toldailytopic: Gay marriage.

[Lighthouse]

Hi Cruciform,

You asked:

*Does God also create fornicators, adulterers, rapists, and pedophiles?

Your question is founded on a false premise, that being gay or gay sex is immoral in Gods eyes and therefore classed with all other immoral behavior. Besides, the mores ebb and flow across cultures and the span of time. Some things which you may practice now that are acceptable were immoral/sins 400 years ago.

How is it a false premise?

The Bible clearly states that the act of two people of the same gender is abominable in the eyes of God.

* Does observing that someone's behavior is immoral necessarily equate to "hating" them? Can it not rather indicate one's love and compassion for the person in question?

No, but some of these 5 year olds on this form hate them, its in there words.

It's funny that you accuse people of being 5 years old when you can't spell 'forum' or 'their.'

...the only real "argument" against homosexuality is a purely religious one.

Prove it.

 

[Silent Hunter]

It's funny that you accuse people of being 5 years old when you can't spell 'forum' or 'their.'

I honestly though this was common sense.

Hey butt monkey! The word is “thought” atrol::bang::baby::noway:.

 

[Todah]

Gay marriage ........There is nothing gay about it, it is something to weep over.

In the Bible some fornicators are commanded to get married. Adulterers were to be put to death. If this country allows sinning adulterers to divorce their spouses, and enter into a marriage, and even God permits fornicators to marry, then I suppose it would be consistent to let homosexual sinners-fornicators to marry.

All three instances cause tremendous heartache, and should be a source of much sadness. Instead the sadness is often covered over with false bravado......"pride" and gaiety.

 

[Todah]

Legalized abortion, and the push for legalized homosexual marriage are the two most divisive issues in this country today. They are the child, and the grandchild, respectively, of the sexual revolution of the sixties.

People tend to think that natural disasters and man made disasters are the judgments of God upon this nation. Sometimes that is true. I tend to think that sexual sins and their consequences are the judgments of God upon this nation.

It is biblical to say that the worse form of judgment from God is a turning away of his face in disgust, and His hand from chastisement. He is letting us have exactly what we want. The freedom to do whatever we want to do with our bodies, despite His clear teachings and warnings, for our sakes.

Results: 50 million of our children dead, prematurely from abortion.
Millions of uniquely created adults, dead prematurely from sexually related diseases and lifestyles.

Katrina, 9/11, wars in the Mideast; total of ten thousand?

Again, gay marriage, if you think about it in terms of judgment, and premature deaths.........nothing gay about it at all!

 

[chrysostom]

Legalized abortion, and the push for legalized homosexual marriage are the two most divisive issues in this country today. They are the child, and the grandchild, respectively, of the sexual revolution of the sixties.

People tend to think that natural disasters and man made disasters are the judgments of God upon this nation. Sometimes that is true. I tend to think that sexual sins and their consequences are the judgments of God upon this nation.

It is biblical to say that the worse form of judgment from God is a turning away of his face in disgust, and His hand from chastisement. He is letting us have exactly what we want. The freedom to do whatever we want to do with our bodies, despite His clear teachings and warnings, for our sakes.

Results: 50 million of our children dead, prematurely from abortion.
Millions of uniquely created adults, dead prematurely from sexually related diseases and lifestyles.

Katrina, 9/11, wars in the Mideast; total of ten thousand?

Again, gay marriage, if you think about it in terms of judgment, and premature deaths.........nothing gay about it at all!

so which political party is on the right side of these two issues?

 

[Caino]

How is it a false premise?

The Bible clearly states that the act of two people of the same gender is abominable in the eyes of God.

.....The act of two people of the same gender is abominable in the Bible because the Bible was written by MEN, they projected their heterosexual bias onto their God concept.

Gay people, for the most part, don’t care about your convoluted Bible! They just want to be able to be married and enjoy the same legal protections and social qualities that heterosexual couples enjoy.


"When modern man wonders at the presentation of so much in the scriptures of different religions that may be regarded as obscene, he should pause to consider that passing generations have feared to eliminate what their ancestors deemed to be holy and sacred. A great deal that one generation might look upon as obscene, preceding generations have considered a part of their accepted mores, even as approved religious rituals. A considerable amount of religious controversy has been occasioned by the never-ending attempts to reconcile olden but reprehensible practices with newly advanced reason, to find plausible theories in justification of creedal perpetuation of ancient and outworn customs". UB

Leviticus 21

9 " 'If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.

=
=
=

Time passes​

=


John 8


1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."







Caino

 

[CabinetMaker]

so which political party is on the right side of these two issues?

