Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

Christians have to follow the law also.

Christians are not exempt from the law just because they claim it violates their religion.

Yes, and the highest law of the land is the 1st Amendment guarantee. No local ordinance may be passed that disenfranchises a person from their Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights. You know that. Do I have to walk you through poly sci?

I love the evolution of this thread BTW. It started out in 80% shock at "oh my God the cult of LGBT would/must NEVER be suppressing Christian's faith......to...."here's why and how the cult of LGBT will legally dominate Christians into submission to the Church of LGBT'...

This thread wasn't started that long ago either. I think their cult is actually moving faster than the Nazi Party did through German government...

 

[Syriusly]

Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.

My take..

13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.

Would this apply in her case maybe ?

If not then why not ?

Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?

Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.

Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.

Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.

 

[Skylar]

Christians have to follow the law also.

Christians are not exempt from the law just because they claim it violates their religion.

Yes, and the highest law of the land is the 1st Amendment guarantee. No local ordinance may be passed that disenfranchises a person from their Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights. You know that. Do I have to walk you through poly sci?

No court has ever found that requiring Kim Davis to do her job violates the 1st amendment.

So you're left without a constitutional infringement. While Kim is left with a violation of a court order.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do Christians believe that they are above the law?

Because the Court handed down a series of ill-considered decisions that have promoted that view.

We our secular nation governed by secular law not religious law.

How do you claim that our laws have been somehow separated from our spiritual and religious beliefs in which was the very instruments used to create this nation and our laws?

If you didn't have some sort of belief system that was created within you by the creator who is Holy and good, then you would be lawless just like we see in those who have lost their knowledge of this, and their spiritual compass in life.

Are you an advocate for all things evil in the world? I mean it's because your attitude is what leads up to all things evil in the world eventually. The evidence is there to review, it just depends on how lost you have become in this life.

How do you claim that our laws have been somehow separated from our spiritual and religious beliefs in which was the very instruments used to create this nation and our laws?

Because our laws- starting with the Constitution- were established from the beginning to be separate from our religious beliefs- of course those passing laws often had strong religious beliefs and those laws often sought to impose those moral/religious beliefs on Americans who did not share those same beliefs.

If you didn't have some sort of belief system that was created within you by the creator who is Holy and good, then you would be lawless just like we see in those who have lost their knowledge of this, and their spiritual compass in life.

Rather a circular argument. Essentially you are claiming if it wasn't for your religion you wouldn't know right from wrong. Which is rather sad.

Are you an advocate for all things evil in the world? I mean it's because your attitude is what leads up to all things evil in the world eventually. The evidence is there to review, it just depends on how lost you have become in this life

Are you an advocate for all things evil in the world? Some of the greatest evil in history has wrapped itself in the flag of religion and morality- just like you are doing.

You confuse 'evidence' with your biased opinion.

beagle is trying to reconcile a secular Constitution with his authoritative relgious belief system. That he is thinking is good.

 

[Syriusly]

Christians have to follow the law also.

Christians are not exempt from the law just because they claim it violates their religion.

Yes, and the highest law of the land is the 1st Amendment guarantee. No local ordinance may be passed that disenfranchises a person from their Constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights. You know that. Do I have to walk you through poly sci?

Yes- the Constitution is the highest law of the land.

That doesn't make Christians exempt from the law.

Just because a Christian claims his religion commands him to not spare the rod on his child, that doesn't mean a Christian is exempt from child abuse laws.


This week CNN reported that Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz, a white couple from Paradise, California beat their seven-year-old black daughter Lydia because they believed God wanted them to. The couple tortured the child for seven consecutive hours, taking breaks for prayer. When police arrived at the Schatz residence, Lydia was still alive. An officer administered CPR, but it was too late.


“We have heard the phrase ‘death by a thousand lashes,’” Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey told CNN. “That’s basically what this was.”


The Schatzes, who had eight other children, didn’t only beat Lydia. All of their children were regularly tortured in the name of God. Lydia’s sister, eleven-year-old Zariah was beaten so severely that she almost died.


