Posted on 08/15/2012 7:38:20 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
I may only bless what God has blessed from the dawn of creation!
Genesis 2:18
In general: including, for example, contracts between several people or blood relatives. Singling out homosexual partners from the mass of all other perfectly legal partnerships, -- which would happen if the campaign were strictly for domestic unions as a gay alternative to marriage, -- would be singling them for a legal preference precisely for the sexual aspect of their partnership, absent in all other kinds.
But the Christian doctrine clearly speaks against sexual impropriety which homosexuality certainly is.
So therefore, while a Christian organization may generally approve or be neutral to contracts in general, it surely must be opposed to homosexual partnerships even when they are not termed to compete with marriage in the legal space.
Am I wrong?
There is a great deal there which can apply across the board.
-----------
* remind me sometime to sic the FR spelin & grammar pol-leece on you
Potty language is not allowed in the Religion Forum.
Sadly, some folks don't want to follow what comes naturally, and shat is the elemental cornerstone of God's creation.
They foolishly strive to create a "special" status for their unnatural behaviors, and will expend every ounce of their life's energy on forcing everyone else to accept and encourage their behavior.
It is sad to watch.
They should be prayed for, in the hope that they can turn to God, confess their sins, receive Salvation, strive to act as Jesus instructed, and spend the remainder of their days in service to their Creator.
The alternative (remaining in denial, and continuation of their sin) is not a path anyone should take.
Should we prohibit quoting the Bible in the Religion Forum?
Are we prohibiting Bible Language?
2 Kings 18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
In this case, RM & AM, I’d have to agree with P-M. The King James Version is a revered text of the Bible, and for many it is the ONLY text of the bible. It is the text many of us were reared on.
There is no way they can in some instances avoid the word “piss”.
Nor is it surprising that it remained in common usage. It’s French:
Je dois pisser ! - I have to pee!
Ça pisse ! - It’s pouring/pissing down!
People in my Reformed circles have been accusing Dr. Mike Horton, Dr. David Van Drunen, Dr. R. Scott Clark and Dr. Daryl Hart for some time of having adopted their “Two Kingdoms” viewpoint out of Lutheran church-state theology. I simply don't know enough about Lutheranism on this point to comment intelligently.
I would be quite interested in reading the material you've written. I think a LCMS Freeper with a long history here will have credibility. I think it may also help me understand the Two Kingdoms theologians better.
My view for a long time has been that Christian conservatives need to take allies where we can get them and not divide into minuscule camps fighting each other. If we're in agreement on most areas, let's work together on those areas and politely discuss the rest.
Talking about excretory functions when quoting the King James Version of the Bible is one thing; some words have changed their connotations since Elizabethan times. Same for quoting certain texts from secular sources. If I'm quoting Mark Twain, I'll be quoting language I would never use apart from quoted material.
Using potty language when we could choose to use different language seems unnecessary in a religious discussion.
I didn't request that P-Marlowe’s post or posts be pulled. I didn't even know about it until now, and I didn't see the original text so all I know is what is being said about them. But I'd like to politely request that such language not be used unless it has to be used. This thread on Free Republic is getting attention from people in my theological circles who are not Freepers and are being introduced to Free Republic for the first time, and I'd hate for them to think we use potty language on a regular basis.
Apology accepted; thank you kindly. FReep on!
Glad you joined the thread, lightman.
Thank you for your response. My point is that “Natural Law” is not the ONLY needed element for “Logic and Reason”-—but the best one, excluding Revelation, where people can actually USE Reason (special gift from God) to prove much of Faith and see Him. Christianity, as many scholars state, is a “Reasoned” religion (which requires Faith—as all beliefs, including Atheism, requires).
This was largely what CS Lewis did, once a brilliant atheist, who became more brilliant with becoming a Theist, and then, a Christian-—using Reason, and then, acquiring Faith. He used Logic and Reason with Scripture—and concluded that Scripture was so Wise and Logical and True, it agreed with all his observances of history (natural laws). Both Reason and Faith are one. You can’t be human if you exclude one or the other. We are made Rational animals in God’s image for a reason-—the ability to discern Truth from his creation (natural law).
Revelation is the necessary “glasses” that human beings usually need—for most human beings don’t have the capacity to understand Nature to the degree of an Aristotle or Aquinas or CS Lewis. They never have the time to put into the “seeking Truth” that is required to really grasp the Truth in Revelation which is so obvious by the in-depth study of Natural Law.
