A Sea Of Red

ballcoach15 wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 6:33 pm Gay marriage will send many people to hell. It's wrong and should never be tolerated in any situation..

Actually, it is people like you that will be heading there, since you claim to be a Christian, but clearly are not.

Please show me where Christ preached against Homosexuality. (Hint, he didn't) As for Paul, well, like the Levitical chapters mistranslated, he was speaking against Pedastry, not homosexuality.

And the sins of Sodom? Had nothing to do with Homosexuality, everything to do with attitudes like yours.

dbackjon wrote: ↑March 24th, 2020, 4:06 pm

ballcoach15 wrote: ↑January 9th, 2020, 6:33 pm Gay marriage will send many people to hell. It's wrong and should never be tolerated in any situation..

Actually, it is people like you that will be heading there, since you claim to be a Christian, but clearly are not.

Please show me where Christ preached against Homosexuality. (Hint, he didn't) As for Paul, well, like the Levitical chapters mistranslated, he was speaking against Pedastry, not homosexuality.

And the sins of Sodom? Had nothing to do with Homosexuality, everything to do with attitudes like yours.

Genuine question.

Is Romans 1:26-28 irrelevant?

It is New Testament. It is inspired.

https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/ROM.1.26-28

All can say is WOW. Prayers for LU.

...

flameshaw wrote: ↑March 24th, 2020, 5:01 pm All can say is WOW. Prayers for LU.

Agreed but not because of a random post from someone we know little about.

Sorry that I somehow missed this discussion back in January. But many of us suddenly have lots of time on our hands these days.

dbackjon is a good guy but he has a pretty strong axe to grind on our school due to our position on this one issue. We have had plenty of discussions over the years on multiple boards. With some folks we can agree to disagree and still be good with each other. I find that to be a better position than when I was younger and couldn't handle someone who saw things differently than I did. Plus he was blessed to go to school in Flagstaff. Ask Chris Lang how awesome that place is. Gorgeous.

As for dbackjon's question about Jesus' silence, that is rather easy in my mind to summarize. He wa a Jewish rabbi who was teaching and living under the law in his ministry years. It would have been unusual for him to challenge the law since gay activity was already deemed sinful. I will entertain discussions on Paul's writings based on context but the lack of Jesus speaking does not bother me a bit.

In regard to the 2009 discussion, the world around us has changed quite bit in that period of time. But that shouldn't change how we look at Scripture.

I sure hope my comment wasn't taken the wrong way. I wasn't trying to completely dismiss his point of view but it seems people read a post here and there from a select few members and then believe it must be common place for Liberty students and alum.

Unrepented sexual sin, of any kind, will prevent many from receiving grace and mercy. Key word is Unrepented. That inability will separate many from eternal life with the Father.

Just a matter of time before some on the far left will want to marry their dog. Marriage should be "man and woman", no exceptions.

I’m not going to argue over scripture because frankly it will be a waste of time because the people who believe the scripture says God believes it’s a sin won’t listen no matter what.

However, the federal and state governments aren’t supposed to be in the business of policing and legislating based on what the Bible or any other religious text says. So what the Bible says should be considered irrelevant for those purposes. Now if an individual legislator makes their own personal decisions based on that then that is their right, but the government’s intent isn’t supposed to be to enforce Christian Law, Sharia Law, etc.

ballcoach15 wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 7:44 am Just a matter of time before some on the far left will want to marry their dog. Marriage should be "man and woman", no exceptions.

People always bring up stupid arguments like this but never factor in the law of consent. Two adult men can consent to marriage, sexual intercourse, or anything else. An animal, an insect, a reptile, a fish, a child, a plant, an inanimate object, etc. can’t consent. Unless we waive the law of consent then a marriage between anything but humans isn’t legally valid. If you want to marry your dog, fine, go ahead weirdo if you can find someone to do it, but it can’t be legally recognized due to lack of consent.

God gave us freewill. What you do with it is up to you. Whether you get it right or not is between you and Him. Bible is pretty clear on how to get it right and if you want to, it's comes prepaid

And by the way, civil unions are legal in the US and carry all civil rights with it. So its your choice. So whats the problem here

lynchburgwildcats wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 8:15 amHowever, the federal and state governments aren’t supposed to be in the business of policing and legislating based on what the Bible or any other religious text says. So what the Bible says should be considered irrelevant for those purposes. Now if an individual legislator makes their own personal decisions based on that then that is their right, but the government’s intent isn’t supposed to be to enforce Christian Law, Sharia Law, etc.

