Is Gay Marriage Just Around the Corner?

Gay Marriage Just Around the Corner?

For the sake of several gay friends, I certainly hope so.

It has occurred to me that it has nothing to do with the Christians as to why they have not recognized gay marriage. This government stopped caring about morals a long time ago, or it would be defending the lives of innocent babies. It has refused to give BENEFITS to cohabiting gays because of the money. In our current financial predicament, I doubt it will happen now. We will see. If secular equality is what they want, civil unions should just be made to be the same under the law as marriage. It will never truly be able to be the making of one from two, IMHO. It is like making one magnet by joining two at same pole ends. No one pull there...

Don't you get it yet, Char? It's not equal so long as you get to say, "We'll let civil unions have all the same benefits as marriage, but "we" won't let "them" call theirs "marriage." So long as you (we) get to choose a point of separation, no matter how technical, it's not equal.

So, no... separation by name isn't acceptable. My friends want marriage in form, legality, benefits AND name, and I want it for them.

I suppose next you would require all churches to marry gays as well? Good luck with that.

Not at all. I just don't see the point, since marriage is a religious estate to sanctify procreation free from capital sin. Those who do it without God joining them together will never be one anyway, which is between them and God. I don't see why those who evidently don't prescribe to that Christian principle and can never procreate should be married. It is a religious institution, always was. What they want is all the benefits the same in society, which is going to happen. That is a confirmation of the end days, as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is not hate, it is how I see the lifestyle. As unnatural and forbidden by God. That is not hate for the person who does it, but sadness at the fact they will never know the fulness of a real marriage where the two are truly one, raising children God blessed them with. I just believe this, I can't help it. This is my spirit knowing right from wrong. I guess that is offensive to you, but one would think you would try to understand. I know all are sinners, so am not going to stone anyone, that's for sure.

Marriage is a contract... nothing more, nothing less. Religion is in it because priests were the courts of their time back in distant history. Cotton Mather once ordered his Puritans to quit doing the Governor's secular business and get out of the wedding business.

Gays want the cover or badge of marriage, not because it gives them the same rights and benefits of a "civil union" but because:
1) They want to normalize their way of life;
2) They think that if they can claim the word marriage to cover their lust and sin, it somehow makes them OKAY in the eyes of God.

First, and foremost, gays are foolish to believe that God would ever accept his or her lifestyle as normal. Because - "Walking into McDonald's does not make you a Big Mac!"

They can pressure the government, the people and society, and even those wishy-washy, LuUKEWARM churches to join their cause, but God is not about to change how He views what they are doing.

Sin is sin no matter what you call it, or no matter who you get to accept it as a way of life. God does not operate on a "Whatever is popular" He will accept and forgive.

The only saving Grace from God comes by recognizing one's sin; repenting of those sins; giving your heart to Jesus and asking Him to be your Savior; receive the in filling power and presence of the Holy ghost [who now teaches you according to The never changing, infallible Word of God]; and turning and going in a direction that is totally away from the old like and toward a new life. A holy life. A life the glorifies God [and believes me, lustful, homosexuality, fornication, lying, murdering, stealing, gossiping, hating, killing, adultery, etc., do not even come close to glorifying God]

So, even if GLAAD, the ACLU and the Prez somehow get the nation to reluctantly accept gay marriage, in the eyes of a Holy God, it is still a sin; it will always be a sin; and that sin has its consequences, and those consequences lead to destruction.

Chuck says, "Marriage is a contract... nothing more, nothing less. Religion is in it because priests were the courts of their time back in distant history."

The true purpose of one mand and one woman becoming one has it's roots at the beginning of creation: "God spoke: “Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature. So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the cattle. And, yes, Earth itself, and every animal that moves on the face of Earth.” God created human beings; he created them godlike, reflecting God’s nature. He created them male and female[notice, NOT male and male, or female and female]. God blessed them, saying: “Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge! Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air, for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth.”

And then in the New Testament, Jesus [who was God] reasserted the one man and one woman order in Matthew 19:4-6 (New King James Version) when He decreed, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Sorry, Charley [please excuse the old Starkist Tuna ads slogan] but your explanation fails to hold water, and should you continue to reject Jesus as the Son of God, and not repent and ask Him to be your Savior, you will sink further into the pit of social slime and sinn, and in the end, the time to accept Him as Savior will be gone, and you like many others will have to face God without the blood of Jesus to cover your sin, and without that covering of blood, you will surely discover that hell was real!

To expand a little on what Chuck said, marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. When defined broadly, marriage is considered culturally universal. People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious. Marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. In short, marriage is in no way exclusive to only those that practice religion.

"It is a religious institution, always was."

From 30 to 325 CE, marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required.

Tony, I'm afraid that you have moved so far from reality [according to the Biblical world view of marriage] that you are no longer even on radar :)

Ad hominem.

