Gay marriage is not a Christian topic but Satans deception is...

[Sassy]

Why is it so easy to sell a lie?

Whilst gay marriage exists in the world it does not exist in the great order and scheme of things within religion.
Marriage is an exclusive sacrament of a man and a woman.
If gay men want an arrangement they call marriage in the world they have this.
But they do not have the God who ordained marriage in the original purpose and style. Nor do they have God.

I worry so much about people not gay who use their cause to make themselves look as if they are doing something right.
When in truth, we tell the truth to those we love.  What has gay marriage in common with Christian marriage?
The answer would be 'NOTHING' anyone can have ceremony and call it marriage. BUT not all marriage ceremonies are recognised in the eyes of God as a marriage.

Legal rights are the same but the spiritual concept and physical union is not.

Why is it, no one recognises the truth about these things? Why can people not accept it for what it is.
Christians and homosexuals would not find the need to be upset with each other if they simply accepted the true differences for what they are.

I have no quandary when it comes to the understanding of heterosexual Christian marriage and any other type of marriage.
Can we ever find a place where we accept they exist but also accept that they are different?

[Aruntraveller]

As ever confusing Sass.

I would look at the individual union to decide whether it has any meaning or not.

After all a lot of "Christian" marriages in the past took place to avoid the shame of having got pregnant outside of wedlock. Other weddings took place because of money and still do. There has never been a time when marriage was solely about the love of one man and one woman.

How much better would it be if all marriages took place because of love towards one another within a partnership - no matter what the genetic identities of the people involved happened to be.

PS Christians and homosexuals are not mutually exclusive groups within society - you write as if they are.

[Anchorman]

As far as I'm aware, marriage is only a sacrement in the RCC and Orthodox churches. Possibly Alan or another CofE member might correct me, but it is not a sacrement in that denomination (or the CofS, Methodist, Baptist,URC.....)

[floo]

Why is it so easy to sell a lie?

Whilst gay marriage exists in the world it does not exist in the great order and scheme of things within religion.
Marriage is an exclusive sacrament of a man and a woman.
If gay men want an arrangement they call marriage in the world they have this.
But they do not have the God who ordained marriage in the original purpose and style. Nor do they have God.

I worry so much about people not gay who use their cause to make themselves look as if they are doing something right.
When in truth, we tell the truth to those we love.  What has gay marriage in common with Christian marriage?
The answer would be 'NOTHING' anyone can have ceremony and call it marriage. BUT not all marriage ceremonies are recognised in the eyes of God as a marriage.

Legal rights are the same but the spiritual concept and physical union is not.

Why is it, no one recognises the truth about these things? Why can people not accept it for what it is.
Christians and homosexuals would not find the need to be upset with each other if they simply accepted the true differences for what they are.

I have no quandary when it comes to the understanding of heterosexual Christian marriage and any other type of marriage.
Can we ever find a place where we accept they exist but also accept that they are different?

God's spokesperson hath spake!

[Robbie]

I thought marriage was considered to be a sacrament in the CofE Anchorman buton checking, found this -

Anglican sacraments

"Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel"   
Baptism   
Eucharist (or Communion, Mass, or the Lord's Supper)   


"Commonly called Sacraments but not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel"
Confession and absolution
Holy Matrimony
Confirmation
Ordination (also called Holy Orders)

S'pose it depends on what the individual means by the word Sacrament :-)!

Trent - How much better would it be if all marriages took place because of love towards one another within a partnership - no matter what the genetic identities of the people involved happened to be.

PS Christians and homosexuals are not mutually exclusive groups within society

Yes!

[Harrowby Hall]

There is nothing "Christian" about marriage, Sassy, it is contract between two people. Its original purpose was to protect the ownership of property by controlling the sexual behaviour of women.

Religion (ie the organised, large scale, control of the behaviour of other people by using fairy tales) became involved when it was realised that strongly associating "shame" and "guilt" with sex was a very powerful method of control.

If two men choose to marry, or if two women choose to marry, then let them. What other people choose to do with the contents of their underwear is none of your business.

[ippy]

Why is it so easy to sell a lie?

Whilst gay marriage exists in the world it does not exist in the great order and scheme of things within religion.
Marriage is an exclusive sacrament of a man and a woman.
If gay men want an arrangement they call marriage in the world they have this.
But they do not have the God who ordained marriage in the original purpose and style. Nor do they have God.

I worry so much about people not gay who use their cause to make themselves look as if they are doing something right.
When in truth, we tell the truth to those we love.  What has gay marriage in common with Christian marriage?
The answer would be 'NOTHING' anyone can have ceremony and call it marriage. BUT not all marriage ceremonies are recognised in the eyes of God as a marriage.

