Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sassy on May 29, 2017, 09:14:10 AM
-
Why is it so easy to sell a lie?
Whilst gay marriage exists in the world it does not exist in the great order and scheme of things within religion.
Marriage is an exclusive sacrament of a man and a woman.
If gay men want an arrangement they call marriage in the world they have this.
But they do not have the God who ordained marriage in the original purpose and style. Nor do they have God.
I worry so much about people not gay who use their cause to make themselves look as if they are doing something right.
When in truth, we tell the truth to those we love. What has gay marriage in common with Christian marriage?
The answer would be 'NOTHING' anyone can have ceremony and call it marriage. BUT not all marriage ceremonies are recognised in the eyes of God as a marriage.
Legal rights are the same but the spiritual concept and physical union is not.
Why is it, no one recognises the truth about these things? Why can people not accept it for what it is.
Christians and homosexuals would not find the need to be upset with each other if they simply accepted the true differences for what they are.
I have no quandary when it comes to the understanding of heterosexual Christian marriage and any other type of marriage.
Can we ever find a place where we accept they exist but also accept that they are different?
-
As ever confusing Sass.
I would look at the individual union to decide whether it has any meaning or not.
After all a lot of "Christian" marriages in the past took place to avoid the shame of having got pregnant outside of wedlock. Other weddings took place because of money and still do. There has never been a time when marriage was solely about the love of one man and one woman.
How much better would it be if all marriages took place because of love towards one another within a partnership - no matter what the genetic identities of the people involved happened to be.
PS Christians and homosexuals are not mutually exclusive groups within society - you write as if they are.
-
As far as I'm aware, marriage is only a sacrement in the RCC and Orthodox churches. Possibly Alan or another CofE member might correct me, but it is not a sacrement in that denomination (or the CofS, Methodist, Baptist,URC.....)
-
Why is it so easy to sell a lie?
Whilst gay marriage exists in the world it does not exist in the great order and scheme of things within religion.
Marriage is an exclusive sacrament of a man and a woman.
If gay men want an arrangement they call marriage in the world they have this.
But they do not have the God who ordained marriage in the original purpose and style. Nor do they have God.
I worry so much about people not gay who use their cause to make themselves look as if they are doing something right.
When in truth, we tell the truth to those we love. What has gay marriage in common with Christian marriage?
The answer would be 'NOTHING' anyone can have ceremony and call it marriage. BUT not all marriage ceremonies are recognised in the eyes of God as a marriage.
Legal rights are the same but the spiritual concept and physical union is not.
Why is it, no one recognises the truth about these things? Why can people not accept it for what it is.
Christians and homosexuals would not find the need to be upset with each other if they simply accepted the true differences for what they are.
I have no quandary when it comes to the understanding of heterosexual Christian marriage and any other type of marriage.
Can we ever find a place where we accept they exist but also accept that they are different?
God's spokesperson hath spake! ;D
-
I thought marriage was considered to be a sacrament in the CofE Anchorman buton checking, found this -
Anglican sacraments
"Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel"
Baptism
Eucharist (or Communion, Mass, or the Lord's Supper)
"Commonly called Sacraments but not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel"
Confession and absolution
Holy Matrimony
Confirmation
Ordination (also called Holy Orders)
S'pose it depends on what the individual means by the word Sacrament :-)!
Trent - How much better would it be if all marriages took place because of love towards one another within a partnership - no matter what the genetic identities of the people involved happened to be.
PS Christians and homosexuals are not mutually exclusive groups within society
Yes!
-
There is nothing "Christian" about marriage, Sassy, it is contract between two people. Its original purpose was to protect the ownership of property by controlling the sexual behaviour of women.
Religion (ie the organised, large scale, control of the behaviour of other people by using fairy tales) became involved when it was realised that strongly associating "shame" and "guilt" with sex was a very powerful method of control.
If two men choose to marry, or if two women choose to marry, then let them. What other people choose to do with the contents of their underwear is none of your business.
-
Why is it so easy to sell a lie?
Whilst gay marriage exists in the world it does not exist in the great order and scheme of things within religion.
Marriage is an exclusive sacrament of a man and a woman.
If gay men want an arrangement they call marriage in the world they have this.
But they do not have the God who ordained marriage in the original purpose and style. Nor do they have God.
I worry so much about people not gay who use their cause to make themselves look as if they are doing something right.
When in truth, we tell the truth to those we love. What has gay marriage in common with Christian marriage?
The answer would be 'NOTHING' anyone can have ceremony and call it marriage. BUT not all marriage ceremonies are recognised in the eyes of God as a marriage.
Legal rights are the same but the spiritual concept and physical union is not.
Why is it, no one recognises the truth about these things? Why can people not accept it for what it is.
Christians and homosexuals would not find the need to be upset with each other if they simply accepted the true differences for what they are.
I have no quandary when it comes to the understanding of heterosexual Christian marriage and any other type of marriage.
Can we ever find a place where we accept they exist but also accept that they are different?
Don't take it to heart Sass none of it's real.
ippy
-
As ever confusing Sass.
I would look at the individual union to decide whether it has any meaning or not.
After all a lot of "Christian" marriages in the past took place to avoid the shame of having got pregnant outside of wedlock. Other weddings took place because of money and still do. There has never been a time when marriage was solely about the love of one man and one woman.
How much better would it be if all marriages took place because of love towards one another within a partnership - no matter what the genetic identities of the people involved happened to be.
PS Christians and homosexuals are not mutually exclusive groups within society - you write as if they are.
I suppose you can say that because some people do not marry but love each other the points we both make could be moot when looked upon concerning marriage. How does marriage reflect love in that stance. I feel that I have sorta made the point that marriage as an institution is not really about sexuality not exclusive to each relationship regardless of the people involved. It means something different to everyone.
