Christian Leaders Threaten Civil Disobedience Pending SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
During the questioning by the Supreme Court Justices considering the case on SSM, this exchange took place...
additionally...
...yet to be seen, (skeptical me).
“It is Going to Be an Issue” — Supreme Court Argument on Same-Sex Marriage Puts Religious Liberty in the Crosshairs – AlbertMohler.com
additionally...
...yet to be seen, (skeptical me).
“It is Going to Be an Issue” — Supreme Court Argument on Same-Sex Marriage Puts Religious Liberty in the Crosshairs – AlbertMohler.com
That would be great. For marriage being "sacred" the Church doesn't mind getting man's extra rules involved.
It wasn't until like a week to two weeks AFTER the wedding that the state "approved" my new name with a new SSN card. All the paperwork and stuff just to change your name is ridiculous.
For the definition of marriage to be so "simple," the Church hasn't a problem condoning regulation upon regulation, law upon law... so long as you're heterosexual. "And keep us in your phone book, cause if it don't work out, we'll marry you again - no questions asked!"
I know divorce and remarriage is often not so cut and dry, but I can't help but think the divorce trend played a part in what is happening now.
It wasn't until like a week to two weeks AFTER the wedding that the state "approved" my new name with a new SSN card. All the paperwork and stuff just to change your name is ridiculous.
For the definition of marriage to be so "simple," the Church hasn't a problem condoning regulation upon regulation, law upon law... so long as you're heterosexual. "And keep us in your phone book, cause if it don't work out, we'll marry you again - no questions asked!"
I know divorce and remarriage is often not so cut and dry, but I can't help but think the divorce trend played a part in what is happening now.
for example.
Last year California became the first to pass what's been called a Fourth Amendment Protection Act. Its law prohibited the state from providing support to a federal agency "to collect electronically stored information or metadata of any person if the state has actual knowledge that the request constitutes an illegal or unconstitutional collection".
"We didn't go into this expecting that we were going to win the war in one year," he says. "It's an educational process, and it's a process of helping legislators understand it and overcoming legal objections."
in simple terms, if they control law, they can change law ie there is now a fourth amendment.
when a law is already in place, how do you change law.
the church are not the only voters in a political world.
Last year California became the first to pass what's been called a Fourth Amendment Protection Act. Its law prohibited the state from providing support to a federal agency "to collect electronically stored information or metadata of any person if the state has actual knowledge that the request constitutes an illegal or unconstitutional collection".
"We didn't go into this expecting that we were going to win the war in one year," he says. "It's an educational process, and it's a process of helping legislators understand it and overcoming legal objections."
in simple terms, if they control law, they can change law ie there is now a fourth amendment.
when a law is already in place, how do you change law.
the church are not the only voters in a political world.
Homosexuals have plenty of church access opportunities for their abominable unions if they need to have their sin consecrated in a building. Those former denominational churches that turned apostate will welcome them with open arms.
They'll stand before that altar to Satan and say their vows and everyone there including the officiant can go to Hell together.
So it isn't like they don't have the opportunity already to be wed in a Satanic church. While righteous God faithful churches will never concede to officiate those determined to proudly march to Hell.
They'll stand before that altar to Satan and say their vows and everyone there including the officiant can go to Hell together.
So it isn't like they don't have the opportunity already to be wed in a Satanic church. While righteous God faithful churches will never concede to officiate those determined to proudly march to Hell.
Do you think Rome went this far before they fell?
Do you think Sodom and Gomorrha went this far before they fell?
Romans 1:27-32
[SUP]27 [/SUP]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[SUP]29 [/SUP]Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[SUP]30 [/SUP]Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[SUP]31 [/SUP]Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[SUP]32 [/SUP]Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Probably not much longer at all. It looks like one of the ways to discern the last days. Like a red sky in the morning...
Do you think Sodom and Gomorrha went this far before they fell?
Romans 1:27-32
[SUP]27 [/SUP]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[SUP]29 [/SUP]Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[SUP]30 [/SUP]Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[SUP]31 [/SUP]Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[SUP]32 [/SUP]Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Probably not much longer at all. It looks like one of the ways to discern the last days. Like a red sky in the morning...
I don't think most people understand what the ultimate goal is here for them. They KNOW what they are doing is wrong. ANY Christian, that Believes in God's word, is a constant reminder to them of their sin. They somehow think that if EVERYONE believes what they are doing is ok, and fine and EQUAL to God ordained sex through God ordained marriage, then it isn't really sin they are committing.
THAT is why they were not satisfied with domestic partnership laws that gave them virtually the same rights as married men and women. THIS is why sooner or later they will try and FORCE EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE to accept their deviant lifestyle, ALL Churches included.
