Australia bans same sex marriage.

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

My thinking and approach represents the majority of how Christians act\think. With each generation Christianity becomes a better religion, and it God's Will that Christians become more and more Christ like. Those who do not, get left behind.

Sounds like the "left behind series" by I think chick publications.

 

[JackSafari]

"Being left behind" is a metaphor for those who do not strive to be Christ-like. Example would be that Christian racists are being marginalized because they can't let go of their racist beliefs, and to their credit they can quote the scriptures to justify racist beliefs, but the rest of Christianity has grown in awareness that being racist is not to be Christ-like, just like the majority of Christians have become aware that being homophobic gay-bashing, etc, is not to be Christ like. Those who continue to hold on to such beliefs are holding on to their hatred for others\groups, metaphorically are being left behind as Christianity becomes more and more Christ-like because of God's Will.

 

[Selene]

KCKID, we don't practice killing homosexuality as well. Those rebellious sons who disobeyed their parents will not be in Heaven. That is what the Old Testament is really saying. It is not necessary to put them to death because they are already dead UNLESS they change their ways. Those who practice homosexuality are also already dead UNLESS they changed their ways.

I have no idea where you get the above from, Selene. Where does Jesus fit into this horrible theology?



Obedience is important to God. God put authorities over us to prepare us for His kingdom. He put parents as authority over children and children are to be obedient to their parents. If one cannot be obedient to their parents, what makes you expect that one can be obedient to God. In God's kingdom, one can't just do whatever they want. God is in charge.

Sounds like the army, Selene. I'm a little too feisty to kowtow to one's orders when they are little more than, "I call frog, you jump!" By the way, does YOUR obedience to God include obedience to the 4th of the Ten commandments? Yes, I ask everyone who appears to be as dedicated as you are that same question simply to get a response. You're either TOTALLY obedient to God or you are not.

It means that all those who do wicked things will not have eternal life....simple as that.

Surely, you did expect God to be the King and the one in charge in His Kingdom....did you not?? As for the 4th commandment, I already explained that under your thread on the Sabbath.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

I understand, I was being facetious. You'll have to forgive me?

 

[KCKID]

It means that all those who do wicked things will not have eternal life....simple as that.

Surely, you did expect God to be the King and the one in charge in His Kingdom....did you not?? As for the 4th commandment, I already explained that under your thread on the Sabbath.

Does 'wicked' basically mean 'those who sin'? If so, we're ALL wicked, are we not? I keep coming back to "There is none righteous ...no, not one ..." THAT says it all for me, Selene, because "no, not one," includes you.

Yes, you DID 'answer' the 'why I don't keep the Sabbath command' and I don't think that I've ever seen a more complex reason for one not being obedient to the 4th-command as the one you gave. It was basically a lot of nonsense. Sorry.

I'm so glad that homo's and their ilk are being pushed back into the cupboards and bushes from whence they come. But I believe this for sure, give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Such beastly behavior needs to be fought aggressively, because one day and it's already started, the beginning of the end will begin. Just because the darkness approaches and God said it will doesn't mean we sit back and not fight to the end.

NONE of the above has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with scripture. This is the personal opinion of a nasty and bitter homophobe. And THAT is as much attention I care to give to one of the nastiest people that I've ever come across on a Christian forum!

Brrrr . . .

 

[Selene]

Does 'wicked' basically mean 'those who sin'? If so, we're ALL wicked, are we not? I keep coming back to "There is none righteous ...no, not one ..." THAT says it all for me, Selene, because "no, not one," includes you.

Yes, you DID 'answer' the 'why I don't keep the Sabbath command' and I don't think that I've ever seen a more complex reason for one not being obedient to the 4th-command as the one you gave. It was basically a lot of nonsense. Sorry.



NONE of the above has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with scripture. This is the personal opinion of a nasty and bitter homophobe. And THAT is as much attention I care to give to one of the nastiest people that I've ever come across on a Christian forum!

Brrrr . . .

Those who are wicked are the unrepentant sinners. Sinners who confess their sins and repent from them are following God's will. The unrepentant sinners are those who love their sins and don't see anything wrong in what they are doing.

 

[JackSafari]

Those who are wicked are the unrepentant sinners. Sinners who confess their sins and repent from them are following God's will. The unrepentant sinners are those who love their sins and don't see anything wrong in what they are doing.

