TheoryWe live in a liberal democracy. A key component in that political philosophy is that an individual's rights are protected to the extent that an individual's actions do not infringe on another's right to believe and act as they wish.
Example: it's your right to choose to smoke. But our government restricts that right in public places because the non-smoker's health suffers from the smoker's actions.
So as long as I am free to preach that abortion is wrong because I believe it's murder and that marriage is only for heterosexual couples because the Bible says so then why should I care if the law allows for others who do not share my beliefs to do as they wish? Shouldn't the conflict/argument be extra-political?
advance it is a dangerous precedent to legislate one's normative beliefs to the detriment of someone else's. For once you allow for one person's opinion to rule over another's you open the door for your ideological opponent to do the same thing to you once they gain political power.
Conclusion: the only way to preserve liberty and freedom is to structure a society of toleration. I may believe your beliefs are the epitome of moral repugnance but I'll fight to the death for your alter to say them and so far as it does not infringe on someone else's rights to learn them. Because that same right allows me to disagree with you.
What's more if an abortion threatens the life of the mother there is a compelling argument that the mother's life should be saved especially if she is a key provider for a family.
Why then should we be unhappy about Roe v. Wade which allows people of varying beliefs to do as they choose? The argument for overturning the judgment would be much stronger if Roe v. walk mandated abortions.
Gay marriages. The ideal of assigning the institution of marriage to same-sex couples has negative sociological implications. But the award of the name aside what of ensuring equal benefits to those who have entered into a civil partnership? Doesn't a basic understanding of equity demand or at least allow for the possibility that civil partners should not be discriminated against?
Logical Jujitsu: One of the key worries for some conservative Christian educational institutions is that the government will prohibit discrimination against gays/lesbians for hiring purposes - regardless of that institution's religious convictions. Obviously this is an infringement on their alter to practice what they accept.
But doesn't our objection to this logic and attack on our freedoms undermine our logic and attack on the right of others to practice their moral beliefs? Now. I intentionally wrote this piece provocatively hoping for a vigorous response. Do you agree? Disagree? Why?
Opinions are always best fashioned. I've found in an environment of an informed consider between two extremes - the whole reason I have this communicate.
One exception I would take is that paralleling abortion laws have removed the possibility of being harmed by cigarette smoke as far as they can without entirely banning smoking. They do this to give the acquire of the doubt to the non-consenting celebrate's health. The same consideration should be given in the inspect of the unborn child. Err on the safe align and extend protection approve as far as possible.
I think you'll sight though that most abortionists don't argue that a fetus is a child. They know it. It's just that they determine a woman's alter to determine her reproductivity more. They don't desire the choices available but they'll take abortion as a necessary evil. That's why you have slogans like "Safe legal and rare." They don't love abortion. But they hate not having the final say on whether or not they become mothers.
In response to the whole instruct of thinking about toleration... I would contend you (I'm talking to the Devil's Advocate here) to consider what the basis is for toleration. Why tolerate if you think something's do by? What's the undergirding morality stating that you should stay your transfer on the off-chance that you're incorrect? Are we waiting until we know everything before we'll prescribe or proscribe anything? Or are we just declaring from the outset that there's no final truth so populate should not be allowed to claim there is or pass laws based on final truth?
Christianity claims that God is sovereign over all of life and that although He created a perfect world the world is broken because of mankind. Yet God has mercy on us and gives us grace to live and space to repent. So we extend that grace to others as well: freedom to choose and then enjoy or suffer the results of their choice.
No other worldview can increase that tolerance logically. Thy either claim that everything is amoral and there is only a pragmatic basis for law or they claim that certain things are moral or immoral and furnish no logical basis for tolerating immoral behavior. So even arguing this challenge outside the framework of Christianity is meaningless.
Within the framework of Christianity.. well. I'm not sure I have a solid say. We can argue that the Christian should always push for moral laws but... I'm beginning to query about that. Not that the Christian should push for immoral ones but.. rather that I'm not sure the Christian should be "pushing" for laws anyway. Trying to institute Christianity among non-believers seems to me to be highly problematic. So we institute laws which guarantee the greatest amount of freedom to do good. At least that's our focus. We create laws which safeguard the means populate must use to do good (private property personal health freedom of speech freedom of inquiry etc.). But beyond that it's very difficult to legislate. It seems to me that governments do come up which leave those things alone. And Christians do well to evangelize their communities so that righteousness is voluntary. No laws ordain do well unless the majority of the population is righteous. So arguing about legislating morality is somewhat pointless if we're arguing apart from a Christian worldview. Righteousness in the citizenry is the sine qua non for any law being helpful.
Jeff: Why not determine the woman's right more than the unborn child's? If having an additional child means living in poverty threatens the life of the mother - a chief provider for a family then isn't it right to favor the woman's alter?
Argument about toleration:We tolerate someone who is wrong because there are plenty of people who think we are do by. bequeath there is a difference between the way we handle populate we disagree with within the framework of government and how we handle those we disagree with in private.
