WN: Obama declares support for gay marriage - AP

[Guest shiloh357]

chris·tian/ˌkrisCHən/

Adjective:

Of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.

Noun:

A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

That is the definition of Christian.

That is a lexical definition of a Christian. It is not THE definition of a Christian. The word "Christian" comes from a Greek word that means "little Christ." It refers to people whose lives so conformed to the teachings of Christ that they were given a derogatory label. Originally, it was meant to mock them. It was not flattery to be called a "Christian" in the first century.

The Bible defines a Christian as a person who has become a new creation (Rom. 5:7) in Christ. It refers to someone who has been born of God and no longer lives in habitual sin (I John 3:9). A Christian is a person whose life is a visible display of God's grace (Phil 2:12). A Christian is a person who has submitted to Christ as His Lord and Master (Luk. 6:46) A Christian is someone who is willing suffer reproach for living as Christ instructs. (Matt. 5:11)

A Christian is someone who follows Jesus, not someone who merely assents to Jesus' teachings. A Christian is someone who has been changed/transformed by the power of God when they accpeted Jesus as Lord and Savior of their heart and life. A Christian is also someone who is willing to accept the mockery and scorn that accompanies a genuine testimony of faith and who lives that testimony out as a way of life. A Christian is someone who doesn't merely give lip service to the propositional truths of Scripture but makes those truths a part of their life.

One of those truths is that marriage is is between one man and one woman who get married as virgins and stay married until they die. Another one of those truths is that homosexuality is a unnatural perverion of God's design and is a self-destructive and unhealthy lifestyle. Rejecting homosexuaility for the aberrant, unnatural and disgusting lifestyle that it is a hallmark of a true Christian.

You need to understand that I defer to the Bible as my authority for how "Christian" is defined. It falls to you to demonstrate why the Bible would be an unacceptable authority for providing such a definition.

If someone professes themselves to be Christian, how can you say they are truly otherwise unless you have proof? Are you judge and jury when it comes to who is a true believer and who is not? The bible might teach about what a true Christian should look like, but God is the only one who can make that distinction.

We are free to judge what God has already judgued. If a person is a habitual liar and has a reputation for being dishonest and I refuse to loan him money, I am not judging him. He is a dishonest person and it is because he has demonstrated himself to be so. I am simply operating off of the fruit of his actions and way of living. In order for me to know the difference between good and bad character, I have to make a judgment call. It means that there are people I won't let into my life in any meaningful way because they are not safe.

If a person lives in complete opposition to the Bible; if they lie, steal, cheat on their spouse, tell/laugh at dirty jokes, ect, then I have every justification for rejecting their professio of faith as genuine. Faith always produces corresponding actions. You will live out what you really believe.

If a child is known for misbehaving and getting other children into trouble and I refuse to let my children associate with that child, I am not "judging" that child. Bad company corrupts good behavior and I don't want my child learning bad behavior.

You say you have data for who is and isn't a believer, but you don't really have any numbers,do you? You might think you know what it takes to be a true follower, but only God can actually count them.

I have given you the only data you need. That data is fruit. If a person claims to a Christian but rejects God's design for marriage and even accepts the perversion of homosexuality as an acceptable marriage model, they are not a genuine believer. That is just the cold hard truth of the matter.

So again unless you have some way to back up the % of 'true Christians' that get divorced I'm going to go with the best available data, which is what people proclaim their faith us. And those findings show that Christians are just as likely if not more so to have a divorce.

Another poll would have to be conducted scientifically with the added filter of using the biblical concept of what a Christian is rather than employing a social or cultural understanding of that term.

A person's faith is not what they claim it to be. It is what they live it out to be. If what you really live out from your heart is in opposition to how the Bible defines what a Christian is, it doesn't matter what you say. Your actions will reveal your faith.

A good marriage is way more than sex, but not every marriage is good - or are you now going to redefine 'marriage'? . My point is simply being married doesn't mean a situation is suddenly good or better. In the same way I think being a single parent doesn't mean that environment is bad for raising kids, having a fulfilling life etc. Given the choice between a happy stable married couple and a happy stable single parent I would choose the married couple, but it isn't simply a black & white issue.

