Quote:

KrazyXXXDJ said:
Animalman brings up an excellent point, one that probably causes me most of the confusion concerning the term "Christian".

It was always my belief that God loves you no matter what. Others disagree.

Some people say to be a Christian, you MUST follow the teachings as closely as possible. Others say just by "recognizing" Christ, that makes them Christian.

So what you have is a lot of people basing their faith on their own beliefs. Nothing concrete.

I know a LOT of people who recognize Christ, saying they believe in Christ, and that's about the extent of it. Most people just try to live the best they know how. But not all. Others don't. With others, they'll come down on you on what they feel is wrong and contradictary to the Word. Then it's back to porn, and swearing, and hording possessions, googling boobies, etc. They never go to church. They can't quote scripture. They don't give to charity. They believe they'll go to heaven just by saying they believe in God. Then they're stealing pens from work. A direct violation of the ten commandments.
Picking and choosing, weighing sin. But then it's not o.k. for people to be homosexual, and they feel they have the right to tell me so. Like my existence in the eyes of God is less than theirs. That makes no sense to me- seems like that kind of logic is flawed.




It is more than a little offensive to have you making all kinds of assumptions that Christians are stealing pens from work and all other kinds of offenses, and assuming that it's just all a rationalization so Christians can hate the Homos.

I've made clear arguments to the contrary since page 2 ( page 2 !! ) and you still choose not to get it. And you never will get it, unless you at some point want to.

If there is one thing that is absolutely indisputable and unchangeable in the Bible, it's the sanctity of marriage. One man and one woman

As I laid out at length in earlier posts, in Revelation especially, Christ is called the Bridegroom, and the collective followers of Jesus (the church) are called The Bride.
Throughout the Bible, the sanctity of marriage is both sacred, and deeply symbolic.
"Gay marriage" urinates contemptuously on that concept.

Homosexuality is condemned throughout the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as I've quoted here. Chapter and verse.
No one can say I haven't been clear.
Homosexuality is one of the major Biblical crimes. Infidelity and fornication (of which homosexuality is one form, as I've said endlessly) are one of the major symbols of an evil civilization, as depicted in end-time prophecy. Homosexuality's Biblical immorality is NOT an "outdated" concept, it is a standard commanded to be honored till the second coming of Christ.

Sexual immorality, in the forms of fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are all listed as among the most severe indiscretions.
It is obvious to anyone who is open to the truth that eating pork and shellfish, or similar more hygenic customs carry much less severe Biblical weight and penalties, if violated.

Homosexuality is condemned by the Bible.
And based on that, "gay marriage" is as opposite Christianity as night is to day.

As I've said --again, since page 2-- gay civil unions could be permissible, as an alternative standard to "gay marriage".
If gays would be content with that balance of rights between homosexuals and religious freedom.
An alternative that doesn't begin to shut Christianity out of the system, and violate religious freedom by illegalizing Biblical teachings, turning Genesis chapters 18 and 19, and similar verses that teach the clear Biblical standards against homosexuality, and turning those scriptural commands from God into "hate-crimes".


But again, if civil union were the end of it (allowing absolutely equal representation under the law for gays within a secular, non-religious, non-repressive-of-religion framework ) I'd more readily accept it.

But, as every gay activist, attorney and advocate has made clear, this would not be the accepted fair balance of rights between gays and those religiously or personally opposed to homosexuality, it would be a beach-head, from which to push further legislation, to run roughshod over religious freedom, and over the right to publicly read the Bible.

EXAMPLE:
According to Canada's laws (as I saw on the news segment today of the 700 Club) if any radio or TV station reads verses condemning homosexuality on Canadian broadcast airwaves, that would be a "hate-crime" punishable by a fine of up to $250,000.
THAT is where all this is headed in the United States as well. It is a first step, toward erasing the ability to teach what the Bible actually says.

You can believe what you want, but that doesn't change the obvious truth.

In typical liberal fashion, you attempt to shut out the truth, by finding one tiny technicality, one tiny lack of clarity, that the Bible doesn't explicitly address (shellfish, pork, masturbation, porn, antibiotics, whatever) that scholars don't fully agree on, so you can dismiss the other 99% that is clearly stated Biblically and undisputed.
Or that if I personally question a portion of the law on jay-walking, that somehow invalidates my right to say that the law on imprisoning murderers and rapists is correct and just.

In typical liberal fashion, you attack with a narrow argument that glosses over the full picture, to deceitfully misrepresent the full picture, and railroad your agenda with an argument that misrepresents the truth:
The Bible condemns homosexuality and all forms of adultery. From GENESIS to REVELATION, homosexuality is condemned.

And there's no expiration date on that strongest and clearest of commandments.

Which is, once again, your liberal wrongheadedness, that just because there's a question about the law concerning jay-walking, we should let every murderer and rapist out of prison. Ridiculous.

And in further viciousness and distortion, you make stereotypical characterizations of Christians, even as you allege that it is Christians that are the hateful ones.

"Gay Marriage" is just a Trojan Horse for writing Christianity out of legal existence. At least in a form that truly represents the Bible, that is supposed to be its foundation.