# Should Atheist be allowed to marry?



## Artfuldodger (Dec 25, 2013)

Only divinely-approved marriages should be permitted. Unions which offend God should not be legal. Godless people cannot be united in "Holy Matrimony" and their marriages cannot in any way be based on the will of God.


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 26, 2013)

Give them what they want and its a tax break.. the gays too, all they want is the tax break.. i guess i don't know it might already exist.. on the subject of Marriage, it shouldn't be Marriage maybe a Union of Minds for the Gays and for the Scientology let it be a Decree, that him and his partner have evolved into Adults and they're on their way into evolving the same heart and mind then one day they'll be no marriage. one half will be a man and the other half a woman..  I'll just stick with the God and let him sort it out. fun to think about. Please forgive me. I'm just glad God gave us a higher purpose as long as we believe and study.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Only divinely-approved marriages should be permitted. Unions which offend God should not be legal. Godless people cannot be united in "Holy Matrimony" and their marriages cannot in any way be based on the will of God.


Ya know in the other thread about how kids weren't allowed to give Christmas cards to the veterans?
Your statement above is a testament as to why that happened.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Ya know in the other thread about how kids weren't allowed to give Christmas cards to the veterans?
> Your statement above is a testament as to why that happened.



Maybe sometimes our religious beliefs superimpose our Constitutional beliefs. If we try to be a good American, we catch heck from our Christian brothers. If we try to do the Christian thing, we catch heck from our non Christian brothers.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 26, 2013)

I see no reason a man and woman atheist should not be allowed to get married in the US...Whats the beef here?


----------



## trckdrvr (Dec 26, 2013)

I wouldn't care if 2 dogs decided to get married, if they can afford the license,which I don't think people should have to even buy(but that's another thread)
and if they could get the blood test(s)and book the reception...all good to me.
Couldn't care less.

its not as if Christians or any other group have been very 100%pct successful at marriages..


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> I see no reason a man and woman atheist should not be allowed to get married in the US...Whats the beef here?



It doesn't go against your Christian beliefs?

A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:36 NIV)


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe sometimes our religious beliefs superimpose our Constitutional beliefs. If we try to be a good American, we catch heck from our Christian brothers. If we try to do the Christian thing, we catch heck from our non Christian brothers.


Well that's just something you guys are going to have to work out. But you have to understand that statement is NOT "being a good American". Therefore "good Americans" will make sure that point of view has no place in our governmental decision making process. You cant blame everybody else for that.
I have to ask the question - Don't you find it odd that you cant be both without "breaking the rules" of one or the other?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Well that's just something you guys are going to have to work out. But you have to understand that statement is NOT "being a good American". Therefore "good Americans" will make sure that point of view has no place in our governmental decision making process. You cant blame everybody else for that.
> I have to ask the question - Don't you find it odd that you cant be both without "breaking the rules" of one or the other?



The point I'm trying to make is, how do we separate our Christian beliefs from our fellow American's rights?

We could also consider interfaith marriages. Perhaps a Baptist who marries a Mormon. 
I'm not talking about your individual marriage, which will always be correct in the sight of God, but others.

How do we deal with marriages we don't agree with?


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> It doesn't go against your Christian beliefs?
> 
> A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:36 NIV)



 No it doesnt go against my beliefs anymore than A man and woman Jew marrying or a man and woman Muslim.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> I see no reason a man and woman atheist should not be allowed to get married in the US...Whats the beef here?



Would you be ok with an Atheist woman marrying a Jehovah Witness man?

Should we as Christians try to outlaw interfaith marriages?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

I often reach an enigma with myself in regards to my Christian faith and my American freedom values.
Sometimes I see a "war on Christians" as others do, and sometimes I don't. 
It's hard to put my beliefs aside for the freedom of others. I don't know how much liberty God grants me to do this. Am I not supporting my God when I side with my American freedom views?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> The point I'm trying to make is, how do we separate our Christian beliefs from our fellow American's rights?
> 
> We could also consider interfaith marriages. Perhaps a Baptist who marries a Mormon.
> I'm not talking about your individual marriage, which will always be correct in the sight of God, but others.
> ...





> The point I'm trying to make is, how do we separate our Christian beliefs from our fellow American's rights?


Your options are limited.


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> The point I'm trying to make is, how do we separate our Christian beliefs from our fellow American's rights?
> 
> We could also consider interfaith marriages. Perhaps a Baptist who marries a Mormon.
> I'm not talking about your individual marriage, which will always be correct in the sight of God, but others.
> ...




You don't have to deal with any type of marriage that isn't yours. Do not judge and let the Lord deal with it


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

Maybe I am making an assumption that God doesn't support Atheist marriage. Maybe my assumption isn't Biblical.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

Georgia Hard Hunter said:


> You don't have to deal with any type of marriage that isn't yours. Do not judge and let the Lord deal with it



Can I still be a good Christian and support Atheist marriages? Would that not make me a pro-Atheist?


----------



## hummdaddy (Dec 26, 2013)

To bad we don't live under christian law in this country!!!!

EVERY MAN EQUAL,FREEDOM OF RELIGION RING A BELL

marriage is now a government thing!!!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Only divinely-approved marriages should be permitted. Unions which offend God should not be legal. Godless people cannot be united in "Holy Matrimony" and their marriages cannot in any way be based on the will of God.



You are stating this as a Christian I assume.  Can you cite scripture to back up this view?  I don't think you can.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

I think there are more marriages between women believers and male non-believers in the Christian faith. Many times the woman leads the man to salvation. 
Now following the Bible, they should have never married.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are stating this as a Christian I assume.  Can you cite scripture to back up this view?  I don't think you can.



See my post in #14. I can't cite scripture saying Atheist marriages are forbidden.
But then again if not forbidden biblically are they blessed by God? If not then are all marriages blessed by God except the ones so noted in the Bible that don't meet his approval?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 26, 2013)

I would say that no marriage is blessed by God unless both parties to it are in Gods grace prior to the marriage and have received assurance from God that he has meant them to marry.  

It's a bit more to it than simply a man and woman, a preacher and a church.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> How do we deal with marriages we don't agree with?



Be an adult and ignore them. If you get your knickers in a wad over everything you don't agree with, pretty soon you'll have to vote democrat...

That's their entire MO. Obliterate that which they don't like or agree with.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 26, 2013)

Here's interesting commentary on marriage:

http://www.lds.org/Static Files/PDF/Manuals/TheFamily_AProclamationToTheWorld_35538_eng.pdf


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

hawglips said:


> Here's interesting commentary on marriage:
> 
> http://www.lds.org/Static Files/PDF/Manuals/TheFamily_AProclamationToTheWorld_35538_eng.pdf



Are you a member or do you just find that interesting. That covers more beliefs than marriage. Reason being, that would be something to think about on my thread about humans being divine.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 26, 2013)

Mine and your Christian faith has no bearing on what another person is required to do.

The laws of the land should never be confused with God's will.  The two have very little to do with each other.
.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Mine and your Christian faith has no bearing on what another person is required to do.
> 
> The laws of the land should never be confused with God's will.  The two have very little to do with each other.
> .



God's will or God's law?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would say that no marriage is blessed by God unless both parties to it are in Gods grace prior to the marriage and have received assurance from God that he has meant them to marry.
> 
> It's a bit more to it than simply a man and woman, a preacher and a church.



Still, it's odd, and I think that's the point that Art is trying to make, is that Christians won't bat an eye at a mixed religion couple getting married in a church; they will even recognize it as a legal "marriage" but the gay thing just creeps them out.

As a Christian, you should look at ALL marriages un-sanctified by the SBC or whatever division you play for as being abominations.  They shouldn't even be allowed to call them marriages.  Hindus are not _REALLY_ married because their union was not sanctified by Jesus.  That's the only stance to take.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Mine and your Christian faith has no bearing on what another person is required to do.
> 
> The laws of the land should never be confused with God's will.  The two have very little to do with each other.
> .



So I'm not questioning my faith by being ok with secular laws?
This could also include doing business with Muslims as long as I'm not "yoked" to them as in say, becoming a business partner.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Still, it's odd, and I think that's the point that Art is trying to make, is that Christians won't bat an eye at a mixed religion couple getting married in a church; they will even recognize it as a legal "marriage" but the gay thing just creeps them out.
> 
> As a Christian, you should look at ALL marriages un-sanctified by the SBC or whatever division you play for as being abominations.  They shouldn't even be allowed to call them marriages.  Hindus are not _REALLY_ married because their union was not sanctified by Jesus.  That's the only stance to take.



I'm willing to take it even farther into all secular activities.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm willing to take it even farther into all secular activities.




Like what else?


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> God's will or God's law?



If God is Almighty, His will IS His law.
.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> So I'm not questioning my faith by being ok with secular laws?
> This could also include doing business with Muslims as long as I'm not "yoked" to them as in say, becoming a business partner.



You don't have to be OK with all secular laws.  You shouldn't, if they go against what you believe to be right.  
.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would you be ok with an Atheist woman marrying a Jehovah Witness man?
> 
> Should we as Christians try to outlaw interfaith marriages?



Yes on first question, no on second.

How long does this go on before you attempt to turn the topic into homo marriage vs Christians?


----------



## Israel (Dec 26, 2013)

There has been a lengthy discussion of what constitutes marriage, here:


http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=3147778&highlight=marriage+license#post3147778


----------



## MudDucker (Dec 26, 2013)

I don't think the government should have any joining authority except to form a civil union.  Only a Church should be able to perform and grant a couple a marriage.  Of course, Churches, even Christian Churches have different views of who should be allowed to marry.

Scripturally, according to the Bible, only a marriage between a man and a woman is authorized and blessed.  The Bible warns against be unequally spiritually yoked as well.

As it is now, most of what is now referred to as a marriage is not Biblical.


----------



## hummdaddy (Dec 26, 2013)

+i must be ignore


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes on first question, no on second.
> 
> How long does this go on before you attempt to turn the topic into homo marriage vs Christians?



I'm not willing to do that. We have enough of them already.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> You don't have to be OK with all secular laws.  You shouldn't, if they go against what you believe to be right.
> .



If I have rental property, should I be able to rent to a nice Atheist couple and not feel guilty about it. Would that be better than one Atheist married to a Christian?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Like what else?



How secular can a Christian be without giving up his Christianity? Can I enjoy listening to Elton John or enjoy reading a novel by a Atheist writer? Can I sleep in a Hindu owned motel? Can I purchase a car made by Buddhist?
Should I go to Trinity Hospital and pay, which has a nativity scene, or go to the VA for free treatment where Christian carolers can't sing?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

God created marriage and often compares Christ and his Church to being married. 
In Corinthians 11:3 shows who is over who. 
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Does the Bible pertain to everyone or just Christians?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Mine and your Christian faith has no bearing on what another person is required to do.
> 
> The laws of the land should never be confused with God's will.  The two have very little to do with each other.
> .



Maybe they shouldn't have anything to do with each other but in the US, they kinda overlap.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> How secular can a Christian be without giving up his Christianity? Can I enjoy listening to Elton John or enjoy reading a novel by a Atheist writer? Can I sleep in a Hindu owned motel? Can I purchase a car made by Buddhist?
> Should I go to Trinity Hospital and pay, which has a nativity scene, or go to the VA for free treatment where Christian carolers can't sing?



I, myself, admire people that "walk the walk".  That's why the Amish are my favorite Christians.  Everything else just seems like excuses.  

I hear alot of "Jesus wouldn't own a bass boat or a .44 mag and he certainly wouldn't catch and release, but he understands that I am flawed and he forgives me my weakness".  What's that called?.......oh yeah, unrepentant. 

You shouldn't patronize Gay run or Hindu run establishments.  Indeed, If a Christian should come across such an establishment, they should let the owners know how wrong (sinful, really) they are, in a most loving way, expose them to the Gospel and tell others to avoid them as well until they repent.  'Course that's just how I read the Bible.  I don't have the discerning ability because I was never a REAL Christian.

You tell me, Art.  Would you come over to my house for dinner if we said a Satanic prayer before dinner (despite the fact that we are not Satanists)?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm willing to take it even farther into all secular activities.