This can only go so far. Take for example that historically husbands that chronically beat\abuse their wives, later sincerely\honestly\truthfully asks God for forgiveness for having beaten their wives. How many times does the wife have to be beaten before it becomes clear he's never going to stop (or can't stop), despite asking God for forgiveness each time. As some point it is clear asking for God forgiveness is not enough to stop the abuse. Have to take personal responsibly for your actions, and not clear your conscious simply by asking to be forgiven for causing harms to others.

 

[Selene]

This can only go so far. Take for example that historically husbands that chronically beat\abuse their wives, later sincerely\honestly\truthfully asks God for forgiveness for having beaten their wives. How many times does the wife have to be beaten before it becomes clear he's never going to stop (or can't stop), despite asking God for forgiveness each time. As some point it is clear asking for God forgiveness is not enough to stop the abuse. Have to take personal responsibly for your actions, and not clear your conscious simply by asking to be forgiven for causing harms to others.

The word "repent" means to make a 180 degree change in your life. There is no such thing as "can't stop." All things are possible through God. If a person really wants to stop beating his wife, he won't just ask God for forgiveness, he will enroll himself in an anger management course or get counseling to discover the root of his anger. And with God working in him, he can stop beating his wife.

 

[KCKID]

Those who are wicked are the unrepentant sinners. Sinners who confess their sins and repent from them are following God's will. The unrepentant sinners are those who love their sins and don't see anything wrong in what they are doing.

Okay, without intending to harp on about a pet peeve of mine any more than I need to, just let me run a couple of scenerios by you. A Christian couple divorce (no-fault) even though this is a scriptural no-no. They remarry ...a definite scriptural no-no. They repent but stay (re)married anyway. In other words, they say to God, basically, "We're very sorry for divorcing and remarrying since this is unscriptural". However, they don't annul their marriage (i.e. make a 180 degree change in their situation, as you say) but still remain (re)married. Does God now say, "Well, as long as you gave 'lip service' I will now bless your (scriptural) adultrous relationship" . . .?

A gay couple fall in love and decide to commit themselves to a monogamous relationship with each other. In other words, they marry. They later become Christians and are told that the Bible (or God, if you like) condemns their homosexual relationship (marriage). They repent but stay homosexually married anyway. They say to God, basically, "We're very sorry for being homosexual and for involving ourselves in a gay marriage which is unscriptural." However, they don't annul their (state legal) marriage but remain in their gay relationship. Does God now say, "Well, as long as you gave 'lip service' I will now bless your (unscriptural) homosexual relationship" . . .?

Don't such scenerios make things very difficult for you, Selene, being as legalistic as you are? You (or God, if you like) can't in all good conscience accept one of the above scenerios but not the other. The first scenerio exists in thousands of Christian churches throughout the world. The HUGE MAJORITY of Christians - admittedly, not all - ignore scenerio #1. It's not even an issue to them. They actually embrace a remarried couple into their fold. But, scenerio #2 would not even be CONSIDERED in MOST Christian churches throughout the world.

Selene, since you appear to have all of the answers, please tell me 'why this is so . . .'

The more legalistic one is, the better the chance of shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Selene]

Okay, without intending to harp on about a pet peeve of mine any more than I need to, just let me run a couple of scenerios by you. A Christian couple divorce (no-fault) even though this is a scriptural no-no. They remarry ...a definite scriptural no-no. They repent but stay (re)married anyway. In other words, they say to God, basically, "We're very sorry for divorcing and remarrying since this is unscriptural". However, they don't annul their marriage (i.e. make a 180 degree change in their situation, as you say) but still remain (re)married. Does God now say, "Well, as long as you gave 'lip service' I will now bless your (scriptural) adultrous relationship" . . .?

A gay couple fall in love and decide to commit themselves to a monogamous relationship with each other. In other words, they marry. They later become Christians and are told that the Bible (or God, if you like) condemns their homosexual relationship (marriage). They repent but stay homosexually married anyway. They say to God, basically, "We're very sorry for being homosexual and for involving ourselves in a gay marriage which is unscriptural." However, they don't annul their (state legal) marriage but remain in their gay relationship. Does God now say, "Well, as long as you gave 'lip service' I will now bless your (unscriptural) homosexual relationship" . . .?

Don't such scenerios make things very difficult for you, Selene, being as legalistic as you are? You (or God, if you like) can't in all good conscience accept one of the above scenerios but not the other. The first scenerio exists in thousands of Christian churches throughout the world. The HUGE MAJORITY of Christians - admittedly, not all - ignore scenerio #1. It's not even an issue to them. They actually embrace a remarried couple into their fold. But, scenerio #2 would not even be CONSIDERED in MOST Christian churches throughout the world.