-
There is nothing "Christian" about marriage, Sassy, it is contract between two people. Its original purpose was to protect the ownership of property by controlling the sexual behaviour of women.
Religion (ie the organised, large scale, control of the behaviour of other people by using fairy tales) became involved when it was realised that strongly associating "shame" and "guilt" with sex was a very powerful method of control.
If two men choose to marry, or if two women choose to marry, then let them. What other people choose to do with the contents of their underwear is none of your business.
I believe the marriage part was about children in Christian marriage... When it comes to the children between a believer and none believer being acceptable to God in an unequally yoked marriage. Marriage does have a meaning exclusive to Christianity not found outside the Jewish and Christian religions
-
I believe the marriage part was about children in Christian marriage... When it comes to the children between a believer and none believer being acceptable to God in an unequally yoked marriage. Marriage does have a meaning exclusive to Christianity not found outside the Jewish and Christian religions
Sez you! I happen to have a close relative who is a Christian married to a non Christian, they get on fine. Their children have been permitted to decide for themselves about matters of faith, which is the way it should be.
-
I believe the marriage part was about children in Christian marriage... When it comes to the children between a believer and none believer being acceptable to God in an unequally yoked marriage. Marriage does have a meaning exclusive to Christianity not found outside the Jewish and Christian religions
I recall Diarmaid McCullough's programmes about the history of Christianity - he said that in biblical times marriage was essentially a contract to protect property, and that this continued to be the case in Christianity until about the 12th century when religious authorities "kidnapped" marriage. This, of course, would have coincided with the considerations of Thomas Aquinas that the primary purpose of sexual activity was the creation of children - a notion taken from the ancient Greek concept of "Natural Law" not the bible.
Nothing biblical about Natural Law - it came from Aristotle.
-
Sez you! I happen to have a close relative who is a Christian married to a non Christian, they get on fine. Their children have been permitted to decide for themselves about matters of faith, which is the way it should be.
I see it cleared the top of your head... :o
-
I recall Diarmaid McCullough's programmes about the history of Christianity - he said that in biblical times marriage was essentially a contract to protect property, and that this continued to be the case in Christianity until about the 12th century when religious authorities "kidnapped" marriage. This, of course, would have coincided with the considerations of Thomas Aquinas that the primary purpose of sexual activity was the creation of children - a notion taken from the ancient Greek concept of "Natural Law" not the bible.
Nothing biblical about Natural Law - it came from Aristotle.
So Diarnaud was around through the whole period of that time till the 12 th century and then onwards?
If you read the bible you would see through history God has spoke to Christians through the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
No man taught the person born of the Spirit nor did the person require teaching.
This is why man get's things so wrong...
-
So Diarnaud was around through the whole period of that time till the 12 th century and then onwards?
If you read the bible you would see through history God has spoke to Christians through the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
No man taught the person born of the Spirit nor did the person require teaching.
This is why man get's things so wrong...
THE BIBLE ISN'T A HISTORICAL NOVEL! ::)
-
If you read the bible you would see through history God has spoke to Christians through the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
No man taught the person born of the Spirit nor did the person require teaching.
If you read the bible you would see through history God has spoken to Christians ...
If you read the bible you see no such thing. The bible is a collection of pre-christian myths, legends and fairy tales. As history, Christianity begins where the bible ends. Even now, Christianity is only about 2,000 years old.
So, if you accept Bishop Ussher's historiography, Christianity is only half as old as the preChristian biblical period. There were no Christians to speak to ...
-
If you read the bible you would see through history God has spoken to Christians ...
If you read the bible you see no such thing. The bible is a collection of pre-christian myths, legends and fairy tales. As history, Christianity begins where the bible ends. Even now, Christianity is only about 2,000 years old.
So, if you accept Bishop Ussher's historiography, Christianity is only half as old as the preChristian biblical period. There were no Christians to speak to ...
Exactly!
-
Why is it so easy to sell a lie?
Whilst gay marriage exists in the world it does not exist in the great order and scheme of things within religion.
Marriage is an exclusive sacrament of a man and a woman.
If gay men want an arrangement they call marriage in the world they have this.
But they do not have the God who ordained marriage in the original purpose and style. Nor do they have God.
I worry so much about people not gay who use their cause to make themselves look as if they are doing something right.
When in truth, we tell the truth to those we love. What has gay marriage in common with Christian marriage?
The answer would be 'NOTHING' anyone can have ceremony and call it marriage. BUT not all marriage ceremonies are recognised in the eyes of God as a marriage.
Legal rights are the same but the spiritual concept and physical union is not.
Why is it, no one recognises the truth about these things? Why can people not accept it for what it is.
Christians and homosexuals would not find the need to be upset with each other if they simply accepted the true differences for what they are.
I have no quandary when it comes to the understanding of heterosexual Christian marriage and any other type of marriage.
Can we ever find a place where we accept they exist but also accept that they are different?
Who are you? that you think you have the right to judge ultimately who has God, and who doesn't?
-
https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php
-
Floo,
THE BIBLE ISN'T A HISTORICAL NOVEL! ::)
Isn't it?
-
Floo,
Isn't it?
Category F**k Man
It is of course, at best for your argument, a collection. So your statement that it is A novel is mistake number one.
Feel free to demonstrate your novel (ha ha) thesis.
Yours not holding his breath
Vlad.
-
Fallacy Boy,
Category F**k Man
It is of course, at best for your argument, a collection. So your statement that it is A novel is mistake number one.
Feel free to demonstrate your novel (ha ha) thesis.
Yours not holding his breath
Vlad.
You really, really, really don't know what "category error" means do you.
