Cursing in general is a sin. Should we pass laws about that? There are a whole lot of people who don't "Remember the Sabbath Day and Keep it Holy"-should we pass laws to force everyone to go to Church on Sunday? Jesus said that any man that looks on a woman with lustful thoughts is committing a sin. (Remember Former President Carter's discusson about that?) So should we outlaw all the movies, magazines, commercials and TV shows with scantily clad females? That sounds a little like an Islamic country doesn't it?

I was taught that Christians should WANT to obey God out of love, it shouldn't be an obligation or a law. Isn't that what Jesus objected to about the Pharasees? That they were so wrapped up in making laws about being religous that they stopped understanding what it was really about?

I have a lot of Christian friends, but I also have friends, family members and co-workers who cross all boundaries. Gay, straight, Jewish, non-believers...they've all honored my choices in life as I have honored theirs. Would it be easier if we all believed the same thing and followed the same rules, sure. But, I'm not God and if He designed the world this way with all this variety, who am I to tell Him it's wrong? Jesus said, "Love one another as I have loved you" He didn't say "Love one another as long as they behave the way you think they should."

Wonderful post!

 

[Laura]

Women:

Romans 1

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

Which means what, exactly? What would be unnatural? It doesn't say. Christians disagree. As was stated earlier--it's a shaky basis for our laws, even if we didn't have our lovely Constitution stopping Christians from trying to base our laws on the Bible.

The thing is, though, the Bible references are only here to show why some individuals, such as you, would vote no (or have voted no) on gay marriage if on the ballot. The thing is, I don't think this will be resolved by the states' voters. It will be resolved in the same way interracial marriage was resolved: the Supreme Court. And there's simply no way anyone's Bible references, whether for or against gay marriage, are going to hold up before the Justices. It's a matter of inequality in the law--treating one set of citizens differently than another.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Wonderful post!

Thank you. I felt like I really had to counter the image of Christians that is being portrayed on this thread. We really aren't all like that.

 

[Laura]

Thank you. I felt like I really had to counter the image of Christians that is being portrayed on this thread. We really aren't all like that.

Of course not. It's really just Joe who's being hateful and un-Christian. I can totally understand the struggle of the devout on this issue, whichever side they fall on.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Of course not. It's really just Joe who's being hateful and un-Christian. I can totally understand the struggle of the devout on this issue, whichever side they fall on.

The thing is there are so many other issues that are difficult for Christians or anyone who is religious in society. Secular society runs counter to faith in many ways, but it seems that the only ones people get all crazy about are abortion and gay marriage. I really can't understand the mentality that pushes for laws against these things and not other things that are also sinful. Either you want a theocracy or you don't. I don't and I would guess that if Joe and those like him really understood what a theocracy might mean to them, they wouldn't want one either.

 

[Laura]

The thing is there are so many other issues that are difficult for Christians or anyone who is religious in society. Secular society runs counter to faith in many ways, but it seems that the only ones people get all crazy about are abortion and gay marriage. I really can't understand the mentality that pushes for laws against these things and not other things that are also sinful. Either you want a theocracy or you don't. I don't and I would guess that if Joe and those like him really understood what a theocracy might mean to them, they wouldn't want one either.

I totally agree. If religions mix with laws, laws mix with religion. Just a bad combination, and while I don't want our government telling us all what to believe in, I don't want the majority religion telling a minority group what's "moral".

 

[Andy B]

I totally agree. If religions mix with laws, laws mix with religion. Just a bad combination, and while I don't want our government telling us all what to believe in, I don't want the majority religion telling a minority group what's "moral".

But in virtually all established societies the laws are based on a moral framework which takes its basis from a religious root.