Homosexuality/sodomy legalized by the Supreme court

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
How the USA, and indeed all the western countries have fallen so far into the cesspool of filth, they will never recover...the ruling by the SC, and it's politically correct judges now legalizes sodomy, and permits these people to obtain marriage licences, same as normal heterosexual people...but wait a minute...where is the outcry from the likes of Hagee, Osteen, Dollar, Hinn, Copeland, and all the high powers pulpit thumpers?? They seem silent on the issue...guess their tax exempt status through the government has effectively neutered and muzzled them into silence...sad state of affairs...
One solution I can think of is for christians and other straight people who are getting married..DO NOT GET A LICENCE...as the government has chosen to included homosexuals/sodomizers in this procedure, then the rest should not go there..leave it to the practicioners of perversion...a licence is technically a permission to get married...so do straights and christians need permission to enter traditional marriage? So get married without that silly licence...(if you can find a Christian pastor with enough courage to perform the ceremony without the licence)...if NOT then perform your own ceremony...remember it is before God, not man...so do it yourself your get some other lay person to perform it for you...done deal..you are really wanting God's blessings, not man's..so you will be just as married if not more...spread the word.
 

katabole

New Member
Nov 11, 2010
25
7
0
The true North
I do not know about the rest of the modern day Baalist (preachers for profit) you mentioned but Hagee was on the news the other day and he said that if God did not judge America over same-sex marriage, then God would have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.

I believe what is presently happening in current events around the world is the Great Apostasy; that great movement away from the Gospel of Christ and the Christian faith described in our Bibles, that is prophesied to happen in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 and the result will be similar to the Diocletianic Persecutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution

The truth is, God's original concept of marriage from Gen 2, has been violated for a very long time. From the first polygamist, Cain, to the promiscuous generation of the the 1960's, to horrendous statement by Obama, that "love is love". In fact, I would say that more damage has been done to the institute of marriage by heterosexuals than homosexuals. How many heterosexual married couples have cheated on one another by committing adultery in the past and by doing so have mocked God's concept of marriage?

Frankly, I only see the situation growing worse and we all know this because the Bible claims sinners shall wax worse and worse. If "love is love" as Obama calls it, then cousins should be able to marry cousins and brothers marry sisters and mothers their sons. And to prevent it would be discriminatory. It is also very hard for Christians to witness to people whether they be homosexual or heterosexual adulterers when they do not understand the meaning of the word "repent". Many believe that to repent means to feel sorry for the wrongs they did. And I would say it is impossible to feel sorry or repent if one believes adultery or homosexuality is not wrong. But that is not Biblical repentance.

Biblical repentance is best described here: Acts 26:20 declares, “I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.” The full biblical definition of repentance is a change of mind that results in a change of action.

Peter also in Acts, calls the people to change their minds from rejection of Christ as the Messiah to faith in Him as both Messiah and Savior.

While repentance is not a work that earns salvation, repentance unto salvation does result in works. It is impossible to truly and fully change your mind without that causing a change in action. In the Bible, repentance results in a change in behavior. That is why John the Baptist called people to “produce fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8). A person who has truly repented from rejection of Christ to faith in Christ will give evidence of a changed life (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 5:19-23; James 2:14-26). Repentance, properly defined, is necessary for salvation. Biblical repentance is changing your mind about Jesus Christ and turning to God in faith for salvation (Acts 3:19). Turning from sin is not the definition of repentance, but it is one of the results of genuine, faith-based repentance towards the Lord Jesus Christ.

I do believe it is important to pray for these people and also to plant seeds of truth regarding the Gospel of Christ but it is also necessary to take Jesus' advice regarding tough love: if someone does not listen to you, then as He says, shake the dust off your clothes regarding them and do not throw your pearls at swine. Do not give dogs what is sacred. In other words, if you planted a seed of truth and it is rejected, then move on and stop wasting your time on people (who Jesus describes as unclean animals; dogs and pigs), sharing with them the Gospel and the Kingdom of God (pearls). Personally, I have done that with not only friends but family members as well. Tough love is still love. It may not be appreciated now. Many times it is rejected in outright anger and hostility. It is a narrow path and a tough road a true Christian follows, especially in this time. In the future however, I do believe many will change when faced with the reality of Jesus Christ that they cannot avoid and understand that we were not lying to them and that we told them about Christ because we truly loved them. And I believe God will make a point of not only redeeming us but pointing out to those who oppressed us and did not listen to us, just how wrong they were.

