| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
21 Feb 2004 08:48:47 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The Camel's Nose |
On 21 Feb 2004 17:57:00 -0800, "Marie"/"Cleopatra" "Phaedra"
"Bernadette" [ etc., etc., etc. ... YAWNnnnnnn ] wrote:
Nick <mysteriox9000@aol.computron> wrote:
Actually, technically speaking, marriage hasn't *yet* been
defined as legally between only one man and one woman,
at least not in all of the states. That's why there was all the
hub-bub in the Massachusetts legislature recently, you see.
To put it simply, it is only a *religious* tradition that marriage
is for heterosexual couples only. In the civil, secular and
non-religious sense, marriage is simply a legal contract
between two consenting adult individuals that provides
certain legal rights upon said individuals, such as hospital
visitation rights and other such benefits. So, since what
homosexuals are trying to obtain is secular, non-religious
marriage and the rights that come with it, it would seem the
simplest course would be for our secular government to allow
it, since matters of church and state are to be entirely separate,
of course. If independent churches/temples/mosques/etc.
refuse to acknowledge such secular gay marriages, that is
perfectly within their rights, but they have no right to dictate
what the secular law of our country may or may not allow.
Precisely. And if they WERE to refuse to acknowledge secular
same-sex mariiages, then the would ALSO have to refuse to
acknowledge all secular OPPOSITE-sex marriage **too** -- or
be clearly recognized as hypocritical.
In other words, I feel that there should be secular marriage,
which is open to all and which is where the important legal
rights originate, as well as religious marriage, which is only
ceremonial in nature and which can be withheld from certain
couples at the personal discretion of the church/temple/
mosque/etc. This would allow gays to marry and would
preserve the traditional, ceremonial and religious marriage
from any unwanted changes. Please read and consider
this before replying. Thank you.
_____________________________
It would appear to me that the weakness in your argument
resides in the fact that almost all our laws find their base in our
Judeo/Christian heritage, and marriage is no exception. The religious
tradition which dictates that only men can marry women is so
intertwined with marriage as an institution so as to have effectively
secularized that requirement.
You WISH!! Anything can make reasonable adaptations as
society continues to outgrow its silly and petty hangups..
Similarly, laws against lying under oath, polygamy, incest,
bestiality, going nude in public, ...
ROTFL!!!!! Been to ONTARIO lately? Girls/women are free
to go topless there to their heart's content, in public, and that will
probably soon be true throughout Canada. (Too bad they have so
few warm months up there, each year! :) ) Totally harmless!!
...urinating in public view, swearing in public...
LOL!!!! Guress you've been living in a cave, huh?
...and a whole host of others have their foundation wholly in
religion and cannot be otherwise argued.
Much of that is common sense. And some of it is ludicrous. That
"ludicrous" part is a major factor in why so many people are laughing
at "religionists" these days.
This is especially true of public decency laws. Is this in itself
an argument to abolish them, or to exempt those who say the
hell with them?
There's nothing indecent about same-sex marriage. Get real!
Nobody even attempts to make a secular case for these
types of laws, ...
If they are **laws**, then they ARE secular. We DO have
separation of church and state in this country, very thankfully!
...but neither do they attack them because they're religiously based.
Why, then, single out marriage for this class of argument? Might not
one just as easily make a similar case and ask, "Well, I'm not
religious and should thus be allowed to (insert the behavior)." As for
the civil rights aspect, one can make every bit as strong a case for
marrying ten women, or their mother, father, sister or brother as they
can for same sex marriage.
Not unless one or the other family members is the couple is
sterile. In which case, in the case of consenting people of legal
age, there'd be nothing wrong with it. As for multiple partners,
there'll always bee a very VALID argument against that. TWO
people in marriages yields a divorce rate of 50%+. And it clearly
would be much more difficult to make a marriage work with 3 or
more partners. The family courts would go into gridlock in no time.
And when those actions come before the courts, as they
inevitably will, a principle will have been established here
which will bite us all in the ***** big time.
Nah. Each situation will be evaluated on its own individual
merits and/or liabilities.
Further, I can not think of a law governing human conduct
in our culture which doesn't have its basis in the Ten Command-
ments in one way or another. Not one.
How about speeding?
Public drunkenness?
Spitting on the sidewalk?
...and a myriad of others.
And if a law WERE passed that prevented same-sex marriage,
*that* would have no such basis either.
And as I pointed out, we don't abolish, or ameliorate, their
application merely on that basis alone. And when you suggest this new
form of state-sanctioned civil ceremony as an acceptable alternative,
my reply to that is there isn't a thing the government gets its paws
into that it doesn't ultimately control with an iron fist.
Really??? The Bill of Rights cotains a HOST of guaranteed
*liberties.* Just how does it control LIBERTIES with an iron fist?
Same-sex marriage simply will be an additional liberty.
What would happen here is the state would soon tell those
marrying in religious ceremonies that these are not legal unions
recognized by the state.
Absurd! That would be a direct violation of the principle of
church and state. It'd never happen.
I guarantee that would happen, and also that those pushing in this
direction with homosexual, civil unions are biding their time on that
one as well. It's the next logical step from their point of view.
Now you're lying, since there is NO groundswell of support for any
of the more extreme things you've suggested. And no reason to
expect that there ever will be.
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
22 Feb 2004 03:47:05 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
news:403c0ddf.1368548@netnews.mchsi.com...
On 21 Feb 2004 17:57:00 -0800, "Marie"/"Cleopatra" "Phaedra"
"Bernadette" [ etc., etc., etc. ... YAWNnnnnnn ] wrote:
Nick <mysteriox9000@aol.computron> wrote:
Actually, technically speaking, marriage hasn't *yet* been
defined as legally between only one man and one woman,
at least not in all of the states. That's why there was all the
hub-bub in the Massachusetts legislature recently, you see.
To put it simply, it is only a *religious* tradition that marriage
is for heterosexual couples only. In the civil, secular and
non-religious sense, marriage is simply a legal contract
between two consenting adult individuals that provides
certain legal rights upon said individuals, such as hospital
visitation rights and other such benefits. So, since what
homosexuals are trying to obtain is secular, non-religious
marriage and the rights that come with it, it would seem the
simplest course would be for our secular government to allow
it, since matters of church and state are to be entirely separate,
of course. If independent churches/temples/mosques/etc.
refuse to acknowledge such secular gay marriages, that is
perfectly within their rights, but they have no right to dictate
what the secular law of our country may or may not allow.
