The Rainbow Agenda and the Christian Response

[Guest]

Ya'll need to chill a little.  Did any one read the whole article he linked to?  He just posted a little part of it as he said.  The article outright claims homosexuality is a sin.  I never thought I would defend a Cardinals fan.

 

 

:24:

[Gandalf]

I am not speaking of giving up, I am talking about trying a new tactic.   The one we have used for the last decade has been a failure.   If there is one thing my time in the military has taught me, it is that if you are losing the battle, try something different. 

 

Paul did not use the court system to try and change laws to make people behave in a certain way.

 

Finally, I think the reason we are losing the battle is evident in your final paragraph, the fight should be for the souls of the lost and not against one particular sin or another.   You don't save people by stopping them from doing an action, you save them by showing them the gospel and changing their hearts.  As long as the focus is on a fight against a sin we will never win, it is like trying to nail jello to a tree. 

 

Christians need to stop focusing on sins and start focusing on humans.

False dichotomy.  No one wants laws either kept or made to "control people's behavior" in regards to homosexuality.  They obviously already have the "right" to be homosexual.  No one is hindering that right, in any way.  The statement that anyone is trying to control their behavior is false all day, every day.  Homosexuals want the right to marry at the expense of other people's rights, i.e., faith-based groups.  Gay activists want Christians to set aside their rights, or abandon them wholesale, so that they can have the right to "marry."  And if you were in the military, then you should already know that that ain't how the system works.  That mindset clearly violates the 1st amendment.  Because homosexuals don't just want the right to marry, they want to force religious institutions to perform those marriages, and they want to force people to not be allowed to voice any dissent against them and their lifestyle.  That is a violation of the 1st amendment in both cases.

 

We are losing the battle because we have a twisted secular world that very much wants to convince people that there is no such thing as sin.  If we allow the government, which is supposed to serve all of us, not just militant gays, to impose restrictions on our ability to voice what is and conversely, is not acceptable lifestyles, there is no way we can effectively do what you advocate.  How can you proclaim the Gospel wearing a muzzle?  I am not talking about "stopping" a behavior of any kind, and statements such as that, when aimed toward me will be just as false the 100th time you repeat it as it was the 1st time you said it.  You don't dupe people into thinking what they do is acceptable when it is actually detrimental.  Why would you automatically assume that I don't show people the Gospel?  That is our first and foremost calling as Christians.  It isn't an "either" - "or" proposition.   And if gays think they are set and there is nothing they need to change, just exactly how are you going to introduce them to this Gospel?  They are content.  They don't even know they need it, because they surround themselves with people who tell them what they want to hear.  Allowing that to continue unchecked is not an expedient or effective way to get the Gospel to them.

 

when I spoke of people not sharing the Gospel, I was not referring to any particular person but to the Church in America in general.

 

I believe it is an either-or proposition, I do not believe that you can fight both "fights" effectively.   You can fight against sins or you can fight for souls which will affect the sin in the long run.

 

The legal battle has left Christians looking petty and hateful, which makes it hard to spread the Gospel.

Its true to say that some Christians have portrayed a hateful attitude. But not all, by any means. The difficulty is that the media easily latch onto those who display bad attitudes and tar everyone with the same brush. Like it or not, the media matter in the 21st Century; we need to be wise as serpents in the way we present ourselves in public image.

[Guest]

Ya'll need to chill a little.  Did any one read the whole article he linked to?  He just posted a little part of it as he said.  The article outright claims homosexuality is a sin.  I never thought I would defend a Cardinals fan.

Thank you!

[JDavis]

 

 

when I spoke of people not sharing the Gospel, I was not referring to any particular person but to the Church in America in general.

 

I believe it is an either-or proposition, I do not believe that you can fight both "fights" effectively.   You can fight against sins or you can fight for souls which will affect the sin in the long run.

 

The legal battle has left Christians looking petty and hateful, which makes it hard to spread the Gospel. 

 

There are segments of the church that actively share the gospel every day of the week, here, and in other countries.  Depends on what denomination you speak of and that denomination's world view.  It's pretty obvious which churches think evangelizing is important, and which churches don't, but I won't go into that, because it's a thread derail.

 

As for the either-or prop., as you were in the military, you should no that no battle against anything is fought only one way.  It usually needs to be fought using several different stratagies.  And if you are just throwing the gospel at it, and that isn't having any effect, or you are trying to legislate it out of existence, or you are overly-shrill in your denouncement of it, and none of these strategies are working, you are right, time to try another strategy.  But you don't ever admit defeat, and you don't ever, as a Christian, let the person sinning adopt the false belief that what they are doing is OK.  You expose sin in a loving, but firm manner.  You never, ever soft-pedal it.

