Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage

[NaTaS+ 958]

Opposition to anything involving loving people of the same sex is EXTREMELY CLEAR in the Bible.

 

 

So it was mentioned in a book that was rewritten thousands of times by people we will never know and it was supposedly blessed by some invisible creature in the sky? Yup. totally trumps science.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Opposition to anything involving loving people of the same sex is EXTREMELY CLEAR in the Bible. Anytime something is mentioned in the Bible in both testaments, and have words oriented with them all over the Bible as much as marriage and it's sanctity between man and woman, it's a founding belief. From being gay, to being in a relationship with another homosexual, to being "married" to one.

 

From the book of Genesis, the creation of mankind where God creates a woman because he doesn't like man sleeping by himself -- Can't recall the verse, it's somewhere in Genesis Ch.2, and I am positive he uses the term "woman" to sleep with the man. To all the mentions of MAN AND WOMEN in marriage, and nothing more, in Ephesians, Romans, Corinthians, Peter, etc, it's everywhere in the Bible, idk how you can't consider it contradicting to a founding belief if the Bible mentions the sanctity of marriage so much.

I guess we are back to square one now, aren't we? I'll just repeat what I've already said.

 

1. It is not a FOUNDING principal of the Bible, but kindness and acceptance is.

2. Just because the Bible is against it doesn't mean it wants governments to make laws enforcing it.

3. GOD decides who is going where after death, not a politician.

4. Leviticus should never be cited because it is not an accurate representation of the Bible's values.

 

That's all I have been saying the entire time, and for some reason you and Mav still end up at "the Bible is against it!" There's more to it than just saying that the Bible believes gay marriage is a sin.

Edited May 11, 2012 by WindyCitySports

[Piggly Wiggly 960]

So it was mentioned in a book that was rewritten thousands of times by people we will never know and it was supposedly blessed by some invisible creature in the sky? Yup. totally trumps science.

 

Affirmative.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

So it was mentioned in a book that was rewritten thousands of times by people we will never know and it was supposedly blessed by some invisible creature in the sky? Yup. totally trumps science.

 

It's called faith. And it's a lot more legitimate then you are making it out to be.

 

I guess we are back to square one now, aren't we? I'll just repeat what I've already said.

 

1. It is not a FOUNDING principal of the Bible, but kindness and acceptance is.

 

If what you are doing is against the idea of man and woman being married, then it is against a founding principal, which is a problem.

 

Because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we can't love him (or her) or pray for him (her) that's true. But bottom line is homosexuality is a sin, and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible, through cleansing. But there is a HUGE difference between being kind to someone who lives a complete life of sin, and acknowledging and essentially encouraging them to continue living that way, which you would be doing by being OK with homosexuals being married.

 

That's like knowing an alcoholic, telling them they are sinning by being an alcoholic, but then letting him buy alcohol without stopping them.

 

2. Just because the Bible is against it doesn't mean it wants governments to make laws enforcing it.

 

Fair enough, but because it is against the Bible, a Christian should be all for the government enforcing it. Since it's against what a Christian would/should believe.

 

3. GOD decides who is going where after death, not a politician.

 

I'm failing to see the corrolation here. Does the Bible say being a homosexual mean you are going to hell? So I guess if you are a homosexual you are going to hell.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

It's black and white. Period, there is no gray area here. It's not me saying so and so is living bad (I have no right to say that because I myself curse on occasion and get drunk on occasion, but I repent, and I try to change) it's what the Bible, God's book says.

 

4. Leviticus should never be cited because it is not an accurate representation of the Bible's values.

 

Where have I ever quoted Leviticus?

 

But while we are at it, there is no such thing as a book in the Bible that isn't a good representation of values. There are some that apply more today since Jesus already died, but every book is in the Bible is complete.

 

That's all I have been saying the entire time, and for some reason you and Mav still end up at "the Bible is against it!" There's more to it than just saying that the Bible believes gay marriage is a sin.

 

No there isn't.

 

Is the Bible, God's holy book against it?

 

Yes.

 

So then it and anything that encourages it is wrong. It's literally a black and white thing, no gray areas.

[WindyCitySports 407]

If what you are doing is against the idea of man and woman being married, then it is against a founding principal, which is a problem.

 

Because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we can't love him (or her) or pray for him (her) that's true. But bottom line is homosexuality is a sin, and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible, through cleansing. But there is a HUGE difference between being kind to someone who lives a complete life of sin, and acknowledging and essentially encouraging them to continue living that way, which you would be doing by being OK with homosexuals being married.

