DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2410--------------------------------------------------
Gay Marriage
By: Piper Date: June 28, 2015, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]Not sure if this is a secular or religious
discussion. Just wonder if we should, or if we dare, discuss
the legalization of gay marriage.
The world is sure changing. I think homosexuality will be seen
as even more acceptable. Already, on tv, I'm quite surprised by
the number of explicit gay love scenes that are shown. I've
inadvertently learned a few unsavory things. :-[
And what is this "pride" thing I keep seeing, and all the
'rainbow' washing over of Facebook avatars? Does that represent
people are gay, or just that they support gay marriage?
My question is this: Why must ANY of us flaunt our sexuality?
Shouldn't such things at least be private?
Must admit I was shocked to hear that marriage is no longer a
man and a woman. Can't quite wrap my head around this. Not
sure I should try.
One Christian forum, I noticed, will not allow discussion of the
right or wrong of gay marriage. Does this indicate many
Christians believe it's acceptable?
Would you attend a gay wedding ceremony? Can clergy really be
expected to participate? Is it truly now seen as 'hate' if you
disagree with gay marriage? Any good discussions on this topic
on other Christian forums?
I think I'm very confused. Or the whole world is.
I'm definitely troubled. Should I be?
Any thoughts?[/font]
#Post#: 2414--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Poppy Date: June 28, 2015, 4:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nancy, I believe that Christian marriage = one man one woman.
Anything other than that, to me, is not Christian and not
marriage. Gay people want to have equal rights to 'marry' even
though they already have the right to a civil partnership. For
those who are gay but not Christian I believe they are free to
choose, but what is more worrying, to me, is that a growing
number of Christians want to be openly gay and marry and a part
of the church accepts that as okay.
The church must make a stand against that which it believes to
be ungodly and sinful whilst also having compassion on the
people involved in sinful acts. Would the church accept
unrepentant thieves or killers or liars or adulterers or
paedophiles? Where should the line be drawn? Jesus loves the
gay people like he loves all sinners but once we have come to
repentance we ought to be willing to obey God and live according
to his word. And as far as I understand it so many gay people
are not willing.
#Post#: 2417--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: bradley Date: June 28, 2015, 10:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
God promotes choice for all humans above His desire for
godliness. So it should be allowed, but.... it should not be
promoted as okay for christians and even worse for christian
leaders. Now a man truly loving a man, or a woman loving a
woman... there is NOTHING wrong with loving anyone, NOTHING.
But the sexual portion is not accepted in traditional christian
or hebrew faith. If they want to pick and choose what to
believe out of scripture, thats between them and God, but they
should not be allowed to be in positions of leadership or to
teach others its okay within the christian church.
#Post#: 2419--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: June 29, 2015, 9:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=285.msg2410#msg2410
date=1435518088]
And what is this "pride" thing I keep seeing, and all the
'rainbow' washing over of Facebook avatars? Does that represent
people are gay, or just that they support gay marriage?[/quote]
My guess it's people jumping on the bandwagon just the way
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did. Both of them used to
oppose it. That was when less than half the American people
were in favor. When more people became in favor, then they
also changed their views. From the Weekly Standard
HTML http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-flashback-no-new-york-should-not-recognize-same-sex-marriages_979108.html:
"Let me ask you this about some domestic issues in New York
State. This state is always the sort of the social beginnings of
so much in this country," liberal host Matthews started. "People
come here, a lot of immigrants. The New York Times recently
began posting the celebrations of gay unions. Not just straight
people getting married, but gay people who want to announce
their unions. Do you think New York State should recognize gay
marriage?"
Clinton delivered a one-word response: "No."
The crowd booed in response.
If you are interested in how Obama's views have changed over
time, Politifact
HTML http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/11/barack-obama/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/<br
/>has an article. What he thought may have depended on the pol
ls
and what office he was running for.
[quote]My question is this: Why must ANY of us flaunt our
sexuality? Shouldn't such things at least be private?[/quote]I
stopped watching television years ago, partly because of the
pointlessl sexuality -- and that was heterosexual stuff then.