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they (Tony Strak - Hero) summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

Check MATE! Because: Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

"if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you"

That's what you did here....

"you have moved so far from reality"

First rule of debate; attack the comment, not the author.

O' contraire...I was not debating you...just making a sarcastic observation as to your lack of knowledge regarding the gift of faith, which would are the two things you lack in seeing or understanding people of faith.

No Tony my boy...you totally missed used "Ad hominem" in an attempt to call down ten thousand angels to rain on my parade.

As I said before, your view remains worldly and because f this, you can't fully understand or begin to formulate an argument worthy of debating.

I do not follow rules set forth by man, but rather those established by God in His Word. Your understanding of marriage is worldly [kind of expected, since you are worldly and of the flesh], so no matter what you put forth on the subject, it lacks the Biblical world view of marriage, and therefore, it is a mute topic and not worthy of debate.

What I am saying it simply this. I do not debate the Gospel. It is the true and only word of God, and because I believe it is infallible; I believe it is unnecessary to debate it.

Without faith, any attempts, you may put forth are merely attempts put forth by a man whose elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor.

Unfortunately, even as a man who likes to present himself as an antagonist, the truth is, your words are falling on deaf ears when it comes to true believers of His word. You and I have nothing to discuss until you can demonstrate that you've had your "Come to Jesus's moment in life" and once that is done, all these ridiculous arguments you presented above will suddenly see like foolishness on your part, as you will have a new Biblical world view of life, and all I have said will make sense enough to where you no longer need to debate them or me. :)

Shalom Tony, Selah!

Preacher, Tony is correct. The "Christian" model of matrimony is not even the dominant model world-wide. People get married all sorts of ways, and every one of those has a legal connotation, whether performed by clergy, court or ship's captain (no longer an American option, I think). Religious faith is not required for marriage in any culture of which I am aware. It's a contract. And I appreciate Tony's covering my laziness by more fully explaining how and why.

Thanks for bringing us back to the topic, Chuck. The light from the stained glass windows was drowning out everything else.

"No Tony my boy..."

I'm definitely not your boy. Your pompous condescention doesn't help your argument in the least. That is, it wouldn't, if you had an argument.

Now, now Anthony....your anger is getting the best of you. You're spoiling for a fight, and you aren't getting one from me, because you know I follow the Bible, and it is infallible, and I refuse to argue with someone who doesn't believe in the only book or word that holds the entire truth about life and death. Your life and death as well as mine!

It's time for me to shake the dust from my sandals and move on down the comment list. You have shut the door by wanting to argue with infallibility, and you can't see the truth that is staring you in the eyes: The Bible is right; you are {dead] wrong; end of any argument coming from me.

Now if you'd l like to debate the approval ratings of Obama, or his hand in doing nothing to save the Ambassador in Benghazi, I could debate that with you, because there we have debatable issues. However, when it comes to the Bible and my Biblical world view of life, there is but one side, and it is God's, and unfortunately you are not on that side or you'd clearly see there could be no arguing the issues I bring up.

As I titled my book: "It's God's Way or the Highway! I have nothing I can argue with other about when I stand on the rock of truth!

BTW - You say "pompous" I say, "righteous!" we are just at opposite ends of the world when it comes to God. All I can do is pray for you. And you can't stop me from doing that! Nice talking with you..... :)

No thanks, I'm not a fan of obfuscation. All you really had to say was that your religion doesn't allow you to take part in rational conversation - that would have covered it. Or, you could have just not said anything at all.

Strangely, I hear the sounds of shaking the sand and dust from my sandals in the background. That means I am moving on down the road, and leaving you to your false, worldly views. Good luck, Tony, you will need it if you continue to go through this life without Jesus as your Savior.

Now to you, as I say to many other, "Get thee behind me Satan!" Our conversation is now over.

Can't say I'm too surprised that you're hearing things - dirt, sandals, voices, whatever. My views aren't false, but thanks for the "worldly" compliment. I don't believe in luck, or your savior, for that matter, so I'm going to have to reject any and all offerings of make believe. Nothing personal.

Btw, I'm pretty sure calling someone Satan is against the TOS.

BTW - I wonder what Marvel Comics would think about you using the image and name "Tony Stark" in association with such a liberal agenda? Did you get permission to use their moniker? Jus' askin'? :)

Would you like some cheese with that "Whine?"

BTW - Are you, the devil? You have heard of the terminology "Figure of speech?" It was merely a figure of speech, but if you feel you must report it, go ahead and do what you must. OR, if you'd prefer, I'll be more than happy to delete any and all of your comments and mine in response to yours? That would be an easy way to remedy this apparent "melt down" in cyber space, that you seem to be having because I am not debating the word of God, which I firmly believe is correct and infallible and beyond [your] reproach! God's word is beyond question, even if you think you know better than Him. :)

In Romans, Paul tells us that there will be a great many men and women in the last days who set themselves to be far more knowledgeable than God. Paul says that those folks will be dismissed by God as being foolish. Sorry, but that is what the Word says regarding men who think they know better than God. Pure foolishness.