Precisely. And if they WERE to refuse to acknowledge secular
same-sex mariiages, then the would ALSO have to refuse to
acknowledge all secular OPPOSITE-sex marriage **too** -- or
be clearly recognized as hypocritical.
In other words, I feel that there should be secular marriage,
which is open to all and which is where the important legal
rights originate, as well as religious marriage, which is only
ceremonial in nature and which can be withheld from certain
couples at the personal discretion of the church/temple/
mosque/etc. This would allow gays to marry and would
preserve the traditional, ceremonial and religious marriage
from any unwanted changes. Please read and consider
this before replying. Thank you.
_____________________________
It would appear to me that the weakness in your argument
resides in the fact that almost all our laws find their base in our
Judeo/Christian heritage, and marriage is no exception. The religious
tradition which dictates that only men can marry women is so
intertwined with marriage as an institution so as to have effectively
secularized that requirement.
You WISH!! Anything can make reasonable adaptations as
society continues to outgrow its silly and petty hangups..
Similarly, laws against lying under oath, polygamy, incest,
bestiality, going nude in public, ...
ROTFL!!!!! Been to ONTARIO lately? Girls/women are free
to go topless there to their heart's content, in public, and that will
probably soon be true throughout Canada. (Too bad they have so
few warm months up there, each year! :) ) Totally harmless!!
...urinating in public view, swearing in public...
LOL!!!! Guress you've been living in a cave, huh?
...and a whole host of others have their foundation wholly in
religion and cannot be otherwise argued.
Much of that is common sense. And some of it is ludicrous. That
"ludicrous" part is a major factor in why so many people are laughing
at "religionists" these days.
This is especially true of public decency laws. Is this in itself
an argument to abolish them, or to exempt those who say the
hell with them?
There's nothing indecent about same-sex marriage. Get real!
Nobody even attempts to make a secular case for these
types of laws, ...
If they are **laws**, then they ARE secular. We DO have
separation of church and state in this country, very thankfully!
...but neither do they attack them because they're religiously based.
Why, then, single out marriage for this class of argument? Might not
one just as easily make a similar case and ask, "Well, I'm not
religious and should thus be allowed to (insert the behavior)." As for
the civil rights aspect, one can make every bit as strong a case for
marrying ten women, or their mother, father, sister or brother as they
can for same sex marriage.
Not unless one or the other family members is the couple is
sterile. In which case, in the case of consenting people of legal
age, there'd be nothing wrong with it. As for multiple partners,
there'll always bee a very VALID argument against that. TWO
people in marriages yields a divorce rate of 50%+. And it clearly
would be much more difficult to make a marriage work with 3 or
more partners. The family courts would go into gridlock in no time.
And when those actions come before the courts, as they
inevitably will, a principle will have been established here
which will bite us all in the ***** big time.
Nah. Each situation will be evaluated on its own individual
merits and/or liabilities.
Further, I can not think of a law governing human conduct
in our culture which doesn't have its basis in the Ten Command-
ments in one way or another. Not one.
How about speeding?
Public drunkenness?
Spitting on the sidewalk?
...and a myriad of others.
And if a law WERE passed that prevented same-sex marriage,
*that* would have no such basis either.
And as I pointed out, we don't abolish, or ameliorate, their
application merely on that basis alone. And when you suggest this new
form of state-sanctioned civil ceremony as an acceptable alternative,
my reply to that is there isn't a thing the government gets its paws
into that it doesn't ultimately control with an iron fist.
Really??? The Bill of Rights cotains a HOST of guaranteed
*liberties.* Just how does it control LIBERTIES with an iron fist?
Same-sex marriage simply will be an additional liberty.
What would happen here is the state would soon tell those
marrying in religious ceremonies that these are not legal unions
recognized by the state.
Absurd! That would be a direct violation of the principle of
church and state. It'd never happen.
I guarantee that would happen, and also that those pushing in this
direction with homosexual, civil unions are biding their time on that
one as well. It's the next logical step from their point of view.
Now you're lying, since there is NO groundswell of support for any
of the more extreme things you've suggested. And no reason to
expect that there ever will be.
-- Craig Chilton
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality between
consenting adults, does this make it right? Whether governments consider it
a private matter or a public crime is something for which they must bear
responsibility. But each individual must decide for himself his own attitude
toward homosexuality. Lovers of God, truth and righteousness take the
position of the apostle Paul: "Let God be found true, though every man be
found a liar."-Rom. 3:4.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jacinthfish" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
22 Feb 2004 07:03:37 PM |
|
|
Homosexuality has been legalized by governments before. Just a little
question, what happened to each and every one of those governments in
common? Hint - None of them are around any more.
-jacinthfish
"rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:40387a98@news.comindico.com.au...
"Craig Chilton" < > wrote in message
news:403c0ddf.1368548@netnews.mchsi.com...
On 21 Feb 2004 17:57:00 -0800, "Marie"/"Cleopatra" "Phaedra"
"Bernadette" [ etc., etc., etc. ... YAWNnnnnnn ] wrote:
Nick <mysteriox9000@aol.computron> wrote:
Actually, technically speaking, marriage hasn't *yet* been
defined as legally between only one man and one woman,
at least not in all of the states. That's why there was all the
hub-bub in the Massachusetts legislature recently, you see.
To put it simply, it is only a *religious* tradition that marriage
is for heterosexual couples only. In the civil, secular and
non-religious sense, marriage is simply a legal contract
between two consenting adult individuals that provides
certain legal rights upon said individuals, such as hospital
visitation rights and other such benefits. So, since what
homosexuals are trying to obtain is secular, non-religious
marriage and the rights that come with it, it would seem the
simplest course would be for our secular government to allow
it, since matters of church and state are to be entirely separate,
of course. If independent churches/temples/mosques/etc.
refuse to acknowledge such secular gay marriages, that is
perfectly within their rights, but they have no right to dictate
what the secular law of our country may or may not allow.
Precisely. And if they WERE to refuse to acknowledge secular
same-sex mariiages, then the would ALSO have to refuse to
acknowledge all secular OPPOSITE-sex marriage **too** -- or
be clearly recognized as hypocritical.
In other words, I feel that there should be secular marriage,
which is open to all and which is where the important legal
rights originate, as well as religious marriage, which is only
ceremonial in nature and which can be withheld from certain
couples at the personal discretion of the church/temple/
mosque/etc. This would allow gays to marry and would
preserve the traditional, ceremonial and religious marriage
from any unwanted changes. Please read and consider
this before replying. Thank you.