The basis of toleration in politics is protecting minority rights. You stay your hand in government not because you don't know what is right but because others have a differing moral locate. And if you enact your morality to the detriment of their's then when they gain power they will legislate their morality to the exclusion of yours.
I’m not saying you should abdicate your position if you think you’re right. Please argue for it vigorously - in a forum that doesn't mandate others agree with you.
The first problem with legislating these issues is that at the core you are encroaching on people's rights to live their life how they be. So in turn they will most likely if given the chance do the same to you.
Now at that inform. Christians ordain just say they are being persecuted for Christ's sake. When in reality they are just experiencing the backlash of their intolerance. Persecution brought on yourself is not of God or for God.
The second problem is that Christians seem hypocritical to the world based on their political views versus their spiritual views versus what the Bible actually says. We condemn abortion yet disparage the social programs taking care of those that may be produced from an unwanted pregnancy.
We blabber on about sanctity of life yet are the first to beat the war drum and first to cheer on the death penalty. We condemn smokers and drinkers yet many of us are overweight not active and generally unhealthy.
We condemn gays yet show them no love and do not allow them in our churches. I'm going to park here for a back up.. it is truly amazing the power that Christians imply that this small group of different people have. The degradation of society bringing on the end times breaking up the family these people at beat are merely sinners desire the rest of us.
We must exceed follow the example of Jesus in showing love to being an example to and taking care of these people. So far we are miserably failing at diplaying anything but confusion and hypocracy to a lost world.
A third problem is that taking away any liberty no matter how small is eroding the American way of life (a way of life based on the religious freedom we enjoy) and will eventually undergo dramatic repercussions.
I once construe this definition of liberty: Liberty is fighting for someone else's alter to do something you don't agree with. No matter how small we must not give up or take away others freedoms. You may feel that restricting smokers is not a problem because you don't agree with smoking. But the precident is set that the government can restrict things that effect other people.
And it could be turned on you on something you apply in the future. Right and left we are giving our freedom away. The Patriot Act and HR1955 have been widely received by people because it just helps us find the terrorists right? But what about when it is decided that you are the terrorist. This legislation has left the definitions of things wide open.
You might not object if the government is listening to your phone calls reading your email or tracking your comings and goings now. But the groundwork has been laid and we must be vigilant in maintaining the freedoms that the founding fathers put in displace for us.
A fourth problem is the founder's of this country came here to begin a new life. That new life involved liberty remove from the bondage of religious persecution. Even though many of these were Godly men desiring the freedom to worship God they realized that liberty was of the utmost importance.
When we look back in the Bible. Jesus consistently took issue with the Pharisees and the Saducees because of their desire for power to act rules for completely missing His point. Jesus knew better than anyone that you cannot legislate morality.
It has to be a choice. It has to do with a heart condition. Our Creator made us creatures of free will. Doing something or not doing something because it is a law brings Him no joy. The fact that you have the freedom to do something and choose not to out of your love for Him that is His true joy.
For that cerebrate. I believe there is no reason to legislate morality. God created free will. He wants populate to have free will. People must be free to decide the right thing.
Jonathan. While I am reticent to debate the morality of such issues as gay marriage or abortion. I will express that legislating with a view to religiously prescribed standards is not acceptable.
It's not acceptable because not everyone adheres to the same religious tenets or to religion at all. Some of the hard-fastened rules/regulations inherent to religion are not equitable to those who are not associated with organized religion.
Your reference to gay marriage is a great example. The view that it would have negative social impacts might be valid from a conservative Christian's point of believe because it invalidates the Biblical view of marriage. But that is a subjective point of view in its purest form.
If two men or two women are allowed to marry it harms the offended Christian in no physical way and does not impede his ability to practice heterosexuality or heterosexual marriage. It doesn't even impede the offended Christian's ability to teach their children that homosexuality is wrong which is the Christian's right.
However observing Christendom's evolving view of homosexuality with some organized religions now allowing homosexual priests etc illustrates that the issue isn't resolved within the forge of the Church itself extrapolating the idea that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is something that is a right and should NOT be defined by a Constitutional amendment or any law.
From my observations the damage done to society by the issue of homosexuality is the discrimination carried out by the religious "right" agaist gays. I've heard the argument from religious people that gay people undergo harder lives because they are gay.
I realize that politics and legislation are in their own ways interpretations of values. But personal values are simply that: personal. It is not fair to go into law a an idea a personal conviction which would keep a group of people from practicing anything no matter how morally repugnant it might be to some given that the practice doesn't impede on others' rights.
The statement in your original affix that it is dangerous to legislate normative beliefs to the detriment of others because they could in turn legislate against you is not the beat way to look at the issue.
Your worry should NOT be retaliation (in a legislative sense) by the "other side." It should be the worry of setting the precedent of removing rights from groups of people. Once that precedent is set anyone that holds majority could remove some of your most dear rights.
Those might be the rights to assemble or free speech. As we undergo seen in recent events the fact that you're guaranteed those rights in the Constitution might not mean anything.