Zeph 3:18 “I will gather them that are sorrowful for the solemn assembly, who are of thee, to whom the reproach of it was a burden.

Zeph 3:19 Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee; and I will save her that is halt, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame.

Zeph 3:20 At that time will I bring you back, even in the time that I gather you; for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I bring back your captives before your eyes,” saith the Lord.
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
Well said Katabole...but it was actually Franklin Graham who made the statement about apologizing to Sodom and Gommorrah if God does not judge America...a few months ago...
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits." -Mark Twain
 
  • Like
Reactions: Born_Again

[email protected]

Choir Loft
Apr 2, 2009
1,635
127
63
West Central Florida
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
heretoeternity said:
Well said Katabole...but it was actually Franklin Graham who made the statement about apologizing to Sodom and Gommorrah if God does not judge America...a few months ago...
You are both wrong. The actual quote appears below;

"If God does not judge Shanghai He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah"
- Shanghai curse August 1937

The quote has been updated by several persons, including myself, to substitute America for the Chinese city of Shanghai.

By the end of the 19th century, Western colonialism had made its impact on the coastal city at the mouth of the Yangtze River. All manner of debauchery and excess of the flesh dwelt there. Young women were lured away from their homes in the country with promises of well paying jobs in the city that never materialized. When they arrived they were immediately seized into the prostitution rings. Young men were often kidnapped from foreign ports and used as slave labor on ships and burgeoning industries ashore. The toll in human theft was so great that the name of the city was forever associated with kidnapping and human slavery. To be 'Shanghaied' meant to be taken into servitude.

By the beginning of the twentieth century the human cesspool that was known as Shanghai had reached its peak, or depths as it were. An American missionary writing to his base office in San Francisco stated that "if God did not judge Shanghai He would have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

Japanese aggression against the northern Manchurian provinces of China began in the fall of 1931 and continued in increasingly violent incidents until the breakout of general hostilities in the summer of 1937. First on the list of conquered port cities was Shanghai and in August the Imperial Japanese Army razed the city to the ground. Approximately 100,000 to 150,000 people were slaughtered in the attack. Sin ended and God had spoken. The Almighty did NOT apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah OR to Shanghai.

Ruth Bell, the future wife of American evangelist Billy Graham, was born to missionaries in the province of Jiangsu - outside the provincial capital of Nanjing just up the Yangtze River from Shanghai. In her youth she must have been well aware of the practices of Shanghai as she was only 17 when the Japanese attacked. I have no documentation to prove this, but as the missionary community was rather small in those days she may have also been aware of the letter that was transmitted to San Francisco. Every western person, including those who were in China working the Manchurian district for Standard Oil, knew one another or at least enjoyed a passing familiarity.

Ruth is also mistakenly attributed with the quotation.

Following the destruction of Shanghai, the Japanese pushed up river and destroyed the capital of Nanjing in a massacre that stands to this day as the most horrific and brutal act of wanton aggression and human degradation in history. 250,000 civilians foreigners and surrendered Chinese soldiers were murdered. An unknown number of women and children were raped and brutalized. Ambassadors of then ally NAZI Germany protested the Japanese actions to Hitler, but as he was planning his own mischief was unwilling to voice a protest with Tokyo. To this day the Japanese never apologized for their actions or acknowledge their responsibility for the acts. If you read any accounts of those days you will understand that they deserved to have a couple of atomic bombs dropped on their heads. There is such a thing as justice in the world and it can be a bitter thing when its hand is played.

Neither Ruth nor Franklin Graham nor any other contemporary preacher uttered the phrase, but it does stand as a warning and as an affirmation of the righteousness and judgment of God. In 1936 the citizens of Shanghai never believed that the party would end and in 1937 it did. Until June of 1942 the Japanese thought themselves to be exceptional and unbeatable. Three years later that changed. Until February of 1942 the German people believed themselves to be exceptionally proficient in war and social development.