Here is a verse to ponder context. Notice that nothing is said against going over to enjoy a meal. Friendship is assumed

1 Cor 10:27
If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.


----------



## Israel (Dec 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I, myself, admire people that "walk the walk".  That's why the Amish are my favorite Christians.  Everything else just seems like excuses.
> 
> I hear alot of "Jesus wouldn't own a bass boat or a .44 mag and he certainly wouldn't catch and release, but he understands that I am flawed and he forgives me my weakness".  What's that called?.......oh yeah, unrepentant.
> 
> ...



Now...that's funny right there. To me, anyway.
Jesus may not have lived in a double-wide, but he gave me a nice one. He also gave me a lovely Remington .308 through a brother who delighted to hunt with the .44 Mag he testified the Lord had given him.
I don't know which version of Jesus the folks you been hanging out with have, but the one I know doesn't find tools repugnant at all, even ones that are fun to use.
Oh, yeah, though it don't qualify as a bass boat per se, this brother and I relished the Scanoe we shared on many a river, lake, and pond. 
I probably got more "gospel" there than I have in almost any other building in a month of sundays.
This is the brother who first received this song from the Lord...may I sing it to you?


----------



## BT Charlie (Dec 26, 2013)

Israel said:


> Now...that's funny right there. To me, anyway.
> Jesus may not have lived in a double-wide, but he gave me a nice one. He also gave me a lovely Remington .308 through a brother who delighted to hunt with the .44 Mag he testified the Lord had given him.
> I don't know which version of Jesus the folks you been hanging out with have, but the one I know doesn't find tools repugnant at all, even ones that are fun to use.
> Oh, yeah, though it don't qualify as a bass boat per se, this brother and I relished the Scanoe we shared on many a river, lake, and pond.
> ...




Amen, Israel.

Well done. But I do not detect a drawl?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

Israel said:


> Now...that's funny right there. To me, anyway.
> Jesus may not have lived in a double-wide, but he gave me a nice one. He also gave me a lovely Remington .308 through a brother who delighted to hunt with the .44 Mag he testified the Lord had given him.
> I don't know which version of Jesus the folks you been hanging out with have, but the one I know doesn't find tools repugnant at all, even ones that are fun to use.
> Oh, yeah, though it don't qualify as a bass boat per se, this brother and I relished the Scanoe we shared on many a river, lake, and pond.
> ...



Pretty good singing and message. Thanks for sharing your talents.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I, myself, admire people that "walk the walk".  That's why the Amish are my favorite Christians.  Everything else just seems like excuses.
> 
> I hear alot of "Jesus wouldn't own a bass boat or a .44 mag and he certainly wouldn't catch and release, but he understands that I am flawed and he forgives me my weakness".  What's that called?.......oh yeah, unrepentant.
> 
> ...



No I could not. I could eat with you if you said no prayer and even if you said a universal  or pagan prayer. I guess that makes me a hyprocrite. When I eat in a Hindu restaurant, I have no way of knowing if the food has been blessed by the wrong God.
I have been known to watch television shows and movies with gay, atheist, or Muslim actors. Ambush, you  are willing to show some of my fellow brothers our hypocritical nature when it comes to who we shun. An example I like to use is the Boy Scouts. You only have to believe in a god, any god. Yet Christians socialize with these believers of other gods. They do this in Free masonry too. Somehow that's OK but it's not OK to socialize with Atheist. I don't see the difference. 
Those are some extreme examples. What if I'm doing business with election believers, Mormons, JW's, 7th Day Adventist? They don't believe exactly as I do? 
We have had some Christian brothers that would go so far as to call members of other denominations, maybe not Christains. That would open up another whole group of people not to associate with. 
Why should I be expected make a wedding cake for Jews if I don't feel God is condoning their marriage? This is just a hypothetical example. I don't really feel that way about Jews.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Course that's just how I read the Bible.  I don't have the discerning ability because I was never a REAL Christian.



I don't think that's true.  I think you know fully well that your straw man interpretations aren't accurate.  You only spout them to disparage Christianity and Christians.  Art is more than happy to oblige you in your inferences of Christian hypocrisy.  I'm not.


----------



## Israel (Dec 26, 2013)

BT Charlie said:


> Amen, Israel.
> 
> Well done. But I do not detect a drawl?



Hit this planet by way of the Bronx, originally.
And bless you for the kind words.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think that's true.  I think you know fully well that your straw man interpretations aren't accurate.  You only spout them to disparage Christianity and Christians.  Art is more than happy to oblige you in your inferences of Christian hypocrisy.  I'm not.



I don't think that's true either. I believe Ambush was a real live Christian who used his free will to stop believing. Why is that so hard to believe?
The part about me IS true. So you don't truly see any hypocrisy in the topic or Christianity in general? Is discussing hypocrisy wrong? You have no opinion on how secular Christians should be? You have no opinion on what part of our religion we should make a stand for in our government?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

I was just reading about the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Their leader, the Shah, was taking their country in a more a more secular direction. The people of the country, Muslims, did not want to remove their religion from their lifestyle and laws. 
They overthrew the present government and became an Islamic country.

How many of us Christians would do that or should we? If we really have "had enough" is that the direction to go? Would God bless such an operation? That would be easy to justify as God blesses all military operations. 
Or do we just say the United States is a “secular” country and Christians should respect a clear boundary between “church” and “state?"
How should Christians engage popular culture and the public square? Should Christians strive to advance their moral views in the political and/or legal sphere? Can Christians push for the legislation of morality? Or should Christians respect that we are a “secular” society with varying beliefs?
I'm not real concerned on what philosophy our country was founded. It's not too late to make it a Christian nation even if it never was. I revolution is about change.

Matthew 12:30
"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> The part about me IS true. So you don't truly see any hypocrisy in the topic or Christianity in general? Is discussing hypocrisy wrong? You have no opinion on how secular Christians should be? You have no opinion on what part of our religion we should make a stand for in our government?



No Art I do have an opinion.  What I don't do is tear down or disparage what I'm trying to build up.  How you can call yourself a Christian when you often start threads here that cast Christianity and Christians in a bad light is beyond me.  We are called to edify one another.  When you start a thread that deliberately and *falsely* equates Christian views on two separate topics in order to characterize us as hypocrites is it edifying to Christians or just you?   When you start a thread that *falsely* infers that women in Christian cultures are not treated as well as women in Islamic cultures what exactly is your point other than to be noticed.  Does the truth matter to you at all?  Honestly, does it?

Which side of the fence are you on cause honestly I can't tell.  Your words say one thing , but your actions say another.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No Art I do have an opinion.  What I don't do is tear down or disparage what I'm trying to build up.  How you can call yourself a Christian when you often start threads here that cast Christianity and Christians in a bad light is beyond me.  We are called to edify one another.  When you start a thread that deliberately and *falsely* equates Christian views on two separate topics in order to characterize us as hypocrites is it edifying to Christians or just you?   When you start a thread that *falsely* infers that women in Christian cultures are not treated as well as women in Islamic cultures what exactly is your point other than to be noticed.  Does the truth matter to you at all?  Honestly, does it?
> 
> Which side of the fence are you on cause honestly I can't tell.  Your words say one thing , but your actions say another.



That would explain why 80% of your religious threads you start are on the AAA forum. You see the truth as dividing. I see the truth as conquering. You don't feel comfortable starting threads or discussing thought provoking ideals as it makes you question your own faith. You feel more comfortable debating with the enemy.
I could probably view 75% of all the religious threads as Christians divideson our beliefs. That's mostly all we talk about. Go look at some of them before you are so quick to just blame me. 
I can also find hypocrisy in in myself and other Christians. I find this soul searching truthfulness.
Myself as an example. I call myself a freewill believer yet I see biblical examples of God controlling events. This makes me a hypocrite. It makes me search for the truth.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> When you start a thread that deliberately and *falsely* equates Christian views on two separate topics in order to characterize us as hypocrites is it edifying to Christians or just you?



I went back an looked at this discussion. It was mostly on Christians and what can we accept living in a secular society giving an Atheist marriage as an example. 
The hypocrisy debate didn't start until introduced  by Ambush in post #26. I did agree with him and maybe since I agreed with a known Atheist, on Christian hypocrisy, you  saw the whole topic as such. 
The one on females in religion was more of a sociological issue within the various religions than hypocrisy.  I'll have to re read that one to see if I was being  hypocritical.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 26, 2013)

I'll ask you again.  When you start threads based on falsities in order to disparage Christianity, how is that helpful to Christianity or Christians?


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 26, 2013)

its said in the bible that an atheist can sit in a congregation. if he knows Gods laws an choose to disobey then for a time he was atheist he knows the law but yet choose his own laws.. For the hardcore atheist that don't believe in a God or any Gods. Why would you wanna stand before God and everybody to declare your marriage. doesn't that make you a hypocrite? why wouldn't you just make an agreement with her? you don't need god or even understand it. so why start your marriage out of confusion? 
theirs also a problem of the man who marries these people, i wonder does the bible talk about where his part comes in? i don't know. 

this is deeper than atheist i know cause you can tell the underlying frustration. it goes onto Gay marriages also.. We have a conflict in nature there to the point of why would they marry. i mean whats the point if you wanted kids why didn't you marry the part of nature that allows for this. why tread on the natural ways of things just to prove two people of the same sex can love each other. i don't see two bucks making any fawns. So how would that fawn be taking care of if they did have one? Are they playing with childrens lives? i don't know, i'm not the judge but its hard to see a kid turning out to be a natural person when raised in unnatural ways.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

This is the "other" thread in question. SemperFDawg accuses me of having an alterior motive in it also.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=8364178#post8364178

My opening statement:
Interesting from a sociological study is the difference our Gods place on women in our religion. Islam, Judaism, & Christianity all have patriarchal doctrines.

He responded with this:
Well if you want to explore the truthful reasons for the difference, why don't you begin by starting with the actual truth of what is actually being implied by your OP.
Like I said, it's a mockery. 

The sad thing is he never offered me any help or did he ever try to point me in the right direction. In fact I didn't get much help in this discussion at all.
I never did see anything hypocritical by anyone posting.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll ask you again.  When you start threads based on falsities in order to disparage Christianity, how is that helpful to Christianity or Christians?



I don't consider it to be false. I don't believe or feel God blesses Atheist marriages. I do not know of any exact Bible verses telling me this but I honestly don't believe the God of Abraham, that I believe in, blesses Atheist marriages. I don't believe he blesses Pagan or Hindu marriages either.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 26, 2013)

Now back on topic, what is our role as Christians to lead our country towards a more Christian state or should we just co-exist in a secular society?


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 26, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Now back on topic, what is our role as Christians to lead our country towards a more Christian state or should we just co-exist in a secular society?





We should just let God sort them out.. We already know whats coming all we need to do is rejoice in the fact if we try to do right by ourselves and do the good.. cause he says all he does is good.. He's gonna take us out of this tormented world and the pain thats in it.. don't look the gifted horse in the mouth.. he was gave to you enjoy the good work he does.. why scrutinize him


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 26, 2013)

the difference, i've been in this situation and you can't really explain it with words.. 

When your laying their Christians will know their being taken away to a beautiful place where their burdens will be layed down.. So when you dying you have nothing to fear.. When the Doctors look at you and say they've done all they can, i had one tell me he had done all he can do and the rest is up to me and GOD.. That gave me someone else to talk to a comforter, i was able to reach out to him and let him take me home if its his will.. If its not his will and you still have a purpose here then you'll live.. Its a comforting moment to know you lived for a reason, the reason is to do his good.. The rest if confused or lost then after the doctors done talking they'll lay there in their own confusion of not knowing, they'll go out lost in their minds of not knowing.. Same with all that question God and don't wanna believe in it.. their questions will be their last words.. its like looking down the barrel of a 45, who holds that last breath or last heart beat..GOD does..


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 27, 2013)

Israel said:


> Now...that's funny right there. To me, anyway.
> Jesus may not have lived in a double-wide, but he gave me a nice one. He also gave me a lovely Remington .308 through a brother who delighted to hunt with the .44 Mag he testified the Lord had given him.
> I don't know which version of Jesus the folks you been hanging out with have, but the one I know doesn't find tools repugnant at all, even ones that are fun to use.
> Oh, yeah, though it don't qualify as a bass boat per se, this brother and I relished the Scanoe we shared on many a river, lake, and pond.
> ...



You're a really nice guy.  I can tell how you sincerely care for other people.  I simply  disagree with your premise.  

