The Glade 4.0

Control.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Not at all. Anti-religious fervor is as crazy as religious fervor is. I am a fan of anti-fervor.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

While that is certainly relevant, it's not very important.

The question remains: Does marriage have anything to do with religion? When marriage is motivated by faith and conducted in churches, which it is for the majority of the married population, the answer is a resounding yes.

So you guys can try to pretend they are not related at all, but you will miss the boat. If you try to solve a problem without understanding the details surrounding the problem, you will fail. The ancient history of marriage is certainly interesting, and it is relevant, but it is a very small, relatively unimportant part of the overall picture.

Arathain:

That's a correlation fallacy. Just because churches perform the majority of marriages does not mean the majority of marriages are faith-based.

_________________

And yet they are. Clearly, no statistics are available for this, but I believe it is true, at least in the United States. However, if it is not a majority, it is clearly a significant minority. Enough so that it cannot be said that marriage and religion have nothing to do with each other.

Likewise, while we are at it, 100% of legal marriages have something to do with the state as well.

Thankfully indeed.

Yup. Unfortunately, there are some things you just don't want to see.

Amusingly, the most openly gay man in the Department I work for was more deeply offended by Adam Lambert's behavior recently than any of the straight people I've talked to. He felt Lambert was damaging the cause by making with the PDAs. He's a big Lambert fan as well.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I honestly really doubt this. From a truly religious standpoint, (rather than a "different is bad" standpoint, using religion as an excuse) focusing on gay marriage to the extent it's focused on is stupid. Like two or three percent of the population is gay. How many are obese? Is gluttony not a sin? Half of all marriages end in divorce, too. Aren't these much bigger problems? The gay marriage focus just makes no sense from a standpoint of preventing sin. If you allowed gay marriage but cut the divorce rate by a measly five percent, there would be far less sin in America than there is now.

I also seriously question how many of the gay marriage opponents actually do so out of any real religious conviction, rather than just because their pastor told them they had to. I really should have taken a picture of that church ad I saw advertising a hot dog eating contest fundraiser to support Prop 8. These are the kinds of things that make me want to grind my face into my palm and never stop.

You know who the best role model for gays is?

Omar Little




"I robs drug deala's."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I advise that you stop advocating a works-based theology unless you're going to come right out and say that's what you're in favor of. Nations are made up of people; people can never please God through their works. This issue is not any special temptation to God; whether we have gay marriage or not we will never please Him through our actions.



Aside from the irrelevancy of the quote, don't be absurd. God is constantly "tempted" (as if it were possible to tempt Him in any meaningful way) by every nation. Stop pretending like gay marriage is somehow special. Is God more upset with use for having states that allow it than He is with Iran? They don't allow gay marriage, but they sponsor terrorist groups that attack civilians with rockets.

You might want to remember when making these dire predictions, that God is willing to stay His wrath for he sake of 5 righteous men.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye, salvation comes by grace, through faith, not of works. I have been clear on that for many years.

That said, I simply do not understand the mentality of those who project the attitude, "I have faith and am saved, therefore I can do anything I want with impunity." It seems to me that, if nothing else, gratitude at so great a gift from God would produce a different attitude; an attitude of obedience, knowing that some human activities grieve and anger God.

Our earthly fathers love us, but punish us when we disobey them. Why would we expect God to love us but give us a pass when we choose to disobey Him? Especially given the admonishion of Christ Himself that we are to repent of our sin? "Go, and sin no more." "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand."

It's one thing to sin and be sorry after, and strive to not repeat the sin. It's wholly a different thing to hide behind faith and sin as if it no longer matters, even celebrating those who choose to live a lifestyle that God has declared sin. It's crystal clear in the NT that God will judge the whole world because of sin. That judgment is still coming.

It is true that we will never please God by our actions, since we cannot be perfect in this world. But it is wholly reasonable for God to expect us to aim at a higher way, since He has given us so great a gift. It is also wholly reasonable for God to punish us if we choose to deliberately sin, disrespecting the gift. God can, if He chooses, punish even those who are saved by faith; punishment does not have to mean loss of salvation.

But, why do you seemingly equate national safety from the judgment of God with personal salvation? God can lay waste to the entire U.S. in a heartbeat and still not lose a single person to whom He has granted salvation by grace through faith.

And to drive home the point, Diamondeye, go to the book of Hebrews, chapter 11, and read it.

4. "By faith Abel...."
5. "By faith Enoch...."
7. "By faith Noah...."
8. "By faith Abraham...."

On and on and on, and what were they commended for? When God spoke, they obeyed. For instance, God told Noah about the coming flood and told him to build an ark. Did Noah say, "Ok, I believe You, but I'm gonna go my own way."? Given such witnesses, how should we respond to God? "Ok, God, I know you say some things are detestable to You and You tell us to not do some things and I believe You, but I'm gonna go my own way and You can still save me because I have faith in You." That's how we should respond to God, in your view?

or maybe some of us are just sick of hearing about it on the messageboard here.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I'll stop posting messages opposing homosexual marriages, and explaining God's side of the issue, when that no longer comes up as a topic here. Fair enough?

I guess the point some people are trying to make against you Ber is that you're not as vocal (typal?) about other sins (the 10 commandments come to mind).
Yet you seem to have a special distaste for gay marriages.