Actually, my real name is Tony Stark, so I guess you could say my birth certificate gives me the right to use that name. As for an avatar for a social media website, I'm not making any money from the photo, nor am I claiming to be Marvel's Tony Stark, so it's all good. But even if I were, something tells me Stan Lee would be just fine with my liberal views. Thanks for your concern, though, and I hope you have permission to use that grey blur thingy, or whatever that is in your avatar.

Would you like some cheese with that "Whine?"

Wow, that was original. You and your dirty sandals should get out more.

BTW - Are you, the devil? You have heard of the terminology "Figure of speech?"

Call it whatever you want, it boils down to an insult. And even if you delete it, nothing stays deleted on the internet. The only one that seems to be having a meltdown here is you. I never once tried to debate the "word of god", so your comment is based on a false premise.

As far as Romans are concerned, I do enjoy watching Spartacus trample them once a week. But sadly, that show is coming to an end. Aside from that, I'm really not interested in fairy tales.

First rule of debate - attack the comment, not the author.

"That grey blur thingy, or whatever that is in your avatar" is my second book cover. Hard to see in sucha small space.

I think by now, you have clearly seen that I do not play by the rules. :)

I am finished with you, son! Now go report me for insulting you or hurting your feelings, or calling you names. Maybe you'll feel somewhat renewed and ready to start tomorrow with that "chip off your shoulder?" Like my grandpa always said, "poop or get off the pot!"

I'm wishing you a nice forever, because you deserve to enjoy every day you've been granted to live on earth, because if you continue heading in the direction you are headed, eternity in hell will be long, arduous and extremely warm.

Oh, "Check mate!" :-) :>) :~) :-) :P :o)

I'm not your son. How silly that you completely obfuscate a thread topic, then have the gall to talk about people with chips on their shoulders - as if you yourself didn't create this atmosphere. lol

And don't get confused - mentioning that grey blur thingy was not an invitation to talk about it, because I couldn't care less. Nor do I care about any of your patronizing references as to what you think will happen to people when they die. It's clear to see that your posts are no place for anyone to have mature debate about anything, so I'll make sure I will stay clear from your condescending, preachy comments in the future. Don't forget to clean your dirty sandals, "Pastor".

Per Tony: Our word for the day is - "obfuscate" which means to make obscure or unclear.

Everyone be sure to use this word several times this week, to stretch you vocabulary to a place where Tony can best understand you when you rebutt or write him.

Now just a tad bit of criticism on your use of "obfuscate" in the following sentence - "How silly that you completely obfuscate a thread topic."

My old teacher side of me came out when I read that sentence, thinking outloud that it may have been much clearer for you to have simply said, "How silly that you completelyconfuse a thread topic?" The use of "confuse" over "obfuscate" would have made reading your sentence a little cleaner and easier to understand?

Of course, I think it was on your mind to impress me and others with your vocabulary, so I'll give that to you; even so, the use of obfuscate in that sentence was a little awkward and maybe even a tad out of place grammatically speaking!

As I'd tell my fifth graders, Keep it simple, silly! Or, when writing, utilize the KISS approach to making your point. Clear and simple is the best way to get a message across to the letter or article was intended. ;)

One last thought on a few points you made.

1) You said, "It's clear to see that your posts are no place for 2) anyone to have mature debate about anything..." You finally caught my drift. When it comes to the Bible, there is no room for debate. I'm sorry if that throws a monkey wrench in your day, but the Bible is infallible, and how can you debate perfection?

2) You said, "...so I'll make sure I will stay clear from your condescending, preachy comments in the future." Wow, I was actually beginning to think you weren't going to grasp the fact that when it comes to the Bible, I may appear "preachy" to you, but what you are calling "preachy" is actually, faith in the Biblical world view of the Bible; and it is that view which my anchor is solidly fastened.

I know from whom my Grace has come, and I know that eternity is waiting for me. I don't see my faith in God as being "haughty, condescending, or even patronizing." I see my attitude as being CONFIDENT in whom it was that saved me. And in that I am grateful and blessed; surely not condescending or preachy, but of course, since you don't know my Savior, I can see where you may confuse the two!

Gays want the cover or badge of marriage, not because it gives them the same rights and benefits of a "civil union" but because:
1) They want to normalize their way of life;
2) They think that if they can claim the word marriage to cover their lust and sin, it somehow makes them OKAY in the eyes of God.