_____________________________
It would appear to me that the weakness in your argument
resides in the fact that almost all our laws find their base in our
Judeo/Christian heritage, and marriage is no exception. The religious
tradition which dictates that only men can marry women is so
intertwined with marriage as an institution so as to have effectively
secularized that requirement.
You WISH!! Anything can make reasonable adaptations as
society continues to outgrow its silly and petty hangups..
Similarly, laws against lying under oath, polygamy, incest,
bestiality, going nude in public, ...
ROTFL!!!!! Been to ONTARIO lately? Girls/women are free
to go topless there to their heart's content, in public, and that will
probably soon be true throughout Canada. (Too bad they have so
few warm months up there, each year! :) ) Totally harmless!!
...urinating in public view, swearing in public...
LOL!!!! Guress you've been living in a cave, huh?
...and a whole host of others have their foundation wholly in
religion and cannot be otherwise argued.
Much of that is common sense. And some of it is ludicrous. That
"ludicrous" part is a major factor in why so many people are laughing
at "religionists" these days.
This is especially true of public decency laws. Is this in itself
an argument to abolish them, or to exempt those who say the
hell with them?
There's nothing indecent about same-sex marriage. Get real!
Nobody even attempts to make a secular case for these
types of laws, ...
If they are **laws**, then they ARE secular. We DO have
separation of church and state in this country, very thankfully!
...but neither do they attack them because they're religiously
based.
Why, then, single out marriage for this class of argument? Might not
one just as easily make a similar case and ask, "Well, I'm not
religious and should thus be allowed to (insert the behavior)." As for
the civil rights aspect, one can make every bit as strong a case for
marrying ten women, or their mother, father, sister or brother as they
can for same sex marriage.
Not unless one or the other family members is the couple is
sterile. In which case, in the case of consenting people of legal
age, there'd be nothing wrong with it. As for multiple partners,
there'll always bee a very VALID argument against that. TWO
people in marriages yields a divorce rate of 50%+. And it clearly
would be much more difficult to make a marriage work with 3 or
more partners. The family courts would go into gridlock in no time.
And when those actions come before the courts, as they
inevitably will, a principle will have been established here
which will bite us all in the ***** big time.
Nah. Each situation will be evaluated on its own individual
merits and/or liabilities.
Further, I can not think of a law governing human conduct
in our culture which doesn't have its basis in the Ten Command-
ments in one way or another. Not one.
How about speeding?
Public drunkenness?
Spitting on the sidewalk?
...and a myriad of others.
And if a law WERE passed that prevented same-sex marriage,
*that* would have no such basis either.
And as I pointed out, we don't abolish, or ameliorate, their
application merely on that basis alone. And when you suggest this new
form of state-sanctioned civil ceremony as an acceptable alternative,
my reply to that is there isn't a thing the government gets its paws
into that it doesn't ultimately control with an iron fist.
Really??? The Bill of Rights cotains a HOST of guaranteed
*liberties.* Just how does it control LIBERTIES with an iron fist?
Same-sex marriage simply will be an additional liberty.
What would happen here is the state would soon tell those
marrying in religious ceremonies that these are not legal unions
recognized by the state.
Absurd! That would be a direct violation of the principle of
church and state. It'd never happen.
I guarantee that would happen, and also that those pushing in this
direction with homosexual, civil unions are biding their time on that
one as well. It's the next logical step from their point of view.
Now you're lying, since there is NO groundswell of support for any
of the more extreme things you've suggested. And no reason to
expect that there ever will be.
-- Craig Chilton
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality between
consenting adults, does this make it right? Whether governments consider
it
a private matter or a public crime is something for which they must bear
responsibility. But each individual must decide for himself his own
attitude
toward homosexuality. Lovers of God, truth and righteousness take the
position of the apostle Paul: "Let God be found true, though every man be
found a liar."-Rom. 3:4.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Light Templar" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
22 Feb 2004 07:33:06 PM |
|
|
"jacinthfish" <jacinthfish@bellsouth.com> wrote in message
news:Fmc_b.16728$ld7.13130@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Homosexuality has been legalized by governments before. Just a little
question, what happened to each and every one of those governments in
common? Hint - None of them are around any more.
-jacinthfish
You mean like Canada, and Holland?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "¶kw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
22 Feb 2004 07:37:43 PM |
|
|
In article <Fmc_b.16728$ld7.13130
@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
says...
Homosexuality has been legalized by governments before. Just a little
question, what happened to each and every one of those governments in
common? Hint - None of them are around any more.
To summarize, queer one moment and gone the next.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
22 Feb 2004 11:10:34 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:03:37 -0500, a stranger
called by some "jacinthfish" <jacinthfish@bellsouth.com> came forth
and told this tale in alt.atheism
Homosexuality has been legalized by governments before. Just a little
question, what happened to each and every one of those governments in
common? Hint - None of them are around any more.
Really? I'm sure the following states will be shocked to learn they
have ceased to exist:
The United Kingdom
Ireland
France
Germany
Belgium
Italy
Canada
Japan
The Philippines
Brazil
Nicuraga
Australia
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
and so on...
All are states where homosexuality is legal. A couple have gay
marriages.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "gammajoe8" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
24 Feb 2004 12:39:55 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:ok2j30t8o1q3bdh8s8cfq30chve5dn17om@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:03:37 -0500, a stranger
called by some "jacinthfish" <jacinthfish@bellsouth.com> came forth
and told this tale in alt.atheism
Homosexuality has been legalized by governments before. Just a little
question, what happened to each and every one of those governments in
common? Hint - None of them are around any more.
Really? I'm sure the following states will be shocked to learn they
have ceased to exist:
The United Kingdom
Ireland
Really? Catholic Ireland? I am very surprised at that.
#948
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
22 Feb 2004 04:01:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:47:05 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality between
consenting adults, does this make it right?
I can't think of anything besides a bunch of Bronze Age superstition
that would make a rational human think otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
22 Feb 2004 04:36:19 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:8qvg30h2jaub48ao831phv8n8ed4hblul6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:47:05 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality between
consenting adults, does this make it right?
I can't think of anything besides a bunch of Bronze Age superstition
that would make a rational human think otherwise.
