What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?

[San Lumen]

Ben shapiro is not a good source.

If you are open to the public you serve all. You don't get to pick and chose your customers

I knew you would not even consider the explanation from ben Shapiro even though that is the same understanding I have been failing to communicate, or you have been willingly ignoring either way, it does not matter.

and secondly, you sound very libertarian for a moment there until you realize you can deny service, but if you do a different store will open right next to yours that does not deny anyone, and then you will go out of business. I understand that fine, but I do not agree that you should not even be allowed to run your business as You want and deal with the consequences thereof. however, when that business is explicitly run under religious values, it is a religious business and has the right to practice their religion in their work lives as such, whithout government trying to force them to go against their religious practices. I don't think you seem to care about freedom of religion when it is a Christian or a Jew we are talking about, huh? I hope I am wrong there.

Everyone is equal and should not be discriminated.

Should a company be able to fire someone because they find out they are gay?

[Neutraligon]

The entirety of the new testament...as well as changes Christians made to the old.

As to my opinion of LGBT marriage, it seems to have worked out just fine for the last however long it a been legal (different for different countries).

It was not "retconned"; that is inaccurate. Those laws were put in place until the time the Messiah - Jesus, from a Christian perspective - revealed Himself.

You know that whole Satan thing that Christians have yeah, that was a retcon. So was the whole the messiah being literal god/son of god.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Should a company be able to fire someone because they find out they are gay?

Come on, Lumen, you know what the answer to questions like that is gonna be.

[Thanatttynia]

If the entire Bible is true without the ability to alter its contents, explain the Church's retconning of a significant portion of the OT.

if you are referring to the Catholic church, know I am not Catholic. I am a non-denominational Christian. Also, I do not want to discuss the topic of the legitimacy of the bible with someone who's entire world-view is structured so that no matter what argument I make you will never accept any of them. I would love to discuss the topic of GOd but seeing as what i have jsut stated, yeah guess that won't happen.

You're a non-denominational Christian who denounces others as heretics?

[Christenmark]

When was the Old Testament "retconned" and by who?

The entirety of the new testament...as well as changes Christians made to the old.

As to my opinion of LGBT marriage, it seems to have worked out just fine for the last however long it a been legal (different for different countries).

the church did not exist before the new testament, and the Romans persecuted Christians for being Christians for around 300 years! so they existed long before the church, there are even Roman accounts of Christ's crucifixion and even Jewish writers of antiquity noting his existence. your description of the NT as a 'retcon' is entirely inaccurate. the OT is the events and teachings of the beginning and the setting apart of the jews as the people of God, and the prophecies to tell of the coming savior and the events of the future, and even the end times. the NT is the fulfillment of the law and the prophecies, and the new law that must be followed, and the death and resurrection of the LORD Christ Jesus. and all of what Jesus taught was in a new law and the old law as well, there are very VERY VERY few changes made to the old law, and the dropping of the laws meant for the Jews specifically, not the 10 commandments and fundamental doctrinal aspects as well. other than that all that was done was additions to the doctrinal aspects, however nearly all of that was done by the followers of Christ after his ascension, and the apostles also AFTER his ascension. the NT is not a 'retcon' no matter how much you try to say it is.

[Minachia]

Y'all know there's a Christian Discussion Thread for this stuff, right?
Just a suggestion.

[Badb Catha]

It was not "retconned"; that is inaccurate. Those laws were put in place until the time the Messiah - Jesus, from a Christian perspective - revealed Himself.

You know that whole Satan thing that Christians have yeah, that was a retcon. So was the whole the messiah being literal god/son of god.

The part about Satan is not true; the origins of Satan come from the Second Temple.

The part of Jesus' divinity is not necessarily a "retcon" as I do not believe Judaism specifically mentioned the Messiah as being mortal.

[Badb Catha]

Y'all know there's a Christian Discussion Thread for this stuff, right?
Just a suggestion.

Fair point.

[Christenmark]

if you are referring to the Catholic church, know I am not Catholic. I am a non-denominational Christian. Also, I do not want to discuss the topic of the legitimacy of the bible with someone who's entire world-view is structured so that no matter what argument I make you will never accept any of them. I would love to discuss the topic of GOd but seeing as what i have jsut stated, yeah guess that won't happen.

