People who can actually identify sin.....

[Biker]

For Castor

Gay people have the right to get married anytime they want.  A gay man can marry a woman of any sexual orientation, and a lesbian woman can marry a man of any sexual orientation. 

Agreed! I just "GOT IT". You  mean same sex attraction

Marriage is between a man and a woman.  You can redefine it to include men plus men and women plus women, but that's not a civil rights issue, it's a definition issue.

We can do whatever we want. If we want to be saved, then we wouldn't think so highly of ourselves to redefine anything God has authored already. That's like making yourself GOD, overriding his own definitions. Thats what Satan would do.

Abortion is (constitutionally) illegal -- unconstitutional at any point.  We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among those is the right to life.  Capital punishment kills the guilty, not the innocent, and a newly conceived child is innocent by law.  If you kill an innocent life, then you have violated that person's right to life.  And there is no question that life begins at conception.  Any honest scientist can tell you that.  These are the same scientist who, if they found the most primitive cell on Mars, would call it life.

  We kill innocent women and children during war. We kill innocent people on death row. it is impossible to "violate that persons right to life" imho only because God set a time for our birth and death already (See Ecc. somewhere, I've forgotten)That is one thing we cannot alter.  It is SIN for sure to kill an innocent life but to allow it to be birthed only enduring pain his whole life is sin too.

I can see law enforcement liberally granting mercy to women who have abortions.  But I do not see how anyone can say it is lawful at any stage of a pregnancy.

Only if there is something VERY wrong, and even then, it may not be right to kill the child. Anyone in pain, children or adults have the right to have that pain END. Either thru death, medication, or other means. Each situation is different, we just do our best as Christians to look to scripture to guide us to the truth of the matter. Just my thoughts...

 

[Izdaari]

Humans are way messed up, and we do need a savior.

What happened that caused us to need a Savior? Saved from what?

I thought everybody here already knew that part. You know, Adam, Eve, forbidden fruit, etc. 

 

[Biker]

Humans are way messed up, and we do need a savior.

What happened that caused us to need a Savior? Saved from what?

I thought everybody here already knew that part. You know, Adam, Eve, forbidden fruit, etc. 

Two questions. If you know then please explain.

1. what happened that caused us to need a Savior?

Again.

2. "I do think gay marriage is a civil right, a matter of equal protection under the law."

What civil rights? what protection? As we know, Scripture calls them homosexuals, those who partake in homosexual acts.
What scripture do you refer to to base your truths on?

 

[Biker]

Thus the dilemma. If a preacher focuses on specific sins instead of the heart attitude behind all sin, then people can adopt the attitude that "as long as I'm not doing ___________, I'm righteous."  That is the path to phariseeism.

Expository Preaching takes care of that

 

[Izdaari]

Humans are way messed up, and we do need a savior.

What happened that caused us to need a Savior? Saved from what?

I thought everybody here already knew that part. You know, Adam, Eve, forbidden fruit, etc. 

Two questions. If you know then please explain.

1. what happened that caused us to need a Savior?

Again.

2. "I do think gay marriage is a civil right, a matter of equal protection under the law."

What civil rights? what protection? As we know, Scripture calls them homosexuals, those who partake in homosexual acts.
What scripture do you refer to to base your truths on?

1. Objection, your honor. Counsel is badgering the witness.

2. I wasn't aware that the 14th Amendment was considered Scripture.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Whether homosexuals or a man and woman living together outside of wedlock, both are,living in sin, it makes no difference. Homosexuals are just too easy to pick on. "Believers" are ready to jump and scream "sinner" without really showing them grace as God has showed all of us.  My best friend always says " People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care". Paul states it in 1 Corinthians 13:2" And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." and  Peter says" but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," It's very easy to condemn someone, it's a lot harder to love and pray for them. And when we pray, are we really wanting to see God work? or are we looking to see somebody "get saved" so some part of us feels affirmed like something we believe in really matters.
It is all for God's glory. I think all too often, its all about us.  We cry "mercy for us and judgment for sinners".  We really should fall on our faces and beg The Lord for forgiveness for not seeing ourselves in other peoples lives, that could easily be us, or worse, our children.