True Christians know that even deeply rooted wrong desires, including those
that may have a genetic basis or that involve physical causes or
environmental factors, are not insurmountable for persons who truly want to
please YHWH. Some people are by nature highly emotional. Perhaps in the past
they gave free rein to fits of anger; but knowledge of God's will, the
desire to please him, and the help of his spirit enable them to develop
self-control. A person may be an alcoholic, but, with proper motivation, he
can refrain from drinking and thus avoid becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a
person may feel strongly attracted to others of the same sex, but by heeding
the counsel of God's Word he can remain clean from homosexual practices.
(See Ephesians 4:17-24.) YHWH does not allow us to go on thinking that wrong
conduct really makes no difference; he kindly but firmly warns us of the
consequences and provides abundant help for those who want to "strip off the
old personality with its practices, and clothe [themselves] with the new
personality."-Col. 3:9, 10.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
22 Feb 2004 01:04:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:36:19 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:8qvg30h2jaub48ao831phv8n8ed4hblul6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:47:05 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality between
consenting adults, does this make it right?
I can't think of anything besides a bunch of Bronze Age superstition
that would make a rational human think otherwise.
True Christians
Would you like some haggis with that, laddie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
22 Feb 2004 07:27:59 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:04:35 GMT, a stranger
called by some raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:36:19 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
True Christians
Would you like some haggis with that, laddie?
No, thanks. I don't like haggis. (But I do wear a kilt.)
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
22 Feb 2004 06:55:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:36:19 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:8qvg30h2jaub48ao831phv8n8ed4hblul6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:47:05 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality between
consenting adults, does this make it right?
I can't think of anything besides a bunch of Bronze Age superstition
that would make a rational human think otherwise.
True Christians know that even deeply rooted wrong desires, including those
that may have a genetic basis or that involve physical causes or
environmental factors, are not insurmountable for persons who truly want to
please YHWH. Some people are by nature highly emotional. Perhaps in the past
they gave free rein to fits of anger; but knowledge of God's will, the
desire to please him, and the help of his spirit enable them to develop
self-control. A person may be an alcoholic, but, with proper motivation, he
can refrain from drinking and thus avoid becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a
person may feel strongly attracted to others of the same sex, but by heeding
the counsel of God's Word he can remain clean from homosexual practices.
(See Ephesians 4:17-24.) YHWH does not allow us to go on thinking that wrong
conduct really makes no difference; he kindly but firmly warns us of the
consequences and provides abundant help for those who want to "strip off the
old personality with its practices, and clothe [themselves] with the new
personality."-Col. 3:9, 10.
So what? If Christians are not supposed to marry the same sex, then
Christians can make all the rules they want for Christians.
The law is secular and holds over everyone. People who aren't a
member of your religion have no reason whatsoever to obey it's rules.
So there is no reason to make it illegal to marry a member the same
sex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
23 Feb 2004 12:09:00 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:40434e56.202067531@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:36:19 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:8qvg30h2jaub48ao831phv8n8ed4hblul6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:47:05 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality
between
consenting adults, does this make it right?
I can't think of anything besides a bunch of Bronze Age superstition
that would make a rational human think otherwise.
True Christians know that even deeply rooted wrong desires, including
those
that may have a genetic basis or that involve physical causes or
environmental factors, are not insurmountable for persons who truly want
to
please YHWH. Some people are by nature highly emotional. Perhaps in the
past
they gave free rein to fits of anger; but knowledge of God's will, the
desire to please him, and the help of his spirit enable them to develop
self-control. A person may be an alcoholic, but, with proper motivation,
he
can refrain from drinking and thus avoid becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a
person may feel strongly attracted to others of the same sex, but by
heeding
the counsel of God's Word he can remain clean from homosexual practices.
(See Ephesians 4:17-24.) YHWH does not allow us to go on thinking that
wrong
conduct really makes no difference; he kindly but firmly warns us of the
consequences and provides abundant help for those who want to "strip off
the
old personality with its practices, and clothe [themselves] with the new
personality."-Col. 3:9, 10.
So what? If Christians are not supposed to marry the same sex, then
Christians can make all the rules they want for Christians.
The law is secular and holds over everyone. People who aren't a
member of your religion have no reason whatsoever to obey it's rules.
So there is no reason to make it illegal to marry a member the same
sex.
Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms-terms that are
clearly set out in the Bible. Today, just as in the first century, there are
homosexuals who have been helped to 'deaden their body members as respects
fornication, uncleanness, and sexual appetite.' (Colossians 3:5) Granted,
this has not been easy for some, but they have learned to deaden their
immoral desires just as many heterosexuals have had to deaden their wrong
desires for the opposite sex. Both groups have also been helped by regularly
associating with the true Christian congregation, which can support them in
their goal to 'repudiate ungodliness and worldly desires and to live with
righteousness and godly devotion.'-Titus 2:12.
Clergymen who dilute Bible standards and condone sin are doing homosexuals
no favors. They may 'tickle ears,' but they are not living up to their
obligation to "preach the word." This is their duty to homosexuals-and to
all people.-2 Timothy 4:1-5.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gammajoe8" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
23 Feb 2004 10:12:56 PM |
|
|
"rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:403998fb$1@news.comindico.com.au...
Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms-terms that are
clearly set out in the Bible. Today, just as in the first century, there
are
homosexuals who have been helped to 'deaden their body members as respects
fornication, uncleanness, and sexual appetite.' (Colossians 3:5) Granted,
this has not been easy for some, but they have learned to deaden their
immoral desires just as many heterosexuals have had to deaden their wrong
desires for the opposite sex. Both groups have also been helped by
regularly
associating with the true Christian congregation, which can support them
in
their goal to 'repudiate ungodliness and worldly desires and to live with
righteousness and godly devotion.'-Titus 2:12.
Clergymen who dilute Bible standards and condone sin are doing homosexuals
no favors. They may 'tickle ears,' but they are not living up to their
obligation to "preach the word." This is their duty to homosexuals-and to
all people.-2 Timothy 4:1-5.
Do you believe that President Bush should make an ammendment to the
Constitution barring gay marriages? Would you like to rewrite the
Constitution and make it represent Biblical law?
#948
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
24 Feb 2004 06:09:04 PM |
|
|
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@netzo.com> wrote in message
news:cbA_b.17979$W74.16931@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:403998fb$1@news.comindico.com.au...
Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms-terms that are
clearly set out in the Bible. Today, just as in the first century, there
are
homosexuals who have been helped to 'deaden their body members as
respects
fornication, uncleanness, and sexual appetite.' (Colossians 3:5)
Granted,
this has not been easy for some, but they have learned to deaden their
immoral desires just as many heterosexuals have had to deaden their
wrong
desires for the opposite sex. Both groups have also been helped by
regularly
associating with the true Christian congregation, which can support them
in
their goal to 'repudiate ungodliness and worldly desires and to live
with
righteousness and godly devotion.'-Titus 2:12.
