Maso,

I appreciate civil discourse, and find no reason to be offended. However Paganism is a religion. The Brother-in-law marring the widow is religous based. I am not talking Christian marriage, when I say religion, I am saying religion in general. And that is where marriage came from. back before religion (if there was a time), it was the strongest grabbed the beauties, but hardly could that be called marriage (anymore than the bull seal grabbing his harem could be). There were unions prior to religion, but religion made it an institution and called it marriage.

Foreverserenity posts:

Lula posts #140

KFC POSTS:

KFC, yes, girl, say it like it is...your shorter version is just fine.   

DYNAMASO POSTS:

DRGUY POSTS:


In another blog KFC said, "Marriage is from the beginning”, established by God between one man, Adam and one woman, Eve in the Garden of Paradise. Marriage was preordained by God who established it at the climax of Creation. When God brought Eve to Adam and pronounced His blessing upon them, He instituted the sacred character of Marriage. God is the Author of authentic Marriage not man. "In the beginning", the vocation to Marriage was first a natural union that came from the hand of the Creator. Although the dignity and greatness of the institution of Marriage is not the same everywhere, some sense of the matrimonial natural union exists in all cultures and has from the beginning of time.

The anthropological truth of the natural contract of Marriage is presented in Sacred Scripture. In Genesis there are 2 accounts of the institution of Marriage and each indicates an element of the meaning of Marriage. Marriage in this sense has permanent characteristics and both themes are joined throughout the history of Marriage proceeding from Adam through the Patriarchs to the present. Scripture describes the covenant of Marriage to the covenant of God with Israel and the Christ raising it to the efficacy of a sacrament and a symbol of His own union with the Church Eph. 5:30-31.

The first account of Marriage in Genesis 1:27-28 is a blessing rendering them fruitful.

“And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it , and rule over the fishes of the sea and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.”

The second account 2:20-25 affirms that man and woman were created for one another.

“And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field; but for Adam there was not a helper like himself. 21 Then the Lord cast a deep sleep upon Adam; and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs and filled up flesh for it. 22 And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman; and brought her to Adam. 23 And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. 24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his WIFE; and they shall be two in one flesh. 25 And they were both naked ; to wit, Adam and his WIFE, and were not ashamed.”

These words according to the authority of our Lord Himself, and as we read in St.Matt.19:6, prove the divine institution of Matrimony.

First, God formed Eve out of Adam’s rib because all mankind , even Eve, was to proceed from Adam. And secondly, because husband and wife were to belong to one another in union, one heart, one soul and one flesh by their love. Scripture affirms God gave man the woman, ‘flesh of his flesh’, woman was to be man’s nearest in all things. “One flesh” signifies God’s plan for them is an unbreakable union. “Union” takes place by virtue of God who created them male and female and gives them the power to unite those natural and complimentary dimensions of their male and female persons.

Besides offensive; this is pure malarkey.

Marriage is clearly being attacked. We are confronting an ideology that believes there are no moral wrongs, only legal rights. At the heart of it is consent, that if adults agree to do something, no one has a right to criticize their choices. In fact, they believe society should award their new found "preferential" status with the same social and legal benefits and protections of marriage.

Some see this as entirely relativistic and changing the law to make a wrong (which opposes the way society has looked at sexuality and marriage for 4,000 years) into a so-called right.

Bottom line: It isn't hateful to tell the truth about the destructive consequences of homosexuality and to defend Marriage.

The key phrase here KFC is G-D is not accepting of sin. Last time I checked it is the Holy Spirit that's supposed to do the convicting of the hearts and NOT man.

Don't forget to take the plank out of your own eye before telling others about their splinter. How about judge not lest ye be judge to the same degree? I don't know of a single verse that says Bible believers are now the Moral police of the WORLD (not just 'among you'). Do you?

There are more than just homosexuality as being a sin according to the Bible.

on another note:

Do you really think that a couple of laws are going to prevent gays from being gay?

If I recall correctly in World History class the Greeks and Romans had an acceptable level of gays. I'm sure there are other societies but these are the two I can think of off hand.

True and where did the Greek and Roman civilizations end up...in the dustbin of history, right?

Since I fully agree with KFC's statement, I'll respond by saying that the Holy Spirit is God...and there has been no convicting of hearts by anyone here. We are dutifully bound to judge behavior, which homosexuality is, and God is to judge hearts and souls.

