CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[BehindBlueI's]

---

I'm not too savvy when it comes to multiple quotes, so I will just quote what you posted earlier and ask how I may have interpreted that statement wrong. How does that not suggest that your opinion looks down upon one who shares my opinion? What am I missing? What exactly did you mean?

"Honestly, this is the sort of logic that gets kids expelled for gun shaped pop-tarts. Zero tolerance and treating all infractions the same are a substitute for thinking."

Look at the post I quoted and was therefore responding to. It had nothing to do with the end decision. It was answering the notion

Simply pointing out that if a person believes two things are both wrong, why are they so willing to respond to them completely differently...

You can respond to two things that are wrong in completely different ways because it's not so simple as "that's wrong." The totality of the circumstances makes each situation or "wrong" it's own unique thing. If you approach every "wrong" the same, that's just a substitute for thinking, using zero tolerance so there's no decision making involved. That's exactly how we get discipline for gun shaped Pop-Tarts. Instead, you analyze each circumstance and then make your decision based on that circumstance.

I've been quite clear that people can legitimately arrive at a different conclusion based. What I was responding to was the notion all wrongs are the same and must therefore be approached the same.

 

[Ziggidy]

Look at the post I quoted and was therefore responding to. It had nothing to do with the end decision. It was answering the notion

You can respond to two things that are wrong in completely different ways because it's not so simple as "that's wrong." The totality of the circumstances makes each situation or "wrong" it's own unique thing. If you approach every "wrong" the same, that's just a substitute for thinking, using zero tolerance so there's no decision making involved. That's exactly how we get discipline for gun shaped Pop-Tarts. Instead, you analyze each circumstance and then make your decision based on that circumstance.

I've been quite clear that people can legitimately arrive at a different conclusion based. What I was responding to was the notion all wrongs are the same and must therefore be approached the same.

I stand corrected.

 

[historian]

I stand corrected.

I know you are somewhat new to INGO, so I'll let it slide, but next time you need to more firmly entrench your position and refuse to give an inch!

 

[T.Lex]

Thanks, all, for candid responses on the gay wedding question. I think it only fair to answer it myself.

IMHO (and, like BBI, I easily allow that reasonable people can differ on this) I think there's a fundamental difference between supporting people and supporting policies. People get married. Policies establish gay marriage/civil union.

I have known gay people who got married (although I don't think we've been invited to a ceremony yet). I am not really comfortable with the specifics of what that lifestyle means, but that applies the same to the straight couples I know. But, the people who I know that are gay deserve happiness - in this life and the next. That they are sinful in their lifestyle makes them really not any different than me. Theirs is just way more obvious. And usually a bit flamboyant. Or at least tidy.

Jesus put himself in situations that were uncomfortable. Not only to preach, but to bless, and heal. As a practicing Catholic (because it takes a LOT of practice to be any good at it), I'm sure my presence would be uncomfortable for gay people. There are certain stereotypes and generalizations that go along with what I believe. I understand that. But, if I can mirror God's love for all, while also exemplifying (hopefully) moral virtue, why would I only do that in places where I'm comfortable? That's putting my light (as low-intensity as it may be) under a bushel basket.

I will also confess that it would be easier for me to attend a civil ceremony than a full blown "marriage." I'm not sure I can fully articulate the difference to me, but the latter just seems more like a mimicry. I guess that also, applies, though in situations where a hetero couple has lived a sinful lifestyle up to the point of the marriage, but then wants to somehow "ratify" it or something. To me, that has its own awkwardness, too.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Jesus put himself in situations that were uncomfortable. Not only to preach, but to bless, and heal. As a practicing Catholic (because it takes a LOT of practice to be any good at it), I'm sure my presence would be uncomfortable for gay people. There are certain stereotypes and generalizations that go along with what I believe. I understand that. But, if I can mirror God's love for all, while also exemplifying (hopefully) moral virtue, why would I only do that in places where I'm comfortable? That's putting my light (as low-intensity as it may be) under a bushel basket.

But do you think if Jesus were to attend a homosexual marriage or commitment ceremony that he'd bless it, praise it, and wish them well in their "marriage"? Ehhh...I don't think so. While his patience and his love for the people would far exceed what I would be able to muster, I sincerely doubt he would. I'd be inclined to expect to get one of those "it is written..." speeches.