Neither.

 

[chrysostom]

Neither.

we don't expect you to make sense

anymore

 

[jgarden]

I'm going to go with God's word on this one...

Those who do such things are worthy of death.

****************************************************

Leviticus 20

7 " 'Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. 8 Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy.

9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads .....

I presume that "madman" is referring to Leviticus 20:13 which makes the connection between committing "homosexual" acts and the death penalty.

What "madman" fails to mention is that Leviticus 20 happens to be a "package deal" and that it would be hypocritical is impose the death penalty for one and not for all!

If one were to impose the death penalty (stoning) for cursing one's parents, who would be left on earth to conduct the other executions?

 

[chrysostom]

Gay people, for the most part, don’t care about your convoluted Bible! They just want to be able to be married and enjoy the same legal protections and social qualities that heterosexual couples enjoy.

why should two people living together
get
any more benefits
then
the person who chooses to live alone?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Define "well behaved."

What difference would that make. You have already demonstrated that your behavior is based on somebodies rules and not on what is the right thing to do regardless of what rules might be in place.

You already have my answer on that one.

Yes and it was wrong. The priests were originally charged with enforcing God's law. Sin was a crime and crime was a sin. If you stole from your brother then you were taken before the priests for judgment and punishment as God set forth in His Covenant with Israel. The concept of Crime and Sin being different came much much later.

If something does not exist then God does not know of it, because things that do not exist cannot be known as a result of their non-existence. Not once did I say God did not know things that exist.

Once again, you rephrased my question into something I did not asked and answered your own question.

I'm not refusing to answer. I just can't believe you're this ignorant. How can you look at those cities and think they were doing fine?

Because by their lax human standards, they were. They were quite happy in their completely immoral life style and their cities seemed to be economically viable.

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer. Do you not have any common sense? Or am I just wrong on what should be common sense? If they fared better according to the law then it logically follows that they fare better in God's judgment in regard to the topic at hand. As for whether or not they fare better in His judgment on sin that is irrelevant. However I think I should probably make it clear that any who do not turn to God go to Hell. However, Jesus did say Sodom and Gomorrah would fare better on judgment day than any city who, [jesus]"will not receive you nor hear your words,"[/jesus] regarding the cities the disciples went into the preach the gospel.

So some will fare better than others on that day.

The sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom. Exactly how sexually immoral can a person be before they are sexually immoral enough not inherit the kingdom?

Where did He say He forgave her? All He said was that He did not condemn her. All that means is He did not know whether or not she was guilty. And that is because He did not witness it. Could He have known if He wanted? Yes. But that is irrelevant as He was in no position to do anything about it, not being a recognized authority among those in authority.

Exactly what denomination are yo a member of? I think you are drawing distinctions between "forgive" and "not condemn" that do not exist. The Son of Man said I do not condemn you. That is a pretty powerful way of saying I forgive you!

What does the Bible say? Read Romans 13 for the answer.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.
-Romans 13:1-5

I don't see mercy proscribed therein.:nono:

Well, using your reasoning from above, there is nothing in there that says a government cannot grant mercy, is there.

There was no proof of her guilt. If you can't prove a crime has been committed you can't prosecute it, let alone punish it. Simple as that.

Odd answer but okay.

The fact that His punishment of Cain was not the same as what He later commanded speaks to the opposite of your posit.

Explain your response in much more detail. IT makes no sense at all as stated.

I'd really like to see your support for the highlighted section.

Biblically, we know nothing other than there was a crowd. We don't know how big it was or who was in it. But, since there is nothing new under the sun, it is not hard to imagine that people saw a fight brewing and went over to watch. Everybody loves to watch a good fight. So it is not unreasonable to conclude that there were people present who had nothing to do with bringing the woman to Christ. But they could not cast the first stone because they were not without sin either.

Can you show me how the sins I listed can apply to me when I was yet to be born, not to mention all the other factors.

So, if Jesus were alive today and you saw woman being taken to Him. You are not part of the people doing the bringing but you go over to listen. Jesus looks at the crowd and says that whoever is without sin can cast the first stone. Are you telling me that you are without sin and free to cast the first stone?

 

[Caino]

why should two people living together
get
any more benefits
then
the person who chooses to live alone?

There are certain legal benefits afforded married couples which don’t apply to an unmarried couple. The question of weather or not that is fair is another matter.

Caino

 

[chrysostom]

There are certain legal benefits afforded married couples which don’t apply to an unmarried couple. The question of weather or not that is fair is another matter.