Clergymen who dilute Bible standards and condone sin are doing
homosexuals
no favors. They may 'tickle ears,' but they are not living up to their
obligation to "preach the word." This is their duty to homosexuals-and
to
all people.-2 Timothy 4:1-5.
Do you believe that President Bush should make an ammendment to the
Constitution barring gay marriages? Would you like to rewrite the
Constitution and make it represent Biblical law?
#948
Jesus remained neutral as to politics. His disciples, such as the apostle
Paul, did likewise. (Romans 13:1-7) Even on a hot social issue such as
slavery, they were neutral. You can imagine how easy it would have been for
a Christian, moved by kindness, to rail against slavery, even as clergymen
now take sides on legalized abortion, apartheid, women's rights, and so on.
But true Christians remained neutral!
Oxford professor E. P. Sanders writes: "It is now virtually universally
recognized that there is not a shred of evidence which would allow us to
think that Jesus had military/political ambitions, and the same applies to
the disciples."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
25 Feb 2004 01:54:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:09:04 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"gammajoe8" <gammajoe@netzo.com> wrote in message
news:cbA_b.17979$W74.16931@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:403998fb$1@news.comindico.com.au...
snip
Do you believe that President Bush should make an ammendment to the
Constitution barring gay marriages? Would you like to rewrite the
Constitution and make it represent Biblical law?
#948
Jesus remained neutral as to politics. His disciples, such as the apostle
Paul, did likewise. (Romans 13:1-7) Even on a hot social issue such as
slavery, they were neutral. You can imagine how easy it would have been for
a Christian, moved by kindness, to rail against slavery, even as clergymen
now take sides on legalized abortion, apartheid, women's rights, and so on.
But true Christians remained neutral!
Then there is no problem.
Oxford professor E. P. Sanders writes: "It is now virtually universally
recognized that there is not a shred of evidence which would allow us to
think that Jesus had military/political ambitions, and the same applies to
the disciples."
Good, then there is no problem.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
23 Feb 2004 01:00:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:09:00 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:40434e56.202067531@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:36:19 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:8qvg30h2jaub48ao831phv8n8ed4hblul6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:47:05 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality
between
consenting adults, does this make it right?
I can't think of anything besides a bunch of Bronze Age superstition
that would make a rational human think otherwise.
True Christians know that even deeply rooted wrong desires, including
those
that may have a genetic basis or that involve physical causes or
environmental factors, are not insurmountable for persons who truly want
to
please YHWH. Some people are by nature highly emotional. Perhaps in the
past
they gave free rein to fits of anger; but knowledge of God's will, the
desire to please him, and the help of his spirit enable them to develop
self-control. A person may be an alcoholic, but, with proper motivation,
he
can refrain from drinking and thus avoid becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a
person may feel strongly attracted to others of the same sex, but by
heeding
the counsel of God's Word he can remain clean from homosexual practices.
(See Ephesians 4:17-24.) YHWH does not allow us to go on thinking that
wrong
conduct really makes no difference; he kindly but firmly warns us of the
consequences and provides abundant help for those who want to "strip off
the
old personality with its practices, and clothe [themselves] with the new
personality."-Col. 3:9, 10.
So what? If Christians are not supposed to marry the same sex, then
Christians can make all the rules they want for Christians.
The law is secular and holds over everyone. People who aren't a
member of your religion have no reason whatsoever to obey it's rules.
So there is no reason to make it illegal to marry a member the same
sex.
Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms-terms that are
clearly set out in the Bible.
It may have escaped your notice, but the US is not a theocracy.
snip
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
24 Feb 2004 06:14:23 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:upgk30hvl41ofebunl2sco61d8s13qlq30@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:09:00 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:40434e56.202067531@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:36:19 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:8qvg30h2jaub48ao831phv8n8ed4hblul6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:47:05 GMT, "rgeorge"
<reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality
between
consenting adults, does this make it right?
I can't think of anything besides a bunch of Bronze Age superstition
that would make a rational human think otherwise.
True Christians know that even deeply rooted wrong desires, including
those
that may have a genetic basis or that involve physical causes or
environmental factors, are not insurmountable for persons who truly
want
to
please YHWH. Some people are by nature highly emotional. Perhaps in
the
past
they gave free rein to fits of anger; but knowledge of God's will, the
desire to please him, and the help of his spirit enable them to
develop
self-control. A person may be an alcoholic, but, with proper
motivation,
he
can refrain from drinking and thus avoid becoming a drunkard.
Likewise, a
person may feel strongly attracted to others of the same sex, but by
heeding
the counsel of God's Word he can remain clean from homosexual
practices.
(See Ephesians 4:17-24.) YHWH does not allow us to go on thinking that
wrong
conduct really makes no difference; he kindly but firmly warns us of
the
consequences and provides abundant help for those who want to "strip
off
the
old personality with its practices, and clothe [themselves] with the
new
personality."-Col. 3:9, 10.
So what? If Christians are not supposed to marry the same sex, then
Christians can make all the rules they want for Christians.
The law is secular and holds over everyone. People who aren't a
member of your religion have no reason whatsoever to obey it's rules.
So there is no reason to make it illegal to marry a member the same
sex.
Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms-terms that are
clearly set out in the Bible.
It may have escaped your notice, but the US is not a theocracy.
snip
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Sometimes there is a conflict between laws. A civil government may require
something that God forbids. Or civil law may forbid a thing that God
commands Christians to do. What then?
Such a conflict occurred when rulers forbade the apostles to preach about
the resurrected Jesus Christ. Read the faith-strengthening account at Acts
4:1-23; 5:12-42. Though imprisoned and flogged, the apostles would not stop
preaching. Peter said: "We must obey God as ruler rather than men."-Acts
5:29.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
25 Feb 2004 01:54:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:14:23 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:upgk30hvl41ofebunl2sco61d8s13qlq30@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:09:00 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:40434e56.202067531@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:36:19 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
snip
Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms-terms that are
clearly set out in the Bible.
It may have escaped your notice, but the US is not a theocracy.
Sometimes there is a conflict between laws. A civil government may require
something that God forbids. Or civil law may forbid a thing that God
commands Christians to do. What then?
