"Perhaps we need a new American Revolution to defend marriage"

[GFR7]

You think it is perfectly natural for human women to bite the heads off of human men after sex because you have seen preying mantises do the same?

I believe there are some holes in your theory.

I think the argument from nature is not a strong one, in favor of the LGBTQ community. I think they would do better to argue for free choice and the right to break with nature (as per Paglia:

"We possess the right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. ... ."

 

[GFR7]

Another thing to ponder:
When we look to scripture (in this case the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras)--we see a God who will take swift action when his nation acts in a way that defies him. If gay marriage is being legalized, do any of you believe he will take the same sort of action?

Does anyone believe this sort of prophesy will be true of America, with Russia or Islam as the "invaders"? If not, then where is the God of scripture? Why has he changed? Or has he?




8 Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Have I not prayed you as a father his sons, as a mother her daughters, and a nurse her young babes,

29 That ye would be my people, and I should be your God; that ye would be my children, and I should be your father?

30 I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face.

31 When ye offer unto me, I will turn my face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken.

32 I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord.

33 Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble.

34 And your children shall not be fruitful; for they have despised my commandment, and done the thing that is an evil before me.

35 Your houses will I give to a people that shall come; which not having heard of me yet shall believe me; to whom I have shewed no signs, yet they shall do that I have commanded them.

36 They have seen no prophets, yet they shall call their sins to remembrance, and acknowledge them.

37 I take to witness the grace of the people to come, whose little ones rejoice in gladness: and though they have not seen me with bodily eyes, yet in spirit they believe the thing that I say.

38 And now, brother, behold what glory; and see the people that come from the east:

 

[genuineoriginal]

@genuineoriginal:

How may we have a social revolution based on the actions and beliefs of a John the Baptist?

When people hear the truth spoken, they stop believing the lies or they try to kill the truth speakers.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 3

Do you know Christians who have John's perspective toward the leaders of our own era?

Very few would be willing to lay down their lives for the truth.

 

[GFR7]

When people hear the truth spoken, they stop believing the lies or they try to kill the truth speakers.




Very few would be willing to lay down their lives for the truth.

Yes - you are right on both counts.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Another thing to ponder:
When we look to scripture (in this case the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras)--we see a God who will take swift action when his nation acts in a way that defies him. If gay marriage is being legalized, do any of you believe he will take the same sort of action?

Does anyone believe this sort of prophesy will be true of America, with Russia or Islam as the "invaders"? If not, then where is the God of scripture? Why has he changed? Or has he?

It looks like the United States of America will be the beast of Revelation, and will be leading the armies of the nations against Jerusalem when Jesus returns to destroy those armies.

Before that, Christians will have to make the choice to keep the faith of Jesus and the commandments of God, even though it will mean death, or to save their lives by taking the mark of the beast and become disqualified from the kingdom of God.

 

[GFR7]

It looks like the United States of America will be the beast of Revelation, and will be leading the armies of the nations against Jerusalem when Jesus returns to destroy those armies.

Before that, Christians will have to make the choice to keep the faith of Jesus and the commandments of God, even though it will mean death, or to save their lives by taking the mark of the beast and become disqualified from the kingdom of God.

It depends on how future events go, and if this is still an apocalyptic world. I've often though that in many areas, so-called Christians do not act as if any of this has meaning for them.

 

[shagster01]

You think it is perfectly natural for human women to bite the heads off of human men after sex because you have seen preying mantises do the same?

I believe there are some holes in your theory.

If a good part of the population had the desire to do it, I'd say it was natural.

They don't, so it's not. But nature can always change. . .

 

[Rusha]

Again: It goes back to what Reilly presupposes:

"If homosexual acts are moral as so many insist, then they should be normative. If they are normative, they should be taught in our schools as a standard. If they are a standard, they should be enforced. . . "

IF you truly stand behind this statement, then you also believe heterosexual ACTS should be taught in our schools as the standard.

Personally, I think we should teach the kids about science, history, math, and grammar.