Think you hit the nail on the head with this Z~it's unfortunate that those who haven't embraced the idea of "gay marriage" are attacked for being homophobic, among other worse things. And, this hits close to home (my DS & we've argued plenty), but I try to look at it logistically, why be involved in something that has a 50/50 chance & why, imho, Civil Unions was a better option. And, why I think Pastor Z hit the proverbial nail!

Just an added note for anyone who wants to go on the attack...I'm not in any mood right now to argue, but if you go there, well, expect my "mood" response...

August Lady - Quick question: What is a "DS"?

My dear son.

"Everyone be sure to use this word several times this week, to stretch you[r] vocabulary to a place where Tony can best understand you when you rebutt[sic] or write him."

Is it really a surprise that much like the rest of the social conservatives on this site, you're just playing to the crowd? No, not really.

"Of course, I think it was on your mind to impress me and others with your vocabulary..."

I'm sorry if you were under the impression that my use of an expanded vocabulary has anything at all to do with you or anyone else. It's actually a byproduct of my education and I totally understand if you're not educated enough to follow along - it really explains why you've said the things here that you have. Just let me know if any of the words I've used here are too big for you and I will try to dumb it down.

"You said, "It's clear to see that your posts are no place for anyone to have mature debate about anything..." You finally caught my drift."

Absolutely. Glad to see that you're willing to admit that you're not here to consider anyone else's point of view but your own.

"I may appear "preachy" to you, but what you are calling "preachy" is actually, faith in the Biblical world view of the Bible"

Nope. I know preachy when I see it and it has nothing to do with you having faith and everything to do with you obnoxiously (sorry, big word) and repetitively (sorry, another big word) preaching your faith to those who have made it abundantly (I can't stop myself!) clear that they aren't interested.

I don't see my faith in God as being "haughty, condescending, or even patronizing."

It's not your faith, it's how you present yourself. But then, you already knew that.

And btw, the word rebut has only one "t" Mr. Fifth Grade Teacher, unless you're actually talking about someone's butt. Also, the word rebut means to refute or disprove by offering opposing evidence, something that you have definitely not done here.

Let me know if any of those words were too big and I will re-edit with smaller ones.

Things will shift in time.

I kinda think that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Just another deal struck between people.

If I sign up for health insurance or social security , then I decide who if anyone gets the residual.

Looking after kids is the imperative though.

Actually, SS has rules for distribution. Nobody gets to choose. Maybe you are right, the government should maybe issue licenses of exclusive inheritance that are irrevocable once signed. Then if one can find a church to call it a marriage, fine. If they refuse, it is their religious right.

Churhes? Those have to go too.

Marriage is just a contract.

The only one the court won't enforce.

I saw on the news that they were trying to or had already, giving the gays in the military to their unmarried partner all the benefits of being married, but only to the gays...So if a straight person has a girlfriend they cant do this, they have to be married....

Propositon 8- Obama is trying to redefine the Marrage act... I just heard him say it on the news, that Our gay brothers has the right to get married and have the same benefits that we do...
DOD extends spousal benefits to gays... Secretary of Defense calls for DOMA Repeal...
Attachment 2- Additional benefits for same sex domestic partners NOT opposite sex domestic partners since they can get married....
Military services will make every effort to ensure eligible same sex domestic partners of Service Members and their families to receive benefits listed in Attachment 2 by Aug. 31, 2013 but in no case after Oct.1,2013.
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, Dc. 20301-1000

You got it down right Truth. Some people will hear with different ears what they want to hear. It is not fair that domestic partners un-married and gay can have the same benefits as married but girlfriend and boyfriend living together cannot.Maybe Obama is looking forward to when he is out of the White House and no longer has to put up a facade of marriage.

Easy fix... quit blocking their right to get married. Then neither gays nor straights will get partner benefits without the benefit of marriage.

Those without faith cannot and will not understand the true opposition to homosexuality or to gay marriage. You cannot understand faith by reading about it or even by memorizing the Bible. You must have faith to either understand or to explain that faith. It is not our place to judge those who are gay or wish to get married, and we do not do so, although in today's society, you must only disagree with something to be viewed as full of hatred. Homosexuality goes against the foundation of our faith. With our faith, although free will is allowed and people make their own choices, we will not compromise or negotiate the foundation of our faith in order to please those who do not share in that faith. It is just that simple. When we speak against the concept of homosexuality or gay marriage, we are defending the foundation of our faith. As I stated, God allows for free will and we do not question that application of free will by others, but we do not, nor will we accept what goes against the foundation of our faith with this or any other issue. Faith is not set aside in order to please others or to adhere to their definition of equal rights that contradicts the foundation of our faith. Those with faith do not oppose God in order to please man.

But doesn't faith in Christ stand on its own? If I have faith that Jesus resurrects me from death into immediate eternal life, that is the only thing that matters. My behavior doesn't change that faith. I want to stay close to the Light, and that choice dictates my behavior. But, if someone else chooses to sin, that shouldn't affect my faith if my faith is solid in the Holy Spirit. It isn't our job to change someone else’s behavior. It is only our job to show the power of Christ. (John 21:21-22)

Hi, Joy....It is certainly our duty with our faith to lead those to God as we can. I guess to simplify my above comment would be to emphasize that we can and should lead others to God, but we cannot force them. The main point I am stressing with my earlier comment is that we should not adjust our faith or alter our faith in order to adhere to others. The foundation of our faith is not negotiable and many seem to believe that we are uncaring for others because we are unwilling to dismiss our faith in order to move in a direction that strays from the foundation of our faith. I hope that clears up my earlier statement.

Total blather, Vic. I grew up in an environment that espoused that sort of sanctimonious bigotry. I understand it up and down, in, over and out. It's what gets politicians all het up about telling people with whom they may and may not spend their lives, loves and futures. Utter nonsense.

Their lives are not your business, and telling them you feel 'burdened' to tell them their entire lives are based in sin, and you have to try to "save them," is not your place. Be self-righteous in your own home and in your church, but stay out of their lives.

Chuck, what part of me saying it that it is not my place to judge or that I cannot force others to follow my faith do you not understand? With my faith, God, Himself allows for free will, so everyone can and will make their own choices in life. The laws of the land are not the same as the laws of my faith, but my faith is based upon God, not Washington. The laws of the land have allowed more than 50,000,000 babies to be killed as they go against God's laws. I will not, nor am I required to accept that which goes against my religion. It may exist as a law of the land, but it will not become God’s Law because of that. It is not my place to judge individuals, and that is not my claim here for those who are not simply taking a side without hearing my words. It is not my right, as an individual to dictate the actions of others, nor have I done so with my above comment for those who are not simply taking a side without hearing my actual words. You have made this personal about me, which indicates you have no idea as to what I have said in my original comment. I will not go against my faith to make you feel better. My faith is with God, not Washington, not man in general, and certainly not you.

Chuck says, "Total blather, Vic."

Well, Chuck, I guess you would recognize "blather" as you are full of it [blather, that is!] :)

Hi, Pastor Z...It seems confusing to me that those without faith somehow feel that they somehow have the ability and knowledge to explain our faith to us. It is also assumed by many that sins based upon our faith are only sins for those who share in our faith.

It is absolutely impossible to evaluate, analyze, or much less to explain our faith without having that faith. The very foundation and components of our faith are not only strong, but unshakable unless we as individuals allow it. My personal relationship with God is actually the only thing with my faith that I can fully control, therefore that individual relationship with God is the foundation of my faith. That foundation of my faith is not based upon what Washington considers acceptable. That foundation of my faith is not based upon what a collective society considers acceptable. That foundation is not based upon what another individual considers acceptable. That foundation is based upon God's Word and that is the final word contrary to what others may choose to believe. That is faith. Bless you, my friend...

Bless you to, brother! You hit the proverbial nail on the head. These naysayers will say just about anything to discredit our faith. Nevertheless, the same was done when Jesus spoke, so consider it an honor. We were told to expect the kind of verbal attacks we get, so like water on a freshly waxed car, I let it simply bead up, and roll softly off the covering that been placed over me by Jesus.

What is a real shame, in my thoughts, is that Jesus was so correct when He said that the road to hell would be wide and traveled by many? It sure looks like he was talking about a massive highway to hell, that the naysayers are willing to travel in order to avoid the one truth: They are sinners in need of Jesus. What a shame! What a loss! So many are headed to hell, and most have drunk the koolaid of Satan and the world, and are oblivious to their own fate! :(

In case any of you want to know my feelings on marrying a gay couple: I thought you'd never ask, but if the government got to the place where they forced me to conduct such a reprehensible act, I'd relinquish my license and ordination in the Gospel ministry...

And only a person of faith could understand what a profound statement to God this represents. As I stated in an earlier comment, our faith is not negotiable, nor will we compromise in a manner that will stray from our faith to serve man or government.

Amen!

A simple definition of an “atheist” is one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Even by the very definition of my faith, no one is required to believe in, or to follow the word of God. “Free Will” as it applies to my faith allows one to have faith, but it is not, nor can it be forced upon anyone. My faith is my personal relationship between God and me, and there is no power anywhere that is strong enough to alter my faith, or to weaken my faith unless I allow it to be done. In reality, my faith goes no further than my personal relationship with God, in the sense that I cannot, nor am I allowed to force my faith upon another. As a Christian, I am not a member of a club, nor is it a cult whereas all within the group are to be considered exactly the same, nor can the faith of one individual be accurately compared to the faith of another. We are individuals, and our faith is a representation of only that individual. There is unity within Christianity, but the true foundation is the faith of the individual of God.