We can sit around all day dreaming scenarios where a single parent home would be better in certain circumstances than a married home. But the fact is a stable home with a mother and father who love their children is FAR better than a one parent home. The single parents I have encountered manage to cope, but they often have to work very long hours, never spend enough time with their children. Ther children are raised on iPhones, internet, television, Facebook and Twitter. Their parent is too busy to provide them with a moral compass and these children's social moorings are shaped by society around them and not by their parent. Yeah, that's better than a abusive two parent home, but that is like saying -50f is warmer than absolute 0. You really arent' making a very good argument.

Comparing a nonabusive one parent home with an abusive two parent home doesn't in anyway sanitize sex outside of marriage. In fact, sex outside of marriage is produced by a skewed understanding of how relationships work and the role of sex in relationships.

I didn't say even making out, I said kissing, showing signs of affection (hugging, holding hands). I agree the overt displays of affection are not meant for the public regardless of your sexual preference, but even small things that are generally acceptable for heterosexual couples to do will get a raised eyebrow or uncomfortable stares if it is a same sex couple doing it.

It's true that homosexuals enjoy most of the same overall freedoms, but they certainly aren't treated the same way in this country. Marriage is a perfect example.

Which has less to with religious repression and more to do with something deep in our psyche that tells us it is unnatural and wrong.

These two statements seem contradictory. On the one hand you assert homosexuals don't care about each other, and in the next paragraph you comment on how you've witnessed homosexual break-ups tear two individuals apart. If they truly didn't care about each other, why would someone go to the length of suicide after a break-up? If anything I think you are only enforcing that homosexual couples do often care about one another and are just as emotionally invested in relationships as heterosexual couples.

I made a statement that is generally true. They generally don't care about each other. If they did, they would not agree to open relationships in the first place. It is not because they care about each other that the break ups were so bad, but because of what they stand to lose personally. One unhealthy approach to relationships is the notion that the person is here to complete me or make me whole. If I define my existence and identity in terms of who I am in relationship with, shebecomes a tool to feed my gratification and need for fullfillment and satisfaction. If she leaves and no longer want to be in relationship, she takes with her my identity, my reason for living. She takes with her the very thing that made feel fulfilled and satisfied. The break up is damaging not because I truly loved her, but because I was more in love with being in the relaitonship than I was with her. She was just a means to my selfish end.

The whole "I want you, I need you, I can't live without you," mentality that pervades many relationships is not only unhealthy but unloving and places an immense amount of stress on the other person to fulfill a role that is unrealistic and impossible for them to fulfill. No one should be expected to complete us or make us whole. Only Jesus can do that.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I think the fundamental issue here is the belief of homosexuality being a sin is a religious viewpoint, whereas the US was very clearly designed with the intent to allow all religions freedom, and a clear directive that the government would not enforce one specific religion's viewpoint over another's.

Because there is not a good non-religion based reason to ban gay marriage I firmly believe that it should be a legal right. Religious institutions still wouldn't have to marry gays.

Ultimately though this has no impact on much of anything. Regardless of whether gay people are married or just living together they will be having sex, right? Nothing is going to change if it's legally binding or not, it's the same base issue. If you view the act of homosexuality sinful it isn't going to get any more sinful if they're wed.

It does effect others, so long as we have anti-descrimination laws in place. Repeal all anti-descrimination laws, and I have no problem with the government allowing gay marriage. The reason I oppose it is because I don't want businesses forced to give insurance or similar benefits to so-called spouses of gay men and women if it violates their conscience. I also have a problem with allowing gay marriage, and keeping polygamy, especially among Mormons illegal. Once we allow for that, we can take up the issue of marriage between an adult and a child, because after all, a person can't help the fact they are attracted to children? That is just who they are. Next, we can take up the marriage of a man and a goat and a woman with a horse. The heart wants what the heart wants. How does that harm me? Then the goat and the horse can get on the health insurance policy. Where will it end, and why should there be any limits?

Marriage is a religious institution, that was started by God. It was to be between a man and a woman. Polygamists have more of an argument than homosexuals concerning descrimination, because there is at least Biblical precident for it. God never has ordained homosexual marriage, and since he started marriage, I believe he knows what it is.