After HUNDREDS and (in the case of the Romans) OVER A THOUSAND YEARS of organized civilization.

Besides, their civilizations didn't 'end up in the dustbin', they evolved like any civilization is bound to. The city I live in was settled by the Romans 2.200 years ago, and it's never been uninhabited since - so I fail to see where that civilization, that legacy of Tarraco, is 'in the dustbin'.

If you honestly expect modern society to last as long as Greek and Roman society (supposed morals be damned), dream on, sister.

Can you give me a scripture that states that Christians (or Bible believers) are 'dutifully bound to judge behavior'?

The issue wasn't 'where' the civilizations end up. You said:



Your view regarding society being against it has been shown to be false. Not only are these two examples but these are two very LARGE and well-known societies.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality caused Rome and Greece to fall????

To those that say it is not natural:
So is using birth control... and many other things heterosexual couples are capable of and willing to do. Should only fertile male-female couples with a desire for children conceived through the missionary position be allowed to marry? Should we not be allowed to drive automobiles, or use refined sugar, and especially not artificial sweeteners?

To those to say it is against religion:
Do you refuse to recognize my marriage to my wife of over 10 years, been together over twelve, simply because it was a civil union instead of a religious ceremony? Would you say we are not married? Would you call me a liar for saying I had a wedding ring?

To the legalists and traditionalists:
In my opinion, law should do nothing more than minimum to restrict behavior necessary for a functioning society. No killing, no stealing, no fraud, no extortion, etc... As such, I would have to say no, the government should not be in the business of marrying people (or really even civilly uniting them); but until it removes itself from the equation, it should apply such unions equally to all couples able to give consent. Besides that, I am sure somewhere out there, there is a religion that does recognize same-sex marriages, and for the government to recognize heterosexual ones, while not doing so for same-sex ones could violate the laws separating government from religion.

Except where it comes to the legal benefits thereof. Of course then they get to get smacked with the marriage penalty too - why should only heterosexual couples get "that" benefit.



Unitarians for one. There are probably others as well.

You and I actually agree on this one. I believe the GOVERNMENT should be morally neutral on this issue, ideally.

Same-sex ceremonies have been conducted in the Episcopal Church and the first openly homosexual bishop in the Anglican Chruch is V. Gene Robinson, who ditched his wife and children for his lover, Mark Andrew. Now that New Hampshire has approved "gay unions", he's talking wedding bells.

I agree. That's what I said. God is NOT accepting of sin. Since he labels homosexuality a sin and an abomination, we are to go against it. Not have tolerance FOR it. We should not legislate what God abhors. Don't you agree AD?



agree, but that's NOT what we are discussing are we? We are discussing homosexualty.



so what plank are you referring to? Read the rest of that scripture...it says....to pull the plank out and then you shall see more clearly to cast out the splinter doesn't it? It doesn't say NOT to judge. It says to judge rightly. Many times Jesus spoke of judging rightly....without malice or hypocricy. I have neither. I have no malice here nor am I engaging in immoral acts that would render me unqualified to speak out against this sin. So again AD what are you referring to here?



no, We are to obey the laws of the land. If the laws recognize your marriage as valid (and they do) we should have no criticisms toward you in this regard. In fact, I've never heard a Christian say one is less married because they were married on the beach instead of in the church. It's all a matter of preference. The only command about marriage in scripture is that we are equally yoked and that we commit to each other for life. What God has joined together via civil union or church wedding no man should break apart.

In fact I was married by a JP over 26 years ago. I was NOT married in the church. It doesn't make our union less of a union in God's eyes.

AD posts:

Sure.

Moral judgments are essential and the Holy Bible is filled with them.

It is clearly incumbent upon us to judge. There is a clear distinction between judging an action, and the motives behind such actions. We can clearly see the act, but it is difficult to understand what motivated it. In other words, we can judge the act, but not the soul, for it is in the soul that motives lie---the latter is for God to judge.


1Cor 5: 1-13---------St.Paul lays down some seemingly harsh measures for dealing with those who are sinning. He tells them not to associate with or shun those who are immoral, covetous, an idolater, an abusive person, a drunkard or a thief.

"But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one , not so much as to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from yourselves."