I am not responsible for the actions of all Christians, so I should not be praised for the actions of other Christians, nor should I be blamed for the shortfalls of other Christians. The foundation of Christianity is the individual relationship with God, and the individual is responsible for his/her own actions and behaviors, as it applies to their faith. If you judge Christianity, as a collective body, you are misrepresenting the faith, itself. A prime example of misrepresentation of Christianity is as it applies to the murder of George Tiller, a late-term abortion doctor who was killed by Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion activist who claimed to be a Christian. I despise everything that relates to allowing abortions, but the murder of Dr. Tiller was a horrible crime, just the same. Scott Roeder did not represent Christianity with his personal actions, nor did he represent my personal faith. I should not be blamed for the death of Dr. Tiller, nor should it be associated with Christianity. This was a murder that was the result of one individual, not me, and not Christianity as a collective body. Blaming the murder on Christianity is a false claim and an inaccurate representation of my faith.

An atheist is certainly entitled to believe in what they choose to believe, or to believe in nothing at all. Again, free will allows for the individual to make his/her own choices in life. The part that troubles me with some atheist is the never-ending efforts to not only make it clear that they do not believe in God, but those who seem to be on a mission to destroy the beliefs of others. At that point, the individual moves from his/her own beliefs into a mode whereas there is a goal to put forth as much misinformation as possible, in order to discredit something they cannot possibly understand. You see; there is a problem as it relates to atheists when it comes to my personal faith, or Christianity, in general. It is absolutely impossible to understand, much less to explain my faith, if you have not experienced that faith. It is no more reliable, as an interpretation or understanding of our faith, as it would be to try to convince someone that they do not like the taste of milk. You cannot understand how the milk tastes to that individual, yet the quest to make them hate milk remains a priority to the one who does not like the taste of milk. In order to disprove something, or even to have an intelligent conversation or debate, it is impossible to do if you do not have an understanding of what it is you are trying to disprove.

The conclusion is quite simple, as it relates to my message. You cannot explain faith in God if you do not understand faith in God. My faith is no less real simply because someone does not believe it, nor will my faith be weakened by those who try to deceive others with misinformation. My faith is no less real simply because someone who does not have faith does not approve of my faith. The shallow attempts to explain or to dismiss God are by those who are literally unable to speak with a true understanding, so those attempts will always result in total failure...Vic Damico

Is the antithesis also true? i.e. you can't understand a lack of faith?

I dunno, just trying to understand.

Not only do I not believe it, I don't believe IN it. In the end, at death's door, you are close to Gpd again, like a child if they don't drug you beyond knowing it. That is what I believe. I think some people die in peace and others in torment, not of the body, but the soul.

Oh, we have no problem understanding a persons lack of faith. It is clearly described in the Bible [both the Old and New Testiments], and the for those who choose to life without any form of faith, their end will be destruction. It is YOU who is having difficulty understanding how we could believe in this person we call, Jesus?

So, if you really want to understand about our faith, and the Jesus we love, try reading the following:

God Loves You!

The Bible says, "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life"

The problem is that . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of us have done, said or thought things that are wrong. This is called sin, and our sins have separated us from God.

The Bible says “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” God is perfect and holy, and our sins separate us from God forever. The Bible says “The wages of sin is death.”

The good news is that, about 2,000 years ago,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God sent His only Son Jesus Christ to die for your sins.

Jesus is the Son of God. He lived a sinless life and then died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. “God demonstrates His own love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”

Jesus rose from the dead and now He lives in heaven with God His Father. He offers us the gift of eternal life -- of living forever with Him in heaven if we accept Him as our Lord and Savior. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by Me."

God reaches out in love to you and wants you to be His child. "As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe on His name."

You can choose to ask Jesus Christ to forgive your sins and come in to your life as your Lord and Savior...this is the "faith" that you want to know more about, but will never understand until you make Jesus your Savior. Then, and only then can you understand faith [which is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to accept Christ as your Savior and turn from your sins, you can ask Him to be your Savior and Lord by praying a prayer like this:

"Lord Jesus, I believe you are the Son of God. Thank you for dying on the cross for my sins. Please forgive my sins and give me the gift of eternal life. I ask you in to my life and heart to be my Lord and Savior. I want to serve you always."

Well, it's been a long time since I've "heard" an alter call. Not long enough, but a long time.

Well, you just heard it, right here on Gather, and it looks like you've turned another deaf ear to it. You can only turn your ear so many times, Chuck, and I promise there will be a day that this opportunity is brought up before you [at the second judgment], and you will have no excuses [like; I didn't hear the word; I never went to church; no one ever invited me to Jesus]. Tomorrow is not promised to you r Tony or me. The Bible tells us that today is the day of salvation. What are you doing about "today?"