Selene, since you appear to have all of the answers, please tell me 'why this is so . . .'


The more legalistic one is, the better the chance of shooting themselves in the foot.

If the heterosexual couple is truly sorry, their penance is to get an annulment and they would be obedient if they were truly sorry. In the case of the gay couple, if they are truly sorry, they would remain celibate. It is not needed to annul a gay marriage because in the eyes of the Church, their union was never even recognized as a marriage in the first place.

 

[KCKID]

If the heterosexual couple is truly sorry, their penance is to get an annulment and they would be obedient if they were truly sorry. In the case of the gay couple, if they are truly sorry, they would remain celibate. It is not needed to annul a gay marriage because in the eyes of the Church, their union was never even recognized as a marriage in the first place.

Alright. I did ask you for an answer and you gave one. So, we know that you are consistent ...at least on the forum. The thing is, of course, that it would be a rare event for a remarried couple to get an annulment if it came to a choice between doing that or being obedient to God. In all or in most cases 'God' would take a back seat. Few, if any, are going to choose, 1. life-time celibacy or, 2. returning to their former spouse. And ...these two options ARE the only ones available IF obedience to God is their choice. Realistically speaking, of course, the Church turns a blind eye to this scenerio or otherwise makes excuses for not enforcing the annulment/celibacy option. And, it HAS to do so to guarantee its own survival. The enforcing of life-time celibacy or returning to one's former spouse would shake the Christian Church to its foundations. So, the fear of such drastic reprisal from the Church does not exist in the first place for the divorced/remarried person. But ...it does for the gay married person. Is it any wonder that more and more people are questioning the double standards being applied here by the Christian Church?

Everyone with a knowledge of the scriptures will know that what I say above is the truth. How many are willing to admit to this AND how many are willing to accept homosexual marriage on the same basis as they do for the divorced/remarrieds so as not to appear ...um, hypocritical?

Have we arrived at a stalemate?

 

[Selene]

Alright. I did ask you for an answer and you gave one. So, we know that you are consistent ...at least on the forum. The thing is, of course, that it would be a rare event for a remarried couple to get an annulment if it came to a choice between doing that or being obedient to God. In all or in most cases 'God' would take a back seat. Few, if any, are going to choose, 1. life-time celibacy or, 2. returning to their former spouse. And ...these two options ARE the only ones available IF obedience to God is their choice. Realistically speaking, of course, the Church turns a blind eye to this scenerio or otherwise makes excuses for not enforcing the annulment/celibacy option. And, it HAS to do so to guarantee its own survival. The enforcing of life-time celibacy or returning to one's former spouse would shake the Christian Church to its foundations. So, the fear of such drastic reprisal from the Church does not exist in the first place for the divorced/remarried person. But ...it does for the gay married person. Is it any wonder that more and more people are questioning the double standards being applied here by the Christian Church?

Everyone with a knowledge of the scriptures will know that what I say above is the truth. How many are willing to admit to this AND how many are willing to accept homosexual marriage on the same basis as they do for the divorced/remarrieds so as not to appear ...um, hypocritical?


Have we arrived at a stalemate?

In the Catholic Church, there are couples who have received annullments. In the Philippines, for example, divorce is illegal, so many obtain anullments there in order to remarry. In Guam, divorce is legal and a couple can divorce. I know of two couples who have obtained an annulments and it was granted to them. As for celibacy, there are many nuns and single priests who remain celibate. Even the seminarians in my island have remained celibate. The few priests who abused teenagers and young children do not represent the majority who have remained celibate. With God all things are possible.

 

[KCKID]

In the Catholic Church, there are couples who have received annullments. In the Philippines, for example, divorce is illegal, so many obtain anullments there in order to remarry. In Guam, divorce is legal and a couple can divorce. I know of two couples who have obtained an annulments and it was granted to them. As for celibacy, there are many nuns and priests who remain celibate. Even the seminarians in my island have remained celibate. The few priests who abused teenagers and young children do not represent the majority who have remained celibate. With God all things are possible.

