SCOTUS Rules 5-4 for Gay Marriage

[Leonhard]

But what you seem unable to comprehend along with others who claim religious certainty is that, in your analogy, other people are not drowning but waving. It comes over as extremely and offensively arrogant.

So Cow Poke agrees with you, that Christians 'seem to think that there is something wrong with not being a Christian'. I'm not sure what's the worth of that comment... yes, that's what we believe firstfloor. We believe that God is real, that He is Holy, that our sins exclude us from His Kingdom, and Christ is the only pathway to His forgiveness.

If you want this to turn into a "You're deluded" "No you're deluded!" "Nu uh, you're just pretending not be deluded" ... kind of argument, be my guest, but its way outside of the OP.

Anyway, you're deluded.

[firstfloor]

Well, yeah, the same way a guy standing on a ship would think there's something wrong with a bunch of people in the water drowning.

But what you seem unable to comprehend along with others who claim religious certainty is that, in your analogy, other people are not drowning but waving. It comes over as extremely and offensively arrogant.

[Cow Poke]

Speaking of that...

When David did that, and when he did his census... he was punished by God both times. The text is honest about David's shortcomings but it doesn't show him getting off scot free when he does sin. I seriously doubt the author would just put a casual reference to him engaging in homosexual behavior and just move on.

The whole story of David is a powerful example of how God can use is IN SPITE of our failings. HE is our strength, and it is in HIM we have power.

[Cerebrum123]

Source: ColdCaseChristianity.com

So Were They Lovers? If we are to believe David and Jonathan were lovers, we must ignore the plain reading of the scripture and the historic, traditional understanding of the text. In addition, we must believe Samuel, one of God’s prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law condemning homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text. I hope this very brief review of the texts under consideration will help you to understand the orthodox Christian perspective of David and Jonathan’s relationship. David and Jonathan were the deepest of friends, true brothers in both cause and faith, but they were nothing more. - See more at: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014....SRTJy3AR.dpuf

© Copyright Original Source

*

*Laughing at Starlight's comment about the "plain meaning of the text"

[KingsGambit]

Ya gotta love it when the claim is made "MOST believe....."

Even IF they were, David had an affair with a married woman and abused his position of authority to have her husband murdered. Should we believe THAT is a model for us to follow?

Speaking of that...

When David did that, and when he did his census... he was punished by God both times. The text is honest about David's shortcomings but it doesn't show him getting off scot free when he does sin. I seriously doubt the author would just put a casual reference to him engaging in homosexual behavior and just move on.

[Cow Poke]

I think it does. Most OT scholars today seem to think it does....

Ya gotta love it when the claim is made "MOST believe....."

Even IF they were, David had an affair with a married woman and abused his position of authority to have her husband murdered. Should we believe THAT is a model for us to follow?

[Cerebrum123]

Those are both true.

Then how on earth is David loving Jonathan as himself in any way a homosexual reference?

I think it does. Most OT scholars today seem to think it does. You can stick your head in the sand if you like. Christians always seem to be able to weasel their way out of any passages they don't like the sound of... even those Christians who harp on about taking 'plain meanings' on the text suddenly become experts at contorting the interpretations when it hits a verse they don't personally like the sound of.

Actually, from what I've seen it's quite a fringe view. You probably should have qualified with "that I agree with" or something.

Oh, and for the "plain meaning" to be valid you actually need more than just an English translation. You need to go back and look at the original language. From what I understand they didn't have words similar to "like" or "dislike" it was always either "love" or "hate". They had no middle ground like we do today.

Again, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

[Leonhard]

But it is up to the church to find one who will.

Yes, the lutheran "bishops" are obligated by law to find another priest to do the ceremony if anyone refuses.

[Cow Poke]

This is not remotely related to the issue.

Yes, it is.

This is an unrelated tax issue. Please answer the question.

I did.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, we're already dealing with our attorneys over attempts to eliminate the ministerial housing exemption. As a result of the motions for discovery, it's obvious this is a first step.

This is not remotely related to the issue. This is an unrelated tax issue. Please answer the question.

[Bill the Cat]

The State Lutheran Church performs homosexual wedding ceremonies. Individual ministers can opt out of doing one if their conscience obliges them to.

But it is up to the church to find one who will.

[Bill the Cat]

Where did you get the idea that "most OT scholars" accept your reading?

head-up-ass.jpg

[Cerealman]

And so it begins:



http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/ob...riage-already/

Hasn't he tried this before?

[seer]

And so it begins:

President Barack Obama urged supporters of same-sex marriage Friday to “help” people to overcome their religious convictions, so they are no longer held back from a progressive American view of equality.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/ob...riage-already/

[Adrift]

I think it does. Most OT scholars today seem to think it does.

Where did you get the idea that "most OT scholars" accept your reading?