 

[TracerBullet]

Another thing to ponder:
When we look to scripture (in this case the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras)--we see a God who will take swift action when his nation acts in a way that defies him. If gay marriage is being legalized, do any of you believe he will take the same sort of action?

Does anyone believe this sort of prophesy will be true of America, with Russia or Islam as the "invaders"? If not, then where is the God of scripture? Why has he changed? Or has he?

That makes perfect sense

 

[GFR7]

That makes perfect sense

Always nice to see Colbert, thanks .
But I was actually being rhetorical.

 

[GFR7]

IF you truly stand behind this statement, then you also believe heterosexual ACTS should be taught in our schools as the standard.

Personally, I think we should teach the kids about science, history, math, and grammar.

I am quoting Reilly. The acts are taught as normative. Reilly is pointing out the danger and the absurdity of the Rainbow Agenda.

 

[seehigh]

Do you think maybe the best defense of marriage is to stop adultry?

 

[jgarden]

"Perhaps we need a new American Revolution to defend marriage"

Given that heterosexual Americans can get married and have it recognized, irrespective of their religious beliefs, why draw the line at sexual orientation?

Nobody is calling for the state to disallow marriages of agnostics, atheists or those who belong to some religious faith other than Christianity - and yet from a Christian perspective, these should all be far more important than factors than sexual orientation, when it comes to recognizing marriages.

As for interpreting Christian prophecy, most attempts to connect it with modern day events in the world have proven to be false.

 

[Heterodoxical]

I am quoting Reilly. The acts are taught as normative. Reilly is pointing out the danger and the absurdity of the Rainbow Agenda.

The history of the gay marriage debate....

Gay people left providence to their partners in their wills.
Family, religious RIGHT, who disapproved of their marriage and abandoned their family member because of his "sinful ways" contested the will on the grounds the person wasn't legally married and had no right. They won.
Gay people were kept out of the hospital by their families....

Forget these specific examples, the bottom line is, they were not treated fair legally.

FIRST the LGBT community went for legal protection under the law, but it was shot down in 4 or 5 states.

It would have to be contested in EVERY state.

UNLESS, you could win to call it a marriage. STATES HOLD THE RIGHTS TO WHAT MAKES A MARRIAGE LEGAL. And what one state approves all honor, I.E. my wedding certificate was valid in every state and recognized.

So, rather than 50 battles it's now one.

All they wanted was the Religious Right off of their backs. Because of the Religious Right it went from wanting legal rights, to adopting the legal term marriage. That's the "Church's" bizarre bigotry to blame, not an LGBT agenda. Marriage would never have been on the table had they done the right thing to start with.

Jesus said if a man sues you for your shirt give'em the coat too. Don't debate if they deserve it, give it.

Shortly after that, in the same breath, he said God loves His enemies, and that love provides for them. Jesus commanded your love be as mature, or complete as God's was.

Seems to me, the Church says screw you Jesus, we are doing it our way.

And so the LGBT community needs protection, legally, by the government God appointed to protect all people, even His enemies.

After this started, NOW the emotionally unstable, radical, far left, rabid screaming dying for a cause activist portion of the lgbt community got involved.

That was the big plop you heard near the fan.

Marriage is determined legally by the state you reside in. It's their right. Their JOB is to protect the people. Not Christian bigots. Your pastor can marry people legally ONLY BECAUSE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM BY THE STATE IN WHICH HE MARRIES YOU. This has been admitted freely by pastors at every wedding since.... forever.

Why do they play stupid now and act like it's THEIR RIGHT, and not the God appointed Government?

Hypocritical, Anti Christ, bigoted, behavior for God, ministry...... How's that working out?


The LGBT Agenda is to stop being harrassed by bigots. Most of them could care less what you believe or feel, just keep it to yourself and get out of their lives.

To judge that whole community by their extremist activists, is like saying all Christians are members of www.godhatesfags.com by Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Heterodoxical]

"Perhaps we need a new American Revolution to defend marriage"

Given that heterosexual Americans can get married and have it recognized, irrespective of their religious beliefs, why draw the line at sexual orientation?