THAT is why they were not satisfied with domestic partnership laws that gave them virtually the same rights as married men and women. THIS is why sooner or later they will try and FORCE EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE to accept their deviant lifestyle, ALL Churches included.
It's scary how America is following the road that led to Rome's fall. I happened on this a couple of years ago. Worth the time to realize our fate if we don't wake up.
[video=youtube;K0zacaIard0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0zacaIard0[/video]
It's like the idiots that have the "Coexist" bumper stickers on their cars. They feel politically progressive and full of tolerance.
Think about ISIS for a minute as you reflect on that sticker most of us have seen.
How do you coexist with those who would cut your head off simply because they don't want to exist with you because you are Christian?
I laugh and shake my head as I honk at the drivers that have not only that sticker but the gay pride flag along side it.
Think about it for a minute. Homosexuals, whom Islam says are worthy of death, coexisting with homosexuals.
The term, "Homophobic" is bandied about and especially toward Bible believing Christians in times like this. As if our faith is what makes us afraid of homo's.
But, like everything else, and I do mean everything, that the homosexual community has adopted to describe themselves, that's a term that was stolen. And reworked by their actions to make it serve their purposes.
See, "Homohobic", first arrived on the scene as a term that described the trepidation, the fear, a straight man had because he possessed effeminate characteristics, or as a confirmed bachelor, which sure enough was easily translated as the truth of the matter that he was indeed homosexual, but not always. Therefore, he was afraid his characteristics particular to homosexuals would make people think he was homosexual when he was not. Hence, he was Homo-Phobic. Afraid of being thought Homosexual.
While in truth, it is the ultra-leftist radical bigot, bully, Homosexual community members who are Christo-Phobic. Afraid of the doctrine of Christ.
Is it any wonder? They rewrite the Bible so as to persuade themselves in this life that God is perfectly OK with how they are.
They rename it, the queen james bible. They even put their stolen rainbow icon on the cover.
The rainbow. Stolen by the homosexual community and used to identify their diverse nature rising above. How absurd. They think to rework the sign that God sent in the heavens, using his sunlight and water vapor after the flood, as a message that he'd never again drown the world. (For having on its surface prior to that deluge homosexuals fornicating. Among of course other sins and sinners).
It's funny really that homosexuals would therefore choose to steal that symbol when Christians know its import.
The thing is, their queen james heresy won't put out the flames in a place where a deluge is something prayed for when it's far to late to change.
Meanwhile, rather than repent, they demand their rights to go to Hell.Marching there with pride.
It's pathetic. And then they call those who fear for their souls, bigots.
[video=youtube;K0zacaIard0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0zacaIard0[/video]
It's like the idiots that have the "Coexist" bumper stickers on their cars. They feel politically progressive and full of tolerance.
Think about ISIS for a minute as you reflect on that sticker most of us have seen.
How do you coexist with those who would cut your head off simply because they don't want to exist with you because you are Christian?
I laugh and shake my head as I honk at the drivers that have not only that sticker but the gay pride flag along side it.
Think about it for a minute. Homosexuals, whom Islam says are worthy of death, coexisting with homosexuals.
The term, "Homophobic" is bandied about and especially toward Bible believing Christians in times like this. As if our faith is what makes us afraid of homo's.
But, like everything else, and I do mean everything, that the homosexual community has adopted to describe themselves, that's a term that was stolen. And reworked by their actions to make it serve their purposes.
See, "Homohobic", first arrived on the scene as a term that described the trepidation, the fear, a straight man had because he possessed effeminate characteristics, or as a confirmed bachelor, which sure enough was easily translated as the truth of the matter that he was indeed homosexual, but not always. Therefore, he was afraid his characteristics particular to homosexuals would make people think he was homosexual when he was not. Hence, he was Homo-Phobic. Afraid of being thought Homosexual.
While in truth, it is the ultra-leftist radical bigot, bully, Homosexual community members who are Christo-Phobic. Afraid of the doctrine of Christ.
Is it any wonder? They rewrite the Bible so as to persuade themselves in this life that God is perfectly OK with how they are.
They rename it, the queen james bible. They even put their stolen rainbow icon on the cover.
The rainbow. Stolen by the homosexual community and used to identify their diverse nature rising above. How absurd. They think to rework the sign that God sent in the heavens, using his sunlight and water vapor after the flood, as a message that he'd never again drown the world. (For having on its surface prior to that deluge homosexuals fornicating. Among of course other sins and sinners).
It's funny really that homosexuals would therefore choose to steal that symbol when Christians know its import.
The thing is, their queen james heresy won't put out the flames in a place where a deluge is something prayed for when it's far to late to change.
Meanwhile, rather than repent, they demand their rights to go to Hell.Marching there with pride.
It's pathetic. And then they call those who fear for their souls, bigots.