Such a conflict occurred when rulers forbade the apostles to preach about
the resurrected Jesus Christ. Read the faith-strengthening account at Acts
4:1-23; 5:12-42. Though imprisoned and flogged, the apostles would not stop
preaching. Peter said: "We must obey God as ruler rather than men."-Acts
5:29.
Since no one is telling you to do anything, you are still quite free
to practice your religion. The problem is not that you are being
forced to do something that violates your beliefs; you and others like
you, are trying to force your beliefs on others. If you do not
believe in same-sex marriages, don't do it. If you think homosexual
sex is wrong, don't do it. Nobody is limiting your freedom in these
matters.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
24 Feb 2004 08:04:58 PM |
|
|
rgeorge <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >
(snippety, snip)
Sometimes there is a conflict between laws. A civil government may require
something that God forbids. Or civil law may forbid a thing that God
commands Christians to do. What then?
The issue at hand is same sex marriage. Are you personally either forbidden
to marry as you please? or required to marry against your religious beliefs?
No? Then kindly shut up.
Kathy aa #1802
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
25 Feb 2004 01:31:58 PM |
|
|
"Kathy" <kknight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:epT_b.57961$RTW1.4110@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
rgeorge <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >
(snippety, snip)
Sometimes there is a conflict between laws. A civil government may
require
something that God forbids. Or civil law may forbid a thing that God
commands Christians to do. What then?
The issue at hand is same sex marriage. Are you personally either
forbidden
to marry as you please? or required to marry against your religious
beliefs?
No? Then kindly shut up.
Kathy aa #1802
BY TAKING a course of action contrary to the principles of YHWH Jesus might
have gained the favor of men and avoided some of the reproach and sufferings
that he endured, but he was not the kind who bows to whatever is currently
expedient. Jesus set his mind on exclusive devotion to YHWH, resisting
material things and entanglement with this world, and gained the eternal
blessing of YHWH. Our great Example was governed by principles rather than
passion, and God's law was in his heart. He would not compromise.-Ps. 40:8;
Heb. 10:9.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
25 Feb 2004 05:15:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:31:58 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"Kathy" <kknight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:epT_b.57961$RTW1.4110@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
rgeorge <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >
(snippety, snip)
Sometimes there is a conflict between laws. A civil government may
require
something that God forbids. Or civil law may forbid a thing that God
commands Christians to do. What then?
The issue at hand is same sex marriage. Are you personally either
forbidden
to marry as you please? or required to marry against your religious
beliefs?
No? Then kindly shut up.
Kathy aa #1802
BY TAKING a course of action contrary to the principles of YHWH Jesus might
have gained the favor of men and avoided some of the reproach and sufferings
that he endured, but he was not the kind who bows to whatever is currently
expedient. Jesus set his mind on exclusive devotion to YHWH, resisting
material things and entanglement with this world, and gained the eternal
blessing of YHWH. Our great Example was governed by principles rather than
passion, and God's law was in his heart. He would not compromise.-Ps. 40:8;
Heb. 10:9.
Nobody is asking you to take any course of action at all.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
25 Feb 2004 04:57:35 PM |
|
|
rgeorge <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:403cf82d$1@news.comindico.com.au...
"Kathy" <kknight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:epT_b.57961$RTW1.4110@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
rgeorge <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >
(snippety, snip)
Sometimes there is a conflict between laws. A civil government may
require
something that God forbids. Or civil law may forbid a thing that God
commands Christians to do. What then?
The issue at hand is same sex marriage. Are you personally either
forbidden
to marry as you please? or required to marry against your religious
beliefs?
No? Then kindly shut up.
Kathy aa #1802
BY TAKING a course of action contrary to the principles of YHWH Jesus
might
have gained the favor of men and avoided some of the reproach and
sufferings
that he endured, but he was not the kind who bows to whatever is currently
expedient. Jesus set his mind on exclusive devotion to YHWH, resisting
material things and entanglement with this world, and gained the eternal
blessing of YHWH. Our great Example was governed by principles rather than
passion, and God's law was in his heart. He would not compromise.-Ps.
40:8;
Heb. 10:9.
That doesn't answer my question at all.
Are you being forced to marry or not marry anyone? If not - shut up!
I don't really care what your particular diety has to say about the matter -
I am asking if the state of the marriage in the house next door causes you
any problem with your relationship with your god or your church or yourself.
Feel free to follow your conscience within the bounds of the laws. But do
NOT expect others to follow your particular sects religious rules.
If you want to give up meat for lent this week - fine - but don't make a law
that nobody can buy meat during this period.
Do you get it yet? Do you understand the difference?
Kathy aa #1802
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
23 Feb 2004 01:09:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:09:00 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:40434e56.202067531@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:36:19 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:8qvg30h2jaub48ao831phv8n8ed4hblul6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:47:05 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality
between
consenting adults, does this make it right?
I can't think of anything besides a bunch of Bronze Age superstition
that would make a rational human think otherwise.
True Christians know that even deeply rooted wrong desires, including
those
that may have a genetic basis or that involve physical causes or
environmental factors, are not insurmountable for persons who truly want
to
please YHWH. Some people are by nature highly emotional. Perhaps in the
past
they gave free rein to fits of anger; but knowledge of God's will, the
desire to please him, and the help of his spirit enable them to develop
self-control. A person may be an alcoholic, but, with proper motivation,
he
can refrain from drinking and thus avoid becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a
person may feel strongly attracted to others of the same sex, but by
heeding
the counsel of God's Word he can remain clean from homosexual practices.
(See Ephesians 4:17-24.) YHWH does not allow us to go on thinking that
wrong
conduct really makes no difference; he kindly but firmly warns us of the
consequences and provides abundant help for those who want to "strip off
the
old personality with its practices, and clothe [themselves] with the new
personality."-Col. 3:9, 10.
So what? If Christians are not supposed to marry the same sex, then
Christians can make all the rules they want for Christians.
The law is secular and holds over everyone. People who aren't a
member of your religion have no reason whatsoever to obey it's rules.
So there is no reason to make it illegal to marry a member the same
sex.
Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms-terms that are
clearly set out in the Bible. Today, just as in the first century, there are
homosexuals who have been helped to 'deaden their body members as respects
fornication, uncleanness, and sexual appetite.' (Colossians 3:5) Granted,
this has not been easy for some, but they have learned to deaden their
immoral desires just as many heterosexuals have had to deaden their wrong
desires for the opposite sex. Both groups have also been helped by regularly
associating with the true Christian congregation, which can support them in
their goal to 'repudiate ungodliness and worldly desires and to live with
righteousness and godly devotion.'-Titus 2:12.