 

[Castor Muscular]

1. Objection, your honor. Counsel is badgering the witness.

2. I wasn't aware that the 14th Amendment was considered Scripture.

As I pointed out, homosexuals are protected equally under the law when it comes to marriage.  They are free to marry someone the same way heterosexuals are free to marry someone.  The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  Nobody is stopping homosexuals from entering into a union with the opposite sex.  As long as marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, then it is simply as logically impossible for a man to marry a man as it is for me to be a lesbian.  It isn't a matter of civil rights.  It's not a matter of rights, it's a matter of definition. 

Homosexuals want the definition of marriage to be changed.  That has nothing to do with equal protection under the law. 

I already stated that it's possible to change the legal definition of marriage.  It's also possible to change the legal definition of lesbian.  I just happen to want both changed, or neither changed.  Is that so wrong? 

 

[Izdaari]

CM, in Washington State the definition has already been changed. The legislature passed a law allowing same sex couples to marry and the governor signed it. Since enough people signed a petition objecting, it'll be on the ballot in November as a referendum. But WA is not NC. I will vote to uphold it and I expect most voters here will as well. Your suggestion about wanting to be classified as a lesbian is interesting. I'll discuss that with my LGBT friends and see what they think.

 

[Biker]

1. Objection, your honor. Counsel is badgering the witness.
No counsel nor witness on a Christian Debate forum. We are all Christians ( or at least believe ourselves to be)

I wasn't aware that the 14th Amendment was considered Scripture.
[/b] I have no ...nevermind. Back to it, Castor has tried to understand you but no clarification his way either.

 

[Biker]

CM, in Washington State the definition has already been changed. The legislature passed a law allowing same sex couples to marry and the governor signed it. Since enough people signed a petition objecting, it'll be on the ballot in November as a referendum. But WA is not NC. I will vote to uphold it and I expect most voters here will as well. Your suggestion about wanting to be classified as a lesbian is interesting. I'll discuss that with my LGBT friends and see what they think.

Oh I see why you are suddenly ignoring us going cold. I thought you were drunk or something

You are pushing the gay agenda on a Christian Forum yet without even the decency to explain your position

Ohh kaayy y....

 

[Izdaari]

I've just been popping in and out, in between doing different stuff. I haven't seen much that seemed like something I should respond to, other than the responses I've given.

Asking me to restate the story of the Fall and why we need a savior... I don't really know what that's all about. You and I both know that you and I both know all that, so what's the point of asking... again? Maybe it wasn't badgering, but if it wasn't, what was it?

I thought RecoveringIFB made a pretty good point, and I repped him for it.

I'm not drunk, but I am a little grumpy today. Maybe I'd be less grumpy if I had a couple drinks.

 

[Biker]

[quote author=Castor Muscular ]
As I pointed out, homosexuals are protected equally under the law when it comes to marriage.  They are free to marry someone the same way heterosexuals are free to marry someone.  The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  Nobody is stopping homosexuals from entering into a union with the opposite sex.  As long as marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, then it is simply as logically impossible for a man to marry a man as it is for me to be a lesbian.[/quote]
In California we have a legally recognized union called "Domestic Partnerships". This assists with Same Sex Couples maintaining or being able to add, a same sex person, onto their health insurance... upon other benefits. A Governor in San Francisco once issued a ton of marriage licenses illegally but that was stopped fairly quickly. His Dad explained it to me once, why he broke the law but I've forgotten. These are still recognized though as valid. People here do not want the definition re-defined though it's been on the ballot twice. They are relentless in not listening to the people

 

[Biker]

I've just been popping in and out, in between doing different stuff. I haven't seen much that seemed like something I should respond to, other than the responses I've given.

Asking me to restate the story of the Fall and why we need a savior... I don't really know what that's all about. You and I both know that you and I both know all that, so what's the point of asking... again? Maybe it wasn't badgering, but if it wasn't, what was it?