Ratings now seem to depend on being "cutting edge" and doing
more and more outrageous things.
[quote]Can clergy really be expected to participate?[/quote]Some
of them appear to be gay and getting married themselves.
[quote]Is it truly now seen as 'hate' if you disagree with gay
marriage? [/quote]I have seen some things said by religious
people I would characterize as hateful. I think it is hateful
for one person to try to impose his religion on others. I
wouldn't want other religions dictating to me what I can or
can't do -- so the Golden Rule tells me I shouldn't try to tell
others what my religion tells me.
Mike Huckabee, a minister himself, has suggested people defy the
Supreme Court -- he says it violates the First Amendment. In
other words, his religious freedom is somehow being suppressed
if gays can marry. I think that's nutty. He also must not
too devoted to the rule of law and order. If he likes
something, fine. If he doesn't, he thinks it's fine to defy the
Supreme Court.
Ted Cruz wants a new amendment that puts the Supreme Court
Justices up for election so voters can get rid of them if they
don't like them. I felt like writing him a letter telling him
it was Congress' job to get rid of Justices if they perform
poorly by impeaching them. Of course, an amendment doesn't
stand a ghost of a chance of passing. Cruz is trying to drum up
votes since he's running for President.
These people and others are stirring the pot, hoping to profit
by spreading fear. Glenn Beck does it too, saying his radio
program was in danger over gay marriage.
#Post#: 2432--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 1, 2015, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A minister in Portland, Oregon had some interesting comments
about "marriage" in the Bible. From Raw Story
HTML http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/dead-wrong-about-the-bible-portland-pastor-annihilates-christians-who-use-religion-to-push-bigotry/:
“I am an evangelical Christian pastor (and proud of it),”
Phillips continues, “and I believe that the freedom bell of love
and justice just pealed a little louder and the arc of history
is bent a little closer to justice.”
Phillips specifically calls out Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee,
Christian presidential candidates who vocally oppose marriage
rights for couples of the same gender.
“They’re dead wrong about the Bible and about their commitment
to Marriage Exclusion,” Phillips argues. “Too often, religious
conservatives will claim that marriage equality not only
redefines holy matrimony, but is against biblical marriage. But
the Bible has curiously malleable, sometimes contradictory,
dramatically heterodox definitions of marriage.”
The pastor goes on to cite numerous examples of
biblically-endorsed marriage arrangements that do not consist of
a monogamous, heterosexual couple committed in a union
recognized by God.
“There’s the definition of Biblical marriage in which a man must
marry his deceased brother’s wife,” Phillips begins, “Then
there’s the Biblical marriage definition that mandates a raped
woman to be wed to her rapist, but only after the rapist pays
the raped woman’s father 50 coins… Then there’s the complicated
story where Moses and the Israelites conquer the Midianites and
divide the spoils, including property, livestock and women,
marrying conquered Midianite women off to the victorious
soldiers. Sound like Game of Thrones? It’s in the Bible (see
Numbers 31)… The Bible also defines marriage and family rules
when it comes to slave ownership: the married slaves may
eventually go free, but the children of that union must stay
enslaved… The Bible allows for polygamy, too.”
“Redefine marriage?” Phillips asks facetiously. “People of faith
have been wrestling with this for years in our holy books and in
our Spirit-led convictions.”
Quite. Studying the history of marriage in Christianity is
fascinating business too. Early Christians didn't get married
inside churches. In fact, if anyone can document for me the
first historical case of people being married inside a church,
I'd consider it a favor since I've researched it and never could
find out when and where.
I do know that that in some towns when Christianity was
replacing paganism, the new converts wanted their unions
blessed by the clergy. They were used to visiting the temple
of a fertility goddess. Priests refused. So the newly
converted would sometimes stand on the steps of the church for
their ceremonies -- without a priest being involved.
Of course, today the Catholic Church says matrimony is one of
the sacraments instituted by Jesus. Can that be right? I mean
really now. Can that possibly be right? No one was properly
married before Jesus invented the sacrament of matrimony?
