[HQ] He is the President of the USA not the Pastor [Obama,Gay Marriage]

www.friendshipwest.org | www.facebook.com “He is the President of the USA Not the Pastor”; Senior Pastor Frederick Haynes III preaching on OBAMA’S “PERSONAL” stance on gay marriage. ONE BRAVE PASTOR. Sunday Worship Times 8:00 am & 10:45 am Wednesday Bible Study 12 Noon & 7:00 pm 2020 W. Wheatland Rd. Dallas, Texas 75232 Phone (972) 228-5200 Fax (972) 228-5201 www.friendshipwest.org
Video Rating: 0 / 5

Godly Fellowship: Keys to Marriage – Paul Washer 5/6

We learn in this video the wisdom of friendship. Instead of focusing on a small detail we should learn to judge the whole of a relationship. We must understand we are all changed through our wives. It is important to understand this while married, or even single. Wives are to be submissive to husbands in the context of families. However, the relationship is equally important in building together a relationship with Christ. Paul states that husbands can be won over without even a word spoken from the woman. Follow the link to download the full version to your computer: www.sermonaudio.com Sponsored by www.paradiseawards.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Bishop Gene Robinson on God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage

Gene Robinson on his book God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage www.randomhouse.com “My friend, Bishop Gene Robinson, has long been a voice for equality—not with anger or vitriol, but with compassion and faith. He has been guided by the simple precept that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.” — President Barack Obama From the Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church, the first openly gay person elected (in 2003) to the historic episcopate and the world’s leading religious spokesperson for gay rights and gay marriage—a groundbreaking book that lovingly and persuasively makes the case for same-sex marriage using a commonsense, reasoned, religious argument, made by someone who holds the religious text of the Bible to be holy and sacred and the ensuing two millennia of church history to be relevant to the discussion, equally familiar with the secular and political debate going on in America today, and for whom same-sex marriage is a personal issue; Robinson was married to a woman for two decades and is a father of two children and has been married to a man for the last four years of a twenty-three-year relationship.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Would a Baptist and Church of Christ marriage be considered an interfaith marriage?

Question by : Would a Baptist and Church of Christ marriage be considered an interfaith marriage?
So my question is basically if a girl was raised in a baptist church and is still within the baptist church and her boyfriend was raised in the church of christ and is also still within the church of christ and they decide to get married, would that be considered an interfaith marriage? If not what does the whole interfaith marriage thing mean and what would that be considered? I can understand if this is a really weird question but if you can answer it that would be appreciated. Thanks for your help.

Best answer:

Answer by Traveler
Some would say yes, others no. Each has some things that they would not compromise upon.

What do you think? Answer below!

On Christian Marriage

On Christian Marriage

My dear brethren,

the world has a very different thinking on marriage.  But, we know the truth about marriage; that is between Man and Woman.  Let us go in deeper on marriage; not from Man’s point of view but from the view between Christ and the Church.

The Church is femine and a bride and Christ is the bride groom.  Most of my friends are married or dating; I might have two single friends. 

I won’t be married in a physical sense and spiritual sense; only in a spiritual sense when the bishop lays his Apostolic hands on my head; I become a spiritual husband to the Church. 

What do I mean that you are married in a spiritual sense?  Did you give yourself to your husband as his bride in the Church; in the eyes of God?  Yes, so you have been married in the spiritual sense; physical sense you both have rings on to show that you are married and had a cermony and the state notices your marriage. 

But the most important thing is this: You both were married in the eyes of God and God was a witness to it. 

Jesus and the Church are married eternally; perfectly.  He gave Himself to Her by dying on the cross.  Calvary and the Cross was the altar that He gave Himself to Her; because He loves Her for all eternity.  He is submissive to Her and Her to Him. 

They never use each other as a object but each other works together to help us come to know Him who loves us for all eternity.  Through the Church; we come to know God; who became Man to redeem us who fallen from God’s grace and He died for us so that we may enter into eternity through His bride; the Church. 

Through the Church; we come to know and to use the Sacraments; which help us get to Heaven.  Three Sacraments give us the share in Divine Life; Sanctifying grace: The Eucharist, Confession and Baptism.  Everytime we fall; we crawl back to God’s Mercy and Love; which is given to us through Confession. 

The Bride; the Church; is like the Mother of God; who never leaves His side; The Church also never leaves Jesus’ side; because She loves Him to the point where She would die for Him; but Jesus died for Her and for us; because that is how much love Jesus has for His bride. 

Today, most Catholic marriages end in divorce; why is that? 

They have no idea what LOVE is.  The Love Jesus has for us and His Bride the Church.  The Love the Church has for Her Husband; Jesus.  Love comes from nothing else but the Cross.  That is how Jesus shown us the children love and His wife the Church. 

If you; Husband; aren’t willing to suffer the Cross for your family; why did you get married?  If you; Wife; aren’t willing to suffer the Cross for your family; why did you get married?  The two are one; you should love each other so much; you don’t want to be away from each other.  That is how the Church loves Jesus.  Jesus loves us that much also.

