My Fear With Houston

[JohnnyP]

If someone identifies as a Christian, why should they be forced to recognize that which they do not recognize? Why would someone who is homosexual even want to go to someone like that, unless of course they're trying to instigate something....

I agree, but again if you want special exemption as a religious business then religion should be your business, eg religious weddings not secular non-religious weddings.

Actually, I never said it was worse, but if a non-Christian comes to me and I run a business like a grocery store and they buy groceries from me, they're not asking me to celebrate the fact that they're not a Christian. The service I provide is peripheral to that. If someone comes asking for a wedding to someone of the same sex, the nature of the request is something directly tied in to what I believe.

If someone asked you to provide catering, music, photography, etc. for a Jewish Bar/Bat Mitzvah they'd be doing just that, but I'm not going to keep pressing you for an explanation as to why you'd distance yourself from a business owner refusing to provide goods and services for that, yet support a business owner refusing a gay wedding, if both celebrate non-Christian lifestyles. As is, your position is inconsistent.

The main unforgivable sin is the sin of rejecting Jesus since one can never repent of it, but we are warned about a homosexual lifestyle specifically. This does not mean being tempted to homosexual behavior, but it means making it your lifestyle and saying there's nothing wrong with it. Such a place is in 1 Cor. 6. In Romans 1, Paul uses it as a clear identification of horizontal behavior in direct rebellion against God.

I don't agree since Paul rejected Jesus at first, unless you mean something different by rejecting Jesus. But that's kind of another topic.

[JohnnyP]

Certainly,

I don't see any rapes in those conquests, but from a theological and historical position, the idea was about exterminating sin so that Jews could prosper and bring the world to God in a Messianic Kingdom. Instead they went the way of Gentiles so God took away their power and kingdom starting with Babylon. The idea behind Jesus is he'll return and finish the job, which may involve a lot more killing.

But yeah I get from a secular position all that's just an excuse to do what a lot of other humans do.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I agree, but again if you want special exemption as a religious business then religion should be your business, eg religious weddings not secular non-religious weddings.

So someone who is a Christian should still be obligated to do something they consider immoral just to please someone else. Really?

If someone asked you to provide catering, music, photography, etc. for a Jewish Bar/Bat Mitzvah they'd be doing just that, but I'm not going to keep pressing you for an explanation as to why you'd distance yourself from a business owner refusing to provide goods and services for that, yet support a business owner refusing a gay wedding, if both celebrate non-Christian lifestyles. As is, your position is inconsistent.

You're confusing non-Christian with ipso facto immoral. I'd be glad to do that for a Bar Mitzvah because I could see that as an opportunity to show Christian grace to these people as I think there is something there to celebrate.

I don't agree since Paul rejected Jesus at first, unless you mean something different by rejecting Jesus. But that's kind of another topic.

I do. I mean the eternal rejection of Jesus. If one rejects Jesus and never changes, it is unforgivable.

[JohnnyP]

So someone who is a Christian should still be obligated to do something they consider immoral just to please someone else. Really?

That's not what I said here: I said if Christians want exemption for a religious business, then religion should be their business. Turn away gays from the wedding chapel, fine, but don't then concede to atheists who ask that no mention of God or religion be included in the ceremony. Otherwise you cease being a religious business offering religious services, and become a secular business offering secular services. That's pretty straightforward.

You're confusing non-Christian with ipso facto immoral. I'd be glad to do that for a Bar Mitzvah because I could see that as an opportunity to show Christian grace to these people as I think there is something there to celebrate.

Since a Bar Mitzvah is taking responsibility for one's own obligation to keep the 613 mitzvot, in Orthodox Judaism for example, among others is the mitzvah to reject idolatry which includes belief in Jesus as God. As you may know, most Jews consider acceptance of such faith as heretical/apikoris, which is essentially the same as excommunication where a Jew is no longer considered a Jew by fellow Jews, but a Gentile Christian.

So you're still saying you'd celebrate an event that results in a boy's responsibility to reject Jesus, and that it's somehow better than celebrating an event that results in a homosexual marriage, even if the gays were Christian accepting Jesus and didn't interpret the Bible to say that all homosexuality was a sin.

