Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[kiwimacahau]

Exactly, well said brother.

What a bunch of hooey. I have no problems with people not supporting LGBTQ people but I do have a problem with them dressing up their prejudice in religious language.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

 

[Angel4Truth]

What a bunch of hooey. I have no problems with people not supporting LGBTQ people but I do have a problem with them dressing up their prejudice in religious language.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

Says the "father" who cannot give a defense for the hope that is(?) in Him?

Ill pass on even worrying about your discernment. What you think of me personally has no bearing on this discussion

Let me know when you have any rational defense/apologia of your position.

 

[Nihilo]

What a bunch of hooey. I have no problems with people not supporting LGBTQ people but I do have a problem with them dressing up their prejudice in religious language.

The 14th Dalai Lama calls LGBTQ peoples' titular behavior "Sexual misconduct."

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why? Because I believe marriage equality is a good thing? Or because you don't like to think about what icky gays get up to?

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

All sin is "icky" before my Holy, Righteous God. Its why i needed a Savior. Would you like to know the way of Salvation, since i see you have not yet met the Lord in Spirit and Truth and still reject Him and His word?

My Lord does not see loving relationships as sinful. Further God, in Christ, accepts us as we are where we are.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

yes, i know that you refrain from bending your knee to the Lord and allowing Him access to the throne - you think you are more moral than He is.

Ah, that fine of tradition of treatment of others as Christ treats us. My life is in the hands of God, my relationship is with Christ and I am reminded that in a empire with a high acceptance of homosexuality, Christ never once spoke of it, let alone condemn it. Take your hatred of others away.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

What treatment is that, by pointing you to Him and His word?

Why would Christ talk about homosexuality, to define what marriage is? Did He need to mention bestiality to know that isnt marriage either? See Matthew Chapter 19 - no need for Him to define all the hundreds of things marriage isnt, once He said what it was and its purpose in creation, referencing Genesis .

Oh but thats right, you dont believe that either. Hmm seems the problem is yours.

He was not declaring a law for marriage, he was talking to the Jewish religious leaders about the ways they used the religion to control people. Perhaps you might like to take notice?

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

Both actually, in His response, He declared what His intent and purpose for marriage is, which includes why one? Which you can learn from malachai, which says so your children would be holy, and references males and females in marriage.

Your argument is with your Maker, not me. Your not liking His ways then condemning the messenger of His ways, wont end up well for you, not me.

Do post the pharisees trying to control people by advocating divorce, and show us where they condemn your pet sin (homosexuality) and Jesus correcting their rendering about gay. Thanks.

That way i can "take notice" since you are telling me Jesus and the pharisees said something they didnt.

Luke 11:46
And he said, Woe unto you lawyers also! for ye load men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.



Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

Which has nothing at all to do with Jesus allowing gay marriage. Jesus defined marriage clearly (Matthew chapter 19), there is no more reason to add all the things it isnt.

Which leaves the gay not only in sin for practicing homosexual sex (which Romans 1 calls a punishment for rejecting God and worthy of death), but fornication/adultery since Christ said marriage was male and female and referenced creation in Genesis and Malachi with its purpose.

Repent and get saved.

complete context, if you have anything relevant biblically to support your position, 'father'

 

[kiwimacahau]

Says the "father" who cannot give a defense for the hope that is(?) in Him?

Ill pass on even worrying about your discernment. What you think of me personally has no bearing on this discussion

Let me know when you have any rational defense/apologia of your position.

I don't need to defend loving relationships between people made in God's image and likeness.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why? Because I believe marriage equality is a good thing? Or because you don't like to think about what icky gays get up to?

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

All sin is "icky" before my Holy, Righteous God. Its why i needed a Savior. Would you like to know the way of Salvation, since i see you have not yet met the Lord in Spirit and Truth and still reject Him and His word?

My Lord does not see loving relationships as sinful. Further God, in Christ, accepts us as we are where we are.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

yes, i know that you refrain from bending your knee to the Lord and allowing Him access to the throne - you think you are more moral than He is.

Ah, that fine of tradition of treatment of others as Christ treats us. My life is in the hands of God, my relationship is with Christ and I am reminded that in a empire with a high acceptance of homosexuality, Christ never once spoke of it, let alone condemn it. Take your hatred of others away.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

What treatment is that, by pointing you to Him and His word?

Why would Christ talk about homosexuality, to define what marriage is? Did He need to mention bestiality to know that isnt marriage either? See Matthew Chapter 19 - no need for Him to define all the hundreds of things marriage isnt, once He said what it was and its purpose in creation, referencing Genesis .

Oh but thats right, you dont believe that either. Hmm seems the problem is yours.

He was not declaring a law for marriage, he was talking to the Jewish religious leaders about the ways they used the religion to control people. Perhaps you might like to take notice?