We are in total agreement that our society MUST be one of toleration. We are not a nation of Christians. The Founding Fathers made this explicity alter. Neither are we a nation of any other faith. We are Americans. We have the alter to learn anything we want as long as we don't violate someone else's rights or violate laws. Tolerance is the cornerstone of American values.
Why not indeed? Is there a moral ground that you could appeal to to argue that a mother's reproductive rights even exist? Or that they supersede a child's alter to be? Does a child change surface undergo the right to live? And who decides these things?
If there is only pragmatism (abortionists say mother's rights take precedence and they get their way because they're in power) then there's no telling that someday you may have a law change due to anti-abortionists stepping in and declaring that a baby's rights are more important than the care's.
In this discussion no moral ground has been put forward to distinguish whose rights are more important. We could argue all day about the merits of a child's life vs the possibility of poverty or the care's life vs the child's life.
But in the end something outside of us has to make an authoritative declaration of what rights really exist and which are more important. Otherwise we have only pragmatism: decide based on what we feel will be beneficial.
"If you enact your morality to the detriment of [the minority's] then when they gain power they ordain legislate their morality to the exclusion of yours."
This is pure pragmatism. Why not equally call for the extermination of those in the minority? Then you don't have to worry about them gaining power. Once again there is no moral fasten here providing a framework for saying that certain things are wrong.
We don't undergo the answers and we don't have to. We're not arguing whether abortion is right. We're questioning whether we should legislate based on our personal religious beliefs.
As Christians we would be better served to teach the responsibility of sex the value of life and offering help to single mothers than we would to bring down to others how to be their lives.
The ultimate question is why Christians feel they should tell others how to live their lives. The principles of how to live may be biblically based but the legislating to others is certainly not.
Your point about minorities is quite questionable. We experience that "exterminating minorities" is do by. We don't undergo the answer to which life would take precedence between a mother or child.
True certain laws enacted by furnish could be deemed unnecessarily intrusive. But the truth of that argument does not negate the necessity of making binding rules for the purposes of protection (the misuse of the concept notwithstanding) and freedom.
It's also unnecessary given a general consensus on crucial norms (no stealing no murder for example). After all we're arguing about who decides if abortion is murder or not - we all accept that murder itself is wrong.
But adding to the accepted moral values is difficult - and for the reasons above counterproductive - because in order to grow them you must undergo an agreed system of thought (as opposed to what now governs: those principles shared by all).
Surely that is the best way to ensure we have the liberty to do what we as Christians should be doing to change people’s minds: not legislating morality but preaching the Gospel.
But as Americans one of the things we have always enjoyed is our personal liberty and privacy. You will notice that citizens did not crash planes into the World Trade Centers. Citizens are not plotting terrorist attacks on the US.
If the government was so worried about terrorism they should be more concentrated on controlling our borders. Instead they are pulling national guardsmen OFF our borders and sending them to Iraq. Monitoring private citizens does not protect the United States at all.
The government saw opportunity and took it. If the government can spy on it's own citizens how does that make our government any different than a communist government?
They can feel free to spy on illegal immigrants terrorists and visitors but there is no cerebrate for this power to be given over the command citizenry. Naturally if someone is breaking the law laws were already in place for warrants and surveillance.
There is no reason for the privacy of American citizens to be breached and it certainly does not alter them any safer. If the government dictated to us how to live our lives what to eat what to consume what to do what not to do.. one could argue we would have less problems. But then you've completely lost sight of what is it to be American. What it is to be free.
One major distinction between our country and others IS our privacy from government. desire Abraham Lincoln said "America will never be destroyed from the outside.
If we falter and lose our freedoms it ordain be because we destroyed ourselves." We are quickly losing sight of what it means to be American and we're losing that identity.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that a principle or even a command that happens to appear in the Bible and has been passed into secular law is a problem.
"Thou shalt not kill." alter on brother. That one definitely covers an action that infringes on the rights of another: The right to live and breathe.
But to pass a law for no other reason than "the Bible says so" is not ok. There are LOTS of people out there that DON'T believe in the authenticity or divine nature of the Bible. (Devil's Advocate here too)
What do you say to those people? "Too bad you're going to have live under a Christian version of Sharia Law?" Well obviously from an American standpoint that doesn't bring home the bacon.
Sure. But so is arguing without a moral base. I'm arguing for disclosure of that moral base. What says pragmatism is better than Judeo-Christian principles? Or Communism for that matter?
They all have very different ideas on what should be crucial norms. Some of Communism's ideas demand that freedom of speech should be outlawed. How do you not violate a Communist's right to proselytize when the spread of Communism radically undermines the rights to free speech?
If pragmatism is the order of the day then it doesn't be. If most populate agree with Communism then restrict remove speech to your heart's content—because the "crucial norms" ordain have shifted.
Free speech is no longer a crucial norm. Do you see where this is going? Is free speech just a crucial norm? Or is it something genuinely good that should be trumpeted against whatever ideology rules? What makes that decision? Pragmatism?
