Evidence for God from Science

The pastor/priest/whatever, wasn't in a situation where he felt it was morally wrong for him to marry a specific couple because of their sexual orientation. He/his church chose not to marry them because of a specific belief they posted about on Facebook.

If the story is accurate, it was an idiotic decision by the church. But let the public punish the church by refusing to go there anymore. The govt has no place interfering in this issue.

Yep, different issue. Many Christians have all manner of unScriptural views - which doesn't mean they aren't Christians. So, the pastor has probably alienated them so that they'll never go anywhere near his church. Where if he had married them (if appropriate/they are both believers), he would have had the opportunity to enlighten them or influence them, on that and other important issues. I don't find those in the NT evangelizing unbelievers present and opinions checklist requirement for salvation. And neither is their for marriage, excepting they are both believers.

After reading the full story, I don't believe the minister was stupid.

It's just a fact of the matter that pastors, ministers, priests, etc if they're going to marry someone, want to know the couple are rightfully getting married. Those who don't really, are kind of fulfilling their roles pathetically. Marriage isn't a business, as much as the world loves makes it one. It is rather spiritual and God's business. It happens, when a man and woman become one flesh i.e., their bodies married together. Sex is the consummation of such, which is why Paul says don't have sex with prostitutes, for don't you know you become one body. (1 Cor 6:15-17)

Pastors have a godly responsibility to know they're supporting a true and honourable marriage before God. If they do not feel they can marry a couple because they don't believe the couple understand marriage, as was the case in this instance, then they have every right to go with their own conscience. And, in this instance, what do you think an appropriate penalty would be to impose upon the minister Melanie? Should he be arrested? Thrown in jail? Fined? Forced at gunpoint to marry any couple against his own conscience?

In a RCC church, you are suppose to raise your children Catholic and under Christ. While many might do so, some priests may not marry you if for example, you were Catholic yoking yourself to a non-Christian. It is generally frowned upon. I'm not Catholic, but I know my brother-in-law jumped through some hoops to have Catholic ceremony.

With the pastor who married me and my wife, he has a talk with us beforehand so he felt he could marry us with a clear conscience. Fact of the matter is, governments and people who don't believe in God don't give a damn about such. But, to those who do, marriage is sacred. There is perhaps no higher sacrament. And, that is ultimately a good thing, and it ought to be protected.

As I see matters, Christian churches should forget about the government, say they don't acknowledge any authority of governments over marriage, and as such anything the government sactions as marriage irrelevent. Churches should not look to governments for their own sacrements. Too much control has been given to governments. Governments can of course endorse a religious weddings, if they like, to make them legitimate in their own eyes. But, Christians shouldn't care less about receiving some legal certificate as though such certifies their marriage before God -- it doesn't and never will.

Rather, only God unites a couple together, and He has setup an intended design for such. The uniting of a couple as one body, one flesh is very clear in Scripture, it's very clear in biology, it's very clear in the telos of procreation and having children. It's just a truth and fact of life many today who want to live life their own way and according to themselves don't like.

I totally agree with what K posted above. However, the article and situation are troubling.

Right away, we see the reason that the pastor will not marry the couple is because of one partner's public-expressed views on gay marriage. One, people have all manner of unScriptural views that they need to change, but are such things (excepting a lack of faith in Christ by both partners) a litmus test for marriage? Do people have to have all their theology correct before they are married? What does the pastor want them to do? - NOT to marry? In fact, WHERE doe the pastor want people who need to have their views influenced and changed, if not in church?

Might also the pastor's actions anger them to abandon any possible, future church life? Yep!

"In an emotive written response to Mr North, the couple said they would no longer attend Ebenezer St John's church as a result of the minister's decision."

And now just guess what their number one criteria will be if they look for a new church? You got it!

And if that is the criteria for who a pastor will or won't marry - my gosh, think how many other false understandings aspiring-to-marry couples likely have?

