# What Jobs can Christians NOT Hold



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

I am talking about bible believing solid fundamental Follower of Jesus Christians! NOT the Joel Osteen have your best life now God loves everybody 

Christians can not be:
County Clerks if they refuse to issue homosexuals marriage licenses
Judges if they refuse to do homosexual weddings
Justice of the Peace if they refuse to do homosexual weddings
Business owners if they refuse to give benefits to gay couples or if they refuse birth control or bake cakes
Governors if they every think about making decisions based on Jesus
Nurses if they are required to perform abortions
Doctors if they are required to perform abortions

>I know you are saying Doctors will never be forced to perform abortions or loss their jobs< 
I would have said the same thing about judges and clerks 5 years ago

The GODLESS folks will be happier when those folks that remind them of their sin are gone

if you can not see this train coming you are blind


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

You left out prostitute. And if you're a male Christian you've got two huge problems working in that profession, not just one.

I don't mean to make light of your discrimated jobs for Christians but every job has requirements and unfortunately for that lady her job requirements changed and she is no longer (for religious reasons) able to function in her position.

For the same reason I never could take a job if assisting in an abortion was part of the job requirements, I would have to find a different job.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Whether the train comes or not, God is on his throne and will not be trifled with.

We cannot demand that the world conform to our ideals. We can show them the error of there ways, try our best to open their minds and hearts to God, and shake the dust from our sandals if they vehemently refuse.
If we try, and still fail, the Lord will bless us.
If we make demands and seek to make trouble when the act doesn't actually affect our ability to worship, will he still bless us?

I was not put here to defend God to the un-godly. God needs no such defense.
I was put here to spread his word, and show others the love he's shown me.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> Whether the train comes or not, God is on his throne and will not be trifled with.
> 
> We cannot demand that the world conform to our ideals. We can show them the error of there ways, try our best to open their minds and hearts to God, and shake the dust from our sandals if they vehemently refuse.
> If we try, and still fail, the Lord will bless us.
> ...


kind of hard to show them the error of their ways if you are not here to defend God. Your shake the dust idea is more surrender then biblical.

the quote is "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." notice they left after they were rejected..

also note "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."

it is coming - this lady had made a stand and everybody in america KNOWS she is following Jesus.... how many know you or I am...

and you are here to do his will.... and that includes

1 Peter 3:15: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you"

Jude 3-4: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints"

Ephesians 5:11: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."

oh no - we are to reprove them.. that sort of sounds like forcing it down their throat to me

John wrote "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" (3 John 1:4). Jesus said ""If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)

2 Ti m. 4:2-3: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears."

I hope there is enough evidence to convict me of following Jesus


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Apparently Christians cant be US soldiers. They are kicking them out left and right.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

bigwheel said:


> Apparently Christians cant be US soldiers. They are kicking them out left and right.


Chaplains have to be too


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

Any job in a politically correct city, county, etc.--


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

I 110% believe that we are in the beginning of Revelations. We (as in Christians) are being hunted all across the world. It doesn't matter what jobs we can hold just get a good job and prep as much as you can. Put God first and be a good christian person and we will make it through this troubling time.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

modern politician...... atheist in sheep's clothing, approve mass murder of the unborn and soon the elderly, steal from the public and the future public, lie without remorse, fornicate in abundance, adultery without remorse, promoting and force evil and immorality on all. How is that for a job description?


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

Christians can pick and choose their beliefs on what best fits their current position in life. I guess that means they can hold any job.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Maine marine is right. If not enough Nazi minder doctors will preform abortions, some will be forced to do it. Fines or imprisonment. Maybe the gulag.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Abortion doctors.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

I'm guessing greeter at Satanists-R-Us not a great job for Christians.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

WinotPrep said:


> Yeah, because it's not their job to enforce their beliefs on others.
> You probably shouldn't work at an abortion clinic if you're pro-life.
> Now tip your tinfoil hat
> 
> News flash buddy, not everybody is White, over 40, conservative and Christian.