 

I would not agree that the legal battle has left Christians looking petty and hateful.  The Left has painted them as petty and hateful, and succeeded, because of that exact mindset.  Not a dig at you at all, but that way of thinking just helps the Left accomplish their end-goal.  The Left points to Christians, as a group and tries to tie them to little niche groups like the Westburo Baptists and say they all think like that, when the fact is, very, very few of us think like that.  What I see, time and time again, is a legal system that champions change through voting, but then when people solidly decide against something, in an overwhelming number, the legal system, if it is biased towards whatever it was the people struck down, the legal system says "Oh, I don't think so!" and then just does an end-run around the majority vote.  Look at California and Prop. 8.  The people of California, by a majority vote said "We don't want gay marriage in California."  But the Left, and the Libs?  They don't like that.  So they look for a way to dismantle that.  And what do you know, the Supreme Court overturns D.O.M.A. and says the Prop 8 vote can't stand, and California can have gay marriage.  They can't do that.  They are trumping an individual state's rights.  But they did it anyway.  Because the government we have right now are not representatives anymore, they are just a bunch of spoiled bullies.  The problem is not people attempting to use the legal system.  The core problem is a corrupt government that thumbs it's nose at the process and does what it wants, no matter what.

 

I wouldn't object to civil unions, as long as they did not expect faith-based institutions who objected to performing them to be forced to perform them anyway.  And when it comes to the economic issue, I am 100% in favor of allowing gay couples the same exact rights heterosexuals have when it comes to property and assets.  If you buy a house together, and one of you dies, gay or straight, that house still belongs to the other party.  Someone shouldn't be able to come in and take it, just because the couple was gay.  Same goes for their bank account.  If they held it jointly and were both putting money in it, it belongs to the survivor if one of them dies.  I will champion that concept all day long.

 

 

I think the government should be out of the marriage business all together.  People could form partnerships if they desired to have the benefits you listed above and marriage could be the realm of the church.    Do I really need a license from the government to make my marriage "approved by God"?

 

The point of a government promoting marriage in the past was to provide the next generation.  With the changing in definition of a civil (not religious) marriage that no longer holds true so the government should get out of the marriage business. 

[JDavis]

 

I think the government should be out of the marriage business all together.  People could form partnerships if they desired to have the benefits you listed above and marriage could be the realm of the church.    Do I really need a license from the government to make my marriage "approved by God"?

 

The point of a government promoting marriage in the past was to provide the next generation.  With the changing in definition of a civil (not religious) marriage that no longer holds true so the government should get out of the marriage business. 

 

 

No.  Marriage is defined, by law, to protect the ultimate result of most marriages:  Children.  It is supposed to be an attempt to see that they are raised in a healthy, safe, nurturing and moral environment.  Legalizing gay marriage guarantees that this eventually ends.

 

Since you are unconcerned with the results that gay marriage will bring, are you also unconcerned with what unfettered child molestation will bring?

 

Surely you are familiar with this scripture:

 

Ephesians 5:11-16  11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.  12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.  13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible,  14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."  15 Be very careful, then, how you live--not as unwise but as wise,  16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.

 

Since it is an extremely important issue, a Christian does not have the option of simply bowing out of it and saying "I don't think the government should be involved in marriage."  Especially when that government is based on Judeo-Christian values.  Because that kind of non-position leads people to believe that the person espousing it supports homosexuality.

 

 

 

lets see,

 

I said...

 

point of a government promoting marriage in the past was to provide the next generation

 

then you said...

 

Marriage is defined, by law, to protect the ultimate result of most marriages:  Children

 

What do you think the next generation is?  (a hint for you, it deals with "C" rhymes with children)

[JDavis]

 

lets see,

 

I said...

 

point of a government promoting marriage in the past was to provide the next generation

 

then you said...

 

Marriage is defined, by law, to protect the ultimate result of most marriages:  Children

 

What do you think the next generation is?  (a hint for you, it deals with "C" rhymes with children)

 

 

A snappy retort!!!  Sarcasm is good, in some cases, but you need more practice.

 

Providing the next generation is not the same thing as protecting the next generation.  Sounds the same, but isn't the same.  "One of these things is not like the other. . ."