In 1945 the people of both nations learned the bitter lesson that NO nation is exceptional and that NO nation can long stand when they turn against God.

IF GOD DOES NOT JUDGE AMERICA, HE WILL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO SODOM AND GOMORRAH.
- Shanghai curse August 1937

Neither is America an exceptional nation. We have raised the clenched fist in the face of God and judgment is upon us. God will NOT bless America any more. It will be a long time before He does so again. Look at your TV and read your newspaper. They will tell you that we are afflicted with one damn thing after another. This is but the beginning of judgment. Worse is yet to come. Only those who make peace with God will have hope. The rest will churn in their afflictions.

"So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you."
- Jeremiah 7:16/11:14

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft.....
 

katabole

New Member
Nov 11, 2010
25
7
0
The true North
I was just responding to Heretoeternity's OP when he asked where was the outcry from modern day preachers.

I did not study the origins of whom originally made the statement made by Hagee, Franklin and others but after reading your post Rjp, I now understand the history of it. I had often heard the phrase, "Shanghaied in Shanghai" before but your post certainly gives that context.

I have prayed for and witnessed against these people before. However, as I already said, if they do not listen and repent, then I do not waste any more time and I will let God judge them.

The outcome of the Supreme Court decision was a judgment of itself as there are many examples in the Bible of God giving over individuals and nations to their sinful nature because they did not want to acknowledge or give glory to God.

Here is Hagee's comment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgHzXHKRztk
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
When this ruling was poised to be issued, I wasn't quite sure what to think. I was pretty convinced the SCOTUS would rule to allow same sex marriages, but I hadn't worked out in my head what my reaction would be. Since the ruling however and after seeing the crazy, paranoid, over-the-top reactions from conservative Christians, I've become convinced that it was the right decision.

I do think homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage is as well.

But I also understand that the United States is not a Christian theocracy, and as such no citizen should be bound by religious beliefs that aren't their own. Just as a lot of Christians in the US don't want to be under Islamic law, a lot of non-Christians in the US don't want to be under Biblical law.

I have to say, I have been stunned and deeply saddened by the absolute hatred and ugliness I'm seeing out of Christianity after this ruling. Conservative Christians are acting like an incredibly spoiled child who's had things his way for so long, he is unable to react rationally when things don't go his way. I mean, I've seen American Family Association people say this is worse than 9/11! Seriously?

Overall, Christianity is not coming out of this looking very good, and that is indeed sad. We had a chance to show God's love, grace, and compassion and instead so many chose to show their dark side. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: aspen

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
River Jordan said:
When this ruling was poised to be issued, I wasn't quite sure what to think. I was pretty convinced the SCOTUS would rule to allow same sex marriages, but I hadn't worked out in my head what my reaction would be. Since the ruling however and after seeing the crazy, paranoid, over-the-top reactions from conservative Christians, I've become convinced that it was the right decision.

I do think homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage is as well.

But I also understand that the United States is not a Christian theocracy, and as such no citizen should be bound by religious beliefs that aren't their own. Just as a lot of Christians in the US don't want to be under Islamic law, a lot of non-Christians in the US don't want to be under Biblical law.

I have to say, I have been stunned and deeply saddened by the absolute hatred and ugliness I'm seeing out of Christianity after this ruling. Conservative Christians are acting like an incredibly spoiled child who's had things his way for so long, he is unable to react rationally when things don't go his way. I mean, I've seen American Family Association people say this is worse than 9/11! Seriously?

Overall, Christianity is not coming out of this looking very good, and that is indeed sad. We had a chance to show God's love, grace, and compassion and instead so many chose to show their dark side. :(




Your writeup indicates you are a lukewarm "christian"...read Revelation and what Jesus has to say about lukewarm christians..two of the things which go against God's very Creation are homosexuality and abortion....God made man and woman, male and female, with the instructions to populate the earth...both these abominations are not only sins, but, indeed go against the very foundations of creation...it is time to stand up and be counted if you call yourself a Christian!
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
heretoeternity said:
Your writeup indicates you are a lukewarm "christian"
How so?