Here's what "novel" means: "A novel is any relatively long piece of written narrative fiction, normally in prose, and typically published as a book." (Wiki)
Of course the Bible is other things too: history, early moral philosophy, parable etc, but "a relatively long piece of written narrative fiction" seems like a pretty good catch-all description to me.
-
Fallacy Boy,
You really, really, really don't know what "category error" means do you.
Here's what "novel" means: "A novel is any relatively long piece of written narrative fiction, normally in prose, and typically published as a book." (Wiki)
Of course the Bible is other things too: history, early moral philosophy, parable etc, but "a relatively long piece of written narrative fiction" seems like a pretty good catch-all description to me.
To you yes. To any serious person ...No.
-
Why is it so easy to sell a lie?
Whilst gay marriage exists in the world it does not exist in the great order and scheme of things within religion.
Marriage is an exclusive sacrament of a man and a woman.
If gay men want an arrangement they call marriage in the world they have this.
But they do not have the God who ordained marriage in the original purpose and style. Nor do they have God.
I worry so much about people not gay who use their cause to make themselves look as if they are doing something right.
When in truth, we tell the truth to those we love. What has gay marriage in common with Christian marriage?
The answer would be 'NOTHING' anyone can have ceremony and call it marriage. BUT not all marriage ceremonies are recognised in the eyes of God as a marriage.
Legal rights are the same but the spiritual concept and physical union is not.
Why is it, no one recognises the truth about these things? Why can people not accept it for what it is.
Christians and homosexuals would not find the need to be upset with each other if they simply accepted the true differences for what they are.
I have no quandary when it comes to the understanding of heterosexual Christian marriage and any other type of marriage.
Can we ever find a place where we accept they exist but also accept that they are different?
Your argument only works if, like you, you are arrogant enough to consider that there is only one God!
A vindictive evil sadistic meglomaniacal bastard who will burn anyone with a modicum of intestinal fortitude who will tell him just what a monster he is and to go fornicate with himself!
Some God's have a far greater understanding of the diversity of the human being than the 'God' who, according to Christians, supposedly created them.
-
Floo,
Isn't it?
No
-
Floo,
No
Why not? It's a compendium of shorter novellas featuring cast of thousands, from kings to devils and even a talking snake(!), rolling intergenerational narratives of treachery and revenge, unlikely plot devices, and stirring tales of the underdog overcoming supposedly overwhelming odds (think David and Goliath).
Not for nothing was the 1965 epic about the life of Jesus called, "The Greatest Story Ever Told".
How much more novelistic could it be?
-
Floo,
Why not? It's a compendium of shorter novellas featuring cast of thousands, from kings to devils and even a talking snake(!), rolling intergenerational narratives of treachery and revenge, unlikely plot devices, and stirring tales of the underdog overcoming supposedly overwhelming odds (think David and Goliath).
Not for nothing was the 1965 epic about the life of Jesus called, "The Greatest Story Ever Told".
How much more novelistic could it be?
'Story' being the operative word.
-
Floo,
'Story' being the operative word.
Yes, stories are what novels entail.
-
Floo,
Yes, stories are what novels entail.
I think the Harry Potter novels are a better read and just as credible. ;D
-
It's a compendium of shorter novellas
Talk about digging yourself in even deeper.
Please feel free to demonstrate your thesis.
-
I think the Harry Potter novels are a better read and just as credible. ;D
More so if, like yours truly, you happen to be a witch!
-
More so if, like yours truly, you happen to be a witch!
That reminds me my broomstick is still in need of a service. ;D
-
What if Gay Christians want to Marry?
What would Jesus say?
-
What if Gay Christians want to Marry?
What would Jesus say?
Maybe he would have been in favour of gay marriage, as the guy could have been gay himself for all we know. He never condemned homosexuality.
-
Why is such a fuss being made about what is generally believed to be just 5% of the population? Let them be!
-
Why is such a fuss being made about what is generally believed to be just 5% of the population? Let them be!
Ask yourself exactly who has ever made any "fuss."
-
Maybe he would have been in favour of gay marriage, as the guy could have been gay himself for all we know. He never condemned homosexuality.
Anyone who does not condemn homosexuality has to be a homosexual?!!! Where did you get that from?
-
Anyone who does not condemn homosexuality has to be a homosexual?!!! Where did you get that from?
Why are you misrepresenting what Floo said?
-
What if Gay Christians want to Marry?
What would Jesus say?
'Don't ask me, I'm Jewish'?
-
Anyone who does not condemn homosexuality has to be a homosexual?!!! Where did you get that from?
Where did I say that anyone who does not condemn homosexuality is homosexual? ::) I don't condemn it and I am heterosexual!
-
I understood what you meant floo & so did most I'm sure.
It's just another example of homing in on a comment and twisting it. Happens a lot!
-
Where did I say that anyone who does not condemn homosexuality is homosexual? ::) I don't condemn it and I am heterosexual!
Well.....I am sorry Floo! I misunderstood your comment. :)
-
What about in the past when one partner in a gay relationship that could have been for some considerable number of years and one of them was in hospital, I agree things are nowhere as strict as they used to be, but the nursing staff would only allow next of kin to visit how cruel that must have been.
The there are inheritance rights, a lot of gay couples where one of them has died and then the remaining partner has in some cases been turned out on the streets, yet another form of cruelty, now thank goodness the much greater part of our population is now into live and let live mode, you'll always get a few oddballs like some of the religionists on this forum, not all I hasten to add, the best thing is as we are already doing is to sweep around the oddballs and consign them to the ignorant past.
ippy
-
What if Gay Christians want to Marry?
What would Jesus say?
They don't marry. Instead the carry their cross. Christ tells us God's intentions regarding marriage.
-
'Don't ask me, I'm Jewish'?