I will also confess that it would be easier for me to attend a civil ceremony than a full blown "marriage." I'm not sure I can fully articulate the difference to me, but the latter just seems more like a mimicry. I guess that also, applies, though in situations where a hetero couple has lived a sinful lifestyle up to the point of the marriage, but then wants to somehow "ratify" it or something. To me, that has its own awkwardness, too.

The big and important difference is: the heterosexual couple finally "ratifying" their cohabitation could be more akin to a repentance (especially if they're doing it for that reason) than a commitment ceremony. It's kind of a prodigal son sort of thing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The 'civil union' compromise seems like the best method of giving both sides what they want. As long as those unions also get whatever benefits, I mean.

I'm in the same boat with keeping Marriage a religious-to-semi-religious thing... but with how things are today, it'll always be called "gay marriage", and if the group doesn't get exactly what they want... you're the intolerant bigot.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The 'civil union' compromise seems like the best method of giving both sides what they want. As long as those unions also get whatever benefits, I mean.

I'm in the same boat with keeping Marriage a religious-to-semi-religious thing... but with how things are today, it'll always be called "gay marriage", and if the group doesn't get exactly what they want... you're the intolerant bigot.

If the government weren't so powerful, into so many things it's not constitutionally allowed to, it probably never would have become an issue.

 

[T.Lex]

But do you think if Jesus were to attend a homosexual marriage or commitment ceremony that he'd bless it, praise it, and wish them well in their "marriage"? Ehhh...I don't think so. While his patience and his love for the people would far exceed what I would be able to muster, I sincerely doubt he would. I'd be inclined to expect to get one of those "it is written..." speeches.

So, I don't think He'd officiate the ceremony. (Although, I also allow that I might be wrong about that.)

But, let's step through this a bit. To me, the only difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union" (which, among hetero couples is also a legal "marriage") is religion. If an atheist couple wants to get married, they get the license and have a non-religious person conduct the ceremony. It wouldn't make sense for them to get a priest involved.

For a gay couple to do a "marriage" in a religious sense suggests there's still a role for God in their lives. It isn't just an invitation to me to go, it is an invitation to Jesus.

Along those lines, Jesus invited Himself to Zacchaeus's house BEFORE the latter repented. (Luke 19.) In context, you couldn't get much more sinful than a tax collector. Yet, to the grumblings of the believers, there Jesus was entering his house. Elsewhere in Luke, Jesus was accused of cavorting with drunks and sinners.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But, let's step through this a bit. To me, the only difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union" (which, among hetero couples is also a legal "marriage") is religion. If an atheist couple wants to get married, they get the license and have a non-religious person conduct the ceremony. It wouldn't make sense for them to get a priest involved.

For the US this is how I look at it as well. The US doesn't actually care if you are "married" by your religious tradition. They care if you have a civilly recognized piece of paper. I learned this the hard way when my wife and I started her immigration paperwork. We were married in Jordan with a traditional Islamic marriage contract, witnessed by a sheihk and signed by a judge. In any Islamic nation we were married, and I thought the judges' signature also made it a "secular" marriage. It did not. The judge doesn't register it anywhere, it's just an agreement the contract is binding. The US will not recognize a "religious only" marriage. So, while on our honeymoon in Cyprus we had a civil ceremony done by a mayor of Strovolos. We used that "marriage" for immigration purposes. And my wife expects two anniversary presents.