God made man and woman, male and female, with the instructions to populate the earth...both these abominations are not only sins, but, indeed go against the very foundations of creation...it is time to stand up and be counted if you call yourself a Christian!
Maybe you need to read my post again. I very clearly said "I do think homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage is as well".
 

katabole

New Member
Nov 11, 2010
25
7
0
The true North
Dr. William Lane Craig has answered the question quite well. Here is his response from his website in response to a question:

Hello Dr. Craig,

With the recent Supreme court decision regarding same sex marriage I reread some of your Q/A response regarding homosexuality. In a question regarding the connection between interracial marriage and same sex marriage you said "Once we start down that route, anything goes: a man and two women, a man and a child, two men and a goat, etc. I see no reason at all to start down that road." with regards to same sex marriage. My question is does this statement constitute a slippery slope fallacy? My concern is that non believers would easily dismiss it.

Thank You,

R.C.


"I’m going to use your question, R.C., an excuse for addressing the Supreme Court’s tragic and misguided decision to re-define marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges.

We need to understand clearly that that is exactly what the Supreme Court has done. By ruling that same-sex unions can count as marriage the Court has implicitly redefined what marriage is. Marriage is no longer taken to be essentially heterosexual, as traditionally conceived, but has been implicitly redefined so that men can be married to men and women to women.

The Court’s majority opinion, written by Anthony Kennedy, shows a clear consciousness of what the Court is doing. Referring to the traditional view, Kennedy writes, “Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world” (my emphasis). It is this view which Court’s majority declares is now obsolete.

What is ironic about Kennedy’s opinion is that he eloquently extols marriage as foundational to American society and to civilization itself. He writes,

From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.

The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together.

One would think that this provides good reason for preserving the traditional concept of marriage, rather than radically redefining it! Instead, the Court throws caution to the wind and has decided to revise this fundamental cultural institution.

In the Court’s view, marriage should no longer be considered to have an essence or nature but is a mere social convention, indeed, whatever the Court declares it to be. The majority opinion justifies this move by pointing out how marriage has evolved: for example, marriage was once viewed as “an arrangement by the couple’s parents” but no longer is so today. Such examples, however, concern only contingent properties of marriage, not its nature or essence (indeed, arranged marriages are still common in parts of the world today). Such contingent changes provide no grounds for the fundamental, essential change wrought by the Court.

By redefining marriage the Court has handed homosexual activists what they have aimed and worked for: the deconstruction of marriage itself. Kennedy admits, “Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission.” How does Kennedy know what their intent is, and why should that matter? Although the majority opinion of the Court portrays the issue before the Court as the petitioners’ seeking the benefits of marriage, such an interpretation is naïve. Surveys show that promiscuity is rampant in the gay subculture, such that the number of homosexual men in lasting, monogamous relationships is so tiny as to be statistically meaningless. This is not about so-called “gay marriage.” The petitioners are chess pieces in the hands of a movement bent on fundamentally changing American culture by deconstructing traditional marriage. The Supreme Court has delivered them checkmate.

On what grounds has the Court done this? The majority opinion provides four reasons why the Constitutional right to marry should be extended to same-sex couples. One can look at these arguments from two angles: (i) as philosophical justification for redefining marriage to include same-sex couples or (ii) as Constitutional grounds for an implicit right of same-sex couples to marry. The first is a philosophical question; the second is a legal question.

Most of the majority opinion and especially of the several dissents from the other justices concern the legal question, not the philosophical question. As the Court’s minority urges, it is not within the purview of the Court to define marriage but simply to settle the Constitutional question as to whether there is an implied right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution of United States. The dissenting opinions are blistering criticisms of the majority with respect to this Constitutional question.

In order to justify a right which is not enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, the Court must act with caution and find justification deeply rooted in American history and tradition. Justice Alito observes,

To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that ‘liberty’ under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are ‘“deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”’. . . And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts summed up the Constitutional question by saying,

The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that ‘it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.’ Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no . . . basis in the Constitution. . . .