You do not get it... If they can jail a clerk for not issue a marriage certificate..who is to say down the road they will make all hospitals do abortions as part of the universal medical.... in order to get a DOCTOR license you must do abortions... you do know that doctors and nurses are licensed right

It is hard, as a person that has a starting point of God created everything, to try and debate/discuss with a person that thinks that nothing acted on nothing that caused nothing to become everything.....

your morals are every changing mine are set in stone


----------



## Joe Smith (Aug 21, 2015)

The doctors wouldn't have to be imprisoned, their state issued medical licenses could be revoked for failure to provide "common sense" female reproductive procedures. You have to learn the "new speak". If you can't practice medicine you are no longer a doctor.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

It's a bully pulpit.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Jews don't work at pork sausage factories.

Muslim women don't model swimsuits and lingerie.

Ford guys don't drive Chevys.

So what?

If you have a moral objection to a job, don't take the job.

Anyone who takes the Bible as the literal word of God should be out killing witches anyway. (Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live)

The reason you aren't out killing witches is that your innate "moral compass" is far superior to the values set forth in any ancient collection of myths. You have, in fact, decided that God got that one (and many others) totally wrong and you that know better. Claiming that people need the Bible to have moral values is just absurd. It's also highly offensive.

Word to the wise: You will NOT attack me (or anyone else) personally just because our beliefs differ. My use of the word "you" isn't directed at anyone in particular, I'm using the word as a general term.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Mish said:


> Christians can pick and choose their beliefs on what best fits their current position in life. I guess that means they can hold any job.


Notice I said bible believing solid fundamental Follower of Jesus Christians! NOT the Joel Osteen have your best life now God loves everybody

Real Christians (Yep I said it) "Real Christians" shape their life to fit the teachings found in the bible as inspired by the holy spirit... they do not fit the Bible to their life style

Lets be honest - the VAST majority of people that attend church are not Christians... who am I to Judge... Glad you asked
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

I have made this point many times - WE do not follow other Christians, we follow Christ... Christian will let you down, they are imperfect and prone to sin... They try but stuff happens. 
So many people leave church because of something somebody else did... We are told NOT TO FORESAKE FELLOWSHIP yet many many people FIND the excuse... I was treated badly, somebody lied about me, nobody said hello, etc.... LISTEN if there is only one lifeboat -I do not care, I will get in and sit with the nice people until I find a better boat or I make the boat nicer...

I have seen it - people leave because the church bought a new tv for worship or they moved an old table that was donated by their great grandfather or the started to sing 4 hymns not 3 or teh did communion last not first...


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Prepadoodle said:


> Jews don't work at pork sausage factories.
> 
> Muslim women don't model swimsuits and lingerie.
> 
> ...


WELL... as I am sure YOU are aware - WE Christians are not under the OLD covenant so we have no call to kill witches... now the Jews that reject Jesus should be out killing witches... if they find them.. I personally can not remember the last time I ran into a witch

You mistake my stance on morals... I think atheists that are on the road to hell can be very moral and nice.. they just have no reason or explanation for that morality


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

WinotPrep said:


> Yeah, because it's not their job to enforce their beliefs on others.
> You probably shouldn't work at an abortion clinic if you're pro-life.
> Now tip your tinfoil hat
> 
> News flash buddy, not everybody is White, over 40, conservative and Christian.


Wow, sounds like you are a non-tolerant discriminatory bigot.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Joe Smith said:


> The doctors wouldn't have to be imprisoned, their state issued medical licenses could be revoked for failure to provide "common sense" female reproductive procedures. You have to learn the "new speak". If you can't practice medicine you are no longer a doctor.


Sorry, you are right


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

Christians can not be athiests. Those dang athiests will believe in just about anything.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Except that the woman didn't take the job in spite of the supreme court's ruling. She already had the job.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

WinotPrep said:


> Explain please


No, don't.

This topic is getting out of hand. Play nice or I'll close it.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Denton said:


> Except that the woman didn't take the job in spite of the supreme court's ruling. She already had the job.


