SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Love, acceptance and what is true

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
PosterThread
Sree
Member



Joined: 2011/8/20
Posts: 1711


 Re:

Quote:

Even I am surprised at the rapid descent by which America seems to be headed. Yet, it is all a sign of the times. My wife kindly points out to me that the end will still come according to God's timing no matter how much I desire for righteousness and the honor of God in this fallen world. Still, it hurts to watch this nation continue to plummet down a steep cliff. At the same time, I am encouraged by the fact that a light appears brightest in the darkness.



It is a good post. I kind of fell into the thought that your wife had. I started believing that it is inevitable to avoid darkness from spreading. But the truth is, irrespective of how powerfully the darkness is spreading, we should keep standing for the truth. Jesus loved righteousness and hated inequity (Hebrews 1:9). A righteous Lot was tormented when he lived in Sodom (2 Peter 2:8). It is very important for us to stand against Homosexual marriage as a Christian. Just because the society accepted abortion and homosexual marriage it does not mean we have to take their side. A light will remain light even when surrounded by darkness.


_________________
Sreeram

 2013/3/20 11:17Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi DEADn,

Thanks. I did want to make a single rhetorical correction.

I wrote, "In other words, I explained that he doesn't really want "equal rights" -- but PREEMINENT rights. I asked him to correct me if I was wrong, but that he thought that the "rights" of homosexuals should take precedence over the "rights" of a homosexuals -- a group that is completely defined by their claim of sexual orientation."

This should say, "In other words, I explained that he doesn't really want "equal rights" -- but PREEMINENT rights. I asked him to correct me if I was wrong, but that he thought that the "rights" of homosexuals should take precedence over the "rights" of a Christians. After all, homosexuals are a group that is completely defined by their claim of sexual orientation."

I apologize for the confusion. I actually wrote it quickly and didn't read it over twice prior to posting it as I usually try to do. The homosexual man that I was speaking with said that he believes that the rights of homosexuals should take precedence over religious rights and Christians in particular. He argued that people can use "faith" as a "get out of hate crimes" card because anyone can claim that they are a "Christian" (or member of any other religion or sect). However, I argued that the same thing can be said of homosexuals. Any man can claim that he is a "homosexual" simply for legal benefits that they might get from such a claim.

I have explained that the biggest point of conflict is over the name of the term "marriage." The word is a designation of a particular contract. In a historic sense (of America), it is applied to one man and one woman. Homosexuals are using the media to pretend that Christians and Conservatives are the perpetrators of suddenly removing rights from a group (homosexuals). In reality, it is the homosexuals who are trying to redefine the "marriage" contract to extend to a group that it has never included.

I pointed out that most Christians could never recognize, embrace or accept a "homosexual marriage" because it conflicted with existing moral, religious, cultural and even scientific beliefs. Politicians are trying to change a definition that would force those who oppose the concept to accept it by default -- by simply changing the definition of the contract itself to extend to groups that it has never included.

Now, I have heard the argument that the government should not be in the marriage business at all. The government, they argue, should simply give a "civil contract" and let churches call them a "marriage" according to their own mores and values. I don't have a problem with this as long as people, groups, churches and even businesses are given a "conscientious objection" right if something strongly violates their own religious or moral code. However, this is taboo to most gay activism groups or their adherents. Yesterday, a federal judge struck down conscientious objector part of a Missouri health care law (in terms of abortion and contraceptives). Although some homosexual activists claim that they have no problem with conscientious objectors based upon faith, they are aware that activist Liberal federal judges will use their position to strike it down.

The term that homosexual groups are using is based upon "consenting adults" now. They are using the word "love" to describe homosexuality. However, the law that they want would allow any people who cohabit to form a "marriage" -- including "just friends," siblings, a parent and child or multiple adults (polygamy). This is the "Pandora's box" that can be opened through a "living definition" that changes as a particular group wishes.

And, of course, the great hypocrisy is the complete disregard for "tolerance" of those with whom homosexuals disagree or see as the "enemy" of their goals.

For instance, consider Dan Savage. Savage was the creator of the "It Gets Better" campaign. He claimed that it was an "anti-bully" campaign. However, it is obvious that this is merely a pro-homosexual campaign. Savage is probably the biggest bully of all. He bragged about traveling to a Christian congressional candidates office in an attempt to inflict the candidate and his staff with a strain of influenza. He was interviewed by a newspaper in which he stated that he wished that a gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania would be dragged behind a truck by a rope until nothing was left but the rope. On national television, Savage stated that he wished that "all Republicans were (expletive) dead." Dan Savage travels to high schools and colleges with his "It Gets Better" lectures and uses expletives to openly mock the Bible and Christians. How's that for "tolerance?" It is ironic that the homosexual and his "husband" travel around the country complaining about bullies when Savage himself uses his position -- and the media -- to bully anyone who disagrees with him.

