Has Christianity In America Become Impotent?

It has if this is true...

Wedding Crashers
If gay marriage isn't such a big deal anymore, then maybe the religious right isn't, either.
By Dan Pashman
Posted Wednesday, May 20, 2009, at 6:39 PM ET

If a state legalizes gay marriage and nobody notices, can gay people still get married? What if four states do it in six weeks?

As more states legalize same sex-marriage, the lack of outrage is striking. Forget the Armageddon we were promised. There's hardly even been a press conference. It would appear that gay marriage is just not that big a deal anymore and that the Christian right—long the main source of opposition—isn't either. Both are scenarios I find encouraging, but I question whether the nation's collective shrug can be fully explained by the natural ebb and flow of politics and social mores. What if neither the Christian right nor the issue of gay marriage was ever as central in American politics as the media or the far right would have had us believe?

http://www.slate.com/id/2218774/

Are those who claim to be Christians so self-absorbed with chasing the Will-o'-the-wisps of materialism and temporal pleasures....That they are just along for the toboggan ride to national oblivion?

Revelation 3:14 "Write this letter to the angel of the church in Laodicea. This is the message from the one who is the Amen--the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation:

Rev 3:15 "I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish you were one or the other!

Rev 3:16 But since you are like lukewarm water, I will spit you out of my mouth!

Rev 3:17 You say, `I am rich. I have everything I want. I don't need a thing!' And you don't realize that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.

Rev 3:18 I advise you to buy gold from me--gold that has been purified by fire. Then you will be rich. And also buy white garments so you will not be shamed by your nakedness. And buy ointment for your eyes so you will be able to see.

Rev 3:19 I am the one who corrects and disciplines everyone I love. Be diligent and turn from your indifference.

.

But California voted it down... I think judges and legislatures are going to make it happen, whether Christians or non-Christians like it or not.

Marie wrote:
But California voted it down... I think judges and legislatures are going to make it happen, whether Christians or non-Christians like it or not.

California demonstrates what conservative activism is capable of... If the fruit bowl of America, can be swayed..... Why can't the tip of the Bible Belt States, like Iowa, be swayed?.... Judges and legislatures will back down from their insanity... More from the pressure exerted by Christians in their faces, than they will in the face of Christian apathy....
.

As long as Churches & ministers/priests are not required to marry same sex couples, I personally see no problem.
If people are truly Christians in their heart & soul and are following the Bible, then they will attend services in Churches that hold similar views about the gay marriage issue. The faithful will also choose to be married by a minister/priest/rabbi in their house of worship.
Just as Christians justifiably wouldn't want non Christians to make the rules for their lives, then Christians shouldn't hold the ability to legislate civil law.

Religious marriage and civil marriage are two totally separate things: one is sanctioned by God, the other by the government.

I don't follow the Bible verses that are sometimes posted and won't debate them since Scripture isn't my strong suit-I leave that to those who enjoy those types of discussiona & have time for doing research.

The above statements concerning same sex marriage are just My opinion, it may not be popular but it is My take on the same sex marriage issue.

I came back to add, if my opinion is upsetting and the mods/admins would prefer I delete my membership; I will understand. Just let me know, I won't change my opinion on this issue but I will leave it that is what is best for the new board. :idea:

Brianswife wrote:As long as Churches & ministers/priests are not required to marry same sex couples, I personally see no problem.
If people are truly Christians in their heart & soul and are following the Bible, then they will attend services in Churches that hold similar views about the gay marriage issue. The faithful will also choose to be married by a minister/priest/rabbi in their house of worship.
Just as Christians justifiably wouldn't want non Christians to make the rules for their lives, then Christians shouldn't hold the ability to legislate civil law.

Religious marriage and civil marriage are two totally separate things: one is sanctioned by God, the other by the government.

I don't follow the Bible verses that are sometimes posted and won't debate them since Scripture isn't my strong suit-I leave that to those who enjoy those types of discussiona & have time for doing research.

The above statements concerning same sex marriage are just My opinion, it may not be popular but it is My take on the same sex marriage issue.

I came back to add, if my opinion is upsetting and the mods/admins would prefer I delete my membership; I will understand. Just let me know, I won't change my opinion on this issue but I will leave it that is what is best for the new board. :idea:

I have no problems with anyone's opinions. I may not agree, but don't see any reason to delete a membership over it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My biggest thing is what does the Bible say about it, and in my opinion the Bible is very clear that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Having said that, I also know that I can't expect non-Christians to act like Christians, but do have a problem with our government redefining something God set in motion.

Brianswife wrote:
As long as Churches & ministers/priests are not required to marry same sex couples, I personally see no problem.

If people are truly Christians in their heart & soul and are following the Bible, then they will attend services in Churches that hold similar views about the gay marriage issue..

To say that I disagree with your opinion... Would be an understatement... I believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired Word of God..... Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments... Paul was very clear about sexual immorality....

