Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

One thing is for sure, the enemy of our souls is wise and cunning and has a way of getting God's people to indirectly condone sodomy and bring the wrath of God on a nation.

Jud 1:7 KJV Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Just saying.

I don't think anyone on this thread has "condoned" sodomy on a faith level.

I just find it interesting when we demand godly behaviors of unbelievers. Lot's instructions to save the city weren't "make 10 men quit having gay sex." It was "find me 10 righteous men" or men that were serving the Lord.

Some believers have a personal opinion that we must seek to legislate as few morals as possible, and usually it is only those that harms or exploits another without consent. As a Libertarian, I'd also lean that way. In this instance, finding legal liberty for someone to live a life of sodomy is not the same as condone the sin.

Just sayin.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I don't think anyone on this thread has "condoned" sodomy on a faith level.

I just find it interesting when we demand godly behaviors of unbelievers. Lot's instructions to save the city weren't "make 10 men quit having gay sex." It was "find me 10 righteous men" or men that were serving the Lord.

Some believers have a personal opinion that we must seek to legislate as few morals as possible, and usually it is only those that harms or exploits another without consent. As a Libertarian, I'd also lean that way. In this instance, finding legal liberty for someone to live a life of sodomy is not the same as condone the sin.

Just sayin.

So it is wrong on a faith level, but we should not vote against it as Christians? We should not use our rights to vote and vote NO to gay marriage? The only conclusion is to vote YES for gay marriage. See where this leads?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So it is wrong on a faith level, but we should not vote against it as Christians? We should not use our rights to vote and vote NO to gay marriage? The only conclusion is to vote YES for gay marriage. See where this leads?

Let's see, should we vote for modesty and come up with a way to define that? Vote for no indecent programming on the internet or television? Vote for outlawing fornication? Vote for making adultery a capital offense? Vote for the stoning of alcoholics and drug addicts? How far should we go with this?

I'm saying, not all brothers and sisters view the role of government the same. Marriage belonging to the State was our first problem. Some brothers and sisters see government in a way that should be limited, less infringing on personal liberties, etc. Some like the idea of more government. Some brothers and sisters have a socialist utopia in their vision for the ideal government.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Let's see, should we vote for modesty and come up with a way to define that?

Hmm... I never considered modesty on the level with non-homosexuality before. Sorta think there's a vast difference in degree of evil, don't you think? I mean, did God ever destroy a nation due to immodesty?

Vote for no indecent programming on the internet or television? Vote for outlawing fornication? Vote for making adultery a capital offense? Vote for the stoning of alcoholics and drug addicts? How far should we go with this?

That is not the reasoning to take. The reasoning is that, of all things, homosexuality brought a judgment on a kingdom.

And you never answered my question. Are we to vote YES to homosexuality?

The fact is that sometimes Christians ought to use their rights to influence a kingdom. Paul had to minister for the Lord, and was in danger of being hindered. He relied on his Roman citizenhsip to avoid that.

Act 22:24-29 KJV The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. (25) And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? (26) When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. (27) Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. (28) And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. (29) Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

We have rights, and we ought to use them for the sake of God's kingdom.

Banning homosexual marriage is not the same as banning immodesty. People can do what they want without having a law passed to marry homosexuals.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Hmm... I never considered modesty on the level with non-homosexuality before. Sorta think there's a vast difference in degree of evil, don't you think? I mean, did God ever destroy a nation due to immodesty?



That is not the reasoning to take. The reasoning is that, of all things, homosexuality brought a judgment on a kingdom.

And you never answered my question. Are we to vote YES to homosexuality?

The fact is that sometimes Christians ought to use their rights to influence a kingdom. Paul had to minister for the Lord, and was in danger of being hindered. He relied on his Roman citizenhsip to avoid that.

Act 22:24-29 KJV The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. (25) And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? (26) When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. (27) Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. (28) And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. (29) Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

We have rights, and we ought to use them for the sake of God's kingdom.

Banning homosexual marriage is not the same as banning immodesty. People can do what they want without having a law passed to marry homosexuals.

Actually, Mike, I did answer your question. You may have not liked my answer, but I did respond! Voting for something on a legal basis is not the same as condoning the action morally. I would not think of the Fed Govt punishing adultery, nor does that mean I condone adultery.