Thank you for your heart felt sentiments.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think that's true.  I think you know fully well that your straw man interpretations aren't accurate.  You only spout them to disparage Christianity and Christians.  Art is more than happy to oblige you in your inferences of Christian hypocrisy.  I'm not.



I think Art is connecting the dots.  May his search end in enlightenment.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 27, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Now back on topic, what is our role as Christians to lead our country towards a more Christian state or should we just co-exist in a secular society?



The first.
Christians should be impacting and influencing every person they have contact with.  It's God's will.  Most of the Bible is speaking of God's will for His children to live a life that will impact and impress God upon the lives of all the world.  
And in that regard, this nation and it's leaders.

We should be public in our expressions.  The world should know that we care about this nation.
1 Timothy 2:1,2 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 27, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> The first.
> Christians should be impacting and influencing every person they have contact with.  It's God's will.  Most of the Bible is speaking of God's will for His children to live a life that will impact and impress God upon the lives of all the world.
> And in that regard, this nation and it's leaders.
> 
> ...




i like this and its sometimes a hard line to walk but we must be happy about the good he gave us..


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 28, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> If I have rental property, should I be able to rent to a nice Atheist couple and not feel guilty about it. Would that be better than one Atheist married to a Christian?



You'll have to decide who you'll rent to.  
I don't why a Christian would ever marry an atheist, or an unbeliever.


----------



## Israel (Dec 28, 2013)

When all is ultimately revealed and all the "I thought I was married", "I thought I had my own children", "I thought that was mine", "I thought I was alive", "I thought God was..." is disclosed to all in the sight of all, maybe there's not as much need in the interim for "not" allowing as seeing we are not shocked in that day by our own misapprehensions. Maybe just keeping ourselves in the love and truth is enough of a full time job, and might even accomplish through us, even toward others, what the Lord finds pleasure in.


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 28, 2013)

proverbs 20:3

3- it is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling..

a·loof
É™ËˆloÍžof/Submit
adjective
1.
not friendly or forthcoming; cool and distant.
"they were courteous but faintly aloof"
synonyms:	distant, detached, unfriendly, antisocial, unsociable, avoidant, remote, unapproachable, formal, stiff, withdrawn, reserved, unforthcoming, uncommunicative, unsympathetic; More
antonyms:	familiar, friendly
conspicuously uninvolved and uninterested, typically through distaste.
"he stayed aloof from the bickering"
Origin

More
mid 16th cent.: from a-2 (expressing direction) + luff. The term was originally an adverb in nautical use, meaning â€˜away and to windward!,â€™ i.e., with the ship's head kept close to the wind away from a lee shore, etc., toward which it might otherwise drift. From this arose the sense â€˜at a distanceâ€™ literally or figuratively.
Translate aloof to
Use over time for: aloof


----------



## Lead Poison (Dec 28, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Only divinely-approved marriages should be permitted. Unions which offend God should not be legal. Godless people cannot be united in "Holy Matrimony" and their marriages cannot in any way be based on the will of God.



Wrong on this one.


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 28, 2013)

Do you know what the statistic data shows regarding divorce rates between different religious groups, including Athiests?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 29, 2013)

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Man tries to divide, Jesus unites.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 29, 2013)

Lead Poison said:


> Wrong on this one.



I'm speaking strictly of "Holy Matrimony", not secular marriages that might possibly  be just about any kind of union agreed upon by government.

Matrimony is a holy sacrament, officiated by a priest, of uniting a man to a woman.  Through this holy sacrament, the man and woman become one, for as the Lord Jesus said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.  So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.  Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:5,6).

More unity:
 “Now I plea with you, brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment”, and, “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.  There is one body and one Spirit” (Ephesians 4: 3,4).

Atheist matrimony isn't Holy Matrimony. The two are exclusive and have different purposes. One is to unite people in a holy and sacred union while the other is a legal union only between 2 people and the state. Marriage in the USA is a secular institution consisting of the voluntary commitment of 2 people, which the government sanctions and binds together by law.
It's only considered sacred (in the religious sense) by those who believe it is a covenant between 2 people with their God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 29, 2013)

In being a less secular Christian and "walking the walk", Should we do more research into who we are doing business with? Should we compile a list of Atheist, Muslim, and Hindu businesses? Jewish businesses are OK because the were "blinded."
This would be similar to the list of businesses that got a 100% score for befriending Gay people:
The most positively perceived brands mostly correspond to companies with high marks on the 2010 Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index. This was three years ago, maybe they have changed.
Here is the breakdown of the Top 20 brands with the best perceptions by LGBT people, plus their parent companies and HRC Corporate Equality Index rating:

Rank. Brand (Company): Buzz Score - CEI Rating
1. YouTube (Google): 47.9 - 100
2. Google (Google): 44.8 - 100
3. Netflix (Netflix): 42.4 - NA
4. Amazon (Amazon.com, Inc.): 37.5 -95
5. Subway (Doctor's Associates, Inc.): 32.9 - NA
6. Whole Foods (Whole Foods Market, Inc.): 32.1 - 85
7. Disneyland/Disney World (The Walt Disney Co.): 31.7 - 100
8. iPhone (Apple, Inc.): 31.6 - 100
9. Claritin (Schering-Plough Corp.): 31.3 - 100
10. HBO (Time Warner Cable, Inc.): 30.9 - 95
11. Lowe's (Lowe's Companies, Inc.): 30.8 - 30
12. Cheerios (General Mills): 30.6 - 100
13. Food Network (Scripps Network Interactive & The Tribune Company): 30.5 - NA
14. Ford (Ford Motor Co.): 29.6 - NA
15. M&M's (Mars, Inc.): 29.4 - 73
16. Nike (Nike, Inc.): 29.2 - 100
17. Apple (Apple, Inc.): 29.2 - 100
18. Trader Joe's (Trader Joe's): 28.6 - NA
19. Bose (Bose Corporation): 28.6 - NA
20. iPod (Apple, Inc.): 28.5 - 100

A boycott in lieu of a revolution.


----------



## HawgJawl (Dec 29, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm speaking strictly of "Holy Matrimony", not secular marriages that might possibly  be just about any kind of union agreed upon by government.
> 
> Matrimony is a holy sacrament, officiated by a priest, of uniting a man to a woman.  Through this holy sacrament, the man and woman become one, for as the Lord Jesus said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.  So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.  Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:5,6).
> 
> ...



If God joins two people together in holy matrimony, does that make it less likely to be dissolved, as in lower divorce rates?


----------



## 1222DANO (Dec 30, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> In being a less secular Christian and "walking the walk", Should we do more research into who we are doing business with? Should we compile a list of Atheist, Muslim, and Hindu businesses? Jewish businesses are OK because the were "blinded."
> This would be similar to the list of businesses that got a 100% score for befriending Gay people:
> The most positively perceived brands mostly correspond to companies with high marks on the 2010 Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index. This was three years ago, maybe they have changed.
> Here is the breakdown of the Top 20 brands with the best perceptions by LGBT people, plus their parent companies and HRC Corporate Equality Index rating:
> ...




I was talking to a friend and he and i got to talking about China,Muslims,all we felt like was moving in on us etc. i then start to go into about how the English language lacks the words to describe God and leaves us confounded alot.''we lack words to explain''.. He has questioned God a few times i know cause he told me. I then told him i had to many supernatural things that s happened to me or someone i knew for me to question. i think God might have made us blind to a lot of whats happening for a reason. Ever noticed how some people can fall into a pile of crap and come out smelling like a rose. Well that's the attitude i like to take with the take overs. If we believe no matter what ''perhaps he'll break out the chariots of fire''.. i love it don't you we never know what could happen next or maybe not and he'll take us all home.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 30, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> If God joins two people together in holy matrimony, does that make it less likely to be dissolved, as in lower divorce rates?



I can't respond as I would appear to be casting Christians in a bad light even if true.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 30, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I can't respond as I would appear to be casting Christians in a bad light even if true.



This doesn't sound like you.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 30, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> This doesn't sound like you.



This thread based on Secular Christianity was thought to have a secret agenda to disparage Christianity.
We'll all have to tone down our division in discussing Mormons, JW's, Seventh Day Adventist, Christadelphians, Unitarianism, Trinitarianism, & Predestinationism which only serves to disparage and divide Christianity.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 30, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> This thread based on Secular Christianity was thought to have a secret agenda to disparage Christianity.
> We'll all have to tone down our division in discussing Mormons, JW's, Seventh Day Adventist, Christadelphians, Unitarianism, Trinitarianism, & Predestinationism which only serves to disparage and divide Christianity.



I thought the whole point of the thread was to separate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## formula1 (Dec 30, 2013)

*Re:*



Artfuldodger said:


> I was just reading about the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Their leader, the Shah, was taking their country in a more a more secular direction. The people of the country, Muslims, did not want to remove their religion from their lifestyle and laws.
> They overthrew the present government and became an Islamic country.
> 
> How many of us Christians would do that or should we? If we really have "had enough" is that the direction to go? Would God bless such an operation? That would be easy to justify as God blesses all military operations.
> ...



Art, your last comments and questions really got me thinking about a Christian revolution and it's validity.

1) In Jesus' words alone, I see no need for a revolution. His kingdom is a heavenly one. What can I do by fighting for it (physically speaking).
John 18:36 
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

2) This is what we should be about!
Mark 16 ( and also Matthew 28:18-19)
15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

While I consider myself as being 'with Jesus', we cannot as Christians by definition Love should we decide to force our Christian beliefs upon the whole of society, which would lead to revolution and lives, both guilty and innocent lost. What part of Love exists in that? And further, can Jesus attain any loyal subjects by force?   

The clashing of the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of darkness already provides plenty enough warfare.  Expect it to get far worse as the attack today is on Christ.  Yet I already know who my King is and who will fight my battles! And who will win!

We have our marching orders: Love God, Love Others, Preach the Gospel, make disciples! Repeat over and over!

Note this, Jesus did not lose, even though He died! And neither will we! God Bless!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 30, 2013)

formula1 said:


> Art, your last comments and questions really got me thinking about a Christian revolution and it's validity.
> 
> 1) In Jesus' words alone, I see no need for a revolution. His kingdom is a heavenly one. What can I do by fighting for it (physically speaking).
> John 18:36
> ...



Good points, thanks.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 3, 2014)

Atheists have the 3rd lowest divorce rates of the 9 major groups of religious affiliation in America and have a lower divorce rate than the national average for the entire population.

Protestant Christians have a higher divorce rate than the national average for the entire population.

Hindus have the lowest divorce rates of any religious group at approximately 5%.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 3, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Atheists have the 3rd lowest divorce rates of the 9 major groups of religious affiliation in America and have a lower divorce rate than the national average for the entire population.
> 
> Protestant Christians have a higher divorce rate than the national average for the entire population.
> 
> Hindus have the lowest divorce rates of any religious group at approximately 5%.



I still have trouble calling an Atheist union "Holy Matrimony." I'll stick to calling it a "civil union."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 4, 2014)

It's a challenge for Christians to live in the world, yet stand apart as Jesus instructs believers to do in the Bible. 

Unfortunately, many Christians succumb to worldly trappings and fall into a mixed world view; professing a belief in Jesus, but living secular lifestyles, "Secular" means "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have not religious or spiritual basis." 

I'm still looking at how for we can be a Christian living in a secular world. How radical should we be to change the government? 
Can't we be satisfied with just converting individuals? 

If we stand apart, we are offering an alternative to the corruption. It might make our witnessing easier.
O wonder if the Christians living in an Amish community have it easier than us being farther away from the secular world.

Two links to Christianity in a secular world:

http://www.christian-information-center.com/christian-secular.html

http://questions.org/attq/should-christians-support-a-secular-state/


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 4, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's a challenge for Christians to live in the world, yet stand apart as Jesus instructs believers to do in the Bible.
> 
> Unfortunately, many Christians succumb to worldly trappings and fall into a mixed world view; professing a belief in Jesus, but living secular lifestyles, "Secular" means "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have not religious or spiritual basis."
> 
> ...



God never asked us to change the government.  He asked us to obey the government and pray for the government, as though God had appointed the government Himself.

The God asked us to be a light unto the world.  To touch the darkness.  Touch the society with the love of Christ and society will change the government(if it's God's will).
.