Yes, but now the Supreme court has ruled. Sorry the job description has changed a little. She should have resigned if she felt that strongly about it.

I mean really, she thinks she gets to ignore the highest court in the land? How arrogant of her.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Prepadoodle said:


> Jews don't work at pork sausage factories.
> 
> Muslim women don't model swimsuits and lingerie.
> 
> ...


You know what is HIGHLY offensive? Referring to the Bible as an ancient collection of myths. Not my problem, though, and I don't mind being offended in such manner.

As one who doesn't view the Bible as such, but has seen good reason to study so I am not misled by false teachers, preachers and the like, I am well aware of the fact that not suffering a witch to live has nothing to do with Christianity. As a matter of fact, that was to the Hebrews, about the Hebrews. Even for them, it wasn't meant to be a call to arms for them to roam the Gentile countryside in search of witches in need of killing.

As far as your understanding of right and wrong, you can think the Christian foundations of this nation. Were it Muslim, your understanding of right and wrong would be greatly different. Same goes if it were Hindu.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Prepadoodle said:


> Yes, but now the Supreme court has ruled. Sorry the job description has changed a little. She should have resigned if she felt that strongly about it.
> 
> I mean really, she thinks she gets to ignore the highest court in the land? How arrogant of her.


The same can be said of the supreme court.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

WinotPrep said:


> Oh my you're really a special one aren't you


Yep. I sure am.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Prepadoodle said:


> No, don't.
> 
> This topic is getting out of hand. Play nice or I'll close it.


So far there has been no name calling. NO sure how it is getting out of hand


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Denton said:


> You know what is HIGHLY offensive? Referring to the Bible as an ancient collection of myths. Not my problem, though, and I don't mind being offended in such manner.
> 
> As one who doesn't view the Bible as such, but has seen good reason to study so I am not misled by false teachers, preachers and the like, I am well aware of the fact that not suffering a witch to live has nothing to do with Christianity. As a matter of fact, that was to the Hebrews, about the Hebrews. Even for them, it wasn't meant to be a call to arms for them to roam the Gentile countryside in search of witches in need of killing.
> 
> As far as your understanding of right and wrong, you can think the Christian foundations of this nation. Were it Muslim, your understanding of right and wrong would be greatly different. Same goes if it were Hindu.


good post

I use to chat with (debate) atheists a lot - I found two types as a general rule 1. Angry and 2. Honest

The honest ones could debate without name calling and getting upset 
the angry ones HATED God HATED Christians HATED the Bible - They would use foul language, make the silly sky fairy references, and misquote scripture... They were not looking to be involved in an honest discussion, they wanted to hurt people


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

If your religious beliefs get in the way of performing duties that are legal, then you probably don't belong in that line of work or for that employer. I would never work for anyone that requires me to believe in their god or gods, participate in their religious ceremonies or conform to their religious edicts. So I probably won't seek work in a church or fighting for ISIS.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

dsdmmat said:


> If your religious beliefs get in the way of performing duties that are legal, then you probably don't belong in that line of work or for that employer. I would never work for anyone that requires me to believe in their god or gods, participate in their religious ceremonies or conform to their religious edicts. So I probably won't seek work in a church or fighting for ISIS.


Do you take Christmas off... Many businesses LOCK their doors and force employees to stay home


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> Do you take Christmas off... Many businesses LOCK their doors and force employees to stay home


Strawman argument. My employer does not make me attend mass or other services on that day. Do you only take religious holidays off or do you also take federal holidays off?
Christmas is a federal holiday. Yes sometimes I get it off and sometimes I have to work it. Depending on my deployment status, and I also take MLK day off too but, I don't take ash wenesday, Fat Tuesday, Easter or all saints day as they are not federal holidays.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Prepadoodle said:


> Yes, but now the Supreme court has ruled. Sorry the job description has changed a little. She should have resigned if she felt that strongly about it.
> 
> I mean really, she thinks she gets to ignore the highest court in the land? How arrogant of her.


She didn't really ignore the "highest court".
What she did, was ignore Anthony Kennedy.

