Sumpreme Court Declares U.S. to be Like Sodom & Gomorrah

[Izdaari]

That's exactly what people like you do. You will never recognize that God hates anything when it comes to human relationships. Its all about "as long as they love one another". You don't have one Scriptural "leg to stand on". Not one. Its not about Scriptures. Its not about historical teachings. Its not about pleasing an Eternal God that never changes...

Does it hurt your feelings that God never chose a homosexual to be an apostle? Does it bother you that God never set forth one monogamous homosexual/lesbian relationship in the Scriptures as being a relationship to "emulate" or "revere"? Its should. Intellectually, how does your libertarian beliefs afford God such liberties or rights. If you're going to consider opposition to SSM as bigotry... then you have no evidence that God isn't a bigot.

Actually, I do think a pretty good Christian theological case for SSM can be made. But it can't be made without challenging the premises of fundamentalism, and I don't think it wise or courteous for me to do that in this venue.

So I've been only talking about the politics and law of it, and where that intersects with theology. Over on the Christian Libertarian group on Facebook (and no doubt other places, but that's the one I know about), you'll find plenty of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christian libertarians who agree with me that enforcing God's view of marriage (whatever it is) isn't the business of the State.

 

[brianb]

I get HOMO MILK all the time.  At least that's what it says on the grocery receipt.

HOMO MILK?
Sounds like bull to me.....

Homo milk is horrible - a perversion of what milk is supposed to be. I don't drink it any more.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Izdaari]Actually, I do think a pretty good Christian theological case for SSM can be made. But it can't be made without challenging the premises of fundamentalism, and I don't think it wise or courteous for me to do that in this venue. [/quote]

I would disagree.

[quote author=Izdaari]So I've been only talking about the politics and law of it, and where that intersects with theology. Over on the Christian Libertarian group on Facebook (and no doubt other places, but that's the one I know about), you'll find plenty of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christian libertarians who agree with me that enforcing God's view of marriage (whatever it is) isn't the business of the State.[/quote]

And agree.



See CU...I didn't question her motives or her salvation or her dedication to God in any of that.  8)

 

[Castor Muscular]

I get HOMO MILK all the time.  At least that's what it says on the grocery receipt.

HOMO MILK?
Sounds like bull to me.....

Homo milk is horrible - a perversion of what milk is supposed to be. I don't drink it any more.

Yeah, non-homogenized goat milk is so much better.  It's perfect in tea.  I simply can't afford it all the time. 

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]By refusing to oppose the issue, you've already established your belief. By all practical measures, you are for SSM.

By your refusal to oppose sex with three-legged purple squirrels, you've established your belief in it. For all practical measures, you are for three-legged purple squirrel sex.

(And you should actually read about the development of the creeds...your statement that "those who wrote the creeds or define the creeds would certain have included language setting marriage..." tells me you don't know the history behind the councils nor the creeds they formulated.)

I do oppose sex with three-legged purple squirrels. Step away from the squirrels rsc2a.

Fine...you're opposed to sex with three-legged purple squirrels. You didn't say anything about sex with camels...[/quote]

How about...

I'm opposed to any sexual relationship outside of a marriage between a man and women? Does that cover everything for you?

I don't know what you do or do not know about Church history. I just know that you have a limited understanding of the creeds and the councils that formed them if you think that they would have included anything about marriage.

If you fast forward to the 21st century.... they would have. It would be entirely idiotic to say they wouldn't. The catholic church has OFFICIALLY opposed same sex marriage for a LONG TIME. There is not reason to believe that members of primarily "catholic" councils wouldn't have done the same if it had been a issue within the time they existed.

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=Izdaari]Actually, I do think a pretty good Christian theological case for SSM can be made. But it can't be made without challenging the premises of fundamentalism, and I don't think it wise or courteous for me to do that in this venue.

I would disagree.

[quote author=Izdaari]So I've been only talking about the politics and law of it, and where that intersects with theology. Over on the Christian Libertarian group on Facebook (and no doubt other places, but that's the one I know about), you'll find plenty of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christian libertarians who agree with me that enforcing God's view of marriage (whatever it is) isn't the business of the State.[/quote]

And agree.



