Australia bans same sex marriage.

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

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.

Word or no word whether that be sodomy or homosexuality etc, then what do you call those who practice same sex, then? For surely the bible pointed out such people and condemned it, in the old and reiterated it in the new testament. So a play on words doesn't make obsolete the practice of said individuals.

In regards to the NT or Jesus not being opposed to gay marriage whether explicitly stated or not, it is sufficiently covered in the New testament and clearly condemned in the old. The very same old testament that Paul referred to in 2 Timothy 3:15, in point of fact.

The fact that most don't know how to effectively gleen from the OT spiritual principles only shows how poor their teachers are and how indolent the individual is.

CP= 'Christian Post' and here you were telling me and the rest how you have been around different forums and you don't know what the acronym means and a popular site for atheist's, agnostic's, satanist's and fundamental bible believing Christians & "liberal christians". Too funny. Fair dinkum, it's rated in the top 10.

 

[KCKID]

There was a news story on the TV yesterday that moves are afoot to put gay marriage to a referendum, i.e. a vote by the Australian people.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/muslims-join-christians-on-gay-marriage-referendum-call-20130430-2iq99.html

 

[JackSafari]

I good\fun\interesting book to read is The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. The book addresses the social phenomena of how things rapidly increase after they reach "The tipping point", and once that point is reached, its a snowball effect everywhere. In this case, the acceptance of homosexuality world wide, has, or is just about to, reach the tipping point. When it comes to social awareness on issues, changes come about rapidly once the tipping point has been reached, even if it has taken decades, or centuries to finally get there.

 

[KCKID]

JB_Reformed Baptist: Word or no word whether that be sodomy or homosexuality etc, then what do you call those who practice same sex, then?

KCKID: I have no idea. You tell me. I'm just telling you that the terms "homosexual" and "sodomy" are words NOT found in the original manuscripts of scipture. I'm not sure if "sodomy" is found in recent copies of the Bible but you will, of course, find "homosexuality" in recent copies of the Bible. Why? Because it was put there 'illegally'.

JB_Reformed Baptist: For surely the bible pointed out such people and condemned it, in the old and reiterated it in the new testament. So a play on words doesn't make obsolete the practice of said individuals.

KCKID: Well, we have Leviticus, of course, which is the only Old Testament text that the average Christian knows. That said, unless one is a Levite Priest they can forget about Leviticus. However, if one does believe that we today should adhere to the bizarre prohibitions of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. then they're free to start their own church, convince others of like mind to join it, and (hopefully) securely lock the door behind them and stay there.

That leaves the three or so texts in the New Testament regarding homosexual practices that refer to the acts of idol worship. Nothing to do with any gay marriage issues there at all and that IS what this thread is about.

JB_Reformed Baptist: In regards to the NT or Jesus not being opposed to gay marriage whether explicitly stated or not, it is sufficiently covered in the New testament and clearly condemned in the old. The very same old testament that Paul referred to in 2 Timothy 3:15, in point of fact.

KCKID: I think that I've made my point in the "Honor the Sabbath" thread that the average Sunday-worshipping Christians don't give a 'd--n' about what the Old Testament has to say about anything ...with the exception of the 'man lying' text, that is. So, the OT is out for ALL Sabbath abrogators. However one might twist the scriptures or infer this or infer that, the FACT IS that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality or gay marriage. He just didn't, what more can I say?

JB_Reformed Baptist: The fact that most don't know how to effectively gleen from the OT spiritual principles only shows how poor their teachers are and how indolent the individual is.

KCKID: Are murder, rape, pillage, genoside, slavery, etc. for 'the unchosen ones' the spiritual principles you speak of? As for the indolent part, yep, so many Christians are little more than slothful pew-warmers.

JB_Reformed Baptist: CP= 'Christian Post' and here you were telling me and the rest how you have been around different forums and you don't know what the acronym means and a popular site for atheist's, agnostic's, satanist's and fundamental bible believing Christians & "liberal christians". Too funny. Fair dinkum, it's rated in the top 10.

KCKID: Um ...thanks for filling me in on "CP". I'm sure that it wouldn't interest me.

Tell me, does your jeering, sneering, ridiculing of another make you feel especially pious ...? As for the 'mocking man' above, whenever I think of JB_Reformed Baptist that's the picture of you that will spring to mind. Not too flattering . . .