The court was split, 4 and 4. Kennedy's *OPINION* decided the majority.
That single man, in a black robe, in a position of prominence, wrote his OPINION of interpretation on the 14th amendment, inverting its true meaning and intent, to confer a fictional right on mankind. 5 people said so, and the rest of us are supposed to just accept it?
The president can veto congress.
Congress can override a veto.
States can recall legislators.
Congress can impeach the president.
The courts can override them all.
But nobody gets to correct the "supremes"?
*BALDERDASH!

*State conventions to propose amendments would correct this.
By super majority of the state legislatures, WE THE PEOPLE should get to decide if the opinions of 5 fallible human beings are correct or not.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> She didn't really ignore the "highest court".
> What she did, was ignore Anthony Kennedy.
> 
> The court was split, 4 and 4. Kennedy's *OPINION* decided the majority.
> ...


We as a nation have been held hostage by all branches of the government at one time or another. We have also been held hostage by those who would impose their will on us by shouting the loudest and not holding polititions accountable. The NFA, Prohibition, anti smoking laws, 68GCA, 94AWB, obamacare, and so on. Nothing short of war is going to change that.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

It is your right to love. If you are Christian it is your duty to love. Love is more important than faith. It is our right to express our feelings, beliefs and opinions. It is our duty to respect the right of others to do the same.
Jesus did not require folks to be Jews to heal them. He healed those who asked. He did not "hammer" his teachings "down people's throats". He lived in love and kindness and taught us to love others as we love ourselves.
If it angers you to have people speak of different beliefs then perhaps you should examine your anger before examining another's beliefs. Anger is a sin too and you should repent that sin before telling others of theirs.

I have friends of many different faiths and when you get past all the window dressing, the different words, and the rhetoric most people believe in the same Creator, treating others as you wish to be treated, and that love comes from the Creator.

Did you know that there are only two religious groups on earth that believe in eternal damnation and a being that is out to steal your soul to place it in eternal damnation? Those two religions are Christianity and Islam. No other religion has a place of eternal damnation or an entity that rules it.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

PaulS said:


> It is your right to love. If you are Christian it is your duty to love. Love is more important than faith. It is our right to express our feelings, beliefs and opinions. It is our duty to respect the right of others to do the same.
> Jesus did not require folks to be Jews to heal them. He healed those who asked. He did not "hammer" his teachings "down people's throats". He lived in love and kindness and taught us to love others as we love ourselves.
> If it angers you to have people speak of different beliefs then perhaps you should examine your anger before examining another's beliefs. Anger is a sin too and you should repent that sin before telling others of theirs.
> 
> ...


Do not confuse God's definition of love with man's definition. Furthermore, do not confuse lust with love. Furthermore, don't make it sound as if it is loving to allow people to walk off a cliff. It isn't.

Love is greater than faith? That isn't even deserving of a response.

So, you are now comparing the gift of life through Jesus to the curse of death through Muhammad? Is it hard for one who claims to be an ordained preacher to know that the Great Deceiver has made his greatest gains by creating tools that appear similar to the real thing? It doesn't take someone with a college degree in religion to see the glaring differences between the two. All one need do is see the difference between a nation built on Christian ethics, morals and principles and a nation controlled and ruled by Islam.

Shoving our beliefs down others' throats? I believe you have it backward, here. Who has sued a bakery for baking a cake for homosexuals?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Denton said:


> Do not confuse God's definition of love with man's definition. Furthermore, do not confuse lust with love. Furthermore, don't make it sound as if it is loving to allow people to walk off a cliff. It isn't.
> 
> Love is greater than faith? That isn't even deserving of a response.
> 
> ...


Unconditional love is loving someone enough to allow them to learn from their mistakes. If you stop someone from being hurt, they may never learn not to walk off that cliff.

"A man can have the faith to move mountains and the wisdom of the ages but if he have not love he is nothing" That pretty much proves my point.

I don't recall saying anything about the relative life of a Christian to that of a follower of Muhammad - I just stated that those are the only religions that believe in eternal damnation - no other inferences were made.

