Josh wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:10 am
When civil unions were first forced on us, we were promised gay marriage would never happen and that churches, businesses, and others would be protected from being forced to accept it.
How many gay marriages have been forced upon you Holdemans? Do you have gay members who were forced to marry against their will?
Which gay rights group sat down with you and negotiated this deal with you in which they agreed to forgo their rights so that you would not get your sensibilities ruffled? Can I see the minutes to that meeting? I'd be curious what was said and what kind of deal was struck.
That was a "deal" with evangelical Christianity as a whole. Many conservatives agreed civil unions were OK, but gay marriage wasn't. The left promised they would hold the line at civil unions.
Barack Obama held this position in 2008, for example. He was against gay marriage back then.
Josh wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:10 am
When civil unions were first forced on us, we were promised gay marriage would never happen and that churches, businesses, and others would be protected from being forced to accept it.
How many gay marriages have been forced upon you Holdemans? Do you have gay members who were forced to marry against their will?
Which gay rights group sat down with you and negotiated this deal with you in which they agreed to forgo their rights so that you would not get your sensibilities ruffled? Can I see the minutes to that meeting? I'd be curious what was said and what kind of deal was struck.
Ken, are you really this historically illiterate? Biden and Obama for instance both supported the traditional definition of Marriage less than 15 years ago.
mike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:23 amJosh, why should we as Anabaptist Christians care what definition the civil government gives to the term marriage in 2022, when it either never held, or long ago abandoned, the biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman for life?
First of all, civil government in America used to hold that exact definition, including not tolerating no-fault divorce. And they also required marriages to be officiated and overseen by a church as well. Some churches in America (Catholic) didn't allowe any D&R, whereas others (Episcopalian) did.
That all changed gradually in the 1900s and came to a hilt in the 1970s with the advent of no-fault divorce.
But in any case, civil government's definitions do matter - because the next step is to mandate that all citizens must accept what the government says "marriage" is, with no exceptions for your business or church just because you happen to believe the historic definition of marriage that has been part of Christianity for 2,000 years. That's why I think this is an issue.
In any case, the original topic at hand is not about marriage. It is about, more fundamentally, the government claiming that is improper/illegal to read the Bible out loud in public, because some Bible verses are offensive to "modern" society.
Conservative Anabaptists have been teaching against divorce and remarriage for a long, long time. Has the government been pushing us to accept their definition of marriage up till now? Have we been being persecuted, and if so, in what way? What specifically will change with marriage being redefined to include gay marriage or any other deviancy? I think we may get more "persecution" at the hands of fellow Christians for our beliefs on marriage than we do from the government.
mike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:23 amJosh, why should we as Anabaptist Christians care what definition the civil government gives to the term marriage in 2022, when it either never held, or long ago abandoned, the biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman for life?
First of all, civil government in America used to hold that exact definition, including not tolerating no-fault divorce. And they also required marriages to be officiated and overseen by a church as well. Some churches in America (Catholic) didn't allowe any D&R, whereas others (Episcopalian) did.
That all changed gradually in the 1900s and came to a hilt in the 1970s with the advent of no-fault divorce.
But in any case, civil government's definitions do matter - because the next step is to mandate that all citizens must accept what the government says "marriage" is, with no exceptions for your business or church just because you happen to believe the historic definition of marriage that has been part of Christianity for 2,000 years. That's why I think this is an issue.
In any case, the original topic at hand is not about marriage.
It is about, more fundamentally, the government claiming that is improper/illegal to read the Bible out loud in public, because some Bible verses are offensive to "modern" society.
Including Bible verses about marriage, pride, carnal sin, everything suggesting the importance of moral code is now offensive language to those who want/demand everyone to embrace amorality. Flags+all.
mike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:23 amJosh, why should we as Anabaptist Christians care what definition the civil government gives to the term marriage in 2022, when it either never held, or long ago abandoned, the biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman for life?
First of all, civil government in America used to hold that exact definition, including not tolerating no-fault divorce. And they also required marriages to be officiated and overseen by a church as well. Some churches in America (Catholic) didn't allowe any D&R, whereas others (Episcopalian) did.
That all changed gradually in the 1900s and came to a hilt in the 1970s with the advent of no-fault divorce.
But in any case, civil government's definitions do matter - because the next step is to mandate that all citizens must accept what the government says "marriage" is, with no exceptions for your business or church just because you happen to believe the historic definition of marriage that has been part of Christianity for 2,000 years. That's why I think this is an issue.
In any case, the original topic at hand is not about marriage. It is about, more fundamentally, the government claiming that is improper/illegal to read the Bible out loud in public, because some Bible verses are offensive to "modern" society.
Conservative Anabaptists have been teaching against divorce and remarriage for a long, long time. Has the government been pushing us to accept their definition of marriage up till now? Have we been being persecuted, and if so, in what way? What specifically will change with marriage being redefined to include gay marriage or any other deviancy? I think we may get more "persecution" at the hands of fellow Christians for our beliefs on marriage than we do from the government.
So far, Anabaptists haven’t tried avoiding doing business with divorced people over that issue, and divorced people aren’t a specially-privileged protected class in America. But homosexuals are, and seem to be far more interested in asserting that “right”.
It’s clear God has instituted civil government. But God has not instituted civil government to ordain that men can marry other men.
Josh wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 6:12 pm
It’s clear God has instituted civil government. But God has not instituted civil government to ordain that men can marry other men.
Did God give the role of managing marriage to the government or the church?
Josh wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 6:12 pm
It’s clear God has instituted civil government. But God has not instituted civil government to ordain that men can marry other men.
Did God give the role of managing marriage to the government or the church?
Obviously to the State since that is what we are talking about. And during the time of Christ, marriage in the Roman Empire was governed by Augustinian Law (Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus)
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 6:12 pm
It’s clear God has instituted civil government. But God has not instituted civil government to ordain that men can marry other men.
Did God give the role of managing marriage to the government or the church?
To his followers, the 'church'. But that's not the only area in which the State has attempted to take over the functions of the church. It may be, however, this came about in part because the church attempted to take over the functions of the State.