Legal rights are the same but the spiritual concept and physical union is not.

Why is it, no one recognises the truth about these things? Why can people not accept it for what it is.
Christians and homosexuals would not find the need to be upset with each other if they simply accepted the true differences for what they are.

I have no quandary when it comes to the understanding of heterosexual Christian marriage and any other type of marriage.
Can we ever find a place where we accept they exist but also accept that they are different?

Don't take it to heart Sass none of it's real.

ippy

[Sassy]

As ever confusing Sass.

I would look at the individual union to decide whether it has any meaning or not.

After all a lot of "Christian" marriages in the past took place to avoid the shame of having got pregnant outside of wedlock. Other weddings took place because of money and still do. There has never been a time when marriage was solely about the love of one man and one woman.

How much better would it be if all marriages took place because of love towards one another within a partnership - no matter what the genetic identities of the people involved happened to be.

PS Christians and homosexuals are not mutually exclusive groups within society - you write as if they are.

I suppose you can say that because some people do not marry but love each other the points we both make could be moot when looked upon concerning marriage. How does marriage reflect love in that stance. I feel that I have sorta made the point that marriage as an institution is not really about sexuality not exclusive to each relationship regardless of the people involved. It means something different to everyone.

[Sassy]

There is nothing "Christian" about marriage, Sassy, it is contract between two people. Its original purpose was to protect the ownership of property by controlling the sexual behaviour of women.

Religion (ie the organised, large scale, control of the behaviour of other people by using fairy tales) became involved when it was realised that strongly associating "shame" and "guilt" with sex was a very powerful method of control.

If two men choose to marry, or if two women choose to marry, then let them. What other people choose to do with the contents of their underwear is none of your business.

I believe the marriage part was about children in Christian marriage... When it comes to the children between a believer and none believer being acceptable to God in an unequally yoked marriage. Marriage does have a meaning exclusive to Christianity not found outside the Jewish and Christian religions

[floo]

I believe the marriage part was about children in Christian marriage... When it comes to the children between a believer and none believer being acceptable to God in an unequally yoked marriage. Marriage does have a meaning exclusive to Christianity not found outside the Jewish and Christian religions

Sez you! I happen to have a close relative who is a Christian married to a non Christian, they get on fine. Their children have been permitted to decide for themselves about matters of faith, which is the way it should be.

[Harrowby Hall]

I believe the marriage part was about children in Christian marriage... When it comes to the children between a believer and none believer being acceptable to God in an unequally yoked marriage. Marriage does have a meaning exclusive to Christianity not found outside the Jewish and Christian religions

I recall Diarmaid McCullough's programmes about the history of Christianity - he said that in biblical times marriage was essentially a contract to protect property, and that this continued to be the case in Christianity until about the 12th century when religious authorities "kidnapped" marriage. This, of course, would have coincided with the considerations of Thomas Aquinas that the primary purpose of sexual activity was the creation of children - a notion taken from the ancient Greek concept of "Natural Law" not the bible.

Nothing biblical about Natural Law - it came from Aristotle.

[Sassy]

Sez you! I happen to have a close relative who is a Christian married to a non Christian, they get on fine. Their children have been permitted to decide for themselves about matters of faith, which is the way it should be.

I see it cleared the top of your head...

[Sassy]

I recall Diarmaid McCullough's programmes about the history of Christianity - he said that in biblical times marriage was essentially a contract to protect property, and that this continued to be the case in Christianity until about the 12th century when religious authorities "kidnapped" marriage. This, of course, would have coincided with the considerations of Thomas Aquinas that the primary purpose of sexual activity was the creation of children - a notion taken from the ancient Greek concept of "Natural Law" not the bible.

Nothing biblical about Natural Law - it came from Aristotle.

So Diarnaud was around through the whole period of that time till the 12 th century and then onwards?

If you read the bible you would see through history God has spoke to Christians through the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
No man taught the person born of the Spirit nor did the person require teaching.

This is why man get's things so wrong...

[floo]

So Diarnaud was around through the whole period of that time till the 12 th century and then onwards?

If you read the bible you would see through history God has spoke to Christians through the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
No man taught the person born of the Spirit nor did the person require teaching.

This is why man get's things so wrong...

THE BIBLE ISN'T A HISTORICAL NOVEL!

[Harrowby Hall]

If you read the bible you would see through history God has spoke to Christians through the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
No man taught the person born of the Spirit nor did the person require teaching.

 If you read the bible you would see through history God has spoken to Christians ...

If you read the bible you see no such thing. The bible is a collection of pre-christian myths, legends and fairy tales. As history, Christianity begins where the bible ends. Even now, Christianity is only about 2,000 years old.

So, if you accept Bishop Ussher's historiography, Christianity is only half as old as the preChristian biblical period. There were no Christians to speak to ...