Christ made a similiar statement about the recalcitrant sinner in St.Matt. 18. If these unrepentant people are left with no one to chastise them they could lead others into sin or promote an unhealthy tolerance for evil conduct.

See 1 Cor. 6 for what St.Paul means by an immoral person, Do not deceive yourselves: no fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, theives, misers, drunkards, slanderers or robbers will inherit God's Kingdom. Gal. 5 he condemns lewd conduct, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, orgies, etc. warning those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.



6:1-5--------Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust , and not before the saints? Know you not that the Saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things of this world? If therefore you have judgments of things pertaining to this world, set them to judge, who are the most despised in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is none among you any one wise man that is able to judge between his brethren?

2St.John 10-11-------If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.

Leviticus 19:15------Thou shalt not do that which is unjust, nor judge unjustly. Shew neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty. But judge thy neighbor according to justice.

19:17-------Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but reprove him openly, lest thou incur sin through him.

St.Luke 12:57-59-----And why even of yourselves, do you not judge that which is just? And when thou goest with thy adversary to the prince, whilst thou art in the way, endeavor to be delivered from him: lest perhaps he draw thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the exacter, and the exacter cast thee into prison. I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the very last mite.

St.John 7:24 in which we learn there is no doubt that we are to judge one another's words, actions and deeds with the provision we that we judging rightly, or with justice or justly.

The general guiding principle is found in St.Matt 7:12 which is true even for even those who don't believe in God or the non-religious "whatever you wish men should do to you, you also do to them."

With regard to homosexuality, we often hear "Don't be judgmental", but this is nonsense becasue the act is clearly to be condemned. We can and must judge the act saying it is sinful and against God's law. We can and must judge justly when it comes to homosexuality especially when taking steps to protect our children from the influence of such individuals.

How do you know that? If marriage is such an inherently religious institution then how can a union formed by a JP in a non-religious ceremony be seen in any way as valid? Is it not missing an inherent part of what makes a marriage in fact a marriage?

God doesn't lay out particulars. In fact weren't Adam and Eve married in a garden? How were their children married? There were NO churches back then. Remember church is a fairly new institution instituted by Christ only 2,000 years ago.

Yes, God wants to be included in the marriage but he doesn't lay out exactly how the ceremony is to be performed. Outside of being asked to be invited I don't think he cares.

In fact when it came to the Passover he even mentions this...he only cared that three elements were included in however they wanted to organize their ceremony. The same with the Last Supper. We can organize it however we wish but two elements must be present...the bread and the fruit of the vine. He never says how often even. Some do it monthly, some daily, some yearly. It's the same with the ceremony. Nowhere in scripture does it say we have to have a priest or pastor perform this ceremony.

 

I have not and am not questioning the sacredness of marriage. You seem to constantly turn this conversation into that!  I have said time and again, that marriage is sacred, I do consider it to be so!  I question why should it matter to all and sundry who are against Gay people getting married, why should it bother them?  The only thing I've heard is because it makes marriage unsacred; it's against God; it's against my beliefs and/or principles.  All of those opinions that are valid, and yet, what I would consider are opinions of many who do not agree with the existence of homosexuals because they are 'unnatural', and not of the norm of our heteorosexual society!  What I question and opine and can't see the logic in, is that these people who object to Gay  people, if thier rights were being trampled on, in just the same way that Gay rights is being trampled on, were they to lose their rights to worship or do anything that they WANT to do, would be just as upset and put up a loud cry in the streets to have their rights and voices to be heard and their rights available to them as citizens of this great country!

 

Telling me all that you have said, quoting from the scriptures, still has not answered my questions as to why should it matter to you?  If two people getting married can make what you firmly believe and hold dear be useless and not sacred, then I can honestly say that perhaps you need to look within to see why this would be.

 

 

Listen sister, I don't know which God you worship, but the one that I do, loves all, knows all, and sees all.  It is for HIM to judge me and everyone else, not you, not me and certainly not the courts, when the end of times are here.  However, as the courts have to be the one to rule because of the laws that we must live by according to citizens of this land, they realise that they were wrong, and they are correcting that situation! 

