Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[GodFearinGunTotin]

While, homosexuality is a sin, I dont think the excludes people from attending church. A preacher should welcome them with open arms, but should no mince words about how our faith views the subject. To us non-clergy, it's none of our business, and certainly none of the govt's business. That issue is something that is taken up with that person, and God.

The problem is introduced when the pastor/church start condoning sin in the name of being inclusive. It sounds like you pretty much have the right answer, but my concern is that two different subjects are being discussed. I certainly would not make them unwelcome, but most certainly would not water down the message, condone sin, or put such persons in positions of leadership.

I agree. I think God wants you bringing his word to all--especially the sinners. But I'm pretty sure he doesn't want you condoning the sins.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Fox News' Father Jonathan Morris was spit on at a gay pride event. Alright then.

ICYMI, what happened to Fox News? Father Jonathan at gay pride event will enrage you (his response should shame libs) | Twitchy

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Fox News' Father Jonathan Morris was spit on at a gay pride event. Alright then.

ICYMI, what happened to Fox News? Father Jonathan at gay pride event will enrage you (his response should shame libs) | Twitchy

Tolerance.

 

[jamil]

Tolerance.

I think that's "code" for spitting on dissenters. Kinda like a dog whistle.

 

[rhino]

Fox News' Father Jonathan Morris was spit on at a gay pride event. Alright then.

ICYMI, what happened to Fox News? Father Jonathan at gay pride event will enrage you (his response should shame libs) | Twitchy

Interesting.

Had he spat upon them, it would have been labeled a "hate crime."

 

[rambone]

While, homosexuality is a sin, I dont think the excludes people from attending church. A preacher should welcome them with open arms, but should no mince words about how our faith views the subject. To us non-clergy, it's none of our business, and certainly none of the govt's business. That issue is something that is taken up with that person, and God.

All are welcome to hear the message and learn. Paul's exclusionary directives are pointed at people who claim to be brothers of Christ and yet remain outwardly immoral. Once converted, there are expectations of reform.

Remember that homosexuality is not singled-out; all sexual immorality is treated equally: adultery, prostitution, fornication. (Yes, people who claim to be Christian and have premarital sex were shunned, too.) And it didn't stop there, that's why the bible includes those long lists of unrighteous characters.

Paul calls it "turning one over to Satan" and indicates that it is a teaching tool. The exclusion teaches people the seriousness of guarding their character, protects the church from corruption, and corrects the stereotype of "churches full of hypocrites." Paul mentions ousting two Greek men from church "so they can learn not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20). Perhaps when they abandon their old sinful ways they can come back.

First Corinthians 6 explains how brothers of Christ are changed and fundamentally different, and why sexual immorality is particularly corrupt.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

"The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

 

[Kutnupe14]

All are welcome to hear the message and learn. Paul's exclusionary directives are pointed at people who claim to be brothers of Christ and yet remain outwardly immoral. Once converted, there are expectations of reform.

Remember that homosexuality is not singled-out; all sexual immorality is treated equally: adultery, prostitution, fornication. (Yes, people who claim to be Christian and have premarital sex were shunned, too.) And it didn't stop there, that's why the bible includes those long lists of unrighteous characters.

Paul calls it "turning one over to Satan" and indicates that it is a teaching tool. The exclusion teaches people the seriousness of guarding their character, protects the church from corruption, and corrects the stereotype of "churches full of hypocrites." Paul mentions ousting two Greek men from church "so they can learn not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20). Perhaps when they abandon their old sinful ways they can come back.

First Corinthians 6 explains how brothers of Christ are changed and fundamentally different, and why sexual immorality is particularly corrupt.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

"The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

I hear the word, and admit that I AM a sinner. I cast no stones. I am equally subject to the God's law as any.

 

[KG1]

Interesting.

Had he spat upon them, it would have been labeled a "hate crime."

You can get away with such things if you are a protected class.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Probably a dupe:

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business


Edit: Related to the Texas/Louisiana refusals... and related to today's death penalty ruling... I looked into what "checks" there are against the SCOTUS. My initial question was... "What's to keep the SCOTUS from being stacked with politically-driven Justices that just want to re-write the Constitution?"

Found this... the SCOTUS doesn't really do anything.

The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments. One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the Georgia courts, is said to have remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"; however, this quotation is likely apocryphal. State militia in the South also resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment

So... TX/LA are sort of ok to do as they wish... but they'll have to bear the brunt of the negative attention and backlash.

In regards to the two justices today suggesting something in the constitution (death penalty) is unconstitutional... I don't know how that would play out.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That's a real nice tax exempt status you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it.