I thought RecoveringIFB made a pretty good point, and I repped him for it.

I'm not drunk, but I am a little grumpy today. Maybe I'd be less grumpy if I had a couple drinks.

Alright I understand

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Castor Muscular ]

As I pointed out, homosexuals are protected equally under the law when it comes to marriage.  They are free to marry someone the same way heterosexuals are free to marry someone.  The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  Nobody is stopping homosexuals from entering into a union with the opposite sex.  As long as marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, then it is simply as logically impossible for a man to marry a man as it is for me to be a lesbian.

[/quote]

I really don't think the SCOTUS will rule that that meets the definition of equal protection, if it gets that far.

In California we have a legally recognized union called "Domestic Partnerships". This assists with Same Sex Couples maintaining their health insurance upon other benefits. A Governor in San Francisco once issued a ton of marriage licenses illegally but that was stopped fairly quickly. They are recognized though as valid. People here do not want the definition re-defined though it's been on the ballot twice.

Thanks for the update re the CA situation.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I really don't think the SCOTUS will rule that that meets the definition of equal protection, if it gets that far.

You're probably right, but SCOTUS tends to make errors like that for political purposes. 

The fact is that the original definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  If LGBT people want to get married by that definition, they can.  Their rights are not being infringed. 

I think your LGBT friends would object to changing the definition of Lesbian to include heterosexual males.  That pretty much destroys the sense of identity lesbians have from being called lesbians.  I object to changing the definition of marriage for the same reason.  When I say I'm married, that identifies me as a husband with a wife.  I don't want to lose that identity.  I don't want to say, "I'm married" and then have to answer the question, "Do you have a wife or a husband?"  And if I identified myself as a lesbian in a chat room, I don't think other lesbians would want to have to ask me if I'm a male heterosexual lesbian or a female homosexual lesbian. 

Personally, I'd be happy if the LGBT community could simply come up with a different word to describe same sex couples who are committed to each other.  And I have no problem with them getting all the same exact legal benefits that come with marriage.  Call it garriage, for example.  Now, when someone says, "Are you garried?" they can answer "yes" and people will know what kind of relationship they have.  I would be free to get garried to another man, if I wanted, so it doesn't affect my rights at all. 

 

[wheatpenny]

Personally, I'd be happy if the LGBT community could simply come up with a different word to describe same sex couples who are committed to each other.  And I have no problem with them getting all the same exact legal benefits that come with marriage.  Call it garriage, for example.  Now, when someone says, "Are you garried?" they can answer "yes" and people will know what kind of relationship they have.  I would be free to get garried to another man, if I wanted, so it doesn't affect my rights at all.

But people named Gary might object to calling it Garried... 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

If there is no certified sin, then man isn't so bad...and doesn't need a savior...and we don't need all of this religion nonsense......

The sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.....gay marriage is a civil right.
Abortion is a choice.....women are being deprived of their rights.

Sin is black, hell is hot, heaven is sweet and Jesus saves!
I'm just old fashioned, I guess!

I would agree. My point is that when/if preaching stops there it leaves people with a behavior checklist mentality. We need to go much deeper than behavior (something I believe we agree on).

We do indeed agree that sin is a matter of the heart and not merely behavior.
In the Parable of the Prodigal, we see two types of lost sinner.....the rebellious sinner and the self righteous sinner. Both are lost and the latter isnuch harder to reach with the Gospel than the former, in my experience.

My point on this OP are the so called evangelicals who go out of their wayto distance themselves from naming any sin. Gay marriage and abortion are and were Biblical issues before they were political issues....both are SIN! (Something else we agree on.)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

If there is no certified sin, then man isn't so bad...and doesn't need a savior...and we don't need all of this religion nonsense......

The sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.....gay marriage is a civil right.
Abortion is a choice.....women are being deprived of their rights.

Sin is black, hell is hot, heaven is sweet and Jesus saves!
I'm just old fashioned, I guess!

Humans are way messed up, and we do need a savior. Eternity with God calls for us to be the kind of people who are worthy of it, which we will never be on our own. It's an impossible standard... without divine help.