You're a non-denominational Christian who denounces others as heretics?

no, I denounce heresy as just that, heresy. I never said all the others were heretics going to hell for all eternity, they are Christians too, but they have been fooled by their own want of acceptance into allowing more and more heretical acts to take place, but they who truly know in Christ as the risen Lord who died for our sins and rose from the dead, and who spoke only truths of absolute. then they are Christian but you simply want to paint me as if I an a grandstanding Christian who thinks himself the only right one, you are wrong. I implore all of you to read Mere Christianity - by, C.S. Lewis for an intro to theology in the Christian understanding. But anyway, I do not even have the authority to deem acts as good or evil, god already told us the differences and I simply use that in my use of heretics and heresy. and that is the appropriate term for the individuals specified in the context given when I typed those responses.

[Christenmark]

Y'all know there's a Christian Discussion Thread for this stuff, right?
Just a suggestion.

Fair point.

agreed

[Christenmark]

You know that whole Satan thing that Christians have yeah, that was a retcon. So was the whole the messiah being literal god/son of god.

The part about Satan is not true; the origins of Satan come from the Second Temple.

The part of Jesus' divinity is not necessarily a "retcon" as I do not believe Judaism specifically mentioned the Messiah as being mortal.

[Beggnig]

No, we believe in truth, and not in subjective truth. We cannot have our definition of marriage and the state have a separate one. There is one truth on what marriage is, and it is not dependent on who sees what to be true, but on what really is the truth. Encouraging the permanent cohabitation of couples we consider not to be married is not loving, because encouraging and increasing sin is not loving.

The state is not the Church. The state can believe whatever it wants. If two adults want to pledge their lives together in the eyes of the government that has nothing to do with the Church. If two people want a sacramentally valid union before the eyes of God? Now we're in Church territory.

This. "LGBT+ Marriage" is not a thing. Marriage is a mystery of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The state can write whatever nonsense it likes on a piece of paper in the name of liberalism and equality, it will not change this simple fact.

[Badb Catha]

The part about Satan is not true; the origins of Satan come from the Second Temple.

The part of Jesus' divinity is not necessarily a "retcon" as I do not believe Judaism specifically mentioned the Messiah as being mortal.

from wiki- "...In Judaism, Satan is typically regarded as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, or "evil inclination", or as an agent subservient to God.

A figure known as "the satan" first appears in the Tanakh as a heavenly prosecutor, a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh, who prosecutes the nation of Judah in the heavenly court and tests the loyalty of Yahweh's followers by forcing them to suffer. During the intertestamental period..."

I meant as a Force for Evil; but as another pointed out, this is not the Christian Discussion Thread.

[San Lumen]

The part about Satan is not true; the origins of Satan come from the Second Temple.

The part of Jesus' divinity is not necessarily a "retcon" as I do not believe Judaism specifically mentioned the Messiah as being mortal.

from wiki- "...In Judaism, Satan is typically regarded as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, or "evil inclination", or as an agent subservient to God.

A figure known as "the satan" first appears in the Tanakh as a heavenly prosecutor, a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh, who prosecutes the nation of Judah in the heavenly court and tests the loyalty of Yahweh's followers by forcing them to suffer. During the intertestamental period..."

this is way off topic. To get it back on topic should a company be allowed to fire someone if they find out they are gay or a landlord able to evict them?

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Imagine not being a Gnostic lol

[Christenmark]

from wiki- "...In Judaism, Satan is typically regarded as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, or "evil inclination", or as an agent subservient to God.

A figure known as "the satan" first appears in the Tanakh as a heavenly prosecutor, a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh, who prosecutes the nation of Judah in the heavenly court and tests the loyalty of Yahweh's followers by forcing them to suffer. During the intertestamental period..."

I meant as a Force for Evil; but as another pointed out, this is not the Christian Discussion Thread.

your right he is right, sorry I got carried away. I apologize.