----------



## Israel (Jan 5, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> God never asked us to change the government.  He asked us to obey the government and pray for the government, as though God had appointed the government Himself.
> 
> The God asked us to be a light unto the world.  To touch the darkness.  Touch the society with the love of Christ and society will change the government(if it's God's will).
> .


Amen.
He who had the "more than twelve legions of angels" at his disposal could have done something other, but didn't.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's a challenge for Christians to live in the world, yet stand apart as Jesus instructs believers to do in the Bible.
> 
> Unfortunately, many Christians succumb to worldly trappings and fall into a mixed world view; professing a belief in Jesus, but living secular lifestyles, "Secular" means "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have not religious or spiritual basis."
> 
> ...



Can we legislate morality?

God knows the difference between:

I can't do that because it is illegal.
and
I won't do that because it's not Christ-like.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I still have trouble calling an Atheist union "Holy Matrimony." I'll stick to calling it a "civil union."



Fine with me. I got married at the Justice of the Peace office. Cheap and quick. Like my woman. 

I agree. "Holy Matrimony" and "church weddings" should be reserved for God fearing souls.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I have to ask the question - Don't you find it odd that you cant be both without "breaking the rules" of one or the other?


Beat me to it. That should raise a red flag but...


----------



## Israel (Jan 6, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Can we legislate morality?
> 
> God knows the difference between:
> 
> ...



well put.
he also knows the difference between...it is legal...but not profitable.


----------



## trckdrvr (Jan 6, 2014)

"Should atheists be allowed to marry?"


Yes.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I still have trouble calling an Atheist union "Holy Matrimony." I'll stick to calling it a "civil union."



I think Atheists have trouble calling anything "Holy" and would therefore agree with you.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I still have trouble calling an Atheist union "Holy Matrimony." I'll stick to calling it a "civil union."



Yet when married in a church supposedly in the eyes of God not a single atheist was stricken down, burst into flames, was somehow unable to cross the threshold of the altar etc etc etc. Seems as though as long as some ca$h changes hands God is fine with it.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 6, 2014)

"What God has joined together...."

I've often pondered the following question:  If two people decide, and then get married, does that mean that God has joined them together?
I've asked that question among church people and the majority have always replied  'YES.  if a couple get married they are joined together by God'.

I disagree.   "What God has join....." doesn't say every marriage is God joined.
Our civil government decides who can legally married according to the law.  But does God's law and civil law merge in the subject?
I'm not suggesting that I, or you, have any business deciding which marriages have been ordained by God.  Just thinking.

Thoughts?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2014)

My wife and I were told we were married in the eyes of God at our Church wedding.

This is a good one on the subject
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/191211-Marriage-in-the-eyes-of-God


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> "What God has joined together...."
> 
> I've often pondered the following question:  If two people decide, and then get married, does that mean that God has joined them together?
> I've asked that question among church people and the majority have always replied  'YES.  if a couple get married they are joined together by God'.
> ...



I do not believe that every couple who is joined together is joined by God.  What about believers joined to non believers?

A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:36 NIV)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> My wife and I were told we were married in the eyes of God at our Church wedding.
> 
> This a a good one on the subject
> http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/191211-Marriage-in-the-eyes-of-God



Thanks for the link, they are as varied as we are in beliefs.
I don't believe a couple having sex is considered a marriage in the eyes of God as some of those believe.
I agree with this person:

quote:
I think the word "Joined" has a different meaning than "being sexually intimate".

Reason being- look at the 2 verses that follow.

1Cr 6:17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
1Cr 6:18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
From what I understand, the context of "joined" is partnered with, or committed to.... (or something along those lines.)
And if sex alone constitues "marriage" in God's eyes, it wouldn't make sense to call it fornication/sin, as it is above.

I'm not completely sold on the "sex = marriage in God's eyes" explanation.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/191211-Marriage-in-the-eyes-of-God/page2


----------



## bullethead (Jan 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Thanks for the link, they are as varied as we are in beliefs.
> I don't believe a couple having sex is considered a marriage in the eyes of God as some of those believe.
> I agree with this person:
> 
> ...



Not saying I agree with the sex=marriage line of thought myself....just showing how you ask ten people and you will get ten different answers.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Not saying I agree with the sex=marriage line of thought myself....just showing how you ask ten people and you will get ten different answers.



So true, here is the Catholic take:

Marriage in the Catholic Church, also called matrimony, is a "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. 

Marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics ("mixed marriages") are opposed by the Catholic Church, as they are looked upon as degrading the holy character of matrimony. However, permission for such marriages is more readily granted in the circumstances prevailing over the past century.

Marriage with a non-Catholic Christian

From an early stage, Church councils forbade Catholic Christians to marry heretics or schismatics. Unlike marriage with a non-Christian, which came to be considered invalid, marriage with a heretic was seen as valid, though illicit unless a dispensation had been obtained. However, the Church's opposition to such unions is very ancient. Early regional councils, such as the 4th-century Council of Elvira and the Council of Laodicea, legislated against them; and the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon prohibited such unions especially between members of the lower ecclesiastical grades and heretical women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage

So at one time a Christian could marry a heretic or schismatic but not an Atheist.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 7, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> "What God has joined together...."
> 
> I've often pondered the following question:  If two people decide, and then get married, does that mean that God has joined them together?
> I've asked that question among church people and the majority have always replied  'YES.  if a couple get married they are joined together by God'.
> ...



If a particular marriage is in fact ordained by God, what exactly does that mean?  In what way is that marriage different from one that is not ordained by God?



Artfuldodger said:


> So true, here is the Catholic take:
> 
> Marriage in the Catholic Church, also called matrimony, is a "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.
> 
> ...



Does an ordained marriage receive some type of blessing from God that translates into anything tangible or is it simply that a prohibited marriage is a sin but either relationship is just as strong as the other?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 7, 2014)

Should religious folk be allowed to determine which two adults can spend the rest of their lives together?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Should religious folk be allowed to determine which two adults can spend the rest of their lives together?



That is the million dollar question and why I started this thread. How secular in our beliefs can we become and still be good Christians? Can we be for "liberty for all" without forcing our beliefs on "all?" Can I be a good American who stands for everyones rights and still be a good Christian? 
Some Christians believe we should sway our goverment towards a more Christian form and others don't. Some talk of protesting non Christian businesses as an example. 
Women's rights would make another example. There are differences between men & women and the Bible points out these differences so how for can we go before we are against what the Bible teaches?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If a particular marriage is in fact ordained by God, what exactly does that mean?  In what way is that marriage different from one that is not ordained by God?
> Does an ordained marriage receive some type of blessing from God that translates into anything tangible or is it simply that a prohibited marriage is a sin but either relationship is just as strong as the other?



The ordained marriage pleases God. It shows obedience. You've already pointed out that Christians married or not don't recieve anything tangible. God's blessings rain on all.
I'm sure there are many strong marriages in the Atheist or Hindu community. They probably make just as much money and are just as healthy.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 7, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> That is the million dollar question and why I started this thread. How secular in our beliefs can we become and still be good Christians? Can we be for "liberty for all" without forcing our beliefs on "all?" Can I be a good American who stands for everyones rights and still be a good Christian?
> Some Christians believe we should sway our goverment towards a more Christian form and others don't. Some talk of protesting non Christian businesses as an example.
> Women's rights would make another example. There are differences between men & women and the Bible points out these differences so how for can we go before we are against what the Bible teaches?



If you subscribe to Mosaic Law, then forced obedience to God may seem like a positive thing, however under Christ, forced obedience is not obedience at all.  Under Christ, what matters is what is in the heart.

If a business portrays a Christian image simply to attract customers and avoid a boycott by Christians, does Christ view this as a victory?  I don't think so.

Legally forcing citizens to act in a way which appears similar to a Christ-like life is not the same thing as converting people to Christianity.  If it were, then just being a good person would be enough for salvation.

If you accept that you can't force someone to be Christian, then what is the point of the things you are advocating in this thread?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 7, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> That is the million dollar question and why I started this thread. How secular in our beliefs can we become and still be good Christians?
> Can we be for "liberty for all" without forcing our beliefs on "all?" Can I be a good American who stands for everyones rights and still be a good Christian?
> Some Christians believe we should sway our goverment towards a more Christian form and others don't. Some talk of protesting non Christian businesses as an example.
> Women's rights would make another example. There are differences between men & women and the Bible points out these differences so how for can we go before we are against what the Bible teaches?




Those are tough questions.  I don't envy your struggle with this.  You've got a good heart and a good head.  I trust you'll find enlightenment.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Should religious folk be allowed to determine which two adults can spend the rest of their lives together?



No.  We cannot know which man and woman would not be qualified.  But we can know that God will not ordain same sex marriage, because God has already condemned such a union.
.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> No.  We cannot know which man and woman would not be qualified.  But we can know that God will not ordain same sex marriage, because God has already condemned such a union.
> .



Is this Old Testament God or New Testament God?


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Is this Old Testament God or New Testament God?



One and the same, then and now, forevermore.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> One and the same, then and now, forevermore.



Do you live your life by everything God tells us and commands us to do in the Bible?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Is this Old Testament God or New Testament God?



Both do an ample job making it clear to me.
.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Do you live your life by everything God tells us and commands us to do in the Bible?



Good question.

I stake a claim to whatever God commands for me and others.  

I might not always hold myself, or others, to those standards.  Not because I believe the standards had changed for me, but because I'm full of myself and occasionally do what I know better than to do.
But I should always be accountable to what God says is right, and I should always strive to live within the bounds of what God dictates as being right.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 7, 2014)

Telling a lie is one of the big ten.  Between lying and a homosexual act, which one is a greater sin?

If they are equal, why do you think Christians focus condemnation so much more on one over the other?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Do you live your life by everything God tells us and commands us to do in the Bible?


Perfectly...through Christ.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If they are equal, why do you think Christians focus condemnation so much more on one over the other?



Because there is a very vocal segment of society who is devoted to having homosexuality declared "not a sin".  OTOH, nobody is lobbying for lying to be celebrated.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 7, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> That is the million dollar question and why I started this thread. How secular in our beliefs can we become and still be good Christians? Can we be for "liberty for all" without forcing our beliefs on "all?" Can I be a good American who stands for everyones rights and still be a good Christian?
> Some Christians believe we should sway our goverment towards a more Christian form and others don't. Some talk of protesting non Christian businesses as an example.
> Women's rights would make another example. There are differences between men & women and the Bible points out these differences so how for can we go before we are against what the Bible teaches?





> without forcing our beliefs on "all?"





> believe we should sway our goverment towards a more Christian form


Without trying to be a smart butt, maybe you havent noticed but these questions are being answered for you, not by you. Not so slowly but surely any religious influence is being taken out of the equation.
Society is putting all religious influence where it belongs - in your homes and churches where it only affects those who believe in them. As it should be.  All you have to do is look around to see thats a fact. No?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> Good question.
> 
> I stake a claim to whatever God commands for me and others.
> 
> ...



Sounds like a more elegant way to say you pick and choose like most.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Because there is a very vocal segment of society who is devoted to having homosexuality declared "not a sin".  OTOH, nobody is lobbying for lying to be celebrated.



There are people promoting certain ideas that are not consistent with Christianity and to accept these ideas would involve rejecting the Christian view of these issues.

If this scenerio compels a strong public condemnation by Christians, why do we not strongly and publically condemn other religions which are not consistent with Christianity?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Sounds like a more elegant way to say you pick and choose like most.



I thought I made it quite clear that I don't pick and choose.  Even if it's a sin that I commit, I must acknowledge that I sinned and that I was wrong.  Whether I sinned the sin or not doesn't change God's will.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If this scenerio compels a strong public condemnation by Christians, why do we not strongly and publically condemn other religions which are not consistent with Christianity?



Jesus called us to "go make disciples" not to "strongly and publically condemn other religions".


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Jesus called us to "go make disciples" not to "strongly and publically condemn other religions".



The promotion of other religions presents the same type of "threat" to Christianity as the promotion of same-sex marriage.

You say that Jesus did not call us to strongly and publically condemn other religions.  Did Jesus call us to strongly and publically condemn same-sex marriage?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> I thought I made it quite clear that I don't pick and choose.  Even if it's a sin that I commit, I must acknowledge that I sinned and that I was wrong.  Whether I sinned the sin or not doesn't change God's will.



Yeah but you are not stoning adulterers either.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Did Jesus call us to strongly and publically condemn same-sex marriage?