There is a very clear line in the sand which prevents a slippery slope: consent.

Man & Woman: If consent is given it is legal.

Rape: Consent is not given, therefore it is a violation and against the law.

Man & Child: The child is not able to provide consent due to age, therefore it is a violation and against the law.

Man & Goat: The goat is not able to provide consent due to inability to communicate, therefore it is a violation and against the law.

I'm ok with polygamy as long as the parties involved are all consenting adults with information in front of them. In the same way I am ok with homosexual for the same reason: consent is consent.

I have my own specific concerns with polygamy being a form of coercion, and would never be interested in homosexuality, but if consenting adults agree, I say go for it.

The religious institution of marriage remains, but the state version of marriage should allow for homosexual marriage because of this consent.

[Fez]

I like to simplify things.

A marriage contract is between two people and the state.

A Christian Biblical marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God.

Ecc_4:12 And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him--a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

[Guest shiloh357]

I think the fundamental issue here is the belief of homosexuality being a sin is a religious viewpoint, whereas the US was very clearly designed with the intent to allow all religions freedom, and a clear directive that the government would not enforce one specific religion's viewpoint over another's.

Because there is not a good non-religion based reason to ban gay marriage I firmly believe that it should be a legal right. Religious institutions still wouldn't have to marry gays.

Ultimately though this has no impact on much of anything. Regardless of whether gay people are married or just living together they will be having sex, right? Nothing is going to change if it's legally binding or not, it's the same base issue. If you view the act of homosexuality sinful it isn't going to get any more sinful if they're wed.

It does effect others, so long as we have anti-descrimination laws in place. Repeal all anti-descrimination laws, and I have no problem with the government allowing gay marriage. The reason I oppose it is because I don't want businesses forced to give insurance or similar benefits to so-called spouses of gay men and women if it violates their conscience. I also have a problem with allowing gay marriage, and keeping polygamy, especially among Mormons illegal. Once we allow for that, we can take up the issue of marriage between an adult and a child, because after all, a person can't help the fact they are attracted to children? That is just who they are. Next, we can take up the marriage of a man and a goat and a woman with a horse. The heart wants what the heart wants. How does that harm me? Then the goat and the horse can get on the health insurance policy. Where will it end, and why should there be any limits?

Marriage is a religious institution, that was started by God. It was to be between a man and a woman. Polygamists have more of an argument than homosexuals concerning descrimination, because there is at least Biblical precident for it. God never has ordained homosexual marriage, and since he started marriage, I believe he knows what it is.

There is a very clear line in the sand which prevents a slippery slope: consent.

Man & Woman: If consent is given it is legal.

Rape: Consent is not given, therefore it is a violation and against the law.

Man & Child: The child is not able to provide consent due to age, therefore it is a violation and against the law.

Man & Goat: The goat is not able to provide consent due to inability to communicate, therefore it is a violation and against the law.

I'm ok with polygamy as long as the parties involved are all consenting adults with information in front of them. In the same way I am ok with homosexual for the same reason: consent is consent.

I have my own specific concerns with polygamy being a form of coercion, and would never be interested in homosexuality, but if consenting adults agree, I say go for it.

The religious institution of marriage remains, but the state version of marriage should allow for homosexual marriage because of this consent.

That is completely ridiculous. You are equating legality with morality. That something is legal, doesn't make it moral. Something is okay only so long as both parties agree to it? How about a sucide pact? If both parties agree to commit suicide together is that a moralally acceptable act on the grounds that they agreed together to do it?

If all that needs to be done to make something morally or ehtically accepable is mutual consent then we should bring back dueling as a means of settling disputes so long as both are consenting adults, then what is wrong with that?

The problem is this. Going back to the sucide example... In order for consent to have any validity, the act in question needs to be judged as to whether or not is a ethically or morally acceptable thing to do, on its own from an objective standpoint. Simply having two adults consenting to engage in an in immoral act doesn't magically validate it or makie it morally acceptable.

[SavedByGrace1981]

I like to simplify things.

A marriage contract is between two people and the state.

A Christian Biblical marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and God.

