September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Should Christians Defend Themselves against Persecution or Take What's Coming? | Main | Challenge Response: The Gospels Were Selected for Political Reasons »

September 09, 2015

Comments

under the authority of someone other than Davis or the County Clerk,

She has no 'authority'.

She HAS TO issue a license to EVERYONE that's legally qualified.

this was a reasonable step that was easily taken without burdening the state.

Has nobody asked why the Kentucky legislature, like many others, originally wanted the County Clerk's name on these documents?

If there was a benefit to having the name there, then removing it is a burden.

What do you think the benefit of having her name on there is, Ron?

Ron, I'm just curious why you would state this since clearly it wasn't a burden to them. It's done.

Accountability is an obvious reason to have the name of the County Clerk on the document she records.

I have already said this.

Sometimes (google images: county clerk documents) these documents include not only the name of County Clerk, but the name of the Deputy who actually handled the document.

So much the better.

You say "it's done", Amy.

Who did it? The legislature?

If not, then why say the removal is clearly no burden to the legislature?

If so, have they explained this sudden change of opinion?

Either way, will it stick?


Ultimately, Davis’s goal is not to prevent anyone from getting married; it’s only to remove herself from being the authority authorizing those marriages.

So, resigning in other words? Kentucky state law mandates licenses be issued by the office of the Clerk, and as long as she remains the Clerk, it is her office that will issue Rowan County marriage licenses.

Also, I still don't see how you are resisting the lure of the whole "revolt of the lesser magistrates" thing, wherein, since Obergefell v. Hodges contradicted the law of God as well as the Constitution, it is the duty of Christian government officials to simply disregard it. As a non-Christian, I find these arguments downright terrifying*, and I am eager to find a viable Christian argument against them.


*(how would a godly "revolt of the lesser magistrates" apply to Torcaso v. Watkins, or Eisenstadt v. Baird, or Lawrence v. Texas?)

I consider myself a serious Christian. I argue against atheism on forums. I love God with all my heart and soul. But I think Ms. Davis is misguided and in the wrong.

To tell you the truth, it's hard for me to understand how&why some people are homosexual, but even though I don't understand it, I must treat them with love, respect, and equality.

Many anti-gay Christians claim that they're standing up for what the Bible says. But if so, then don't they have to be against divorce as well? (except in the case of sexual immorality...)

Would Ms. Davis stand up for Matthew 5:31-32? 1 Corinthians 7:10-15?

Why don't we hear a strong outcry for banning divorce from the same Christian crowd? (I am neither anti-gay nor anti-divorce, since I don't believe in biblical inerrancy.)

What if a devout Catholic holds the same job as Ms. Davis and not only refuses to issue a divorce certificate but also instructs everyone else in his/her office not to issue it ... would that be okay?

If I get to impose my beliefs on others, strip clubs shouldn't exist. Should I be able to not grant business licenses to those types of places, if I was a city/county clerk?

If she felt that she couldn’t, in good conscience, carry out her duties, the noble move would have been to resign.

As a serious Christian, why do you think this is about banning homosexuality?

@ Irenenomura

"I consider myself a serious Christian."

Then you take Scripture seriously, right?

"I argue against atheism on forums. I love God with all my heart and soul. But I think Ms. Davis is misguided and in the wrong."

If someone claims to be a follower of Christ (a "serious Christian"), then it would follow that they would hold to the same view of homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" that Jesus did, and that Scripture sets forth. Is that not a reasonable expectation?


"but even though I don't understand it, I must treat them with love, respect, and equality."

Can you show me anywhere in this blog post where there's anything said about not treating homosexuals with love and respect? In fact, I didn't see anything in the post about "treating homosexuals" in any manner. It's just not addressed here.

In fact, this blog post was, in part, about the treatment of those who disagree with homosexuality and same-sex "marriage". Can you tell me why you're turning it around to focus on something that was not anywhere addressed in the post?

"Equality" is another matter. What do you mean by that? Equal to what? In what way?

"Many anti-gay Christians"

Please define what that means.


