Why is there no outcry from the Christian Right against divorce?

[Phaedrus]

You read things that I did not write.

You wrote it. There is no question of that.

However, there is sometimes an alternative interpretation that is unseen.

 

[shmogie]

In the end it's all about acceptance of our fellow humans ─ inclusion and respect instead of building walls, decency between people who are at heart decent.

Some Christians do it better than others. The Christian right often seems proud and boastful that they screw it right up, that they condemn and exclude and encourage hatred and contempt.

All people are valuable to God, and loved by Him. No one should be hated for any reason.

Paul, who established the operating principles of the Church says quite clearly that homosexuals outside the Church are not to be judged in any fashion by Christians.

Those who are inside the Church, members of the Church, must repent of their sin, or have their membership revoked. This DOES NOT mean that they are to be shunned, or are denied attending Church services.

It means that they cannot participate as a member in leadership positions, or participate in certain sacraments.

It is the same for unrepentant alcoholics, in some congregations smokers, unrepentant adulterers etc.

It is an administrative issue, it has nothing to do with judging anyones soul or relationship to God.

For those who do hate, or judge, or shun, they are committing a sin.

Christianity is about Christ saving people from their sin, not condemning those in their sin. That is between they and God, and we all must be accountable for unrepented sin in our life.

 

[shmogie]

When I read an OP, I try to get the main point what the person wants to say.
In this case the main point was inconvenient for Christians, so I understand Christians ignore that..

Major point being: Christians being "obsessed" about homos, are going around judging them, forgetting their own shortcomings (which are plenty)

What is inconvenient for Christians ?

Divorce has become acceptable and easy for embers of many congregations, it should not.

Anything else you want to say about y response to the OP ?

 

[shmogie]

By whom?

By mobs if the potential victim was not a Roman citizen, just as Stephen was murdered by a mob.

Saul was the instigator of deaths of Christians in this fashion. He was authorized by the Sanhedrin to root out Christians, and kill them.

He became Paul, the mighty lion of Christianity. He was executed for his faith by the Romans.

 

[shmogie]

No, it is not ridiculous. Conservative Christians constantly cite Lev. 18:22 and Paul in Roman and Corinthians against homosexuality, and same sex marriage by extension.



Citation and source? Specific incident(s)?



I am not Christian, so why have Christians lobbied so hard to prevent me from marrying whom I want? I'm not obligated to Christ, Paul, the church, or anything having to do with them. Where do they get off trying to take marriage away from me based on their beliefs?

Until Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges we couldn't do whatever we chose, i.e. have sexual relationships without being jailed, or get married.



Then they should look at themselves in the mirror. Remember that beam and plank thing?

Some Christians lobbied against homosexual marriage. I did to an extent, However my opposition was based on the adulteration of the language, not the concept.

I supported civil unions, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.

For thousands of years in western culture the word marriage has meant a union of one man and one woman, except in Utah, and suddenly it didn´t.

It is the same as a court declaring that a flying machine is to be called a horse.

I couldn´t care less as to what you do, perhaps excepting attempting to teach young children while dressed in drag, or if you are a female, dressed super butch, I would be heard from in that case.

 

[epronovost]

I couldn´t care less as to what you do, perhaps excepting attempting to teach young children while dressed in drag, or if you are a female, dressed super butch, I would be heard from in that case.

You would hate my nephew's current teacher, but as far as I'm concerned, she does a good job. The kid likes her and he is starting to learn how to read, write full sentences and count at a very good pace (he is a first grade btw).

 

[sealchan]

My Master used to say "God is the only man, you are all women".
I like that one. At least it humbles humans.

One of my favorite lines from a rock song...it was as it were the words of the old prophet Tiresias...

Once a man, like the sea I raged,
Once a woman, like the earth I gave,
But there is, in fact, more earth than sea.

 

[sealchan]

Some Christians lobbied against homosexual marriage. I did to an extent, However my opposition was based on the adulteration of the language, not the concept.

I supported civil unions, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.

For thousands of years in western culture the word marriage has meant a union of one man and one woman, except in Utah, and suddenly it didn´t.