Offered as something of an aside, Cyprus has something of a "destination wedding" industry and it's quite common for non-residents to marry there. I still have the paperwork they sent us prior to traveling there:
[FONT=&quot]CIVIL MARRIAGES[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Civil marriages can be solemnized according to the Marriage Law 104(I)/2003.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are two procedures of Civil Marriage:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Normal procedure (Notice of marriage) (costs £75,00)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Special license procedure (costs £165,00)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Original documents/certificates required in order to get married:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) Cypriots[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* In case someone has never been married before, a certificate from the Ministry of Interior is needed, whose date of issue must not be more than 2 months.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* In case of divorces, a Divorce Certificate is needed (it must be stamped from the Court 42 days after the date of issue) and a certificate from the Ministry of Interior, whose date of issue must not be more than 2 months.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* In case of widows/widowers, a Death Certificate is needed and a certificate from the Ministry of Interior, whose date of issue must not be more than 2 months.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* Identity card[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* Blood analysis for Mediterranean Anemia (thalassemia)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) Foreigners[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* In case someone has never been married before, a Freedom Certificate from a Government Authority (i.e. Town Hall, Ministry of Interior, Registry Office, Embassy, etc) is needed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* In case of divorces, a Divorce Certificate is needed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* In case of widows/widowers, a Death Certificate is needed[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* Passport[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Note: If any of the above is in a language other than English, a formal translation is required. We keep the original certificate in your own language as well as the original certificate of the formal translation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Procedures for civil marriages[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) Normal procedure (Notice of marriage)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The normal procedure of a civil marriage is divided in two parts. The notice of marriage and the civil marriage and it lasts approximately 20 days. The couple will sign the notice of marriage first and can get married only 15 days from the day of their application but not later than 3 months. If the marriage is not solemnized within three months from the date of service of the notices, the notices given as well as any other subsequent procedure shall be null and void.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) Special License procedure[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The civil marriage can take place on the same day of the application or in less than 15 days.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]General information[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* If either party of the intended marriage, is under 18 years of age, the written consent of the parents or the legal guardian of such party, must be presented to the Marriage Officer on their application.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* In case you don’t speak English you must let us know so that we call for a translator who you will pay on the wedding day and costs about CYP30,00-CYP40,00.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* The ceremony of the marriage is very simple and takes about 10-15 minutes. After the ceremony of the marriage, the original certificate (signed from the Marriage Officer) is given to the couple. For more certified copies the couple must apply at Strovolos Municipality. Each certified copy costs £8,00.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* For any further information concerning civil marriages, contact Irene Panayi at telephone number 22470304, during working days and hours from Monday to Friday from 7.30 am till 2.30 pm and Thursday afternoon from 3.00 am until 6.00 pm.


---------------------
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]FIRST SCHEDULE[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]TYPE A[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]__________[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Section 4)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]NOTICE OF MARRIAGE GIVEN BY PERSONS WHO INTEND TO CONTRACT A MARRIAGE[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To the Marriage Officer of the Strovolos Municipality.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We the undersigned[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) ……………………………………………………………………………and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) ……………………………………………………………………………….[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hereby give notice that we wish to contract a marriage between us.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We give below our personal particulars which are, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct. We state that there is no relation between us that could make our marriage non existent and invalid due to relation by blood or any other close relation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Particulars of man (a) Particulars of woman (b)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Name and Surname ………………………………... …………………………………[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Date of Birth ………………………………... …………………………………[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Place of Birth ………………………………... …………………………………[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Religion ………………………………... …………………………………[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Marital Status ………………………………... …………………………………[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Profession ………………………………... …………………………………[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nationality ………………………………... …………………………………[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Present Address ………………………………... ………………………………… ………………………………… …………………………………[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Permanent Address ………………………………... ………………………………… ………………………………... …………………………………[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Identity Card No or Passport No (for aliens) ………………………………... ………………………………...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Country of issue ………………………………... ………………………………...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Date of issue ………………………………... ………………………………...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Name and Surname[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of father: ………………………………... ………………………………...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Name and Surname[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]of mother ………………………………... ………………………………...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* Date of arrival[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]in Cyprus ………………………………... ………………………………...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Date on which the notice was served[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]…………………(day)……………………(month)……………….(year)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Signature: (a) …………………………… (b) ………………………………….[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* It should be completed only by persons residing permanently abroad.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Note: Bigamy, i.e. the celebration of a marriage, before the legal dissolution of the existing one, is an offence and those guilty of bigamy are liable to the punishment provided for this offence.[/FONT]

 

[PaulF]

Is another man’s sin really any of our business, though?

Correct me if I’m wrong, by I have always viewed “sin” as trespasses against God, where trespasses against other men are more akin to “crimes”.

Christ forgives our sins, no matter what they are, so long as we put our faith in His grace...isn’t it more important to bring sinners to Christ than it is to judge others for those sins? If a Christian gets to enter the Kingdom of heaven it is so because Christ made it so, not other Christians.

