Satan, same-sex marriage, the family, and Christianity.

Status
Not open for further replies.
LysanderShapiro

LysanderShapiro

Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The world is rejoicing. I'm not surprised. One of Satan's nicknames is "the prince of this world." Friends of mine are posting pictures on facebook and twitter with harshtags like #Equality and #OneHeart and #LoveConquersAll.

There is still a disconnect that people have when it comes to marriage...it is still a uniquely sexual union, and this also means that sexuality is only a marital subject. Ask any regular schmoe off the street if marriage alone is a sexual union, first he'll say no. Then if you ask if marriage can only be a sexual union, he will then also most likely say no.

The final war between Satan and God is over the family. Why? Because the family is icon of the Holy Trinity. The communion of love between the three Divine Persons is the original family. This Divine communion is fruitful, that is, it brings forth life. It cannot help but do so. Life bursts forth from the love of the Holy Trinity. The family is the earthly image and icon of Trinitarian love. The communion of love between husband and wife is designed to be fruitful, to bring forth life.

Pray for the world and their salvation. Stay close to Our Lord. At some point as the world moves in this direction, choosing Christ or the World is going to look much more grim for Christians all over. Even if you don't die as a martyr, strive to live like one so that if you do die as one, you'll be prepared.
 
Last edited:
Amen! Next will be the polygamists and then what? Either way Christians will be on the chopping block - maybe literally. Plus the Pope said yesterday that divorce is ok sometimes, and today they signed a treaty with the "State" of Palestine! Oh, don't forget the terrorist attacks in 3 countries today... evil is growing in power, while He Who hinders begins to remove Himself. So and very soon we are going to see the King!

 
Our U.S. Constitutional precedent is being judicially thrown to discombobulated, convoluted, unjust, and despotic grounds; for ethics from Natural Rights will declare that if a law falls to arbitrary perversion to define any non-aggressive marriage, then that law is despotic.

If violence decides a thing, then violence manages a thing; if violence is the president for management, then that compulsory violence will manage society to unfettered despotism in time.

History fortifies and secures despotic predictability in the confines of unjust law.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Friends of mine are posting pictures on facebook and twitter with harshtags like #Equality and #OneHeart and #LoveConquersAll.
Click to expand...

You also forgot #lovewins. Sadly, mine too; even those who I have know for a long time professing and practicing as though they were followers of Christ. To the core of my heart, I am saddened, though I still find strength in the Lord. In light of today's ruling, let us not be dismayed, let us be encouraged that we are still here and there is still time to preach the good news to everyone, in Jesus name!
 
Abdicate said:
Amen! Next will be the polygamists and then what? Either way Christians will be on the chopping block - maybe literally. Plus the Pope said yesterday that divorce is ok sometimes, and today they signed a treaty with the "State" of Palestine! Oh, don't forget the terrorist attacks in 3 countries today... evil is growing in power, while He Who hinders begins to remove Himself. So and very soon we are going to see the King!

Click to expand...

Uh-oh. Be careful, Abdicate. The Pope never said that divorce was OK. He did say, however, that separation can be morally necessary (see here <---LINK) This is why the last synod rejected the position it holds toward divorcees and will do the same again this October. They always do and rightfully so.

With the terrorist attacks, the first attempt to ban dismemberment abortion block, and the Obamacare healthcare subsidies...we've got out work cut out for us.

It's interesting because lead my office's prayer meeting and I chose to focus the subject on Satan, how he works, and how to combat him. The world is his territory.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Uh-oh. Be careful, Abdicate. The Pope never said that divorce was OK. He did say, however, that separation can be morally necessary (see here <---LINK)

With the terrorist attacks, the first attempt to ban dismemberment abortion block, and the Obamacare healthcare subsidies...we've got out work cut out for us.

It's interesting because lead my office's prayer meeting and I chose to focus the subject on Satan, how he works, and how to combat him. The world is his territory.
Click to expand...
I did say "sometimes"...

hair-shaft-trichoptilosis.jpg


:D
 
Great Fiction said:
Our U.S. Constitutional precedent is being judicially thrown to discombobulated, convoluted, unjust, and despotic grounds; for ethics from Natural Rights will declare that if a law falls to arbitrary perversion to define any non-aggressive marriage, then that law is despotic.

If violence decides a thing, then violence manages a thing; if violence is the president for management, then that compulsory violence will manage society to unfettered despotism in time.

History fortifies and secures despotic predictability in the confines of unjust law.
Click to expand...
You have that amazing way with words brother Great Fiction.
A big, pumping AMEN from me.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
I don't mean to argue (sorry -- not my intention), but he never even said sometimes it's OK. Separation is one subject, and annulments are another. Divorces as we know them today...still off the table. Nothing new on that was said.
Click to expand...
"there are cases in which separation is inevitable. Sometimes it can even become morally necessary."

Alright...

Separation = "The action or state of moving or being moved apart."
Inevitable = "Certain to happen; unavoidable."
Sometimes = "Occasionally, rather than all of the time."
Morally = "With respect to moral principles."
Necessary = "Required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential."

So it's OK, sometimes...

Paul said the same thing... but he spelled it out as for infidelity, not because of a bad spouse.

I've said all I'm going to say. God bless :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Juk
Abdicate said:
"there are cases in which separation is inevitable. Sometimes it can even become morally necessary."

Alright...