That's as far as I read. My experience here (and elsewhere) is that people comment, make a whole bunch of claims/accusations/assumptions, I take the time and effort to try respond in a thoughtful manner, and then I am ignored. It's happened over and over, on this blog alone.

Let's see if you are different.

Irenenomura,

I am neither anti-gay nor anti-divorce, since I don't believe in biblical inerrancy.

Putting aside your definitions of those terms (likely faulty), let’s be clear: you’re not those things because you don’t believe in biblical inerrancy…you’re those things because you want to be those things.

Of course.

Hi Mo

Thanks for your reply. I don't have much time right now, so my reply may be brief. I hope you'd understand.

>> "Equality" is another matter. What do you mean by that? Equal to what? In what way?

Equal civil right under the laws of the United States.

>> "Many anti-gay Christians"
>>Please define what that means.

Those who feel homosexual couples should not enjoy the same privileges as heterosexual couples.


>>That's as far as I read. My experience here (and elsewhere) is that people comment, make a whole bunch of claims/accusations/assumptions, I take the time and effort to try respond in a thoughtful manner, and then I am ignored. It's happened over and over, on this blog alone.
>>Let's see if you are different.

OK. I guess you stopped reading right before the question I really want an answer to. What I'd like to know is why many Christians are not following these verses. Why many Christians are okay with people getting remarried?

Matthew 5:31-32

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


1 Corinthians 7:10-11

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.


If someone claims to be a follower of Christ, then it would follow that they would hold to the same view of divorce and "remarriage" that Jesus did, and that Scripture sets forth. Is that not a reasonable expectation?

Irene

Hi KWM

So, are you anti-divorce and anti-remarriage?

I don't believe in biblical inerrancy because there are so many discrepancies in the Bible. Here are a few of them.

1. Matthew says that Judas hanged himself (Matt. 27:5), while Luke says that Judas died after falling headlong and bursting open (Acts 1:18). By the way, who bought the field of blood? Judas or Jewish priests?

2. Who found the empty tomb?
a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."
b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."
c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.
d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

3. According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Here's an article by an avid Christian blogger who has a Master’s of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. She happens to articulate how I feel about the Bible beautifully. I thought perhaps you could take a look at it.

http://www.redletterchristians.org/god-did-not-write-the-bible/

The following New Testament passages deal with homosexual actions:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom. 1:26–27).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

"Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:8–10).

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7).

But God’s displeasure with acting out on homosexuality is depicted as early as Genesis 19 in the Old Testament. Also see Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Yes, interpretation is important. If interpretation were left up to us as individuals, we could make the Bible say whatever we want it to say, and our sinful natures could gravitate toward interpretations that serve our passions. That is why, ultimately, the Church reserves the right to interpret Scripture to herself. "For all of that has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God" (Dei Verbum 12).

Hi Audrey,

I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. What I'd like to know is why many Christians are not following the verses below. Why many Christians are okay with people getting divorced and remarried?

Matthew 5:31-32

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.


Thanks,
Irene

@ Irene

"Thanks for your reply. I don't have much time right now, so my reply may be brief. I hope you'd understand."

No problem. We all have lives outside of this little screen.

"Equal civil right under the laws of the United States."

Homosexuals in the U.S. already had the same rights under the Constitution and under the law as anyone else.


"Those who feel homosexual couples should not enjoy the same privileges as heterosexual couples."

You mean those who hold to the Bible's view of this lifestyle.

Notice how my most important questions were ignored:

- Then you take Scripture seriously, right?

- If someone claims to be a follower of Christ (a "serious Christian"), then it would follow that they would hold to the same view of homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" that Jesus did, and that Scripture sets forth. Is that not a reasonable expectation?

- Can you show me anywhere in this blog post where there's anything said about not treating homosexuals with love and respect?

- In fact, this blog post was, in part, about the treatment of those who disagree with homosexuality and same-sex "marriage". Can you tell me why you're turning it around to focus on something that was not anywhere addressed in the post?

And now you are doing more of what you did in the original comment. Now you're switching the topic to something else, even though you first said you were short on time.

