Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Alternate Solution for Kim Davis

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by element771 View Post
    Because there is a fundamental difference between a partnership and a "corporation". Its not a clear cut how that shakes out. Allowing two people of the same sex to get married does not fundamentally change the nature of marriage being a partnership (from the states point of view).
    Why should we get stuck on 'partnership' when we paid no heed to the previous definition of 'man and women'.


    Originally posted by element777
    "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Mathew 7:3

    I would argue that we never get rid of the plank in our own eye.

    "Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?" James 3:6

    That seems pretty clear to me.
    Not to me since why then do we keep Paul's letters, parts of which are judgemental ie 1 Corinthians chapter 5. I think you have misquoted your last quote James 3:6?

    Originally posted by element777
    As far as KD, If she would have said...I don't condone homosexual marriage but it is not for me to judge as per the scriptures. Then I think she would have done us a service. However when she is claiming to be judge of these peoples behaviors, it only amplifies the idea of a large population of people being Christian in name only. To me, this may serve to drive people away as welcoming people into the fold. Especially when it is unbiblical to judge as she is doing.
    By your own rules you should not be judging her (see especially your previous post #13)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Abigail View Post
      Why should we get stuck on 'partnership' when we paid no heed to the previous definition of 'man and women'.
      Because the only reason that 'man and man' or 'woman and woman' were not part of the previous definition was that it was one based on tradition. People used the same "tradition" to forbid people from marrying different races. Once that became ok, why didn't everything else? By your logic, this would have happened.


      Originally posted by Abigail View Post
      Not to me since why then do we keep Paul's letters, parts of which are judgemental ie 1 Corinthians chapter 5. I think you have misquoted your last quote James 3:6?
      I don't think I misquoted James. How did I misquote him?


      Originally posted by Abigail View Post
      By your own rules you should not be judging her (see especially your previous post #13)
      I am not putting her above myself the way she put herself above the gay couple that wanted to get married. I am no better than her...we are both sinners as is everyone else. I have no idea if she is right with God. My condemnation was not of her moral character, only her understanding of her place in judging others.

      This is in line with what I said post 15. I would have had no issues with her saying that she does not condone gay marriage, much like my statement that I do not condone her judging others. You would be correct if I said that she was not a child of God because of her actions but I did not.

      Do you see the difference?

      Comment


      • #18
        Many people never see the consequences of homosexual marriage. This is understandable considering where they live. In free societies such as Britain, the United States, Canada, etc. there are no legal consequences to homosexual marriage. Sure there are some social consequences, but that's about it. But let's take a look at the middle east.

        In most middle eastern countries, homosexual marriages can lead to perpetual poverty. How can this happen? Let's not forget that in middle eastern countries women don't have rights. They can't vote, own any property, or travel wherever they wish. So if two males consummate a homosexual relationship, they could doom all the female members of their family to perpetual poverty.

        Also remember that in the Old Testament, the Israeli army was the weakest army in the region. Having male children was a top priority to them. As you can see, homosexual marriages could have severe consequences. That's why a loving God forbade homosexual marriages.

        As for Kim Davis, I think she should have quit her job and ran for a congressional seat. That way she could have crafted and voted for a law to limit homosexual marriages.
        If anyone wants to read my Kindle Book, feel free to click this hyperlink: http://www.amazon.com/Key-Logic-Ted-...gic+ted+hickox

        Comment


        • #19
          As a biblical observation: I've not detected any reference to legislative marriage in scripture. I've only detected legal provisions for divorce - Jesus's focus when discussing marriage. Have a read of Mark 19:3-9, but especially vs10 "His disciples said to Him: if such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry". It would seem from an NT viewpoint that those "christians" who see nothing wrong with getting divorced and remarrying are in fact advocating something that is anti-Christ (only the RCC seem to understand and teach this NT fact). The current uproar about same sex marriage is just the reaction of non-practicing "christians" (those that selectively read scripture) to appease their conscience. If anything the argument should be about the sanctity of marriage, not the who of co-habitation.

          In any case, if we were to base marriage on the examples of Genesis, then "free choice" marriage should be outlawed. Parents or the tribe make the decision on who marries who. That might solve the gay issue! Though it could encourage incest (eg: Sarah was Abraham's half sister). As for divorce, Genesis solves that problem, us men can have concubines! Sorry girls, in the OT model you are just chattel. Instead of divorce, us husbands can just put you away to live the life of a nun, while we have fun with a bevy of concubines.

          Most here at Theologyweb are probably too young or inadequately educated to remember that in the first world, Western nations, less than a hundred years ago, women had the status of chattel (property) and had few legal rights, whilst gay men (homosexuals) although legislated against were openly tolerated and had more civil rights than women. Legally, lesbians didn't exist (still don't in some first world nations). Among the leading nations of the 20th century, America was very late in giving women the vote and aggressively suppressed the suffragette movement. Why? Basically for the same reasons, people of similar minds, oppose gay liberation and its consequences. It will destroy society as we know it...