 

[aspen]

So, have any of you guys / girls who seem to have such strong opinions on marriage actually married or ever been married? I has always stuck me as odd how opinionated people are when they have zero real life experience regarding the topic they are raging about. In fact the more certain a person is about a topic the less they actually know. This is true within academia and Christianity - and definitely in marriage and homosexuality.

Look at the Pharisees - they KNEW everything, but had zero experience with love.

 

[JackSafari]

So, have any of you guys / girls who seem to have such strong opinions on marriage actually married or ever been married? I has always stuck me as odd how opinionated people are when they have zero real life experience regarding the topic they are raging about. In fact the more certain a person is about a topic the less they actually know. This is true within academia and Christianity - and definitely in marriage and homosexuality.

Look at the Pharisees - they KNEW everything, but had zero experience with love.

And I will also add, people who have daily contact with people who are gay. Not just "some guy" who works at a local store, but a family member or someone at work. It makes a huge different to wanting to suppress the rights of a group of people who you don't know, and tend to be perceived as a stereo type, than a person you know personally. My experience has been that those who know others who are LGBT, are supported of them, and do not condemn them. Those who are strongly anti-gay, prefer not to have any contact with LGBT, and will not associate with LGBT even if they are family members.

 

[brightmorningstar]

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.

The Biblical testimony describes this. It says woe to those who call evil, good, and good, evil.

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.

One has to take things in context, we all die, we can see that, the bit you might not believe is being raised to new life and eternally with God.



If a baby died, God was punishing parents (maybe for have sex in a non missionary position). [/QUOTE] Sin came into the world through the disobedience of humans to God, and sin leads to death. The image of how people might be having sex is of course yours.

lGoing 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.

As there is no countenance for killing anyone in the NT, I suspect such acts were the result of the same ignorance shown by your remark.

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.

Not sure what you mean.

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

There are undoubtedly more slaves now then ever before in human history, so your remark seems to be the reason why people might do as you say. However history shows us that societies that treat same sex realtions as normal at some point come to repent or get destroyed.

What people tend to do is take some, leave some, from the bible when attempting limit the freedom of others.

Yes I would agree with that, but I am not sure yuou understand what you are saying. There is freedom in Christ, but people who aren'in Christ' dont think its freedom, they of course see it as lack of freedom. The Bible describes all this.

It really just a forum of personal prejudices that individuals or groups have because they are ignorant\ fearful\hateful\etc.

I agree, its just that what is good to one is evil to the other etc. The Bible describes all this.

So, have any of you guys / girls who seem to have such strong opinions on marriage actually married or ever been married? I has always stuck me as odd how opinionated people are when they have zero real life experience regarding the topic they are raging about. In fact the more certain a person is about a topic the less they actually know. This is true within academia and Christianity - and definitely in marriage and homosexuality.

Look at the Pharisees - they KNEW everything, but had zero experience with love.

But homoSEXuality isnt love. Thats the deception. Love may include sexual relations, but the two are different. For example as a man I love other men, but I dont have any sexual desires or relations.



For Christians one can see marriage is based on man/woman, not love. All things of God are love so not just marriage.

 

[aspen]

But homoSEXuality isnt love. Thats the deception. Love may include sexual relations, but the two are different. For example as a man I love other men, but I dont have any sexual desires or relations.

For Christians one can see marriage is based on man/woman, not love. All things of God are love so not just marriage.

Even if that were true - who cares? Does that mean that you are also against all non christian marriage? Arranged marriage? Who are you to make these determinations for the majority of the world?

If God allows it why do you stand in His way?

God also permitted multiple wives / marrying family members / the use of concubines.

Why do Christians ignore these facts from scripture when they want to argue against gay marriage?

 

[Foreigner]

Honestly Aspen, This ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ is what you're reduced to?

What God used to tolerate because of the ignorance of man compared to what He expects from us now?

You honestly think that Christians should put their seal of approval on behavior that God Himself calls an abomination.

As far as what God "allows," there is a huge litany of sins that God will ensure there is a reckoning for. You seem to forget that very important fact.

He will hold accountable those that committed those sins, as well as those who enabled those sins and those who chose not to speak out against them.

You need to wise up.




