Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

Again, I support their right to make that choice. I don't necessarily agree with it. The owner of this forum has the right to ban me for any reason, including not agreeing with what I say. I won't agree that I should be banned on a merit basis, but on a legal basis I will acknowledge his or her right. I am not hypocritical in that respect. It's not just the right that feels that they should shut down the other side but not be shut down themselves. I've seen the left do it as well, especially in colleges and universities.

 

Okay.

Well, like I said most seem to think Facebook et al don't have that right.

There are differences, btw (even legally).

But like I said, It does seem odd that Facebook is trying to shutdown hate, and that's looked on as bad, and this woman who hates is supported.

So aside from the hypocrisy of many, that just seems rather gross.

 

This doesn’t make sense. I’m not the one forced to ignore reality because it conflicts with my religious beliefs.

 

So, you’ve finally come to the conclusion the OT should be thrown out. Congratulations.

 

Because of your preconceived world view, everyone has one.

 

Just taken in context, but you wouldn't know about that. Kind of funny, Christianity has settled this issue for 2,000 years, and atheists in their ignorance imagine they have a gotcha moment.

 

Who are you referring to?

 

No matter how badly you wish otherwise, you don't have a CLUE what "become one flesh" actually means! Sorry!

 

Why did you think that?

 

Because idioms are easily confused, especially if you aren't familiar with them. The biblical idiom for sex, for the enlightenment of others, is to know a person. Ex: he knew her and she begat him a son.

That being said, while "become one flesh" was a common idiom for marriage, that doesn't make it the definition of marriage, nor imply that the referred situation is the only only possibility.

 

Why do you presume I’m an atheist? Context within scripture can be theological quicksand if you presume chapter and verse have been handed down to us unaltered since Adam as many fundamentalists do.

 

My world view is based on reality. Not made up imaginary deity’s.

 

Doesn’t mean marriage.

 

It doesn't make it the legal definition of marriage throughout history worldwide, or the Biblical definition?

 

How do you know?

 

How do you not know?

 

Actually that is what the idiom meant when originally, translated much as the term knew meant have sex.

 

No it doesn't, and I have noted as such, but it still stands as a biblical view.of marriage and that cannot be denied. The only issue is when people try to claim.it as the only definition ever.

 

It does not mean marriage. Sorry.

 

You are correct that it is not a current idiom, but it was one back when the Bible was first translated into English.

 

I prefer the term Bible-believer, Jesus was one of those. He believed in a literal Adam, Jonah, and Noah. I know some reject as allegorical or unhistorical anything their fallen and finite human reasoning can't explain, but how do they get past Genesis 1:1?

Why don't you tell me the belief system you're coming from? Here is my church, they do not describe themselves as fundamentalist: http://anglicanchurch.net/

 

It's in the NT too.

Romans 1:26-28 - 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

 

Was that an accurate translation of the term and what of subsequent translations? Strange of God to leave his Word prone to the mistakes of ancient so called linguists.

 

We thank you for the scriptural lesson. However, again we confront the delusion everything we read in the Gospels is an accurate report of Jesus words. We don’t actually have any certainty who authored the above passage anyhow. Could have been Paul, could have been any of his ghost writers.

 

Two flesh becoming one. It just sounds like sex.