There is a difference between demanding ones individual rights and denying those rights based on an individuals personal beliefs. We demand the right to defend ourselves when others would disarm us. Yet some would withhold a civil document from another because they believe it to be wrong. When you are paid to issue legal documents to those who apply then you are honor bound to either issue the document or get another job.


----------



## Rob Roy (Nov 6, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


>


It doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on, or even if you're simply on the fence, you are doing yourself no justice by not watching this video!

LOVE IT!


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

Since everyone is entitled to free speech about how they feel, except me, I have deleted my comments.


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

You're right, I should move on.


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

It was a couple of other threads that have moved to this one since the others were deleted. I am tired of the double standards, the ........... never mind.


----------



## Rob Roy (Nov 6, 2013)

So, in case anyone gets confused about Auntie's triple post, I had originally posted a thread stating concern about the PC police dropping a bomb here because people were claiming to be offended. Shortly after that I realized that my words might have come across as inflammatory, even though that wasn't my intent. So I logged back on and deleted my post... but apparently not fast enough because Auntie posted the rebuttal and then edited her original statement.

She is not crazy or talking to herself.

Auntie, my post was triggered by yours, but not aimed at you. Earlier I saw people jump in to this thread with an opposing and somewhat aggressive view and pushed. When there was pushback, there was a sudden shift to 'offensive talk, shut down the post' kind of vibe. I have already seen Political Correctness dang near destroy this place and I don't want a repeat.

My point was not to rob you of your opinion, but promote free speech for all- regardless of religious views or offensive language.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> WELL... as I am sure YOU are aware - WE Christians are not under the OLD covenant so we have no call to kill witches...


Really? How convenient.

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. *I did not come to abolish the law of Moses* or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, *until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear* until its purpose is achieved.

My point is this.... if someone can ignore many of the teachings from the Bible and still call themselves Christian (even though Jesus himself said all Old Testament laws are still in effect) why not look past the homosexual issue too? Why draw the line there?

I won't bother to point out the examples of genocide, ethnic cleansing, infanticide, incest, the condoning of slavery, and other immoral acts set forth in the Bible as "righteous acts." This is the basis for a moral compass? Ummm, not in my mind it's not.

The bottom line here is that anyone who is paid to do a job they refuse to do is a thief or a fraud. Jail is where such people belong.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Prepadoodle said:


> Really? How convenient.
> 
> Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. *I did not come to abolish the law of Moses* or the writings of the prophets. No, *I came to accomplish their purpose. *
> 
> ...


if a contract is fulfilled/accomplished -that would mean...???? what

Until its purpose is fulfilled..means what??

What do you think happened when Jesus went to the cross

Like many many ANTI -Christ people, you have no understanding of the scripture and what it means...

Scripture is so easy but yet so hard if a person does not have the spirit.....you do not have that spirit

I feel sorry for you, truly I do...

AND.. Slavery is not condoned - there are instructions for it
Incest happened but it was not a command from God
infanticide - again not a command

I am guessing that you KNOW God did not command these things but you like many people who are against God and his people have no problem twisting scripture and lying abut what it says or taking scripture out of context to try and prove your incorrect point

I pray that The Holy Spirit will continually guide Strong Christians into your path and into your life so that your eyes will be open to truth and you become an advocate for Jesus Christ . I pray that you given a contrite and willing heart to serve him

Now you can go ahead and BAN me for attacking you


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> Now you can go ahead and BAN me for attacking you


Well if he did that who would provide the comic relief on this web site?


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> I am guessing that you KNOW God did not command these things but you like many people who are against God and his people have no problem twisting scripture and lying abut what it says or taking scripture out of context to try and prove your incorrect point


1 Samuel 15:3 - Now go and smite Amalek, and *utterly destroy* all that they have, and spare them not; but *slay both man and woman, infant and suckling*, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Psalm 137:8-9 - O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

"Slavery is not condoned - there are instructions for it" Egad. I could go on and on and on, but don't see the point.