          A side note: less than 50 years ago, in most parts of the world children born outside of marriage had "bastard" stamped on their birth certificates. This precluded the child from holding public office and even joining the military. Why? Basically for the same reasons, people of similar minds, oppose gay liberation and its consequences. To legitimise such children will destroy society as we know it... The common practice in my country was to register the child as the progeny of married relatives. Finally, in my country the anti-discrimanation act legitimised most people (In Oz we don't have a bill of rights in our constitution. Our rights are gauranteed through law, and can't be varied. In short: we don't have the USA's problems of indiscriminate gaurantees.) In my country, some "christian" groups vocally opposed the ant-descrimination act before it was enacted. Why? Basically for the same reasons, people of similar minds, oppose gay liberation and its consequences. It will destroy society as we know it... In this case, there was huge implications for our society. I no longer read in the "want adds", "Jews and Catholics need not apply." Mind you, it has opened the door on same sex marriage, but we also have the "Marriage act" which about ten years ago was changed from defining marriage as between two consenting adults, to between a man and a woman (marriage in Oz is defined as a contract so is also subject to other laws, especially the Family law act).
          Last edited by apostoli; 09-13-2015, 08:06 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by element771 View Post
            I think it is ridiculous that just because civil marriage has been extended to same sex couples that you think that everything else will become recognized.

            KD has done Christians a disservice to us because while she reads the Bible, she actually doesn't follow the words of Jesus. She is not the moral arbiter of God's law...only Jesus and God are. It is pretty explicit in the Bible when it comes to judgment by us of others. We are not God, and she is pretending like she is. Pride, even when expressed behind Christian sentiment, is still pride.
            The argument in support of polygamy at least is no different from the argument for same sex marriage. I regard the legalisation of polygamy as pretty much a foregone conclusion.
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              The argument in support of polygamy at least is no different from the argument for same sex marriage. I regard the legalisation of polygamy as pretty much a foregone conclusion.

              It is night and day from a legal and civil perspective.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                The argument in support of polygamy at least is no different from the argument for same sex marriage. I regard the legalisation of polygamy as pretty much a foregone conclusion.
                My knowledge of the USA's Bill of Rights is limited. However, in my understanding the high court decision on same sex marriage cannot be extended to polygamy. Imu, the Mormon experience well demonstrates that fact...

                Comment


                • #23
                  I wouldn't expect it to be fast, and it would take a challenge. But I can't see the argument for polygamy failing - there is no difference in the supporting argument that can be mounted.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    I wouldn't expect it to be fast, and it would take a challenge. But I can't see the argument for polygamy failing - there is no difference in the supporting argument that can be mounted.
                    Marriage is a partnership not a corporation. Changing that would present all sorts of problems. The makeup of the partnership is why gay marriage doesn't undermine the traditional secular definition of marriage. That would be the argument and the reason polygamy isn't going to become legal.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                      I wouldn't expect it to be fast, and it would take a challenge. But I can't see the argument for polygamy failing - there is no difference in the supporting argument that can be mounted.
                      If so, why hadn't the Mormons realised their rights under the constitution a 100 years ago? have there being recent amendments I haven't heard about?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The history of Utah and its entry to the union is interesting. The majority sect of the LDS has accepted monogamy, but there is a group that hasn't. They've been able to "keep the faith" without making waves until now - but it will be an interesting watch to see which way it will go.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          The history of Utah and its entry to the union is interesting. The majority sect of the LDS has accepted monogamy, but there is a group that hasn't. They've been able to "keep the faith" without making waves until now - but it will be an interesting watch to see which way it will go.
                          I did a quick google. Apparently, back in 1878 the Mormons challenged the anti-bigamy laws as unconstitutional and failed = Reynolds v. United States.

                          Of course the Mormons were relying on the first amendment but the court ruled that religious belief lies solely between man and his God, Therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

                          Imu, the recent high court decision that negated state practices that effectively prohibited same sex marriage was quite specific and related to the recognition of a legal marriage outside a particular state or territory of the USA and the issuing of marriage licences. The appeal covered the ‘due process of law’ and equal protection' (and possibly the privileges/immunities) provisions in the 5th and 14th amendments to the USA's constitution. imu, both prohibit "depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization". The equal protection clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation, and for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups..
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...s_Constitution

                          Imu, the anti-bigamy law if it is deemed constitutional (which it is) satisfies all these provisions, so the case for polygmy would never get a hearing.

                          ps:

                          I just came across an interesting legal argument. It argues that polygamy is inherently descriminatory and therefore void under the USA's legal framework .
                          Last edited by apostoli; 09-14-2015, 08:06 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Homosexual "marriage" by SCOTUS intervention (vehemently opposed and exposed by the four dissenters) was not interpretation of a law that a court properly can do, but was the INVENTION of a law by the judicial activist sociology of the liberal five. It has no proper constitutional standing; it is on its face unconstitutional.

                            As regards polygamy, since the SCOTUS abortion here has no standing, polygamy does not follow as constitutional. Of course, historically and religiously (the Old Testament and the Koran) the case for polygamy is much stronger than any case that can be made for homosexual "marriage".
                            Near the Peoples' Republic of Davis, south of the State of Jefferson (Suspended between Left and Right)

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                            35 responses
                            166 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Cow Poke  
                            Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                            4 responses
                            49 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                            Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                            10 responses
                            119 views
                            1 like
                            Last Post mikewhitney  
                            Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                            14 responses
                            71 views
                            3 likes
                            Last Post Cow Poke  
                            Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                            13 responses
                            58 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Cow Poke  
                            Working...
                            X