 

Providing the next generation does not even have to entail marriage.  Neither does protecting it, but a safe, nurturing environment is going to be more likely within the confines of a traditional marriage than it will be in some either lack of marriage or some cobbled-up mess that does not fit the actual definition.  So a position of "who cares if gay marriage gets legalized" equates to a position of "who cares how children raised in these marriages turn out, and who cares if they are protected."

 

I notice you didn't deal with the second issue.  Legalizing gay marriage will result in pedophiles being the next amoral group pushing for their own set of "rights."  Are you comfortable with that?

 

 

marriage laws had nothing to do with protecting children.  A father and a mother to a lesser extent could do pretty much anything they wanted to their children, they were seen as property.  It was not till the late 1860s that the government started organized protection of children and that was a long slow process

 

I am not comfortable with legalizing same sex marriage, as such your question is just a thinly veiled insult.

Edited July 7, 2013 by JDavis

[ayin jade]

 

 

Steve didn't  a form of legitimised fornication occur by petitioning the government to give people living together  the same rights as the married ie. cohabitation for a period of time as spouses implies marriage.

 

 

In Arizona, heterosexuals living together without marriage did not get benefits or rights like married folks and they accepted that. Homosexual couples were the ones who attempted to force the state to do this. And with the supreme court, they won this right for themselves and for unmarried heterosexual couples. 

[ayin jade]

 

What many people fail to remember is that AIDS was originally called "GRID" Gay Related Immune Deficiency."  But it was eventually transmitted to Bi-sexuals and then on to heterosexuals and the name was changed to AIDS in order to mask the connection to homosexuality.

 

 

To be fair here, AIDS did not begin with gays in africa, where the disease is from. It only showed up initially in the us through homosexual community. It is not really a gay disease. 

[JDavis]

 

 

 

No.  It is not meant as an insult in any way and saying so over and over won't make it true.  Your position on same-sex marriage is still unclear since you have never clarified exactly what it is yet.  All you have said is that we should stay out of it and let it happen or that you are "uncomfortable" with it.  When I ask question and say things, I have reasons for doing so and they do not entail insulting people.  An insult is never the intent.  

 

As Christians, we are not directed to just simply give up on sin or adopt a position of defeat.

 

And marriage laws always entailed protecting children.

 

 

 

well, at least now we know that you don't read what people write on here.

 

On 5 July at 6:22PM you posted this...

 

So I will just ask you directly:  

 

Are you in favor of homosexual marriage?  Do you support it?  Because your posts seem to indicate that, since you feel the battle is already lost, we should simply accept defeat, no longer speak about the issue, and just accept gay marriage as eventual fact and just support it.  

 

Clarification, on your part, is needed.

 

to which I responded at 6:35pm the same day...

 

I am not in favor of same sex marriage and I do not support same sex marriage. 

 

and oddly enough you quoted that response from me about an hour later.  Clearly you did not read what I had written.

 

as for this statement...And marriage laws always entailed protecting children.

 

what a bunch of bunk.  I would love to see you offer some sort of actual evidence to support that statement.  

[JDavis]

 

 

well, at least now we know that you don't read what people write on here.

 

On 5 July at 6:22PM you posted this...

 

So I will just ask you directly:  

 

Are you in favor of homosexual marriage?  Do you support it?  Because your posts seem to indicate that, since you feel the battle is already lost, we should simply accept defeat, no longer speak about the issue, and just accept gay marriage as eventual fact and just support it.  

 

Clarification, on your part, is needed.

 

to which I responded at 6:35pm the same day...

 

I am not in favor of same sex marriage and I do not support same sex marriage. 

 

and oddly enough you quoted that response from me about an hour later.  Clearly you did not read what I had written.

 

as for this statement...And marriage laws always entailed protecting children.

 

what a bunch of bunk.  I would love to see you offer some sort of actual evidence to support that statement.  

 

 

First off, I am on this forum daily, for hours at a time reading a multitude of threads.  I cannot remember every single thing that a poster says, so cut me a break.  You don't support gay marriage, got it.  I have filed an index card to that effect.

 

Secondly, why are you getting defensive?  For someone that is continually inferring that others are being insulting, you went from cordial to insulting in the space of one post.  Why is that?  If your statements are strong and easily defendable, you wouldn't need to get agitated.

 

This thread is giving me a very powerful feeling of deja vu.

 

 

multiple times on this forum so far I have had my views and beliefs questioned even after I stated them pretty darn clear.   I realize that all of my views may not be mainstream, but I guess I did expected better on a Christian forum.   To even suggest I would be ok with pedophilia is more than enough to get me defensive.  perhaps you would be cool with it, but I am not