Where to be consistent, it seems that you'd celebrate neither since from your position, both may result in states that cause damnation:

I do. I mean the eternal rejection of Jesus. If one rejects Jesus and never changes, it is unforgivable.

That's a given, sure. I don't know if you're just unaware of the religious implications in my example of a Bar Mitzvah, or if it's like I said from the start, that one thing (gay marriage) just seems more outwardly "yucky" than the other.

[Tassman]

I don't see any rapes in those conquests,

but from a theological and historical position, the idea was about exterminating sin so that Jews could prosper and bring the world to God in a Messianic Kingdom. Instead they went the way of Gentiles so God took away their power and kingdom starting with Babylon. The idea behind Jesus is he'll return and finish the job, which may involve a lot more killing.

But yeah I get from a secular position all that's just an excuse to do what a lot of other humans do.

I think so.

So someone who is a Christian should still be obligated to do something they consider immoral just to please someone else. Really?

[Apologiaphoenix]

That's not what I said here: I said if Christians want exemption for a religious business, then religion should be their business. Turn away gays from the wedding chapel, fine, but don't then concede to atheists who ask that no mention of God or religion be included in the ceremony. Otherwise you cease being a religious business offering religious services, and become a secular business offering secular services. That's pretty straightforward.

Why would an atheist go to a Christian chapel for a wedding ceremony and then get upset that they actually mention God in the service? What do they expect? If you go to a Christian chapel, expect to receive Christian treatment. If you don't like the kind of services that a religious organization provides, don't go there.

Since a Bar Mitzvah is taking responsibility for one's own obligation to keep the 613 mitzvot, in Orthodox Judaism for example, among others is the mitzvah to reject idolatry which includes belief in Jesus as God. As you may know, most Jews consider acceptance of such faith as heretical/apikoris, which is essentially the same as excommunication where a Jew is no longer considered a Jew by fellow Jews, but a Gentile Christian.

Oh I know the way the Jews thinks. You can deny YHWH exists and be considered a Jew. You affirm Jesus as Messiah and you are not a Jew. But for us, we see Judaism as wrong, but not immoral as if you are living a sinful life by observing the Jewish law.

So you're still saying you'd celebrate an event that results in a boy's responsibility to reject Jesus, and that it's somehow better than celebrating an event that results in a homosexual marriage, even if the gays were Christian accepting Jesus and didn't interpret the Bible to say that all homosexuality was a sin.

I wouldn't be celebrating it, but I'd be glad to supply for an event and use it as a chance to show Christian charity. I also know how the homosexuals interpret the Bible. They're simply wrong. I think Gagnon makes a powerful case.

Where to be consistent, it seems that you'd celebrate neither since from your position, both may result in states that cause damnation:

No. I'm not celebrating a boy rejecting Jesus but reaching 13 and taking on responsibility and hopefully learning eventually that Jesus is the fulfillment of that Law.

That's a given, sure. I don't know if you're just unaware of the religious implications in my example of a Bar Mitzvah, or if it's like I said from the start, that one thing (gay marriage) just seems more outwardly "yucky" than the other.

You use this term gay marriage. It means as much to me as a square circle. Why should I think such a thing even exists?

[HeteroDoxic]

The church can be a powerful force, but it will have to actually fight. http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/20...-with-houston/

The easy answer is, the Church preaches and bickers, neither are it's calling. Somewhere those in the church became concerned with how those outside the church live, and what those inside the church know and believe theologically and left it's calling behind.

Leaving that calling behind means they pissed on Christ's expectations and started doing their own thing.

The fruit you see is what you'd expect. According to Paul in Gal 5 it's pure fleshly motivations that drive the Church today.

The churches job is to love it's neighbor and enemy and Agapao is a providential love, NOT a preaching judgemental love.

The church has blindly become Anti Christ in it's behavior.

[HeteroDoxic]

You use this term gay marriage. It means as much to me as a square circle. Why should I think such a thing even exists?

For the same reason your pastor says "By the power vested in me by the state (the marriage is in) I can declare you man and wife.

The law has the rights to declare what is a legal marriage.

A blessed marriage by GOD requires no ceremony, it requires the bumping of uglies and you are married as one.