 

That's like knowing an alcoholic, telling them they are sinning by being an alcoholic, but then letting him buy alcohol without stopping them.

I have no problem, like I already mentioned in this thread, with you shaking your head at homosexuals. You are free to confront them if you'd would like, and praying for them is great. That DOES NOT mean that making a law against their activity is right.

 

And you definitely should confront an alcoholic about their alcoholism. But would you support the government getting involved and banning people from drinking because it is a sin?

 

 

I'm failing to see the corrolation here. Does the Bible say being a homosexual mean you are going to hell? So I guess if you are a homosexual you are going to hell.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

It's black and white. Period, there is no gray area here. It's not me saying so and so is living bad (I have no right to say that because I myself curse on occasion and get drunk on occasion, but I repent, and I try to change) it's what the Bible, God's book says.

Meh, it says that sinners are going to hell unless they repent. And you really don't need to quote a Bible passage proving that the Bible is against gay marriage. I am aware that that is a black and white issue. However, dealing with that is more complicated. Did the Bible really want governments to enforce that, or should we leave it alone and let God decide in the end? Also, I strongly recommend that you think about John 7:53. Jesus told those who were punishing a sinner that they were not fit to judge until they were perfect. All of that is without mentioning our country's foundation that Chirch and State should be separate.

 

Where have I ever quoted Leviticus?

 

But while we are at it, there is no such thing as a book in the Bible that isn't a good representation of values. There are some that apply more today since Jesus already died, but every book is in the Bible is complete.

 

Someone else quoted Leviticus. I was just highlighting the main points that I have made so far.

[Thanatos 2,847]

If what you are doing is against the idea of man and woman being married, then it is against a founding principal, which is a problem.

 

Because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we can't love him (or her) or pray for him (her) that's true. But bottom line is homosexuality is a sin, and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible, through cleansing. But there is a HUGE difference between being kind to someone who lives a complete life of sin, and acknowledging and essentially encouraging them to continue living that way, which you would be doing by being OK with homosexuals being married.

 

That's like knowing an alcoholic, telling them they are sinning by being an alcoholic, but then letting him buy alcohol without stopping them.

 

The sin of adultery would also be against the founding principle of marriage. So would any sex outside of marriage. Should Christians then press the US government to pass laws against both of them?

 

As a Christian, I don't want the government passing laws based solely off of Christianity. If there's another argument that supports it and Christianity agrees with it, coolio. Otherwise, what you have here, is an interpretation of the Bible by men *who are not trained in so interpreting it* in order to make laws based on this interpretation. You do not see the problem here? I agree the Bible is 100% against homosexuality, but if you start letting the government make laws based on the Bible, where are you going to stop? I don't trust a politician to be able to look at the Bible and be able to distinguish between the laws in Leviticus that were meant specifically for the Israelites, and the laws that are meant for Christians. You're setting a very bad precedent if you deny homosexuals the ability to marry on the basis that the Bible forbids it, and only on that basis.

 

Fair enough, but because it is against the Bible, a Christian should be all for the government enforcing it. Since it's against what a Christian would/should believe.

 

No. If that's the only reason, then a) it breaks separation of church and state, and b) sets a dangerous precedent as stated earlier.

 

I'm failing to see the corrolation here. Does the Bible say being a homosexual mean you are going to hell? So I guess if you are a homosexual you are going to hell.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

It's black and white. Period, there is no gray area here. It's not me saying so and so is living bad (I have no right to say that because I myself curse on occasion and get drunk on occasion, but I repent, and I try to change) it's what the Bible, God's book says.

 

Don't take it out of context:

 

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

The point of the passage is not that homosexuals are going to hell. The point of the passage is that anyone without Jesus is going to hell. I mean, the greedy are going to hell? I'm pretty sure everyone has been guilty of that at some point. Should we pass a law against greed? Pretty much our entire economy is based on the fact that most people are greedy.

 

A reviler is someone who talks bad about other people. So basically every politician ever elected, lol. If you single out a sin here, you're missing the point of the passage. Furthermore, if you single out a sin and say that the government should pass a law against it, then in order to be consistent, the government should pass laws against every sin listed in the Bible.

 

No there isn't.

 

Is the Bible, God's holy book against it?

 

Yes.