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

Both actually, in His response, He declared what His intent and purpose for marriage is, which includes why one? Which you can learn from malachai, which says so your children would be holy, and references males and females in marriage.

Your argument is with your Maker, not me. Your not liking His ways then condemning the messenger of His ways, wont end up well for you, not me.

Do post the pharisees trying to control people by advocating divorce, and show us where they condemn your pet sin (homosexuality) and Jesus correcting their rendering about gay. Thanks.

That way i can "take notice" since you are telling me Jesus and the pharisees said something they didnt.

Luke 11:46
And he said, Woe unto you lawyers also! for ye load men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.



Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

I don't need to defend loving relationships between people made in God's image and likeness.

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

Thanks for that admission that you cannot use the word of God to defend your position, so your position comes not from God, but from your own desires.

Matthew 4:4 But Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Mark 7:21
For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
22 greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness.

Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, And He will have compassion on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. 8"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.…

 

[eider]

I am not sure how the Catholic faith itself can break a command. People can, and do. Because we're, you know, sinners. If we weren't, there'd be no need for redemption.

Why? :think:

And so you are a Catholic.
This changes my perception of you somewhat.

Could you confirm a few points, please?
You would be happy to socialise with Gays, trade with Gays, leave Gays in peace within your community etc, but you're just against Gay Marriage.

Have I got this right?

 

[eider]

The 14th Dalai Lama calls LGBTQ peoples' titular behavior "Sexual misconduct."

I'm sure that the Dalai Lama's opinion's have much importance for you.

I'm guessing that you are against Gay Marriage, but I'm also guessing that you support Gay's rights in other ways, such as leaving them to socialise, trade, live within your own communities?

 

[eider]

Ah, that fine of tradition of treatment of others as Christ treats us. My life is in the hands of God, my relationship is with Christ and I am reminded that in a empire with a high acceptance of homosexuality, Christ never once spoke of it, let alone condemn it. Take your hatred of others away.

Thankyou for the above......
You can help me. Although Jesus never did mention homosexuality, only love and understanding, Paul's letters are clearly anti-Gay. When this is mentioned, how would you respond to this point?

I am pro-LGBT rights.

 

[eider]

When you got nothing left, go ad hominem lain:

You clearly don't know what 'ad hominem' actually means.
And I gave clear reasoning to support my exclamation!

As a guy who reads a lot of his posts, he always makes sense.................

Now that, right there, is ad hominem.

And in no way, is being 'Christian' by such a move. It is humanism. You cannot serve two masters, else you lose the right to retain the label 'Christian.'

No..... Jesus never did show hatred or prejudice against gays.
Many Churches are coming over to 'love and understanding' where gays are concerned.

I don't want fornication or bigamy sanctioned either. There is no 'sanctioning' sin in the church. A son had his father's wife in Corinth. Paul said to oust them. Ananias and Sapphira simply lied about a little bit of their own money. Death was the penalty. Whatever degree you do NOT take God's word seriously, you've ceased being 'Christian.'

There you go........ on a thread about Gay marriage, racing off into incest and goodnmess knows where else.

If you ignore what Jesus said, and did, first and foremost, then maybe you do desert Jesus.

"We don't believe you have to stop fornicating." - Not "Christian."
"We don't believe you have to stop lying." - Not "Christian."
"We don't believe you have to stop stealing." - Not "Christian."
"We don't believe you have to stop homosexual activity." - Not "Christian."

I don't know many Christians.

Your church has stopped being "Christian" by sanctioning any sin as 'no longer sin.' You don't need a Savior once you are no longer in sin AND you tell homosexuals they don't need a Savior.

Your ideas about Sin, Morality and all are just so far from the truth.
And please stop telling me about my Church! What Church?

 

[Nihilo]

I'm sure that the Dalai Lama's opinion's have much importance for you.

They certainly do, when the man is honorable enough and has enough fortitude and dignity to confess that it's what Buddhism's always believed, for ever since before Christ Jesus son of Mary hit the scene. It means today's LGBT(etc.) agenda is transient; we've nothing to fear from it; it will auto-resolve; gracefully. The major moral sources today say the same thing; they say it's censored. We've nothing to fear from this LGBT(etc.) culture; the Church. They're humans and they're acting. Do you get my meaning? They're trying their best. We gain nothing by making it more difficult than it already is, for them to try their best, but don't ask me to think they'll wind up any different than has Milo.

I'm guessing that you are against Gay Marriage, but I'm also guessing that you support Gay's rights in other ways, such as leaving them to socialise, trade, live within your own communities?