Caino

the benefits are there to protect the children

 

[jgarden]

Marriage in most nations have both a religious and a secular (state) component. Even during a religious ceremony, the government requires that all marriages be registered for a variety of legal purposes.

In a nation with a Constitution that formally separates church and state, the right for gays to have a government sanctioned marriage would appear obvious. Even atheists and satanists current enjoy the right to a state recognized marriage.

Therefore gay couples are entitled to a secular state "marriage," while various religious denominations should retain the freedom to only marry those who qualify according to their religious beliefs. Presently, a minister is not even obligated to perform a wedding for every heterosexual couple, though they meet all the government's legal requirements.

 

[CabinetMaker]

we don't expect you to make sense

anymore

One of the definitions of insane is doing the same thing over and over hoping for the desired result each time. How long will you continue to vote republican?

 

[WandererInFog]

Yes and it was wrong. The priests were originally charged with enforcing God's law. Sin was a crime and crime was a sin.

I guess you're just going to keep repeating this even though I've already demonstrated to you how the two were distinguished in the OT.

If you stole from your brother then you were taken before the priests for judgment and punishment as God set forth in His Covenant with Israel.

Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read the books containing the Mosaic Law. Judges were selected in each town and from members of all of tribes. (Deuteronomy 16:18) Only on those rare occasions where the courts in a particular found a case to difficult judge did the priests have any role in passing judgment at all and even then they didn't have sole authority but had to help decide in conjunction with the appointed judge in the place where they resided. (Deuteronomy 17:9)

Herein you actually see another place in the Mosaic Law where sin is distinguished from crime, as civil governance is largely separated from ecclesiastical governance, with the civil magistrate (judge) having the authority to meet out punishment for crimes, while the ecclesiastical authorities (priests) are responsible for guiding the people to make the proper sacrifices to atone for their sins, and there are a large number of offenses recorded in the Mosaic Law that require atonement, but which the courts have no authority to punish.

 

[WandererInFog]

But they could not cast the first stone because they were not without sin either.

Under the Mosaic Law those providing the testimony on which a death sentence was based were required to be the ones to "cast the first stone", so Jesus statement could only logically apply to the accusers, not to any crowd of any theoretical size which happened to just be watching, and the people who were accusing her violated the law in several ways just in the passage itself, beginning with the fact they had no authority to judge her, and therefore no authority to carry out the sentence. In their haste to find a way to entrap Jesus, they had themselves behaved in a radically unlawful manner.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Well, no, actually it hasn't. For the vast majority of human history marriage has been primarily about the protection of property, procreation and the formation of a stable social order. Love, including romantic love, certainly played a role, but it was not central until very, very recently in human history.

Alrighty, well my point was that gay people marry for all the same reasons as straight people. Yes, not all of them intend to have children (and obviously they can't by themselves), but many straight couples also choose not to have kids. I count myself and my fiancee among that number.

Prove it.

I don't have to, you've already done that for me. I've yet to see a gay-debate thread on this website where scripture wasn't quoted multiple times.

 

[The Horn]

Madman,you're assuming that just because an ancient book of myths and fairy tales called the Bible has statements condemning homosexuality that gay people in America should be put to death.
And that this ancient book,which was written entirely by not very enlightened people in ancient times is actually the word of God.
And you wan the government pry into every one's bedrooms? And since you want gay people to be executed,would you like to have the government install surveillance cameras in every bedroom in the country and possibly other places,and then arrest,prosecute,imprison and execute any one caught in the act of homosexual conduct?
Why don't you move to Iran or Saudi Arabia? They're very religious places,and God(Allah) rules. They don't like homosexuality either over there,and they like to execute gay people. I'm sure you'd love to live in either of these two Godly and pious countries.
You sure live up to your user name.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Under the Mosaic Law those providing the testimony on which a death sentence was based were required to be the ones to "cast the first stone", so Jesus statement could only logically apply to the accusers, not to any crowd of any theoretical size which happened to just be watching, and the people who were accusing her violated the law in several ways just in the passage itself, beginning with the fact they had no authority to judge her, and therefore no authority to carry out the sentence. In their haste to find a way to entrap Jesus, they had themselves behaved in a radically unlawful manner.

Jesus addressed everybody present. Do you believe that you are sinless enough to cast the first stone at another sinner? Say you and friend from work come home at lunch so your friend can borrow a tool. You enter the house and catch your wife in bed with the neighbor. Two witnesses and they are caught in the act. You take them before Jesus (we'll assume He is present for the sake of this discussion). Are you sinless enough to cast the first stone?