 

So then it and anything that encourages it is wrong. It's literally a black and white thing, no gray areas.

 

Morally wrong, yes. But having a politician decide what is legally allowable based on their interpretation of the Bible? That starts a horrible precedent.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Duck Fallas 209]

David Koresh or Warren Jeffs or Marshall Applewhite or Joseph Smith or Muhammad? EVERY single one of them claim to have been inspired by 'god', what makes them wrong and Paul and the other writers of the Bible right? Not a single one of them can be proven to be wrong about what they preached.

 

I grew up in the church, studied and prayed and fervently believed 100% of the crap I was taught all of those years. I know all about the "New Covenant" and Jesus and what not, but that does not invalidate my (much earlier) statement that Christians tend to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

[Duck Fallas 209]

But...but...that was all before Jesus...

 

/sarcasm

[Thanatos 2,847]

David Koresh or Warren Jeffs or Marshall Applewhite or Joseph Smith or Muhammad? EVERY single one of them claim to have been inspired by 'god', what makes them wrong and Paul and the other writers of the Bible right? Not a single one of them can be proven to be wrong about what they preached.

 

I grew up in the church, studied and prayed and fervently believed 100% of the crap I was taught all of those years. I know all about the "New Covenant" and Jesus and what not, but that does not invalidate my (much earlier) statement that Christians tend to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept.

 

I'm not gonna go through and pick apart each one of those cults and/or religions that you named, but basically, there's a huge difference between one guy setting down all of a religion's doctrine and 40+ guys doing it over 1600 years and yet all remaining internally consistent.

 

Not everything that is written in the Bible is something that we're supposed to follow. If you can't see the difference between history that is kept in the Bible in order to shed light on the Jews, the culture of Jesus' day, and the moral laws that are applicable throughout the Bible, it just proves my earlier point: I don't want someone who isn't trained in interpreting the Bible to be making laws off of it. Precisely because of this, and because of the kind of picture Phail posted.

 

God specifically revokes the idea of not eating certain kinds of animal meat in the New Testament.

 

He specifically revokes the idea of not being able to do anything on the Sabbath, although I still think keeping it holy applies. I wouldn't want a politician deciding what I can and can't do on Saturday/Sunday.

 

He revokes most of the rest of the civil/ceremonial laws by applying them to Israel, not to Christians.

 

Many of those laws were about separating Israel from the nations around them- the bans against shaving and tatooing your skin in celebration of the dead, for example, were done in the context, generally, of pagan worship at the time. People were supposed to look at them and go "Wow, these guys are different. Why?"

 

Also, Ephesians 5:4 is about coarse talk or crude jesting, not cursing. I always took that to mean dirty jokes. Just because society says a 4-letter word is wrong doesn't make it morally wrong to say that word. But again- a person who doesn't understand the Bible trying to make laws off of it would be disastrous.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

The sin of adultery would also be against the founding principle of marriage. So would any sex outside of marriage. Should Christians then press the US government to pass laws against both of them?

 

How is the sin of adultery against the principle of marriage? You get married, you can have all the sex you want. I don't get it.

 

Like I have said 2 million times. I would never force my religion on anyone else. But at the same time, if the government did, it wouldn't bother me, and I would encourage and support it, but it's not like im sitting here going PLEASE DO IT!! or STOP THOSE HOMOSEXUALS.

 

As a Christian, I don't want the government passing laws based solely off of Christianity. If there's another argument that supports it and Christianity agrees with it, coolio. Otherwise, what you have here, is an interpretation of the Bible by men *who are not trained in so interpreting it* in order to make laws based on this interpretation. You do not see the problem here? I agree the Bible is 100% against homosexuality, but if you start letting the government make laws based on the Bible, where are you going to stop? I don't trust a politician to be able to look at the Bible and be able to distinguish between the laws in Leviticus that were meant specifically for the Israelites, and the laws that are meant for Christians. You're setting a very bad precedent if you deny homosexuals the ability to marry on the basis that the Bible forbids it, and only on that basis.

 

My moral views and standards are based on the Bible and my religion. That's really all I can say about that, what the government does to control the people, it is what it is. The Bible says that the only way for someone to accept has to be sincere and from the heart. What would the government accomplish by forcing Chrisitan laws on non Christians?

 

No. If that's the only reason, then a) it breaks separation of church and state, and b) sets a dangerous precedent as stated earlier.