Ecc_4:12 And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him--a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

Works for me!

Blessings!

-Ed

[Oh Hamburgers!]

You need to understand that I defer to the Bible as my authority for how "Christian" is defined. It falls to you to demonstrate why the Bible would be an unacceptable authority for providing such a definition.

Even if your definition is correct there is no way for you to provide data on them, because there is no way for you to know how many 'true christians' live in the US. As I said before basing #s off of a self-report is the closest anyone can come to true numbers.

We are free to judge what God has already judgued. If a person is a habitual liar and has a reputation for being dishonest and I refuse to loan him money, I am not judging him. He is a dishonest person and it is because he has demonstrated himself to be so. I am simply operating off of the fruit of his actions and way of living. In order for me to know the difference between good and bad character, I have to make a judgment call. It means that there are people I won't let into my life in any meaningful way because they are not safe.

If a person lives in complete opposition to the Bible; if they lie, steal, cheat on their spouse, tell/laugh at dirty jokes, ect, then I have every justification for rejecting their professio of faith as genuine. Faith always produces corresponding actions. You will live out what you really believe.

If a child is known for misbehaving and getting other children into trouble and I refuse to let my children associate with that child, I am not "judging" that child. Bad company corrupts good behavior and I don't want my child learning bad behavior.

I understand your reasoning, however I hope you recognize that you are in a precarious position when it comes to judging people as Christians or not.

You list a lot of different sins. One thing that I don't think anyone will dispute is that everyone -even the most devout - sin from time to time. Some might sin more often than others, but there is no one on earth who doesn't sin; it's what makes us human.

You state that you will judge people because they demonstrate themselves as being dishonest, or lying, cheating etc. But everyone on earth has lied or cheated, or stolen something during the course of their lifetime. Some may do it more often than others, but unless you are around to witness every sin someone commits, how can you make an accurate judgment of how habitual that sin is?

Shiloh, using your reasoning that means that if I saw you lie to someone I could properly judge you to be unchristian. Or suppose that I heard from someone else that you had a reputation of dishonesty (real or not), using your rational you would clearly not be a Christian.

And what of redemption and forgiveness? Suppose that someone cheated on a spouse; according to you because they weren't living according to God's teachings they are not Christian. But suppose they become repentant and change their life to dedicate themselves more fully to God at a later point. Unless you are there to see this isn't that person still considered un-Christian using your criteria?

Your definition essentially means that no one on earth is a Christian. It offers no recourse for forgiveness and is completely based on our perception of what other people are, instead of what they truly are, something only God really knows.

We can sit around all day dreaming scenarios where a single parent home would be better in certain circumstances than a married home. But the fact is a stable home with a mother and father who love their children is FAR better than a one parent home. The single parents I have encountered manage to cope, but they often have to work very long hours, never spend enough time with their children. Ther children are raised on iPhones, internet, television, Facebook and Twitter. Their parent is too busy to provide them with a moral compass and these children's social moorings are shaped by society around them and not by their parent. Yeah, that's better than a abusive two parent home, but that is like saying -50f is warmer than absolute 0. You really arent' making a very good argument.

Let's move on beyond the single parent / married couple argument. I think we're both in agreement that a loving 2 parent home will generally be a better environment than a loving 1 parent home. I just wanted to point out that you can still have a successful 1 parent home, just like you can have an unsuccessful 2 parent home.

Which has less to with religious repression and more to do with something deep in our psyche that tells us it is unnatural and wrong.

There was a time where inter-racial marriage was viewed as unnatural and wrong.

There was a time where women being allowed to vote and hold the same positions as men was viewed as unnatural and wrong.

There was a time where black men and women being able to use the same facilities as white men and women was viewed as unnatural and wrong.

There was a time where rock and roll music was viewed as unnatural and wrong.

There was a time where ear piercings were viewed as unnatural and wrong.

I'll keep going if you would like. My point is it is what we are used to in the world around us. It might seem fundamentally wrong to you now, but I think that is just the environment we live in.