Precisely. The rampant, paranoid hyperbole in this thread is simply ridiculous. Nobody is on the verge of being oppressed simply because individuals of a differing sexual orientation wish to affiliate themselves with an institution on the basis of equality. Religious objections may be sincerely held, but they hardly constitute a legitimate justification for the current status quo in many US states, which still prohibit SSM.
A purely religious objection to a phenomenon in a legally and politically secular nation is invalid as a legal justification. There's no getting around it. What the majority wants is irrelevant, since minority rights are, and traditionally always have been, a protected and crucial component of fair and just democracy.
A purely religious objection to a phenomenon in a legally and politically secular nation is invalid as a legal justification. There's no getting around it. What the majority wants is irrelevant, since minority rights are, and traditionally always have been, a protected and crucial component of fair and just democracy.
Last edited:
I don't drink alcohol. Does this mean other people's drinking is an infringement of my right not to drink alcohol?
If you aren't the one getting married, it's irrelevant who gets married. If you believe people need to be held accountable for their own actions, and if you believe homosexuality will lead people to go to hell, then that's the approach you should take. Let gays get married and be held accountable for whatever the consequences may be.
Fine, then allow government marriage to exist for gays in the same exact way non-Christians are married by the government. I'll actually agree with many Christians to the extent that the government should not be involved with marriage at all - but if it's going to be involved, it needs to treat everyone equally without religious bias.
If you aren't the one getting married, it's irrelevant who gets married. If you believe people need to be held accountable for their own actions, and if you believe homosexuality will lead people to go to hell, then that's the approach you should take. Let gays get married and be held accountable for whatever the consequences may be.
Fine, then allow government marriage to exist for gays in the same exact way non-Christians are married by the government. I'll actually agree with many Christians to the extent that the government should not be involved with marriage at all - but if it's going to be involved, it needs to treat everyone equally without religious bias.
The last I checked, we lived in a democratic republic, where the voice of the majority DOES determine how laws are both created and executed. You don't always like the result, and neither do I, but that's how it is. Certain minorities only have special rights because the majority, through their elected representatives, have given them special rights, or created frameworks under which those special rights may be exacted.
I don't visit atheist forums just to amuse myself by trolling and arguing.
What a strange life you must have to spend so much time here doing that.
I don't visit atheist forums just to amuse myself by trolling and arguing.
What a strange life you must have to spend so much time here doing that.
Last edited:
YOU'RE not the one getting married. You wouldn't be taking part in their marriage AT ALL.
However...
YOU'RE telling them they can't get married because of YOUR religious views.
You have it 100% backwards. According to your logic, YOU'RE infringing on MY rights. I don't agree with what you said, therefore you're infringing on MY freedom of speech. Doesn't make sense? You're the one who conceptualized this backwards logic.
A Democratic Republic is a government in which certain rules are established that can not be infringed upon without due process (rules the government must abide by). The 1st Amendment dictates that laws can not be created that establishes any religion. So outlawing gay marriage based on religious reasoning is literally unconstitutional.
Oh, and we don't actually live in a democratic society. Only a fraction of people in power, elected or otherwise, have votes that actually count.
However...
YOU'RE telling them they can't get married because of YOUR religious views.
You have it 100% backwards. According to your logic, YOU'RE infringing on MY rights. I don't agree with what you said, therefore you're infringing on MY freedom of speech. Doesn't make sense? You're the one who conceptualized this backwards logic.
A Democratic Republic is a government in which certain rules are established that can not be infringed upon without due process (rules the government must abide by). The 1st Amendment dictates that laws can not be created that establishes any religion. So outlawing gay marriage based on religious reasoning is literally unconstitutional.
Oh, and we don't actually live in a democratic society. Only a fraction of people in power, elected or otherwise, have votes that actually count.
Last edited:
3
That is not what I said.
I can not stop them from getting married, and it is not about that.
BUT when they ask, no DEMAND that I approve of that wedding, that makes me a part of that wickness, and I have the right to say NO, I believe that it is a sin.
I have never said that you could not believe or say anything you want to.
I never said you could not live anyway you wish.
That is between you and God.
BUT you do not have a right to stop me from saying what I believe, live a lifestyle I believe is acceptable to God, and refuse to be a part of something God calls an ABOMINATION.
I can not stop them from getting married, and it is not about that.
BUT when they ask, no DEMAND that I approve of that wedding, that makes me a part of that wickness, and I have the right to say NO, I believe that it is a sin.
I have never said that you could not believe or say anything you want to.
I never said you could not live anyway you wish.
That is between you and God.
BUT you do not have a right to stop me from saying what I believe, live a lifestyle I believe is acceptable to God, and refuse to be a part of something God calls an ABOMINATION.