Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

The Supreme Court And Redefining Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'm not exactly a fan of protests or demonstrations myself, but I felt compelled to address this:

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I keep thinking about how revealing this is of liberal thought --- instead of actually DOING something about a problem, make up banners and "march in the streets". And demand that others - who ARE doing something - drop what they're doing and join the Silly Parade.
    Like these people?



    Look at the "marching in the streets" that you guys did in Baltimore and Ferguson and long before that? What did it accomplish.
    It forced government organizations to pay attention to and closely examine the situations in those cities, and they subsequently discovered that those cities' police departments featured corruption and injustice. The guilty officers were then fired/indicted, as they should've been.

    A lot of the locals got their businesses destroyed, economies negatively impacted, people arrested for vandalism
    All of which pales in comparison to the bad cops (or whatever systemic problems there may be) being weeded out, thereby preventing said bad cops from acting unjustly towards more citizens in the future. The point of those protests was that the lives of the citizens are infinitely more valuable than the cost of cleaning up broken glass and steel.

    Look at what Mother Emanuel's CHRISTIAN RESPONSE accomplished --- it brought a community even closer together, there was no need for the race pimps to come in and incite riots, the world was profoundly impressed.
    They in part could afford to respond that way because the killer had been arrested and was no longer capable of inflicting further harm. Meanwhile, the guilty officers in Baltimore and Ferguson had yet to be investigated and punished--they could still go on perpetuating further injustice.

    Then, what did the liberals do? Take all that love and admiration and grace and turn it into hatred of a piece of cloth.
    The liberals did no such thing. Many black South Carolinians had long been complaining that the flag symbolized hatred to them. Liberals didn't invent the issue out of whole cloth, pardon the pun. What happened was that people saw that the killer was one of those people who DO use the flag to symbolize hatred, and they figured that was the last straw--they couldn't keep ignoring those people.
    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

    Comment


    • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
      This is true in principle, but one problem is that many Christians are calling certain people and things destructive when they aren't--or at the very least, in ways that they aren't. You can tell people "I genuinely believe that same-sex relationships are sinful" without making fallacious comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality. You can tell them that you believe homosexuality is morally prohibited without making contrived attempts to paint gay people as promiscuous or bad parents. You can tell them that God disapproves of what they're doing without calling them Sodomites, a term referring to people who tried to gang rape angels.
      Gay people brought the pedophilia thing on themselves because in their earlier days they threw their lot in with people like PIE (Pedophile Information Exchange) and they were prepared to ally themselves with all sorts of dubious 'underdogs' without thinking through the consequences. I remember discussing homosexuality with someone once and they started saying 'you think we are pedophiles' and I was taken aback as I didn't know where that came from and thought the person was just trying to 'poison the well' as it were. And then when all the stuff about PIE came out it all made perfect sense. They got themselves linked with those people and now try to blame Christians for linking the two in peoples' mind. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ile-links.html

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
        You only give part of the picture since look at how Jesus treated the Pharisees and religious rulers who were man-pleasers rather than God-pleasers.
        The Pharisees were harming other people, and Jesus was rightfully intolerant of that. Meanwhile, most gay couples are not harming other people.

        It's ironic that you try to use them as an example, because among other thing, Jesus condemned them for only seeing people as sinners and not showing compassion or love.

        And as CP has said what about the woman taken in adultery. Jesus gave her specific instrucions to go and sin no more
        But he first showed love by defending her, THEN gave her that command.

        Two points:
        1. I just heard here in the last two weeks that the gay movement is going to be lobbying our government (UK) to withhold aid from those countries who do not give gays rights. What about the starving babies fm93? Hypocrite?
        I'm not a UK citizen, but if that's really the situation, I oppose what your government's doing. Enough with the contrived label of hypocrisy.

        2.Regarding Christians, Jesus taught that spiritual food is more important than physical food and if World vision isn't giving both then they are ineffective.
        World Vision wasn't "failing to provide spiritual food." The people who agreed to sponsor a child, then dropped that sponsorship over this issue are the ones who failed--they didn't provide the spiritual food of trustworthiness.


        Originally posted by Abigail View Post
        You write as if Christians never do this. I think you have swallowed the 'bad Christians' propaganda hook, line and sinker.
        No. I have personally seen many Christians engage in shameful behavior in this regard. No propaganda involved.

        You are extremely naive if you think gay people are willing to settle for Christians disagreeing with them. A few are, but the most militant are not and these ones will equally savage those gays who are willing to accept this.
        I haven't seen large numbers of gay people "savage" Pope Francis, even though he upholds the traditional marriage model. I believe this is largely because he has shown himself to be someone who genuinely seems to love them as people, not just see them as sinners.