BRILLIANT! Even more brilliant coming from a non-Jew!
Please accept this praise from someone born a Jew!
-
That reminds me my broomstick is still in need of a service. ;D
Call up the ghost of Sir Terry Pratchett for the name of a good dwarf repair man in Ankh-Morpork.
-
They don't marry. Instead the carry their cross. Christ tells us God's intentions regarding marriage.
What - through a bloody medium!
Christ tells us nothing! It all comes from priests who are foillowing their own agenda by interpreting a two-thoiusand year old book.
Things, Ad_O, in case you hadn't noticed, have changed in two thousand years! Including quite a few aspects of Christianity due to the multiferous different interpreations of that beknighted book!
-
They don't marry. Instead the carry their cross. Christ tells us God's intentions regarding marriage.
So many people who say that ad_o never have to carry that particular cross, they have always been free to have relationships, marry & have families.
It's easy to sit in judgement on those who are not like us. Perhaps try to put yourself in their shoes,imagine never having the choice of a loving permanent relationship. It's so harsh.
Owl and Rhiannon, observant Jews have similar views about homosexual relationships unfortunately. Stuck in a time warp just the same as conservative traditional Christians.
-
Owl and Rhiannon, observant Jews have similar views about homosexual relationships unfortunately. Stuck in a time warp just the same as conservative traditional Christians.
SOME observant Jews - not all!
And they do not make such a public whoo-ha about it. The keep their negativity within their own community and leave others alone - something that Ad_O and Sassy and others refuse to do!
-
What - through a bloody medium!
Christ tells us nothing! It all comes from priests who are foillowing their own agenda by interpreting a two-thoiusand year old book.
Things, Ad_O, in case you hadn't noticed, have changed in two thousand years! Including quite a few aspects of Christianity due to the multiferous different interpreations of that beknighted book!
Then you have never read the gospel, for Christ tells us for which purpose God made man and wonan.
-
So many people who say that ad_o never have to carry that particular cross, they have always been free to have relationships, marry & have families.
It's easy to sit in judgement on those who are not like us. Perhaps try to put yourself in their shoes,imagine never having the choice of a loving permanent relationship. It's so harsh.
Owl and Rhiannon, observant Jews have similar views about homosexual relationships unfortunately. Stuck in a time warp just the same as conservative traditional Christians.
We all have crosses to bear, albeit it of different kinds. That we are called by Christ to do.
-
SOME observant Jews - not all!
And they do not make such a public whoo-ha about it. The keep their negativity within their own community and leave others alone - something that Ad_O and Sassy and others refuse to do!
You're right about that Owlswing, they do keep things within their community.
-
Then you have never read the gospel, for Christ tells us for which purpose God made man and wonan.
And so the assertion treadmill wheezes into action once more ...
-
Then you have never read the gospel, for Christ tells us for which purpose God made man and wonan.
The Bible was not written until some years after Christ's crucifiction so Christ tells us absolutely nothing, zilch, zip, nada.
-
They don't marry. Instead the carry their cross. Christ tells us God's intentions regarding marriage.
Chapter and verse please.
My memory regarding scripture might be getting hazy, but I only recall teachings around the institution of marriage, such as adultery and divorce; I don't recollect any teaching specific to gay marriage and indeed if there were any such that would be remarkable as gay marriage was not on the public moral radar in those times. That marriage was a union between a single man and a single woman would have been the cultural assumption of the times. Jesus didn't speak to climate change or sustainability or animal rights either. I think we need to remember context if we are to draw grand conclusions out of ancient writings.
-
So many people who say that ad_o never have to carry that particular cross, they have always been free to have relationships, marry & have families.
It's easy to sit in judgement on those who are not like us. Perhaps try to put yourself in their shoes,imagine never having the choice of a loving permanent relationship. It's so harsh.
Owl and Rhiannon, observant Jews have similar views about homosexual relationships unfortunately. Stuck in a time warp just the same as conservative traditional Christians.
My point was more that Jesus wouldn't presume to comment on Christian matters as they wouldn't be his business, given that he was Jewish.
And I know you mean well but homosexuals aren't different from 'us'. That really is the point. There is no difference at all. It's just 'us'. All of us. Humanity.
-
My point was more that Jesus wouldn't presume to comment on Christian matters as they wouldn't be his business, given that he was Jewish.
And I know you mean well but homosexuals aren't different from 'us'. That really is the point. There is no difference at all. It's just 'us'. All of us. Humanity.
Agreed
-
My point was more that Jesus wouldn't presume to comment on Christian matters as they wouldn't be his business, given that he was Jewish.
And I know you mean well but homosexuals aren't different from 'us'. That really is the point. There is no difference at all. It's just 'us'. All of us. Humanity.
How do you know what Jesus would or wouldn't comment on ?
He is a fictitious character anyway, perhaps you also know what Ken Barlow will comment on next. Or maybe you write his lines?
Humanity , yes. Some I like , some I despise!
-
My point was more that Jesus wouldn't presume to comment on Christian matters as they wouldn't be his business, given that he was Jewish.
And I know you mean well but homosexuals aren't different from 'us'. That really is the point. There is no difference at all. It's just 'us'. All of us. Humanity.
I agree too.
-
How do you know what Jesus would or wouldn't comment on ?
He is a fictitious character anyway, perhaps you also know what Ken Barlow will comment on next. Or maybe you write his lines?
Humanity , yes. Some I like , some I despise!
Don't be so daft!
Jesus could not possibly have commented on Christian matters as there were none, Chistian matters that is, until AFTER his death - there were no Christians until after that.
-
What if Gay Christians want to Marry?
What would Jesus say?
In the time of Christ homosexuality was such a taboo subject it was not spoken about.
Do you think you can be a Christian and live an active homosexual life?
Marriage in Christianity is only ever between a male and female.
-
'Don't ask me, I'm Jewish'?
So by that reasoning Christ could not be a Jew. :o
-
BRILLIANT! Even more brilliant coming from a non-Jew!
Please accept this praise from someone born a Jew!
Someone who is a Jew would have known that Christ could not be Jewish to make such a comment.
And we could say no one would have been able to tell about you. Being a Jew is more than circumcision and sounds like you have none of the three
qualifications.
-
So many people who say that ad_o never have to carry that particular cross, they have always been free to have relationships, marry & have families.
It's easy to sit in judgement on those who are not like us. Perhaps try to put yourself in their shoes,imagine never having the choice of a loving permanent relationship. It's so harsh.
Owl and Rhiannon, observant Jews have similar views about homosexual relationships unfortunately. Stuck in a time warp just the same as conservative traditional Christians.
I believe the thread is " Gay marriage is not a Christian topic but Satans deception is..."
Given that in the Jewish and Christian faith marriage does not exist for any union outside that of a male to a female then there really is very little to do with each other.
-
The Bible was not written until some years after Christ's crucifiction so Christ tells us absolutely nothing, zilch, zip, nada.
You know nothing of the OT or the NT hence you come out with absolute rubbish.
-
My point was more that Jesus wouldn't presume to comment on Christian matters as they wouldn't be his business, given that he was Jewish.
And I know you mean well but homosexuals aren't different from 'us'. That really is the point. There is no difference at all. It's just 'us'. All of us. Humanity.
The Christian faith is Jewish the belief in the Messiah. DOH!
Hence Christ did comment and did say men and women would not marry in the next life.However there is no such thing as gay marriage in Christianity or Judaism.
-
Sassy
I really should have known better than to repond to you or any post by you.
You couldn't discuss anything even if your life depended upon it.
-
Someone who is a Jew would have known that Christ could not be Jewish to make such a comment.
And we could say no one would have been able to tell about you. Being a Jew is more than circumcision and sounds like you have none of the three
qualifications.
No Sassy,
You have that wrong. ( about Judaism)
You obviously don't know very much about Judaism only what Christianity thinks it knows about Judaism.
There is a difference.
-
The Christian faith is Jewish the belief in the Messiah. DOH!
Hence Christ did comment and did say men and women would not marry in the next life.However there is no such thing as gay marriage in Christianity or Judaism.
Nope! The messiah was a human being in Judaism that brings about world peace who will supposedly come in the future. The messiah was not God.
Jesus didn't fill that prophecy, Christians have been proving it wasn't Jesus by fighting in his name, for the last 2000 years!
Actually your NT says there is no male and female in heaven, so why would it matter who' s soul attaches to who? Ultimately?
Galatians 3.28
"New International Version
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
So gay people would be included in that then, same as anyone else.
-
Rose
FANTASTIC !!!! I love you, LOL !!! ;D ;D
Religion is for the earth NOT for Heaven !!! ::) ;)
Nick
-
Do you think you can be a Christian and live an active homosexual life?
Why not?
There is plenty of evidence that you can be a moronic simpleton and live a Christian life. Why one's sexuality (active or otherwise) should be a barrier to living a Christian life is beyond me.
-
It would be much easier to villify gays, male OR female, if ALL sexual diseases were maintained &/or spread BY them, no?
Of course, they're not so.... ;)
Nick
-
Why not?
There is plenty of evidence that you can be a moronic simpleton and live a Christian life.
Early for Post of the Day ;D
-
there is no such thing as gay marriage in Christianity or Judaism.
Wrong: http://tinyurl.com/y8la3w6f
-
No Sassy,
You have that wrong. ( about Judaism)
You obviously don't know very much about Judaism only what Christianity thinks it knows about Judaism.
There is a difference.
There is a bloody HUGE difference!
-
Jesus lived & died a Jew. Nuff Sed !!!!!
Don't recall anything in the effed up version of events we have, where he mentions starting another religion. Am I wrong?
-
Jesus lived & died a Jew. Nuff Sed !!!!!
Don't recall anything in the effed up version of events we have, where he mentions starting another religion. Am I wrong?
Christianity was started well after Jesus died, that guy Paul being the instigator of the religion, imo. I suspect Jesus might be very surprised and shocked at some doctrines and dogmas, which have sprung up using him as the figurehead.
-
Floo
EXACTLY !!! ;) ;)
-
Hing oan here: "Gay marriage is not a Christian topic but Satans deception is..."
So are you admitting that the whole "Satan" thing is a deception?
I read through the OP and there is no mention of "Satan", so am I correct in understanding that you think "Gay Marriage" is not a "Christian topic" but using "Satan" as a "deception" is?
-
Hing oan here: "Gay marriage is not a Christian topic but Satans deception is..."
So are you admitting that the whole "Satan" thing is a deception?
I read through the OP and there is no mention of "Satan", so am I correct in understanding that you think "Gay Marriage" is not a "Christian topic" but using "Satan" as a "deception" is?
R S, you must stop trying to confuse Sassy
ippy
-
R S, you must stop trying to confuse Sassy
ippy
Not any more he wont!
-
No Sassy,
You have that wrong. ( about Judaism)
You obviously don't know very much about Judaism only what Christianity thinks it knows about Judaism.
There is a difference.
No, I don't.
Christianity was started by Jews for Jews and Christ was the Messiah who came and fulfilled the scriptures.
So I have nothing wrong, in fact, I am probably more up on it, than either you or Owlswing.
Why not read up on the Messianic Jews.
-
Nope! The messiah was a human being in Judaism that brings about world peace who will supposedly come in the future. The messiah was not God.