And just recently, Catholic teaching has evolved again. Now
they call matrimony a "covenant." I said, "Huh?" when I read
that. The idea of marriage being a covenant is a recent
invention; but many Protestants now way that and so do many
Catholics. It's certainly not Biblical, and it's not found in
church history either. The first known reference to marriage
as a covenant was in 1945 when Henri Mazeaud coined it. (See
Google books
HTML https://books.google.com/books?id=KYpv4QRR_xIC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=marriage+covenant+france&source=bl&ots=InB9D4gRqR&sig=ir427m7bpka4ivCSI7HdSLJ6RN4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xsSTVZvWJsHT-QH-g7AY&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=marriage%20covenant%20france&f=false.)
The concept got resurrected by someone else later
HTML http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_cove7.htm,
and Louisiana
passed a law about it.
In 1995, Christopher Wolfe was a professor of political science
at Marquette University and president of the American Public
Philosophy Institute. He resurrected Mazeaud's concept in an
article published in First Things during 1995 -- a conservative
Catholic publication. He noted that the current law, which
permits divorce, "...does not permit people to really bind
themselves to a permanent and exclusive marriage, by reinforcing
the personal commitment with the force of the law." Given the
option, "...they might choose not just to "commit" themselves to
their spouses, but to "bind" themselves to their spouses. Why
should they be precluded from adopting such a strategy?" His
proposal, which he was uncertain should be implemented, would
still allow for marital separation. However, it would not allow
remarriage for either party. 2
The first CM law became effective on 1997-AUG-15 in Louisiana.
It was far less stringent than either of the proposals by
Mazeaud or Wolfe. It required the couple to sign a statement of
intent, recite a declaration and show that they had completed a
course in premarital counseling. A divorce would be granted if
fault could be proven on the part of one spouse: having
committed adultery, being imprisoned for a felony, abandoned the
matrimonial home for at least a year, or committed sexual or
physical abuse on a family member. Alternatively, the couple can
obtain a divorce if they had lived apart for a long interval.
Now this idea can be found in the latest version of the
Catechism
HTML http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm.
1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman
establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life,
is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the
procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between
baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the
dignity of a sacrament."
Compare that to the older version found in the Baltimore
Catechism
HTML http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson35.html.
457. What is the sacrament of Matrimony?
Matrimony is the sacrament by which a baptized man and a
baptized woman bind themselves for life in a lawful marriage and
receive the grace to discharge their duties.
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."
(Genesis 1:27-28)
#Post#: 2433--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 1, 2015, 7:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We hear a lot of talk about marriage being one man and one woman
too; but did you know Martin Luther thought it might be one man
and two women?
From Wikipedia
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_I,_Landgrave_of_Hesse:
Philip I of Hesse, (13 November 1504 – 31 March 1567), nicknamed
der Großmütige (the "magnanimous") was a leading champion of the
Protestant Reformation and one of the most important of the
early Protestant rulers in Germany.
Isn't that interesting? Now for the details about his two
wives.
Within a few weeks of his 1523 marriage to the unattractive and
sickly Christine of Saxony, who was also alleged to be an
immoderate drinker, Philip committed adultery; and as early as
1526 he began to consider the permissibility of bigamy.
According to Martin Luther, he lived "constantly in a state of
adultery and fornication."
Philip accordingly wrote Luther for his opinion about the
matter, alleging as a precedent the polygamy of the patriarchs,
but Luther replied that it was not enough for a Christian to
consider the acts of the patriarchs, rather that he, like the
patriarchs, must have special divine sanction. Since such
sanction was clearly lacking in this case, Luther advised
against bigamous marriage, especially for Christians, unless
there was extreme necessity, as, for example, if the wife was
leprous, or abnormal in other respects. Despite this
discouragement, Philip gave up neither his project to secure a
bigamous marriage nor his life of sensuality, which kept him for
years from receiving communion.