Another minister commented: ""It's not normally a requirement to get married that you subscribe to particular views. I would want to talk to them about their views … but that wouldn't be a bar to them getting married. That's a separate issue in my mind."

Bingo! It's a separate issue! And hopefully, over time, if they had continued, post wedding, to attend that church, perhaps they would have slowly realized the Bible has a very narrow and specific teaching about the criteria of characteristics for whom one is free to marry. But that opportunity won't happen, because the pastor decided to hold their views over marriage as a litmus test for whether he'd marry them. But while I think the pastor mixed issues, I do admire that he has a heart and courage for honoring Scripture when it comes to marrying persons of the same sex.

Anyone should have the freedom to say no. Whatever time. Whatever reason. They have the right to say no.

If the product or service is essential or cannot be reasonably provided otherwise - that's another story. And if the denial results in quantifiable financial harm - then you have a civil lawsuit.

These people didn't lose anything. They just want the government to punish this church because they are angry. If anything the church should sue them.


The government should protect life and property. That's it.

Anyone should have the freedom to say no... anti Semitics, racists whenever they like in whatever time, for what ever reason?!!?
That’s not freedom
That’s actually the opposite of freedom
Freedom is a right under the premise of religion and more importantly under legislation. People are free... free to live their lives within the law according to their values.
To give allowances to discriminate takes away every basic principle of freedom. In a democracy people are free to love who they determine.
By the same account,to disallow a person to live without judgment or persecution is In actual fact robbing them of the basic principle of freedom.

melanie wrote:Anyone should have the freedom to say no... anti Semitics, racists whenever they like in whatever time, for what ever reason?!!?

Yes.

Freedom has a price. You don't get freedom with mountains of government legislation and red tape. You get erosion and a police state.

The free market will solve your concerns about racists (I'm not even sure what that word means anymore). If you have faith and let the cards fall where they would , everything will work itself out for the best with the free market.

If someone wants to reject my money in a restaurant or business because I'm white or Christian, that's fine with me. I don't want to give someone like that my business anyways, so they're actually doing me a favor. I'm not concerned. I will vote with my dollars and go somewhere else.

Blessed wrote:

melanie wrote:Anyone should have the freedom to say no... anti Semitics, racists whenever they like in whatever time, for what ever reason?!!?

Yes.

Freedom has a price. You don't get freedom with mountains of government legislation and red tape. You get erosion and a police state.

The free market will solve your concerns about racists (I'm not even sure what that word means anymore). If you have faith and let the cards fall where they would , everything will work itself out for the best with the free market.

If someone wants to reject my money in a restaurant or business because I'm white or Christian, that's fine with me. I don't want to give someone like that my business anyways, so they're actually doing me a favor. I'm not concerned. I will vote with my dollars and go somewhere else.

Good answer. I too easily answer with a "Yes".

Melanie, don't you think everyone should have the freedom to either deny or render themselves in service to another for whatever reason? To deny this right goes down the path of endorsing slavery. While you might agree with forcing some people to comply and do things that goes against their beliefs and values, it likely won't be long until the tables are turned and you are being forced to comply and meet someone else's demands against your own will.

I was just reading through this thread -- it Sounds like the minister decided to Not marry the couple After he went on their FB page and saw that they had no problem with same-sex coupling. I'm wondering what the marriage counseling consisted of. Does it really matter to their own marriage? Why was the pastor going through their FB page in the 1st place?

Marriage -- the concept Of -- has been getting challenged a great deal. Satan is out to destroy it.

I could understand a decision to Not perform a ceremony for a same-sex couple.

A minister is performing a ceremony -- he's not marrying into the couple's family -- unless it's part of the family that he Is performing the ceremony For. But even Then, he can't dictate what the couple does in their future as a married couple.

When a perspective minister decides to Not marry a couple After all -- he needs to be really sure of His motivation for Not doing it. And he needs to talk to the couple -- if he's over-stepping his boundaries , he needs to be told so.