 

Well, being that I am a Christian, I wouldn't really have a problem with the Church and the State being one. I really wouldn't. But like I said, it's MY OPINION.

 

Don't take it out of context:

 

The point of the passage is not that homosexuals are going to hell. The point of the passage is that anyone without Jesus is going to hell. I mean, the greedy are going to hell? I'm pretty sure everyone has been guilty of that at some point. Should we pass a law against greed? Pretty much our entire economy is based on the fact that most people are greedy.

 

A reviler is someone who talks bad about other people. So basically every politician ever elected, lol. If you single out a sin here, you're missing the point of the passage. Furthermore, if you single out a sin and say that the government should pass a law against it, then in order to be consistent, the government should pass laws against every sin listed in the Bible.

 

The Book of Corinthians was Paul, formerly Saul writing to Corinthian Churches in Greece, essentially. Everything he says to them pertains to every Christian yesterday, tomorrow, forever.

 

The ENTIRE New Testament is based on the idea that if you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell so there is really no way for me to take it out of context. He was pointing out to Christians sins that are committed that if not repented could lead to going to hell. But being as we are currently talking about homosexual marriage, I bolded that part of the verse. That's not taking it out of context considering the fact I had the whole verse.

 

Now, if Christians can go to hell for not repenting for committing these sins, how are non Christians, or people who don't agree with them saying. But if that verse isn't good enough for you. The Book of Romans, which is an entire book for rules to live goes in details about this.

 

It literally is black and white, if you are a homosexual, or if you support it, then you cant be a Christian. It doesn't work. Any deviation from God's original plan for sex between a married man and woman is still a sin in God's eyes. And if you are, then you need to return to your Christian values, or repent and move on from it-- or at least try. It's not me being judgmental or whatever, it's says so in God's holy book itself.

 

Morally wrong, yes. But having a politician decide what is legally allowable based on their interpretation of the Bible? That starts a horrible precedent.

 

Like I said, being that this is my religion, almost my whole life, it is my morality. So it wouldn't matter to me.

 

 

David Koresh or Warren Jeffs or Marshall Applewhite or Joseph Smith or Muhammad? EVERY single one of them claim to have been inspired by 'god', what makes them wrong and Paul and the other writers of the Bible right? Not a single one of them can be proven to be wrong about what they preached.

 

Comparing Paul to any of these prophets including Muhammad isn't a fair one. Because Muhammad claims to be Allah's one prophet. Whereas Paul was preaching to other Christians what Jesus, a part of the trinity, the mouth of God on the earth had taught him and many other prophets while he was here. The only Christian who wrote in the New Testament that did not get what he wrote from Jesus' teaching was John when he wrote Revelations.

 

Comparing Jesus to Muhammad and all the other prophet makes more sense because they all claimed to be getting their words directly from God. As did Jesus. But of all of these people, Jesus was the only one who said that he wasn't just preaching the word from some God in heaven, he was the word he was preaching and he was a part of God himself.

[Thanatos 2,847]

How is the sin of adultery against the principle of marriage? You get married, you can have all the sex you want. I don't get it.

 

The principle of marriage is one man and one woman. Adultery is... not about one man and one woman. That's kinda the definition.

 

Like I have said 2 million times. I would never force my religion on anyone else. But at the same time, if the government did, it wouldn't bother me, and I would encourage and support it, but it's not like im sitting here going PLEASE DO IT!! or STOP THOSE HOMOSEXUALS.

 

And if the government was run by Muslims who think the same thing about their religion as you do about yours?

 

My moral views and standards are based on the Bible and my religion. That's really all I can say about that, what the government does to control the people, it is what it is. The Bible says that the only way for someone to accept has to be sincere and from the heart. What would the government accomplish by forcing Chrisitan laws on non Christians?

 

....

....

 

I don't get it. You completely contradict yourself here.

 

Well, being that I am a Christian, I wouldn't really have a problem with the Church and the State being one. I really wouldn't. But like I said, it's MY OPINION.

 

The entire reason America was founded was because the Church and State were one in England- and they were Christian! We just didn't want a specific brand of Christianity to be forced on everyone! You should most definitely have a problem with Church and State being one as a Christian, because you are giving politicians leave to enforce their denomination on you!

 

The Book of Corinthians was Paul, formerly Saul writing to Corinthian Churches in Greece, essentially. Everything he says to them pertains to every Christian yesterday, tomorrow, forever.