Further, I think you are stretching the reason for God's judgement when you say he condemned an entire city just because of sodomy.

Use my rights for the sake of the Kingdom? How does that "advance the Kingdom" one iota? Advancing the Kingdom would occur regardless of political landscape, and the problem is not gay marriage, the problem is sin and rebellion to God. Sharing Grace as a way people can live an abundant life in harmony with God is how we advance the Gospel. Let's not confuse the two and become politcal crusaders thinking we are doing something for the Kingdom -- unless, of course, you are promoting justice to the poor, widows, oppressed.

If you, as a citizen of this country, wish to vote against same-sex marriage, I understand that, respect that and will even consider voting with you. But all in perspective.

Oh... and modesty was just one of several immoral offenses I listed, but you seem stuck on that one.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Actually, Mike, I did answer your question. You may have not liked my answer, but I did respond! Voting for something on a legal basis is not the same as condoning the action morally.

So does that mean you would vote YES for gay marriage? I did not see a plain yes or no.

I would not think of the Fed Govt punishing adultery, nor does that mean I condone adultery.

Further, I think you are stretching the reason for God's judgement when you say he condemned an entire city just because of sodomy.

Use my rights for the sake of the Kingdom? How does that "advance the Kingdom" one iota?

It keeps the nation in which we live free from destruction, for one!

Advancing the Kingdom would occur regardless of political landscape, and the problem is not gay marriage, the problem is sin and rebellion to God. Sharing Grace as a way people can live an abundant life in harmony with God is how we advance the Gospel. Let's not confuse the two and become politcal crusaders thinking we are doing something for the Kingdom -- unless, of course, you are promoting justice to the poor, widows, oppressed.

If you, as a citizen of this country, wish to vote against same-sex marriage, I understand that, respect that and will even consider voting with you. But all in perspective.

Oh... and modesty was just one of several immoral offenses I listed, but you seem stuck on that one.

List any of the other offenses, and the point is the same. God did destroy a kingdom for homosexuality, as Jude noted in his epistle.


Jud 1:7 KJV Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Fire destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha. We read of that being an example o vengeance of eternal fire. And it was specifically homosexuality that Jude referred to.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So does that mean you would vote YES for gay marriage? I did not see a plain yes or no.

For the third time, I can't say it "slow" since I'm typing, so maybe just read it realllllly slow: A vote against Proposition 8 would not be a vote "for" gay marriage. Furthermore, a vote allowing the legal protection of adulterers and fornicators is not a vote "for" adultery and fornication, it's a vote for the legal protection and liberty of those to live an immoral lifestyle if they so choose.

It keeps the nation in which we live free from destruction, for one!

Oh goodness. *rolls eyes* Won't even go down that insane road with you....

List any of the other offenses, and the point is the same. God did destroy a kingdom for homosexuality, as Jude noted in his epistle.
God did not destroy a kingdom only for homosexuality. And if you live in constant fear of God's destruction of the ungodly, I don't know what to tell you. If you see time and place we live in as a constant vulnerable opportunity for us to be smitten in judgement (even as Mercy has never been so available and even as so many follow after him), then we may be serving a different God? And FTR, allowing same-sex marriage does nothing for those having sex with each other. Nothing. So, I guess your Kingdom influence is little if this is your tactic. Maybe you suggest we start hanging homosexuals again and charging them with sodomy laws. Then we won't be judged as a nation!

Jud 1:7 KJV Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

So let's look at "strange flesh" all day. But don't forget "fornication" is here as well. Outlaw that too?

Fire destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha. We read of that being an example o vengeance of eternal fire. And it was specifically homosexuality that Jude referred to. Good luck proving that point. More stretchy than spandex.

Sounds like Mike has a theology that says God still destroys an entire people for the sins of some. Sounds like Mike has a theology that says God hates sin, but will only really get ticked off by homosexuality. Sounds like Mike believes God destroyed an entire nation -- not for rebellion, sexual idolatry, fornication, lying, murder, unspeakable evils.... but simply because guys had sex with other guys. Sounds like fundamentalist nonsense IMO.