Gay marriage is the right of people to enter into contracts; cut-and-dried; it's not, in that regard, a moral matter. SSM is not, however, licit Church marriage, and those so engaged are living in sin, in a similar way that remarried-after-divorce-of-living-spouse people are living in sin, but not exactly, but similarly; this I believe. 'Same with all fornicators, and promiscuous people, and those viewing porno, and all the other unchaste things that people do; all of them are immoral, there's a limited number of moral sexual states; but they are all chaste. Celibacy and marriage.

 

[eider]

They certainly do, when the man is honorable enough and has enough fortitude and dignity to confess that it's what Buddhism's always believed, for ever since before Christ Jesus son of Mary hit the scene. It means today's LGBT(etc.) agenda is transient; we've nothing to fear from it; it will auto-resolve; gracefully. The major moral sources today say the same thing; they say it's censored. We've nothing to fear from this LGBT(etc.) culture; the Church. They're humans and they're acting. Do you get my meaning? They're trying their best. We gain nothing by making it more difficult than it already is, for them to try their best, but don't ask me to think they'll wind up any different than has Milo.
Gay marriage is the right of people to enter into contracts; cut-and-dried; it's not, in that regard, a moral matter. SSM is not, however, licit Church marriage, and those so engaged are living in sin, in a similar way that remarried-after-divorce-of-living-spouse people are living in sin, but not exactly, but similarly; this I believe. 'Same with all fornicators, and promiscuous people, and those viewing porno, and all the other unchaste things that people do; all of them are immoral, there's a limited number of moral sexual states; but they are all chaste. Celibacy and marriage.

Now that does read as one of the more moderate opinions on TOL about Gays and SSM.

The Catholic Church does seem to be moderate about Gays, but there are fundamental differences between its and my own perception of what Sin actually is..... I see sin as any breaching of any of the original laws of Moses, the 613. Jesus repealed 96 of them in a sentence, thre laws and rules about redemption-through-sacrifice, but the others remained.........

But breaking those laws, sin.... just lead to sickness and weakness of the Israelites. Somehow it's turned into 'evil sprerad by Satan', and I never ever understood that.

 

[ok doser]

lon, on gj:

... he always makes sense, he is trying to get you to think 'consistently' and fairly about things.
He has a good analytical mind. You'd do well to called non-interesting names and instead try to see where he is going with his conversations.
He is a good thinker. Find out why....

he's also incredibly patient :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

...God, in Christ, accepts us as we are where we are.

what were the last five words Jesus spoke to the woman taken in adultery?

 

[eider]

what were the last five words Jesus spoke to the woman taken in adultery?

...without actuially looking the words up..... 'sin no more..?'

But sin is/was just a breach of the laws, and although some of the punishments were extreme, the need to keep the laws was crucial to the survival of the Israelites. Today that has somehow turned into some satanic evil, worthy of the fires of damnation..blah blah.

I mean, shoplifting is a sin, but if Mrs Wenlock is to be thrown down into the blazing flames for nicking a lipstick from Walmart (or wherever), or looking twice at that actor bloke (Tom Hardy?) then all the ladies 'round here are in trouble, and not for that lipstick...!

Jesus was more likely to condemn a person for calling someone a fool, than that woman....

 

[ok doser]

...without actuially looking the words up..... 'sin no more..?'

the most important part of that exchange and you don't know it? :nono:

But....

the only but here is you

 

[eider]

the most important part of that exchange and you don't know it? :nono:

So you are no teacher, and that is for sure.

I will stick to my .....sin no more.

 

[glassjester]

And so you are a Catholic.
This changes my perception of you somewhat.

Ok... I do not see why it should.

Could you confirm a few points, please?
You would be happy to socialise with Gays, trade with Gays, leave Gays in peace within your community etc, but you're just against Gay Marriage.

Have I got this right?

I have socialized with homosexual people. I even lived with one for about a year. I certainly do not hate them.

At the same time, I recognize homosexual activity as sinful - one of many sinful lifestyles people might have. I don't condone their way of life, and I do not support legislation or supreme court rulings that promote it.

 

[ok doser]

So you are no teacher...

i don't waste my time on retards

 

[eider]

Ok... I do not see why it should.

I have socialized with homosexual people. I even lived with one for about a year. I certainly do not hate them.

At the same time, I recognize homosexual activity as sinful - one of many sinful lifestyles people might have. I don't condone their way of life, and I do not support legislation or supreme court rulings that promote it.

Now I think I get to understand your opinion a bit more.
It seems that you could live amongst, socialise with, deal with, work with gays, but your faith believes that they live in sin and that this could affect their situation after death. Am I anywhere near right?

A person who believes that ssm is unholy, wrong but who would leave them alone and accept legislation supporting ssm is a very fine Christian Imo.

That would only leave theological debate ..... Now I could trust that ....