I made a statement that is generally true. They generally don't care about each other. If they did, they would not agree to open relationships in the first place. It is not because they care about each other that the break ups were so bad, but because of what they stand to lose personally. One unhealthy approach to relationships is the notion that the person is here to complete me or make me whole. If I define my existence and identity in terms of who I am in relationship with, shebecomes a tool to feed my gratification and need for fullfillment and satisfaction. If she leaves and no longer want to be in relationship, she takes with her my identity, my reason for living. She takes with her the very thing that made feel fulfilled and satisfied. The break up is damaging not because I truly loved her, but because I was more in love with being in the relaitonship than I was with her. She was just a means to my selfish end.

The whole "I want you, I need you, I can't live without you," mentality that pervades many relationships is not only unhealthy but unloving and places an immense amount of stress on the other person to fulfill a role that is unrealistic and impossible for them to fulfill. No one should be expected to complete us or make us whole. Only Jesus can do that.

I think you are leaping to conclusions. First off the concept of an open relationship is not a new one, and it isn't something that is exclusive to homosexuals. There are many married couples in this country who have some form of open relationship, I don't know the numbers off hand, but for starters Mormonism is a Christian sect that sometimes engages in polygamy. I would venture a guess and say that there are more happy marriages in this country that engage in some form of an open relationship than you might think.

In the same way I don't think the selfish relationship example you mentioned is something that applies only to homosexual couples. I agree that that sort of dependency isn't good or healthy, for any relationship.

It seems to me that you are taking all aspects of poor relationships and trying to argue that homosexual relationships exhibit these on a much greater scale. Do you have any evidence to substantiate these claims? (I understand you have had some direct experience in some cases, but I hope you'll forgive me but I am interested in a larger scope, so if you have numbers to pull I would be interested)

---

That is completely ridiculous. You are equating legality with morality. That something is legal, doesn't make it moral. Something is okay only so long as both parties agree to it? How about a sucide pact? If both parties agree to commit suicide together is that a moralally acceptable act on the grounds that they agreed together to do it?

If all that needs to be done to make something morally or ehtically accepable is mutual consent then we should bring back dueling as a means of settling disputes so long as both are consenting adults, then what is wrong with that?

The problem is this. Going back to the sucide example... In order for consent to have any validity, the act in question needs to be judged as to whether or not is a ethically or morally acceptable thing to do, on its own from an objective standpoint. Simply having two adults consenting to engage in an in immoral act doesn't magically validate it or makie it morally acceptable.

We're talking about US law. I do not presume that everything that is legal is simultaneously moral, but I do think there are many instances where the law attempts to emulate morality. Sexual consent is one of those areas that I think the law does a good job setting boundaries for. There are of course gray areas when it comes to determining when someone goes from a child to a consenting adult, but the basics are there and I think they work quite well.

[Guest shiloh357]

Even if your definition is correct there is no way for you to provide data on them, because there is no way for you to know how many 'true christians' live in the US. As I said before basing #s off of a self-report is the closest anyone can come to true numbers.

I don't have to provide any numbers. The polling question simply asks if you are a Christian. That's it. My point is that many people answer yes for reasons that have nothing to do with a biblical defintiion of what a Christian really is. Many people feel they are a Christian because they were baptized as an infant or because they were confirmed at six, or because they were born into a family that went to church. Many people claim they are Christians but there is no semblance of it in their life. All they have are distant childhood memories.

My point is that if the polling questions were altered to reflect a biblical definition of what a Christian is, the number of "Christians" that have been divorced would decrease dramatically. That is simply the truth, whether or not you have the integrity to admit it or not.

I understand your reasoning, however I hope you recognize that you are in a precarious position when it comes to judging people as Christians or not.

You list a lot of different sins. One thing that I don't think anyone will dispute is that everyone -even the most devout - sin from time to time. Some might sin more often than others, but there is no one on earth who doesn't sin; it's what makes us human.

You state that you will judge people because they demonstrate themselves as being dishonest, or lying, cheating etc. But everyone on earth has lied or cheated, or stolen something during the course of their lifetime. Some may do it more often than others, but unless you are around to witness every sin someone commits, how can you make an accurate judgment of how habitual that sin is?