 

You want to high five, let us high five in the name of Jesus that he is a forgiving and loving God who loves and accepts everyone, especially us lowly humans who can't seem to live up to his expectations.  That's why he send his son, his only son to fight for us, that's why he is God.  He shows compassion and he teaches us to forgive and turn the other cheek.  As you know, so many of us can't seem to do this very thing!  Why am I going to condemn and shun the very people who he gives life to just because they are different from me?  I say let them have their happy gay union! 

and I actually agree with you FS to a certain point. It's not about shunning or condemning anyone tho. It's about not legislating sin.

I also say, let them do whatever it is they want...just don't force our children to be taught it's equal to what God created in the first place. But if I'm offered a choice to say yea or nay...I'm voting against because it's not good for our society and because I should vote my conscience.

If the people of our country want to allow them to marry, let them. But let the people vote fairly. When I lived in Maine, the homosexual rights group kept bringing up homosexual rights, over a period of years, for a vote and they were nasty about it. We, as a very liberal state, voted it down repeatedly something like three times. Finally our very liberal governor tried a backdoor approach bringing it to the legislature without a vote forcing the Christian base to rush around obtaining signatures at the midnight hour forcing it yet one more time to vote. Finally they got their way by basically wearing the people down.

Don't force the pastors that believe otherwise to marry them. We're not trying to force them into being Christians neither should they force a Pastor or a Christian in general to be applauding or celebrating with them in this. We are taught to always obey the laws of the land unless it contradicts what God has laid down clearly in scripture and this is a clear one. Homosexuality is a sin. Murder is a sin. Lying is a sin. We should never be ok with sin and so as Christians we are not to take part in these things. We are NOT ok with our children being taught this is ok and that's where the force is coming in to play. We are being forced to swallow this hook, line and sinker. Textbooks are being changed to allow homosexual terminolgy in the classroom starting with elementary schools. This is not ok.

Nope, I do not agree. The law of Homosexuality was given to children of Israel NOT the world (Lev 18 & 20). This set of scriptures take place AFTER the agreement to the covenant on Mount Sinai. Again I stand on the notion that you are imposing your Book of Morals upon those who have not agreed upon a similar covenant.



Hmm, I guess I didn't know you were sinless.

Really? Ok, let's go with that.

Who was Paul talking to then in Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 when he AGAIN brought this up? Both times it was listed as an abomination.



no, I never said I was. That's not what that scripture is referring to. It's not saying you are to be sinless before you show another their error. It's saying...make sure you're not guilty of doing the same thing first. Examine your own life first. Are you filled with hypocricy or malice when you judge another?

When Priscilla pulled Appollos aside, she had to make a judgment call. She showed him where he was wrong and he was better for it. Peter made a judgment call against Simon and called him out on it. John the Baptist called Herod out for sleeping with his brother's wife. Were they all guilty as I am? We are to call sin sin or error error. We are not to engage in or support anything that contradicts God's word to us. We also are called to speak out. You should know this AD. Spend some time in Jeremiah or Jonah, or Ezekiel and you will see this.

Lula gave quite a few examples above that are telling us we are to make these judgments when it comes to sin. We are to examine everything in light of scrpture and judge if it's right according to what God's laws have to say.

This passage of scripture deals WITHIN the believing body NOT the WORLD.

"9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES." (1 Cor 5:9-13)

Those who are sinning within the believing community.




Lula, not a single one of these verses you quoted suggest that Bible Believers are the World's Moral Police.



You say this and then follow up with...



Wasn't it you that was just complaining about homeschooling your senior child because of the influence on the schools? Why? Because they were teaching against YOUR doctrines. Seems to me that it is okay for you to impose your Bible/Catholic agenda on those who have not made the same commitment of the Bible but when outsiders have the upper hand you complain.

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

You took the steps to protect your child by home schooling the rest of the year. I still see no place for judging others who do not believe the same as you.

Doc,

I really do think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  The way I see it, marriage is a social institution.  You see it differently.  Thats fine.

Lula,

You post tracts out of the Old Testament, which you believe as your religion dictates.  Therefore, in your eyes, the ceremony is religious.  Again, this is fine, if you are a Christian and believe in the bible.  I, however, don't, so these tracts have absolutely no relevance to my personal beliefs. 

This again is only relevant if you are Christian and believe in the teachings of the bible.  As I stated above, I don't have the same beliefs as you.  By the way, I don't need a bible lesson from you either.  It gets flaming tiring.