Philip was affected by Melanchthon's opinion concerning the case
of Henry VIII, where the Reformer had proposed that the king's
difficulty could be solved by his taking a second wife better
than by his divorcing the first one. To strengthen his position,
there were Luther's own statements in his sermons on the Book of
Genesis, as well as historical precedents which proved to his
satisfaction that it was impossible for anything to be
un-Christian that God had not punished in the case of the
patriarchs, who in the New Testament were held up as models of
faith. It was during an illness due to his excesses that the
thought of taking a second wife became a fixed purpose.
It seemed to him to be the only salve for his troubled
conscience and the only hope of moral improvement open to him.
He accordingly proposed to marry the daughter of one of his
sister's ladies-in-waiting, Margarethe von der Saale. While the
landgrave had no scruples in this matter whatsoever, Margarethe
was unwilling to take the step unless they had the approval of
the theologians and the consent of the elector of Saxony, John
Frederick I, and of Duke Maurice of Saxony. Philip easily gained
his first wife's consent to the marriage. Bucer, who was
strongly influenced by political arguments, was won over by the
landgrave's threat to ally himself with the Emperor if he did
not secure the consent of the theologians to the marriage, and
the Wittenberg divines were worked upon by the plea of the
prince's ethical necessity.
Thus the "secret advice of a confessor" was won from Luther and
Melanchthon (on 10 December 1539), neither of them knowing that
the bigamous wife had already been chosen. Bucer and Melanchthon
were now summoned, without any reason given, to appear in
Rotenburg an der Fulda, where, on 4 March 1540, Philip and
Margarethe were united. The time was particularly inauspicious
for any scandal affecting the Protestants, for the Emperor, who
had rejected the Frankfort Respite, was about to invade Germany.
A few weeks later, however, the whole matter was revealed by
Philip's sister Elisabeth, and the scandal caused a painful
reaction throughout Germany. Some of Philip's allies refused to
serve under him, and Luther, under the plea that it was a matter
of advice given in the confessional, refused to acknowledge his
part in the marriage.
So who was Melanchthon who also thought bigamy was fine? He
was another founder of Protestantism. From Wikipedia
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Melanchthon:
Philipp Melanchthon (/məˈlæŋkθən/; 16
February 1497 – 19 April 1560), born Philipp Schwartzerdt
(German: [ˈʃvaɐ̯ts.eːɐt]), was a
German reformer, collaborator with Martin Luther, the first
systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation,
intellectual leader of the Lutheran Reformation, and an
influential designer of educational systems. He stands next to
Luther and Calvin as a reformer, theologian, and molder of
Protestantism. Along with Luther, he is the primary founder of
Lutheranism. They both denounced what they believed was the
exaggerated cult of the saints, asserted justification by faith,
and denounced the coercion of the conscience in the sacrament of
penance by the Catholic Church, that they believed could not
offer certainty of salvation. In unison they rejected
transubstantiation, the belief that the bread from the Lord's
Supper becomes Christ's body when consumed. Melanchthon made the
distinction between law and gospel the central formula for
Lutheran evangelical insight. By the "law", he meant God's
requirements both in Old and New Testament; the "gospel" meant
the free gift of grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
#Post#: 2437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 1, 2015, 3:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Let me drone on about things almost nobody cares about.
What about churches that say having women as clergy is okay?
They cite this verse.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all
one in Christ Jesus.
Can that be right? If that verse means being male or female
doesn't matter when it comes to who should be a minister, then
why it should matter what the sex is of people who want to
marry? Can you have it both ways? I don't think so. If you
can justify women preachers with that verse, why can't you
justify gay marriage the same way?
#Post#: 2438--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: bradley Date: July 1, 2015, 10:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Although I believe some women are truly called by God to preach,
I believe He does it to shame men, who should be doing it more.
Just like Jesus wanted to give the bread to the jews first.
God prefers men to accept the calling, but you work with the
workers who show up to work.