[JohnnyP]

Why would an atheist go to a Christian chapel for a wedding ceremony and then get upset that they actually mention God in the service? What do they expect? If you go to a Christian chapel, expect to receive Christian treatment. If you don't like the kind of services that a religious organization provides, don't go there.

You have it backwards: the problem with The Hitching Post was that they DID want to offer non-religious secular services, yet enjoy benefits of a religious business, such as being able to turn away gays. If you register as a religious business then you should only provide religious services, you can't cheat the system and offer secular services too, bottom line.

Oh I know the way the Jews thinks. You can deny YHWH exists and be considered a Jew. You affirm Jesus as Messiah and you are not a Jew. But for us, we see Judaism as wrong, but not immoral as if you are living a sinful life by observing the Jewish law.

Still living in a state of damnation by rejecting Jesus as you said yourself, though.

I wouldn't be celebrating it, but I'd be glad to supply for an event and use it as a chance to show Christian charity. I also know how the homosexuals interpret the Bible. They're simply wrong. I think Gagnon makes a powerful case.

Why not show Christian charity to gays too?

No. I'm not celebrating a boy rejecting Jesus but reaching 13 and taking on responsibility and hopefully learning eventually that Jesus is the fulfillment of that Law.

You would still be celebrating a boy's responsibility to adhere to a religion that rejects Jesus. You could hope for all kinds of things, that the boy gets out of the religion or that gays get out of the lifestyle. There's still not good explanation of how one state of damnation is more acceptable than another.

Except as I said, one just seems more "yucky" than another. Which contains about as much morally-sound reasoning as saying that liver is yucky compared to steak: meat is still meat.

You use this term gay marriage. It means as much to me as a square circle. Why should I think such a thing even exists?

It exists like gay sex exists: just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it not exist.

[JohnnyP]

Some may have wanted to stay with dead families and forcibly taken, others may have gone willingly, not wanting to be left with nothing. I know that the idea of virgins automatically brings the idea of sex to mind, but it may be that they just became servants, not necessarily sex slaves.

It would be naive to think sex was never involved, either willingly as concubines or by rape, but I don't think it always had to be, especially if there were infant girls. Maybe they were adopted in as children like Stands with Fists in Dances With Wolves. I think there was probably some of everything going on.

I'll probably start or go to an existing thread to get into it more, but as often in the Bible there are deeper meanings to things that go on. Like why sometimes everyone was slaughtered, other times virgins spared. Or why care about wearing cotton and wool together. Kabbalah gets into ideas like this, that things on earth are models for Heaven, but I won't go on about it now.

Like I said in the screwballs thread about slavery, one reason is that God wanted to send a message to heathen nations that it was better to obey God than not, Jews got the same message by Babylon and Rome when they disobeyed.

I think that's what helps make it a little more than a case of Jews doing whatever they wanted and attributing it to God, since the Bible is as much about God punishing Jews too. It would have been easy to fabricate tales of nothing but Jews being right in everything they did, if the primary goal was self-justification.

[Tassman]

Some may have wanted to stay with dead families and forcibly taken, others may have gone willingly, not wanting to be left with nothing. I know that the idea of virgins automatically brings the idea of sex to mind, but it may be that they just became servants, not necessarily sex slaves.

Pure speculation but, regardless of what the virgins wanted, Moses ordered that everyone be slaughtered except for the virgins, who were to be taken for the men. They had no choice.

It would be naive to think sex was never involved, either willingly as concubines or by rape, but I don't think it always had to be, especially if there were infant girls. Maybe they were adopted in as children like Stands with Fists in Dances With Wolves. I think there was probably some of everything going on.

I'll probably start or go to an existing thread to get into it more, but as often in the Bible there are deeper meanings to things that go on. Like why sometimes everyone was slaughtered, other times virgins spared. Or why care about wearing cotton and wool together. Kabbalah gets into ideas like this, that things on earth are models for Heaven, but I won't go on about it now.

OK!

Like I said in the screwballs thread about slavery, one reason is that God wanted to send a message to heathen nations that it was better to obey God than not, Jews got the same message by Babylon and Rome when they disobeyed.