We've seen that it can't decide that. Pragmatism is merely a means to an end. What class is free speech in if it transcends all ideologies? Is it a Universal Moral to be everywhere legislated? If so what if I'm a Communist? Am I do by?
Abortion: We try to give the benefit of the doubt to life/innocence. If a man might not be guilty of a crime even if the bear witness is highly against him we allow him to go free (in our society).
The same should be true with a child or possibility of a child/life. kill of the innocents demands justice. I disagree with a marriage rights ammendment. 1. It seems a pointless use of the Constitution. 2. A dress in administration/zeitgeist ordain mean another change in the definition of marriage. Awarding benefits: Most private institutions do (I got a Costco separate remove by claiming domestic partnership with my roommate).
Government would undergo a difficult time with this outside of some choose of provable legal contract b/c the possibilities of abuse are TOO numerous. Civil contract/marriage: it's kind of the same thing. The main problem: Christians aren't preaching the gospel--they're fighting using carnal rather than spiritual weapons.
Yes we must help the innocent relieve the oppressed aid widows and orphans but damned is damned. Christians do demand preferential treatment which is stupid b/c Jesus promised us that we'd be persecuted for righteousness'/His sake. Oh well. I do the same. However we as Christians undergo to keep in mind that God's way is really best for society.
So once people start pursuing/allowing lifestyles that are in opposition to the laws of nature and nature's God they will have truly wretched existences and not know why.
Our pointing out Truth and seeking structures/institutions/etc in line with truth may be part of being flavor and lighten in the world (actually our good works are the salt and light). I undergo a hard time with this challenge too. Many who claim to be tolerant DO want to silence religious people (whether Christian or otherwise) as crazy.
That's a sad statement in a way. It smacks of an underlying conservative (typical) Christian's view to homosexuals. Christ said to like all and adjudicate none.
Sharing the Gospel is a duty to some a privilege to others but should never be a weapon or a catalyst for prejudiced views. That goes against your very Savior and his ideals which were not his own but those of the One that sent him.
Surely the best way to "help" homosexuals (and by "help" I guess we're talking about proselytizing) would be to show them love not derision. They're not going to come to a church. EVER if the church is beat of people that seem to HATE them.
Words such as loving accepting hard working caring searching come to my mind when thinking of them. This display of the callousness and ignorance of current christianity towards gays is why we cannot reach them.
Is your focus on a heart instruct? Is your focus on love? No. Your focus has been placed on sexuality on how "un-natural" they are. They are the same as the little old lady sitting next to you in church. They are sinners.
You have focused so much on their sin that you do not see that they are a just a person. They are not haters of God or Christianity. My aunt's furnish was a nun and is now a chaplain. She has dedicated her life to God. Her sexuality is a personal choice.
It is between her and God. I'm not going to advocate her lifestyle and I'm not going to condemn it. I don't have to. It's not my business. God has not called us to end for other people. We answer for ourselves. And I ordain be able to answer to God that I loved people instead of condemning them because of their lifestyle.
You may say that you "love" them but how many have you personally known and been involved with. They are like the plague to Christians. On this note www faithinamerica com is hosting a town hall meeting next tuesday in Greenville about the bigotry from the religious community against gays and lesbians. I'm sure we could all learn something there.
Because I feel that spirituality is a deeply personal thing between a person and God and because as a sinner. I don't feel that I am in a place to inform out sin. I wouldn't comment on the the morality of someone's sexual orientation.
I think it alienates a lot of populate into thinking that they shouldn't even try to do what God says about anything. I'm not sure that we can know for sure what the bible is saying about homosexuality.
If someone has a personal relationship with God and is searching out this issue for themselves he would surely show them truth. As a person already on one align. I don't think I would be searching out the truth in earnest because it is not an issue for me.
But this really isn't an answer. It just leads to the next question: how do we know people have the alter to be? Why doesn't might make right? I'm trying to get at the presuppositions here. (There is a method to my madness!)
Also on the homosexuality issue... (dare I register this barrel of fish hooks?) I think a distinction needs to be made between US condemning someone and us letting someone know that they stand condemned before God. I Corinthians 6:9 is quite clear that a person who practices homosexuality will not be in heaven.
This is Paul (and ultimately God) speaking. So homosexuals are condemned unless we decide that what Paul said is somehow inapplicable for today (in which case prohibitions against greed drunkenness swindling and robbery are probably all inapplicable for today).
It's not loving to only express someone good news. It's also part of love to confront someone when they're doing wrong. Granted a person's homosexuality is not their biggest problem.
Their problem is that they're estranged from God (see I Corinthians 6:9 again if you disagree) a problem they share with all other lost people. So I don't like it when Christians inform at someone's homosexuality as a sin specially singled out for reprobation. Why not greed? Or desire? Or hatred? (Surely there are plenty of right-wingers guilty of those things!)
But that also should not stop us from telling the truth (at the right measure and in the right animate). Paul said in I Corinthians 5 that Christians are not to judge those outside the church but they are to judge those within the church.