And there it is.

Gay Marriage Decision Is Right Time to End Religious Tax Exemptions

 

[miguel]

Remember that homosexuality is not singled-out; all sexual immorality is treated equally: adultery, prostitution, fornication. (Yes, people who claim to be Christian and have premarital sex were shunned, too.) And it didn't stop there, that's why the bible includes those long lists of unrighteous characters.

Good point, this is often overlooked.

 

[Lowe0]

Good point, this is often overlooked.

Is homosexuality immoral? If so, why?

 

[KG1]

I just want to ask him what the legal definition of "jiggery-pokery" is.

It's freestyle legalese.

 

[Woobie]

Is homosexuality immoral? If so, why?

It is if the Bible is true. Any sexual activity outside of the defined one man, one woman sacred covenant before God called marriage is sin, according to the Bible. That brush paints a very broad stroke. Not only does homosexuality get included, but so do extramarital affairs, one night stands, prostitution, even sexual activity between long term partners. The question of whether it is moral or not is the same as asking if the Bible is a lie or not. Many choose to accept the Bible as true. In doing so, we set aside our own feelings on matters such as these, and following God's standard as closely as we can instead.

 

[Woobie]

While, homosexuality is a sin, I dont think the excludes people from attending church. A preacher should welcome them with open arms, but should no mince words about how our faith views the subject. To us non-clergy, it's none of our business, and certainly none of the govt's business. That issue is something that is taken up with that person, and God.

I'm going to basically agree with all of this, starting with the last statement. Government isn't welcome, as far as I'm concerned, in any matter pertaining to marriage, including mine. They have, however, made themselves at home, just like they do with a lot of things.

I also agree that all are welcome. Christ welcomed all to repentance, and nobody trumps Him. But a Biblically obedient church, while ministering without discrimination, will absolutely discriminate in terms of who is a member. And the test for that discrimination is this: are they willfully and continually disobedient in defiance of scripture. Case in point: my own brother was removed from the membership of the church I grew up in. He had gotten a DUI, openly sinning by being drunken. People make mistakes, right? Yes, and so the church, according to scripture, will send representatives to try to restore people who sin. My brother rejected their guidance and chose to continue with his lifestyle. As painful as it was, the biblical thing to do was remove him as a member. The door stands wide today, if he wants to come back and be restored. Members of the church are expected to be obedient. We're all imperfect, but we repent.

I will say that it is not only the pastor's job to stand on the truth. That is everyone's.

 

[Dean C.]

Is homosexuality immoral? If so, why?

Its not immoral full stop end of story, it hurts no one and does not negatively impact anyone. A certain denomination of people in this country want to decry it as a sin and an affront to their religion though so that might explain why allot of people consider it immoral.

 

[rambone]

Is homosexuality immoral? If so, why?

Its not immoral full stop end of story, it hurts no one and does not negatively impact anyone. A certain denomination of people in this country want to decry it as a sin and an affront to their religion though so that might explain why allot of people consider it immoral.

For Christians, it is a sin to unite the temple of the Holy Spirit of God (the body) in any carnal way outside of God's definition of marriage. (See post 346)

For non-Christians, they are not in the presence of the Holy Spirit and worrying about individual sins is pointless.

 

[Lowe0]

It is if the Bible is true. Any sexual activity outside of the defined one man, one woman sacred covenant before God called marriage is sin, according to the Bible. That brush paints a very broad stroke. Not only does homosexuality get included, but so do extramarital affairs, one night stands, prostitution, even sexual activity between long term partners. The question of whether it is moral or not is the same as asking if the Bible is a lie or not. Many choose to accept the Bible as true. In doing so, we set aside our own feelings on matters such as these, and following God's standard as closely as we can instead.

The Bible also says that I should suffer for all eternity, for not being certain whether or not there is a god. Given that my uncertainty isn't harming anybody, yet merits infinite punishment, I have difficulty regarding it as a source of moral authority.

 

[mrjarrell]

How the 1942 case of a one footed chicken thief laid the foundation for marriage equality.

This is a really interesting read on the basis of the courts reasoning and ruling on marriage equality. Ignore the source, just read the article by a Constitutional law professor.

Gay marriage Supreme Court ruling: How Skinner v. Oklahoma laid the foundation for Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In regards to the two justices today suggesting something in the constitution (death penalty) is unconstitutional... I don't know how that would play out.

Here's a deal I'd gladly take: If the death penalty is now, after all of these years cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional, then surely jabbing some scissors into the skull (or the other gruesome methods) of an innocent, unborn child surely must be as well.