No, He calls us to repent.  In making disciples, we have to call others to repent.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Yeah but you are not stoning adulterers either.



What did Jesus say about stoning adulterers?  I'll give you a hint:


1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

-- John 8


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Yeah but you are not stoning adulterers either.



God doesn't want me to stone adulterers,,,,, or homosexuals,,,, or murders,,, or grumblers.
God wants me to love those people just like he loves me, even though I have sin.

Others might want to stone them.  Not me.
.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)




----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> The promotion of other religions presents the same type of "threat" to Christianity as the promotion of same-sex marriage.
> 
> You say that Jesus did not call us to strongly and publically condemn other religions.  Did Jesus call us to strongly and publically condemn same-sex marriage?





centerpin fan said:


> No, He calls us to repent.  In making disciples, we have to call others to repent.



My point is relatively easy to grasp.

The common method currently utilized by Christians to call homosexuals to repent and attempt to make disciples out of them is to strongly and publicly condemn the ideas they promote.   Why is this method not also utilized by Christians to call believers of religions contrary to Christianity to repent and attempt to make disciples out of them?


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> The promotion of other religions presents the same type of "threat" to Christianity as the promotion of same-sex marriage.




Respectfully, I see it differently. 

To illustrate, let's say Bullethead were to start his own organization based on his own worldview.  Let's say he calls this Bulletheadism, and those who follow it are known as Bulletheadists.  Properly identified as such, I do not perceive that as a threat to "Christianity." It is just another religion or worldview.

OTOH, if Bullethead were to lie, and hold out his worldview as "Christian" (recall, this is a hypothetical) and pervert scripture as hate to justify obvious sin, the way I see it that IS a threat to "Christianity."   That kind of fraud and false teaching within the church is precisely what should be vigorously opposed.

In context, Hawg, Jesus at every turn denounced the sinful aspects of those who portrayed themselves as religious under Judaism.  The idea of "false teaching" specifically in contrast to Christ's teaching did arise in the lifetime of the apostles, however.  John battled Gnosticism and Paul battled Judaism.  Nothing new under the sun, and consistent with predictions of the church being deceived in the last days.  

Perhaps only a remnant will remain true to the Word, but remain it will, God willing.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> My point is relatively easy to grasp.
> 
> The common method currently utilized by Christians to call homosexuals to repent and attempt to make disciples out of them is to strongly and publicly condemn the ideas they promote.   Why is this method not also utilized by Christians to call believers of religions contrary to Christianity to repent and attempt to make disciples out of them?



I believe the above is a completely false statement.  The current outcry isn't directed to homosexuals, but to law makers and a society who are suddenly seeking to change laws that 25 years ago would never have been considered.

I think it's the changing of laws that's creating the outcry from Christians and non Christians.  This isn't about the individual.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> What did Jesus say about stoning adulterers?  I'll give you a hint:
> 
> 
> 1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
> ...



Yes I remember those verses well but I also remember that they were not included in the oldest manuscripts.


I was talking about this version of God:

Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

    If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

    If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Because there is a very vocal segment of society who is devoted to having homosexuality declared "not a sin".  OTOH, nobody is lobbying for lying to be celebrated.



Nobody seems to care about Victoria's Secrets billboards being displayed either.  Maybe they aren't sinful?  Did y'all just give up on fighting that one?  There's movies and TV shows showing homosexuals (men and women) kissing and more to come.  Just like the first interracial kiss y'all will get over it, 20 years after everybody else.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If you subscribe to Mosaic Law, then forced obedience to God may seem like a positive thing, however under Christ, forced obedience is not obedience at all.  Under Christ, what matters is what is in the heart.
> 
> If a business portrays a Christian image simply to attract customers and avoid a boycott by Christians, does Christ view this as a victory?  I don't think so.
> 
> ...



I can see a Christian revolution where perhaps the fish symbol is displayed on all businesses that comply. 
But like you and others said, why force people to be follow laws. Especially if we aren't under the Law anymore.
We as a nation will become a Christian nation in forced name only.
Good point.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Those are tough questions.  I don't envy your struggle with this.  You've got a good heart and a good head.  I trust you'll find enlightenment.



Thanks, I did get a glimpse of that pesky old rabbits tail as he headed down his hole!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> No.  We cannot know which man and woman would not be qualified.  But we can know that God will not ordain same sex marriage, because God has already condemned such a union.
> .



We know and God knows. Beyond that though, what about the world?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 7, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I can see a Christian revolution where perhaps the fish symbol is displayed on all businesses that comply.
> But like you and others said, why force people to be follow laws. Especially if we aren't under the Law anymore.
> We as a nation will become a Christian nation in forced name only.
> Good point.



No fish symbol required.  Simply visit an Old Order Amish community and see Biblical obedience clearly on display.  I love the Amish.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

Upon the rise of Adolf Hitler, gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians, were two of the numerous groups targeted by the Nazi Party and were ultimately among Holocaust victims. Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, who were compelled to sexually conform to the "German norm."

I just thought it was time to bring Hitler into the discussion.

You know, Godwin's Law:

 "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

Many churches just become apolitical:

The Church of God in modern times has always striven to be apolitical—that is, we have no involvement in political matters. With only a few occasional exceptions concerning local issues, our advice to members has always been nonparticipation.

The Amish and Mennonites are free to vote, but very few do.This is because they do not want to be conformed with the world and many regard voting as conforming with the world. 

Jehovah?s Witness do not believe in voting or
participating in elections. The position of this faith is that their
allegiance is solely to God (Jehovah), not " Caesar" (government). As
an example, this faith draws their conclusion in part from Biblical
scriptures such as this:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto
God the things which be God's?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Because there is a very vocal segment of society who is devoted to having homosexuality declared "not a sin".  OTOH, nobody is lobbying for lying to be celebrated.



So we as Christians are OK with Atheist(sinners)getting married, just as long as they are not two males(sinners)?

But the main point is why are we as Christians getting involved? If we are doing it to rid the world of sin, why not outlaw Atheist marriage and then Hindu marriages?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> I believe the above is a completely false statement.



Agreed.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Yes I remember those verses well but I also remember that they were not included in the oldest manuscripts.



That's a whole 'nother debate.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Nobody seems to care about Victoria's Secrets billboards being displayed either.  Maybe they aren't sinful?  Did y'all just give up on fighting that one?  There's movies and TV shows showing homosexuals (men and women) kissing and more to come.  Just like the first interracial kiss y'all will get over it, 20 years after everybody else.



That's not a sin.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> So we as Christians are OK with Atheist(sinners)getting married, just as long as they are not two males(sinners)?



No civilization has ever batted an eye at two atheists getting married -- not so with homosexuals.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> agreed.



x2.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> No fish symbol required.  Simply visit an Old Order Amish community and see Biblical obedience clearly on display.  I love the Amish.





ambush80 said:


> Nobody seems to care about Victoria's Secrets billboards being displayed either.  Maybe they aren't sinful?  Did y'all just give up on fighting that one?  There's movies and TV shows showing homosexuals (men and women) kissing and more to come.  Just like the first interracial kiss y'all will get over it, 20 years after everybody else.



Why don't you visit an Old Order Amish community with a male friend and ask the minister to marry you?  Please film his reaction and post it to Youtube.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Nobody seems to care about Victoria's Secrets billboards being displayed either.  Maybe they aren't sinful?  Did y'all just give up on fighting that one?  There's movies and TV shows showing homosexuals (men and women) kissing and more to come.  Just like the first interracial kiss y'all will get over it, 20 years after everybody else.



There was a discussion on the Political forum with a link to a Pastor who was wondering that same thing. Why have Christians waited until now? Why haven't we been involved in politics since the beginning? Why do we support our government? All of his articles were political in nature. I would hate to go to his Church if his sermons were political in nature. 
Today I was in CVS waiting in line and noticed the headlines of women's magazines. Every cover was full of sex articles with cool catchy headlines for young children to read. Why aren't Christians protesting that?
Christians watch movies & television full of sex & violence instead of trying to rid our great nation of this trash. Christian women read romance novels. We let our children wear provocative clothing. I could go on and on but why are Christians just now forming a revolution? 
Is it the straw that broke the camel's back?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> That's a whole 'nother debate.



But you use those verses as Jesus words and as some sort of proof that he is the more forgiving God in the NT but there is a better than not chance Jesus never spoke them at all and they were a later addition to the Bible........and much of John is under suspicion of not being authentic.
You use those same words to say we should not stone anyone anymore but ignore those words for homosexuals.

Sinners....yeah we all are.....and who here changed to perfect like the they want the gays to do? As if the gays should go straight or they will not ever be forgiven but if they go straight they can constantly sin like each and every finger pointer does daily and be forgiven......doubtful God is in on that line of thought.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> No civilization has ever batted an eye at two atheists getting married -- not so with homosexuals.



That's my point, why haven't we batted an eye at two Atheists getting married?
Will a Catholic church marry an Atheist couple? I'll bet the Amish wouldn't either.

We are mixing Church stuff with secular stuff. How much of this can we do?


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> No civilization has ever batted an eye at two atheists getting married --



Really? 

Can we name two publicly declared atheists allowed to remain alive, let alone marry, in say Salem, Mass., back in the day?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Really?
> 
> Can we name two publicly declared atheists allowed to remain alive, let alone marry, in say Salem, Mass., back in the day?



Back in the day>>>>>You sure you want to open that can of worms?

Here witchy witcheeee........


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Really?
> 
> Can we name two publicly declared atheists allowed to remain alive, let alone marry, in say Salem, Mass., back in the day?



Salem is a little small to be classified as a "civilization".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Respectfully, I see it differently.
> 
> To illustrate, let's say Bullethead were to start his own organization based on his own worldview.  Let's say he calls this Bulletheadism, and those who follow it are known as Bulletheadists.  Properly identified as such, I do not perceive that as a threat to "Christianity." It is just another religion or worldview.
> 
> ...



I can see your point but what about gay couples who aren't Christians? They aren't trying to change Christianity. They just want a civil marriage. I do see your point about two gays getting married in a Church. 
But even within Christianity there is a constant battle over beliefs that have caused great divisions. They all still believe they are Christians as they pervert Scripture yet we aren't rebelling. 
I've seen no Christians trying to stop non Trinitarians from getting married. Some Churches do believe homosexuals are still Christians, just as I am still a sinner. Some Christian Churches go as far as to promote homosexual marriages as ordained by God.
Some Christians are OK with marriages by other Gods. Reminds me of those clubs where "Just as long as you believe in a God" is better than believing there is no God.
We can except a Hindu marriage and even an Atheist marriage.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> ... but there is a better than not chance Jesus never spoke them at all and they were a later addition to the Bible........and much of John is under suspicion of not being authentic.



Disagree.




bullethead said:


> You use those same words to say we should not stone anyone anymore but ignore those words for homosexuals.



Ignore what words for homosexuals?


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> ... but there is a better than not chance Jesus never spoke them at all and they were a later addition to the Bible........and much of John is under suspicion of not being authentic.



This is merely your opinion.  As you are fond of saying, you weren't there. None of your experts can prove these assertions to be true. You have no verifiable data backing up the doubt you cast on the Gospel.

History records thousands of Christ believers tortured and killed for their belief.  

Atheists...not so much.  I can recall no known atheist being tortured and killed for belief in nothing.  

(Heretics, blasphemers and witches....maybe.)


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Salem is a little small to be classified as a "civilization".



Tell that to the colonists, bro! I will take your word for it though. Peace


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Back in the day>>>>>You sure you want to open that can of worms?
> 
> Here witchy witcheeee........



Yes, difficult times.  Not sure tolerance was "in." Sin existed in the church, just manifested differently from today, eh?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Really?
> 
> Can we name two publicly declared atheists allowed to remain alive, let alone marry, in say Salem, Mass., back in the day?



Or a black and white couple back in the day. I can remember when Christians did think it was wrong in the eyes of God for blacks and whites to get married and they could cite scripture. 
Even though we in the US are mostly Christians or profess to be, we have changed our views about race relations and women's rights. Perhaps in the women's rights avenue we have become more secular to the point of leaving Biblical teaching. Maybe our wives forced us too.
We justify this as OK and frown upon religious sects & countries that stay true to their religion about women. 
We will eventually do the same about homosexuality and our grandchildren will think our beliefs silly. Even our Christian great grandchildren who'll probably be tattoo covered, pierced, make-up wearing, bi-sexual, biker headbangers.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> This is merely your opinion.  As you are fond of saying, you weren't there. None of your experts can prove these assertions to be true. You have no verifiable data backing up the doubt you cast on the Gospel.