See CU...I didn't question her motives or her salvation or her dedication to God in any of that.  8)
[/quote]

No... all you did was agree. You're good at that. You find the most liberal source you can find and act as if its God's own judgement. I reject the vast majority of fundamentalist teachings. You know this. Yet, I am not stupid enough to try and say God's alright with same sex marriage.

 

[christundivided]

I do KNOW that "homo" is in the Latin liturgical version....

Yes, and in Latin it means man, sometimes specifically, as in "ecce homo", meaning "behold the man", sometimes generically, as in the human race.

It was play on words. Get a grip. Logic would dictate you start a campaign to remove the word "homo" from Latin.

Actually, I do think a pretty good Christian theological case for SSM can be made. But it can't be made without challenging the premises of fundamentalism, and I don't think it wise or courteous for me to do that in this venue.

Please? By all means make your case. I suspect you really have nothing to present. Don't pretend you can make a theological argument for SSM.

Here, I'll start a thread for you...

 

[brianb]

That's exactly what people like you do. You will never recognize that God hates anything when it comes to human relationships. Its all about "as long as they love one another". You don't have one Scriptural "leg to stand on". Not one. Its not about Scriptures. Its not about historical teachings. Its not about pleasing an Eternal God that never changes...

Does it hurt your feelings that God never chose a homosexual to be an apostle? Does it bother you that God never set forth one monogamous homosexual/lesbian relationship in the Scriptures as being a relationship to "emulate" or "revere"? Its should. Intellectually, how does your libertarian beliefs afford God such liberties or rights. If you're going to consider opposition to SSM as bigotry... then you have no evidence that God isn't a bigot.

Actually, I do think a pretty good Christian theological case for SSM can be made. But it can't be made without challenging the premises of fundamentalism, and I don't think it wise or courteous for me to do that in this venue.

So I've been only talking about the politics and law of it, and where that intersects with theology. Over on the Christian Libertarian group on Facebook (and no doubt other places, but that's the one I know about), you'll find plenty of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christian libertarians who agree with me that enforcing God's view of marriage (whatever it is) isn't the business of the State.

How can you have a "Christian" theological case for SSM if Christ never spoke on the issue? Once you depart from the words of Christ you can come up with anything - which is dangerous. Christ spoke highly of the Torah which includes Genesis (he quoted Genesis spoke of marriage as male and female). This doesn't mean we follow every word that the Bible says but we are to rightly divide the Scriptures starting with Genesis - the commandment related to marriage and sexuality predates the law of Moses/Old Testament and the New Testament and is universal. It doesn't matter if someone is not attracted to the opposite sex this doesn't mean they have a God-given right to marry and be in sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Christian theology is not about new laws - Paul said we establish the law (not change it) - it's about the grace and truth that comes through Christ. Did the early church adapt to the culture or did they turn the world upside down? This is what is wrong with the professing western church - they are adapting rather than being counter-culture - real followers of Christ and his teachings are a minority especially when it comes to issues like this. How can this be especially in a country where secular humanism is also a minority? Apathy/complacency?

 

[brianb]

[quote author=christundivided]By refusing to oppose the issue, you've already established your belief. By all practical measures, you are for SSM.

By your refusal to oppose sex with three-legged purple squirrels, you've established your belief in it. For all practical measures, you are for three-legged purple squirrel sex.

(And you should actually read about the development of the creeds...your statement that "those who wrote the creeds or define the creeds would certain have included language setting marriage..." tells me you don't know the history behind the councils nor the creeds they formulated.)

I do oppose sex with three-legged purple squirrels. Step away from the squirrels rsc2a.

Fine...you're opposed to sex with three-legged purple squirrels. You didn't say anything about sex with camels...

How about...

I'm opposed to any sexual relationship outside of a marriage between a man and women? Does that cover everything for you?

I don't know what you do or do not know about Church history. I just know that you have a limited understanding of the creeds and the councils that formed them if you think that they would have included anything about marriage.

If you fast forward to the 21st century.... they would have. It would be entirely idiotic to say they wouldn't. The catholic church has OFFICIALLY opposed same sex marriage for a LONG TIME. There is not reason to believe that members of primarily "catholic" councils wouldn't have done the same if it had been a issue within the time they existed.
[/quote]

What about the Protestant church - Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, etc? What have they always taught? Personally I don't think it matters to those who knowingly reject the truth but a believer should want to know and accept the truth even if takes some effort to arrive at it.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]Actually, I do think a pretty good Christian theological case for SSM can be made. But it can't be made without challenging the premises of fundamentalism, and I don't think it wise or courteous for me to do that in this venue.