Every one sins from time to time. Not everyone makes a practice of it. If I repeatedly catch someone in a lie, how many times does he have to do that before I realize that he can't be trusted for any reason? I mean come on... Try applying some commonsense instead of trying pick hairs over exactly what habitual means. Habitual means that it is a habit, a constant ongoing way of life. If someone is constantly cheating on their spouse, if they are known for a particular lifestyle, that is habitual. So stop trying parse over words that have a clear and distinct meaning.

Shiloh, using your reasoning that means that if I saw you lie to someone I could properly judge you to be unchristian. Or suppose that I heard from someone else that you had a reputation of dishonesty (real or not), using your rational you would clearly not be a Christian.

If I was a constant liar or was constantly telling dirty jokes, then yes, you would be justified in saying that I am not a Christian.

And what of redemption and forgiveness? Suppose that someone cheated on a spouse; according to you because they weren't living according to God's teachings they are not Christian. But suppose they become repentant and change their life to dedicate themselves more fully to God at a later point. Unless you are there to see this isn't that person still considered un-Christian using your criteria?

It dpends on whether or not their repentance is genuine. You see, the Bible says that the sacrifices of the wicked (lawless) are an abomination to God because he offers them with a wicked heart. It refers to someone who "repents" but fully intends to go back and engage in the same sin all over again. The Bible offers no provision for that. Only true repentance and only a demonstration of the fruit of repentance will indicate whether or not they are an authentic follower of Christ.

Following Christ doesn't mean that we don't sin. It is our response to it. If sin is treated with moral indifference and we continue living in it, then there is no reason for us or anyone else to think we are genuine believers.

Your definition essentially means that no one on earth is a Christian. It offers no recourse for forgiveness and is completely based on our perception of what other people are, instead of what they truly are, something only God really knows.

No, that is not what my definition means. It means that the definition of a biblical Christian is really much more narrow than people like you realize. There are a lot of people living in the false security that they are Christians while at the same living a life that is entirely antithetical to what the Bible teaches.

There was a time where inter-racial marriage was viewed as unnatural and wrong.

There was a time where women being allowed to vote and hold the same positions as men was viewed as unnatural and wrong.

There was a time where black men and women being able to use the same facilities as white men and women was viewed as unnatural and wrong.

There was a time where rock and roll music was viewed as unnatural and wrong.

There was a time where ear piercings were viewed as unnatural and wrong.

I'll keep going if you would like. My point is it is what we are used to in the world around us. It might seem fundamentally wrong to you now, but I think that is just the environment we live in.

Those examples have nothing to do with what we are talking about here. Those are cultural standards that have changed over time. We are dealing with moral and ethical issues.

By your logic, something is only immoral if we deem it so. Pedophilia is not really wrong, it is only viewed as wrong. Child molestation is not really wrong, it is only viewed as wrong. In time, we could just change our views and suddenly wnat is wrong today is okay for tomorrow. You take a very subjective view to morals and ethics and frankly I would not want to live in a world that subscribes to your warped approach to right and wrong.

I think you are leaping to conclusions. First off the concept of an open relationship is not a new one, and it isn't something that is exclusive to homosexuals. There are many married couples in this country who have some form of open relationship, I don't know the numbers off hand, but for starters Mormonism is a Christian sect that sometimes engages in polygamy. I would venture a guess and say that there are more happy marriages in this country that engage in some form of an open relationship than you might think.

I am not saying that there are not people who feel satisfied in an open marriage... for the moment. I did not say that everyone in an open marriage is unhappy. You missed my point entirely. My point is that what happens in cases when one partner decides that they no longer want an open marriage and the other partner refuses to acquiese to a monogamous relationship? I have seen that happen. I have seen the devestation that comes when partner wants a solid monogamous commitment and the other simply cannot bring themselves to commit in that way and ends up leaving the relationship altogether.

In the same way I don't think the selfish relationship example you mentioned is something that applies only to homosexual couples. I agree that that sort of dependency isn't good or healthy, for any relationship.

I didn't say it applied only to homosexual couples, but it does apply to them and it doesn't usually have a happy ending be it gay or straight. It is certainly not a healthy approach to marriage by any stretch of the imagination.

It seems to me that you are taking all aspects of poor relationships and trying to argue that homosexual relationships exhibit these on a much greater scale. Do you have any evidence to substantiate these claims?

