B
Ben_Quincy
Guest
WARNING
This thread is in danger of being closed due to excessive uncharitable posts.
This thread is in danger of being closed due to excessive uncharitable posts.
- Status
I
inocente
Guest
People look at the OP first to see if they want to read a thread, and the OP doesn’t mention the truth of what Jesus said. If you want to discuss that then it would be better to start another thread so everyone who wants to can take part.
Haven’t you read that in Boolean algebra 2 + 2 = 2?
A lot of species are male and female. You could say the creator made them male and female. A lot of other species are not male and female. You could say the creator made them not male and female.
But we’ve been round these verses several times before on another thread.
Historically Baptists are against creeds. Freedom of access to the bible and freedom of interpretation of the bible are central to the faith. We believe in what is known as competency of the soul, which means in matters of faith everyone is free to choose their own path and is responsible to no one but God.
No. But homosexuals are bullied and a step to stopping that is to remove state-sponsored bullying in the form of discriminatory laws and treat them equally.
You have a different take on what is immoral than the majority of people in many countries, and no one is asking you to give up what you believe, all that is being asked in return is you don’t ask others to give up what they believe. Personally I don’t see why it has become such a big deal.
J
josh987654321
Guest
Why are you dodging?
The CEV translation certainly disagrees with you.
I could say? why wouldn’t I say that? would you not say that?
No offense but all I keep getting are dodges, I have not seen you confirm or deny anything yet.
So I could go to two different Baptist churches and be taught two different contradictory teachings?
So what do you think now? do you still believe in “freedom of interpretation”? or do you think there is one interpretation, which is the truth that we should all be seeking? Because I can assure you that when these were written, only one interpretation was intended, don’t you want to find out what that is? or are you content with multiple contradictory different interpretations? because if so, you may get quite a rude shock when you stand before Christ.
Some homosexuals are bullied and that is absolutely without a doubt unacceptable and unchristen to do such a thing, however advocating the sexual acts of homosexuality as a moral and encouraged variant of sexuality is also wrong and completely the wrong way to go about fixing it.
Do we love the sin in order to love the sinner? is that loving our neighbour? or wouldn’t hating the sin and loving the sinner be loving our neighbour? because we want what is best for them?
I wouldn’t be loving my homosexual brothers and sisters, if I advocated or encouraged sexual immorality for them or anyone else for the matter would I?
You also say “form of discriminatory laws” but may I ask you. How is it discrimination when we say that “marriage is between a man and a woman”?
I am not asking you to give up what you believe, you believe in Jesus Christ as do all of us Christians. I am asking you to believe it. I am asking you to get to the truth of what Christ say’s a marriage is, if you are Christian, wouldn’t you want to find out whether the sexual acts of homosexuality is sinful or not? especially if you wish to advocate such for your homosexual brothers and sisters?
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
S
stewstew03
Guest
I agree that homosexuals are sometimes bullied, but you do understand that bullying goes the other way, too, no?
For example, this recent article from Slate.com, which describes Justice Scalia and his Catholic priest son as “homophobic.” If one believes that homosexuality is a sin, that belief is not equivalent to homophobia; and yet, that is the narrative that is being played out: to be a practicing Catholic is to be “anti-gay” or “homophobic.” Of course, framing it this way fosters this notion that Catholics are bad people, and should therefore be condemned, or at least discredited. It’s nothing short of bullying the opposition…
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
Whatever you say “Lord” Lannister.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
“Perspective” is subjective, so therefore this is not even an argument for or against traditional sacramental or “civil” marriage. It’s not an argument at all. It’s you sharing your feelings.
Truth is not told by a clock, nor by value opinions based on a “perspective”.
If it recognizes anything it only does so far to recognize it’s existence, no different than it recognizes the existence of sin in general. The truth of sacramental marriage is not set aside because of this.
You cannot get more from less.
The temporal consequences are manifold. As are the eternal ones.
No, your confusing value opinions about marriage with the objective facts and definition of it.
Sure, that’s a possibility. If one wants to be so foolish to put the State over the authority of their deity. Making a “god” of the State has obvious temporal and eternal consequences.