 

The ENTIRE New Testament is based on the idea that if you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell so there is really no way for me to take it out of context. He was pointing out to Christians sins that are committed that if not repented could lead to going to hell. But being as we are currently talking about homosexual marriage, I bolded that part of the verse. That's not taking it out of context considering the fact I had the whole verse.

 

Wait, what? A Christian who is greedy who doesn't repent of that sin prior to death would go to hell?

 

Yes, it was taking it out of context. Merely because you have the entire verse doesn't mean you have the context of the passage- keep in mind, the verses were not put there until much, much later. You can't set an arbitrary number of verses or chapters, either, you just need to look at the surrounding passage. In this case, Paul makes his point very clear one more verse down.

 

He was doing nothing of the sort. He was pointing out merely that we were all sinners, unredeemed, prior to accepting Christ. He's not giving an exhaustive list of sins, obviously, just making a point. To expand this verse to say that these sins are somehow worse than all others is stretching things. To say the least. I mean, murder isn't even in this list. So someone can be greedy and not repent of it, and they'll go to hell, but someone can murder someone else, not repent of it, and they're going to Heaven?

 

Now, if Christians can go to hell for not repenting for committing these sins, how are non Christians, or people who don't agree with them saying. But if that verse isn't good enough for you. The Book of Romans, which is an entire book for rules to live goes in details about this.

 

Christians cannot go to hell. Period. That idea is contrary to the entirety of the New Testament. If a person is truly a Christian, they will not to go to hell. I'm not even sure what denomination would teach that. I don't think Catholics even teach that.

 

Not sure what you mean by the second sentence.

 

It literally is black and white, if you are a homosexual, or if you support it, then you cant be a Christian. It doesn't work. Any deviation from God's original plan for sex between a married man and woman is still a sin in God's eyes. And if you are, then you need to return to your Christian values, or repent and move on from it-- or at least try. It's not me being judgmental or whatever, it's says so in God's holy book itself.

 

Bull. Someone can be a homosexual and be a Christian. I think, eventually, they would be convicted of sin if they were truly a Christian, but a new believer? Completely possible. I know two people who are in this situation. You are saying that a homosexual must be converted away from homosexuality prior to becoming a Christian. First, you worry about bringing someone to Christ, *then* you worry about changing old habits. You don't say, "Oh well, you guys are homosexuals, so I can't really witness to you." Paul says, "Such were some of you." Which do you think is more likely, that they changed their ways after coming to Christ, or before? According to your logic, someone can't be greedy and be a Christian. Yes, they can. We are sinners just like everyone else.

 

Like I said, being that this is my religion, almost my whole life, it is my morality. So it wouldn't matter to me.

 

It should. You're letting a politician decide which form of Christianity should rule the country. Pretty sure you'd have a problem with it if it was a denomination you weren't a part of.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

First of all, sorry if some of my posts havent been making sense. I was using my phone cause I wasn’t at the crib to respond to all these. Lol.

 

The principle of marriage is one man and one woman.

That’s what I was saying the whole time, probably didn’t come out right, but it is what I’ve been saying.

 

And if the government was run by Muslims who think the same thing about their religion as you do about yours?

Then I leave. Unless of course if I am a missionary or something.

 

The entire reason America was founded was because the Church and State were one in England- and they were Christian! We just didn't want a specific brand of Christianity to be forced on everyone! You should most definitely have a problem with Church and State being one as a Christian, because you are giving politicians leave to enforce their denomination on you!

 

Already mentioned this. If the rules are completely against my beliefs, and the law is literally, follow our rules or live somewhere else, I’ll leave. My parents did the same thing in Africa. I’d do the same here.

 

Wait, what? A Christian who is greedy who doesn't repent of that sin prior to death would go to hell?

 

There’s a difference between committing a sin, knowing it’s wrong, and committing a sin and not caring, or even worse committing a sin, knowing it's wrong, and living through that sin as if it's no big deal. If you are a Christian, and you are committing a sin, and you know it’s wrong, and you keep doing it without a care or even an attempt to put a limit or a halt to it, then are you or were you really ever a Christian to begin with?

 

A Christian follows the will of God. Obviously being that we are human, and humans make mistakes, rightfully so, we will sin. But to pray and to ask for forgiveness, or to at least pray and confess to God that you acknowledge that you sin, and try to make a change is what Christians do, not sit in it and continue committing without a care. (1 John 1:9)

 

Now, to commit a sin, and then die before you can pray about it, or to forget to pray about the fat that you just committed a sin and die, is something completely different. Being that God is the only one that can judge us, it would be completely up to him. But the Bible has made it very clear numerous times, you’re a Christian, you sin, you pray and ask for repentance, or to at least let Go know you acknowledge you made/are making a mistake, you try to make a change, you move on.