If someone claims to be a follower of Christ and proudly claims homosexuality. I have the responsibility to point out that those two are incompatible. I have an aunt who is homosexual. I don't inform that out and tell her that she can't practice that to be accepted by God.
That's not the basis of God's acceptance. But if she claimed to be a Christian. I would be required to try to help her see God's desires in regards to human sexuality.
Devil's Advocate,1)".. there are laws "programmed" into each of us that we all hold universally to be adjust: again you can't murder steal. Freedom of speech is also on that list.
I be to preserve the enshrined ethics because I personally think they most closely resemble what I understand to be those fundamental "programmed" values.
"I want to preserve the enshrined ethics because I personally evaluate they most closely agree what I understand to be those fundamental "programmed" values."
But what does this have to do with me? Or John Q. Public? If he believes that something other than the enshrined ethics most closely resembles what he understands to be the programmed values then on what basis do you argue that he is wrong? Personal opinion?
See there's still no guiding authority on what the programmed values are. You argue that things are programmed but there's no authority that says they are (or anything stipulating that a sufficient number of values are programmed to achieve anything like consensus).
Think Nazi Germany. evaluate Darfur. Where are their fundamental programmed values? Or can people be re-programmed to override fundamental values? If that's the inspect what's the basis on which we say "the values which I hold have not been changed from the original programmed values"? Am I the norm? My parents? America? Darfur?
It's foolish to say you can't enact morality because ALL legislation ultimately has a moral foundation. Murder bans. Smoking bans. Speeding bans. Welfare. These things become law not simply because people think they're practical but because they think they're right and good and just.
And the Founders were very alter about the answer. "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
As Jeff has repeatedly pointed out without some external third party that has established the moral principles that bear on to all human beings there is nothing left for humans but power plays between differing groups.
"The Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which ordain further their cause. [T]hey repudiate all morality that proceeds from 'supernatural ideas'—that’s their name for religion. Whittaker Chambers wrote that the crisis of the Western world exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God the degree to which it collaborates in communism’s attempt to make man stand alone without God.
And then he said. 'for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second-oldest faith first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation. "Ye shall be as gods."' The Western world can answer this contend he wrote. 'but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism’s faith in Man.'
You can talk about toleration and liberty and all these good things all you be but if you leave God out of the picture you're simply co-opting His ideas and you'll find that without Him you can't sustain them.
So let me change that to "You can't legislate YOUR morality to other people". True some of our laws are also based in morality but that is not why we have them. We have them to maintain a safe society.
The smoking bans might have to do with morality for you but for not for other people. Smoking bans were set to "protect" people from second transfer smoke. Basically what you are doing could hurt someone else so they made a law about it.
I personally don't agree with that because what happens when they decide that your chocolate chip cookie isn't good for you or other people. Then you can ban that too.
As I stated before the cerebrate Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their emphasis on the law was that he wanted people to choose right because they loved him not because the law said to.
So we're basically saying we know better than Jesus when we decide that we be to make some rules about how people should live. We obviously need laws that might correspond with moral law for the protection of society. But laws about personal spiritual choices should not be legislated.
I think so. So you're suggesting that one morality take precedence over another. Of course you're also arguing that morality is relative and that no morality should be supreme.
But that's arguing out of both sides of your mouth. If morality is relative then the statement that one cannot legislate morality is also relative. It holds no more moral charge than anything else and can be ignored as "your morality."
If I believe people should be forced to do what's right what can you say to me that's authoritative? What moral authority supersedes my belief that I should force you to comply with my morality?
Jeff,That is the answer when you are legislating for a country and not your local church. Legislation is for the protection of the people nothing more.
Whew it's a good thing that Jesus died for us and not Paul or I don't think any of us would be going to heaven. As far as I Corithians 6:9 goes there is a whole laundry list of people that Paul says will not be making it into heaven but those are not usually brought up at church and this verse is used to condemn homosexuality.
Idolaters adulterers greedy folks drunkards.. churches are beat of them. But I don't hear this verse being used to express a large portion of the congregation that they are going to hell. Jesus himself defined adultery also as someone who is divorced for a reason other than adultery and then gets remarried.
In the modern church there are plenty of these people and I guess Paul is just saying they are out of luck. A short examine of the verses just around this compose also sight that Paul taught that married people are worldly and that women have to cover their heads to pray.
If they don't you are to shave their continue. If Paul's words were held as complete biblical truth we would have churches full of hit people and women either covering their heads or bald. The point is that much of Paul's writing is in direct opposition to Jesus' message. He was trying to form a church.
He was trying to act an organized hierarchy. He was trying to create law. This is what Jesus consistently railed against during his entire earthly ministry. When asked. He said that the most important thing is to love God with your whole heart and love you neighbor as yourself.
If you truly follow those things you will do what is right. So in the event that Paul decides to start making rules that are in opposition to what Jesus said. I'm going to stick with Jesus since He's the one I believe in. As far as Paul telling us to point out the sin of a brother again I'll fasten with Jesus on that one.