The sin of loving the “wrong” gender isn’t forgivable through God’s grace, how many of my sins are also unforgivable? How many of anyone’s would be?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So, I don't think He'd officiate the ceremony. (Although, I also allow that I might be wrong about that.)

But, let's step through this a bit. To me, the only difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union" (which, among hetero couples is also a legal "marriage") is religion. If an atheist couple wants to get married, they get the license and have a non-religious person conduct the ceremony. It wouldn't make sense for them to get a priest involved.

For a gay couple to do a "marriage" in a religious sense suggests there's still a role for God in their lives. It isn't just an invitation to me to go, it is an invitation to Jesus.

Along those lines, Jesus invited Himself to Zacchaeus's house BEFORE the latter repented. (Luke 19.) In context, you couldn't get much more sinful than a tax collector. Yet, to the grumblings of the believers, there Jesus was entering his house. Elsewhere in Luke, Jesus was accused of cavorting with drunks and sinners.

But Jesus did not go to his house to enjoy the fruits of his sins. He went there probably because he knew he would repent.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Is another man’s sin really any of our business, though?

Correct me if I’m wrong, by I have always viewed “sin” as trespasses against God, where trespasses against other men are more akin to “crimes”.

For the purpose of the argument, let's say I agree with your definitions. They are incomplete. There's also trespasses against yourself, and yes, they are our business.

If you are an alcoholic, for example, you are likely trespassing against God, other people, and yourself. Let's focus on the last. You aren't living up to your potential, you certainly aren't as happy as you could be, and you're likely to spiral downward into more sin, less happiness, etc. If I care about you in the slightest, shouldn't I make your alcoholism my business? Isn't that how we make the world better?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Is another man’s sin really any of our business, though?

Correct me if I’m wrong, by I have always viewed “sin” as trespasses against God, where trespasses against other men are more akin to “crimes”.

Christ forgives our sins, no matter what they are, so long as we put our faith in His grace...isn’t it more important to bring sinners to Christ than it is to judge others for those sins? If a Christian gets to enter the Kingdom of heaven it is so because Christ made it so, not other Christians.

The sin of loving the “wrong” gender isn’t forgivable through God’s grace, how many of my sins are also unforgivable? How many of anyone’s would be?

No your sins are not my business. But if I cause you to sin, it is my business...i might as well have a millstone tied about my neck, etc.

All sins are forgivable except one. Being tempted by the flesh is not sin but giving into that temptation is.

 

[T.Lex]

But Jesus did not go to his house to enjoy the fruits of his sins. He went there probably because he knew he would repent.

I'm not completely comfortable speculating on His intent.

I only know that, as described in the Gospels, Jesus seemed absolutely unconcerned as to whether others were comfortable or not with his eating with, cavorting with, and generally associating with people that the traditional religious authorities deemed unworthy.

Regardless whether He knew he would repent, He did choose to partake in the food and drink - the fruits of Zacchaeus's sins. To the angst of his followers and observers.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not completely comfortable speculating on His intent.

I only know that, as described in the Gospels, Jesus seemed absolutely unconcerned as to whether others were comfortable or not with his eating with, cavorting with, and generally associating with people that the traditional religious authorities deemed unworthy.

Regardless whether He knew he would repent, He did choose to partake in the food and drink - the fruits of Zacchaeus's sins. To the angst of his followers and observers.

Oh I agree that we should only be concerned things of the eternal and not be concerned about whether others hate us for doing so. In fact, we're instructed so. We were warned and we can see the examples through out the NT, that the world would in fact hate us for trying to be like Christ (as they hated him first). If you think attending any event you decide to attend is advancing God's kingdom, then more power to you. I hope that you're doing so and have prayerfully contemplated it. I hope that you're not doing it just to appease the temporal world, its fleshly desires, and the idols we tend to erect. I hope the same for me as well.

 

[breakingcontact]

Many folks giving their opinions on this topic.

Less discussion on what the Bible has to say on marriage, how we interact with unrepentant sinners, and what the obligation of the church is.

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[breakingcontact]

But Jesus did not go to his house to enjoy the fruits of his sins. He went there probably because he knew he would repent.