[floo]

If you read the bible you would see through history God has spoken to Christians ...

If you read the bible you see no such thing. The bible is a collection of pre-christian myths, legends and fairy tales. As history, Christianity begins where the bible ends. Even now, Christianity is only about 2,000 years old.

So, if you accept Bishop Ussher's historiography, Christianity is only half as old as the preChristian biblical period. There were no Christians to speak to ...

Exactly!

[Bubbles]

Why is it so easy to sell a lie?

Whilst gay marriage exists in the world it does not exist in the great order and scheme of things within religion.
Marriage is an exclusive sacrament of a man and a woman.
If gay men want an arrangement they call marriage in the world they have this.
But they do not have the God who ordained marriage in the original purpose and style. Nor do they have God.

I worry so much about people not gay who use their cause to make themselves look as if they are doing something right.
When in truth, we tell the truth to those we love.  What has gay marriage in common with Christian marriage?
The answer would be 'NOTHING' anyone can have ceremony and call it marriage. BUT not all marriage ceremonies are recognised in the eyes of God as a marriage.

Legal rights are the same but the spiritual concept and physical union is not.

Why is it, no one recognises the truth about these things? Why can people not accept it for what it is.
Christians and homosexuals would not find the need to be upset with each other if they simply accepted the true differences for what they are.

I have no quandary when it comes to the understanding of heterosexual Christian marriage and any other type of marriage.
Can we ever find a place where we accept they exist but also accept that they are different?

Who are you? that you think you have the right to judge ultimately who has God, and who doesn't?

[Bubbles]

https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

THE BIBLE ISN'T A HISTORICAL NOVEL!

Isn't it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Floo,

Isn't it?

Category F**k Man

It is of course, at best for your argument, a collection. So your statement that it is A novel is mistake number one.

Feel free to demonstrate your novel (ha ha) thesis.

Yours not holding his breath

Vlad.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Category F**k Man

It is of course, at best for your argument, a collection. So your statement that it is A novel is mistake number one.

Feel free to demonstrate your novel (ha ha) thesis.

Yours not holding his breath

Vlad.

You really, really, really don't know what "category error" means do you.

Here's what "novel" means: "A novel is any relatively long piece of written narrative fiction, normally in prose, and typically published as a book." (Wiki)

Of course the Bible is other things too: history, early moral philosophy, parable etc, but "a relatively long piece of written narrative fiction" seems like a pretty good catch-all description to me.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

You really, really, really don't know what "category error" means do you.

Here's what "novel" means: "A novel is any relatively long piece of written narrative fiction, normally in prose, and typically published as a book." (Wiki)

Of course the Bible is other things too: history, early moral philosophy, parable etc, but "a relatively long piece of written narrative fiction" seems like a pretty good catch-all description to me.   

To you yes. To any serious person ...No.

[Owlswing]

Why is it so easy to sell a lie?

Whilst gay marriage exists in the world it does not exist in the great order and scheme of things within religion.
Marriage is an exclusive sacrament of a man and a woman.
If gay men want an arrangement they call marriage in the world they have this.
But they do not have the God who ordained marriage in the original purpose and style. Nor do they have God.

I worry so much about people not gay who use their cause to make themselves look as if they are doing something right.
When in truth, we tell the truth to those we love.  What has gay marriage in common with Christian marriage?
The answer would be 'NOTHING' anyone can have ceremony and call it marriage. BUT not all marriage ceremonies are recognised in the eyes of God as a marriage.

Legal rights are the same but the spiritual concept and physical union is not.

Why is it, no one recognises the truth about these things? Why can people not accept it for what it is.
Christians and homosexuals would not find the need to be upset with each other if they simply accepted the true differences for what they are.

I have no quandary when it comes to the understanding of heterosexual Christian marriage and any other type of marriage.
Can we ever find a place where we accept they exist but also accept that they are different?

Your argument only works if, like you, you are arrogant enough to consider that there is only one God!

A vindictive evil sadistic meglomaniacal bastard who will burn anyone with a modicum of intestinal fortitude who will tell him just what a monster he is and to go fornicate with himself!

Some God's have a far greater understanding of the diversity of the human being than the 'God' who, according to Christians, supposedly created them.

[floo]

Floo,

Isn't it?

No

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

No

Why not? It's a compendium of shorter novellas featuring cast of thousands, from kings to devils and even a talking snake(!), rolling intergenerational narratives of treachery and revenge, unlikely plot devices, and stirring tales of the underdog overcoming supposedly overwhelming odds (think David and Goliath).

Not for nothing was the 1965 epic about the life of Jesus called, "The Greatest Story Ever Told".

How much more novelistic could it be?