I think you might have missed the point of my post, Selene. In order to remain obedient to God, no-fault divorce (the majority of divorces) and remarriage is 'illegal'. Where divorce IS permissable (i.e. infidelity ...probably the minority of divorces) remarriage is 'illegal' even though many Churches now argue that remarriage in these circumstances is okay. This is where such churches offer a 'get out clause' in order to keep their membership. In any event, when one divorces they have two options and ONLY two. The first is that they remain celibate for the rest of their lives. The other is that they return to their original spouse who they are (scripturally) STILL married to.

With God all things might be possible but divorce/remarriage (where the former spouse is alive) is STILL a big no-no!

 

[Selene]

I think you might have missed the point of my post, Selene. In order to remain obedient to God, no-fault divorce (the majority of divorces) and remarriage is 'illegal'. Where divorce IS permissable (i.e. infidelity ...probably the minority of divorces) remarriage is 'illegal' even though many Churches now argue that remarriage in these circumstances is okay. This is where such churches offer a 'get out clause' in order to keep their membership. In any event, when one divorces they have two options and ONLY two. The first is that they remain celibate for the rest of their lives. The other is that they return to their original spouse who they are (scripturally) STILL married to.

With God all things might be possible but divorce/remarriage (where the former spouse is alive) is STILL a big no-no!

KCKID, it was Christ who gave the Church the authority to bind and loose. So, when the Church grant the annulments, it is permissible for the person to remarry according to both the Church and God. The Church usually reviews the case of the separation of the couple and makes the determination whether an annulment should be granted. Naturally, the Church (like God) prefers reconciliation, and if reconciliation is possible, then the better.

 

[JackSafari]

KCKID, at the core of fundamentalism is to rationalize personal beliefs as being God's opinion, so it does not matter what questions you might ask, there will always be some rationalization\justification for individual beliefs. This has been historically true for 1000s of years. Before medical research discovered the biological existence of germs it was widely believed mass epidemics was God punishing people for their sins. If a baby died, God was punishing parents (maybe for have sex in a non missionary position). Going back further "Witches" were believed to be a reality of life, and killing a witch was justified through the use of the bible, so was slavery racism, and of course homosexuality. Fundamentalist don't make the connection between wacko beliefs of the past and wacko ideas of the present because they are living in the present, so everything they believe is self-perceived supported by The Scriptures. If we were were able jump forward 50-100 years from now, nobody is going to be concerned about homosexuality as a moral question, and any references in the bible implying homosexuality is a sin, will simply be ignored, just like references justifying slavery, racism, and 100s of other verses where common sense and knowledge lets everyone know that the bible is series metaphoric stories that are intended to help people, not burn people at the stake, own people as personal slaves, stone people to death, ban the eating of seafood, or gay bash people. In 50-100 years, we'll be able to ask any 10 year old Christian if such things are bad\immoral, and he'll roll his eyes thinking you're making a joke.

What people tend to do is take some, leave some, from the bible when attempting limit the freedom of others. It really just a forum of personal prejudices that individuals or groups have because they are ignorant\ fearful\hateful\etc.

 

[KCKID]

KCKID, at the core of fundamentalism is to rationalize personal beliefs as being God's opinion, so it does not matter what questions you might ask, there will always be some rationalization\justification for individual beliefs. This has been historically true for 1000s of years. Before medical research discovered the biological existence of germs it was widely believed mass epidemics was God punishing people for their sins. If a baby died, God was punishing parents (maybe for have sex in a non missionary position). Going back further "Witches" were believed to be a reality of life, and killing a witch was justified through the use of the bible, so was slavery racism, and of course homosexuality. Fundamentalist don't make the connection between wacko beliefs of the past and wacko ideas of the present because they are living in the present, so everything they believe is self-perceived supported by The Scriptures. If we were were able jump forward 50-100 years from now, nobody is going to be concerned about homosexuality as a moral question, and any references in the bible implying homosexuality is a sin, will simply be ignored, just like references justifying slavery, racism, and 100s of other verses where common sense and knowledge lets everyone know that the bible is series metaphoric stories that are intended to help people, not burn people at the stake, own people as personal slaves, stone people to death, ban the eating of seafood, or gay bash people. In 50-100 years, we'll be able to ask any 10 year old Christian if such things are bad\immoral, and he'll roll his eyes thinking you're making a joke.

What people tend to do is take some, leave some, from the bible when attempting limit the freedom of others. It really just a forum of personal prejudices that individuals or groups have because they are ignorant\ fearful\hateful\etc.

Jack, that was a very well thought out post. And so true! Kudos to you ...! This is Selene's thread. I wonder how she would respond to your post . . .?

Selene?

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Does 'wicked' basically mean 'those who sin'? If so, we're ALL wicked, are we not? I keep coming back to "There is none righteous ...no, not one ..." THAT says it all for me, Selene, because "no, not one," includes you.

Yes, you DID 'answer' the 'why I don't keep the Sabbath command' and I don't think that I've ever seen a more complex reason for one not being obedient to the 4th-command as the one you gave. It was basically a lot of nonsense. Sorry.



NONE of the above has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with scripture. This is the personal opinion of a nasty and bitter homophobe. And THAT is as much attention I care to give to one of the nastiest people that I've ever come across on a Christian forum!

Brrrr . . .

LOL! If you honestly think I'm being a nasty homophobe, then I suggest you visit CP, as I pale into insignificance compared to ... . Carry On.

PS: In regards to scripture, you must be joking! This isn't about scripture as the bible is clear about sodomy.

It's about pushing the 'homosexual agenda onto Christians'. So, again I say, God's TRUTH has nothing to do with your and Safari mans agenda. You've both sufficiently proven what wicked, liberal minds can do when it come to twisting and making void the Word of God.

 

[Selene]

Jack, that was a very well thought out post. And so true! Kudos to you ...! This is Selene's thread. I wonder how she would respond to your post . . .?

Selene?

I think it is very important for Christians to spread the truth about research studies on STDs regarding homosexuality. We should also allow more ex-gays to speak out more on how they are able to give up their gay lifestyle. It is possible to give up the gay lifestyle. The better educated people are about the truth of STDs and the homosexuality lifestyle, they would understand better that advocating for same sex marriage and homosexuality only harms gay people instead of helping them.

 

[JackSafari]

.

PS: In regards to scripture, you must be joking! This isn't about scripture as the bible is clear about sodomy.

The bible is clear about many things that nobody takes literally, which is the point. People pick some parts of the bible to be symbolic and other parts to literal. I suppose if a person is a true fundamentalist, they will take the entire bible to be literal in meaning.

I think it is very important for Christians to spread the truth about research studies on STDs regarding homosexuality. We should also allow more ex-gays to speak out more on how they are able to give up their gay lifestyle. It is possible to give up the gay lifestyle. The better educated people are about the truth of STDs and the homosexuality lifestyle, they would understand better that advocating for same sex marriage and homosexuality only harms gay people instead of helping them.

What you believe to be true, is not shared belief among too many, and easily discredited medically. All legitimate\credible medical research continues to support the concept that sexual orientation, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual, can not be changed. Fringe research that suggest otherwise has been discredited or is considered flawed medical research.

While anything is possible, and there are likely to be a few rare homosexuals that practice celibacy but does not change the fact they remain homosexual their entire life. Celibacy is an individual choice, it does mean celibacy is right choice for all.

You specifically continue to confuse "sexual orientation" with "sexual behavior".

 

[KCKID]

LOL! If you honestly think I'm being a nasty homophobe, then I suggest you visit CP, as I pale into insignificance compared to ... . Carry On.

KCKID: Well, if you want to play the game "Who is a nastier homophobe than me?" ...fine. By the way, what is CP?

JB_Reformed Baptist: PS: In regards to scripture, you must be joking! This isn't about scripture as the bible is clear about sodomy.

KCKID: I hate to tell you this but the word 'sodomy' is as absent in the Bible as 'homosexuality'. Neither of these terms are there so your "the Bible is clear about sodomy" is a fib. But, you know what? A huge majority of Christians are SO illiterate when it comes to what the Bible says about pretty well everything I'm quite confident that THEY believe that the Bible pretty well begins and ends with the words 'sodomy' and 'homosexuality'. One more time, folks, just to set the record straight ...neither word is found anywhere in the original scriptures. 'Sodomy' was never there, 'homosexuality' was placed in there 'illegally' in fairly recent times.

JB_Reformed Baptist: It's about pushing the 'homosexual agenda onto Christians'. So, again I say, God's TRUTH has nothing to do with your and Safari mans agenda. You've both sufficiently proven what wicked, liberal minds can do when it come to twisting and making void the Word of God.

KCKID: 'The word of God' supports murder, genoside, slavery, rape, pillage, etc. etc. and THAT is the truth! Did you mean the Word of Jesus? If you did then Jesus never said a WORD about homosexuality ...not ONE word! So, we have no idea whether He would be opposed to gay marriage or not.