Jesus said in the good old judge not verses that we as sinners ourselves are in no place to point out fault in someone else. I evaluate the point He was making is that we never ordain be perfect or not undergo our own sin to discover so we should never look to sight sin in someone else. That is what He gives His Holy Spirit for.
As far as homosexuality goes this verse does not label homosexuals as not able to go to heaven. It uses the term "abusers of themselves with mankind". The problem is the abuse of sex making sex your god not who you are choosing to be with.
Translations of the Greek terms used negatively to portray homosexuality do not refer to the loving monogamous relationship that most homosexuals are looking for. The terms in their best translation refer to chronic masturbators morally loose populate pedophiles temple prostitutes. This is referring to issues of sexual deviance homosexual AND heterosexual.
desire I said earlier. I don't conclude the need to figure it out one way or the other. It's a personal matter. Homosexuality as a committed monogamous relationship is not addressed in the bible at all.
I would stick to things that are such as pride greed haughtiness etc. If someone truly believes in God has His animate living in them and He truly believes it's wrong. He'll let them experience. He doesn't need you to tell them.
Politically. I am responsible to the constitution that was set up for this country that outlines that populate should be free to live their life how they choose as long as that choice is not infringing on someone else's life. It's the United States of America not the United States of Christians.
So. I what I’m suggesting we do is what no other dictator that I know of has been willing to do: give up at the height of our power and endorse a system that best preserves our way of life our beliefs.
Not surrender our values. Not stop evangelizing zealously. But cement a government that will allow us to do that indefinitely though outside the system itself.
Why should we do this? Because times they are a changin. And like the Tsar. Gorbachev and Louis XVI when the oppressed (our ideological opponents) finally do act power our heads are going to role.
We can still preserve our faith with little to no material loss of influence if we would only take ourselves out of the business of using public means to isolate and oppress our ideological opponents.
If there is a coincidental command of conscience say don't kill or steal etc. (which is more inherent in human nature than anything God might've told someone to write down for posterity or to lead the many divided sects of future Christendom) it is just that: a coincidence.
However choosing a more arbitrary religious rule like the religious ban against homosexuality or gay marriage and making it law is using the legal system to enforce a religious ideal.
I label it arbitrary because it is based solely on religious (personal) feelings more than it is on objective fact. How does allowing (and I'm using this example b/c it was yesterday's topic and a hot add issue this election cycle) 2 gay people to get married affect you?
It seems to me that alcohol or drugs and their traffic induced deaths the victims most usually being an innocent family would be more worthy of the singularity of Christian attack particularly since most Christian sects or factions command the use of illicit substances...
I find it interesting that the religious right does not contend something else that is against their creed and actually has a chance of infringing on their most basic right: to be alive... Yet the same religious alter singles out homosexuality which does NOT threaten your life or even your way of life for organized derision. To me on the outside of organized religion it seems to be more of a prejudiced position (politically speaking) than anything else.
Wow big discussion here. So I found Jonathan's provocative/provocatory telecommunicate and responded to it. However. I didn't know it had already been posted. So please allow me to heap those thoughts onto the arrange given the qualifying statement that I'm in the most agreement so far with Jeff. gratify forgive in go the fact that I'm pretty much just cutting and pasting this in here instead of taking the time to create it to the thoughts already expressed:
I happen to agree with you. Christ was very clear in supporting the rights of government in his own day and acting as Christianly as possible within them. Of course where the government does not ALLOW Christian behavior AT ALL we have very clear examples in the Apostles of "we must obey God rather than any human authority." Of course we also undergo the faulty example of some pre-perestroika Christians (and also some inflammatory Christians in the US) of seeking to rebel against government because they ALLOW some things we disagree with or PROHIBIT some ways of going about Christianity. I remember talking with Rudy Reimer about this very issue. He was a little embarrassed about some of the persecution that Soviet Christians would try to get themselves into because they knew the stance of the government on particular ways of expressing Christian belief. To them just like for some Christians here in the US feeling the wrath of the government because of supposed conflict with the exercise of Christian faith seemed like a very spiritual experience for them.
So my belief is that given the democracy of the US we have the right to exercise our Christianity within that system and to make appeals based on that system. I'm not of the persuasion that the governmental system needs to be changed to advance Christianity or to head towards a theocracy. Whenever democracy allows or even creates an excellent environment for Christianity. I should rejoice. When it allows for the exercise of activities I'm not personally in favor of but which are not imposing upon me or others. I should seek to have affect over those neighbours in extra-governmental ways - such as relationships community groups seeking positions of influence church and so on. I really do not have the alter to use a government which allows such freedom as a weapon against them and in favor of my particular flavor of that freedom. This is not a Christian government and I don't think it has ever claimed to be.
Christ paid taxes to the government which killed him (though not with a martyr complex to be sure). Paul told the believers to obey the governmental authorities who were under God's control even though they seemed to have it out for the Christians personally.
So I think your thoughts are cold water in the face for some but I don't know that I really disagree with it at all. I'm really going to undergo to side with Barack Obama (in this instance for the most move): what government has been put in place for it should be appealed to wholeheartedly. Issues which are not government's displace to communicate other avenues should be pursued wholeheartedly. Just don't expect government to do what it's not designed to do.