Condone (con·done) - accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.

Just for the record, I am not anti-God. I am not anti-Christian. IIf anything, I am anti-ignorance.

Ban you? For what? You can't refute anything I say, so your only recourse is to try to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about. But, ummm, I do. Rather than lash out at me personally, provide your scriptural evidence that suggests any of your points are correct. I'll be waiting.

I don't consider myself to be a Christian, but I do honor many of the teaching of Christ. Such as....

Matthew 5:43-47...

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

And my personal favorite...

Matthew 7:12 - So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Of course, many would ignore these teachings, which is my point. If it's so easy to ignore basis foundational teachings of Christianity, why not ignore the stuff about homosexuality too?


----------



## Rob Roy (Nov 6, 2013)

There's a passage that I struggle with, but that has saved me much stress. I am not a scholar so forgive me if I have come to misunderstand it but...

Titus 3:10- Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. _3:11-_ You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

(New Living Translation- Titus 3:10- If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them._ 3:11-_ For people like that have turned away from the truth, and their own sins condemn them.)

[edit: typo]


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Prepadoodle said:


> Really? How convenient.
> 
> Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. *I did not come to abolish the law of Moses* or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
> 
> ...


OK, this is what happens when I take a few hours off; I get way, way behind. :miserable:

What is happening is you are taking parts and pieces from the Bible, OT and NT, and mixing them together.

We Christians do not put to death witches any more than we do homosexuals. As a matter of fact, we can go farther than that and remember what Jesus did when the men were going to stone the adulteress. Did He pick up a rock and join in on the execution? No, He did not. What did He do? He wrote something in the sand. What did He write? The Bible doesn't say, but we know what the men did - they left. I think it might be safe to say that Jesus reminded the men of their transgressions that were worthy of death. It might even be suggested that the men had first hand knowledge of the woman's adulteress ways, and they knew they should be put to death along with her. At any rate, He put a stop to the execution.

What did He then tell her? Go, and sin no more. He didn't say adultery was now A-OK, did He? In no way did He condone her behavior, or the transgressions of the men. No, He said to go and sin no more. That seems to be a part of the story many people want to forget.

Was an execution required for the transgressions? You bet. There was an execution for their transgressions, as well as all our transgressions. Jesus was that that sacrifice. He did not do away with the law; He fulfilled it. Now, what about you? Where do you stand with the One who paid the price for your sin?

I'm not going to attempt to play the, "Well, what about this seemingly incriminating verse (insert verse taken out of the Bible here)" game. This is played when people who lack the understanding of the Bible, who is being addressed in it at the time of the writing and the overall history of the particular verse, attempts to debunk the Bible while painting God as some sort of mean-spirited, blood-thirsty deity. I find that to be a waste of time, and the person who is wasting the Christian's time really doesn't want to know the truth, anyway. They aren't in a spiritual position for it, yet. They aren't in a position of understanding, either, else wise something as simple as the comparison of eating shellfish and homosexuality wouldn't be brought up after it has already been answered.

As far as the woman being a fraud and a thief for not doing her job, I do not find that to be the case. On the other hand, I find the supreme court's decision to be the fraud and the refusal to do the job. The decision was not made from the legal standpoint of our basis of law, but from a extraconstitutional, activist standpoint. As with other decisions that have been made down through the years, this decision was one that detaches the government from the laws of nature and nature's God and places this nation in the precarious position of rule by the flawed hearts of man. That makes us no longer a nation of law and makes us a nation ruled by opinion. Dangerous place, as man is flawed.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Anyway, the solution to this whole dilemma is pretty simple...

Get the government out of the marriage business altogether, then get religion out of the social contract business.

If 2 people wish to unite in a social contract, let them do so. This contract could confer the same tax benefits, the same rights and obligations as married people now enjoy... or don't enjoy, depending on your perspective. Entering into a contractual obligation should be handled like any other contract: draw up the document, have both parties sign it in the presence of witnesses, and BAM, it's legally binding. Religions shouldn't have any say over a legal contract.