Again, you don't know the facts.
The reason the beliefs were allowed though different like the Pharisee and Sadducee was because ALL JEWS knew the Messiah was to bring Gods final truth. They believed the Messiah would come if the world became very good or very evil.
Christ established a kingdom based on the OT witness of the Prophets.
The teachings of Christ and the NT show what the Jews believed.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
Even then they believed in a resurrection a new life and we know again that differed among Jews.
I believe it show that the peace is not the world peace as in the world itself but the people of the world in Christ.
Jesus didn't fill that prophecy, Christians have been proving it wasn't Jesus by fighting in his name, for the last 2000 years!
Jesus did fulfill the prophecy the Gentiles tried to make the faith something it wasn't.
Spirit and Truth cannot be controlled by man or man made beliefs.
Actually your NT says there is no male and female in heaven, so why would it matter who' s soul attaches to who? Ultimately?
No, it says in Christ there is no male and female, Jew or Gentile because all are equal. I know you went on a site and took this down.
But as you can see it is wrong.
Galatians 3.28
"New International Version
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
KJV Galatiams 3:25-29
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
As you can see your definition was not correct it applies to those people baptised and belonging to Christ all being one in Christ.
So gay people would be included in that then, same as anyone else.
Way off the mark and totally unrelated.
Jude 1.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
People who belong to Christ are not fornicators.
-
No, I don't.
Christianity was started by Jews for Jews and Christ was the Messiah who came and fulfilled the scriptures.
So I have nothing wrong, in fact, I am probably more up on it, than either you or Owlswing.
Why not read up on the Messianic Jews.
If I could find the people who screwed up your mind I would have them investigated for serious mental abuse of a child!!
Your knowledge of Judaism is about as accurate as your knowledge of Paganism, about which you know Jack Schitt despite your repeated statements to the contrary! I was Christian for the first fifteen years of my life so I know a fair bit about it - you have never, I REPEAT, NEVER, been a Pagan so you only know the bollocks that Christians put out about it!
I know, I know, you know a Witch who tells you about Pagans and witches. I guess he does what he does and says what he says because he knows just how gullible you are and that you will swallow any kind of rubbish that fits your pig-ignorant and biased view of MY beliefs!
-
Wrong: http://tinyurl.com/y8la3w6f
Same-sex marriage in Judaism has been a subject of debate within Jewish denominations. The traditional view among Jews is to regard same-sex relationships as categorically forbidden by the Torah.[1] This remains the current view of Orthodox Judaism, but not of Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism, which started changing its position to same-sex unions in 2006.
You see the truth does not change because the world changes things.
In Judaism the practice is by law still illegal and against Gods commands.
Though they call it marriage. Only a man and a woman can be married in Gods eyes. It therefore follows what the world decides does not change
what God has said. In the last days it states...
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Just because man calls it marriage it isn't in the eyes of God.
-
You see the truth does not change because the world changes things.
In Judaism the practice is by law still illegal and against Gods commands.
Obviously you read about as well as you write, i.e. incredibly badly:
This remains the current view of Orthodox Judaism, but not of Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism
Just because man calls it marriage it isn't in the eyes of God.
Except that plenty of people disagree with you, such as the aforementioned groups within Judaism.
-
No, I don't.
Christianity was started by Jews for Jews and Christ was the Messiah who came and fulfilled the scriptures.
So I have nothing wrong, in fact, I am probably more up on it, than either you or Owlswing.
Why not read up on the Messianic Jews.
Messianic Jews are Jews converted to Christianity = Christians. In fact they are Christians who want to hang on to bits of their culture that they like. Not unusual for converts from other traditions & Christianity has been broad enough to accommodate.
Observant Jews do not recognise Messianic Jews as Jews.Because they're not any more,.their parents were.
When Jesus walked the earth Jews had several different beliefs about what constituted the Messiah.
Some believed the Persian king Cyrus was the Moshiach.
Anyone can research this for themselves.
Maimonides is worth looking at.
-
People who belong to Christ are not fornicators.
Well that's cleared up something about your pal President Trump.
-
You see the truth does not change because the world changes things.
In Judaism the practice is by law still illegal and against Gods commands.
Though they call it marriage. Only a man and a woman can be married in Gods eyes. It therefore follows what the world decides does not change
what God has said. In the last days it states...
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Just because man calls it marriage it isn't in the eyes of God.
And god has told you that has it, Sass? ::)
-
Surely if Jesus WAS The Messiah there wouldn't be any Jews in the world ??!?!?
Whatcha mean there still are ...????? ;) :o
-
Surely if Jesus WAS The Messiah there wouldn't be any Jews in the world ??!?!?
Whatcha mean there still are ...????? ;) :o
If Jesus was the promised Messiah surely all the Jews would have believed in him, instead of a few renegades.
-
As far as my Jewish friends are concerned, Jesus did NOT fulfill all the Messiah criteria such as ridding them of the Roman 'occupation'.
-
As far as my Jewish friends are concerned, Jesus did NOT fulfill all the Messiah criteria such as ridding them of the Roman 'occupation'.
That's because they don't understand the scriptures.
-
But you do, of course ... this time ;D
-
That's because they don't understand the scriptures.
And you do?
-
That's because they don't understand the scriptures.
Any more than you do!
You only "understand" the bits that fit into your twisted and bigotted version of Christianity, just as every other versionof Christianity holds its own "understanding" of scripture.
The world has changed in 2,000 years, not always for the better I grant you; one of the ways it has not changed for the better is the attachment to the load of old cobblers revered by Christians like you and Sassy!
-
That's because they don't understand the scriptures.
WHAT ALL the Jews of the world - cos that's what you're implying ?!?!!?
-
WHAT ALL the Jews of the world - cos that's what you're implying ?!?!!?