.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

And I will also add, people who have daily contact with people who are gay. Not just "some guy" who works at a local store, but a family member or someone at work. It makes a huge different to wanting to suppress the rights of a group of people who you don't know, and tend to be perceived as a stereo type, than a person you know personally. My experience has been that those who know others who are LGBT, are supported of them, and do not condemn them. Those who are strongly anti-gay, prefer not to have any contact with LGBT, and will not associate with LGBT even if they are family members.

Both. Married almost two decades and personally knew homosexuals.

Honestly Aspen, This ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ is what you're reduced to?

What God used to tolerate because of the ignorance of man compared to what He expects from us now?

You honestly think that Christians should put their seal of approval on behavior that God Himself calls an abomination.

As far as what God "allows," there is a huge litany of sins that God ensure there is a reckoning for. You seem to forget that very important fact.

He will hold accountable those that committed those sins, as well as those who enabled those sins and those who chose not to speak out against them.

You need to wise up.

True!

 

[KCKID]

1. Honestly Aspen, This ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ is what you're reduced to?

2. What God used to tolerate because of the ignorance of man compared to what He expects from us now?

3. You honestly think that Christians should put their seal of approval on behavior that God Himself calls an abomination.

4. As far as what God "allows," there is a huge litany of sins that God will ensure there is a reckoning for. You seem to forget that very important fact.

5. He will hold accountable those that committed those sins, as well as those who enabled those sins and those who chose not to speak out against them.

You need to wise up.

Is there a better method to respond to another's post in a 'user friendly' way than the way that I've had to do here? Why does a click of the 'Enter' button not bring up a response paragraph ...?

1. In your opinion Aspen's credibility has been reduced because his opinions/beliefs don't align with yours?
2. Are you stating that God DOES change? Interesting since the usual argument is that God NEVER changes. Make up your mind.
3. Poor argument since MANY things are abominable to God, many of which most of us do on a daily basis. That's not to mention, of course, that the common argument is that the OT laws were of the Old Covenant and WE are living under the NEW Covenant. Please ...make your mind up . . .
4. So, why did Jesus bother dying ...?
5. So, again, why did Jesus bother dying ...?

 

[aspen]

God permits sin. i never said He likes it. If standards and expectations for us have changed and God has become less tolerant of sin, humanity would be wiped off the face of the Earth in an instant. The simple fact that humanity is allowed to continue if proof that God tolerates sin. So i ask you again Foreigner, why are you standing in the way of God by trying to dictate morality to people outside the church?

 

[justaname]

To say that God allows sin is to also agree that God allowed the 35,000 deaths of starving children today. God allowed the Boston bombing, and even the holocaust. These are terrible tragedies are are true under the rule of a sovereign God.

The fact that man lives in sin, and that God permits sin, is not a reason to condone it. Jesus did not die so that we could continue in sin, this is certain, hence His teaching of repentance. We now through the power of faith and by God's grace, have the ability to overcome sin and death. We no longer need to have sin as our master, we can instead choose Jesus.



Call me intolerant if you wish but marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

[aspen]

it is not our job to punish or penalize nonchristians for sin against God. Nonchristian sin is not ours to condone. crimes that harm our community need to be punished by us. i do not view homosexuality as a crime against community.

 

[justaname]

We are not to judge the non-christian, yet we need not condone sin in any setting. Homosexuality is not a crime per say against humanity, but it does attack the basic definition of the family and the family unit. From this perspective it should not be accepted as common practice. Many case studies show the improper function of homosexuality proves disfunction in the family unit as well. As this is not the normal union it should not be promoted as such, and marriage should not be allowed.

If a man and a man or woman and woman desire a formal contract between each other I see no reason to stand between that, yet in the marriage context, which is a covenant before God, there is no ground to support it.

 

[aspen]

We are not to judge the non-christian, yet we need not condone sin in any setting. Homosexuality is not a crime per say against humanity, but it does attack the basic definition of the family and the family unit. From this perspective it should not be accepted as common practice. Many case studies show the improper function of homosexuality proves disfunction in the family unit as well. As this is not the normal union it should not be promoted as such, and marriage should not be allowed.

If a man and a man or woman and woman desire a formal contract between each other I see no reason to stand between that, yet in the marriage context, which is a covenant before God, there is no ground to support it.

IMO, this issue is a manufactured crisis. I know of no studies outside of politically conservative think tanks and conservative Christianity that support your conclusions regarding homosexuality and a negative effect on the family or society. There is ample evidence however on the devastating effect that closeted homosexuality has on heterosexual marriage.