If 2 people want to go through a ceremonial joining in a church, that's fine too. The government should have no say in the matter. If the churches don't want to ceremonially join a couple for whatever reason, that's their right. The government has no business governing religious ceremonies. I think it's wrong of them to require a license to get married in a church anyway.

There, all better.


----------



## Rob Roy (Nov 6, 2013)

yep. problem solved

unfortunately, when Connecticut attempted the civil union option that allows government to recognize homosexual couples as 'married', but that churches would not have to recognize it, nor would they be required to marry any said couple, the activist homosexual community rejected it as 'not good enough'.

Basically your suggestion, which really could solve the problem completely, 'isn't good enough'... so sayeth the _victimized_ homosexual community


----------



## Rob Roy (Nov 6, 2013)

I do not hold any anger or frustration toward any homosexual based on their sexuality alone, as the only difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual is the sexual part. That's it. If you were not in their bedroom, and sexual preference did not come up in conversation, nobody should know who is or isn't gay. Nor should it matter socially.

From a government's standpoint, both parties are tax payers and able to contribute to that society equally. Therefore, both parties should have benefits offered by the government equally. What should not occur is a church or business to be required to act against their genuine beliefs to cater to an action or union that is against their beliefs.

Currently you can get married in a courthouse instead of a church and by a state official rather than a pastor, that's where you would go if the church won't do it.

I'm with you. If only people would keep their eye on the prize and not get caught up in the bitterness of the feud.

[edit: making a lot of typing errors today]


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Prepadoodle said:


> Anyway, the solution to this whole dilemma is pretty simple...
> 
> Get the government out of the marriage business altogether, then get religion out of the social contract business.
> 
> ...


Bingo!

And, Rob Roy hit the bull, too. Whoever they are, they should have equal government benefits. What benefits should those be? Other than our rights under the laws of nature and natures God be protected? Nothing. We humans are to secure all the rest of it.


----------



## I'd_last_a_day (May 12, 2015)

Prepadoodle said:


> Anyone who takes the Bible as the literal word of God should be out killing witches anyway. (Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live)
> 
> The reason you aren't out killing witches is that your innate "moral compass" is far superior to the values set forth in any ancient collection of myths. You have, in fact, decided that God got that one (and many others) totally wrong and you that know better.


As far as I recall, so the Bible story goes, the Jews had a different deal that the rest of the world didn't have, the Jews were considered a 'Kingdom of priests' whose bar was set much higher because they were the mouth piece of God. Now someone correct me if I butcher this story...when God or Moses (I forget it's been awhile) gave 'The Law' to the Jews it was a horrible thing! It was the ultimate case of 'Be careful what you wish for because you might get it.' God/Moses did not want the law for the people (the insanely strict rules that make people shake their head because it's impossible to follow it) but the arrogant over confident Jews shouted how they can indeed keep the law, bring it on they said!! So like the line from Cool Hand Luke God/Moses says "That's the way they want it, WELL, they get it!" AND very shortly after they were melting gold to worship the calf when Moses was gone.

Anyway, point being, the ancient law for the Jews was somewhat equivalent to insanely strict rules that Navy Seals might live by. Where I got all of this was I once listened to a Thru the Bible audio from Vernon McGee, it passed the time at a do nothing for 8 hours job I had at the time. Funny how he never missed an opportunity to point out that contrary to popular belief the ancient Jewish people were a bunch of bumbling idiots, they were not 'Chosen' because they were morally superior (that was his ongoing observation). Ok so I SORT OF get the whole insane rules thing...as for the 'Kill every woman, man & child', not sure if there's any truth to this so anyone chime in, there's a guy Paul Copan who wrote a book 'Is God a moral monster' and this guy argues that 'Kill every man woman and child' was an ancient hyperbole similar to telling a linebacker to take the QB's head off. Not sure if he's accurate or not on that.