I would disagree.

[quote author=Izdaari]So I've been only talking about the politics and law of it, and where that intersects with theology. Over on the Christian Libertarian group on Facebook (and no doubt other places, but that's the one I know about), you'll find plenty of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christian libertarians who agree with me that enforcing God's view of marriage (whatever it is) isn't the business of the State.

And agree.



See CU...I didn't question her motives or her salvation or her dedication to God in any of that.  8)
[/quote]

No... all you did was agree. You're good at that. You find the most liberal source you can find and act as if its God's own judgement. I reject the vast majority of fundamentalist teachings. You know this. Yet, I am not stupid enough to try and say God's alright with same sex marriage.
[/quote]

I am not the most liberal source. Well, I may be on FFF, but this forum is a very skewed sample of the Christian universe. I am mostly a Anglican conservative, like N.T. Wright. But in a 90+% IFB group, that does make me one of the most liberal, relatively speaking.

 

[Patebald]

don't forget this one thing:

Government can only determine what is legal and illegal, they can't determine what is right and wrong

So... who cares what they vote

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Izdaari]Actually, I do think a pretty good Christian theological case for SSM can be made. But it can't be made without challenging the premises of fundamentalism, and I don't think it wise or courteous for me to do that in this venue.

I would disagree.

[quote author=Izdaari]So I've been only talking about the politics and law of it, and where that intersects with theology. Over on the Christian Libertarian group on Facebook (and no doubt other places, but that's the one I know about), you'll find plenty of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christian libertarians who agree with me that enforcing God's view of marriage (whatever it is) isn't the business of the State.

And agree.



See CU...I didn't question her motives or her salvation or her dedication to God in any of that.  8)
[/quote]

No... all you did was agree. You're good at that. You find the most liberal source you can find and act as if its God's own judgement. I reject the vast majority of fundamentalist teachings. You know this. Yet, I am not stupid enough to try and say God's alright with same sex marriage.[/quote]

And disagree....

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]Fine...you're opposed to sex with three-legged purple squirrels. You didn't say anything about sex with camels...

How about...

I'm opposed to any sexual relationship outside of a marriage between a man and women? Does that cover everything for you?[/quote]

Alright! A man and multiple women. A man and a 12 year old! A man and his mom!

(You're the one who said that refusing to oppose something is the same as supporting that something...)

[quote author=christundivided]

I don't know what you do or do not know about Church history. I just know that you have a limited understanding of the creeds and the councils that formed them if you think that they would have included anything about marriage.

If you fast forward to the 21st century.... they would have. It would be entirely idiotic to say they wouldn't. [/quote]

No...they wouldn't. The councils' primary concerns were answering specific questions about Who God is and what He did. The creeds they came up with are very limited in scope and address these questions, not every theological question that was out there.

[quote author=christundivided]The catholic church has OFFICIALLY opposed same sex marriage for a LONG TIME. There is not reason to believe that members of primarily "catholic" councils wouldn't have done the same if it had been a issue within the time they existed.[/quote]

Yes...the Catholic church has opposed SSM. I haven't seen anything ex cathedra from Rome, which would be the closest equivalent to the councils the RCC has today. In other words, it's not to that level for them.

 

[christundivided]

Alright! A man and multiple women. A man and a 12 year old! A man and his mom!

Alright, I oppose marriage for a man to multiple women or a women to multiple men. I also oppose a man and any women below the age of consent in any state of the USA. I also oppose incest of any time. Is that okay?

(You're the one who said that refusing to oppose something is the same as supporting that something...)

No. I didn't say that. Please provide the exact quote.... word for word.... that I said such? Word for word.

No...they wouldn't. The councils' primary concerns were answering specific questions about Who God is and what He did. The creeds they came up with are very limited in scope and address these questions, not every theological question that was out there.

I don't know why I answer you..... you're such an obtuse idiot. The councils arose because of the false teachings in their respective times. This is why they sought to set forth "Who God is".

Yes...the Catholic church has opposed SSM. I haven't seen anything ex cathedra from Rome, which would be the closest equivalent to the councils the RCC has today. In other words, it's not to that level for them.