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision . . . But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

I’m going to leave the Constitutional question to others. In contrast with the justices, I as a philosopher am interested in the philosophical question of whether marriage should be redefined to include same-sex unions. So I want to consider the four arguments offered by the majority opinion in this light.

Here, in summary, are the four reasons the Court gives for extending the Constitutional right to marry to same-sex couples:

1. The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.

2. The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.

3. Marriage safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.

4. Marriage is a keystone of the nation’s social order, and there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle.

Most of these reasons either do not support same-sex marriage or beg the question by assuming that marriage is a mere social convention to begin with.

Take (1), for example. Of course, everyone has a prima facie Constitutional right to marry if desired. Any man can marry any woman, regardless of their sexual orientation. But what prevents a man from marrying another man is the same thing that prevents a bachelor from being a husband or parents from being childless or a square from being a circle. The obstacle is not legal but logical. Only after one has redefined marriage as a social convention can (1) provide a reason for allowing same-sex marriages. It cannot provide a reason for such a deconstruction.

Similarly for (2). Indeed, as noted above, this reason actually provides grounds for not mucking with the definition of marriage.

Reason (3) is tragically ironic, since studies have shown that children raised by same-sex couples are significantly disadvantaged compared to children raised by a mother and father. Indeed, one of the most interesting developments in the debate over same-sex marriage has been the emergence of adult children of same-sex couples who are now speaking out in favor of preserving traditional marriage due to difficulties they have experienced as a result of being raised by same-sex couples. They have powerfully argued that children’s rights are being sacrificed on the altar of the adults’ claims to personal freedom and autonomy.

Finally, as for (4), married couples do enjoy advantages, like jointly filing income taxes, which are not enjoyed by single persons. But that provides no reason for redefining what marriage is or allowing men to marry men. In their dissents, some of the justices observed with concern that the reasoning of the majority would apply not merely to same-sex couples but to all sorts of aberrant unions. John Roberts writes, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” He observes that “Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective ‘two’ in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not.” Indeed,

why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise ‘suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,’ why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry ‘serves to disrespect and subordinate’ gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same ‘imposition of this disability,’ serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

This is not slippery slope reasoning. It’s more like falling off a cliff. By deconstructing marriage so that it is purely conventional, dependent upon the opinion of five justices, the Court makes marriage become whatever they want.

Still, the Court has decided the Constitutional question in favor of same-sex marriage. The United States has now passed a cultural watershed, and I fear that there is no return. Just as Roe v. Wade legalized by judicial fiat homicide against babies in utero, so now Obergefell v. Hodges has deconstructed the foundational institution of American society. My head reels. It is like a nightmare from which one wants to awaken. I no longer live in the same country in which I grew up. I feel a tremendous sadness at this realization.

So where do we go from here? How shall Christians, in particular, who believe in traditional marriage, act in this brave, new world? Two things come to mind.

First, Christians must resolve to be resolutely counter-cultural. Like Roe v. Wade before it, Obergefell v. Hodges perpetuates American culture’s decline into moral degradation. (One can only imagine how vindicated the Muslim world must feel in light of this decision about its condemnation of American culture!) With this decision the pressure to conform will become intense in pop culture, the academy, the corporate world, and even in the church. Those who refuse to conform to the new orthodoxy will be vilified and pushed out. My fear is that the next generation of Christians will not have the strength to resist these pressures and will accommodate itself to same-sex marriage. Already, I hear young Christians saying that homosexual activity is not immoral if it is in the confines of marriage, a view that would have been unthinkable to first century Jews like Jesus of Nazareth. Just as early Christians were willing to take a stand against the corrupt pagan culture of the Roman empire, so today Christians must dare to be different and to live counterculturally.