It is the same as a court declaring that a flying machine is to be called a horse.

I couldn´t care less as to what you do, perhaps excepting attempting to teach young children while dressed in drag, or if you are a female, dressed super butch, I would be heard from in that case.

Why do you care so long as the person is sincere in their choices and beliefs? What is so different between a marriage and a civil union that you say it is like the difference between a flying machine and a non-flying horse (Pegasus excluded)?

And if your answer is your personal feeling in the matter...why should other care about that?

 

[Jainarayan]

Some Christians lobbied against homosexual marriage. I did to an extent, However my opposition was based on the adulteration of the language, not the concept.

I supported civil unions, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.

For thousands of years in western culture the word marriage has meant a union of one man and one woman, except in Utah, and suddenly it didn´t.

It is the same as a court declaring that a flying machine is to be called a horse.

What people fail to realize is that the issue is one of legal contracts, not religion. Marriage was originally just contractual, to keep properties within a family, clan, or tribe. Most same sex couples don't care if they can get married in a religious institution. And no marriage is legal or valid anywhere without a state civil license. Clergy are permitted to sign marriage licenses only as a nod to tradition. But without that license, God himself could officiate at a wedding and no government agency, or any other institution for that matter, would recognize it. So quite honestly, it is religious institutions that have co-opted and changed the original meaning of marriage.

And having ruled in Loving v. Virginia the US Supreme Court established that marriage is a fundamental right. That set the stage for Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Court further ruled that marriage is an equal right for all persons of marriageable age, regardless of orientation of the spouses.

God bless the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

I couldn´t care less as to what you do, perhaps excepting attempting to teach young children while dressed in drag, or if you are a female, dressed super butch, I would be heard from in that case.

Why would you think that would happen?

 

[Jainarayan]

Fundie types might actively try to ban it, but the church as a whole is concerned with... well, the church as a whole. The church as a whole is fine as long as such things are (correctly) viewed as a sin. Just as we don't ban people from church for drinking in moderation, there isn't a problem unless behavior causes self-harm or hurts others.

Jesus said divorce is not permitted except in cases of adultery.

 

[Jainarayan]

Answer is simple. The Christians doing this, don't follow the Bible, they only follow their own arrogant and hypocritical EGO

On this day, Oct. 29, 2019, this post wins the internet.

 

[Jainarayan]

Of course there's an outcry!

I was a member for decades of a Christian movement with a less than 3% divorce rate.

By outcry I mean why aren't they lobbying and legislating to outlaw divorce like they did/do (I realized what that looked like ) have done and still do for same sex marriage, regardless of religious affiliation? Divorce is far more prevalent than same sex marriages, and destroys far more families and lives. In fact, the only families and lives destroyed by same sex marriages are the ones in which the families of the couples disown them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some Christians lobbied against homosexual marriage. I did to an extent, However my opposition was based on the adulteration of the language, not the concept.

I supported civil unions, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.

For thousands of years in western culture the word marriage has meant a union of one man and one woman, except in Utah, and suddenly it didn´t.

It is the same as a court declaring that a flying machine is to be called a horse.

I couldn´t care less as to what you do, perhaps excepting attempting to teach young children while dressed in drag, or if you are a female, dressed super butch, I would be heard from in that case.

Why?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Why do you care so long as the person is sincere in their choices and beliefs? What is so different between a marriage and a civil union that you say it is like the difference between a flying machine and a non-flying horse (Pegasus excluded)?

And if your answer is your personal feeling in the matter...why should other care about that?

1 Corinthians 6:12

All things are allowable, but not everything is good for you.

Jesus said divorce is not permitted except in cases of adultery.

Pick up that mic you dropped. Hmmm, is that REALLY what Jesus said?

We have an out of context quote.

But I know a Bible passage that Jesus said on marriage.

The Saducees (for once, not the Pharisees) ask Jesus about this woman who has a man marry her, and he and all his brothers die before consummation. So thet ask (despite Saducees not believing in much of an afterlife) who he is married to. Jesus tells them the answer.

Mark 12:18-27

The dead are souls, so marriage doesn't matter, because their gender isn't important.