If you were short on time, you would have simply answered what I asked. Yet you found time to add a whole bunch of new things in order to take the focus off what I asked you.

Hi Irene,

I can't speak for others here, but I agree with what Jesus said. Divorce and remarriage are sinful in most cases. (Jesus' exception there is a separate discussion.) I believe these things are sinful as I believe sex outside of marriage and homosexuality are sinful. There was a post about this a few months ago which addresses some, but not all of the issues around this.

Thanks,

Nathan

@ Mo

>>Homosexuals in the U.S. already had the same rights under the Constitution and under the law as anyone else.

Of which Ms. Davis violated.

>> You mean those who hold to the Bible's view of this lifestyle.

But many of those people do not hold to the Bible's view of divorce and remarriage and I'm wondering why.

>> Notice how my most important questions were ignored:

I said I didn't have much time. I thought you'd understand.

>> Then you take Scripture seriously, right?

Yes. I believe that the Bible is a vehicle of divine revelation, a work of human hands under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I do believe the Holy Spirit ensures that those transcendent truths and realities necessary for salvation are transmitted in the text ... but the material details are the wrapping of the text and might well contain errors because the human agency involved is not infallible.

>> If someone claims to be a follower of Christ (a "serious Christian"), then it would follow that they would hold to the same view of homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" that Jesus did, and that Scripture sets forth. Is that not a reasonable expectation?

Perhaps only to those who believe the Bible is inerrant. I don't.

>> Can you show me anywhere in this blog post where there's anything said about not treating homosexuals with love and respect?

I said, "I" must treat them with love, respect, and equality. I was only stating my stance. I did not mean that people here don't do that.

>> In fact, this blog post was, in part, about the treatment of those who disagree with homosexuality and same-sex "marriage". Can you tell me why you're turning it around to focus on something that was not anywhere addressed in the post?

I've been wondering why some Christians are so adamantly against homosexuality and yet give an easy pass to divorce and remarriage. If you believe the Bible is inerrant, they are all sins. I thought this could be a good place to ask. If I misjudged it I'm sorry.

>>And now you are doing more of what you did in the original comment. Now you're switching the topic to something else, even though you first said you were short on time.
>>If you were short on time, you would have simply answered what I asked. Yet you found time to add a whole bunch of new things in order to take the focus off what I asked you.

Since I was short on time, I thought I'd focus on "what I want to know/ask". Again, if that offended you, I'm sorry.

Also English is not my first language, so if I came across as arrogant or defiant, I apologize.

Irene

Nathan,

Thank you very much for your input. I'll check the video clip and the comments posted there. I appreciate your pointing me to the right section.

Thanks again,
Irene

"Of which Ms. Davis violated."

Oh, really? How?

"But many of those people do not hold to the Bible's view of divorce and remarriage and I'm wondering why."

We're not talking about divorce and remarriage. We're not talking about other people. We are talking about you. We are talking about homosexuality/same sex "marriage".

Your very first sentence in your very first comment was, and I quote:

"I consider myself a serious Christian."

That is why I asked you: If someone claims to be a follower of Christ (a "serious Christian"), then it would follow that they would hold to the same view of homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" that Jesus did, and that Scripture sets forth. Is that not a reasonable expectation?

But you refuse to address that point. Instead, you continue to try to change the subject to 1) other people and 2) divorce/remarriage.


"I said I didn't have much time. I thought you'd understand."

You have enough time to change the subject and post quite a bit on other things that were neither the subject of the original blog post nor the subject of my responses to you. You have time for that.


"Yes. I believe that the Bible is a vehicle of divine revelation, a work of human hands under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I do believe the Holy Spirit ensures that those transcendent truths and realities necessary for salvation are transmitted in the text ... but the material details are the wrapping of the text and might well contain errors because the human agency involved is not infallible."

So which parts are infallible and which are fallible?


"Perhaps only to those who believe the Bible is inerrant. I don't."

Well, then why would you call yourself a "serious Christian"? A serious Christian takes seriously what the Bible teaches.