I can name multiple credible sources that state those verses were not part of the earliest original copies. Some of these experts are....gasp...Christians....



BT Charlie said:


> History records thousands of Christ believers tortured and killed for their belief.



I'll let you post those sources...

History records many Christians dying but not tortured and killed just because they were Christians. If they were breaking the law and the punishment was torture and or death they were tortured and killed for their acts...they just happened to also be Christians.
In your fuzzy world every person that died in a war that happened to believe in Christ died because they were Christian....hardly Charlie. 
The ones that may in fact have been killed strictly for believing in Christ are in good company with every other single believer that was killed because they did not believe in Christ by people that did believe in Christ. So tell me exactly how that makes dying because you are Christian any more important than dying because you believe or do not believe in something else.



BT Charlie said:


> Atheists...not so much.  I can recall no known atheist being tortured and killed for belief in nothing.
> 
> 
> (Heretics, blasphemers and witches....maybe.)



Maybe?? lol
You DO remember the Inquisition, Crusades, Natives, Native Americans....etc?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 7, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Respectfully, I see it differently.
> 
> To illustrate, let's say Bullethead were to start his own organization based on his own worldview.  Let's say he calls this Bulletheadism, and those who follow it are known as Bulletheadists.  Properly identified as such, I do not perceive that as a threat to "Christianity." It is just another religion or worldview.
> 
> ...



So you believe that a Christian church that accepts homosexuals is a greater "false teaching" than Mormons promoting their religion.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Disagree.


Nooo Waaay






centerpin fan said:


> Ignore what words for homosexuals?


Jesus words about letting the person here among us without sin cast the first stone. Or does that just refer to adultery?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Yes, difficult times.  Not sure tolerance was "in." Sin existed in the church, just manifested differently from today, eh?



I've often thought about sin manifesting itself differently in the Church in regards to my own ancestors. They were God fearing, Jesus believing, church goers but might have committed a lot of sins out of ignorance.
Especially related to equal rights, human rights, and loving their neighbor.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Agreed.



You do understand that you're disagreeing with a statement that I quoted from you, don't you?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> My point is relatively easy to grasp.
> 
> The common method currently utilized by Christians to call homosexuals to repent and attempt to make disciples out of them is to strongly and publicly condemn the ideas they promote.   Why is this method not also utilized by Christians to call believers of religions contrary to Christianity to repent and attempt to make disciples out of them?



It should be, there isn't a difference. Jesus said you are either with me or against me. Hindus are just as far away from God as Atheist homosexuals. 
In God's eye there is no difference, just in man's eye do we see a difference.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> So you believe that a Christian church that accepts homosexuals is a greater "false teaching" than Mormons promoting their religion.



Interesting question.

Do I perceive the false teaching of say Presbyterians, for example, using modern liberal false interpretation of scripture with respect to homosexuality, to be more insidious and ultimately more harmful to the church than the Mormon Church was, is or will be?  Ya.

The former purport to interpret the Bible. Darkness thus better masquerades in the light, IMO.

The latter ... Latter Day Saints ... profess the Book of Mormon on top of the Bible.  The false doctrine is far more voluminous, but darkness is more thinly veiled, IMO.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Nooo Waaay


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Jesus words about letting the person here among us without sin cast the first stone. Or does that just refer to adultery?



What were the last five words Jesus spoke to the woman?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> ... you're disagreeing with a statement that I quoted from you ...



I did no such thing.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> What were the last five words Jesus spoke to the woman?



Playing along that Jesus said anything and it wasn't added in later....
"Go and sin no more"
 And I am going to have to ask you your point?

Did the woman sin more? I don't know?

If it is a sin to be gay yet they believe in Jesus and ask for his forgiveness is it any different than any one of the thousand times (at least) the average non-gay Christian sins daily, weekly, over a lifetime and asks for forgiveness?

A sin is a sin and none is worse than the next so I question your point.

I don't think Jesus spoke specifically about homosexuality. Paul had some things to say but he isn't Jesus. If Jesus is a treat others as you wish to be treated kind of guy....well...JWWJSAH??


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Playing along that Jesus said anything and it wasn't added in later....
> "Go and sin no more"
> And I am going to have to ask you your point?



The point is that many people (especially those who know nothing about the Bible) love to quote "judge not lest ye be judged" and " ... let him without sin cast the first stone" and ignore the fact that Jesus acknowledged the woman's sin and told her to stop.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I can name multiple credible sources that state those verses were not part of the earliest original copies. Some of these experts are....gasp...Christians....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It would be prudent for all of us perhaps to walk a few kliks in the other guy's 
boots before judging the fuzzy little world we think the other lives in, particularly when it comes to war, duty, death, killing, injustice, oppression, poverty, patriotism and sin.

When it is illegal and subhuman to be a Jew, or a Christian, holocaust occurs. It takes a superior deception to deny holocaust occurred on the basis of faith, and point only to the civil law that rendered faith illegal.

I think the scholarship of doubt pumped out in the last 50 years is particularly light weight.  I am interested in knowing, on another thread perhaps, who you would cite as authority for your beliefs. How do you discern one theory as reliable, and others unreliable? I mean, what is your personal standard? Is it sufficient if any of it disagrees that the Bible is "inerrant," God-breathed truth?

The Internet is loaded with websites and commercial efforts by "pastors" and others who have jumped on tbe doubt bandwagon.  That the fruit of their scholarship is cited by atheists to deny God is sufficient evidence to me of its eternal value.  But I am interested in what resonates with you.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> But I am interested in what resonates with you.



Facts


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The point is that many people (especially those who know nothing about the Bible) love to quote "judge not lest ye be judged" and " ... let him without sin cast the first stone" and ignore the fact that Jesus acknowledged the woman's sin and told her to stop.



That is so true even Christians use those two excuses all the time, not judging and not casting stones. Jesus did command the woman to sin no more yet we still sin daily. 
Why do we, as Christians, still sin daily? How does that affect our salvation or does it? Why are we even concerned with the splinter in our gay neighbor's eye when we have a huge old regular hetero sexual related sinful plank in our own eye. 
I can hide my hetero sexual related plank from everyone but God still knows it's there.  I don't flaunt it. Maybe that's the difference, I don't flaunt it. It's the flaunting we despise. My sin is still there but it's between me and God.


----------



## 1222DANO (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Playing along that Jesus said anything and it wasn't added in later....
> "Go and sin no more"
> And I am going to have to ask you your point?
> 
> ...




The woman committed the first sin.
yes there has been many of thousands if not millions murdered for believing. Remember Hitler. killed who knows how many for believing. I don't think it would far fetched to say Hitler was an Atheist. If he only believed in himself and his ways then he just made his own Faith or ''Fate'' .


----------



## bullethead (Jan 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The point is that many people (especially those who know nothing about the Bible) love to quote "judge not lest ye be judged" and " ... let him without sin cast the first stone" and ignore the fact that Jesus acknowledged the woman's sin and told her to stop.



So what did Mosaic Law say should have happened to the woman? Never mind that during the time of the NT the Jews were under Roman rule and very rarely(as supported by history) allowed to carry out their own capital punishment for adultery. If it is only the sinless that can carry out the punishment then why do we have laws that are enforced by sinners?


And, so? Jesus acknowledged her sin and told her to stop. Did she?

And last but not least......Jesus may not have actually said any of those things, ever. I have posted many sources to back that up down in the AAA forum. So all the people that use those quotes more likely than not are quoting something Jesus likely never said so I don't think any facts are being ignored more than the fact that the entire episode, event, conversation was made up and inserted into later copies of the NT.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Facts



Expressed by whom? 

I mean, the fraud theories seem endless.  As the reasoning conflicts, how do you select "facts"? What standard do you apply? Why is one school of thought more reliable in your judgment than any other seeking to debunk the Gospel?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

The strange thing to me is we don't even punish people in our secular law for adultery even if it's illegal. Only in civil court or as a reason for divorce.
The United States inherited English common law, which made adultery, as well as fornication (sex between unmarried people) and sodomy (oral and anal sex), punishable crimes. In the mid and late 19th centuries, when states wrote their criminal codes, they incorporated these sex laws. Twenty-six states continue to have anti-adultery laws on the books. These laws vary considerably. Some define adultery as any intercourse outside marriage. According to others, it occurs when a married person lives with someone other than his or her spouse. In West Virginia and North Carolina, simply "to lewdly and lasciviously associate" with anyone other than one's spouse is to be adulterous. 

Adultery laws are rarely enforced. Again I must ask, why not? 
Why as Christians are we complacent about laws against sin already on the books? Why aren't we up in arms against the Christian sinners breaking these laws? 
Why the difference between adultery and homosexuality? Can one sin be forgiven and not the other? Is it back to hiding(adultery) vs flaunting(homosexuality)? I'm beginning to think that is the key difference. If you hide your sin it's ok among fellow Christians but not God. If you flaunt your sin it's not ok among fellow Christians  and it's not ok with God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 7, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Expressed by whom?
> 
> I mean, the fraud theories seem endless.  As the reasoning conflicts, how do you select "facts"? What standard do you apply? Why is one school of thought more reliable in your judgment than any other seeking to debunk the Gospel?



Those are the same questions I ask about Creeds, denominations, interpretations, Trinitarism, Grace, Forgiveness, Discipleship, Freewill, and Election. 
In the end all I can do is to put my faith in Jesus and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. 
We are all guilty of adding, subtracting, dividing, and multiplying, biblical facts to meet our beliefs. I am sure God will hold that against us. 
Now I must decide if he is going to hold it against me for my personal justifications vs not believing in his grace.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> In the end all I can do is to put my faith in Jesus and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.




Amen.

Pursue truth, but do not be double-minded in the pursuit, yes?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Expressed by whom?
> 
> I mean, the fraud theories seem endless.  As the reasoning conflicts, how do you select "facts"? What standard do you apply? Why is one school of thought more reliable in your judgment than any other seeking to debunk the Gospel?



I told you before. I don't go into the Gospel trying to de-bunk it, if anything I try to back up what is being told to me in ways that I use each and every day in my normal life. I do my homework. I research the research. I do not have one source that I use to base all of my thoughts from. I use multiple sources ranging from the internet to face to face conversations to books, research papers that got people their doctorates to any number of sources Pro,Con and Indifferent(many times the details lie in the indifferent). I Read everything. I read a lot. The internet is a quick way to gather information. A simple search will bring up at least two sides to a claim. Researching what multiple sources from each side have to say, then seeing if they can back their claims up with facts will have me starting to believe one more than the other. If a story tells me about Roman Guards doing something, I search through Roman history to see how their guards operated before and after the incident. If the story is in line with typical Roman guard orders and methods of operation then it stands that the story is on target. If all of a sudden after hundreds of years the Roman soldiers do something extremely out of the ordinary for reason that would cost them their lives and then don't do things like that for hundreds of years after the claim.....well somebody is fibbing or at the very least they are taking a real person,place or event and adding things to it that do not fit. The taller the tale the more evidence is required and really.... more evidence should be available if such a thing is of such a grand magnitude.

When I compare things and something stands out to be more likely than not then I can go further with confidence that what I am being told has a high probability of being closer to the truth. If what I am told ends up not holding up to the scrutiny then I proceed with caution because it is more likely than not that there is a low probability of truth. When I gather enough evidence to satisfy my own needs then I can make a decision. I never close the case as I am always interested an any new information but that new information is held and handled to the same standards.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I told you before. I don't go into the Gospel trying to de-bunk it, if anything I try to back up what is being told to me in ways that I use each and every day in my normal life. I do my homework. I research the research. I do not have one source that I use to base all of my thoughts from. I use multiple sources ranging from the internet to face to face conversations to books, research papers that got people their doctorates to any number of sources Pro,Con and Indifferent(many times the details lie in the indifferent). I Read everything. I read a lot. The internet is a quick way to gather information. A simple search will bring up at least two
> sides to a claim. Researching what multiple sources from each side have to say, then seeing if they can back their claims up with facts will have me starting to believe one more than the other. If a story tells me about Roman Guards doing something, I search through Roman history to see how their guards operated before and after the incident. If the story is in line with typical Roman guard orders and methods of operation then it stands that the story is on target. If all of a sudden after hundreds of
> years the Roman soldiers do something extremely out of the ordinary for reason that would cost them their lives and then don't do things like that for hundreds of years after the claim.....well somebody is fibbing or at the very least they are taking a real person,place or event and adding things to it that do not fit. The taller the tale the more evidence is required and really.... more evidence should be available if such a thing is of such a grand magnitude.
> 
> ...