The Two Kingdoms people make their mistake in thinking that “applying natural law” can EXCLUDE Scripture. It is in agreement with all of Scripture. As Aquinas proved in his Summa Theologiae-—there is no disagreement in Scripture and Natural Law Theory.
The problem stems in a twisting and warping of Natural Law which only can happen if you remove Reason and Logic. (And, of course, with the hubris and imperfection of man, this “logic” can be imperfect. True! Is indeed, twisted a lot of the time. )
Justice-—and Just Law (God is Just)-—has to coincide with Natural Law-—this is in John Locke’s Theory as well-—which never disagreed with the idea that Natural Rights come from God. God’s Justice is the same as what was Just in Natural Law Theory of Aquinas. There is NO conflict with the two-—Scripture and Natural Law-—all conflict arrises when you get weird, twisted ideas-—like there is no teleological ends in human beings so that man can marry man. This absurd, irrational thinking comes from Marxism where Biology and God are trying to be discarded in favor of making themselves gods.
Only lies about Natural Law—conflict with scripture.
These “theologians” you refer to are “rewriting” and “twisting”not only Natural Law Theory-—but Scripture as well. If they twist the one-—the other will be twisted, since they are in fundamental agreement.
I have studied both Natural Law Theory and Christian Theology. I am no expert (Ph.D). But if you know anything about me-—you would understand how little respect I have for anyone in today’s academic world, when drenched in German Postmodernism, which is only nihilism and hate and a complete rejection of Natural Law Theory, and, of course, The Holy Bible.
Ping to 114
Thanks for the link, pastor. I downloaded it to read this coming week. Warm regards,
Jim
Though not a Frau, I usually spend my Saturdays at home lounging, PC & TV, as well. Only today, two open houses. Roberts Armory was having their open house during our Heritage Festival, so a buddy and I showed up. I brought some literature about WWII for their collection. Chuck is my 2nd in command in our Legion post.
Then it was an open house for a buddy who remarried a while back and just had their open house to celebrate.
I'm pooped, and looking for another quiet Saturday like you describe...
They are pulled to prevent flame wars, i.e. potty language usually provokes even worse use in replies and so on.
Where the potty language is contained in a Bible quote, that post will not be pulled.
Well, I wouldn’t spend my time reading the Postmodernist rubbish put out by our “Justice” system, since Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. destroyed the whole legal process with his foul ideology. After twisting our legal system into something found in Stalin’s Soviet Union—I wouldn’t tax my brain on absorbing such insanity.
There is no Justice system without Moral Absolutes which are enshrined in the Supreme Law of the Land. Holmes’s own words, “Men make their own laws...these laws do not flow from some mysterious omnipresence in the sky, and...judges are not independent mouthpieces of the infinite.” He also threw out Natural Law-—which is why we now get absurd irrational thinking, such as there is a “right” to sodomize other people and “Just” Law has to reward Vice. There’s a “rational” concept for you.
We have arbitrary law—man made-up law-—not Rule of Law which requires “Right Reason” and a Higher Power than man. Holmes: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” So, Darwinian—don’t you think? or can you after immersing your brain in the convoluted thinking of Marxists who “create” our laws now out of PRECEDENT—Precedents created out of Nonsensical conclusions not based on Reason and Natural law or God’s laws. Great system. John Marshall would have thrown out thousands of our latest laws—Null and Void-—because they conflict with the Supreme Law of the Land. Wow-—what a concept....but Mark Levine stated it best—we are Post-Constitutional now.
Law schools NOW teach a system of Rule of Man. They are taught how to get around Just Law and pervert it. Several of my sons graduated with honors from law schools. The ideology taught is John Austin’s —not The Founding Fathers and John Marshall’s. John Austin was the father of Germany’s legal system in the late 19th century and embraced by all jurists by the 1920’s which paved the way for a Hitler. We are on that same road since Holmes.
“The gunman situation writ large.” as Hart would put the John Austin philosophy which replaced our Rule of Law.
I was not a Christian until i was well into my thirties but i did not like queers any better then than i do now, it is no more natural than a man or woman and a dog.
As far as law is concerned, Christians are no longer making the laws for this world to live by but i will vote against that sort of stuff as long as i have enough breath to go vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.