"I've been wondering why some Christians are so adamantly against homosexuality and yet give an easy pass to divorce and remarriage."

Why do you care what the Bible says or doesn't say about divorce and remarriage? You just finished saying you don't think the Bible is inerrant. What, then? You pick the parts you agree with and reject the parts you disagree with?

On and on and on you go about divorce and remarriage. Not a word about the subject of this blog post or my post, which was the Bible's teaching on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

That's as far as I can go.

The Bible is clear on the subject of homosexuality and same sex "marriage". If you're a "serious Christian", as you claimed, then it seems reasonable that you'd take it as the authority on that issue.

Instead, you continue and continue and continue to defend a lifestyle that the Bible calls sin.

@Mo

>>Oh, really? How?

If a government official deny or cause to unjustly delay what one is legally entitled to, wouldn't you consider that person's legal right is violated? I do.

>>We're not talking about divorce and remarriage. We're not talking about other people. We are talking about you. We are talking about homosexuality/same sex "marriage".

It seems to me you don't want to talk about those issues because you don't have a good counterargument. Because if we go there, you can't win the argument.

>>Your very first sentence in your very first comment was, and I quote:"I consider myself a serious Christian."
>>That is why I asked you: If someone claims to be a follower of Christ (a "serious Christian"), then it would follow that they would hold to the same view of homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" that Jesus did, and that Scripture sets forth. Is that not a reasonable expectation?

Like I said, I don't believe that the Bible was written by God. Surely Jesus did not leave any written documents as far as we know. It was written a few millenniums ago by the people who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But that doesn't mean it's without errors. Humans are never perfect.

>>But you refuse to address that point. Instead, you continue to try to change the subject to 1) other people and 2) divorce/remarriage.

Because this is what I want to know the most. If you are against homosexuality "because the Bible says so", why not against divorce and remarriage just as vigorously?

>>You have enough time to change the subject and post quite a bit on other things that were neither the subject of the original blog post nor the subject of my responses to you. You have time for that.

Those were already prepared texts of mine, because I posted the same thing in several other Christian sites hoping for an answer. It was easy for me to just cut and paste them.

>>So which parts are infallible and which are fallible?

It will take my whole life to figure that out, and I very much am willing to do so. I am just a mortal. I most likely can't ever perfectly know everything. But I think God will look into one's heart and see one's intent of how much he or she is trying to follow the concept of "Agape" which is what Jesus embodied.

>>Well, then why would you call yourself a "serious Christian"? A serious Christian takes seriously what the Bible teaches.

C.S. Lewis didn't believe in Biblical inerrancy either. But many regard him as a serious Christian who made a great contribution to the Christian faith.

>>Why do you care what the Bible says or doesn't say about divorce and remarriage? You just finished saying you don't think the Bible is inerrant. What, then? You pick the parts you agree with and reject the parts you disagree with?

Isn't that what you yourself are doing too? If you are against homosexual marriage, you have to be against divorce and remarriage... Well, are you?

>>On and on and on you go about divorce and remarriage. Not a word about the subject of this blog post or my post, which was the Bible's teaching on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

I keep asking the issue of divorce/remarriage to those who oppose gay-marriage but don't say anything about divorce/remarriage because I'm hoping some of them might actually realize that they're are being a hypocrite. Jesus taught against being a hypocrite.

>>That's as far as I can go.
The Bible is clear on the subject of homosexuality and same sex "marriage". If you're a "serious Christian", as you claimed, then it seems reasonable that you'd take it as the authority on that issue.
>>Instead, you continue and continue and continue to defend a lifestyle that the Bible calls sin.

The Bible is also clear on the subject of divorce/remarriage. If you believe that the Bible is inerrant, then it seems reasonable that you'd take it as the authority on that issue. Instead, you continue and continue and continue to turn a blind eye on a lifestyle that the Bible calls sin.

Here's the question you haven't answered.

-- Is remarriage wrong? The Bible indicates that it is. So should we as Christians try to speak up against people remarrying?

I've answered all of your questions, so I hope you'll answer mine too.

The comments to this entry are closed.