To suffer the Cross for the family; is to lift up your family in prayer to God as Jesus did for the Church.  If you love one another; you are to be submissive and faithful to each other till you enter eternity; eternal life or death.  If you love one another faithfully and submissively; get your family to Heaven. 

The Church and Jesus; love each other so much; if one is being attacked; the punishment for that person who attacks the Church is great; same for the person who attacks Jesus.  Husbands, defend your wives; Wives defend your husbands. 

Give yourself to God as a spiritual sacrifice; for the love of your spouse.  Follow the Church’s and Jesus’ example. 

God bless

I am twenty two years old and a Catholic.  I write on the faith and discerning the priesthood.  I go through many spiritual battles where I get tempted but as Fr. Corapi says, “No Pain, No Cross, No Cross No Crown.”  I have three blogs where I write and I’m working on Book II of Meum Apologia; it’s just like Blessed John Cardinal Newman’s; I got the idea from him to write one.  My Apologia has twenty chapters; twelve in the first book and eight right now in the second. 

Does the Episcopal church support abortion and gay marriage?

Question by Rolf: Does the Episcopal church support abortion and gay marriage?
I am just curious. Is the episcopal church alright with gay marriage and abortion

Best answer:

Answer by Mr. hollywood
doesnt matter if they supported it or not, gay marriage and abortion are both okay morally, gay marriage carries love between two humans… and abortion ends unnecessary burdens while causing no additional pain and suffering to anyone.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Marriage And The Trinity

Marriage And The Trinity

Having discussed the prohibitions of Christian morality regarding immoral sexual relations, Paul now provides counsel regarding proper Christian sexuality. Seven chapters into Paul’s letter to the Corinthians Paul is still discussing the same subject, which suggests that it was a widespread and serious problem among church members. What subject? The confusion of worldly wisdom and biblical truth that was being expressed through sexual confusion, and in other ways.

All of their lives these Corinthians, who had only recently become Christians, had been under the influence of Greek culture. And, according to Scripture and history, Greek culture was saturated in sexual immorality and confusion. Because of the permissiveness or liberality of Greek culture, the proliferation of sexual perversions of every conceivable sort, Paul now turned his attention to some very basic and practical considerations regarding the exercise of sexual relations between husbands and wives. All sexual expression is reserved for biblical covenantal marriage. Scripture never speaks of sexuality between consenting adults as anything other than fornication and adultery.

The first thing to note is that the Corinthians had misunderstood something that Paul had said in a previous letter. That previous letter is lost, so we don’t know exactly what he said, but we can piece together the misunderstanding from the issue raised in the first verse of chapter seven.

Immediately preceding this section Paul had been contrasting biblical beliefs with some of the popular beliefs of the time. And we noted that some of those popular beliefs were related to what Paul had taught to other Christians, namely to the Galatians. We noted previously that the Corinthians had taken what Paul had taught to the Galatians and applied it to their own Corinthian Libertine worldview, when Paul intended it to apply only to the Gnostic worldview of the Galatians. And the result was that the Corinthians misunderstood what Paul said to the Galatians when they applied it to themselves. I mention this only because verse 1 of chapter seven falls into the same literary pattern Paul used earlier, which suggests that it was part of that earlier thought.

Except in this case they have taken Paul’s prohibition against sexual immorality (against fornication) and tried to correct their own error by jumping to the opposite view. The Corinthians reasoned that since Paul had spoken so harshly against the widespread sexual immorality that he found in Corinth, against the Libertine practices that they had been taught by their misinformed leaders, they thought that Paul intended to teach the Gnostic view of withdrawal from the world and the abandonment of bodily concerns. Thus, they surmised that Paul was teaching that “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1). Paul was quoting a concern that they had brought to him in a previous letter, a quote that they had taken out of context.

They wrongly believed that because Paul taught against sexuality as it was understood and practiced in the permissive Greek culture of Corinth, that Paul intended to teach that all sexual activity should be avoided. Being Greek in their worldview, they jumped from one extreme (that of the Libertines) to the opposite extreme (that of the Gnostic Essenes). They jumped from the belief that everything sexual was okay to the position that nothing sexual was okay. Again, as we have seen before, their Greek philosophical categories of analysis did not allow for a trinitarian position. Their Greek philosophical training (whether implicit or explicit) meant that they could only create a false dichotomy, the choice between two equally wrong positions.

Roman Catholic theologians have played havoc with this section of Scripture. Early Roman Catholicism in an attempt to be all things to all people interpreted biblical Christianity in Greek intellectual categories in an effort to appeal to the Greeks. They made the same error that these Corinthians had made. They failed to understand Paul’s correction, and that failure still permeates the Roman Catholic Church regarding celibacy.