We are not allowed to post links to these kinds of websites but even pro homosexual websites admit that sucide is more prevanlent among gays than nongays. 40% more homosexual men commit/attempt suicide than straight men. Around 38% more lesbians commit/attempt suicide than straight women.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

My point is that if the polling questions were altered to reflect a biblical definition of what a Christian is, the number of "Christians" that have been divorced would decrease dramatically. That is simply the truth, whether or not you have the integrity to admit it or not.

Perhaps if there was a way to distinguish 'real' and 'fake' Christians from one another the numbers would be different, but like I said before there is no practical way for anyone to do that. Many people who you believe aren't "real" Christians may believe themselves to be, and there is no way to back-up people's self assessment or not. In short even if the poll definitions were changed no manmade poll would give us any numbers, so as I said before we are at an impasse b/c no hard numbers can be generated (unless God faxes us the list of true Christians).

Every one sins from time to time. Not everyone makes a practice of it. If I repeatedly catch someone in a lie, how many times does he have to do that before I realize that he can't be trusted for any reason? I mean come on... Try applying some commonsense instead of trying pick hairs over exactly what habitual means. Habitual means that it is a habit, a constant ongoing way of life. If someone is constantly cheating on their spouse, if they are known for a particular lifestyle, that is habitual. So stop trying parse over words that have a clear and distinct meaning.

The absurdity of trying to define "habitual" is my exact point: God is the only one who knows all and sees all, and who knows the inner workings of our hearts. You say that you can judge someone based on the habits they make in their lives, but who are you to know all of someone's habits? You might see someone cheat once, or twice, or three times, but unless you know everything about them and if that truly was a habit or you just happened to come across them in a moment of weakness, how can you truly make a judgment call on what's inside someone's soul?

Of course we have to take what we get - if I get cheated by someone I probably won't trust them again; if someone lies to me and I catch them in the lie I will tread carefully around them. I can make a guess as to whether someone is truly Christian or not, but I can't definitively judge their christianity, which is what it seems you are trying to do.

Those examples have nothing to do with what we are talking about here. Those are cultural standards that have changed over time. We are dealing with moral and ethical issues.

Most of those were considered moral and ethical issues during their time. There were biblical attempts to argue the humanity of blacks and giving them the right to vote. Rock and roll was considered the devil's music, piercing as self mutilation etc. Interracial marriage was certainly an ethical issue. I think these examples are very much in line with concerns about homosexuality.

I am not saying that there are not people who feel satisfied in an open marriage... for the moment. I did not say that everyone in an open marriage is unhappy. You missed my point entirely. My point is that what happens in cases when one partner decides that they no longer want an open marriage and the other partner refuses to acquiese to a monogamous relationship? I have seen that happen. I have seen the devestation that comes when partner wants a solid monogamous commitment and the other simply cannot bring themselves to commit in that way and ends up leaving the relationship altogether.

---

I didn't say it applied only to homosexual couples, but it does apply to them and it doesn't usually have a happy ending be it gay or straight. It is certainly not a healthy approach to marriage by any stretch of the imagination.

I completely agree; these are the sort of challenges that homosexual couples must face. I recognize that incompatibility between partners or miscommunications in needs can be very damaging to relationships, my original point was that these trials are not things that only homosexual couples face. In this manner both hetero and homosexual couples are alike in that they have to work at their relationships and be cognizant to the other's needs in order to have a happy life together.

We are not allowed to post links to these kinds of websites but even pro homosexual websites admit that sucide is more prevanlent among gays than nongays. 40% more homosexual men commit/attempt suicide than straight men. Around 38% more lesbians commit/attempt suicide than straight women.

Well like I said before I think this likely points to societal pressures and a lack of support for homosexual people. If they 'come out of the closet' and the get renounced by friends and family I'm sure the % chance of depression or a sense of being lost would increase. If someone feels like they are broken - they are caught between what they are told is right and what they feel as natural to them - I imagine the chance for suicide would increase as well. These numbers might not be necessarily because someone is homosexual, but as a result of acceptance (or lack thereof).

[Guest]

.... We are free to judge what God has already judged. If a person is a habitual....