Nobody is calling for the state to disallow marriages of agnostics, atheists or those who belong to some religious faith other than Christianity - and yet from a Christian perspective, these should all be far more important than factors than sexual orientation, when it comes to recognizing marriages.

As for interpreting Christian prophecy, most attempts to connect it with modern day events in the world have proven to be false.

Prophecy = all attempts have been false so far.

The church says it's a sin and it shouldn't encourage sins...... wth?
...they don't care if liars marry, or adulterers, or sexual addicts, or people who had premarital sex.... or...... It's just this one sin.

That's like saying just that ONE race is bad.

We gotta word for that.

 

[GFR7]

The history of the gay marriage debate....

Gay people left providence to their partners in their wills.
Family, religious RIGHT, who disapproved of their marriage and abandoned their family member because of his "sinful ways" contested the will on the grounds the person wasn't legally married and had no right. They won.
Gay people were kept out of the hospital by their families....

Forget these specific examples, the bottom line is, they were not treated fair legally.

FIRST the LGBT community went for legal protection under the law, but it was shot down in 4 or 5 states.

It would have to be contested in EVERY state.

UNLESS, you could win to call it a marriage. STATES HOLD THE RIGHTS TO WHAT MAKES A MARRIAGE LEGAL. And what one state approves all honor, I.E. my wedding certificate was valid in every state and recognized.

So, rather than 50 battles it's now one.

All they wanted was the Religious Right off of their backs. Because of the Religious Right it went from wanting legal rights, to adopting the legal term marriage. That's the "Church's" bizarre bigotry to blame, not an LGBT agenda. Marriage would never have been on the table had they done the right thing to start with.

Jesus said if a man sues you for your shirt give'em the coat too. Don't debate if they deserve it, give it.

Shortly after that, in the same breath, he said God loves His enemies, and that love provides for them. Jesus commanded your love be as mature, or complete as God's was.

Seems to me, the Church says screw you Jesus, we are doing it our way.

And so the LGBT community needs protection, legally, by the government God appointed to protect all people, even His enemies.

After this started, NOW the emotionally unstable, radical, far left, rabid screaming dying for a cause activist portion of the lgbt community got involved.

That was the big plop you heard near the fan.

Marriage is determined legally by the state you reside in. It's their right. Their JOB is to protect the people. Not Christian bigots. Your pastor can marry people legally ONLY BECAUSE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM BY THE STATE IN WHICH HE MARRIES YOU. This has been admitted freely by pastors at every wedding since.... forever.

Why do they play stupid now and act like it's THEIR RIGHT, and not the God appointed Government?

Hypocritical, Anti Christ, bigoted, behavior for God, ministry...... How's that working out?


The LGBT Agenda is to stop being harrassed by bigots. Most of them could care less what you believe or feel, just keep it to yourself and get out of their lives.

To judge that whole community by their extremist activists, is like saying all Christians are members of www.godhatesfags.com by Westboro Baptist Church.

Alright. The left-gay extremists have turned this into a fight. I'll buy that. Thank you for your illuminating remarks.

 

[GFR7]

Do you think maybe the best defense of marriage is to stop adultry?

And no-fault divorce, yes.

 

[seehigh]

Do you think maybe the best defense of marriage is to stop adultry?

And no-fault divorce, yes.

Then all the huffing and puffing about homosexuals is really irrelevant isn't it? It won't change my relationship with my girl friend or yours if you have a wife, will it?

 

[Heterodoxical]

Alright. The left-gay extremists have turned this into a fight. I'll buy that. Thank you for your illuminating remarks.

The right wing extremists turned it into a fight.

The left wing extremists just took it public and retaliated.

Rather than the middle of both sides finding a solution, it's been sensationalized.

First by the right, and then by the left's counter reaction.

It's always the extremes that get the news and push the conversation. The truth always lies closer to the middle.

 

[GFR7]

Then all the huffing and puffing about homosexuals is really irrelevant isn't it? It won't change my relationship with my girl friend or yours if you have a wife, will it?

No, it absolutely will not. My fear, to tell you the truth, is not about gay people being married. It is what certain feminists will do with gay people being married. But I am not in a frame of mind to go into this now...