What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Defend Marriage Between a Man and a Woman!

Called2Serve,

I agree with this statement of Cupid Dave's:

It is merely historical accuracy that accounts for the Bible describing different relationships between people which they call marriage.
The bible is not conconing all those relationships, but is rather consistent in opposing all forms of Sexual Promiscuity before and during and after marriage which seems defined as either Gentile, Patriarchic, or Christian.

There is only one kind of marriage that is from God and supported by Jesus, marriage between one husband and one wife with no marital infidelity. That's it... That the Bible describes other kinds of marriage is simply a testament that people have been violating God's principle regarding marriage for a very long time.
 
CalledToServe said:
Very good David, but you're missing the other types of marriage that I have in my list and the same sex marriages that Paul writes to the couples from specific mistranslations to remove women in positions of the ministry.
Click to expand...


No, I got them all.

The sexually promiscuous Gnetile have many variations of marriage" as they call the relationships.

But the Hebrew patriarchs were pretty much as the muslims today in regard to sex in general.

And Jesus explained for christians that marriage was the joining of a man and woman into one flesh, undivisible thereafter, except through adultery with the harsh pentalities accorded to it.
 
cupid dave said:
No, I got them all.

The sexually promiscuous Gnetile have many variations of marriage" as they call the relationships.

But the Hebrew patriarchs were pretty much as the muslims today in regard to sex in general.

And Jesus explained for christians that marriage was the joining of a man and woman into one flesh, undivisible thereafter, except through adultery with the harsh pentalities accorded to it.
Click to expand...

You'd be incorrect since the types presented are from Mosaic Law for all seven original and were followed by the Jewish people. If you would like I can give you specific scriptures of where the marriages are found at. The Old Testament Mosaic Law doesn't have one iota to do with Gentiles but with the Jews.
 
handy said:
Called2Serve,

I agree with this statement of Cupid Dave's:

It is merely historical accuracy that accounts for the Bible describing different relationships between people which they call marriage.
The bible is not conconing all those relationships, but is rather consistent in opposing all forms of Sexual Promiscuity before and during and after marriage which seems defined as either Gentile, Patriarchic, or Christian.

There is only one kind of marriage that is from God and supported by Jesus, marriage between one husband and one wife with no marital infidelity. That's it... That the Bible describes other kinds of marriage is simply a testament that people have been violating God's principle regarding marriage for a very long time.
Click to expand...


2X...
except you did not mention the prohibition aginst divorce.
This is key to the contract called marriage by christians all through the whole 1000 years before the Renaissance of the Beast and the end of the one sole church during the millennium from 54AD until the great Schism in 1054AD by the greek protestants.
 
mark said:
A liberal government considers the Constitution to be nothing but a speed bump on their path to a secular utopia. It's a living document, remember, that is, the Constitution means nothing more than what liberals want it to mean. The Church - as a competing center of authority - represents a threat to government that has to be brought to heel and turned into a compliant tool, or destroyed.
Click to expand...
Very few people think like that. I also have to point out that liberal depends on the context. Are you talking about Socially Liberal? Economically Liberal? Religiously Liberal ? Saying someone is Liberal without one of those modifiers makes no sense really. Heck a person can be liberal on whether they eat a second helping or stick to what they usually eat. Its just a modifier. There is not actual Liberal party.

Liberal government is an exemple of Antonio Gramsci's political thought being played out in real time.
Click to expand...
If its based on Gramsci's thoughts, then its actually a conservative movement of Gramsci's ideals.


Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture."
Click to expand...
 For the most part, those who prescribe themselves as liberal are mostly Christian.


So, what dose any of this have to do with Same sex marriage?.................NOTHING.
 
CalledToServe said:
1) You'd be incorrect since the types presented are from Mosaic Law for all seven original and were followed by the Jewish people. If you would like I can give you specific scriptures of where the marriages are found at.

2)The Old Testament Mosaic Law doesn't have one iota to do with Gentiles but with the Jews.
Click to expand...


1) Yes, we can examine those ideas but I think Islam pretty much describes the way patriarchs look at sexual relationship in general, and the Hebrew patriarchs specifically.

2) The OT Law was the first occurence of a society that was not pagan in its sexual behavior, and diametrically opposed to those "dogs" as the word gentile implies:



DOGbible.jpg
 
Meatballsub said:
So, what dose any of this have to do with Same sex marriage?.................NOTHING.
Click to expand...



It has to do with your comment

"How about this, the US constitution will still protect the church's right to deny marriages as they see fit, and we'll let people call their union whatever they want."


It won't. To liberals, the Constitution is just a bag of magic tricks. They stare into it long enough and it supports whatever they want it to support, and prohibits whatever they want it to prohibit. In the long term, a liberal government will tolerate NO opposing views, and certainly not religious views. Liberal government is statist government, and statist goverment ALWAYS ends with a gun in your face.

Don't bother nit picking about "liberal." General usage of the term is easily understood - even by you, I'm sure - and I have no intention of paying attention to an attempt to run around a mulberry bush.
 