[Heloin]

You're a non-denominational Christian who denounces others as heretics?

no, I denounce heresy and just that heresy. I never said all the others were heretics going to hell for all eternity, they are Christians too, but they have been fooled by their own want of acceptance into allowing more and more heretical acts to take place, but they who truly know in Christ as the risen Lord who died for our sins and rose from the dead, and who spoke only truths of absolute. then they are Christian but you simply want to paint me as if I an a grandstanding Christian who thinks himself the only right one, you are wrong. I implore all of you to read Mere Christianity - by, C.S. Lewis for an intro to theology in the Christian understanding. But anyway, I do not even have the authority to deem acts as good or evil, god already told us the differences and I simply use that in my use of heretics and heresy. and that is the appropriate term for the individuals specified in the context given when I typed those responses.

C.S. Lewis was an Anglican you know, and the Anglican Communion is really pro-LGBT rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... _Communion

[Badb Catha]

from wiki- "...In Judaism, Satan is typically regarded as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, or "evil inclination", or as an agent subservient to God.

A figure known as "the satan" first appears in the Tanakh as a heavenly prosecutor, a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh, who prosecutes the nation of Judah in the heavenly court and tests the loyalty of Yahweh's followers by forcing them to suffer. During the intertestamental period..."

this is way off topic. To get it back on topic should a company be allowed to fire someone if they find out they are gay or a landlord able to evict them?

...That is not the topic at all.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

this is way off topic. To get it back on topic should a company be allowed to fire someone if they find out they are gay or a landlord able to evict them?

...That is not the topic at all.

It is.

[Minachia]

...That is not the topic at all.

It is.

The title of the thread is "What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?" not "Should companies be allowed to fire gay people?"

EDIT: The CDT, so y'all can move the Christianity discussion there: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=445882

[San Lumen]

this is way off topic. To get it back on topic should a company be allowed to fire someone if they find out they are gay or a landlord able to evict them?

...That is not the topic at all.

It very much is

[Kowani]

The state is not the Church. The state can believe whatever it wants. If two adults want to pledge their lives together in the eyes of the government that has nothing to do with the Church. If two people want a sacramentally valid union before the eyes of God? Now we're in Church territory.

This. "LGBT+ Marriage" is not a thing. Marriage is a mystery of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The state can write whatever nonsense it likes on a piece of paper in the name of liberalism and equality, it will not change this simple fact.

This is, of course, not based in reality, but sure. At best you can say that their marriages aren’t Sacramentally Valid, as that’s the current position of the actual Church.

[Christenmark]

no, I denounce heresy and just that heresy. I never said all the others were heretics going to hell for all eternity, they are Christians too, but they have been fooled by their own want of acceptance into allowing more and more heretical acts to take place, but they who truly know in Christ as the risen Lord who died for our sins and rose from the dead, and who spoke only truths of absolute. then they are Christian but you simply want to paint me as if I an a grandstanding Christian who thinks himself the only right one, you are wrong. I implore all of you to read Mere Christianity - by, C.S. Lewis for an intro to theology in the Christian understanding. But anyway, I do not even have the authority to deem acts as good or evil, god already told us the differences and I simply use that in my use of heretics and heresy. and that is the appropriate term for the individuals specified in the context given when I typed those responses.

C.S. Lewis was an Anglican you know, and the Anglican Communion is really pro-LGBT rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... _Communion

I know but do you honestly think the Anglican church today is the same as it was when he wrote it? cuz it is not, duh. I have been raised a Methodist, but I don't subscribe to some of its actions, nor every single one of the Methodist rules, why? because I found them not to be congruent with the biblical teachings. however they are still Christians but once they deny the divinity of Christ, they won't be Christian.

[Badb Catha]

...That is not the topic at all.

It very much is

The title of the thread and contents of the opening post would disagree.

[Heloin]

C.S. Lewis was an Anglican you know, and the Anglican Communion is really pro-LGBT rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... _Communion

I know but do you honestly think the Anglican church today is the same as it was when he wrote it? cuz it is not, duh. I have been raised a Methodist, but I don't subscribe to some of its actions, nor every single one of the Methodist rules, why? because I found them not to be congruent with the biblical teachings. however they are still Christians but once they deny the divinity of Christ, they won't be Christian.

The reason I bring that up is more because you want to keep painting churches that accept LGBT people as heretical which is utter bullshit.