It's kind of like when parents discover that the guy or gal that their son/ daughter is dating is someone they don't like -- they should probably talk to their son / daughter about it in a loving, caring way. And when they go ahead and get married Anyway -- you Still don't like the guy or gal --what Do loving parents Do. They Have to step back and let Them live their lives as a married couple.

And, with a minister who Does marry a couple in good faith. Stuff Does happen -- people sometimes Do change for the Worse.

The minister has as much right to step out of performing the marriage as the couple does to step out of it and find another pastor.

Biblical morals / ethics are being disregarded more and more --very quickly.

crochet1949 wrote:
The minister has as much right to step out of performing the marriage as the couple does to step out of it and find another pastor.

Biblical morals / ethics are being disregarded more and more --very quickly.

Yes. Unless there is a civil liability issue resulting in monetary loss (setting up the wedding, paying catering, music, props, attire, formal invitations etc.) supported by a signed contract between the minster (seller) and the bride/groom (buyer).


Bibical morals are evaporating because, media, courts, and politicians, are owned and controlled globally by a sliver of corrupt elites. It's so easy to see.

"Progress" occurs little by little over decades and decades until the desired result is achieved (wealth divide, police state, high divorce rates, LGBT, single mothers, loss of identity), It's all psychological warfare, groupthink, illusions of perceptions, social homeostasis.

I have a client in Ukraine who tells me gay marriage is out of the question in Ukraine. The main focus for now .. is getting people to accept someone who is gay period. The vast majority of people in Ukraine identify as Christian. They see what is happening in the USA. They do not want this in thier communities.

However as time is going on "perceptions" are winning. Elites are pouring huges sums into "human rights groups " and "grass roots" campaigns. I was assured this video is fake, with paid actors, in order to create a perception of "tolerance" from a "grass roots" perspective:




Mainstrean TV to get Ukrainians more acclimated. Notice the lack of response from the preslected, prepaid audience.




None of this is natural. It has to be conditioned into peoples heads for them to "accept" it as normal. It would not be a big deal if it ends there (i.e. gay marriage ends at gay marriage). But it never does. It metastasizes into something else i.e. marrying a dog.

I believe the Pastor should have the right and freedom to deny to marry a couple for whatever reason,even if I disagree with why he chooses not to.However these kinds of issues such as same-sex marriages are used to divide us and to distract us from the real corruption going on in our government that is much more serious and a threat to us than who is allowed to marry and who is'nt.

I consider them states rights issues that every state can decide by the vote of its citezens and the Government has no business dictating to the people either way when it comes to these kinds of issues.I won't allow the powers that be to distract me while they are selling out our country and actively participating in treason against America. No! We are going to deal with the treason first over who gets to marry and who does'nt.

Pro-lifers have been played by Republicans running against same sex marriages for years and nothing ever changed while our country has been sold out and has been following a globalist agenda without the public's knowledge which is treason against our Constitution.So that these little issues really don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I consider them states rights issues that every state can decide by the vote of its citezens and the Government has no business dictating to the people either way when it comes to these kinds of issues..

51% of voters in California voted against gay marriage (Prop 8 ). It didn't make any difference. The votes were overturned by one judge. Same with California Prop 187 . 59% voted yes. Overturned by one judge.

melanie wrote:Anyone should have the freedom to say no... anti Semitics, racists whenever they like in whatever time, for what ever reason?!!?
That’s not freedom
That’s actually the opposite of freedom
Freedom is a right under the premise of religion and more importantly under legislation. People are free... free to live their lives within the law according to their values.
To give allowances to discriminate takes away every basic principle of freedom. In a democracy people are free to love who they determine.
By the same account,to disallow a person to live without judgment or persecution is In actual fact robbing them of the basic principle of freedom.

Whose rights will ultimately triumph God's or Man's?
-
-
-

In the Big picture God's Will triumphs -- but man's will seems to win in the 'here and now'.