When Paul was writing to the Romans in the book of Romans calling out the Christians of that country, he called them out on their sins and told them to repent. Same with when he wrote to the Corinthians we are no different than those Romans, or Corinthians, or any Christian he wrote to for that matter.

 

Yes, it was taking it out of context. Merely because you have the entire verse doesn't mean you have the context of the passage- keep in mind, the verses were not put there until much, much later. You can't set an arbitrary number of verses or chapters, either, you just need to look at the surrounding passage. In this case, Paul makes his point very clear one more verse down.

 

He was doing nothing of the sort. He was pointing out merely that we were all sinners, unredeemed, prior to accepting Christ. He's not giving an exhaustive list of sins, obviously, just making a point. To expand this verse to say that these sins are somehow worse than all others is stretching things. To say the least. I mean, murder isn't even in this list. So someone can be greedy and not repent of it, and they'll go to hell, but someone can murder someone else, not repent of it, and they're going to Heaven?

 

It doesn’t matter, the entire verse is telling us how we should live our lives, he (Paul) was writing the book to a CHURCH. These people (his audience) were CHRISITANS who were not living up to how they were supposed to. He was writing to them to let them know that they were falling off track and they needed to get back on it.

 

All, or at least all the books that my Pastors have taught me about from Paul’s books were essentially letters to the churches or to Christians, to encourage some, like Philippians (Phil 1:27–30; 4:4), or preaching to them, like Romans ( Romans 1:7) and Corinthians (1 Corin 3:3) among others.

 

 

Christians cannot go to hell. Period. That idea is contrary to the entirety of the New Testament. If a person is truly a Christian, they will not to go to hell. I'm not even sure what denomination would teach that. I don't think Catholics even teach that.

 

Of course a Christian cannot go to hell, but not everyone who says they are a Christian are Christians. You can’t say you are a Christian and then turn around and constantly do sinful things with almost no sign of repentance. That was Paul’s message in the book of Corinthians to the Corinthian churches who were becoming more worldly and were doing unholy things.

 

But at the end of the day, God is the judge, he is the decision maker as to who is sincere and who isn’t. All im saying is the Bible is clear on this matter as well.

 

Bull. Someone can be a homosexual and be a Christian. I think, eventually, they would be convicted of sin if they were truly a Christian, but a new believer? Completely possible. I know two people who are in this situation. You are saying that a homosexual must be converted away from homosexuality prior to becoming a Christian. First, you worry about bringing someone to Christ, *then* you worry about changing old habits. You don't say, "Oh well, you guys are homosexuals, so I can't really witness to you." Paul says, "Such were some of you." Which do you think is more likely, that they changed their ways after coming to Christ, or before? According to your logic, someone can't be greedy and be a Christian. Yes, they can. We are sinners just like everyone else.

 

It really doesn't matter. Regardless of how you look at it, being a homosexual and a Christian does not mix. There’s no way around it. If Paul writes to Christians saying they are committing a sin by taking part in homosexual behaviors among other things (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Then why would it be ok for Christians to be homosexual? The MOMENT you become a Christian, if you lived a homosexual lifestyle, it has to stop. Whether you were BEFORE being a Christian is irrelevant. So if we as Christians aren’t allowed to partake in it… Why would we be allowed to support others who do it?

 

Now, if you are a Christian and you stop being a homosexual, but there are times where you can’t help but revert to the way of the old, as Paul said, you pray, ask for forgiveness and ask that God will help you fight the feelings, and you move on.

 

It should. You're letting a politician decide which form of Christianity should rule the country. Pretty sure you'd have a problem with it if it was a denomination you weren't a part of.

Like I said, something like that would probably never happen here in the US. But if it was to happen… I have family in Europe, South America, and Asia, I’d move if I was somehow FORCED to live by things that are completely against my moral.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Paul also was a supporter of slavery and oppressing women.

 

Should those be brought back as well?

[blotsfan 2,112]

dmac's america, people! It would be a christian nation and if you have a different religious belief, you're best off leaving.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Paul also was a supporter of slavery and oppressing women.