        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        The problem is while no one specifically says I want to be accepted but continue sinning, that is exactly what they want. Simply calling their sin out as sin is, in their minds, hateful.
        But from what I've seen, people RARELY "simply call their sin out as sin." They also generally do the insulting and ignorant things that I've mentioned.

        No matter the truth of many Christians concerns for their souls, simply disagreeing is considered hate.
        You won't convince anyone that you "simply disagree with them" and "are truly concerned for their souls" in the name of truth when you also trot out misleading statistics and studies, or abandon humanitarian causes simply because gay married Christians will also help impoverished children.
        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
          Gay people brought the pedophilia thing on themselves because in their earlier days they threw their lot in with people like PIE (Pedophile Information Exchange) and they were prepared to ally themselves with all sorts of dubious 'underdogs' without thinking through the consequences. I remember discussing homosexuality with someone once and they started saying 'you think we are pedophiles' and I was taken aback as I didn't know where that came from and thought the person was just trying to 'poison the well' as it were. And then when all the stuff about PIE came out it all made perfect sense. They got themselves linked with those people and now try to blame Christians for linking the two in peoples' mind. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ile-links.html
          That was almost forty years ago. The vast majority of the gay community today had no such affiliations with pedophiles.
          Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

          I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

          Comment


          • So here's a question: If I had a friend who was cheating on their spouse, or boyfriend, would it say be acceptable for me to continue to remain friends with them even if I disagreed with what they were doing and NOT be hateful?
            So it is with a few of my friends who are either Bisexual, or Homosexual. I don't have to agree with their choice of preference, but I'll be darned if anyone tells me I can't be friends with them. (one is actually one of my best friends.)
            A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
            George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jpholding View Post
              About a year ago I went along to a discussion on gay rights, and a gay politician there basically said the following: "Ten years ago I campaigned to get civil unions. That was what my partner and I wanted. We believed civil unions were better than marriage, because they don't have religious connotations or the history of the oppression of women that the institution of marriage does. My partner and I got a civil union, and that's made us happy. But other gay people talked to me, and they made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that they wanted a 'marriage', and not a civil union. At first I was unconvinced, but eventually I realized that there was actually a fairly widespread desire among gay people for marriage rights."
              So let me see if I have this right.

              Civil unions lacked certain rights not found in marriage.

              But there was no serious effort to rectify this by simply trying to get those rights added to civil unions. Why?

              Because the "average gay person" had problems understanding something?
              Well if that was you expressing your understanding of my post that you quoted, then I grade you an F for reading comprehension. If your statements were just random thoughts that happened to be vaguely inspired by my post, then, okay...

              As far as I can tell, the main problem that the vast majority of gay people had with civil unions was that it created a separate category for gay people. It was Jim-Crow-esque segregation along the lines of "you don't deserve full marriage because you're an undeserving kind of person, so we've created this separate category of marriage for you that's sort of not quite equal and keeps you nice and separate from the real marriages everybody else has." The view taken by the majority of gay people towards the advocates of such views was that hell was probably too good for such people. The majority of partnered gay people refused to adopt the civil unions, regarding the entire thing as a giant insult. A minority felt that getting at least some rights was worthwhile, so got a civil union for that reason.

              The "average gay person" just wanted to live a normal life like anybody else, and wanted standard marriage rights.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                The Pharisees were harming other people, and Jesus was rightfully intolerant of that. Meanwhile, most gay couples are not harming other people.

                It's ironic that you try to use them as an example, because among other thing, Jesus condemned them for only seeing people as sinners and not showing compassion or love.
                It goes without saying we are meant to show love and compassion fm93 and everyone has room to improve on this point, but you seem to be saying that anything further than that is UNloving. The point is that 'love' in the world's view is telling homosexuals that it is ok, or allowing them to believe it is ok, for them to continue in their sin and that God will just brush this aside (even though we do not have authority to say this to them when the Bible clearly tells us something different.). IOW, the difference between pharisees and us is that in their day it was seen as a good thing to obey God's rules and so if people gave the impression they were doing that when they weren't the could still take the glory of men. Nowadays it is seen as a bad thing to obey God's rules (I have had a number of atheists talk disparagingly about 'rule followers') and so those who get the glory of men are those who follow the pseudo-love clap-trap of the world.


                Originally posted by fm93
                But he first showed love by defending her, THEN gave her that command.
                They were going to stone her, IOW they were going to carry out sentence. No one is suggesting that for homosexuals. All people are doing is warning them that their behaviour is sin and asking that they repent and accept God's forgiveness for it. If people refuse to believe something is a sin then they wont see a need to ask for forgiveness. So we have to start somewhere.