Clergymen who dilute Bible standards and condone sin are doing homosexuals
no favors. They may 'tickle ears,' but they are not living up to their
obligation to "preach the word." This is their duty to homosexuals-and to
all people.-2 Timothy 4:1-5.
Your religous book and rules are unimportant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
24 Feb 2004 05:42:37 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4050a572.224367421@news-west.newscene.com...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:09:00 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:40434e56.202067531@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:36:19 GMT, "rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:8qvg30h2jaub48ao831phv8n8ed4hblul6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:47:05 GMT, "rgeorge"
<reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Even though one government after another legalizes homosexuality
between
consenting adults, does this make it right?
I can't think of anything besides a bunch of Bronze Age superstition
that would make a rational human think otherwise.
True Christians know that even deeply rooted wrong desires, including
those
that may have a genetic basis or that involve physical causes or
environmental factors, are not insurmountable for persons who truly
want
to
please YHWH. Some people are by nature highly emotional. Perhaps in
the
past
they gave free rein to fits of anger; but knowledge of God's will, the
desire to please him, and the help of his spirit enable them to
develop
self-control. A person may be an alcoholic, but, with proper
motivation,
he
can refrain from drinking and thus avoid becoming a drunkard.
Likewise, a
person may feel strongly attracted to others of the same sex, but by
heeding
the counsel of God's Word he can remain clean from homosexual
practices.
(See Ephesians 4:17-24.) YHWH does not allow us to go on thinking that
wrong
conduct really makes no difference; he kindly but firmly warns us of
the
consequences and provides abundant help for those who want to "strip
off
the
old personality with its practices, and clothe [themselves] with the
new
personality."-Col. 3:9, 10.
So what? If Christians are not supposed to marry the same sex, then
Christians can make all the rules they want for Christians.
The law is secular and holds over everyone. People who aren't a
member of your religion have no reason whatsoever to obey it's rules.
So there is no reason to make it illegal to marry a member the same
sex.
Homosexuals who want to serve God must do so on his terms-terms that are
clearly set out in the Bible. Today, just as in the first century, there
are
homosexuals who have been helped to 'deaden their body members as
respects
fornication, uncleanness, and sexual appetite.' (Colossians 3:5) Granted,
this has not been easy for some, but they have learned to deaden their
immoral desires just as many heterosexuals have had to deaden their wrong
desires for the opposite sex. Both groups have also been helped by
regularly
associating with the true Christian congregation, which can support them
in
their goal to 'repudiate ungodliness and worldly desires and to live with
righteousness and godly devotion.'-Titus 2:12.
Clergymen who dilute Bible standards and condone sin are doing
homosexuals
no favors. They may 'tickle ears,' but they are not living up to their
obligation to "preach the word." This is their duty to homosexuals-and to
all people.-2 Timothy 4:1-5.
Your religous book and rules are unimportant.
The tragic consequences of bad decisions made on the basis of faulty
guidance are all around us-broken marriages and families, drug and alcohol
abuse, violent youth gangs, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, to
name but a few. Really, how can we expect things to be otherwise when people
abandon all standards or points of reference when it comes to right and
wrong? (Romans 1:28-32) It is just as the prophet Isaiah declared: "Woe to
those who are saying that good is bad and bad is good, those who are putting
darkness for light and light for darkness, those who are putting bitter for
sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those wise in their own eyes and discreet
even in front of their own faces!"-Isaiah 5:20, 21.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
24 Feb 2004 05:57:58 PM |
|
|
rgeorge wrote:
The tragic consequences of bad decisions made on the basis of
faulty guidance are all around us-broken marriages and
families, drug and alcohol abuse, violent youth gangs,
promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, to name but a few.
Really, how can we expect things to be otherwise when people
abandon all standards or points of reference when it comes to
right and wrong?
On the other hand, we have less racial discrimination, less
subjugation of women, less persecution of homosexuals and bisexuals, a
more inclusive society all round, so at least *something* is going
right, eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
25 Feb 2004 01:40:32 PM |
|
|
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:c1gokv$1iq5l0$1@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...
rgeorge wrote:
The tragic consequences of bad decisions made on the basis of
faulty guidance are all around us-broken marriages and
families, drug and alcohol abuse, violent youth gangs,
promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, to name but a few.
Really, how can we expect things to be otherwise when people
abandon all standards or points of reference when it comes to
right and wrong?
On the other hand, we have less racial discrimination, less
subjugation of women, less persecution of homosexuals and bisexuals, a
more inclusive society all round, so at least *something* is going
right, eh?
The holy God is also a loving father. As the first and greatest father he
knows best how to run his family-like organization of friendly obedient
children. All spirit creatures and the first man, Adam, became sons of YHWH
upon their perfect creation. Being made in the image and likeness of God
they each were granted the amazing gift of free will. This faculty of free
will was a sacred trust to be used wisely. Either the individual creature,
angelic or human, could use his free will in a good way that would result in
continued holiness and everlasting life or he could use it in a bad way that
would result in corruption, uncleanness and eventual extinction in death.
From the beginning the Creator-Father took steps to direct his free-will
children in the desirable way that continues in perfect happiness. For had
they voluntarily pursued a free-will course of integrity, creatures would
have been kept purposeful, joyful and closely related to the holy God, the
very fountain of happiness and goodness.-Ps. 25:21, AS; Prov. 11:3; Luke
3:38; Gen. 1:26, NW.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
25 Feb 2004 02:01:40 PM |
|
|
"rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:403cfa2f@news.comindico.com.au...
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:c1gokv$1iq5l0$1@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...
rgeorge wrote:
The tragic consequences of bad decisions made on the basis of
faulty guidance are all around us-broken marriages and
families, drug and alcohol abuse, violent youth gangs,
promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, to name but a few.
Really, how can we expect things to be otherwise when people
abandon all standards or points of reference when it comes to
right and wrong?
On the other hand, we have less racial discrimination, less
subjugation of women, less persecution of homosexuals and bisexuals, a
more inclusive society all round, so at least *something* is going
right, eh?
The holy God is also a loving father. As the first and greatest father he
knows best how to run his family-like organization of friendly obedient
children. All spirit creatures and the first man, Adam, became sons of
YHWH
upon their perfect creation.
Why did Adam eat from the tree of knowledge if
he was perfect?