 

Should those be brought back as well?

 

I'm not sure where you are getting your references from. So being that that's the case, and idk which verses would lead you to that conclusion, I'm not going to respond on something that I don't know. Off the top of my head though, Paul directly mentions slavery in two books in Philemon which is the one I know about, and one of the Timothy's which I have heard about but don't know his exact words, so I can't comment on that.

 

But with that being said, if you are referring to the book of Philemon, where Paul tells Onesimus a former slave of Philemon to return to Philemon, it isn't Paul being ok with people being slaves. It's Paul telling Philemon to accept Onesimus as a brother.

 

dmac's america, people! It would be a christian nation and if you have a different religious belief, you're best off leaving.

 

I'm getting tired of responding to comments like this.

 

And I'm not saying, he should let his religious views guide his decisions as a leader, someone's faith should always be personal first, and should never change the way he treats individuals.

I have already said that I would never force my religion on others. As well as I have said nor should Obama.

I absolutely would not be fine with it being legal. Had I a saying in the matter, i'd do whatever I could as long as it doesn't clash with any other of my religious beliefs to make sure it doesn't happen.

 

But how I feel about it doesn't matter because my thoughts are irrelevant to anybody outside of myself, other Christians (if they care) or anybody else who cares. Really.

I'm not a person in power nor would I ever want to be, at least not in charge of a city/country/etc.

 

But should I aspire to be, i'd let everyone know where I stand, what i'd support and what I'd be for and against, and that's that. If they dont like it, then don't vote for me. That's really all to it.

 

But if you are going to be in position of power, claim to be a Christian, then make a move -a personal one at that- that goes against what you are supposed to believe, maybe you are following the wrong religion?

Like I have said 2 million times. I would never force my religion on anyone else. But at the same time, if the government did, it wouldn't bother me, and I would encourage and support it as long as it isn't a believe or gtfo type of deal. It's not like im sitting here going PLEASE DO IT!! or STOP THOSE HOMOSEXUALS.

 

 

 

My moral views and standards are based on the Bible and my religion. That's really all I can say about that, what the government does to control the people, it is what it is. The Bible says that the only way for someone to accept has to be sincere and from the heart. What would the government accomplish by forcing Chrisitan laws on non Christians?

 

 

Well, being that I am a Christian, I wouldn't really have a problem with the Church and the State being one. I really wouldn't. But like I said, it's MY OPINION.

 

Like I said, being that this is my religion, almost my whole life, it is my morality. So it wouldn't matter to me.

First of all, sorry if some of my posts havent been making sense. I was using my phone cause I wasn’t at the crib to respond to all these. Lol.

 

That’s what I was saying the whole time, probably didn’t come out right, but it is what I’ve been saying.

 

Then I leave. Unless of course if I am a missionary or something.

 

Already mentioned this. If the rules are completely against my beliefs, and the law is literally, follow our rules or live somewhere else, I’ll leave. My parents did the same thing in Africa. I’d do the same here.

 

Like I said, something like that would probably never happen here in the US. But if it was to happen… I have family in Europe, South America, and Asia, I’d move if I was somehow FORCED to live by things that are completely against my moral.

 

How back words would it be for me to say I would never force my religion on others, and then add that if someone else's religion was ever to be forced on me I would leave... But then as a leader myself... Force my religion on others?

 

Even though I have been saying since the beginning that I would never force my religion on others?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Timothy 6:1 - Paul in a letter to Timothy exclaims that all slaves must be obedient to their masters and realize that their (the masters) cause is honorable

 

Titus 2:9 - In a letter, Paul tells Titus that all servants must remain obedient, and to please them in everything they do

 

I understand that some translate the original texts for the above to refer to a man and wife depending on which version you read.

 

If you are in that boat, it is still relevant being that I don't think you want us to start taking rights away from women.

 

And yes, Paul tells Philemon to treat him as more than a slave... But he still returned him to Philemon's custody. Not exactly something an anti-slavery individual would do, is it?

 

If Paul was against slavery, why does he return Onesimus to Philemon's custody? Does that not establish ownership of one human being over another?

[BwareDWare94 723]

Who said I'm passing judgement?

 

Me passing judgement would be saying that Obama isn't a Christian because he supports gay marriages. But that isn't what I said.

 

And I'm not saying, he should let his religious views guide his decisions as a leader, someone's faith should always be personal first, and should never change the way he treats individuals.