1Corinthians 6:18 Run away from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body.

1Cr 6:19 Or don't you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself,

1Cr 6:20 for God bought you with a high price. So you must honor God with your body.

He was also clear about being "tolerant" regarding sexual immorality....

1Corinthians 5:1 I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you, something so evil that even the pagans don't do it. I am told that you have a man in your church who is living in sin with his father's wife.

1Cr 5:2 And you are so proud of yourselves! Why aren't you mourning in sorrow and shame? And why haven't you removed this man from your fellowship?

Brianswife wrote:
The faithful will also choose to be married by a minister/priest/rabbi in their house of worship.

Just as Christians justifiably wouldn't want non Christians to make the rules for their lives, then Christians shouldn't hold the ability to legislate civil law.

Religious marriage and civil marriage are two totally separate things: one is sanctioned by God, the other by the government.

Not only is homosexual marriage a moral issue... It is a US Constitutional issue as well... Allowing preferential legal recognition, for a group of citizens, based solely upon their free-will sexual choices... Is unconstitutional.... Homosexuals are not born homosexual... Any more than a philanderer is born that way... I have said it elsewhere... Once you open the door to legal acceptance of one type of sexual deviancy... You might as well take the door off of it's hinges... It sets the legal precedent for legal recognition by marriage, of all manner of deviant sexual behavior...

Brianswife wrote:
I don't follow the Bible verses that are sometimes posted and won't debate them since Scripture isn't my strong suit-I leave that to those who enjoy those types of discussiona & have time for doing research

One can not help but wonder... If your belief system is established and maintained by what you pick and choose to listen to second-hand..... Your lack of interest in personal Biblical study regarding spiritual matters is rather disturbing.... The fact that you say.... I don't follow the Bible verses that are sometimes posted..... Indicates that you pick and choose which Bible verses to heed and which ones to disregard... One is left to wonder if you choose to believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of the Father..... And that salvation is only available through Him...

Brianswife wrote:
The above statements concerning same sex marriage are just My opinion, it may not be popular but it is My take on the same sex marriage issue.

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish... However... I strongly believe that if you profess to be a Christian..... You are in error...

.

="Sonshine]
...but do have a problem with our government redefining something God set in motion.

See that's where I have some problems with history. In the days of old, marriages were between the two parties without the government being involved. Again, it was between the couple and God. Once the Government got involved is when the problems started in my opinion; because that brought the State into the marriage business instead of leaving it to the Church(choose the denomination). If I'm not mistaken, the Mennonite, Amish & Quakers still perform the older version of the marriage ceremony and don't include the State or get a 'license'.

The problem happened long ago so now same sex people who aren't necessarily seeking a religious covenanant to validate their union are wanting the State to show impartiality which IMO is the correct State sanctioned action. Leave the true historical marriage of believers as described in the Bible to the Church leaders to define as their understanding of Scripture dictates.
At no point would I expect any church or appointed minister to perform a same sex marriage though I have heard of some Churches that are open to doing so. I haven't read what their rationale for performing these marriages so maybe they just interpret Scripture differently than other churches.

Brianswife wrote:

Sonshine wrote:
...but do have a problem with our government redefining something God set in motion.

The problem happened long ago so now same sex people who aren't necessarily seeking a religious covenanant to validate their union are wanting the State to show impartiality which IMO is the correct State sanctioned action. Leave the true historical marriage of believers as described in the Bible to the Church leaders to define as their understanding of Scripture dictates.

At no point would I expect any church or appointed minister to perform a same sex marriage though I have heard of some Churches that are open to doing so. I haven't read what their rationale for performing these marriages so maybe they just interpret Scripture differently than other churches.

This is a much larger issue than a religious ceremony... Any legal recognition giving a special interest group preferential treatment, sets a dangerous precedent... If you were to excise homosexuality from the issue on the table and replace it with laws allowing drunks to freely drive, kill and maim... Because they were born that way... Or to be "fair to those who choose to drink to excess and climb behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.... I would not see any reasonable person supporting such a measure...

To me it is the same principle as supporting the legal recognition of another type of free-will choice.... That of the free-will choice to engage in deviant sexual preference..... It is a matter of concern to any who take morality seriously... And it is also a matter of great concern to those who oppose an oligarchical subversion of democracy....

I oppose homosexual marriage as both a Christian... And as an American citizen... In other words... All spiritual implications aside.... I still oppose homosexual marriage on a purely secular, Constitutional basis... While we are not a theocracy.... We are a still a democracy....

"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

.

Brianswife wrote:

="Sonshine]
...but do have a problem with our government redefining something God set in motion.