I'm only on Gather to share the truth. The truth and how it has effected me over my life. My own failures in life, and His love and forgiveness. What you guys think is hate speech is not hate speech, but rather presenting the truth about a subject that no one wants to hear.
Preachers are way too timid about talking to listeners about Hell. Instead, they want to make sure their offering baskets stay full, so they invent half truths about the Bible and practice avoidance and selective preaching to fill the pews.

Jesus wasn't afraid to tell people there were only two ways to eternity [heaven]. One was through Him; the other was the wide road to destruction [hell]. And he told people that the wide road would be the more preferred road [which you and Tony and ainko, and LaBrea tarpits] so many of you naysayers and mockers have decided to take.

I do weep for your souls, because I do know what lies ahead for you. I will not give up using this medium as a way to win souls. If only one person comes to Jesus while I use Gather, then I have not wasted my time, and to be truthful, I've seen three people come to Jesus in my few years here. That is great, considering the path is narrow, and the other road is wide. I halfway expect the multitudes to rebuff me, so I am never disppointed, just sad that more won't give their heart to Him.

Oh, one more thought about alter calls. There is coming a day, sooner than you want to admit, where God will make one last to alter call. It's called the Second Judgment, and everyone, regardless of their worldly beliefs or disbeliefs will have to stand before Him, and what He says to each of them will be much harder for Him to say than you to hear, as it is not His will that any should perish, but, He gave you free will, and your exercising that free will, will end in your destruction and eternal damnation.

You need to get something straight, Preacher... laying out your beliefs as if they were facts does not make them facts. And all those big, long thread-killing monologues up there are full of nothing BUT your beliefs.

As for your comment just above re: Final Alter Call... Hogwash!

And just a note on the "Whatif...?" side. If I'm wrong, and that big alter call does come... you're not likely to enjoy the outcome as it pertains to you.

"Lord, Lord... all this I did in thy name!"

"Get thee out of my sight... for I know ye not!"

Not fully accurate as quotes go, but it says what the verses say.

That text does not pertain to me, that is what faith and knowing the Scriptures is all about. That pertains to those who are out there "tickling the ears" of those who want a watered-down Gospel. It is for those who lay claim to a religious experience and church membership to get them to heaven. Just knowing the name and saying the name does not make for salvbation by His grace. Way too many folks today have learned the talk, and they walk the walk, but they never turned their live and heart over to Him.

I know that I know, that He has saved me. You will never understand how I know I'm saved because you first need to know Him. Sadly, withoout Jesus, you can't hear, within you, the voice of God. I hear that voice, and any one who is truly saved will tell you the same thing as I have shared.

Salvation comes by way of faith, not works, and that text you used [incorrectly as you have shown the propensity of doing since you've started commenting on my threads] is another example of being dangerous for the faith by knowing just enough to make you a false teacher and perjurer of the faith!

Jesus said there is only one way to heaven and God, and it is through Him. He tells us to call upon His name, and have a personal relationship [not a religion or religious experience] with Him.

If, by faith, we do exactly as He tells us, we can expect to be saved.

No, Chuck, I'll not be spending eternity with the likes of you, that is unless you see the light and turn your heart to Him. You know the way now, but I suspect you will ignore, reject and avoid this path as long as you live. For that I am deeply saddened, because you were one of the people, Jesus died for some two-thousand years ago. :(

Finally, Chuck, and I don't mean to insinuate that you are demon possessed by what I say next. It's just that I need to acknowledge that you are being fed and led by a false spirit, so I say this in love, "Get thee behind me Satan!" And now I shake the sand and dust from my sandals following my visit with you, and there is no longer a need for me to visit with you about this topic. You and your lost spirit are now on your own. I pray you come to Him, but I have my doubts....

"You need to get something straight, Preacher... laying out your beliefs as if they were facts does not make them facts."

This is the largest misconception there is with the non-believers. The reality that is God, His plan, His Words, and His power exists as a fact regardless as to the denial or acceptance of that reality by those who choose to not believe. As for God's existence and His plan for what was, what is, and what shall be, it does not exist or apply only for those who believe. God is above all, not just those who choose to believe.

Thanks for posting this to Shepherds Voice.

Oh, and Dennis, feel free to jump in here, whenever and wherever you feel led to! :)

"Should the government be allowed to force 89% of the population (per this report, 11% of Americans are attracted to same-gender relations - http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...11/04/07/18551) to accept, what many consider a reprehensible act, or at least a disgusting moral act?"