Paul was not teaching that it is good not to have sexual relations. He was not teaching a Gnostic or Essene view of sexuality. He was correcting a misunderstanding. Greek thinking leads to the opposing positions that all sexual relations are okay or that no sexual relations are okay. The middle position that requires a covenantal relationship (covenantal marriage) was completely foreign to them. They could not understand how or why biblical covenantal marriage could make any real difference. Biblical covenantal marriage was not even on their radar screens. Our world today is awash in the same false dichotomy, the same foolish thinking. So, it is important for us to understand what Paul was trying so hard to get at.

The first thing that Paul taught them was that all fornication is wrong, but that does not mean that all sex is wrong. It only means that all sex outside of marriage, outside of faithful adherence to God’s covenant, is wrong. Greek dualism cannot conceive of the reality of the Christian Trinity. Within the categories of Greek philosophy, the Trinity makes no sense at all. It is foolishness to the Greeks. Greek analysis attempts to understand or define the Trinity in terms of its own duality, and necessarily confuses and obscures the role of God, His Holy Spirit and His Word in the lives and practices of human beings. On the one hand, God’s covenant with humanity is the linchpin of trinitarian Christianity, and on the other it is invisible to Greek thinking. Inasmuch as we think that the Trinity is an unknowable mystery, we are stuck in Greek categories of thought. Again, this is the central focus of Paul’s message in chapter seven.

He went on to say that part of the reason for the institution of marriage was to provide an outlet for sexual desire. God knew that abstinence was beyond most people. God created both sexuality and marriage to go together for the sake of the health and stability of the family. Each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. Notice that the language that Paul uses implies ownership, ownership of the wife by the husband and ownership of the husband by the wife. And that is exactly what he meant — reciprocal ownership.

The next two verses (1 Corinthians 7:3-4) speak of the fact of that ownership. Not only does the wife “not have authority over her own body,” but “the husband does not have authority over his own body.” Previously Paul said that we are not our own but that we “were bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20). We are owned by Jesus Christ through His covenant with God, and we are owned by our spouse through our marriage covenant. Husband owns wife, wife owns husband, and God owns them both. Note that ownership is a legal relationship.

Knowing the weakness of the flesh, Paul told husbands and wives not to “deprive one another” (1 Corinthians 7:5). Sexual drives and needs are real, and cannot simply be ignored without serious consequences. And marriage is the place to deal with those concerns. Note that he also suggested that prayer would at times take precedence over the marriage bed “for a limited time” (1 Corinthians 7:5). Was Paul suggesting that husbands and wives engage in prayer with the same enthusiasm and commitment as they have for the marriage bed? I think so. Prayer in that venue would also help provide protection from Satan, who often uses sexual temptation and perversion to lure his victims into his den of iniquity.

For over 25 years Phillip A. Ross has been leading churches and writing many Christian books. He founded http://www.Pilgrim-Platform.org in 1998, which is loaded with information about historic Christianity. Demonstrating the Apostle Paul’s opposition to worldly Christianity, he published an exposition First Corinthians in 2008. His book, Arsy Varsy — Reclaiming the Gospel in First Corinthians, shows how Paul turned the world upside down.

Marriage on the Rocks

Marriage on the Rocks

What do you do when you have a beautiful house, two great children, and a Marriage on the Rocks? If you’re bored Val Edwards (Deborah Karr), you swap your fuddy-duddy hubby Dan (Frank SInatra) for his swingin’ bachelor best friend Ernie (Dean Martin) – and watch the spraks fly. Ol’ Blue Eyes breezes through this romantic comedy romp at the head of an all-star cast. Along for the laughs are frequent Sinatra co-stars Martin, Cesar Romero, and Tony Bill, plud daughter Nancy Sinatra and Kerr. The fun starts when the Edwards take a second honeymoon in Mexico and fall into the hands of the quickie-divorce/quickie-marriage lawyer Romero. Faster then jumping beans, everybody’s unhitched, rehitched, confused, confounded, and cohabitating. But Dan has the right attitude. “We had a bad marriage”, he says. “Let’s have a happy divorce!”This time capsule from a bygone era features an amazing Dean Martin bachelor pad and the delectable sight of Frank Sinatra go-go dancing in a rock club. Such campy pleasures are the main appeal of Marriage on the Rocks, a sitcom-style comedy about marital dissatisfaction and legal confusion. Sinatra’s been married to Deborah Kerr for 19 years, but her boredom with his stick-in-the-mud personality has her leaping to shake things up–especially when a Mexican vacation accidentally divorces the two. How Dino gets himself wedged into this mess is the stuff of labored farce. The two Rat Pack buddies have done this so many times they barely rouse themselves to mix the highballs, with only the presence of Frank’s daughter Nancy, in a supporting role, stirring the fatherly spark. Trini Lopez contributes a song, in the aforementioned nightclub, and Cesar Romero has a buffoonish role as a do-everything Mexican local official. The whole enterprise has the air of hedge-betting about it, and everybody looks as though they’re fulfilling a contractual obligation. –Robert Horton

Rating: (out of 8 reviews)

List Price: $ 12.98

Price: $ 3.50