See that's where I have some problems with history. In the days of old, marriages were between the two parties without the government being involved. Again, it was between the couple and God. Once the Government got involved is when the problems started in my opinion; because that brought the State into the marriage business instead of leaving it to the Church(choose the denomination). If I'm not mistaken, the Mennonite, Amish & Quakers still perform the older version of the marriage ceremony and don't include the State or get a 'license'.

The problem happened long ago so now same sex people who aren't necessarily seeking a religious covenanant to validate their union are wanting the State to show impartiality which IMO is the correct State sanctioned action. Leave the true historical marriage of believers as described in the Bible to the Church leaders to define as their understanding of Scripture dictates.
At no point would I expect any church or appointed minister to perform a same sex marriage though I have heard of some Churches that are open to doing so. I haven't read what their rationale for performing these marriages so maybe they just interpret Scripture differently than other churches.

Marriage is wholly a religious institution. It was established by God and without God as the Third party in it, I question whether a "marriage" in the true sense of the word exists. I'm tired and really my mind isn't "right" to talk clearly about this, but I did want to say that Mennonite, Amish and Quakers do get licenses if they are required by the State. Without them they cannot take the "married" deduction on their taxes. While I am sure there are those that didn't, those that I know personally do and did. However, there are quite a few churches that are "blessing" unions and "religious marriages" to protect the assets of older Americans. Widows and widowers, if they re-marry, lose some of their Social Security benefits, so churches are marrying them "in the sight of God', but not in the sight of law so they can keep their benefits.

As to the scriptural principles. If you claim to be a Christian and don't "know" the scriptures or don't care about them then I don't know how you can "be" a Christian. I can sit in a garage for years and I'll never be a car. Without knowledge of what the Lord wants you to do and know, how can you be a Christian (little Christ)?

As to the Court system of our nation... I am quite sick of their making laws rather than interpreting law and the Constitution as they are sworn to do. Too many judges now creat law rather than doing the job they were called to do. The Supreme Court is famous for doing this in the 20th and 21st century.

Tiredly, Janet

I am going to come back and comment shortly. I have to get ready before the little boy I watch arrives.

Brianswife, I have no problem with your views or opinioins. My only rules for this forum is to be respectful and careful on the language. Other than that, feel free to share or post whatever you like. We are all adults here (well....sometimes we are all adults ) and should be able to handle differing opinions.
I shall return.....

Janet, I did not know that some churches were blessing unions (religious marriage without state license) for older Americans.. I know of some older (actually elderly) people who just lived together rather than lose benefits. This would seem to solve that problem. What are your thoughts about it... is it truly a marriage if the state doesn't recognize it? Or is a church blessing what God recognizes.. Interesting.

Cotton Picker wrote:

Marie wrote:
But California voted it down... I think judges and legislatures are going to make it happen, whether Christians or non-Christians like it or not.

California demonstrates what conservative activism is capable of... If the fruit bowl of America, can be swayed..... Why can't the tip of the Bible Belt States, like Iowa, be swayed?.... Judges and legislatures will back down from their insanity... More from the pressure exerted by Christians in their faces, than they will in the face of Christian apathy....
.

Maybe it's time for the "pushback".. maybe there is a sleeping giant out there, ready to be awakened.

Marie wrote:Janet, I did not know that some churches were blessing unions (religious marriage without state license) for older Americans.. I know of some older (actually elderly) people who just lived together rather than lose benefits. This would seem to solve that problem. What are your thoughts about it... is it truly a marriage if the state doesn't recognize it? Or is a church blessing what God recognizes.. Interesting.

Well, I believe marriage is a God ordained institution, so I really don't think the law should be in on it. With HIPPA laws being what they are, marriage isn't a guarantee anymore, nor are credit card laws and on and on. Most sodomy laws and the like are no longer enforced between consenting adults, so ummmm.... the civil law is pretty much irrelevant anymore anyway. And, honestly, should the married couple get a government break or advantage in the government? When my husband was in the secular workforce he had to tell his employer if he wanted his pension money to go all to him or be shared with me if he should die before me. The law offered no protection there. The law does offer protection to those who are left behind when there is no will, but a will and all kinds of legal paperwork can protect a partner. So, I guess, "yes" I think marriage should be absolutely a religious think. Leave the "civil partnerships" to the legal departments. (Now, honestly, if you'd asked me that twenty years ago I would have disagreed. That was before all these legal maneuvers that have undermined marriages anyway.)

On the other side of that coin, I think you should be able to give property rights and the like, including medical, to anyone of your choosing, male, female, friend or foe. What we put in writing should be law according to our desires. In a free country I should be able to do anything I please to do as long as it does not endanger the lives of others around me. The Federal Government has become too big, too sassy and too rich. They are not unlike England was to us in the 1700s.

More'n my 2 cents

I've always been of the opinion that the law can encourage or discourage certain behavior. Giving tax breaks to married couples, for example, encourages couples to stay together rather than divorcing and paying taxes as a single. But I see what you mean.. that's all being turned on its head...