.... You state that you will judge people because they demonstrate themselves as being dishonest, or lying, cheating....

Habitual~!

But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. Jude 1:17-21

And Welcome Back Beloved~!

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 17 May 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

My point is that if the polling questions were altered to reflect a biblical definition of what a Christian is, the number of "Christians" that have been divorced would decrease dramatically. That is simply the truth, whether or not you have the integrity to admit it or not.

Perhaps if there was a way to distinguish 'real' and 'fake' Christians from one another the numbers would be different, but like I said before there is no practical way for anyone to do that.

Of course there is. Simply questioning someone in terms of being a follower of Jesus and asking some follow up questions to see if they understand what that means would not be hard at all. Just such a survey was performed some time back around 2003 by "Christianity Today" magazine and it was discovered that ony about 4% of Americans claiming to be "Christian" were theologically sound. The survey was able to effectively weed out the difference between those who claimed to be Christian and those who professed a genuine faith in God. So it is not hard and has been done. Any polling agency could perform a similar survey and include polling questions pertaining to divorce in the same survey and correlate the data to determine if truly committed followers of Jesus have the same divorce rate as nominal Christians and then compare THAT data to the secular nonreligious sector of society.

Many people who you believe aren't "real" Christians may believe themselves to be, and there is no way to back-up people's self assessment or not. In short even if the poll definitions were changed no manmade poll would give us any numbers, so as I said before we are at an impasse b/c no hard numbers can be generated (unless God faxes us the list of true Christians).

That's just your ignorant delusion.

The absurdity of trying to define "habitual" is my exact point: God is the only one who knows all and sees all, and who knows the inner workings of our hearts.

Bull Corn. Now you are just operating off of intellectual suicide. I can easily tell the difference between something that is a one time occurance and something that is habitual. Habitual is an English word with a straightforward definition and application. You can lose the stupid pretense that we can't possibly know what that word means. That is pathetically weak attempt to weasel around the obvious.

You say that you can judge someone based on the habits they make in their lives, but who are you to know all of someone's habits?

Who said I have to know ALL of their habits??? If a man is constant liar, I don't have to know all of his habits to know that he habitually lies and is untrustworthy. If someone constantly gets caught cheating on his wife, I don't have to know ALL of his habits to know he is an adulterer. You know, a little commonsense goes along way. You should really trying applying it.

Of course we have to take what we get - if I get cheated by someone I probably won't trust them again; if someone lies to me and I catch them in the lie I will tread carefully around them. I can make a guess as to whether someone is truly Christian or not, but I can't definitively judge their christianity, which is what it seems you are trying to do.

The Bible says this: No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (1Jn 3:9-10)

I am just saying what the Bible says. Those who persist in living in sin are not born of God (despite what they claim). I can't see their heart but I can judge their fruit. What is in your heart will come out in what you do. You are so desparate to hold on to the notion that Christians get divorced just as often as everyone else, you will do anything you can to muddy the water about what is or is not "Christian." You will reach for any angle no matter how stupid, no matter how absurd, no matter how bereft of any intellectual credibility to hold on to your delusion. I am embarassed for you that you have to check your brain at the door just to have this debate.

my original point was that these trials are not things that only homosexual couples face.

Which was addressing an argument I never raised.

Well like I said before I think this likely points to societal pressures and a lack of support for homosexual people. If they 'come out of the closet' and the get renounced by friends and family I'm sure the % chance of depression or a sense of being lost would increase. If someone feels like they are broken - they are caught between what they are told is right and what they feel as natural to them - I imagine the chance for suicide would increase as well. These numbers might not be necessarily because someone is homosexual, but as a result of acceptance (or lack thereof).

It's just an attempt to blame the problem on everyone else. The truth is that homosexuality is unnatural and is unhealthy. That society universally recognizes that should tell you something. It should point to the reality that the problem doesn't lie with those who think it is wrong. That's like the thief who thinks his depression in jail stems from everyone thinking that stealing is wrong.

No one should be mistreated, but neither should homosexuality be embraced as an acceptable lifestyle. Homosexuals need deliverance. They need Jesus; they need the Gospel.