Reactions to Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

[praise_yeshua]

Or was it 100? Or 50? You do recall the story right?

If God already knows the answer to how many when Abraham tries to negotiate (1 for those that are following along), there's a good chance the point wasn't the number.

The number was probably zero.

If it wasn't about the number then Abraham was idiot for making it about the number. I don't think Abraham was an idiot.

Then again, you don't often think about such things. Its pretty much always about you.

 

[Least of These]

As I said earlier, I did NOT change my point of view because of my daughter.  I don't expect anyone else to, and I have no desire to challenge your assurance that your Biblical knowledge is superior to those who are more accepting & understanding. 

And yes, my daughter chose to marry the person that she loves (and yeah, thanks, but we know two females cannot produce a child. lol) but she did not choose to be gay.  Anyone who thinks they know my daughter's heart better than she does is either ignorant or arrogant - or most likely, both.  But no hard feelings! 

 

[praise_yeshua]

"Strange flesh" can be deemed the equivalent with "strangers", more specifically, non-consensual.

I think you know differently. Either way, why are ignoring the historical use of the word "Sodom"? Is that not evidence in and of itself?

No, it's not.

Yes. it is. See. I can do the same thing. Your turn.

 

[rsc2a]

Or was it 100? Or 50? You do recall the story right?

If God already knows the answer to how many when Abraham tries to negotiate (1 for those that are following along), there's a good chance the point wasn't the number.

The number was probably zero.

If it wasn't about the number then Abraham was idiot for making it about the number. I don't think Abraham was an idiot.

Then again, you don't often think about such things. Its pretty much always about you.

Lot was righteous. But then, I probably didn't think things through.

 

[praise_yeshua]

As I said earlier, I did NOT change my point of view because of my daughter.  I don't expect anyone else to, and I have no desire to challenge your assurance that your Biblical knowledge is superior to those who are more accepting & understanding. 

And yes, my daughter chose to marry the person that she loves (and yeah, thanks, but we know two females cannot produce a child. lol) but she did not choose to be gay.  Anyone who thinks they know my daughter's heart better than she does is either ignorant or arrogant - or most likely, both.  But no hard feelings! 

Your own daughter doesn't know her heart. If she thinks she does..... then she is either ignorant or arrogant. Most likely, both. But, not hard feeling!

None of us really know our own heart. Only God can help us with this. It takes God, time and seasons of learning to discern our own heart. That's why we often realize just how foolish we are when we were younger.

 

[rsc2a]

"Strange flesh" can be deemed the equivalent with "strangers", more specifically, non-consensual.

I think you know differently. Either way, why are ignoring the historical use of the word "Sodom"? Is that not evidence in and of itself?

No, it's not.

Yes. it is. See. I can do the same thing. Your turn.

You don't interpret ancient texts based on modern definitions.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Or was it 100? Or 50? You do recall the story right?

If God already knows the answer to how many when Abraham tries to negotiate (1 for those that are following along), there's a good chance the point wasn't the number.

The number was probably zero.

If it wasn't about the number then Abraham was idiot for making it about the number. I don't think Abraham was an idiot.

Then again, you don't often think about such things. Its pretty much always about you.

Lot was righteous. But then, I probably didn't think things through.

Lot sojourned in the land just like Abraham. He was never meant to stay there and he was totally out of place. For what its worth.... I don't see God even taking Lot into consideration when He dealt with Abraham about the number.

 

[Least of These]

I would be very heart broken and IDK what I would do.

It is heartbreaking in many ways.  But I appreciate the honesty & compassion shown in your admission that you don't know what you would do. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

"Strange flesh" can be deemed the equivalent with "strangers", more specifically, non-consensual.

I think you know differently. Either way, why are ignoring the historical use of the word "Sodom"? Is that not evidence in and of itself?

No, it's not.

Yes. it is. See. I can do the same thing. Your turn.

You don't interpret ancient texts based on modern definitions.