Well, let's try isolating your premise that the Apostle John did not write the Gospel of John.  What authorities in toto do you rely on in your belief in that "fact?"


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Well, let's try isolating your premise that the Apostle John did not write the Gospel of John.  What authorities in toto do you rely on in your belief in that "fact?"



There are literally dozens if not dozens of dozens of biblical and scriptural authorities that make the case that John son of Zebedee did not write the Gospel of John. And there are even more (in fact the majority)biblical scholars that agree that the passages about Jesus and the Adultress were a later addition to the earliest known copies which were found in Egypt in 90-100AD.

I can list you a pile of these authors/scholars/authorities and unless you take the time to read through them and then check their sources we will not move forward an inch with this discussion. If you want to make it quick (which will not sway your opinion/beliefs anyway nor do I intend for that to happen...just give a perspective of why I question the authenticity) then a simple search online will bring up dozens of Pro/Con scholars that counter each other. Within those individual articles the details given by each, resources and commentary shed a better light for each side of the coin. To me, it stands out based off of much of this information that John son of Zebedee did not author the Gospel of John and I am even more confident that no matter who did write the Gospel of John originally the story of Jesus and the Adultress was absolutely added in later additions.

I will give you one source that is easily found online by a retired professor of Preaching and New Testament from Candler School of Theology at Emory University, Atlanta, GA.   Robert Kysar
His thoughts on the authorship of John can be found here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
You will find a lot of online resources in that link also.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> There are literally dozens if not dozens of dozens of biblical and scriptural authorities that make the case that John son of Zebedee did not write the Gospel of John. And there are even more (in fact the majority)biblical scholars that agree that the passages about Jesus and the Adultress were a later addition to the earliest known copies which were found in Egypt in 90-100AD.
> 
> I can list you a pile of these authors/scholars/authorities and unless you take the time to read through them and then check their sources we will not move forward an inch
> with this discussion. If you want to make it quick (which will not sway your opinion/beliefs anyway nor do I intend for that to happen...just give a perspective of why I question the authenticity) then a simple search online will bring up dozens of Pro/Con scholars that counter each other. Within those individual articles the details given by each, resources and commentary shed a better light for each side of the coin. To me, it stands out based off of much of this information that John son of Zebedee did not author the Gospel of John and I am even more confident that no matter who did write the Gospel of John originally the story of Jesus and the Adultress was absolutely added in later additions.
> ...



Ok, thanks.  I will look at this. And to be clear, these authors cite all kinds of different reasons for their conclusions, as you note.

As there is lack of unanimity for why the authors doubt God exists, I simply wanted to know what proofs led you to your present belief, or lack of belief.  That's why I asked if one or more arguments resonate with you more than others, or if you just aggregate any and all criticism and put it equally in a scale vs. the Bible. Just trying to understand your school, brand or denomination if you will of aethiesm. 

I presume you are citing this source as one you consider to be a solid authority you concur with in support of your fundamental proposition that God does not exist.  In other words, this is strong evidence that a scholar would cite to demonstrate no God exists.

Art -- apologies for mucking up the marriage thread. We can take it outside if you like. I can also delete my posts and see if Bullet would follow suit if you like.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Ok, thanks.  I will look at this. And to be clear, these authors cite all kinds of different reasons for their conclusions, as you note.


The authors cite references that seem to back up their reasons.
For example if the author is stating that Jesus and the Adultress is a later addition and is not found in the earliest copies, and then shows it is not in the  earliest copies......there is only ONE reason why that is.



BT Charlie said:


> As there is lack of unanimity for why the authors doubt God exists, I simply wanted to know what proofs led you to your present belief, or lack of belief.  That's why I asked if one or more arguments resonate with you more than others, or if you just aggregate any and all criticism and put it equally in a scale vs. the Bible. Just trying to understand your school, brand or denomination if you will of aethiesm.



You are again making a false assumption that I am an atheist despite that I have said that to the contrary for as long as I have been a member on GON. I cannot say with any certainty that a God or fifty six thousand Gods exist. I have come to the conclusion through the evidence that I have gathered over 20+ years that the God of the Bible...as told by the men who wrote Bible....is more likely than not a fabrication of their own beliefs. Some real people, some real places, some real events intertwined with fabricated and embellished events in order to create a need to explain the sometimes unexplainable.
I am convinced that if there something out there worthy of creating all creation that whatever it is and whatever form it happens to be it does not give 2 Darns and a Dang about anything that goes on regarding humans. If something got the ball rolling and was able to fit together such intricacies and complexities of the everything that constitutes the entire makeup of the Universe and then leaves it up to a few humans which by nature are a bunch of self serving deceitful (and insert 100 other adjectives here) animals to tell the tale this God wants told then he/she/it certainly got the mess it wanted.





BT Charlie said:


> I presume you are citing this source as one you consider to be a solid authority you concur with in support of your fundamental proposition that God does not exist.  In other words, this is strong evidence that a scholar would cite to demonstrate no God exists.


I gave you but one of a literal hundred sources that are within easy grasp of your fingertips...if you so choose to want to learn more. This source, had you even taken ten seconds to research his name in addition to the information that I already provided you in my last reply "a retired professor of Preaching and New Testament from Candler School of Theology at Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Robert Kysar", NOT TO MENTION HE IS A PASTOR!!.... I am quite sure does not concur that a God does not exist. I used a source that while teaches about God also has done enough research to back up OR refute Biblical texts. You again falsely assume that I go straight to a source that is Anti-God, Anti-Religion.



BT Charlie said:


> Art -- apologies for mucking up the marriage thread. We can take it outside if you like. I can also delete my posts and see if Bullet would follow suit if you like.


Very few things are ever cut and dry so a few side roads must be taken in order to stay on track. Art has been in and involved in enough conversations on here that (I am confident) he realizes none are an attempt to derail but only enhance the OP.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

Robert Kysar

Robert Kysar was Bandy Professor of Preaching and New Testament Emeritus at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, and an ordained ELCA pastor. He was a renowned Johannine scholar and the author of: John: The Maverick Gospel (rev. ed., 1993), A Beginner's Guide to the Books of the Bible (Augsburg, 1991), Called to Care: Biblical Images for Social Ministry (Fortress Press, 1991), I, II, III John (ACNT; Augsburg, 1986), John (ACNT; Augsburg, 1986), and The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel (Augsburg, 1975). He also contributed three times to the Proclamation series.


Dr. Robert D. Kysar
Professor
Phone: (404) ***-****  HQ Phone
Email: r***@***.edu
Candler School of Theology at Emory University
500 S. Kilgo Circle
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
United States
Company Description: Candler School of Theology in Atlanta and General Theological Seminary in New York are developing a new joint program in Peacebuilding, Justice and Conflict...   more

Background
Employment History

    Professor of Preaching and New Testament
    Emory University
    ELCA Pastor
    Emory University
    Bandy Professor of Preaching
    Emory University
    Bandy Professor of Preaching
    Candler School of Theology and the Graduate Division of Religion of Emory University
    Professor
    New Testament
    Bandy Professor of Preaching
    Atlanta , Georgia
    Baylor University Press

Board Memberships and Affiliations

    Emeritus Bandy Professor
    Preaching and New Testament

Education

    Ph.D. , New Testament Interpretation
    Northwestern University
    Bachelor of Divinity
    Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 8, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> That's not a sin.



People used to think it was an used the Bible to justify their beliefs.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 8, 2014)

I'll respond in the AAA thread so as not to derail this one further.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 8, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> People used to think it was an used the Bible to justify their beliefs.



They were wrong, and the devil can cite scripture to suit his purpose.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> That is the million dollar question and why I started this thread. How secular in our beliefs can we become and still be good Christians? Can we be for "liberty for all" without forcing our beliefs on "all?" Can I be a good American who stands for everyones rights and still be a good Christian?
> Some Christians believe we should sway our goverment towards a more Christian form and others don't. Some talk of protesting non Christian businesses as an example.
> Women's rights would make another example. There are differences between men & women and the Bible points out these differences so how for can we go before we are against what the Bible teaches?



I think the answer lies in the believer turning the other cheek to what others do, once they voice their opposition, and allowing the liberties of all to exist, provided that no one's are violated.

Since religions, and faiths, are so subjective then there is no way to try to force them upon another. 

It's not a matter of degree between a homosexual and pedophile, it's night and day. One is between two consenting adults, the other is the victimization of a minor. The same with bestiality since an animal has no voice, and it would be just as wrong as animal fighting. Once someone reaches the age of consent they have to be allowed to make, and suffer the consequences, of their own decisions. Making decisions for someone else is what led us to where we are, and looking to government to solve, or decide, our lives for us. 

Truth be told, I'd rather we just abolished the idea of government endorsed marriage, but since there are legal entanglements that arise from that combined with the fact that we are already here, I think we need to call what the government endorses a civil union, and what religion endorses a marriage in terms of what is "allowed" or not. In short, you couldn't get "married" at the court house anymore, but civilly joined. I'd still call mine a marriage, regardless of anyone else's opinions on the matter, I'm a straight man married to a wife, since that word is what I hold it to be and not what anyone else says about it. 

I think that's the cause of a lot of ruffled feathers, here. It's a matter of terminology since people feel that the use of the word with regards to gay couples places them on equal footing, and their religion forbids them from doing that. 

I'd be curious just how many people here would still have as large of a problem with this if we changed the government aspect of marriage a civil union, and restricted the use of marriage to religious ceremonies.

In other words, everyone who takes a spouse would be civilly united, but not everyone would be religiously married. 

Those are just my thoughts on the matter, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on my suggestion regarding a change in terminology.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> But you use those verses as Jesus words and as some sort of proof that he is the more forgiving God in the NT but there is a better than not chance Jesus never spoke them at all and they were a later addition to the Bible........and much of John is under suspicion of not being authentic.
> You use those same words to say we should not stone anyone anymore but ignore those words for homosexuals.
> 
> Sinners....yeah we all are.....and who here changed to perfect like the they want the gays to do? As if the gays should go straight or they will not ever be forgiven but if they go straight they can constantly sin like each and every finger pointer does daily and be forgiven......doubtful God is in on that line of thought.



They can sin with each other every day.  They just have to feel guilty and ask for forgiveness.  But they have to publicly declare it a sin.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think the answer lies in the believer turning the other cheek to what others do, once they voice their opposition, and allowing the liberties of all to exist, provided that no one's are violated.
> 
> Since religions, and faiths, are so subjective then there is no way to try to force them upon another.
> 
> ...




I completely agree.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 8, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Ok, thanks.  I will look at this. And to be clear, these authors cite all kinds of different reasons for their conclusions, as you note.
> 
> As there is lack of unanimity for why the authors doubt God exists, I simply wanted to know what proofs led you to your present belief, or lack of belief.  That's why I asked if one or more arguments resonate with you more than others, or if you just aggregate any and all criticism and put it equally in a scale vs. the Bible. Just trying to understand your school, brand or denomination if you will of aethiesm.
> 
> ...



It's all good for testing the spirits. Christians also have a lack of unanimity so somehow we all come to our conclusions & beliefs differently.
We do use more than the Word even if we say we don't.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's all good for testing the spirits. Christians also have a lack of unanimity so somehow we all come to our conclusions & beliefs differently.
> We do use more than the Word even if we say we don't.



Art you are always honest and not afraid to show it. I appreciate that.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Art you are always honest and not afraid to show it. I appreciate that.



Thanks, I make some people mad because I point out this lack of unity among Christians. They feel I'm trying to divide. I'm just trying to figure out the divisions. I would rather see unity. At least I'm honest enough to know that they exist. 
As you showed by using Dr. Robert D. Kysar and I can use other forum members who are as open as you & I as examples. It's not always a Christian vs Atheist debate as some try to make it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think the answer lies in the believer turning the other cheek to what others do, once they voice their opposition, and allowing the liberties of all to exist, provided that no one's are violated.
> 
> Since religions, and faiths, are so subjective then there is no way to try to force them upon another.
> 
> ...