These are the times in which we live. The homosexual activists who are a very small yet vocal (and donating) special interest group for the Left are pretending that this is about "liberty." Yet, they don't want the "rights" of a civil contract (hospital visits, insurance, etc...) or else they would fight for the rights of a contract. Rather, they have chosen to hijack the term "marriage" in an attempt to force adherence and, by default, "normalize" their sexuality in today's world. They know that it allows them to hijack what is taught about homosexuality in this country and, somehow, increase the chances that it will be viewed as "normal." The guy that I spoke with even mentioned that the activists he knows hopes that it will increase the number of homosexuals in the country (???) and "diminish the power of the Christian religion."

These are the times in which we live.


_________________
Christopher

 2013/3/20 13:40Profile
Lordoitagain
Member



Joined: 2008/5/23
Posts: 600
Monroe, LA - USA

 Re:


Quote:
by ccchhhrrriiisss on 2013/3/20 10:40:34



These are the times in which we live. The homosexual activists who are a very small yet vocal (and donating) special interest group for the Left are pretending that this is about "liberty." Yet, they don't want the "rights" of a civil contract (hospital visits, insurance, etc...) or else they would fight for the rights of a contract. Rather, they have chosen to hijack the term "marriage" in an attempt to force adherence and, by default, "normalize" their sexuality in today's world. They know that it allows them to hijack what is taught about homosexuality in this country and, somehow, increase the chances that it will be viewed as "normal." The guy that I spoke with even mentioned that the activists he knows hopes that it will increase the number of homosexuals in the country (???) and "diminish the power of the Christian religion."




SO VERY WELL STATED!!! SO TRUE!!! If liberty were the persuit, they should be content with the formation of civil contracts which would have the same rights as marriages. Instead they want to REDEFINE the term marriage ... for the purpose of taking away the shame of their acts.

Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Isa 10:1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;


_________________
Michael Strickland

 2013/3/20 19:21Profile
arkp
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 51


 Re:


///I pointed out that most Christians could never recognize, embrace or accept a "homosexual marriage" because it conflicted with existing moral, religious, cultural and even scientific beliefs.

Politicians are trying to change a definition that would force those who oppose the concept to accept it by default --by simply changing the definition of the contract itself to extend to groups that it has never included. ///

... and this because they have the power to do so. IF the contract is aligned with Policy and Procedure; I would not change a thing, unless it was going to be implemented. Policy's can change, Procedure's can change, and Contracts can be modified. However, Christians are intergrated and can see beyond the moral, religious, cultural and even the scientific.

Politician's are educated -- Christian's are educated. They are both adament in conveying there beliefs. It is scarce that you would find them together in the same room. They are well versed in there field. This might just shed light on the opposed theory.


///These are the times in which we live. The homosexual activists who are a very small yet vocal (and donating) special interest group for the left are pretending that this is about "liberty." Yet, they don't want the "rights" of a civil contract (hospital visits, insurance, etc...) or else they would fight for the rights of a contract. ///

You should not have to fight for something, that by Law is rightfully yours. If by liberty, you mean to be enslaved to a particular belief, that being TRUTH. Then hs belief's will always be that of "equal rights" They have been given the freedom of marriage. What they fail to adhere is that with this marriage also comes divorce. God can not and will not, ever go against his Word. However, the system can and does. The hs stand on the first amendment, which states they have freedom of speech, freedom of religion. This is where it all lies, with freedom of religion and as long as they believe in there "equal rights", they will have the freedom to marry whom they choose.

///Rather, they have chosen to hijack the term "marriage" in an attempt to force adherence and, by default, "normalize" their sexuality in today's world. ///

Planes, get hiJacked. As for the guy you spoke to (?), that mentioned the activits he knows hopes, that it will increase the number of homsexuals in the country (?), and diminsh the power of the Christian religion ... Not likely. I believe the guy you spoke to, does not have faith nor does he believe in God? His mind has been seer and now seered with that of deception, as babylonians normally are? We must all believe in something and in someone.

/// The term that homosexual groups are using is based upon "consenting adults". Now, they are using the word "love" to describe homosexuality. However, the law that they want would allow any people (person) who cohabit to form a "marriage" -- including "just friends", siblings, a parent and child or multiple adults (polygamy). This is the "Pandora box" that can be opened through a "living definition" that changes a s a particular group wishes"///

Times have changed.

 2013/3/21 12:15Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy