Pastors Gather to Endorse Gay Marriage

[RAdam]

Who created marriage? It's a simple question. Did the government of the United State of America create marriage? Nope. Did the Supreme Court? Nope. Did the several states? Nope. Then they lack the authority to change the nature of marriage.

Who created marriage? God did. God created marriage as one man and one woman. Therefore, only God can change the nature of marriage and He has not done that. I conclude, then, that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

 

[SBCPreacher]

...I have personally witnessed a man who was in a very-long-term relationship with his partner have to fight the parents/family over things that he had purchased with his now-deceased partner. If he were in a marriage, that would not have been possible.

A good Will would have taken care of all that, but instead of going out and making a Will, the homosexual community wants us to accept their sinful lifestyle as good and right, when it simply isn't - at least to anyone who believe the Bible to be true.

 

[Jon-Marc]

I never thought I would hear of Baptist pastors compromising with the devil, but maybe they are Baptists only in name.

This is one Baptist who will not compromise the truth.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I never thought I would hear of Baptist pastors compromising with the devil, but maybe they are Baptists only in name.

This is one Baptist who will not compromise the truth.

I call "No True Scotsman Fallacy"!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by matt wade
Why? Why does there need to be an accomodation? Should we also accomodate people into beastality, incest, and pedophilia?

Response Posted by BiR
What in the world compelled you to interject these subjects into the discussion? These things never even entered into my mind.

That was a little disturbing......

BiR

Perversion is perversion. You claim to be a believer in "freedom of choice" so why limit choice?

 

[Revmitchell]

I never thought I would hear of Baptist pastors compromising with the devil, but maybe they are Baptists only in name.

This is one Baptist who will not compromise the truth.

No doubt. There is no fallacy in your statement to be sure.

 

[moscott]

I guarantee there are NO Christians endorsing this----"Christians" in name only. As for those who claim to be Christians and support gay unions----either misguided or not Christians IMO. Do you think Jesus would support civil unions in any fashion?:tonofbricks:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I guarantee there are NO Christians endorsing this----"Christians" in name only. As for those who claim to be Christians and support gay unions----either misguided or not Christians IMO. Do you think Jesus would support civil unions in any fashion?:tonofbricks:

And another Scotsman enters the fray.

 

[moscott]

And another Scotsman enters the fray.

So your answer to whether or not Jesus would support gay unions is?------that's what I thought:laugh:

 

[matt wade]

I call "No True Scotsman Fallacy"!

Sorry..I call you on your "No True Scotsman Fallacy". The fallacy doesn't apply when (quote) "the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors.....For example, it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat," because not eating meat is the single thing that precisely defines a person as a vegetarian."

I assert that a true Christian (or Baptist) would be defined by never condoning such activity. To be a Christian one must adhere to Christian principles and condoning homosexuality excludes you from the name.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Sorry..I call you on your "No True Scotsman Fallacy". The fallacy doesn't apply when (quote) "the subject's status is previously determined by specific behaviors.....For example, it is perfectly justified to say, "No true vegetarian eats meat," because not eating meat is the single thing that precisely defines a person as a vegetarian."

I assert that a true Christian (or Baptist) would be defined by never condoning such activity. To be a Christian one must adhere to Christian principles and condoning homosexuality excludes you from the name.

First, you are making the mistake of confusing your own view with the official "Christian" view. Secondly, I never said anything about condoning homosexuality.

 

[matt wade]

First, you are making the mistake of confusing your own view with the official "Christian" view. Secondly, I never said anything about condoning homosexuality.

No..I'm not confusing views. The very definition of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christianity. If you believe that the teachings of Christianity allow for homosexuality or condoning that behavior, then you are confused.

Second, I know you didn't speak of homosexuality yourself. You just used invoked the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". That was based upon someone else basically saying that a True Baptist wouldn't condone homosexuality. Then you invoked the fallacy again when someone said that no True Christian would condone homosexuality. I was just pointing out that the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" didn't apply here since the very definition of "Christian" is defined as not condoning sin (including homosexuality).

 

[moscott]

His stance lies in refusal to answer whether or not Jesus would accept gay unions. It's obvious he supports them and can't at the same time acknowledge that Jesus wouldn't.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

It was stated by poster Marcia that most Baptists in the Washington area are liberal. I have to take exception with that, having been deeply involved in Baptist life in the DC area for nearly 40 years. In that time I have encountered people who were as fundamentalist as it gets as well as a few ... only a few ... who are classically liberal. Let's not paint with a broad brush. My experience is that "most" of us are moderate in attitude and conservative in essential theology.

There are two things to be considered here: whether there is a way to determine what "most" is when we are dealing with more than 500 Baptist churches in the area (a number I extracted just from using the telephone directories); and what "liberal" means, which, classically, would have to do with a low Christology and a weak anthropology. I don't hear those views being espoused among us.

 

[moscott]

Not to worry----people can call themselves whatever they want. However,they are truly defined by their actions. I would not consider any of those endorsing such things as Christians let alone Baptists.