According to Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Sodom was guilty of lack of hospitality, cruelty, injustice, and failure to care for the poor. And probably they were perverts of various kinds too, because they were just all around bad people, wicked in every way. But sexual sin of any kind wasn't why they were destroyed, except perhaps as "the last straw".

I do think gay marriage is a civil right, a matter of equal protection under the law. I don't expect conservative churches to perform or recognize them.

Abortion is something I listen to both sides and say, you're right... but OTOH, you're right too. I'm like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. I've got to go with the "safe, legal and rare" group. I would favor limiting it to the first trimester if the Supremes would allow that, but I don't think we'll ever get a consensus to outlaw it again.

I would assume then that you don't believe Sodomy is sinful activity.
And, if we define terms, I don't think you would be willing to state "I want killing babies in the womb to remain safe, legal and rare"!

 

[samspade]

If there is no certified sin, then man isn't so bad...and doesn't need a savior...and we don't need all of this religion nonsense......

The sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.....gay marriage is a civil right.
Abortion is a choice.....women are being deprived of their rights.

Sin is black, hell is hot, heaven is sweet and Jesus saves!
I'm just old fashioned, I guess!

I would agree. My point is that when/if preaching stops there it leaves people with a behavior checklist mentality. We need to go much deeper than behavior (something I believe we agree on).

We do indeed agree that sin is a matter of the heart and not merely behavior.
In the Parable of the Prodigal, we see two types of lost sinner.....the rebellious sinner and the self righteous sinner. Both are lost and the latter isnuch harder to reach with the Gospel than the former, in my experience.

My point on this OP are the so called evangelicals who go out of their wayto distance themselves from naming any sin. Gay marriage and abortion are and were Biblical issues before they were political issues....both are SIN! (Something else we agree on.)

Does the idea of no sin (except judgmental ism) somehow mirror the idea of no repentance for salvation (easy-believism)?

 

[Izdaari]

If there is no certified sin, then man isn't so bad...and doesn't need a savior...and we don't need all of this religion nonsense......

The sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality.....gay marriage is a civil right.
Abortion is a choice.....women are being deprived of their rights.

Sin is black, hell is hot, heaven is sweet and Jesus saves!
I'm just old fashioned, I guess!

Humans are way messed up, and we do need a savior. Eternity with God calls for us to be the kind of people who are worthy of it, which we will never be on our own. It's an impossible standard... without divine help.

According to Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Sodom was guilty of lack of hospitality, cruelty, injustice, and failure to care for the poor. And probably they were perverts of various kinds too, because they were just all around bad people, wicked in every way. But sexual sin of any kind wasn't why they were destroyed, except perhaps as "the last straw".

I do think gay marriage is a civil right, a matter of equal protection under the law. I don't expect conservative churches to perform or recognize them.

Abortion is something I listen to both sides and say, you're right... but OTOH, you're right too. I'm like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. I've got to go with the "safe, legal and rare" group. I would favor limiting it to the first trimester if the Supremes would allow that, but I don't think we'll ever get a consensus to outlaw it again.

I would assume then that you don't believe Sodomy is sinful activity.
And, if we define terms, I don't think you would be willing to state "I want killing babies in the womb to remain safe, legal and rare"!

That doesn't necessarily follow. There are lots of things that are sinful that I think people have a constitutional right to do. I believe blasphemy is sinful, yet it's protected free speech under the 1st Amendment, and I strongly support that it is. For me, whether homosexual activity is sinful is an entirely separate question from whether homosexuals have a right to marry.

On the other question, yes, I'm against killing babies in the womb, but I don't think it's a baby instead of a fetus until some hard to define point probably around the end of the first trimester. WA passed a law dealing with all that, I forget whether it was an initiative or referendum, but we all voted on it. It allowed abortions during the first trimester, placed increasing restrictions on them during the second trimester, and mostly prohibited them during the third.... and then Roe v. Wade happened and threw that all out in favor of essentially unlimited abortion on demand. I think we could agree that wasn't an improvement.