I think that's what helps make it a little more than a case of Jews doing whatever they wanted and attributing it to God, since the Bible is as much about God punishing Jews too. It would have been easy to fabricate tales of nothing but Jews being right in everything they did, if the primary goal was self-justification.

[JohnnyP]

Yeah as often, it comes down to whether the biblical God exists or not. You know what's weird though is that Zionism and reclaiming Israeli territory under the appearance of biblical promise is mostly a secular effort, while more religious Jews like Neturei Karta oppose the State of Israel, believing instead that Jews should wait for a Messiah and clear command from God to restore the nation. So it seems that the secular mindset there also sees the Bible as a justification to just get what they want, while the more religious factions who take the Bible seriously acknowledge that God may not want that right now. Thus a more secular view is using the Bible to do what you'd normally think it would be opposed to doing in the name of religion. Kinda weird...

[Tassman]

Yeah as often, it comes down to whether the biblical God exists or not. You know what's weird though is that Zionism and reclaiming Israeli territory under the appearance of biblical promise is mostly a secular effort, while more religious Jews like Neturei Karta oppose the State of Israel, believing instead that Jews should wait for a Messiah and clear command from God to restore the nation. So it seems that the secular mindset there also sees the Bible as a justification to just get what they want, while the more religious factions who take the Bible seriously acknowledge that God may not want that right now. Thus a more secular view is using the Bible to do what you'd normally think it would be opposed to doing in the name of religion. Kinda weird...

KNOW they have Truth on their side and that it is their duty to fight for it - often violently as per ISIS. Religion, especially in its various fundamentalist forms, will always be an impediment to peace.

[JohnnyP]

KNOW they have Truth on their side and that it is their duty to fight for it - often violently as per ISIS. Religion, especially in its various fundamentalist forms, will always be an impediment to peace.

Well a lot of Jews who want to retake the Mount are atheist and secular, they want it just because they consider it Jewish property, as with all of Jerusalem. The Chief Rabbi is actually telling Jews to stay off it because they're contributing to violence.

Orthodox Jews mostly opposed a secular State but figure as long as it is there they'd play a role in trying to get religion back to the forefront.

The most religious Jews like Haredi still want nothing to do with it, citing Talmudic prohibitions against retaking the land by force.

So at least in Israel, those most at the forefront of Zionist ideals like Theodore Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon, etc. have been secular and atheist, not so much like Moses and Joshua. While the most religious have been against using violence to resettle the land.

[Apologiaphoenix]

You have it backwards: the problem with The Hitching Post was that they DID want to offer non-religious secular services, yet enjoy benefits of a religious business, such as being able to turn away gays. If you register as a religious business then you should only provide religious services, you can't cheat the system and offer secular services too, bottom line.

A business owner should be allowed to run their business without having to contradict their own religious position, just like a Muslim or Jewish deli should not be forced to serve pig. Do you think they should?

Still living in a state of damnation by rejecting Jesus as you said yourself, though.

Yes, as is every non-Christian.

Why not show Christian charity to gays too?

Oh I do, but that does not mean condoning a behavior that ipso facto is immoral. Enabling someone in wrong living is not loving them. You don't love an alcoholic by taking them to the bar and buying them all the drinks they want.

You would still be celebrating a boy's responsibility to adhere to a religion that rejects Jesus. You could hope for all kinds of things, that the boy gets out of the religion or that gays get out of the lifestyle. There's still not good explanation of how one state of damnation is more acceptable than another.

There is nothing inherently in Judaism that requires rejection of Jesus. If I can get a Christian voice there, I will.

Except as I said, one just seems more "yucky" than another. Which contains about as much morally-sound reasoning as saying that liver is yucky compared to steak: meat is still meat.

No. It's not about yuck factor, but I see my own words and reason won't convince you otherwise. You see what you want to see.

It exists like gay sex exists: just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it not exist.

No it doesn't. If the Supreme Court said tomorrow that all triangles have four sides, they would not change what a triangle is by declaring such. Marriage is a metaphysical reality. It is the union of one man and one woman together. The sex of the persons is essential to the union. Government cannot create new metaphysics and to attempt to do so will only be to go against reality and that can only end in pain.