CNN reported that the couple was heavily influenced by a Christian child-rearing book titled To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl of Tennessee-based No Greater Joy Ministries.


“If you spare the rod, you hate your child,” author Michael Pearl told CNN. “But if you love him, you chasten him timely. God would not have commanded parents to use the rod if it were not good for the child,” the book states.


Umph. A lot of good the rod did for little Lydia. Her skin was so badly battered that the medical examiner said her injuries looked like those seen on earthquake or bombing victims.


The Schatz’s pleaded guilty to torture and murder. The husband will spend 22 years behind bars and his wife will be locked away for at least 12 years. At Kevin’s trial Lydia’s sister Zariah faced her tormentor and asked: “Why did you adopt her (Lydia)? To kill her?” Lydia and her seven other surviving siblings are now in foster care.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A couple like that once lived in a neighborhood close to ours.

 

[Syriusly]

..and my all time favorite..."children aren't fledged citizens and they can't vote or affect their world as viable citizens so they have no voice here!" Which, if you examine the civil rights movements throughout time, you find that those in them are precisely those most disenfranchised as to that exact description..

...Hypocrites...

Talk about hypocrites- you are the one who keeps telling us that- we are not the ones making that idiotic claim.

Children do not have a vote- and law makers never ask children their opinion about divorce laws, or marriage laws. Of course none of that offends you until homosexuals can marry.

Then all you care about is denying the children of homosexuals the protection of having married parents.

Once again- denying marriage to homosexuals helps not a single child.
But denying marriage to homosexuals does deny their children the legal protections of marriage.

You don't give a damn about children.

You are the lying hypocrite here.

Talk about hypocrites- you are the one who keeps telling us that- we are not the ones making that idiotic claim.

Children do not have a vote- and law makers never ask children their opinion about divorce laws, or marriage laws. Of course none of that offends you until homosexuals can marry.

Then all you care about is denying the children of homosexuals the protection of having married parents.

Once again- denying marriage to homosexuals helps not a single child.
But denying marriage to homosexuals does deny their children the legal protections of marriage.

You don't give a damn about children.

You are the lying hypocrite here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, yes, is indeed the lying hypocrite.

 

[beagle9]

Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.

My take..

13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.

Would this apply in her case maybe ?

If not then why not ?

Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?

Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.

Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.

Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.

Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such. Now in that authority approved of we are to obey if it is Godly and good. For the rulers who are appointed for good, are not to be a terror to that which is good, but instead of that which is bad. Now as far as being under the yoke of a ruler or rulers of that which is bad, then it is that we as Christians are to trust in God that his words and works will be revealed unto them, and are that which is just and holy. He shall deal with those who choose to abuse and place his children into bondage for they belong to him for whom is God the almighty. Jesus comands that we obey in so that his works are just and are complete in our sight, and his words are to be made true unto us. Glory to him who is on high, and praise his name for he is our king. Amen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.

My take..

13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.

Would this apply in her case maybe ?

If not then why not ?

Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?

Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.

Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.

Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.

Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such. Now in that authority approved of we are to obey if it is Godly and good. For the rulers who are appointed for good, are not to be a terror to that which is good, but instead of that which is bad. Now as far as being under the yoke of a ruler or rulers of that which is bad, then it is that we as Christians are to trust in God that his words and works will be revealed unto them, and are that which is just and holy. He shall deal with those who choose to abuse and place his children into bondage for they belong to him for whom is God the almighty. Jesus comands that we obey in so that his works are just and are complete in our sight, and his words are to be made true unto us. Glory to him who is on high, and praise his name for he is our king. Amen.

Excellent. Thus Kim Davis can issue certificates and leave the judging to God or she can resign.

 

[Syriusly]

Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.

My take..

13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.

Would this apply in her case maybe ?

If not then why not ?

Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?

Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.

Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.

Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.

Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such..

The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.

Why obey authority?

Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Nowhere does Paul say "Obey authority- if you agree with authority"

 

[beagle9]

Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.

My take..

13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.

Would this apply in her case maybe ?

If not then why not ?

Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?

Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.

Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.

Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.

Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such. Now in that authority approved of we are to obey if it is Godly and good. For the rulers who are appointed for good, are not to be a terror to that which is good, but instead of that which is bad. Now as far as being under the yoke of a ruler or rulers of that which is bad, then it is that we as Christians are to trust in God that his words and works will be revealed unto them, and are that which is just and holy. He shall deal with those who choose to abuse and place his children into bondage for they belong to him for whom is God the almighty. Jesus comands that we obey in so that his works are just and are complete in our sight, and his words are to be made true unto us. Glory to him who is on high, and praise his name for he is our king. Amen.

Excellent. Thus Kim Davis can issue certificates and leave the judging to God or she can resign.

Her rulers have become a terror onto her, for she is expected by them to do that which is unGodly.

 

[IvantheGreat]

Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes.
Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.

 

[playtime]

religious Institutions will not be required to perform same sex marriages if it's against their doctrine. There are plenty of them that will, however.

 

[beagle9]

Beagle, I counsel you to try to not counsel scripture, which is clear and to the salvation of the soul.

My take..

13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Couldn't it also be said that "SHE is also a minister of God" in that to councel thee for good, and so she is issueing marriage liscenses to that which God does approve of in her understanding of that which God would approve of ? Now if thou doest that which is evil unto her (PLACE HER IN CHAINS AND in BONDAGE), and to do this for her belief in that which in her understanding was good, and in that which was legal until she was brought before the unjust judge, then be afraid; for she beareth not the sword in vain; for she is the minister of God in her life, who is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil against her.

Would this apply in her case maybe ?

If not then why not ?

Oh are we going to be quoting the Bible in debating Ms. Davis?

Romans is very clear that Christians are supposed to obey authority- there is no 'wiggle' room here- 'authority'- which the New Testament says God has appointed- told Ms. Davis to issue marriage licenses.

Ms. Davis is cherry picking from the NT about what she wants to obey.

Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

You feel compelled to alter the words of Roman 13 in order to justify her defiance of authority. Like all those who cherry pick from the Bible.

Do you not know the true meanings of what you have used above ? The above condems that which is bad, and lifts up that which is good. There is no authority recognized other than and/or except for that which God does approve of in order to be recognized as such..

The words are about as specific as Paul has ever gotten. Paul for instance never said "Do not engage in homosexuals relationships"- but Paul very specifically said to obey authority.

Why obey authority?

Because all authority comes from God. Why do you resist listening to Paul- for these specific instructions?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.
For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Nowhere does Paul say "Obey authority- if you agree with authority"

For rulers are not a TERROR to good, so now that good is being redefined by man, then justifications begin to justify just about anything anymore these days. People speak about these things as if they are living for the moment now, but after the moment has passed, then comes the judgement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

or rulers are not a TERROR to good, so now that good is being redefined by man, then justifications begin to justify just about anything anymore these days. People speak about these things as if they are living for the moment now, but after the moment has passed, then comes the judgement.

I am glad you had a good talk with your pastor. Now leave Kim's rulers to the Lord, as will I, and let's move on to other matters.

 

[Skylar]

Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes.
Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.

Pretty much everyone agrees on the latter. Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriage.

 

[dblack]

Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes.
Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.

Pretty much everyone agrees on the latter. Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriage.

Then why should businesses? Should Churches get special privilege? Is THAT the point of the First Amendment???

 

[Skylar]

Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes.
Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.

Pretty much everyone agrees on the latter. Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriage.

Then why should businesses? Should Churches get special privilege? Is THAT the point of the First Amendment???

Because business is commerce. And falls right under the State's authority to regulate. Religion isn't. And falls outside it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages. Should gays be allowed to marry? Yes.
Should churches have the right to decide whether or not to marry them? Also yes.

Pretty much everyone agrees on the latter. Churches should not be forced to accommodate homosexual marriage.

Then why should businesses? Should Churches get special privilege? Is THAT the point of the First Amendment???

Fuck, yeah, little doosh. As long as they are involved in private association, unlike the doosh bakers, they don't have to marry anyone they don't want. Yeah.