CalledToServe said:
Funny, but that's not what history says. I rarely use Wikipedia as a source, but this is an excellent article about the history of marriage licenses.



What you describe is what it has morphed into. It is social control.
Click to expand...


LOL

You looked up the wrong word.

I was describing why the ancient idea that is still called Marriage was invented as one of the seven fundamental institutions in the Social Contract.

You are referring to the English restrictions superimposed upon the institution which were used to keep the "races" separate.
 
cupid dave said:
LOL

You looked up the wrong word.

I was describing why the ancient idea that is still called Marriage was invented as one of the seven fundamental institutions in the Social Contract.
Click to expand...

Don't know where you come up with this stuff, but there are more than seven fundamental social instiutions.
 
One incredibly useful tool the devil has is getting Christians wasting time on controversial arguments about sinners with each other.

Coz if they are doing that they are not helping anyone who needs it!

What do you think?

Just an observation!
 
cupid dave said:
LOL

You looked up the wrong word.

I was describing why the ancient idea that is still called Marriage was invented as one of the seven fundamental institutions in the Social Contract.

You are referring to the English restrictions superimposed upon the institution which were used to keep the "races" separate.
Click to expand...

No, I did not look up the wrong word. I replied to your reply of my original statement, "Marriage between two adults is no business of the government.

Government marriage started as a tool to keep minorities and whites from marrying each other.."

You said I was dead wrong. I proved that you are quite mistaken on what the goals of marriage licenses were originally intended. They are a government tool to discriminate a minority at the will and whim of the majority. First it was African-Americans, American Indians, and other minorities. Now it is gays, lesbians, and transgender persons that are being discriminated against and prevented from a right that is enshrined in every state constitution. The right to the pursuit of happiness and the right to enter into contracts which marriage belongs.

I've proven you wrong about the seven (eight) types of marriage that God laid down in the Bible.
 
mark said:
It won't. To liberals, the Constitution is just a bag of magic tricks. They stare into it long enough and it supports whatever they want it to support, and prohibits whatever they want it to prohibit. In the long term, a liberal government will tolerate NO opposing views, and certainly not religious views. Liberal government is statist government, and statist goverment ALWAYS ends with a gun in your face.
Click to expand...
Who are these liberals then? It surely isn't the Democrat party. I'm not phased by boogeyman talk. If you have a real person to present me, we'll talk about him/her. Talking about hypothetical groups is just silly.

Don't bother nit picking about "liberal." General usage of the term is easily understood - even by you, I'm sure - and I have no intention of paying attention to an attempt to run around a mulberry bush.
Click to expand...
And I'm not convinced by vague nonsense about people that only exist in hypothetical. :)
 
mark said:
It has to do with your comment

"How about this, the US constitution will still protect the church's right to deny marriages as they see fit, and we'll let people call their union whatever they want."


It won't. To liberals, the Constitution is just a bag of magic tricks. They stare into it long enough and it supports whatever they want it to support, and prohibits whatever they want it to prohibit. In the long term, a liberal government will tolerate NO opposing views, and certainly not religious views. Liberal government is statist government, and statist goverment ALWAYS ends with a gun in your face.

Don't bother nit picking about "liberal." General usage of the term is easily understood - even by you, I'm sure - and I have no intention of paying attention to an attempt to run around a mulberry bush.
Click to expand...
nicely said
 
A small paragraph of Byron Williams
The Constitution must be a living document if it is to represent those living today. The flaw in its inception would be its original intent excluded so many people.
With all we know, why would anyone advocate that we revert to that?

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. He is the author of the forthcoming book: 1963: The Year of Hope and Hostility.
Click to expand...
From Obama's second autobiography, The Audacity Of Hope, pp 52 –54: Some what cut for space..
And so, when we get in a tussle about abortion or flag burning, we appeal to a higher authority—the Founding Fathers and the Constitution’s ratifiers—to give us more direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and that if we strictly obey this rule, then democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyer, don’t dispute that the original meaning of constitutional provisions matters. But they insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far—that on the truly hard cases, the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account. According to this view, the Founding Fathers and original ratifiers have told us how to think but are no longer around to tell us what to think. We are on our own, and have only our own reason and our judgment to rely on.
Who’s right? I’m not unsympathetic to Justice Scalia’s position; after all, ....
Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Meatballsub said:
I really don't think many of us are all that different. We just have different perspectives on certain issues. ;)
Click to expand...
Some of those issues really matter some don't.

Baseball or football doesn't matter which team doesn't matter.... Wendy's or Burger King some things dont matter..... When it concerns the country i will leave to my grandchildren it matters.... the most important issue that matters is ones relationship with Jesus Christ/God's Word. Not counting the NUTS. Which church don't matter.

I see the deterioration of the morals of this country. From the beginning some issues were ignored and should not have been. (thinking of slavery) Personal responsibility seems to have gone by the wayside. Parents have allowed the state (schools) to indoctrinate their kids.... If i could spell better the soap box would be larger...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top