                Originally posted by fm93
                I haven't seen large numbers of gay people "savage" Pope Francis, even though he upholds the traditional marriage model. I believe this is largely because he has shown himself to be someone who genuinely seems to love them as people, not just see them as sinners.
                This will sound quite jaded but from what I have observed of how gay people operate, Pope Francis is a work in progress and they will first butter him up and then start applying the screws. Come on you are not stupid. Open your eyes and observe.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                  Gay people brought the pedophilia thing on themselves because in their earlier days they threw their lot in with people like PIE (Pedophile Information Exchange) and they were prepared to ally themselves with all sorts of dubious 'underdogs' without thinking through the consequences. I remember discussing homosexuality with someone once and they started saying 'you think we are pedophiles' and I was taken aback as I didn't know where that came from and thought the person was just trying to 'poison the well' as it were. And then when all the stuff about PIE came out it all made perfect sense. They got themselves linked with those people and now try to blame Christians for linking the two in peoples' mind. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ile-links.html
                  For someone who claims she doesn't link gays with pedophiles, that post seems to go to great lengths to try and link them.

                  The origin of this is that anti-gay Christians have followed a strategy of trying to link homosexuality to pedophilia for about 70 years. Anyone who's ever advocated for gay rights in any capacity or who is gay themselves is just totally sick of hearing the malicious lies on that subject that many Christians repeat constantly. I am not at all surprised that one of the first gay people you talked to started out by trying to explain why that is a bogus view.
                  Last edited by Starlight; 06-27-2015, 06:49 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                    So here's a question: If I had a friend who was cheating on their spouse, or boyfriend, would it say be acceptable for me to continue to remain friends with them even if I disagreed with what they were doing and NOT be hateful?
                    So it is with a few of my friends who are either Bisexual, or Homosexual. I don't have to agree with their choice of preference, but I'll be darned if anyone tells me I can't be friends with them. (one is actually one of my best friends.)
                    Yes I think it is fine to continue to be friends. (not sure who your post was addressed to. I don't think anyone is suggesting we can't have homosexual friends)
                    Last edited by Abigail; 06-27-2015, 06:43 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      For someone who claims she doesn't link gays with pedophiles, that post seems to got to great lengths to try and link them.
                      Explain how you get to that or is it just mudslinging since I explained clearly how this came about and my post was in response to fm93 saying Christians accuse gays of pedophilia.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                        Explain how you get to that or is it just mudslinging since I explained clearly how this came about and my post was in response to fm93 saying Christians accuse gays of pedophilia.
                        fm93 listed five different things that Christians accuse gays of. You responded with a post that basically said "well linking them with pedophilia is justified and here's why, but I totally don't make that link myself".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          fm93 listed five different things that Christians accuse gays of. You responded with a post that basically said "well linking them with pedophilia is justified and here's why, but I totally don't make that link myself".
                          No I didn't. I made the post to show that gay people could inadvertently have made the association between the two in peoples minds because of this alliance from their earlier days and yet Christians are blamed for the association and gays never think that perhaps they could have made themselves look bad. I personally don't believe gays are any more likely to pedophilia than heterosexuals and I get very irritated when accused of this the minute anyone says anything about homosexuality.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                            I made the post to show that gay people could inadvertently have made the association between the two in peoples minds because of this alliance from their earlier days and yet Christians are blamed for the association and gays never think that perhaps they could have made themselves look bad.
                            You're victim-blaming. I think the fault can be clearly laid at the feet of Christians who have harped on about this constantly for 70 years.

                            I personally don't believe gays are any more likely to pedophilia than heterosexuals
                            Okay. Good.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              You're victim-blaming.
                              Well if someone made themself a victim then who else can one blame?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                Well if that was you expressing your understanding of my post that you quoted, then I grade you an F for reading comprehension.
                                Nice try, but i have a degree in English, and am a professional writer. So if anyone gets an F, you get it for poor communication.

                                In fact, your new explanation is precisely saying the answer I asked for, so you also get an F in comprehension, since you answered what you think I didn't ask because I supposedly misunderstood you.

                                Now try this. IF all joinings were called "civil unions" under law whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals....and had the same rights....while "marriage" was a strictly religious ceremony....with rights only associated with religious bodies....

                                ...would that make you shut up?

                                The "average gay person" just wanted to live a normal life like anybody else, and wanted standard marriage rights.
                                Then why did you say they didn't understand the newfangled civil unions? Do you think they were ignorant? Lazy? Stupid? Illiterate? Please explain why you insulted them by questioning their ability to understand.

                                And please take courses in remedial English. Thank you.
                                Last edited by jpholding; 06-27-2015, 09:27 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 09-16-2021, 09:01 AM
                                1 response
                                50 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 09-15-2021, 09:03 AM
                                1 response
                                31 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Christianbookworm  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 09-14-2021, 08:34 AM
                                1 response
                                34 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Esther
                                by Esther
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 09-13-2021, 10:37 AM
                                0 responses
                                21 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 09-10-2021, 09:08 AM
                                0 responses
                                28 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Working...
                                X