Idiot. It is part of the official position of the Roman Catholic church.... Such doctrine is set form from "Rome" itself. Maybe you read a little about Gilles Bernheim.

 

[rsc2a]

Alright! A man and multiple women. A man and a 12 year old! A man and his mom!

Alright, I oppose marriage for a man to multiple women or a women to multiple men. I also oppose a man and any women below the age of consent in any state of the USA. I also oppose incest of any time. Is that okay?

"I'm opposed to any sexual relationship outside of a marriage between a man and women." - CU

[quote author=christundivided]

(You're the one who said that refusing to oppose something is the same as supporting that something...)

No. I didn't say that. Please provide the exact quote.... word for word.... that I said such? Word for word. [/quote]

"By refusing to oppose the issue, you've already established your belief." - CU

[quote author=christundivided]

No...they wouldn't. The councils' primary concerns were answering specific questions about Who God is and what He did. The creeds they came up with are very limited in scope and address these questions, not every theological question that was out there.

I don't know why I answer you..... you're such an obtuse idiot. The councils arose because of the false teachings in their respective times. This is why they sought to set forth "Who God is". [/quote]

There were multiple ideas going around about a lot of issues. Yet the creeds only addressed these certain issues.

(Really...now I am doubting how much you know about Church history. For example, a major issue during the Chalcedonian council was on the primacy (or lack thereof) of the Roman bishop. Leo's opinion on the nature(s) of Christ was important precisely because of this secondary issue.))

[quote author=christundivided]

Yes...the Catholic church has opposed SSM. I haven't seen anything ex cathedra from Rome, which would be the closest equivalent to the councils the RCC has today. In other words, it's not to that level for them.

Idiot. It is part of the official position of the Roman Catholic church.... Such doctrine is set form from "Rome" itself. Maybe you read a little about Gilles Bernheim.[/quote]

Do you not know the difference in "dogma", "truths", "teachings" and  "doctrine" when it comes to the RCC? (Hint: The creeds are dogmatic.)

 

[OZZY]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-marriage-act-provision/

So since the SCOUS ruling God can't find Ten righteous men in the USA? Umm didn't know they had that must influence !

 

[brianb]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-marriage-act-provision/

So since the SCOUS ruling God can't find Ten righteous men in the USA? Umm didn't know they had that must influence !

I see where you're going with that. I think there are more than 10 righteous in the United States. The question is what are they doing? The effectual, fervent pray of a righteous man availeth much. Maybe we are doing too much protesting and not enough praying.

 

[Castor Muscular]

 

[Izdaari]

And a quick note on the SCOTUS striking down California's Prop. 8:

They made no ruling on the merits of it, but declined to do so on the basis that its supporters (who were private supporters, not the state AG, who would not defend it) had no standing.

So, on that no Sodom and Gomorrah preference from our SCOTUS, just the standard technical legal stuff.  :-*

 

[graceandtruth]

Thanks for the face palm...I needed a double!

Do you join the fair minded people in our culture....the Paul's in my sig line.....who bemoan the fact that we aren't more like the old USSR or modern day Cuba....where everyone shares everything....but the only thing left to share is poverty?

Cheer up....we're headed in that direction.....add a little socialism a.k.a. social justice to a little gay rights a.k.a. Acceptance of Sodomy and Paradise is just around the corner......

I know this is a little off topic but.....

Why is the conduct Scripture teaches is Christian duty throughout Scripture being called "social justice" and painted as evil?  I'm just wondering.

"Social Justice" has a lot of meanings.

The Marxist meaning:

Justice is when you are punished for stealing money.
Social Justice is when you are punished for earning money.

Succinct and true!

I do not see any claim by Jews that their having to leave the corners of their fields, allow people to glean their fields, or leave a forgotten sheave in the field for the poor classed as "Punishment for earning money".

I do not see any claim by the Jews that redeeming their kinsman who got themselves in debt was "Punishment for earning money".

I do not see anyone claiming that our being forgiven because of Jesus' death in our place is "Punishment for doing right".

So why is grace for us that cost Jesus His life okay but grace for others that cost us money sinful?

Now that you have a proper context let me repeat the question:  Why is the conduct Scripture teaches is Christian duty throughout Scripture being called "social justice" and painted as evil?  I'm just wondering.