If they don't believe in Christ then obviously they don't. Christ, in the gospels, tells us how the scriptures are to be understood. The icon if the harrowing of hell shows us what Christ did and what rhe Jews failed to understand.
-
If they don't believe in Christ then obviously they don't. Christ, in the gospels, tells us how the scriptures are to be understood. The icon if the harrowing of hell shows us what Christ did and what rhe Jews failed to understand.
But there is no actual evidence to support the idea of Jesus being anything more than a human like the rest of us.
-
Icons of the Harrowing of Hell for anyone who doesn't know -
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+icon+of+the+harrowing+of+hell&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHx6OC19TUAhUKYlAKHdTKCp0QsAQILQ&biw=1093&bih=510&dpr=1.25
-
ad-O
Have you never seen the Jewish criteria for Messiahship ?
One was that the Messiah was to rescue them from the Romans. Jesus was executed for, basically, sh#t stirring.
-
But there is no actual evidence to support the idea of Jesus being anything more than a human like the rest of us.
What manner of evidence would that be?
-
What manner of evidence would that be?
I see you're asking for N P F again Vlad, you already know the answer to that, if you don't, you might as well shoot yourself.
ippy
-
Obviously you read about as well as you write, i.e. incredibly badly:
Except that plenty of people disagree with you, such as the aforementioned groups within Judaism.
Do you realise how boring your answers become when you have nothing to address but the writing?
Do you realise how silly you look when you say people disagree with you and yet you do not practice judaism or know people that do.
Where as I post and I know people who are practicing Jews.
So not about agreeing or disagreeing simply about knowing more than you do.
It is boring and not clever to make the debate about who is right or wrong.
When it is genuinely just about keeping uptodate with old and new. Knowing that modern day does not take away from the commandments of the words of God.
-
Messianic Jews are Jews converted to Christianity = Christians. In fact they are Christians who want to hang on to bits of their culture that they like. Not unusual for converts from other traditions & Christianity has been broad enough to accommodate.
Observant Jews do not recognise Messianic Jews as Jews.Because they're not any more,.their parents were.
When Jesus walked the earth Jews had several different beliefs about what constituted the Messiah.
Some believed the Persian king Cyrus was the Moshiach.
Anyone can research this for themselves.
Maimonides is worth looking at.
I do not know if you are doing it deliberately but Christianity was started by Jews for Jews.
It is a Jewish religion it is the Jewish promise of the Messiah Fulfilled.
I actually know the promises of the Messiah fulfilled because the Messiah is Jewish.
It would be impossible for Cyrus to be the Messiah as he was not Jewish and he had to be a descendant of David.
I think you are confusing the use of the word Messiah with the Jewish Messiah and definition regarding Yeshua.
-
Well that's cleared up something about your pal President Trump.
Seems you are more prejudice than most against believers.
Trump just trying to save people what's your excuse for your bias against believers?
-
Surely if Jesus WAS The Messiah there wouldn't be any Jews in the world ??!?!?
Whatcha mean there still are ...????? ;) :o
When the full number of Gentiles called then the rest of the Jews will have their eyes and ears opened.
You need to read the bible. Christians are Jews they are those added and grafted in to the Jewish faith in Christ.
Causes a lot of disagreements when you atheists do not know what the believers believe.
-
As far as my Jewish friends are concerned, Jesus did NOT fulfill all the Messiah criteria such as ridding them of the Roman 'occupation'.
Well the obvious answer to that is who knew the criteria better,. the Jews 2,000 years ago or the Jews today.
No competition the Jews 2,000 years ago knew he did fulfill the criteria.
-
Any more than you do!
You only "understand" the bits that fit into your twisted and bigotted version of Christianity, just as every other versionof Christianity holds its own "understanding" of scripture.
The world has changed in 2,000 years, not always for the better I grant you; one of the ways it has not changed for the better is the attachment to the load of old cobblers revered by Christians like you and Sassy!
For someone who doesn't believe in God how could anything be twisted? :o
Why not search and ask God to show you? I guess you are in no position to accuse anyone.
-
ad-O
Have you never seen the Jewish criteria for Messiahship ?
One was that the Messiah was to rescue them from the Romans. Jesus was executed for, basically, sh#t stirring.
#
You telling us that the Romans are written about in the books of the Torah by Moses?
Not helping really, are you? ;D
-
Do you realise how boring your answers become when you have nothing to address but the writing?
Addressing what's written is the main point of an internet forum.
Do you realise how silly you look when you say people disagree with you and yet you do not practice judaism or know people that do.
I know plenty that do, as a matter of fact.
Where as I post and I know people who are practicing Jews.
So do I.
So not about agreeing or disagreeing simply about knowing more than you do.
Not enough to realise that you're wrong about Judaism and same-sex marriage though, unfortunately.
It is boring and not clever to make the debate about who is right or wrong.
I don't think so - showing people to be wrong is one of life's greater pleasures.
When it is genuinely just about keeping uptodate with old and new. Knowing that modern day does not take away from the commandments of the words of God.
If you genuinely were up to date you wouldn't have made such a stupidly ill-informed and easy to refute assertion about Judaism and same-sex marriage.
-
When the full number of Gentiles called then the rest of the Jews will have their eyes and ears opened.
You need to read the bible. Christians are Jews they are those added and grafted in to the Jewish faith in Christ.
Causes a lot of disagreements when you atheists do not know what the believers believe.
Firstly I'm NOT an atheist. An enlightening comment you've made there which says so much about YOUR attitude to people who disagree with you !!!
Are you saying that The Messiah was NOT meant to rescue the Jews from the Roman 'occupation' either? Please refresh us as to why Jesus was executed???