That implies Christian activism. Following the Supreme Court decision, I received a circular letter from the president of the denomination in which I am ordained. He observed that we evangelicals tried to elect a President to deal with the problem, and that didn’t work. We tried to elect senators and representatives to deal with the problem, and that didn’t work. We tried to make our case in the courts, and that didn’t work. His conclusion was that these all represent “Saul’s armor” that doesn’t fit us. His solution? Prayer and preaching the Word! The cynic in me is tempted to say, “We tried that, and they didn’t work!” Are they Saul’s armor, too? Of course not! But just as we should continue to pray and preach, so Christians must not abandon the political process but see this setback as a call to deeper engagement in the process.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia observed that “Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination” sits on the Court. That fact is a stinging indictment of the evangelical church. We have not set before our youth the vision of serving God by pursuing a career as a judge. We are reaping the whirlwind of our own passivity and lack of engagement. Now is not the time to withdraw to the sanctuary of our churches and institutions (which, in the opinion of the dissenting justices, will come increasingly under threat as a result of this very decision), but to involve ourselves in those public institutions that so shape the culture in which we live.

Second, Christians should continue efforts to evangelize the American people. It has been rightly said that America is a nation whose people are as religious as the people of India but whose government is as secular as the government of Sweden. Because of the separation of Church and State in this country—an increasingly precious Constitutional guarantee—we do not need governmental support in order for the Christian church to be dynamic and flourishing. Revival can come to this country even as its governmental institutions go to hell.

The recent Pew survey on religious affiliation shows that while the mainline Protestant denominations and Catholics are declining as a percentage of the American population, the evangelical church is holding its own and is actually increasing in terms of absolute numbers. For a corrective of the view that America is becoming more irreligious, I recommend the videos of the recent conference at Baylor University on “The End of Religion? An Essential Corrective to the Secularization Myth” https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0JmtbsEea3iZ6GLoOIsEHrKZUKiZ5J7Z

At that conference Prof. Gordon Melton drew attention to the surprising statistic that it was only by the time of the Second World War that so much as 50% of Americans were church members, and that percentage has continued to increase until today 78% of Americans are church members, a figure which he says is unprecedented among free peoples in the history of the world. Obviously, many of these people are merely nominally Christian. Still, it provides the soil for a revival of living faith in this country.

I think we have yet to see the cultural impact of the revolution in Christian philosophy that has been taking place over the last half-century or so. I am tremendously encouraged by all the letters we receive from people who have come to faith or come back to faith through the medium of apologetics. I remain optimistic about the future and am determined to do all I can through the ministry of Reasonable Faith to help bring about the revival of the church and the evangelization of the American people."


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/supreme-courts-re-definition-of-marriage
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
Society is crumbling all around us...human decency, morality and dignity have all been tossed into the scrap heap of history by the perverted actions of "our" politicians, who are supposed to be safeguarding society, but have decided to follow, for whatever reason,. the perverted activities of the minorities whose desire it is to destroy society. Why have the politicians decided to follow this devious course of anti societal behaviour? Could it be they have been compromised by their previous indiscretions and affiliations? For example the Bush clan and their membership in the "skull and bones" society, or the Clintons and their many shady business dealings ie Whitewater etc, and of course Bill Clintons sexual indiscretions while in office..and of course, the incumbent and the confusion about his place of birth and his affiliations with whatever?....then of course the congress, and it's members, are not voting for the good of society but to destroy it...so who is pulling their strings? Who is actually running this puppet show called government?
 

Questor

Messianic Gentile
Jun 11, 2012
196
31
28
68
SoCal Mountains
Faith
Country
United States
The adversary is pulling the strings, and pushing the buttons.

The United States of America failed as a Republic within a generation of the establishment of it, and was never a Christian Nation except in the romantic terms of 'Christendom'. Certainly most people at our country's beginning believed in G-d fervently, but none wanted to live in a theocracy.

The only theocracy that will work will be under Yeshua's governance, and even then will not reach all the people of the Millenniel Kingdom. G-d still has His final demonstration that even without the Adversary to encourage us, Humans are a failed being, and only salvagable by grace, the haSatan will be released for a season even when Yeshua rules, that everyone may see how fallen we creatures are.

Gay marriage is no longer against the law...primarily to destroy the remainder of the family in America, and because government likes to get fees for things that has nothing to do with them, like marriage licenses. The change in the law will be used to beat Believers over the head for non-compliance, which will be portrayed as hate crimes rather than religious observation.

