In fact the proliferation of such sins in a society is itself God's judgment because they are socially destructive in themselves.
So, if a society (I don't know, let's say Sodom) is one in which homosexuality is prevalent, then the presence of homosexuality itself is God's judgment ?
Leaving to one side the extraordinary nature of the claim itself, you seem to be saying that God passed judgment on Sodom by ensuring the prevalence of such "sins", and then went and wiped them out for committing the sins.
A little harsh of Him.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
Do you have any gay family members? Is your relationship with them really one long proselytizing session or do you compromise your values. Are those family members really equivalent to drunks and junkies in need of intervention?
A person cannot help whom they are attracted to. Therefore there is no need of intervention regarding attraction.
Sexual expression, however, is a choice. To desire a communion with only one person is selfish and irresponsible to the community.
Let me ask you something.
Would you approve of two of your own family members getting married to each other? (I think it was once called incest)
In fact the proliferation of such sins in a society is itself God's judgment because they are socially destructive in themselves.
So God punishes people for sinning by proliferating sin?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
Your self-righteousness is getting old and is very off putting. Actually it is insulting.
Its always insulting to you. You recognize no Spirit superior to human wisdom. None of you do. You then go and gnash your teeth everytime somebody even tries to put you in check, since you-im speaking to some of society, just as you are--are your own gods.
Theodoric writes:
Since when is getting drunk a moral or religious issue. Many christians get drunk quite regularly and I doubt that many think they are going against their church. Intoxication of varying forms is a very important part of a number of religions.
All things are permissable. Not all things are profitable. Perhaps I should clarify better what it is that I believe. First of all, I agree with GDR.
GDR writes:
It is my view that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. The state should only sanction what would amount to an economic and domestic union between two consenting adults, which would have both tax and other economic consequences.
Traditional marriage was a sacrament.
Ask.com writes:
Marriage is a practice common to all cultures in all ages. It is, therefore, a natural institution, something common to all mankind. At its most basic level, marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and mutual support, or love. Each spouse in a marriage gives up some rights over his or her life in exchange for rights over the life of the other spouse.
Theodoric writes:
Saying that you are ok with homosexual marriage because there is nothing you can do legally to stop it doesn't endear you to anyone.
I am in favor of civil unions, because we live in a secular society and because the church has no right to legislate morality. By the same token, you, Onifre or anyone else has no right to force the church to adapt to your emotionally immature arguments concerning what love is and what marriage is.
It seems none of you read the article, or ignored some valid logic.
Perhaps I should quote it:
quote:The same-sex marriage supporters would argue that public consensus is what determines the boundaries and contours of marriage. Yet interestingly, their argument is not really marriage equality for all. .It only extends marriage equality far enough to also encompass monogamous gays and lesbians.Polygamists remain excluded, among others
First of all, you guys quite naturally disagree with the article because, again, you don't know what it means to have a Spirit that is over your own human spirit. You simply don't believe in God nor do you believe that Spiritual authority exceeds human governments authority. And hey---i can readily agree that the church should not push to legislate morality. Marriage is a sacrament and is viewed in different ways by different "chapters of Club Christian"...as jar would say.
And by that same right that you have to be free from religion, my church should be free to enforce its own club guidelines within its walls. No government should have the power to tell me what to believe or why. No government should ever force my church to marry gay people.
Theodoric writes:
I realize you, and other Christians like you, are not morally superior to the rest of us, don't you?
Of course I am no better than you. Even if i claimed to be without sin(which I'm not, of course) or even if i was more generous than you, more active in my community, even more tolerant (as you claim to be) I would be no better than you. The issue is a matter of belief. I believe that there is a Spirit (God the Father through a living Jesus Christ) who is greater than either you or I.
While I have no right to push this at you, I do have both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Civil government will never take either of those from me. Sorry if you are insulted.
Marriage is not an expressly christian or religious institution. You might actually want to research the history of marriage. I think you will find especially interesting marriage during the christian period. Very few people of the "common" people actually got married in the first millenia and a half of the christian era.
The rest of your post is just weak apologetics. attempted proselytization and insults so I will not bother to respond.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
Without getting into a discussion about your particular accusations, which are off topic in this thread anyway, I'll just answer that our coming under judgment now does not imply that we've never been under judgment before, for various reasons. Lincoln understood the Civil War for instance to be God's judgment on the nation for slavery. And the nation has certainly had other hard times which could be understood to be judgment.
But now the very fabric of society has been unraveling. Without a repentance that is EXTREMELY unlikely at this point, I don't see how the nation could recover from this one.
The attitude on this thread is already a form of persecution, Dr. A. It always starts with the namecalling.
Traditional marriage was a sacrament. Ask.com writes:
Bullshit Phat.
Traditional marriage was an economic contract.
Not only haven't you read the Bible, learned any history, it seems you haven't even watched Fiddler on the Roof.
Traditional marriage had almost nothing to do with love and almost everything to do with power, wealth, property.
In fact as recently as the 60s in some US states women had to relinquish their dower rights by signing the application for a marriage license.
Marriage was a secular contract to bind families together, acquire land or cattle or sheep, to end feuds, to establish business arrangements, to determine ownership, as political trump cards ...
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Who decides what constitutes humanity? Who determines what constitutes marriage? Who decides whether gender matters in marriage? Fundamentally, the question is this: How and by whom are the boundaries and contours of marriage determined?
And now for Onifre......
Onifre writes:
It is very bigoted and your church should NOT be allowed to deny someone anything for reasons of sexuality any more than it isn't allowed to deny someone anything for reasons of race.
Need I clarify once again? Attraction, like skin color, is inborn. Sexuality is a choice.
We are under no obligation to allow your social or ideological preferences redefine our club bylaws. You are not God.
If a church is denying because of sexuality then that church is shit and anyone attending that church is probably around racists, bigots just as they are CLEARLY around homophobes. More than likely being one or all of those themselves since they are attending said church.
Fuck any church for doing that and the members that attend.
Have you been smoking too much pot again? You may have overdid it on 4/20.
I would call you a racist if you don't agree morally with interracial marriage and you ARE a bigot if you don't morally agree with gay marriage.
Oh? Am I ordered to acknowledge your significant other in any greater capacity or homage than anyone else? Tsk tsk, Onifre
Traditional marriage had almost nothing to do with love and almost everything to do with power, wealth, property.
In fact as recently as the 60s in some US states women had to relinquish their dower rights by signing the application for a marriage license.
Marriage was a secular contract to bind families together, acquire land or cattle or sheep, to end feuds, to establish business arrangements, to determine ownership, as political trump cards ...
Whats your point? I never said I was not in favor of government rights. You also assume me more ignorant than I am, but if it makes you feel better by all means continue.
Let me ask you a simple question, o educated one. Who is the head of your church?
Two or three here brought up a version of the question about sin being judgment in itself.
In fact the proliferation of such sins in a society is itself God's judgment because they are socially destructive in themselves.
So God punishes people for sinning by proliferating sin?
It's more like sin begets sin. Sin proliferates itself and God doesn't intervene after a certain point. It's not that a particular sin leads necessarily to more of that particular sin but that sin breeds sin, period.
In Romans 1 the degeneration of a society is described as starting with idolatrous views of God and ending up in homosexuality. Applying that sequence to America we could say it all started with the apostasy of the churches, the cults and other deviant sects, and certainly the Liberal movement that took over some of the churches, that denied essentials of the traditional faith, progressed through the various sins I already listed and now gay marriage is THE issue of the day.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...
quote:
It seems none of you read the article, or ignored some valid logic.
You mean like the bit where he claims that he is right because he can draw a simple Venn diagram ?
But let's deal with your points about incest and polygamy. Are you claiming that there are NO valid secular reasons for banning incest and polygamy ? Because unless you are, you don't have a point. I notice that your quote doesn't attempt to address that issue which suggests to me that it is far from being valid logic, just the usual apologetic evasions and excuses.
You probably have a point. My arguments start out sloppy and off the cuff and hopefully become more solid the more attention i pay to them.
My point was of course that there were valid secular reasons for morality and that just because someone is a family member is no reason to exclude them. There is no need for two people of the same gender to get married apart from non love reasons. Just as there is no need to marry your sister if by some strange reason you were attracted to her.
So we should throw out all scientific evidence to the contrary and believe what you spout?
Sexuality is a primary and basic human behavior. Repression of sexuality can result in all sorts of behavioral issues. But it seems you are ok with people suffering as long as they adhere to your "moral" ideals.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...
™ Version 4.2