#Post#: 2439--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 2, 2015, 5:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bradley link=topic=285.msg2438#msg2438
date=1435808005]
Although I believe some women are truly called by God to preach,
I believe He does it to shame men, who should be doing it more.
Just like Jesus wanted to give the bread to the jews first.
God prefers men to accept the calling, but you work with the
workers who show up to work.[/quote]
We could also say that gay marriages are permissible to shame
heterosexuals.
About the bread and the woman Jesus called a dog -- it does not
say specifically Jews are the children and Gentiles are the
dogs. We would have to read between the lines to get that; and
I don't read it that way. No, I read it with Jesus being right
in calling her a dog. He never called any other Gentiles dogs
when they came to him. Indeed he commended the faith of the
centurion, saying he had not seen faith like that in Israel.
I think the woman was of the spiritual heritage of Jezebel who
was from that area. Jezebel who was eaten by dogs! When
Jesus called the woman that, I think she accepted the truth
about herself and repented on the spot. Thus she was no longer
a dog.
There is another similarity between that woman and Jezebel.
Their daughters are important. The woman asks for help, not
for herself, but for her daughter who she says has a devil.
Now consider that all of Ahab's sons were killed, but one his
daughters married into the Messianic line. I read between the
lines myself now to assume the daughter was Jezebel's. This
would make Jesus himself a descendant of Jezebel -- and we learn
something about impurities in blood lines as it applies to male
and female. We see the same thing with cursed tribes that were
the result of the incest between Lot and his daughters. The men
in those tribes were cursed spiritually and could never become
full members of Israel; but women could convert and did -- and
both tribes also married into the Messianic line. First Ruth
did, restoring Moab, and then we see a daughter of Ammon
marrying into it.
Men's spiritual nature is not quite the same as women's. Women
can change their spiritual nature completely in a way most men
cannot. Now this ability to change has disadvantages too. If
you take a truly righteous man and make him a minister, he may
fall into sin -- but there will still be something righteous
about him pressuring him to repent. If you take a righteous
woman, she can be seduced into falling away from her
righteousness much more easily by appeals to her emotions.
Women often can do wrong things while having very good reasons.
Some men do that too, but I'd say it a more common failing among
women.
#Post#: 2441--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Amadeus Date: July 2, 2015, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=courier]Forgetting all of man's arguments for and against
same sex marriage, consider God. [First of all, of course, does
He exist?] Assuming we believe He exists and is described in
scripture what does God want of man?
Why did God create men and women? Does He want people to marry
with one only of each gender or does He want something else?
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Gen
1:28
"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Gen 9:1
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore
God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Matt 19:4-6
Man began doing his own thing rather than God's thing according
to scripture from the very first. We (men) can rewrite the rules
and have certainly done so many times over. Jesus clearly
pointed this out, I believe, in the above verses and others.
Jesus also made it clear that it was God's will that was to be
preeminent in order to please God.
Some people are not to marry as the context of Matthew 19
indicates, but among those who do marry are they not supposed to
please both God and man? Man, I believe, has failed generally in
this as in so many other things he has put his hands on...
We can bring in a lot of arguments, but what really matters for
the God I know is what matters to Him.
If we stand in the place Paul seems to recommend without a
spouse doesn't he mean we are to find comfort and love in the
arms of God alone? Without regard to gender, have most of us
have done such a good job of pleasing both our partners and our
God?
"For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man
hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another
after that.
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them
if they abide even as I.
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to
marry than to burn." I Cor 7:7-9
So is marriage about pleasing the man (and/or the woman) or is
it about something else? What does God really want of us?
Can anyone please God in a marriage to a person of the opposite
gender? Can anyone please God in a connection with a same gender
person? The answer in both cases, for man alone, is no. We must
go to God for help. We must please God. First things first.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;
and all these things shall be added unto you." Matt 6:33
He might add a spouse of the opposite gender to someone, but if
a same sex relationship would not please God, why would He
bless such a relationship? People may get what they want in the
flesh by making their choices, but in the end of the matter
without God what do they have?
[/font]
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page