Yes. People often say "Jesus hung out with sinners" without acknowledging that he was rebuking them for their sins and calling them to repent.

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[T.Lex]

Oh I agree that we should only be concerned things of the eternal and not be concerned about whether others hate us for doing so. In fact, we're instructed so. We were warned and we can see the examples through out the NT, that the world would in fact hate us for trying to be like Christ (as they hated him first). If you think attending any event you decide to attend is advancing God's kingdom, then more power to you. I hope that you're doing so and have prayerfully contemplated it. I hope that you're not doing it just to appease the temporal world, its fleshly desires, and the idols we tend to erect. I hope the same for me as well.

Indeed, for me, the temporal discomfort would be easy to indulge. That is, it would be easier for me to NOT go to something like that, than go.

Along those same lines, I've also posted recently how I think God calls us all differently. That I would go to something like that (I think) does not make me "better" or anything like that. In fact, it isn't about that. I have prayerfully considered my general position on it, but haven't really been tested on it yet, either. At least not that I know of.

But, along the lines of fleshly desires, you aren't saying that going to a gay ceremony might lead you to sin, are you?

Many folks giving their opinions on this topic.

Less discussion on what the Bible has to say on marriage, how we interact with unrepentant sinners, and what the obligation of the church is.

I'm pretty sure that I've referenced scripture. Someone ironically, I think PaulF has, too. Others, not so much.

So what versification are you going to present on the topic of whether we should attend a gay ceremony?

NOT whether gay marriage is biblical. Clearly not. That's NOT what I think we're talking about. Rather, what are we charged to do as individual Christians.

 

[JettaKnight]

Is another man’s sin really any of our business, though?

Correct me if I’m wrong, by I have always viewed “sin” as trespasses against God, where trespasses against other men are more akin to “crimes”.

Christ forgives our sins, no matter what they are, so long as we put our faith in His grace...isn’t it more important to bring sinners to Christ than it is to judge others for those sins? If a Christian gets to enter the Kingdom of heaven it is so because Christ made it so, not other Christians.

OK, let's leave out all the crimes against others, and stuff that's clearly a case where religion doesn't need to have a say.

Are you [generic] a Christian? No, them you're dead in sin and until a conversion happens, I probably don't need to point things out...

If you are a Christian, then it should be job of the Church to point out patterns of sin in your life. Church discipline is one of the responsibilities of an elder (sadly missing in many churches).

If I have fellowship with another Christian, and I see an area of their life that clearly marred by sin, then yes, I have a duty to speak up, and would hope they would do the same for me. In my life, I've been in small groups of 2-4 where that, along with support, is the purpose. If sin keeps us apart from a right relationship from God, then shouldn't we do whatever we can as a body to remove that sin?

Matthew 7:5, Romans 6:1, lots in Hebrews (dealing with the importance confronting sin).

The sin of loving the “wrong” gender isn’t forgivable through God’s grace, how many of my sins are also unforgivable? How many of anyone’s would be?

Here's what's not a forgivable sin: Denying Christ, and the Holy Spirit's tug on your heart.

The problem right now is the message of love is not heard over the message of sin. I.e. gay people view Christians as hating them (who can blame them given all the signs and protest). I think the Church's past modus operandi was just to sweep it under the rug if you "came out". Now days, that's just not going to work (nor should it). And the Church really hasn't figured out how to deal with gay Christians. There's the liberal attitude of live and let live and the counter judgmental attitude of condemn and force out. We really haven't quite figured out how to wrap our arms around gay brothers and sisters and tell them, "We love you, and we're going to fight right along side you." (of course, this assumes the gay Christian accepts that acting out on those desires is sin). Like everyone today, we hard time just sitting still and listening to someone.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes. People often say "Jesus hung out with sinners" without acknowledging that he was rebuking them for their sins and calling them to repent.

This is inexact.

Jesus called on ALL people to repent.

In fact, because I have Zacchaeus handy, I am reminded that Jesus expressed support for Zacchaeus BEFORE he repented.

Check out Matthew 9:9-13. Jesus spent (it appears) at least a long evening with sinners. The call to repent would've taken what... 15 minutes? Half an hour? An hour, tops? While it is unstated, I suspect Jesus was connecting with these people. Not because they were righteous, but because they were sinful.