I didn't. However, it is clear that the word "Sodom" has it roots in both Latin and Greek and reference homosexual acts. I don't expect you to know this. This is what "etymology" is all about. The historical progression of words across various languages. The English word "Sodom" falls right in line with the historical use of its source words.

 

[RAIDER]

Or was it 100? Or 50? You do recall the story right?

If God already knows the answer to how many when Abraham tries to negotiate (1 for those that are following along), there's a good chance the point wasn't the number.

Genesis 18

26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

I guess it is all about the numbers!

 

[rsc2a]

Or was it 100? Or 50? You do recall the story right?

If God already knows the answer to how many when Abraham tries to negotiate (1 for those that are following along), there's a good chance the point wasn't the number.

The number was probably zero.

If it wasn't about the number then Abraham was idiot for making it about the number. I don't think Abraham was an idiot.

Then again, you don't often think about such things. Its pretty much always about you.

Lot was righteous. But then, I probably didn't think things through.

Lot sojourned in the land just like Abraham. He was never meant to stay there and he was totally out of place. For what its worth.... I don't see God even taking Lot into consideration when He dealt with Abraham about the number.

"When Abraham said 'in Sodom', he didn't mean Lot who was in Sodom even though Lot was in Sodom"

 

[rsc2a]

Or its about salvation. God will spare even the one. See also Noah, Rahab, Ruth, et al

 

[Smellin Coffee]

"Strange flesh" can be deemed the equivalent with "strangers", more specifically, non-consensual.

I think you know differently. Either way, why are ignoring the historical use of the word "Sodom"? Is that not evidence in and of itself?

For someone who asks, "What does the Bible say?", this definition cannot be defined by the Bible but rather secular tradition/word definitions for support.

Tradition does not truth make. Jesus pretty much showed that to the Pharisees.

 

[Least of These]

What do you do with Romans 1?

I accept that there are other interpretations of Paul's message, and believe that the application of it as anti-gay is incorrect.  I know that answer isn't sufficient for most Baptists/Christians, but is it any different than coming to the conclusion that Deut. 22:5 doesn't mean women wearing pants is a sin?  Except that most people will have to decide about wearing pants, but will never have to decide about being gay.

 

[IFB X-Files]

Tremendous message by James Knox: My Response to Supreme Court Ruling on Homosexual Marraige

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-2jku9WHB2cU1ZMcmc0SzZzLUk/view?usp=sharing

 

[Least of These]

Sure it is. Being heterosexual is a choice.

Do you wake up each morning and choose whether today you will be homosexual or hetero?  If that's the case, I beg you to choose, just for one day, to be gay.  You don't have to act on it, but just BE it and let your fellow Christians know what it's like.  I suspect you'll feel the same pain, horror, denial and rejection my daughter felt, and my  heart will hurt for you.  Luckily, you can switch back tomorrow; she can't.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

"Being gay" isn't always a choice

Is being a murderer a choice?  Is being a thief a choice?  Is being a drunk a choice?

How many murderers, thieves or drunks commit suicide because they cannot control their impulses? How many kill themselves because they are being bullied because they cannot change even though they try hard to do so?

There is an intrinsic, perhaps genetic component in being gay whereas probably not in being a murderer or thief. An alcoholic might be genetically predisposed as well.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Sure it is. Being heterosexual is a choice.

Do you wake up each morning and choose whether today you will be homosexual or hetero?  If that's the case, I beg you to choose, just for one day, to be gay.  You don't have to act on it, but just BE it and let your fellow Christians know what it's like.  I suspect you'll feel the same pain, horror, denial and rejection my daughter felt, and my  heart will hurt for you.  Luckily, you can switch back tomorrow; she can't.

Very well said. I'm so sorry for the hurt and pain your daughter (and by extension, you and your family) had to go through from the words and actions of others (even those that were well-meaning but missed the mark).

 

[subllibrm]

"Being gay" isn't always a choice

"Being" is different than "doing".

 

[subllibrm]

You don't interpret ancient texts based on modern definitions.

I agree.

So when did the "modern" definition come about?