Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

99percentatheism · Post by **99percentatheism** » Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:43 pm

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

99percentatheism · Post by **99percentatheism** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:31 am

keithprosser3
1 - I would suppose the the first amendment in the case of the US. The UK doesn't have a written constistution.

Before the rise of humanism and its incredibly powerful academic, legislative and legal power, there was no such thing as separation of Church and State the way its been meted over the last several decades. If you read the letters from the Danville Baptist Church TO T. Jefferson and his now infamous response to the concerned Baptists . . . it was about denominations taking precedence over each other and had nothing to do with washing away a religious expression from our society. In fact schools were IN Churches for most of America's early history. What we have is intensely effective propagandists plying their trade over the duped masses. "A lie told long enough," put into political power.

2 - I have repeatedly said I believe your argument is theologically sound.

Then, like I said, my perspective should be applauded and supported as the honest and ethical stance. I find great fascination in the yoking of the godless with the purveyors of liberal and progressive theology. I wouldn't be a Christian today if the reality of the NT wasn't proven solid every day by the greatest enemies of The Church.

Whether it is morally, legally or constitutionally sound is another matter entirely.

That sounds like the justification for persecution to me. As even you have proven, it is the Christians in the opposition to gay behavior that are the honest and ethical people in this matter. Like I have written over and over, it means nothing to me what depravity a person wants to imbibe, but when they demand that it be promoted in the public square, then it is open for all to act on. Christians oppose gay activism simply because it is antithetical to Christian truth.

Atheists justify their intense attacks on Christianity by standing on the public square of opinions and choices. Once something is promoted in the sphere of public discourse, then it gets to be challenged. The NT challenges lies and liars about their declarations of what is and what isn't to be called truth. LGBT activism is an other-worldly ideology, culture and behavior when the either the most complicated or simplest forms of testing is applied to the demands made by its adherents and proponents and supporters. Now maybe I am asking the impossible. But with history as my guide, there are even non Christians that agree that there is a limit to what can be defined as Christian truth and what cannot. Christians can no longer pretend that we are not under intense attack from outside the Church and from those that have entered it with evil intent.

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 7:51 am

That sounds like the justification for persecution to me.

When Chrisitians are thown in jail or fed to lions or even just prevented from worship you can talk about persecution.

Where does 99%'s following of the letter of the Bible end? Does he want to follow Moses' example and stone anyone who works on the Sabbath, or (Moses again) massacre people who worship a different god? Or is it just gay marriage he is concerned with?

KCKID · Post by **KCKID** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:14 am

keithprosser3 wrote:
That sounds like the justification for persecution to me.
When Chrisitians are thown in jail or fed to lions or even just prevented from worship you can talk about persecution.

Where does 99%'s following of the letter of the Bible end? Does he want to follow Moses' example and stone anyone who works on the Sabbath, or (Moses again) massacre people who worship a different god? Or is it just gay marriage he is concerned with?

Just gay marriage it would seem. If 99percent and other similar 'Bible worshipers' were such sticklers for 'biblical truths' their precious Church would probably lose most of its members and have to close down. Why? Because pretty well everyone violates at least one of God's laws on a daily basis. You mentioned the Sabbath. 95% of Christians have NO IDEA what the Sabbath is of the 4th-commandment! It sure ain't Sunday! NO ONE adheres to the teaching of the Bible ...and 'no one' includes 99percentatheism!

As for 'abominations' ...there's only ONE abomination for the 99percents of Christianity and that is the 'man lying' one. The scores of others as found in the OT are non-events and therefore totally ignored. This entire 'gays are at war with the Church' is a sham and I think that most on the forum can see this.

czyz · Post by **czyz** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:53 am

I have a number of gay friends who would like to marry and I support them, however, marriage is both a religious and secular event. The premise of this thread regarding charging Christians with hate crimes if they are against gay marriage is ignorant and short sighted.

Marriage provides certain benefits and civil rights between couples and I wholeheartedly support it for gay couples; however, forcing religious people to allow for marriage in their institution is a violation of their civil rights. The two events are mutually exclusive.

We agnostics or atheists cannot force our beliefs on our fellow citizens as they cannot force theirs on us. It neither picks my pocket or causes me harm if a church bans gay marriage as long as gay couples can obtain redress in civil society.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:43 pm

czyz wrote: I have a number of gay friends who would like to marry and I support them, however, marriage is both a religious and secular event. The premise of this thread regarding charging Christians with hate crimes if they are against gay marriage is ignorant and short sighted.

Marriage provides certain benefits and civil rights between couples and I wholeheartedly support it for gay couples; however, forcing religious people to allow for marriage in their institution is a violation of their civil rights. The two events are mutually exclusive.

We agnostics or atheists cannot force our beliefs on our fellow citizens as they cannot force theirs on us. It neither picks my pocket or causes me harm if a church bans gay marriage as long as gay couples can obtain redress in civil society.

I agree with this, but in the OP 99% wants more. He wrote:
...it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

In other words, he completely misunderstands 'hate crime' laws and wants to put people in jail for merely 'accusing' a 'Christian' of 'hate, bigotry, or irrationality' if they disagree with the 'Christian's' claim about the 'immutability' of his idea about what 'Christian Marriage' is.

He wants a special law, just for the segment of Christians who hold to a certain doctrine that allows them discriminate against gays and polygamists. The fact that many Christians disagree with his view, and disagree with his basis for it does not phase him. He wants the secular law to favor his personal take on scripture by putting people in jail for voicing their opinion that his take is hateful.

This is not only an absurd suggestion, it is unconstitutional.

In his effort to claim is view IS Constitutional, he argues for his own special interpretation of the Constitution, an interpretation that has been rejected by the Supreme Court time after time.

czyz · Post by **czyz** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:27 pm

[Replying to post 1153 by Danmark]

If he wants laws like this he could always move to North Korea. Views like this is why we have a secular Constitution.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 3:56 pm

czyz wrote: [Replying to post 1153 by Danmark]

If he wants laws like this he could always move to North Korea. Views like this is why we have a secular Constitution.

Exactly. Iran would be another choice. Essentially what 99%'s proposal is, is for a Christian fundamentalist version of Sharia law. Fundamentalists of differing religions have more in common with each other than with those who share more moderate versions of the same faith.

This kind of thinking always reminds me of the Samuel Taylor Coleridge quote I've prob'ly posted on this forum too many times:

He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.

czyz · Post by **czyz** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:42 pm

[Replying to post 1155 by Danmark]

Your quote by Coleridge could also apply to politics and political parties.

KCKID · Post by **KCKID** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:42 pm

czyz wrote: [Replying to post 1153 by Danmark]

If he wants laws like this he could always move to North Korea. Views like this is why we have a secular Constitution.

Given 99percent's frame of mind he will no doubt consider the posts of yourself and Danmark as being hostile toward "those that hold to the testimony of Jesus".

czyz · Post by **czyz** » Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:25 am

[Replying to KCKID]

So?