That question is based on a couple of false premises. First, just because only 11% of the population is made up of LGBT (I like to refer to them as human beings) doesn't mean that the other 89% of the American population doesn't accept them for who they are. Taking into consideration factual statistics from legitimate sources, four separate polls (an AP-National Constitution Center Poll, a Gallup poll, an ABC News/Washington Post poll, and a CNN Opnion Research poll) all drew the same conclusion - the majority of American citizens support same-sex marriage.

Secondly, no one would have anything forced on them. Once the Supreme Court makes same-sex marriage legal across the nation (an historic event that will take place in the not too distant future), heterosexual god-fearing folks will still be free to live their lives and other people's marriages will have absolutely nothing to do with them, just as it is now. Everyone will have the same rights and people who oppose LGBT's can still look down their nose and judge others who are different from them. The only difference will be that their judgmental opinions will be just that - opinions, and not the driving force that prevents others from getting the same rights and recognition as everyone else.

You're assuming that Christian, such as myself, do not view gays as "human beings!" That is not a problem, at least from where I stand [or sit]. They are humans, and as I've said before I have numerous gay friends. The problem isn't over their humanness, but the fact that they want marriage to incorporate their Biblical sin.

I have always maintained that a civil union should be more than adequate to meet the needs of same-gender relationships. That doesn't take away from their being or not be a part of the human race.

And, yes, any decision by the feds, will be something that is forced upon those who hold marriage a sacred institution, including the fact that churches [in order to maintain their tax status] will need to marry gays.

If this isn't forcing something down the throats of major groups within the population of this country, groups that are much larger than the 11% of gays [forget the number of bleeding-heart liberals who sympathize with gays] wanting to be normal in order to hide the sin that the Bible says they commit.

Just because they are allowed to marry does not in any way remove the sin of their actions, and they and those who support their sinful actions, will be judged. There are texts throughout the Bible that refer to those who associate with sin as being guilty, too!

Great comment, Tony. Well thought out, and at least an eight out of a possible ten! :)

Oh, good catch on "rebut." My bad!

"You're assuming that Christian, such as myself, do not view gays as human beings!"

I listed my own personal preference, which had nothing to do with you.

"And, yes, any decision by the feds, will be something that is forced upon those who hold marriage a sacred institution..."

It's way too late for that - marriage isn't "exclusively" a sacred institution. As I explained above, secular ceremonies are held everyday. The very fact that these godless people get married on a daily basis hasn't diminished your "sacred" institution, and neither will same-sex marriage. But I digress, as someone else getting married has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else.

"forget the number of bleeding-heart liberals who sympathize with gays"

Everyone has a voice and the right to have their voice counted, not just the people who think as you do. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once wrote, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. A majority of the country means just that - a majority. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, times are changing, people are educating themselves, and the majority of Americans want equal rights for all - regardless of who you love.

"...wanting to be normal in order to hide the sin that the Bible says they commit."

Normal is defined as conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern, which when you think about it, is pretty relative. If a guy decides that his ideal lifestyle is to sleep in a mud hut in his parents' backyard and sing "Oops, I Did It Again" all day long, he's set up some rules for himself. He's created a standard, a regular pattern.

Say he lives next door to a girl who goes to his school. She sleeps in a bed in her bedroom inside the house, and hates Britney Spears. She definitely does NOT fit in with his rules, his standard, his regular pattern. According to him, she is not normal. It doesn't matter that most of the people at his school do not live in a mud hut or belt out Britney all day long. We're looking at the world from his point-of-view.

Another definition for normal is something that is "occurring naturally". That makes sense. Snow occurs naturally in winter in Wisconsin, so if you live in Wisconsin, you are not shocked and horrified to see snow. You consider it "normal". Snow does not happen naturally in Hawaii, so if you're in Honolulu and suddenly get hit with a blizzard, it's safe to say that would be a totally abnormal event... and everyone would be freaking out.

You know what else happens naturally? Us. We're born how we're born, whether it's with a disability or with impossibly frizzy hair. We are who we are, because of our personalities or our ethnic backgrounds or our sexual orientation or our wacky families.

Normal. You have to define it for yourself, just like everything else in life. Others don't get to define it for you.

I fought in the Viet Nam era war for your right to think as you think...and that also gives me the right to think as I think, and write what I write. And I'd do it again, even it's for bleeding-heart liberals like you... :)

So take that to your hearts bank and deposit it in the place that allows even folks like me to have an opinion! And my the stripes I earned in the US Army give me the right to call anyone I want, "SON!" son!!!

*Vietnam

In your attempt to yet again label me a "bleeding heart liberal" (which by the way is not a dirty word), you've actually supported the point I made that everyone has a voice and the right to have their voice counted. By not responding to the other points I made, I will assume we are in agreement about those as well.

But contrary to your belief, you DO NOT have the right to call me son, no matter how many supposed decorations you adorn on your supposed uniform. There is only one person in this world that can claim that right, and it definitely isn't you. Good day, sir.