Christianity Today - When Assaulted by Rainbows (the other side)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2015 2:27 PM GMT
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/july-web-only/when-assaulted-by-rainbows.html
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 13, 2015 2:59 PM GMT
    Thanks for posting that, OP. Hearing Christians calling gay people sexual deviants and sinners emboldens me to stay strong in my stance against tyranny.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2015 3:14 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidThanks for posting that, OP. Hearing Christians calling gay people sexual deviants and sinners emboldens me to stay strong in my stance against tyranny.


    What took you so long?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2015 4:17 PM GMT
    A confusing article. One moment it says same-sex marriages is evil, contrary to the Bible and against God's will. Then it seems to take a more sympathetic tone and say Christians should accept it? And not develop an avatar that counters the gay rainbow?

    I confess I have trouble following the writing, and reasoning, of some academicians. But a good contribution here, because we need to be exposed to what others are saying about us, in different forums.

    BTW, can anyone provide definitive citations as to what a "Biblical marriage" is, that the author references? Does he mean a marriage like King Solomon had, with 700 wives and 300 concubines? Does marriage always require a dowery to be legal? Does a woman get passed like property from her father to her future husband, with no will or individual standing of her own?

    Matrimony as one of the Seven Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church wasn't codified until the Council of Trent in 1545. Prior to that marriage was more vaguely defined. Protestant Puritans in the Massachusetts colony sometimes didn't practice a formal marriage ceremony at all, but the union was still viewed as legal and binding, when marital pledges were witnessed by others.

    The concept of marriage being solely a religious institution, a ceremony only conveyed by the church, is a fairly recent notion in the US. Promulgated by Christian churches themselves, without legal or historical basis. In point of fact marriage in all US States remains a civil function. Christian churches have usurped marriage as their prerogative in the public's mind for their own purposes, to define & control it.

    Ministers may be delegated by the State to perform the civil ceremony, with or without religious trappings, but the marriage license remains a civil document. No church may perform a legally recognized marriage on its own authority.

    So that this entire article is based on an invalid pretense. One is legally married in the US whether the ceremony is validated by a Justice of the Peace or an Archbishop.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2015 4:26 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidA confusing article. One moment it says same-sex marriages is evil, contrary to the Bible and against God's will. Then it seems to take a more sympathetic tone and say Christians should accept it? And not develop an avatar that counters the gay rainbow?

    I confess I have trouble following the writing, and reasoning, of some academicians. But a good contribution here, because we need to be exposed to what others are saying about us, in different forums.

    BTW, can anyone provide definitive citations as to what a "Biblical marriage" is, that the author references? Does he mean a marriage like King Solomon had, with 700 wives and 300 concubines? Does marriage always require a dowery to be legal? Does a woman get passed like property from her father to her future husband, with no will or individual standing of her own?

    Matrimony as one of the Seven Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church wasn't codified until the Council of Trent in 1545. Prior to that marriage was more vaguely defined. Protestant Puritans in the Massachusetts colony sometimes didn't practice a formal marriage ceremony at all, but the union was still viewed as legal and binding, when marital pledges were witnessed by others.

    The concept of marriage being solely a religious institution, a ceremony only conveyed by the church, is a fairly recent notion in the US. Promulgated by Christian churches themselves, without legal or historical basis. In point of fact marriage in all US States remains a civil function. Christian churches have usurped marriage as their prerogative in the public's mind for their own purposes, to define & control it.

    Ministers may be delegated by the State to perform the civil ceremony, with or without religious trappings, but the marriage license remains a civil document. No church may perform a legally recognized marriage on its own authority. So that this entire article is based on an invalid pretense.


    "I confess I have trouble following the writing, and reasoning, of some academicians. But a good contribution here, because we need to be exposed to what others are saying about us, in different forums"

    I thought maybe it was me .... coffee was still brewing when I attempted to read this (after a very late night last night working on some projects around here).

    But yes, that source goes to the belly of the beast so good idea to follow what they are saying and feeling about these issues.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4863

    Jul 13, 2015 5:32 PM GMT
    From the article:

    "If I want to stand for biblical marriage, what should my Facebook profile picture be?"

