Posted on 11/28/2017 8:08:30 PM PST by Blue House Sue
Same-sex marriage is a step closer to being legal - after the Senate passed a bill without amendments. This afternoon, the upper house voted 43 to 12 in favour of the bill originally proposed by Liberal senator Dean Smith. But it's a move expected to cause some tension within the Coalition. Last night, six Coalition senators joined Labor and the Greens to scuttle changes to the bill - despite the majority of Coalition senators supporting the amendments to broaden religious protections. Cabinet ministers Simon Birmingham, Marise Payne and Nigel Scullion joined Senator Smith, Jane Hume and Linda Reynolds in voting against changes.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
You think they’d have learned from us not to go down that road.
Hasn’t the U.S. Supreme Court already made same-sex marriage the law of the land? I mean the other two branches long ago “ceded” their authority to the judiciary. And it’s why we now are at the mercy of unelected punk treasonous left-wing judges making quasi-legislative pronouncements, and nullifying presidential orders, all by themselves. Hey Trump, would you mind kicking some judicial ass? The voters would thank you.
Well clearly we can see we got a problem in our government structure.
A lot of it is a government designed for believers having been passed to unbelievers.
somewhere...
This is kind of what I was talking about.
It is said the biggest room in the world is room for improvement.
This is a peculiar folly that it would take formerly faith enlightened liberal democracies to go down. The concept of rights is a two edged sword, and it can cut all manner of ways it never was envisioned.
But okay. What do Christians do. Just whine that unbelievers are acting like unbelievers? That seems pretty feckless.
We’re gonna have to get GUTS back in our GOSPEL or it truly is going to collapse, wheezing, in the middle of the streets.
So you think men marrying men isn’t any big deal? And women marrying women isn’t any big deal? So we should just shut up about it, right?
It is said the biggest room in the world is room for improvement.
I’ve already made my point. What two people do legally in the privacy of their own home is no concern of mine.
Well, we might begin by talking effectually about something better to do with the members of the body that have been offered “to wickedness as weapons of unrighteousness.”
The bless-you-to-your-guts Christianity, or as God said back in the Old Testament, love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might. “Your might” in the Hebrew is m’odecha which could be rendered “your muchness.”
We just kind of fig-leaf our muchness today, and the consequences aren’t surprising. But again an over-easy life (too much leaning on modern conveniences) can do this. The preppers might actually have a point here; the real disaster is never being able to live above your conveniences.
I’d certainly care as a Christian neighbor, but not necessarily to the point of siccing Caesar on them. The audience of the closet is exactly the kind of midway point where the Lord can find a voice yet.
The worse thing here, and I wouldn’t mind erasing it, is the whole bastardization of the social idea of marriage.
I’d just like to see a Christianity that could witness to American Indians.
Perhaps next to Muslims, they are a most difficult gospel audience. I am chuckling ruefully at a situation where I approached a PCA Presbyterian church after three Baptist churches were knocked over by the crossfire going on over me. I emailed their pastor and told him about the spiritual battles going on. Well I must have shocked the lad silent, or something. Oh it’s a nice church, very nice. It was like going back to a quaint America. Too quaint, unfortunately.
Finally the supreme irony hits me. They want to witness to the Cherokees in a few months. I saw it in the program. If they can’t even talk on my level, how are they going to do anything but amuse the Cherokees? Where’s the gutsy gospel at?
When we can preach to the Cherokees I think we probably won’t have too much trouble preaching to the gays — and vice versa.
The problem with the fall is that folks stopped being holy beings (granted a derivative holiness, but who would claim otherwise?) and became merely moral.
The body of death isn’t this Eeeeeevil thing ... it can be a moral thing. Usually is. Indeed, the flesh aping the fruits of the spirit is one of the problems even true Christians (blood bought saints) can have when they try to do “good” in their own strength rather than out of obedience to the Spirit.
Or, as one old salt was to have once asked a young just out of school preacher: “Were you sent or did you just went?”
The problem with the body of death is it wants us to obey it, and not the Holy Spirit. And it’ll be a good, religious little body of death if that’s what it takes.
Telling the difference between obeying and “look at me” need not be hard ... but remember when Paul wrote that his concern was that the Gospel was proclaimed and not that he always got worked up about who was proclaiming it?
The odd thing to me is that you have reached the point of thinking me ludicrous NOT because I’ve been writing gustily about difficult matters, where there is reasons one might actually have differences and discourse thereafter arise (with no guarantee of any settlement, mind you) but because I have posted about what should be considered low hanging fruit, things beyond contention.
Like the need for homosexuals to repent, that they CAN repent (or else Paul was inaccurate to say and such were some of you), and in fact that they should be told to repent even if it means they fell put upon.
To say those things isn’t to ignore sexual immorality in general, but to address a very specific form of sexual immorality that is doubling down on unholy.
Nuance is all fine and good. But if, as you say, they’ve heard it all before then it doesn’t hurt them to hear it again. It’s on their heads if they refuse Christ. No one will be thrown into the lake of fire because of what is written in the books but because their name is not found written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. That includes homosexuals who didn’t repent.
What am I to do? Shut up and wave as they merrily pass by?
My words ARE weak and useless! I don’t pretend that they are powerful and persuasive! But if I’ve got this talent in my hand I’ve got a choice: either TRY to do business with it (even if that’s just depositing it for the interest gained) where I have a forum or bury it in a handkerchief for later. That’s MY choice and I’m responsible for obeying.
God can make even weak and useless things to bring forth fruit.
Good thing too because weak and useless describes His people pretty well.
And me very, very well!
So, yep, I’m ludicrous. Actually, I’ve a silly streak that’s a mile wide and not a bit shallow, when it comes to it.
What’s your excuse?
Well maybe shutting up and waving is better than thickening their misconception of what Jesus came to bring.
Poop or get off the pot, as I’d put it gutsily.
And I don’t take excuse. It is ludicrous you should accuse me. I’m going for the gutsy gospel.
The first chance I get to share it, I do.
Do you think by wagging your finger in the middle of FR, that you will, by the way?
Have you even tried Facebook?
Lying-down philo-silly!
If you think I’m misrepresenting the need for repentance then argue the point!
What seems to be a vague suggestion that I’m doing so is hardly a demonstration.
As for pooping or getting off the pot, it’s not a useful metaphor in these instances.
First off, when a thread about this or that pops up and I engage others it is very much me doing my business ... as I see it my opportunity to do so.
Then there’s applying the metaphor to the call for repentance, even the suggestion that repentance is possible, might be maligned as some demand to poop or get off the pot, but to speak in that way you’d have to basically be accusing the guy making the call to repent of believing that it’s their word/last chance or certain depravity to those who don’t listen TO THEM.
If you want to argue that that’s my position, that is somehow think I’m THAT important, well, make the argument. Have fun.
Either way the call to repent is being made.
There is no bad place doing that could lead that I’m even remotely concerned about.
Is it safe here? Is it not?
Do I know who wanders in and out? Not hardly.
It is what it is.
You were the one who brought up guts. I’m the one who keeps saying this is something with bearing on why folks need repentance.
Guts doesn’t enter into it one way or the other.
I could be the most gutless wonder what there ever was, a man whom critics could say “Sure, they SAID Paul was bold in writing but a nothing in person ... but get a load of THIS loser: Rurudyne” and it be absolutely as accurate of me as it was in accurate of Paul (and I’m not saying it isn’t!) ... and I’d still rather go on the way I do than not go on the way I do.
Darn autocorrect!
In substituted “in accurate” for “inaccurate”
Do you come from a land down under?
Do you come from a land down under?
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.