Could you please put here the criteria for Messiahship or give us all a link to somewhere reliable.
Nick
-
Sassy - It would be impossible for Cyrus to be the Messiah as he was not Jewish and he had to be a descendant of David.
That is what the majority of Jews believed but not all, some did believe Cyrus was the Moshiach. Jews always were & still are divided in their beliefs.
-
Sassy - It would be impossible for Cyrus to be the Messiah as he was not Jewish and he had to be a descendant of David.
That is what the majority of Jews believed but not all, some did believe Cyrus was the Moshiach. Jews always were & still are divided in their beliefs.
We must remember though that those Jews who believed in the way that Sassy says, were all RIGHT and all of the others were all WRONG.
That is a full on, caps-lock FACT.
If you dare to disagree then you might even be PROVED WRONG by a full force onslaught using the final arguement, caps-lock BOLD. When that happens you might as well sit in the corner and cry.
::)
-
Seb, you forgot the gratuitous insult.
-
We must remember though that those Jews who believed in the way that Sassy says, were all RIGHT and all of the others were all WRONG.
That is a full on, caps-lock FACT.
If you dare to disagree then you might even be PROVED WRONG by a full force onslaught using the final arguement, caps-lock BOLD. When that happens you might as well sit in the corner and cry.
::)
I Get It Seb but I have considerably more than 2 O levels and wot i say is RIGHT
-
ipster,
I see you're asking for N P F again Vlad, you already know the answer to that, if you don't, you might as well shoot yourself.
That in essence is Vlad’s problem. On the one hand he insists that his “God” is objectively real in sense of existing outside his imagination, but on the other the very idea “evidence” ordinarily used to validate claims of objective truths is itself naturalistic, so could not address conjectures about the (supposed) supernatural.
Even if we let that pass though, the term “evidence” has to mean something if it isn’t to be just “whatever I say it is”. And the problem with that is that, absent a Godoscope or some such to do the job, poor Vlad must lower the bar so far (generally to logical fallacy) that it will let in any other conjecture too.
Ah well.
-
ipster,
That in essence is Vlad’s problem. On the one hand he insists that his “God” is objectively real in sense of existing outside his imagination, but on the other the very idea “evidence” ordinarily used to validate claims of objective truths is itself naturalistic, so could not address conjectures about the (supposed) supernatural.
Even if we let that pass though, the term “evidence” has to mean something if it isn’t to be just “whatever I say it is”. And the problem with that is that, absent a Godoscope or some such to do the job, poor Vlad must lower the bar so far (generally to logical fallacy) that it will let in any other conjecture too.
Ah well.
The test for the supernatural is if it is something is not adequately described naturalistically. You have always had problems with adequacy here.
Conjectures about the supernatural thing in question are another matter. Another category roger by you.
-
The test for the supernatural is if it is something is not adequately described naturalistically.
... which people with adequate cognitive capacities call the negative proof fallacy (or argumentum ad ignorantiam).
-
As science progresses natural explanations may be discovered for things some would like to attribute to the 'supernatural' at in this moment in time. For instance, at one time people thought those suffering from epilepsy were possessed by demons, until medical science proved otherwise. A full blown seizure can be extremely scary, my husband has had several since his brain haemorrhage in 2006. :o
-
... which people with adequate cognitive capacities call the negative proof fallacy (or argumentum ad ignorantiam).
That my dear Shaker betrays the intellectual slovenliness of your New Atheist since you have a job to equate experience of something not adequately explained by your naturalism...with stating that something is because there is no proof it isn't.
-
That my dear Shaker betrays the intellectual slovenliness of your New Atheist since you have a job to equate experience of something not adequately explained by your naturalism...with stating that something is because there is no proof it isn't.
Try again in comprehensible.
-
Try again in comprehensible.
Now, now that isn't fair Shaker, the poor dear finds the concept of comprehensible hard to comprehend! ;D
-
Now, now that isn't fair Shaker, the poor dear finds the concept of comprehensible hard to comprehend! ;D
I'm not sure he's speaking to you since you blew one of his arguments.
-
I'm not sure he's speaking to you since you blew one of his arguments.
Did I? Which one? When?
-
The test for the supernatural is if it is something is not adequately described naturalistically. You have always had problems with adequacy here.
Conjectures about the supernatural thing in question are another matter. Another category roger by you.
But there are loads of things which are not well described, or were not historically. You can't really argue that thunder was supernatural because it could not be described, and then was no longer supernatural, when it was. Or the obvious example today is gravity, whose effects are being described, but not its mechanism.
-
But there are loads of things which are not well described, or were not historically. You can't really argue that thunder was supernatural because it could not be described, and then was no longer supernatural, when it was. Or the obvious example today is gravity, whose effects are being described, but not its mechanism.
Ah, science of the gaps.....what cannot be explained by science....will be explained by, er, science.
-
Ah, science of the gaps.....what cannot be explained by science....will be explained by, er, science.
Who says that, rather than stopping at the second sentence?
Faceless and nameless nobodies again eh, Vlad?
-
Ah, science of the gaps.....what cannot be explained by science....will be explained by, er, science.
This is one of your reversed arguments. You were saying that the supernatural is that which isn't described naturalistically, but of course, there are lots of things which are not. I am not saying that they will be described by science at all, since some things may never be described. But you were saying that they are therefore supernatural - no.
-
This is one of your reversed arguments. You were saying that the supernatural is that which isn't described naturalistically, but of course, there are lots of things which are not. I am not saying that they will be described by science at all, since some things may never be described. But you were saying that they are therefore supernatural - no.
Wiggy gets a peanut! ;D
Sorry Vlad :(
-
Moderator:
This thread is well off-topic and involves elements that are covered in other threads.
Therefore it has been locked.