And before we are born, we are souls, making gender irrelevant to us as well. What is actually at stake then is that we are being unfaithful. But the dirty little secret LGBT ppl don't like to talk about are bisexuals, ppl married to the opposite gender but that can't give them everything, so they go and get something on the side. Infidelity.

There IS in fact an outcry against infidelity. It comes up numerous times, with God punishing his ppl for being unfaithful. Jesus does mention divorce, and says that yes divorce is lawful. He just would wish it not happen.

I want you to look up Bible passages about marriage to God. Strictly speaking gender doesn't actually matter. What does matter is unclean sex, adultery, unfaithfulness, and sex as something other than part of love. That many gays do prison rape, and many gays do child molestation, are very big hints on God's actual objection to homosexuality. Not committed gay relationships. The other issue is trying to change language to suit political agendas and water down the church. But yeah, if you're a girl, and have been hurt by guys all your life, and you find the "perfect man" but she's a woman, sure go ahead. But don't expect other ppl to agree that it's a marriage.

 

[Jainarayan]

That’s the biggest crop of cherries ever picked.

 

[blü 2]

Paul, who established the operating principles of the Church says quite clearly that homosexuals outside the Church are not to be judged in any fashion by Christians.

Does he? I haven't noticed that.

Those who are inside the Church, members of the Church, must repent of their sin, or have their membership revoked. This DOES NOT mean that they are to be shunned, or are denied attending Church services.

How can it be designated a 'sin' without a strong overtone of universal condemnation?

Further, no one has trouble ignoring Paul when he tells us slaves should be good little slaves and stop their b itchin',

So why would we have any trouble ignoring Paul when he gives his personal views on sexual matters? He's entirely ignorant of what the 21st century knows about sexuality.

It means that they cannot participate as a member in leadership positions, or participate in certain sacraments.

It means they're excluded, penalized, declared inferior.

It is the same for unrepentant alcoholics, in some congregations smokers, unrepentant adulterers etc.

Unrepentant for what? Being homosexual? How can that be any more of a "sin" than having red hair or being left-handed?

It is an administrative issue, it has nothing to do with judging anyones soul or relationship to God.

That contradicts everything you've just said. It's NOT an administrative issue to brand someone as inferior because of some or other selected "sin" ─ it's a moral judgment, an assertion of the superiority of the one who judges over the one who's judged.

Why are some churches so obsessed with sex?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

By mobs if the potential victim was not a Roman citizen, just as Stephen was murdered by a mob.

Saul was the instigator of deaths of Christians in this fashion. He was authorized by the Sanhedrin to root out Christians, and kill them.

He became Paul, the mighty lion of Christianity. He was executed for his faith by the Romans.

You asserted that homosexuals were executed...I'm asking who you believe executed homosexuals?

 

[sealchan]

1 Corinthians 6:12

All things are allowable, but not everything is good for you.

I agree. If God made you as having same sex biological feeling and you found a person you loved with compatible sexual interest then that is good for them and their marriage should be blessed.

Ignoring the sincere expressions of love and commitment between two people because of a simplistic book-based sense of morality is not good. Certainly it is permitted.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Well yes. But if you get hives, STDs, etc the universe is telling you that particular thing may not be a good fit.

Also. Anal sex is gross. Just sayin'

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

"And the two shall become one flesh, but all the civil rights will just go to half of that one flesh for some reason."

What kind of Biblical evidence do you want prohibiting same sex marriage ?

Jesus had a poor view of families and marriage. He doesn't ban gay marriage, though. In fact, he tells you specifically to be cool with "eunuchs" in Matt 19:12.

The Bible only mentions marriage in the context of a man and woman.

Oh, thou hast summoned America's BEST Christian:

Those who practiced homosexuality were executed at the time of Christ and the Apostles.

By whom? I mean, the Romans and Greeks were pretty heavy into gay relationships. Supposedly the Roman servant Jesus healed was the centurion's "roommate", so to speak. Plus, John is the Beloved Disciple, not Mary M. John is a guy. John put his head on Jesus' lap. I mean, just put that image in your head ....

Christian law is clear, homosexuals in the world can do whatever they chose, homosexuals in the Church must either repent and abstain, or be excluded from the Church. Paul makes this abundantly clear.

So murderers can be in the church. Pedos can be in the church. Abusive hetero spouses can be in the church.


Just not gays, though.

BTW, lets have a Hindu exegesis of Matthew 7. Put your feet up, unwind your turban, put Ravi Shankar low on the stereo, start some incense in that burner shaped like a woman with eight arms, and tell me all about it.

After you put away gospel music and a graven image of a Roman execution victim.

Or is it OK for Christians to cherry-pick what parts of the Bible they will honor and which they will ignore?

I don't see how it's avoidable. There are different authors with different agendas. The book of Job specifically criticizes "biblical" values by other authors.

No, it is not ridiculous. Conservative Christians constantly cite Lev. 18:22 and Paul in Roman and Corinthians against homosexuality, and same sex marriage by extension.

They are confused about which character is the messiah.

From my personnal experience with Christians, which in my area are mostly Roman Catholics, there is a certain "distrust" for the practice of divorce.

Yeah, but they're not allowed to get married. They don't get a vote on the thrills of it IMHO.

Jesus may also have said "And leave gay people alone!". But nobody wrote that down either.

Matt 19:12 is probably as good as you're going to get. Plus, Paul says that in Christ, there is neither male nor female, so why even HAVE gender-based rules in the first place?

Because you can't fight it anymore. If you crack down on divorce you lose half your congregation
instantly.

So, such a church is a moral coward to get more of a paycheck? Or would it be because someone dead for a long time having "issues" doesn't automatically make something a sin?

Do you feel pangs of guilt eating cheeseburgers or fried shrimp or wearing different fabrics at the same time?

Should God smite you now or smite you later?

Soon you won't be able to fight gay marriage, polygamy and all the other issues I have mentioned
in my profile below.

Polygamy was allowed in the bible, though. Why are you against it?

They only care about sins that they are not prone to.

Let's be real: they want it banned BECAUSE they want to.

Jesus had compassion on the woman taken
in adultery - but He told her to "Go, and sin no more."

Yeah, but she can't be a hooker without customers, which was Jesus' point about the casting of stones. Why didn't he lecture the mob, who probably all had a piece of her? Heck, Jesus said he wouldn't stone her either, suggesting ....

Activists force you to accept their latest "issue", be it feminism, gays, transgender etc.

Where does Jesus ban you from being human to these people again? That whole "whatever you do to the least of these you do to me" kind of thing?

So, if a middle aged man wants to marry two 13 year, consenting, pubescent
twin sisters for a 48 hour marriage - can he?

In the bible he could.

You don't think Mary was 18 or over, do you?

Child marriage is a crime.

Not in many places and certainly not in the bible.

The church doesn't call drinking good

Which is weird since Jesus turns water into the best wine at the party.

But the church as a whole is primarily concerned with accepting destructive behavior as "normal".

The problem is that the church has a warped sense of what is "normal".

I'm all for avoiding sin, but since sinners are the ones defining the terms ....

What is ridiculous is the statement that there is no Biblical evidence re the issue of homosexual marriage. For Christians, it is prohibited.

Had Saul not tried to kill them both, I'd like to think David and Jonathan would've made an interesting couple, but Jonathan deserved better than some backstabbing partner who slept with anyone he thought would give him political power, INCLUDING Johnny.

As for young kids marrying. It's no stretch of the imagination to consider 12
year old demanding to be treated as adults. We have, right now, children
having the "right" to sex changes at a much younger age

Since when?

I've tried looking it up and you have to be pretty late in your teens to start hormones and surgery would be 18 and up.

Also, and while this isn't the issue with trans people, it's still a thing, you're telling me that if a boy is raised as a girl because the doctor WHOOPSIED on the circumcision, the boy shouldn't try for a restoration of his true self?

Instead of looking at it as one gender changing into another, think of it as one gender trying to fix a mislabeling at birth. Just peeking under the diaper won't tell you the specifics of gender. That's what chromosomes are for, and hormones.