I am convinced that the gay marriage issue is the wedge issue of today like prohibition was the wedge issue of the 19th century.

In any case, our focus should not be on stopping gay marriage from happenning in America, we should be focused on making sure that churches that do not believe in homosexual marriage are always exempted from all laws that force church leaders to marry gay couples.

 

[justaname]

IMO, this issue is a manufactured crisis. I know of no studies outside of politically conservative think tanks and conservative Christianity that support your conclusions regarding homosexuality and a negative effect on the family or society. There is ample evidence however on the devastating effect that closeted homosexuality has on heterosexual marriage.

I am convinced that the gay marriage issue is the wedge issue of today like prohibition was the wedge issue of the 19th century.

In any case, our focus should not be on stopping gay marriage from happenning in America, we should be focused on making sure that churches that do not believe in homosexual marriage are always exempted from all laws that force church leaders to marry gay couples.

If the studies are based objectively, there should be no matter of influence deciding the outcome no matter who conducts the study. Your statement concerning where the data comes from is invalid. Do you truly believe a liberal organization would publish findings that speak against the homesexual lifestyle? Again what is at stake here is the very condition God instituted as a properly functioning family. Children with two daddy figures are confused. Marriage was instituted by God to be between a man and a woman, and it is not society's role to change that institution.

I completely agree that closeted homosexuality is not the solution. The foundational issue is sin, which stems from the fall of man. I will always direct to scripture and or submission to Christ in this matter. I need not seek a secular solution, and will not concede to condoning sin, be it from a Christian or Non-Christian.

I do not see this as a civil rights issue either. I see the deeper issue as the homosexual community seeking acceptance of their lifestyle from society. Even in states where it is legal there was no influx of marriages as thought would happen. The majority of the marriages that did happen ended in divorce. I cannot say heterosexual marriage is exempt, but when put in proportion the data proves in favor of heterosexual marriage.

I cannot comment on your wedge issue theory and personally see it as moot.

I do agree we should also focus on protecting church leaders from so called "discrimination" and or hate crimes.

 

[KCKID]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/17261561/rudd-backs-gay-marriage-as-numbers-shift/

Well, since this thread was intiated because of Australia's disapproval of same-sex marriage it might be of some interest that the former Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, who just a few months ago was opposed to gay marriage, has now done an 'about face'. Check out the above link:

 

[bibleknowledge]

The banning of same sex marriage can be regarded as one of the greatest implementations of God's commands here on Earth. In the Book of Romans, there are specific verses pertaining that sexual relationships of men to men and women to women are sinful and are definitely punishable according to the laws of God.

Gays and lesbians should realize that the banning of same-sex marriage is certainly not in any way to deprive them of gender equality. As we all know, there are only two genders, male and female. These are affirmed in the Bible. No such gender as gay and lesbian are therein mentioned. Gays are males and lesbians are females.

 

[KCKID]

The banning of same sex marriage can be regarded as one of the greatest implementations of God's commands here on Earth. In the Book of Romans, there are specific verses pertaining that sexual relationships of men to men and women to women are sinful and are definitely punishable according to the laws of God.

Gays and lesbians should realize that the banning of same-sex marriage is certainly not in any way to deprive them of gender equality. As we all know, there are only two genders, male and female. These are affirmed in the Bible. No such gender as gay and lesbian are therein mentioned. Gays are males and lesbians are females.

Same gender marriage has not been banned in Australia. It simply has not been given government approval ...yet. When and if it IS recognized by the government it won't have anything to do with what the Bible may or may not say about it. This really is not a "God" issue at all but everything to do with the human individuals involved. And, no matter how many times one quotes Paul as being the mouthpiece for God never let it be forgotten that Jesus never breathed a word about gay marriage or homosexuality. I personally am not a Paul follower but a Jesus follower and I DO believe that there is a difference. Using Paul as a 'Bible helper' ...fine, but not as a "surrogate Jesus" as many Christians have made him ...no fault of Paul, I quickly add. God's word may be divine, Jesus may be divine, but the letters of Paul made the NT canon as determined by the human compilers of the day. While Paul may have been somewhat an egotist as well as a chauvinist I don't think that he ever referred to himself as 'divine'.

By the way, I don't know that anyone is arguing against males being males and females being females whether they be gay or straight.