This is exactly where I land. Whether or not I personally think it's a sin or not has no bearing on if the American Government should not give people marital rights. Marriage became much more than a religious commitment decades ago when we tied health care, power of attorney, and so many other governmental rights to it.

Technically some sexual stuff is still illegal in some states. I believe it's illegal in Virginia to have sexual intercourse unless you are married. Now granted, that law isn't enforced.

Jonathan Carone wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 9:12 am

lynchburgwildcats wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 8:15 amHowever, the federal and state governments aren’t supposed to be in the business of policing and legislating based on what the Bible or any other religious text says. So what the Bible says should be considered irrelevant for those purposes. Now if an individual legislator makes their own personal decisions based on that then that is their right, but the government’s intent isn’t supposed to be to enforce Christian Law, Sharia Law, etc.

This is exactly where I land. Whether or not I personally think it's a sin or not has no bearing on if the American Government should not give people marital rights. Marriage became much more than a religious commitment decades ago when we tied health care, power of attorney, and so many other governmental rights to it.

Christians realize God gave each of us freewill. Christians also respect the governments laws. What I see is, LGBT activist not being satisfied with civil unions and the civil rights that come with it. They want to restrict pastors/churches from teaching the word as they interpret it. Basicly want to require them to teach that it's not a sexual sin. Like ballcoach said, where does the agenda stop. None of this is new, man has been tring to have it his forever. It's recorded all through the Bible.

I guess they think they will not have to repent if they get pastors to not teach sexul sins.

The reason I don't like the idea of restricting LGBTQ people to civil unions is because I don't believe they should be given a lesser version of something because my religious beliefs say it's wrong. They're entitled to everything the government offers straight people.

Where I have an issue is forcing churches to perform the weddings. There should be religious freedom there to deny something that goes against their religious beliefs.

LGBTQ people should have the freedom to get married.

Christian, Jewish, and Muslim places of worship should have the freedom to deny marrying them in their places of worship.

Call it what you want. Call it civil marriage. Purple should have some fun with the description "civil marriage "

Just don't call it biblical marriage.

Do you realize how many heterosexual "civil unions" are enter into to take advantage of government entitlements ...? Social Security spousal benefits come to mine? Anything other than Biblical marriage has become a joke.

An update on the pending split: https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-metho ... 20984.html

ATrain wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2021, 9:55 am An update on the pending split: https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-metho ... 20984.html

Oh I thought you meant someone else. I almost had the sadz.

Purple Haize wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2021, 10:06 am

ATrain wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2021, 9:55 am An update on the pending split: https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-metho ... 20984.html

Oh I thought you meant someone else. I almost had the sadz.

David and I are as solid as ever, planning a fall getaway to Oktoberfest, Innsbruck, Verona, Venice, and Salzburg - depending on what the COVID restrictions are in September/October.

I do expect a split. Our church family is around 70/30 leaning toward the more traditional, however the 30% are quite passionate about their position, and will leave if they do not see change. Likewise, my family and I will probably leave if we do see some of the change proposed. I do agree with the insinuation that putting the conversation and ultimate decision off for another 1 1/2 years is probably not the best course. That will only allow for more fodder and scuttlebutt.

I don't know why some people think a church changing it's definition of sin, sex outside of biblical marriage, changes anything with a righteous God. He will deal with unrepented sin one day.

TH Spangler wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2021, 7:45 am I don't know why some people think a church changing it's definition of sin, sex outside of biblical marriage, changes anything with a righteous God. He will deal with unrepented sin one day.

Hey, it is making a statement, "I'm too cool for school." I have much more respect for people who live the gay lifestyle, than those who know it is not biblical, but somehow pretending it is, just for the attention.

flameshaw wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2021, 1:45 pm

TH Spangler wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2021, 7:45 am I don't know why some people think a church changing it's definition of sin, sex outside of biblical marriage, changes anything with a righteous God. He will deal with unrepented sin one day.

Hey, it is making a statement, "I'm too cool for school." I have much more respect for people who live the gay lifestyle, than those who know it is not biblical, but somehow pretending it is, just for the attention.

Ok, WHAT, precisely, IS the "gay lifestyle?" This term was thrown around a lot by the church in the 90's/00's, and is still used by a lot of older members of society.