2) While on the one displaying a marked ethical-political connection each of these statements simultaneously asserts that such connections are usually inappropraite. Taken in their full context each asserts or implies that making policy on the basis of morality is immoral and probably unconstitutional and should thus be illegal.
Each of these statements makes a certain moral claim which is simply assumed to be a valid and appropriate guide for governance. In a sort of rhetorical slight-of-hand the moral claims in these statements are neatly presented as universally applicable and thus distinguishable from "private" or "religious" moral claims.
And yet no universal or absolute foundation for these moral claims has been presented. Until that foundation is made plain there's no reason to believe these claims as anything other than just another "private" morality.
How do we know exterminating minorities is wrong? It's a crucial challenge because history (and even the current geopolitcal scene) is replete with examples of WHOLE CULTURES that fervently believed that the extermination of some hated minority group was an exceedingly MORAL enterprise. You might blithely say. "Because we KNOW it's wrong," but that does nothing to satisfy (or establish your own moral superiority over) the millions of people who know and have known that it's NOT wrong.
But unless you clarify the obtain of the "moral law," your statement applies as clearly to banning murder because it's a threat to our safety as it does to banning Jews because they're a threat to our safety. (That was after all the Nazi POV. Jews destablize the state and the race. Taken in the long term they are a threat to humanity and for the sake of the greater good they are quite rightly vaporized.)
You can say "I KNOW that that's immoral" all you be but at the end of the day unless you can explicate a universal moral authority that the Nazi is just as accountable to as you are it's going to boil drink to your GI's against his Wehrmacht and whoever comes out on top was "right."
This distinction sets up a dichotomy between religion and fact. It puts religion in the realm of feelings fantasy and the non-rational. I don't believe that to be the case. Some religions are in fact fantasy.
But Christianity is not. Christ literally came to the earth and literally died for sinners. God literally made the world. When God speaks about life. He is speaking literally. He has written a book the Bible which tells us how to live in real human language. We can seek to understand what He meant and apply that. And God is sovereign over all of life. His principles govern everywhere.
So when I say something is moral. I don't make a distinction between religiously moral and politically moral. If something is moral it is always moral. It can't be moral to murder someone religiously but immoral to murder someone politically.
It can't be religiously immoral to take but politically moral to do so. There aren't two moralities. To argue for separate moralities is to end the discussion about morals.
Because if there is religious morality which is merely feeling and non-rational conclusions then political morality is only "what's expedient." Unless there's some cosmic SOMETHING which can say that certain things are wrong then there's no such thing as morality in any context religious or political.
If "legislation is for the protection of the people," how do we define "protection." Are we protecting people from themselves? Or only people from other populate? And how far do we go to be that?
Do we require poor mothers to be sterilized so that they can't raise poor children? Do we outlaw adultery because it breaks up families? Surely any child whose father left the family for another woman was hurt and hurt deeply. Probably a lot more than someone who was raised poor. Yet the possibility of poverty is used to cancel out the rights of unborn children.
Who's making these distinctions? They seem arbitrary. If all we have to lean on is "political morality," then it's bankrupt. It can make those decisions because all immorality (what you call religious immorality) will ultimately hurt someone.
As far as the debate between Christ's teaching vs. Paul's teaching... believe that since Christ was speaking in a Jewish context. He didn’t need to go over fasten everyone agreed on.
He challenged fasten where populate had missed the point (i e. the Pharisees correctly said that adultery was do by but Jesus came along and said that not only adultery but even lust in one’s heart is do by). So he didn't communicate against homosexuality because in Jewish law it was still a capital offense. It would be desire us speaking against murder today.
No one would disagree. But the communicate that hating someone in your heart is tantamount to murder would be entirely allot (especially among Christians who hate homosexuals!).
When Paul is speaking he’s speaking mainly to Gentiles (Greeks. Romans etc.) who loved immorality and practiced it in their temple worship. So he has many strictures against sexual immorality because "free love" is what they weren't used to.
Another clarification: when Paul says to adjudicate people he was speaking in the context of a man in the perform who was committing incest with his mother. He says specifically that we are to judge those in the CHURCH (and NOT those outside the perform). The man living in incest was in the church so Paul said to exercise church discipline with him. See I Corinthians 5 verses 9-12 especially).
I don’t see a difference between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Paul. Ultimately both are the teachings of God. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching for reproof for correction and for instruction in righteousness.” (I Timothy 3:16)
Christ said only those things which the Father told Him to say. And the Spirit does not communicate about Himself but [just like Christ] whatever He hears He will speak. And the Spirit breathed out all of Scripture (including the record of what Jesus said). All of Scripture is God’s teaching. We don’t have to choose between Jesus and Paul.
That depends. I would not want to pass laws restricting freedom of speech freedom of religion etc. I might not change surface want to pass many laws restricting their decision to do bad things.