I might be totally reading your post wrong but be careful HOW you use the word myth. If by myth you are complaining about miracle claims sprinkled into real history ok...but one argument really needs to be abandoned by absolutely everyone and that is that the Bible was edited and re-edited so many times that it's all myth. If history and textual criticism teaches anything it's that the Jews were possibly the most obsessively meticulous culture who ever existed at accurately passing down written accounts. For the record I work at a place where religion arguments are almost daily lol, I want to scream sometimes because people constantly make arguments that are mutually exclusive and don't even realize they're doing it. They argue about Bible contradictions, about hard to handle passages, and about things that the Bible doesn't say...then they ALSO argue that the text was constantly edited lol. Pick your argument it makes no sense to argue both!

Non-biblical Jewish writings completely surround the books of the Bible from ancient days until today and they are choke full of arguments about passages, and apologetic defenses to hard to handle 'contradictions' or puzzling passages or missing information that God did not talk about. Everywhere you turn is an opportunity to erase millennia of headaches defending the same things over & over again if they would just simply 'Delete this' or 'Add that', but that is not at all what you find in the ancient documents. Instead you find constant arguments and defenses of these 'Touchy' passages and throughout the millennia. In Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 there's passages about a suffering messiah and for many years you have Jewish Talmud writings discussing how baffled they are at why the messiah would possibly suffer. Umm, if there was constant editing, why not just take it out?? The moment the apostles passed off the scene arguments erupted in the churches about this and that, and who Jesus or the apostles would have sided with on this or that argument...umm, why not just add a 'Jesus quote' and be done with it??

So along came the crucifixion of Jesus and Christians (back then) started to point back to Isaiah 53 passages as proof that Jesus was the messiah, how did the orthodox Jews fire back, by claiming that the passages referred to the suffering of 'Israel' not to a person. No editing was going on it was rather constant fights about the passages!! But that was 2,000 years ago, 100 years ago the argument was different, the argument was that the oldest existing manuscript of Isaiah was dated at 900AD so the Christians wrote Jesus into Isaiah 53 after the fact to make it look like he was the messiah. Then we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls and there was a complete book of Isaiah that dated 2nd century BC and it was the same. So, I suppose Jews gave up editing texts from the 2nd century BC to 900AD lol. I'm telling you these people were anal about their written accounts, the 'Developed myth' accusation should really die.

And the written accounts played out in the highly illiterate society as incredible memorization. Jews literally would commit the OT to memory, socially you had no voice/respect until you memorized things. Modern memories are a joke compared to them. AFTER committing the entire OT to memory they would then have commentators who would 'Interpret' the OT...as they died people would not only commit the OT to memory but also the commentators, then commentators of those commentators...eventually the commentators on the OT were considered more important than the OT that they commented on. This is what Jesus meant when he bashed the Jewish leaders about their 'Traditions.' Anyway there is research on these oral based societies, you were a pion until you committed things to memory that's how the societies worked. Ancient Jews, ancient Romans...rote memorization was your education. People couldn't come along and spit out altered texts it'd be like someone singing the Star Spangled Banner wrong today or something like that.

Having said all that, pretty damn strange, and somewhat fascinating, that there's this ancient culture that has thousands of years of recorded history that is completely intertwined with miracle claims as being the reasoning for those outcomes throughout their history. Very strange indeed


----------



## Rob Roy (Nov 6, 2013)

Thank you, I'd Last A Day. I appreciate your time writing that. You make a good point


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Not every church has to perform same gender marriages - only if their doctrine allows it. The government isn't forcing churches to do anything, and they can't. What they are saying is that a same gender marriage has the same legal effect as any other marriage. When you get married in a church it is a sacrament - a blessed and holy vow made to God and man. A civil marriage is a contract between people and the government. Both are recognized by the government but only one is recognized by the church. (not all churches recognize marriages performed by other churches - just like all churches don't recognize the baptism of other churches).

Churches have a right to have their own rules regarding spiritual matters. They have no power to remove the rights of others. Both civil (in front of a justice-of-the-peace) and religious marriages are recognized by the government. The churches don't have to recognize any marriage but their own.

There are Christian churches and non-Christian churches that have and do perform same gender marriages,


----------