 

I am 200% against anything to do with homosexuality, but I go to a liberal arts college and have numerous homosexual peers, and I don't treat them with any less respect then I do anybody else as long as it doesn't get between me and my religion, admittedly, I am very good friends with 2 gays and 3 lesbians, but they all know where I stand. Which is why I said "it's a sad day when a Christian comes out and makes a statement saying he supports gay marriage." Not "it's a sad day when the President of the United States comes out and makes a statement saying he personally supports gay marriage." The position of the person doesn't matter.

 

Repped for clarifying your point of view. It's just too bad it's outdated. You don't get to decide who can and can't marry, and marriage isn't an entirely Christian tradition.

 

Also, I think God cares more about how we treat one another than how well we followed an outdated rule book.

Edited May 11, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[BwareDWare94 723]

[Maverick 791]

Winners of this thread:

GA_Eagle

Thanatos

blots

WindyCity

Phail

 

Losers of this thread:

DMac (Agree with you on everything you've ever said except Blake Griffin and religion)

Mav

 

Shocker. You've developed some vendetta against me...

 

And I didn't say that scientists were wrong, but generally the Bible and science clash a lot. Evolution = Science

[Maverick 791]

How exactly am I a loser in this thread? I've posted three times, the first two receiving plenty of people who agree and the third one wasn't the best but I don't think that's worthy to deem me a loser lol.

 

I state that I don't think religion should be in the government and our nation was built upon that principle, hence the reason they fled Britain...so...

[blotsfan 2,112]

And then you said that all of science was a conspiracy against God. If I were to say in one thread that Tom Brady is a good qb, Washington overpaid for Albert Haynesworth, and that Ryan Fitzpatrick was going to throw for 7000 yards next year, which do you think people would focus on, my two reasonable (albiet easy) points, or the one that was completely stupid?

[Thanatos 2,847]

Timothy 6:1 - Paul in a letter to Timothy exclaims that all slaves must be obedient to their masters and realize that their (the masters) cause is honorable

 

Titus 2:9 - In a letter, Paul tells Titus that all servants must remain obedient, and to please them in everything they do

 

I understand that some translate the original texts for the above to refer to a man and wife depending on which version you read.

 

If you are in that boat, it is still relevant being that I don't think you want us to start taking rights away from women.

 

And yes, Paul tells Philemon to treat him as more than a slave... But he still returned him to Philemon's custody. Not exactly something an anti-slavery individual would do, is it?

 

If Paul was against slavery, why does he return Onesimus to Philemon's custody? Does that not establish ownership of one human being over another?

 

Saying Paul was for slavery is taking those passages and giving them an interpretation that is never meant.

 

The idea here was that *if* you were a slave, then you do what glorifies God the most in the position that you find yourself in. It's not a statement for or against slavery.

[oochymp 2,393]

Timothy 6:1 - Paul in a letter to Timothy exclaims that all slaves must be obedient to their masters and realize that their (the masters) cause is honorable

 

Titus 2:9 - In a letter, Paul tells Titus that all servants must remain obedient, and to please them in everything they do

 

I understand that some translate the original texts for the above to refer to a man and wife depending on which version you read.

 

If you are in that boat, it is still relevant being that I don't think you want us to start taking rights away from women.

 

And yes, Paul tells Philemon to treat him as more than a slave... But he still returned him to Philemon's custody. Not exactly something an anti-slavery individual would do, is it?

 

If Paul was against slavery, why does he return Onesimus to Philemon's custody? Does that not establish ownership of one human being over another?

Philemon 1:8-21

"8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

 

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

 

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask."

 

 

that passage is about 2/3 of the book, and the only really relevant part to slavery, please tell me how that in any way supports slavery

[WindyCitySports 407]

I just want to take a moment to give DMac credit in this debate. It's basically been him vs. all of us and he's done a nice job of responding to all of us (despite his flawed/hypocritical arguments).

 

That being said, the bottom line is that we aren't a theocracy and the government is not here to tell people that they can't sin. As a practicing Catholic, I hold my belief (and I'm a minority within my Church) that what you do is between you and GOD in the end, and GOD will make decisions about people in the end. I also love how many of us have challenged the idea that you have to be anti-religion to be pro-gay marriage. I often feel isolated when I'm talking about this with my fiends because the anti-gay friends are religious and the pro-gay friends are atheist. Nice to know that there are others out there who are religious and still justify a pro-gay marriage position.