Separation = "The action or state of moving or being moved apart."
Inevitable = "Certain to happen; unavoidable."
Sometimes = "Occasionally, rather than all of the time."
Morally = "With respect to moral principles."
Necessary = "Required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential."

So it's OK, sometimes...

Paul said the same thing... but he spelled it out as for infidelity, not because of a bad spouse.

I've said all I'm going to say. God bless :)
Click to expand...

No worries.
I think that's part of the misconception. For instance, a lot of people think an annulment is the exact same thing as a divorce. This subject is in regards either to a separation (temporary or permanent not being addressed) or if permanent, leading to an annulment which would regard the marriage as null -- never having been a valid, versus a divorce which would recognize the marriage DID happen but simply ended. Annulments, according to my beliefs, are acceptable under precise circumstances and need to be done properly. Divorce, on the other hand, are a different story.

Whether people agree with whether or this is right or wrong isn't the point. But I figured it was worth mentioning the misunderstanding people have in regards to what was said. Nothing brand new was mentioned. This is pretty traditional stuff.
 
LysanderShapiro said:
Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The world is rejoicing. I'm not surprised. One of Satan's nicknames is "the prince of this world." Friends of mine are posting pictures on facebook and twitter with harshtags like #Equality and #OneHeart and #LoveConquersAll.

There is still a disconnect that people have when it comes to marriage...it is still a uniquely sexual union, and this also means that sexuality is only a marital subject. Ask any regular schmoe off the street if marriage alone is a sexual union, first he'll say no. Then if you ask if marriage can only be a sexual union, he will then also most likely say no.

The final war between Satan and God is over the family. Why? Because the family is icon of the Holy Trinity. The communion of love between the three Divine Persons is the original family. This Divine communion is fruitful, that is, it brings forth life. It cannot help but do so. Life bursts forth from the love of the Holy Trinity. The family is the earthly image and icon of Trinitarian love. The communion of love between husband and wife is designed to be fruitful, to bring forth life.

Pray for the world and their salvation. Stay close to Our Lord. At some point as the world moves in this direction, choosing Christ or the World is going to look much more grim for Christians all over. Even if you don't die as a martyr, strive to live like one so that if you do die as one, you'll be prepared.
Click to expand...

Yes my brother you are very correct. The FAMILY is the system that God established in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. ONE male and ONE female and He told them to multiply.

Homosexual marriages destroy that family unit and it is exactly what Satan wants.

Every single day we grow closer and closer to the Christ's Return. With killing unborn children a law, and now separating men from women and calling it gay marriage, I am afraid that the USA is in for a really rough ride.
 
Major said:
Yes my brother you are very correct. The FAMILY is the system that God established in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. ONE male and ONE female and He told them to multiply.

Homosexual marriages destroy that family unit and it is exactly what Satan wants.

Every single day we grow closer and closer to the Christ's Return. With killing unborn children a law, and now separating men from women and calling it gay marriage, I am afraid that the USA is in for a really rough ride.
Click to expand...

I think one major concern is where Christianity will be held.
By no means would I ever want people who live with same-sex attraction to be treated as anything less than human. Not in a million years. However, Christians very likely will be treated as less than human.

A cardinal in the Archdiocese of Chicago wrote this not long ago: "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square."

Even in society, there is a very bizarre treatment toward homosexuality as if it renders someone better, as if a free pass is deserved. I recently moved, but in my old neighborhood of Chinatown (which I still go past to and from work), there is well-known DC gang called the Check-It. They are a gay gang and run in large numbers. They have caused big disturbances, assaulted innocent people, robbed them, and are no less thugs than any other gang. However, they have been written about in local and national papers, overlooking their crimes and only reporting on how creative they are and how so many of them want to become designers and innovators in fashion. Even a documentary sympathetic to them came out this year. Meanwhile, the victims of their crimes aren't reported.
 
A thought on the subject of a sexual lifestyle that deviates from one man - one woman came to mind the other morning and it has to deal with a matter of consistency and rationality. Would it be fair, that if scientific data shows justification (for example, a predisposition to something) for a sexual lifestyle aside from one man - one woman and people use such data in their argument for the lifestyle, to ask them 'if their spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, what-have-you, were to cheat on them, if they would get angry and break up with them'? After all, scientific data has also been interpreted to say humans go against their sexual nature to remain monogamous. In one instance, the scientific data is embraced and people encourage such behavior, in another, it most would likely condemn the behavior as wrong and it needs to be suppressed. What's my point? Can one argue in the instance of something being seemly natural and embrace it, while denying something else seemly natural and reject it/condemn it and be rational/consistent? Does my random thought even make sense?
 
*Sigh* ..
I think one of the most frustrating things for me is that this is the predictable and obvious "Fruit" of the "Gospel" that has been preached in so many churches for so many years.....

I could write a long dissertation with specifics - but you guys know what I am talking about.... You have sat through many of the same the sermons I have...

Remember what Jesus said... You will know a tree by it's fruit... Every tree which does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire....

Our "Tree" is bearing fruit... It's finally providing evidence of what sort of tree it really is...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Juk
LysanderShapiro said:
Abdicate knows how much I love him. Most of us here have a few things we disagree with, including between the moderators. :p
Click to expand...

Is is possible that...
The medium of medial exchange in moderation without mediation can mildly self-moderate among moderators; thus we witness our modest and mild moderators connect upon a median of kindness where understanding meets midway in a non-mediocre way to respect the other?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top