Being made in the image and likeness of God
they each were granted the amazing gift of free will. This faculty of free
will was a sacred trust to be used wisely. Either the individual creature,
angelic or human, could use his free will in a good way that would result
in
continued holiness and everlasting life or he could use it in a bad way
that
would result in corruption, uncleanness and eventual extinction in death.
From the beginning the Creator-Father took steps to direct his free-will
children in the desirable way that continues in perfect happiness.
Why did he put the tree of knowledge in eden?
For had
they voluntarily pursued a free-will course of integrity, creatures would
have been kept purposeful, joyful and closely related to the holy God, the
very fountain of happiness and goodness.-Ps. 25:21, AS; Prov. 11:3; Luke
3:38; Gen. 1:26, NW.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rgeorge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
26 Feb 2004 02:33:18 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:Ea7%b.2226$wP3.651@twister.socal.rr.com...
"rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:403cfa2f@news.comindico.com.au...
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:c1gokv$1iq5l0$1@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...
rgeorge wrote:
The tragic consequences of bad decisions made on the basis of
faulty guidance are all around us-broken marriages and
families, drug and alcohol abuse, violent youth gangs,
promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, to name but a few.
Really, how can we expect things to be otherwise when people
abandon all standards or points of reference when it comes to
right and wrong?
On the other hand, we have less racial discrimination, less
subjugation of women, less persecution of homosexuals and bisexuals, a
more inclusive society all round, so at least *something* is going
right, eh?
The holy God is also a loving father. As the first and greatest father
he
knows best how to run his family-like organization of friendly obedient
children. All spirit creatures and the first man, Adam, became sons of
YHWH
upon their perfect creation.
Why did Adam eat from the tree of knowledge if
he was perfect?
Being made in the image and likeness of God
they each were granted the amazing gift of free will. This faculty of
free
will was a sacred trust to be used wisely. Either the individual
creature,
angelic or human, could use his free will in a good way that would
result
in
continued holiness and everlasting life or he could use it in a bad way
that
would result in corruption, uncleanness and eventual extinction in
death.
From the beginning the Creator-Father took steps to direct his free-will
children in the desirable way that continues in perfect happiness.
Why did he put the tree of knowledge in eden?
For had
they voluntarily pursued a free-will course of integrity, creatures
would
have been kept purposeful, joyful and closely related to the holy God,
the
very fountain of happiness and goodness.-Ps. 25:21, AS; Prov. 11:3; Luke
3:38; Gen. 1:26, NW.
God's intelligent creatures are granted free moral agency, the privilege and
responsibility of making a personal decision as to the course they will
take. (De 30:19, 20; Jos 24:15) It is evident that this was the case with
the first human pair, so that their devotion to God could be subject to
test. (Ge 2:15-17; 3:2, 3) As their Maker, YHWH knew what he wanted of them,
and from the Scriptures it is clear that he wanted, not an automatic,
virtually mechanical obedience, but worship and service that sprang from
hearts and minds motivated by genuine love. (Compare De 30:15, 16; 1Ch 28:9;
29:17; Joh 4:23, 24.) If Adam and his wife had lacked the ability to choose
in this matter, they would not have met God's requirements; they would not
have been complete, perfect, according to his standards.
If we were to insist that a perfect man could not take a wrong course where
a moral issue was involved, should we not also logically argue that an
imperfect creature could not take a right course where such moral issue was
involved? Yet some imperfect creatures do take a right course on moral
issues involving obedience to God, even choosing to suffer persecution
rather than change from such a course; while at the same time others
deliberately engage in doing what they know is wrong. Thus not all wrong
actions can be excused by human imperfection. The individual's will and
choice are deciding factors. In the same way, it was not human perfection
alone that would guarantee right action by the first man but, rather, the
exercise of his own free will and choice as motivated by love for his God
and for what was right.-Pr 4:23.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: The Camel's Nose |
26 Feb 2004 05:42:39 PM |
|
|
"rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:403e580d@news.comindico.com.au...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:Ea7%b.2226$wP3.651@twister.socal.rr.com...
"rgeorge" <reecegeorge@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:403cfa2f@news.comindico.com.au...
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:c1gokv$1iq5l0$1@ID-165613.news.uni-berlin.de...
rgeorge wrote:
The tragic consequences of bad decisions made on the basis of
faulty guidance are all around us-broken marriages and
families, drug and alcohol abuse, violent youth gangs,
promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, to name but a few.
Really, how can we expect things to be otherwise when people
abandon all standards or points of reference when it comes to
right and wrong?
On the other hand, we have less racial discrimination, less
subjugation of women, less persecution of homosexuals and bisexuals,
a
more inclusive society all round, so at least *something* is going
right, eh?
The holy God is also a loving father. As the first and greatest father
he
knows best how to run his family-like organization of friendly
obedient
children. All spirit creatures and the first man, Adam, became sons of
YHWH
upon their perfect creation.
Why did Adam eat from the tree of knowledge if
he was perfect?
Being made in the image and likeness of God
they each were granted the amazing gift of free will. This faculty of
free
will was a sacred trust to be used wisely. Either the individual
creature,
angelic or human, could use his free will in a good way that would
result
in
continued holiness and everlasting life or he could use it in a bad
way
that
would result in corruption, uncleanness and eventual extinction in
death.
From the beginning the Creator-Father took steps to direct his
free-will
children in the desirable way that continues in perfect happiness.
Why did he put the tree of knowledge in eden?
For had
they voluntarily pursued a free-will course of integrity, creatures
would
have been kept purposeful, joyful and closely related to the holy God,
the
very fountain of happiness and goodness.-Ps. 25:21, AS; Prov. 11:3;
Luke
3:38; Gen. 1:26, NW.
God's intelligent creatures are granted free moral agency, the privilege
and
responsibility of making a personal decision as to the course they will
take. (De 30:19, 20; Jos 24:15) It is evident that this was the case with
the first human pair, so that their devotion to God could be subject to
test. (Ge 2:15-17; 3:2, 3) As their Maker, YHWH knew what he wanted of
them,
and from the Scriptures it is clear that he wanted, not an automatic,
virtually mechanical obedience, but worship and service that sprang from
hearts and minds motivated by genuine love. (Compare De 30:15, 16; 1Ch
28:9;
29:17; Joh 4:23, 24.) If Adam and his wife had lacked the ability to
choose
in this matter, they would not have met God's requirements; they would not
have been complete, perfect, according to his standards.
So it sounds like all people are perfect creations.
These perfect creations have free will.
If they choose to disobey God they are no less perfect.
If we were to insist that a perfect man could not tak | | | | | | | | | | | | |