Absolutely not. It's just the topic that keeps coming up. Are practicing homosexuals somehow worse than (for instance) Tiger Woods for committing adultery? No way; God condemns both activities. But nobody is here claiming that Tiger has a right to commit adultery and that law should be changed into some pro-adultery form. No one is here claiming that murder laws should be changed, claiming murder is a right. If such topics came up, I would be equally as vocal in opposition. I think I have been pretty clear, for example, in my opposition to divorce law as it is now. God states clearly that He hates divorce. (Malachi 2:16)

God hates sin, and homosexuality is only one of many. But I get uneasy when those who claim Christ try to make light of sin, because God testifies against them, again in Malachi:

Which is in contravention of your numerous posts in which you claim punishment awaits those who do not perform works of certain types and to cerain, rather vague, standards.



I don't understand that mentality either. I also don't understand what it has to do with the matter at hand.



You're not breaking any new ground here. All this is a given. It's also a given that we will inevitably sin as individuals, and that therefore the nation will as well. You're not explaining why allowing gay marriage would make us any more sinful than not, especially since it might cut down on certain abuses against gay people. There's nothing about being gay that excuses wrongs against one, so in the aggregate we might be less sinful.



Yes it is, and our determination on gay marriage is not likely to be one of the main issues. Once again, you're not addressing the point. This adds no weight to your argument; assuming that gay couples are sinful we're not somehow sinning ourselves by allowing them to sin any more than we are sinning by allowing drunks to buy alcohol.



While true, this fails to address the point because we are not aiming higher by preventing gays from marrying. They're still going to form couples and have sex; it isn't as if stopping them from forming marriages is going to cause them to turn away from homosexuality. In fact, it's likely that we're encouraging them in their hostility towards the church.



So? Why is He going to single the U.S. out for special treatment? You've been indicating already that this is inevitable for all nations in Revelation.

I'm equating the two because nations don't sin. Individuals do. The sin of a nation is nothing more than the aggregate of the indivuals.



In order to drive a point home, something needs to be relevant.



You realize these are all inidivuals, and sinful ones at that? Do you argue that any of them were perfect? I seem to recall that only One was perfect and it's not any of the names above. Noah, in fact, actually DID say "I believe you but I'm going my own way" hence the big fish.

You're perverting my arguments, as usual, into "we should do whatever we please because we have faith". Given your age, I have a feelign that such nonsense has been pounded into your head so long that you may lack the critical thinking tools to see my argument through anything but this lens. I find that very disappointing, but not unexpected.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think all that needs be said in response is that it was Jonah, not Noah, who encountered the "big fish". *sigh*

Sorry, Ber, with that post, you've proven that you would rather look for a quick "gotcha" (this one only proves that people make mistakes when typing due to an obviously substantiated train of thought), than address the substantive argument before you. Too bad.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

No, because he made no substantive argument. He took my post and divided it up and addressing it piecemeal, ignoring how each piece related to the other piece. He cannot argue against the whole of the thought any other way. For instance, he brought up that the folks mentioned in Hebrews were sinful men, when I had already mentioned that none of us are perfect in a different part of my post. His entire post was a piecemeal approach.

What he cannot deny is that we have Biblical examples of nations going their own way, and God destroying them for it. It's not my argument that God will destroy us if we allow homosexual marriage as a matter of law. It is my argument that God can do so and has done so in the past, and imo it's stupid to tempt God in that way. There are too many warnings in Scripture against tempting God.

He made no substantive argument.

Actually, he's made the same substantive argument I and several others have on many occasions: when it comes to matters of sin, you completely forget the existence of the New Testament.

_________________

Each of the above are substantive arguments relating to the whole of your argument about nations being punished by God; in turn, each of the above arguments relate to his refutation of your argument that allowing gays to marry will speed our nation toward tribulation by reiterating that you are discounting the New Testament. All four of your statements are addressed: that they aren't prima facie substantive, that by approaching your post in sections means he didn't address your main argument, and that because he segmented his reply they aren't substantive arguments, and finally that he isn't capable of addressing your main point have been proven demonstrably false.



If this is truly your argument, then you would be best served by stating it clearly, plainly and concisely, as I'm sure you'll get no argument from DE as to the veracity of that claim.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

How can you honestly say that? My quotes of the words of Jesus are from the OT? Paul instructing the Corinthian church to remove an unrepentant sinful man from their midst is in the OT? Paul instructed the Corinthian church to re-admit him when he repented of his sin in the second letter to the Corinthians. Was that in the OT? Revelation is from the OT? I speak of salvation by grace through faith, Paul expounds on that clearly in Ephesians. That's in the OT? God allowed Rome to destroy Jerusalem in AD 70, for crying out loud. Most of the books of the NT were written by that time.

*edit* I mentioned Hebrews 11 in this thread. You're aware Hebrews is in the NT, right?

Are you folks not paying attention at all? Seriously.

Except that he has been arguing it, esp since you only used part of the quote, Vindicarre. His argument is that God does not punish nations anymore. That is disproven by God allowing Rome to destroy Jerusalem in AD 70.

Beryllin:

We are paying attention. I'm waiting for you to show me God smiting a country in the New Testament. I could care less about your deflections and pointless extrapolations unless you show me God coming down from on high and smiting a nation deliberately in the New Testament.

_________________

Very funny, since you are as aware as I am that the OT was written over centuries and the NT over the space of a few decades. Nations were destroyed in the time period of the OT writing, and not specifically in the few decades the NT was written. I guess that means that you got me.