I completely agree but I'm afraid those Christians on the Political forum would not. I would call it a civil union, the Gay, Atheist, or Hindu couple can call it what they want. I'm sure there are couples living together who consider themselves married, it wouldn't be any different than that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I completely agree but I'm afraid those Christians on the Political forum would not.



Thank you. That's kind of why I'm asking because I'm curious if the answers differ that much this few pixels away. 

But, no, some would tell me that religion is concrete when it's anything but, even in the digital realm. That's not a statement against you, by any means, just that religion is highly subjective.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 8, 2014)

My view of marriage centers around love. I think that is why Jesus uses the marriage analogy of himself & the church as much as he does.
A civil union does not require love. It would be nice if it was present and usually is. Love isn't always present in a Holy marriage. 
If you do something during the day and can't feel comfortable telling your wife, then you probably have crossed the line. You don't have to do anything physical to cross this line. Spiritual sins against your wife or SO are just as wrong. A man & wife become one and are joined in unity. 
I was thinking of an old country song where the husband was caught in the arms of another woman by his wife.  The husband told his wife "it meant or did nothing to him" and his wife said "but oh what it did to me."
I imagine that is how Jesus feels when we do something that means nothing to us.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> My view of marriage centers around love. I think that is why Jesus uses the marriage analogy of himself & the church as much as he does.
> A civil union does not require love. It would be nice if it was present and usually is. Love isn't always present in a Holy marriage.
> If you do something during the day and can't feel comfortable telling your wife, then you probably have crossed the line. You don't have to do anything physical to cross this line. Spiritual sins against your wife or SO are just as wrong. A man & wife become one and are joined in unity.
> I was thinking of an old country song where the husband was caught in the arms of another woman by his wife.  The husband told his wife "it meant or did nothing to him" and his wife said "but oh what it did to me."
> I imagine that is how Jesus feels when we do something that means nothing to us.



In my world a civil union would require counseling, just like a marriage does if performed by a religious official. We agree on a lot, other than the "spiritual" impact. You say spiritual, I say libertine or moral. Potato, potahto.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> The strange thing to me is we don't even punish people in our secular law for adultery even if it's illegal. Only in civil court or as a reason for divorce.
> The United States inherited English common law, which made adultery, as well as fornication (sex between unmarried people) and sodomy (oral and anal sex), punishable crimes. In the mid and late 19th centuries, when states wrote their criminal codes, they incorporated these sex laws. Twenty-six states continue to have anti-adultery laws on the books. These laws vary considerably. Some define adultery as any intercourse outside marriage. According to others, it occurs when a married person lives with someone other than his or her spouse. In West Virginia and North Carolina, simply "to lewdly and lasciviously associate" with anyone other than one's spouse is to be adulterous.
> 
> Adultery laws are rarely enforced. Again I must ask, why not?
> ...



Some crimes are not prosecuted simply because it is almost impossible to get a conviction in court because society (the jury) doesn't view the act as being bad enough to deserve punishment.  What are the chances of assembling a jury of twelve people with not a single member feeling that adultery is no big deal?  One member is all it takes.

As far as Christians expressing greater opposition to certain sins over others, it is just human nature to have more sympathy for people who commit the same sin that you commit, and to adamantly condemn people who commit sins that you nor any of your loved ones commit.

Too many Christians lie on their taxes (for example) for there to be a unified condemnation of the practice.  Instead, it is kind of ignored.

Christians who enjoy an occassional alcoholic beverage are generally not as vocal in condeming alcohol use as a sin.  While Christians who choose not to drink are more likely to condemn alcohol.

If you're not homosexual, it sure is easy to condemn it as a great sin.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 8, 2014)

I think many Christians have redefined the "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and changed it to "He who is without this particular sin cast the first stone".


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 8, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Some crimes are not prosecuted simply because it is almost impossible to get a conviction in court because society (the jury) doesn't view the act as being bad enough to deserve punishment.  What are the chances of assembling a jury of twelve people with not a single member feeling that adultery is no big deal?  One member is all it takes.
> 
> As far as Christians expressing greater opposition to certain sins over others, it is just human nature to have more sympathy for people who commit the same sin that you commit, and to adamantly condemn people who commit sins that you nor any of your loved ones commit.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.  But you've ignored the primary point.  

Most of the discussion is legitimate pushback against an organized, well monied political movement that has infiltrated churches and government at all levels.  

This group has a single purpose, which operates to purport to deny the truth of the Bible's teaching regarding this one sin.

Those who hold the Bible dear and believe what it says regarding sin, including this one, have every right to object to those who distort the truth of scripture.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 8, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I think many Christians have redefined the "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and changed it to "He who is without this particular sin cast the first stone".



You're entitled to your opinion, based on apparently antecdotal evidence.  But, again, you ignore the monied political movement and its impact on church, government and society.  Believers have every right to respond, regardless of insults from those who would prefer that they do not.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 8, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Fair enough.  But you've ignored the primary point.
> 
> Most of the discussion is legitimate pushback against an organized, well monied political movement that has infiltrated churches and government at all levels.
> 
> ...



You're correct.  My statement was not directed at the primary point.  It was directed at this:



Artfuldodger said:


> Adultery laws are rarely enforced. Again I must ask, why not?
> Why as Christians are we complacent about laws against sin already on the books? Why aren't we up in arms against the Christian sinners breaking these laws?
> Why the difference between adultery and homosexuality? Can one sin be forgiven and not the other? Is it back to hiding(adultery) vs flaunting(homosexuality)? I'm beginning to think that is the key difference. If you hide your sin it's ok among fellow Christians but not God. If you flaunt your sin it's not ok among fellow Christians  and it's not ok with God.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 8, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> Those who hold the Bible dear and believe what it says regarding sin, including this one, have every right to object to those who distort the truth of scripture.



There are many acts that scripture labels as sin that have either gained acceptance by most of society or are basically overlooked as to their relationship with sin.

One example is a revolt against one's government.  The book of Romans labels it a sin, but few Christians view the 4th of July as a celebration of sin.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 8, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> I believe the above is a completely false statement.  The current outcry isn't directed to homosexuals, but to law makers and a society who are suddenly seeking to change laws that 25 years ago would never have been considered.
> 
> I think it's the changing of laws that's creating the outcry from Christians and non Christians.  This isn't about the individual.



Do all Christians on the forum agree with the above statement?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> Do all Christians on the forum agree with the above statement?



I'm curious. If that's all that it is why do they cry out that it's an abomination in the eyes of the lord, rather than it's changing legislation, presumably from a perspective that would say it's unnecessary or unwarranted? 

I'm not trying to argue with you, just point out that what they're saying points to personal outrage based on religious teachings and not legislation.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 8, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> Do all Christians on the forum agree with the above statement?



I think Charlie indicated that he also has a problem with the agenda of changing society's view of homosexuality from being a sin to no longer being considered a sin.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> You are again making a false assumption that I am an atheist ....
> 
> I have come to the conclusion ....  that the God of the Bible...as told by the men who wrote Bible... is more likely than not a fabrication of their own beliefs.



My intent is not to frustrate you.  Labels are unimportant.  If athiest is incorrect, I apologize.  It seems more polite than applicable church terms. Let's just omit them all. 

If we use a baseball analogy and assume the Bible is first base, you aren't tagging the base.  You believe the Bible is fabricated.  So I'd like to focus on first base issues about why you believe such.

In that pursuit, two things would be helpful to me.  One is identification of the intellectual standard of proof you rely upon to make such determinations.  The second is identification of the specific proofs you've accepted or rejected to make your determination.

As an aside, you offered one citation to a proof you rely upon.  But you acknowledge that it is offered by a pastor who professes the not only the one true God of the Bible but also eternal salvation through unmerited grace based solely upon Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross.  I said I would look at that article, but wanted to confirm it was essentially "material" and not a mere quibble of the pillars of your belief.  As you point out, your reliance on an author who professes the one true God is not helpful to a premise that the one true God is a fabrication.  I didn't read the article yet, and am simply responding to the frustration you expressed.

I'd like your proofs to be material, and add up to the essence of your belief and premise that God does not exist and is a fabrication of the authors of the Bible.

With respect to the standard by which you assess truth, my concern is that we haven't articulated an objective standard that transcends human filters, biases and prejudices.   If we are going to discuss the relevance, weight, credibility, etc. of the evidence you rely upon to forumlate your premise, or my own proofs, I think we need to agree upon an objective standard by which we consent to have the information judged.  To employ a football analogy, the goal posts will always move if we fail to agree upon a standard to judge the evidence.

Would it be helpful to adopt any of the standards generally recognized by American courts?  We can present our competing evidences and let a jury of forumites, properly instructed in the standard of proof, decide whether your belief or premise is valid.  We can present "facts" and even expert opinion, as relevant, in support of our competing premises.  Naturally, in our country you have a right to believe whatever you wish regardless of any standard or other measurement of validity.  You can fall back on that and the case can simply close now.  But if you have the courage of your convictions, well then we can submit them to the trial.

The adversary system is designed to seek the truth through a contest over the veracity, credibility and weight of conflicting evidence.  A common civil standard is proof by a preponderance of evidence.  That is, the proponent of a premise is required to demonstrate to the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that such is true, i.e., by weighing all the evidence, it is more likely than not to be true.

A stricter civil standard is proof by clear and convincing evidence.  In the criminal context, proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be required for one to convict another of fraud or fabrication.  The rub is what the law defines as reasonable doubt, for it surely does not mean any quibble, or inconsistency, or other immaterial fraility in the evidence.   

In short, BH, it would seem to me that if you have the courage of your convictions you or a team of your choice must be willing to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of forumites that no God exists or that the Bible is a fabrication.

If I hear you correctly, you do not want to bear the burden of proof or otherwise identify a particular standard by which we can probe your premise that God does not exist as set forth in the Bible and is instead a fabrication of the authors of the Bible.  Is that correct?

You aren't sure what you believe (there could be 60 gods) or what a sufficient quantum of proof would be to objectively identify what is truth is, as a jury would weigh and sift evidence from a trial.  Rather, you know truth when you see it.  The goal posts shift.  Is that an accurate or inaccurate view? (From my perspective, there is much hope for you if you are indeed in such a place, as opposed to a more hardened (and for lack of a better word) ideological viewpoint.

I think this could be a fun exercise if we could agree upon an objective standard or burden of proof by which a forumite jury could decide the validity or invalidity of your premise based upon the weight of relevant evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> My intent is not to frustrate you.  Labels are unimportant.  If athiest is incorrect, I apologize.  It seems more polite than applicable church terms. Let's just omit them all.
> 
> If we use a baseball analogy and assume the Bible is first base, you aren't tagging the base.  You believe the Bible is fabricated.  So I'd like to focus on first base issues about why you believe such.
> 
> ...



I call God to the witness stand.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 8, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> There are many acts that scripture labels as sin that have either gained acceptance by most of society or are basically overlooked as to their relationship with sin.One example is a revolt against one's government.  The book of Romans labels it a sin, but few Christians view the 4th of July as a celebration of sin.



A red herring, forum friend.  For discussion's sake, let's say specifically that the church has overlooked some sin.  The distinction now is that a monied political movement, within the church itself, is redefining scripture to condone the forbidden conduct.

Please show me any time in our nation's history when the church was party to such on a nationwide denominational basis.


----------



## BT Charlie (Jan 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I call God to the witness stand.



I'm sure He'll be there in Spirit, testimony and other proofs, BH.  You'll have to content yourself dealing with other evidence, at least for now, if you are game.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 8, 2014)

This thread, and it's intent, has totally come unraveled.
10, 9, 8, 7, ...................


----------



## bullethead (Jan 8, 2014)

BT Charlie said:


> I'm sure He'll be there in Spirit, testimony and other proofs, BH.  You'll have to content yourself dealing with other evidence, at least for now, if you are game.



Sorry counselor, it was not your turn... the witness has but a few seconds to take the stand before it is thrown out of court (see Ronnie T's post).


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 8, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> This thread, and it's intent, has totally come unraveled.
> 10, 9, 8, 7, ...................



Long, long, ago.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 8, 2014)

Locked


----------