    They seem unaware that the Bible does not support only one type of marriage. Polygamy was accepted and never condemned by the Bible. If they are so intent on supporting Biblical marriage, then they should be honest and support polygamy. Polygamy is rejected by tradition, not the Bible, and that tradition most likely came about because reason showed that plural marriage tended to be destructive to women and, if common, would make it impossible for many men to have a wife.

    Religious doctrine has never been determined by scripture alone. As I have stated elsewhere, religious doctrine is determined by scripture, tradition, and reason. The Episcopal Church explicitly states that but even churches which insist that doctrine is determined by the Bible only and in its entirety do use tradition and reason also. If they did not, then they would have to accept plural marriage since there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that rejects plural marriage except for bishops; St. Paul wrote that a bishop shall be the husband of one wife.

    As long as reason is one of the determinants of doctrine, there is little choice but to accept same-sex marriage since failure to do so would violate the second part of the Summary of the Law, as reiterated by Jesus, which commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves. A clear understanding of same-sex orientation should make it clear that rejecting same-sex relationships is a violation of that command.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2015 5:32 PM GMT
    I stopped reading at "Christianity Today"
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4863

    Jul 13, 2015 5:36 PM GMT
    Ckfeezy saidI stopped reading at "Christianity Today"


    Wise people understand the importance of having a thorough understanding of one's enemy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2015 5:48 PM GMT
    Accosted by a rainbow, huh? Aw.

    Like most popular (as opposed to the shit this guy dishes?) things on the internet, the rainbow grew virally, and you could feel the tug to join in as close friends and coworkers, friends from high school and cousins on your dad’s side, actors and multinational corporations converged to celebrate the court’s decision. And if you, like me, were disappointed by the ruling, you found social media to be an increasingly contested space between these modified avatars and the disparaging responses from some Christians, and you wondered how to respond, or even if you should. What is the opposite of a rainbow?

    That social moment has passed, but it won't be the last time social media overwhelms us with an avatar that supports a cause that we might find questionable. We need to think about our response


    Right, because next everyone is going to overlay on their face an aborted fetus, equally as popular as gay rights.

    This guy's a fuckin' dick.

    I'm pretty sure I've read enough to get where he's coming from. And he's welcome to go back there. I'll help pave his way. Anyone got a few spare good intentions?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2015 6:10 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    Ckfeezy saidI stopped reading at "Christianity Today"


    Wise people understand the importance of having a thorough understanding of one's enemy.

    I understand them. I've grown up with them. I know they're delusional and I don't have to read a BS article to reaffirm that.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 13, 2015 6:19 PM GMT
    In fairness to Christians...they are not ALL judgmental, finger-pointing bigots. Many are very caring, open-minded, progressive people
  • Saffron69

    Posts: 121

    Jul 13, 2015 6:57 PM GMT
    Jeeze Talk about Passive aggression very sly and confusing just like how my fellow Christians leaders explain sexuality in general. Being a Christian myself it seems like the never-ending answer we gay Christians seek to justify ourselves through our Christianity. The thing is as straight Christians don't have the motivation like we non-straight have to try n figure out why are part of a faith preaches love but not so subtly shows it's contempt for us, which the guy clearly stated at least. The truth is the key to God is Faith in HIM... have it! Lets also remember That religion in General can easily be a ball of contradictions so we shouldn't be surprised he tried to play his sorry attempt at devil's advocate
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 13, 2015 7:30 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidIn fairness to Christians...they are not ALL judgmental, finger-pointing bigots. Many are very caring, open-minded, progressive people

    You know, most of the "illegals" that your candidate du jour, Donald Trump, calls rapists, are devoted Christians. I think the GOP, posing as the Christian right, is actually the most malicious, most uncharitable and unchristian bunch of hypocrites around.

    I'm no Christian, but at least Jesus would "like" me, if he were real, and support my marriage. Jesus would say republicans would have a harder time getting into a heaven than a camel getting through the eye of a needle.

    So, to your point, there are some decent Christians, like Freo, and, maybe, on a good day, MIL, but certainly not anyone in your camp, no siree!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2015 7:43 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    Ckfeezy said
    I stopped reading at "Christianity Today"

    Wise people understand the importance of having a thorough understanding of one's enemy.