All of this has been in the wind for decades...why is anyone surprised at the tide of wickedness increasing in America? We outlawed moral decency in 1963, when we pulled the 10 Commandments from the public schools.

Certainly Homosexuality is a perversion to those who have never been taught Torah, but Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed simply because of the sexual habits of the inhabitants, but because of supposedly lesser sins.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 (CJB)
The crimes of your sister S’dom were pride and gluttony; she and her daughters were careless and complacent, so that they did nothing to help the poor and needy. They were arrogant and committed disgusting acts before me; so that when I saw it, I swept them away.


Certainly Homosexuality was a part of their downfall, as it is in the crumbling of our so-called 'Democracy", but in all truth, pride is the worst of all sins, and America is heading for a well deserved, and certainly well-planned fall.
 

newlife

New Member
May 26, 2013
135
8
0
70
The New York Times and much of the media in the US appear to believe that the Chrisitian community by in large will reshape its views on same sex marriage to conform to the new prevailing ethos and that substantial change is already underway among evangelicals and their churches on this issue. I do not believe that this is altogether a correct reading. I have been looking at the evangelical media and there appears to be a substantial number of evangelical leaders in the media and elsewhere who see this as evidence of a great falling away from Biblical principles, forthcoming persecution of Christians and perhaps national judgment. I also see the Republican Party in the US as being in a potentially weak position coming into the next presidential election. Although evangelical Christians are a core constituency of the the party independent voters whom the party must attract to win the election are more liberal on social issues. Some of the Republican candidates for example Donald Trump, are also weakening the credibility of the party. If he runs as a third party candidate he could also split the Republican vote. A Democratic victory will be seen as a reaffirmation and consolidate this seismic shift in American views.

A recent NewYork Times editorial (July 10, 2015) stated that persons who feel they cannot carry out their jobs because of their religious principles, for example issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple, need to resign their jobs. Although this may be necessary it will be difficult for people who are perhaps not that young with a family to support and health insurance tied to their job to simply resign. It will make life difficult for Christians and will amount to marginalization and persecution.
 

Born_Again

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2014
1,324
159
63
US
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In the state of Kansas, the Governor signed a bill protecting the religious organizations from that..

These are hard times we live in. I urge us not to run from this but to be the example of Christ as a true witness to Him.
 

TopherNelson

New Member
Jan 11, 2015
325
17
0
24
I feel sad that America is so different now. In fact, the whole world is different not just America.

Does God still bless America?
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,507
6,757
113
Faith
Christian
davidnelson said:
I feel sad that America is so different now. In fact, the whole world is different not just America.

Does God still bless America?
If God revoked all his blessings, I doubt anyone would survive a single day.
 

newlife

New Member
May 26, 2013
135
8
0
70
I thought I would cite a couple of concrete examples of attempts to coerce Christian's to abandon their principles. I see this as likely to become much more of a pattern in coming days. It will become increasingly more difficult for Christians in coming years to maintain employment and remain integrated within society without a willingness to compromise some of their fundamental beliefs.

Jen Keaton, a student at Augusta State University in Georgia, had asserted both in and outside the classroom that she considered homosexual behavior "a behavioral choice not a state of being" claiming her Christian beliefs were the basis for her stand on these issues. The college authorities insisted that Keaton submit to a "remediation program" and attend "sensitivity training" on homosexuality to alter her views as well a attend a "gay pride event" and prepare a report on it or be expelled from school. The case was appealed in court. The college argued that it was now a moot issue because she had already been expelled. (p. 26,One Nation Without God: The Battle for Christianity in an Age of Unbelief" by David Ackerman published by Baker Books (2012). The case was pending in Federal District Court at the time the book was published.

Julea Ward, was expelled from the counseling program at Michigan State University on 3/12/09 for refusing to change her religious convictions and endorse homosexual behavior. Ms Ward was told that the only way she could avoid expulsion was to submit to a "remediation program" so as to alter her views on homosexuality.The case was being appealed in court, pp 26-27 One Nation Without God:the Battle for Christianity in an Age of Unbelief.