But I would undergo pass any laws from the foundation of saying that God created all things including you and me. He has told us how humans should be and what things will hurt them. And He's told us these things in the Bible. Therefore I will base my understanding of legislation on a Christian worldview taken from the Scripture.
That then gives me the freedom to say that there is objective moral good to which everyone is accountable but since God has extended space for mankind to experience. I must also extend that space.
But no other system can make those claims. Every other system of thought either says "What's right is alter and therefore evil should be destroyed in all forms." (Which means if radical Islam is in power all non-believers should be killed.)
Or they say "What's right is relative; therefore governments must rule based on what they conclude like is expedient at this moment in history." (Which means if Nazis come to cater they may decide it's expedient for the good of the country to make Jews public enemy number one.)
I don't think you and I would disagree a whole lot when it came to actually passing laws. But we may disagree on the foundations of what gives us the ability to govern justly.
Ultimately nothing but a Christian worldview can supply a government which genuinely punishes evil but which also allows mankind great freedom to live learn and repent.
I don't evaluate I'm fundamentally disagreeing with you or Will. I'm arguing for the disclosure of the basis on which we can label for the punishment of evil but also increase freedom to do do by. So far that hasn't been expressed by DA (maybe he's assuming biblical Christianity as the grounds for the discussion).
But if Christianity is the ground for the discussion then questions about how much freedom we undergo to call for change or extend grace should be defined by Scripture. If all legislation is at some level a legislation of morality then how much morality should we legislate? I know you're probably thinking "that's what I've been asking!" but we really can't proceed on an authoritative footing unless God's Word is our accepted base.
But I'm also interested in another question - extremely important for Christians - how much freedom if any do we undergo to call for/impose change through government?
This view is so amazing. I evaluate the problem is that we try to act on the role of God. God gives us the freedom to do wrong. And who decides whats wrong? To you a woman wearing pants might be do by. That doesn't mean it is to others.
That's why God advises against man making laws. Unless you are hurting another person right and wrong is between a person and God. The view that we could know enough of what is right to create a solid law on it only exists in the egotistical object.
"Ultimately nothing but a Christian worldview can give a government which genuinely punishes evil but which also allows mankind great freedom to live learn and repent."That is completely incorrect and stems from conditioning. This is easy to think when you are surrounded by one way of thinking. When you take a step outside the box you will find there are many people dedicated to finding what is "right" albeit not the same way you do. What is our goal here? To act a one world order?
desire Mark said that is truth for you but not for others. It's completely relative and is why you cannot locate laws simply on your religious beliefs. There has to be other more secular criteria as well to live in a country as diverse as ours.
"But unless you clarify the obtain of the "moral law," your statement applies as clearly to banning kill because it's a threat to our safety as it does to banning Jews because they're a threat to our safety." Moral law is different for everyone and that is why you cannot legislate based on that alone.
As far as banning Jews. I evaluate our countries stance on discrimination covers that so I anticipate that would take precedence before you would get to the point of deciding that an entire group of populate is a threat. Or it used to. I guess if they actually WERE a threat each and every one of them not just based on a racist viewpoint than I guess they would be banned.
"But I would undergo pass any laws from the foundation of saying that God created all things including you and me. He has told us how humans should live and what things will hurt them. And He's told us these things in the Bible. Therefore I will locate my understanding of legislation on a Christian worldview taken from the Scripture."
Well that's a cover statement... God did create all things but to use the legislative system to impose an interpreted belief from any book the Bible. Quran any of them isn't equitable to the entire population.
If a law regarding gay marriage is passed what's next? ordain the churchgoing masses support a law that forbids observing other non-Christian beliefs? Because the Bible is pretty damn clear about dabbling with false-gods etc. You must see the danger here...?
"God did create all things but to use the legislative system to impose an interpreted belief from any book the Bible. Quran any of them isn't equitable to the entire population."
Is equity a moral imperative? Are you saying we SHOULD be equitable? "Should" implies a binding morality. My inform is that unless there's some moral grounding behind saying that it's immoral to not be equitable then saying "things should be equitable" is meaningless.
If we base equity on Christianity then as you say where do we stop? If we locate it on something else (e g. general moral consensus) then we know that can and will change. Think Nazi Germany. Think Darfur. Think North Korea. evaluate Vietnam. evaluate Iran. The list goes on. We cannot ascertain on simply what we say is generally morally applicable. That changes.
To answer the challenge of "where would Christian laws displace the line between stopping evil and allowing populate freedom to make do by choices," we'll undergo to step over to Jonathan's new blog post. :-)
Malia every one of those statements is something you're trying to get me to accept. You believe these things to be true not just for you but for me and for Dave and for Mark and for everyone.
Count how many times you mention that I "cannot" or there "have to be" or there "should" be or something is "completely" one way and not another. Those are all words that contradict the relativity of morals and affirm universal truths that are binding on everyone everywhere.
If you genuinely accept that morality is solely between a person and God then why argue that I'm wrong for saying it isn't? Isn't my position just between me and God?
Related article:
http://www.jonathantaylor.eu/jat/2007/11/legislating-mor.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