    A principle we followed in the Army.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 13, 2015 7:56 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    CuriousJockAZ saidIn fairness to Christians...they are not ALL judgmental, finger-pointing bigots. Many are very caring, open-minded, progressive people

    You know, most of the "illegals" that your candidate du jour, Donald Trump, calls rapists, are devoted Christians. I think the GOP, posing as the Christian right, is actually the most malicious, most uncharitable and unchristian bunch of hypocrites around.

    I'm no Christian, but at least Jesus would "like" me, if he were real, and support my marriage. Jesus would say republicans would have a harder time getting into a heaven than a camel getting through the eye of a needle.

    So, to your point, there are some decent Christians, like Freo, and, maybe, on a good day, MIL, but certainly not anyone in your camp, no siree!


    I hope you feel better now icon_rolleyes.gif
  • johnnyqhomo7

    Posts: 119

    Jul 13, 2015 8:51 PM GMT
    As a gay christian, I am appaled at how christians have treated gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2015 9:09 PM GMT
    The "Son" is in the middle icon_rolleyes.gif


    tumblr_inline_msz03o8YlW1qz4rgp.jpg


    b9341633-158f-4e0d-b99f-f6c2cc4653c9.jpg
    celtic-cross.jpg
    celtic-cross-vector-101935.jpg
  • johndubuque

    Posts: 319

    Jul 13, 2015 9:19 PM GMT
    The article is typical of conservative Christians portraying themselves as victims, beginning with the word "Assaulted" in the title. How does the rainbow image assault anyone? I constantly get Christian messages and images from people on Facebook. I just politely move on; I don't accuse people of assaulting me.

    The article also claims the rainbow flag is a marketing scheme to make money for someone. This is perhaps the worst lie in the article. The rainbow flag was designed by the artist Gilbert Baker, and he never trademarked it. The flag is free for anyone to use.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jul 13, 2015 9:34 PM GMT
    johnnyqhomo7 saidAs a gay christian, I am appaled at how christians have treated gays.

    Perhaps even more appalling is how Christians have treated pagans. They have committed cultural genocide, by forcing their beliefs onto pagans, and never taking no for an answer. Pagans were the cultural norm in every civilization for thousands of years, and Christians treat them like they're evil, barbaric and ignorant. For pete's sake, they're just human, like anyone else.

    We literally have laws that prevent Christians from adopting Native American children, because Christians have an onus to replace all other heritages with Christianity, by forcing people to accept only their religion. That's called cultural supremacy. It's like white supremacy, and it's a form of tyranny.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jul 14, 2015 1:26 AM GMT
    johndubuque saidThe article is typical of conservative Christians portraying themselves as victims, beginning with the word "Assaulted" in the title. How does the rainbow image assault anyone? I constantly get Christian messages and images from people on Facebook. I just politely move on; I don't accuse people of assaulting me.

    The article also claims the rainbow flag is a marketing scheme to make money for someone. This is perhaps the worst lie in the article. The rainbow flag was designed by the artist Gilbert Baker, and he never trademarked it. The flag is free for anyone to use.


    Very well put.

    What gets me is how conservative christians think they speak for all Christians. Seems arrogant, to say the least.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2015 1:45 AM GMT
    We are fighting for protection and equal rights, and they're distraught by Facebook rainbows. That says something.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2015 2:42 AM GMT
    I read the entire article just to amuse myself after a 12.5 hour day of total awesomesauce (biggest mountain bike ride I've ever done).

    He's a closet fag. There's no other reason he'd go so in depth over the issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2015 2:59 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidIn fairness to Christians...they are not ALL judgmental, finger-pointing bigots. Many are very caring, open-minded, progressive people



    Many are very caring, open-minded, progressive people. AMEN!

    Those are the Christians who actually follow the example of Jesus Christ and they don't vote Republican.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2015 3:48 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidIn fairness to Christians...they are not ALL judgmental, finger-pointing bigots. Many are very caring, open-minded, progressive people


    A point I think that is lost at this site.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2015 3:50 AM GMT
    FitnessWorker said
    CuriousJockAZ saidIn fairness to Christians...they are not ALL judgmental, finger-pointing bigots. Many are very caring, open-minded, progressive people



    Many are very caring, open-minded, progressive people. AMEN!

    Those are the Christians who actually follow the example of Jesus Christ and they don't vote Republican.


    http://www.logcabin.org/

    oh?