Again, confusing subjective value opinions with objective truth.
Again, legal positivism. The Constitution doesn’t “grant” rights to citizens. The constitution doesn’t tell people what they can do. It is the people telling the government what it CAN’T DO.
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
As further demonstrated by the protestant ministers who were beaten by “gay-rights” advocates for going out and proclaiming the Gospel in their hearing.
The charge itself is a bigoted and intolerant charge. They commit the very thing that they accuse faithful Christians of doing. Intolerance and hatred of those who they don’t agree with.
I
inocente
Guest
We went round and round and round this all this before on a previous thread, and I told you then I wouldn’t keep going around it anymore. I’ve been very patient with you but enough is enough.
I
inocente
Guest
Yes, but that’s just sticks and stones.
Sexual orientation isn’t something anyone can choose, and when LBGT people are told their sexual orientation is unnatural and must be suppressed, and their love is unacceptable, it causes deep conflicts which lead to depression and suicide. That’s what I mean by state-sponsored bullying.
P
puntervina9x
Guest
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Correct. It wasn’t meant to be an argument. I think you may think that I am arguing something that I am not. I say this based on the pre-emptive counter arguments that have been presented for points that I was not nor had any intent to argue in some of the previous post. Upon reviewing what I’ve typed in previous messages I think you’ll find that I’m not arguing what you think that I am.
Could you provide an answer that is less abstract? I understand you are saying that there can be many consequences, but how about sharing a few specific ones?
It’s a feedback system. It goes both ways. People wrote the constitution, people amend the constitution. The constitution could be described as an expression for the permissions and prohibitions that were authored by our society though various means ranging from drafting a document to protest, rebelling, and total disregard (ex: 18th Amendment).
What I was previously saying is that in states where gay marriage is not recognized a homosexual person is not able to designate another person as a person to which they can share information under protection of 5th amendment rights; if demanded by the courts the person has the option of either violating the trust of the other and disclose requested information or be punished by the court system. In states where gay marriage is recognized a person’s spouse has fifth amendment protections and will not be penalized for disclosing personal information on their spouse. This is an example of a right (as in “permission”) that isn’t granted by the state except through marriage.
J
josh987654321
Guest
What is holding you back? Don’t you want to find and embrace the truth? What are you afraid of?
God Bless
Thank you for reading
Josh
T
tonyrey
Guest
Do you believe St Paul meant that the **sole **purpose of marriage is to avoid temptation?
I
inocente
Guest
No, if you read his letters elsewhere he talks of love and commitment.
Although avoiding temptation does appear to be important to him: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. …] If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.”
In my post, straight after the sentence you quoted, I said "Please give chapter and verse where Jesus teaches that marriage is about “love and the pursuit of happiness”.
Where is it?
S
stewstew03
Guest
Perhaps “sticks and stones” for now, unless you’re a baker who objects to making wedding cakes for gay couples.
S
stewstew03
Guest
What harm is there for an infertile incestuous arrangement?
That seems like a weak standard – after all, hasn’t it been argued that “traditional” marriages degrade women?
I
inocente
Guest
If he broke the law, he broke the law. Do you not believe in the rule of law, do you think anarchy would be better?
S
stewstew03
Guest
¿Cómo?
How did you gather that assertion based on my comments? You said that gay activist bullying (for lack of a better term) was just “sticks and stones.” I think that might be true to an extent, but there is evidence that it is more than just sticks and stones, and in some cases is “state sponsored.” (That is, civil consequences for acting on the belief that homosexuality is wrong).
I
inocente
Guest
The article you linked says he broke civil rights law. Would it not be bullying if white skinned people refused to sell food to black men? Would it not be bullying if Protestants refused to let Catholics buy houses? Why then is it not bullying to refuse to sell cake to homosexuals?
The baker is a bully, the thing civil rights is there to stop.
S
stewstew03
Guest
This is my point, so it seems you agree with me in principle. To wit, gay marriage is a “civil right.” Therefore, anyone who does not support gay marriage does not support civil rights, which leads to “state sponsored bullying” against those who do not support gay marriage.
- Status