| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/07/2010 09:55:01 PM · #4601 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
According to your logic, all people face the same discrimination since the Bible teaches that all people are wrong. |
Yup. The bible is universally vile because its central message is that humanity is broken and unworthy. It discriminates against humanity. Right. And because of this, it isn't worth discussion, in my opinion of course, beyond its position as an historical curiosity, and a sort of twisted ancient view of our scarce moment in the universe. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:02:00 PM · #4602 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The Bible tells us that ALL sins are wrong, and ALL people sin... It should be offensive to all people |
Agreed... the idea that ALL people, including children, the mentally impaired, and the most virtuous individuals are so morally corrupt that they require repentance should should be offensive to all people. It certainly offends me. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:13:35 PM · #4603 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... sort of like a one size fits all approach, eh? |
Well, God created all people, Jesus died for all people, and God's revelation in the Bible is for all people. So yeah, it is a one size fits all approach. The Gospel is for all people, it's not exclusive.
Not even close. Jesus death does not even register with hordes of people, particularly those that came before him.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Discussing things with you is almost a lost cause since you only see the religious aspects of the discussion to the detriment of other very salient issues. The crux of the argument is that you seem to suggest that interpretation of the bible to meet 21st century standards will alleviate all of the problems and you can't seem to comprehend that to some of us that is simply "Gerry rigging" and not truly a viable solution. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...of course the fact that schools are publicly funded entities, paid for by all tax payers and governed by state laws is NOT something to be overly concerned about either. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto
I'm not sure about the religious school in question, but in the USA religious schools are privately funded.[/quote:
... and of course you conveniently failed to mention that nowhere in my discourse did I make any mention of a "religious school".
[quote=RayEthier:
Actually the discriminatory aspect of the argument rests not with the fact that the some people might disagree with the stance of the church, but rather that the church is implying that homosexuality is wrong, and by extension ought to be treated in a different manner... therein lies the discrimination aspect of the argument. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto
Then you're misunderstanding what the Bible actually says. [/quote:
I make mention of discriminatory possibly committed by the church and you tell me that I am misunderstanding the bible... good grief.
[quote=RayEthier]
This is one issue that we could sit around and discuss till doomsday as it all depends on one's interpretation of exactly what constitutes political involvement. By their very nature churches are political animals as they strive to ensure that the mores and morals of their environments and strive thrive and expand. This type of activity, coupled with the numbers of voters churches can summon, can and often are viewed as political machines and it is sheer folly to think otherwise. |
[quote=johnnyphoto
Churches CAN BE political machines... So, I guess gay rights proponents should be glad that many conservative churches DO NOT utilize their political potential... |
Surely you are not so naive as to believe that churches do not have influence or exercise pressures in the political arena.
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 22:51:52. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:19:48 PM · #4604 |
Originally posted by Louis:
No, that's not what I'm saying. There's a more obvious point to my post. |
Aren't you saying that your school interpreted the Bible to support their views?
Originally posted by Louis:
Yup. The bible is universally vile because its central message is that humanity is broken and unworthy. It discriminates against humanity. Right. And because of this, it isn't worth discussion, in my opinion of course, beyond its position as an historical curiosity, and a sort of twisted ancient view of our scarce moment in the universe. |
And I would argue that atheism is universally vile because it reduces humanity to a cosmic accident without value and purpose. And by the way, the central message of the Bible is that Jesus Christ died to restore our relationship with God and give us the hope of eternal life.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The Bible tells us that ALL sins are wrong, and ALL people sin... It should be offensive to all people |
Agreed... the idea that ALL people, including children, the mentally impaired, and the most virtuous individuals are so morally corrupt that they require repentance should should be offensive to all people. It certainly offends me. |
My, what a horribly wrong understanding of sin you have! The Bible does not teach that all people are morally corrupt. There are places in the Bible where Jesus rebukes highly religious people for being immoral, and there are places where he commends irreligious people for being very moral. Sinful people can be moral. Sin does not mean that all people are morally corrupt. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:21:27 PM · #4605 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and now for the latest advancement in equal rights, feast your eyes on This gem.
I guess all the city need do now is to cut off funding... or would that be discrimination?
Ray |
LOOK. the city,state federal and any other publically funded group has no business funding ANY of this BS. It ain't their job... I really won't be too unhappy when they all go broke for funding all this crap. It'll be just what we deserve for letting it go this far down the tube. Gay rights evolving? Who the hell cares. |
OK, then who exactly should provide these services?
It is painfully evident that you don't care for the gay rights or any other rights for that matter, but are more focused on your own life and the property taxes you have to pay. Got news for you...a lot of us pay high taxes...much higher than you probably pay, but that doesn't stop us from caring... evidently in your case it has.
Have a nice day, I really mean that, and I do hope that your world never comes crashing down around you... you might sadly encounter a society that happens to think just like you do.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:35:12 PM · #4606 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Lol! When I was in Catholic high school, the rhythm method was actually part of the curriculum via religion class, along with how not to masturbate, how to curb homosexual tendencies and ostracize anyone who wouldn't, and how to discriminate based on religion. Tolerance indeed. |
Sounds like your Catholic teachers and administrators forgot how to read the Bible. |
I don't know who to believe! Louis' Catholic teachers or the wunderkind Johnny photo... :P |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:47:07 PM · #4607 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Lol! When I was in Catholic high school, the rhythm method was actually part of the curriculum via religion class, along with how not to masturbate, how to curb homosexual tendencies and ostracize anyone who wouldn't, and how to discriminate based on religion. Tolerance indeed. |
Sounds like your Catholic teachers and administrators forgot how to read the Bible. |
I don't know who to believe! Louis' Catholic teachers or the wunderkind Johnny photo... :P |
Are those the only two choices available? :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:49:28 PM · #4608 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
the idea that ALL people, including children, the mentally impaired, and the most virtuous individuals are so morally corrupt that they require repentance should should be offensive to all people. It certainly offends me. |
My, what a horribly wrong understanding of sin you have! The Bible does not teach that all people are morally corrupt. |
Sin = immoral act. "All people are sinners that need to repent" = all people commit immoral acts to such an extent that repentance is necessary. Therefore, all people are immoral to the level of capital offense. I remain offended, though I can't wait to see the contortion you'll need to explain that one away. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 10:51:15 PM · #4609 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Not even close. Jesus death does not even register with hordes of people, particularly those that came before him.
Discussing things with you is almost a lost cause since you only see the religious aspects of the discussion to the detriment of other very salient issues. The crux of the argument is that you seem to suggest that interpretation of the bible to meet 21st century standards will alleviate all of the problems and you can't seem to comprehend that to some of us that is simply "Gerry rigging" and not truly a viable solution. |
Well, I could say that discussing things with you is almost a lost cause since you only see the non-religious aspects of the discussion... If the Bible IS truthful in what it says, then Jesus' death was for everyone, regardless if they chose to believe it or not. If the federal government enacts a new law, that law applies to me whether I agree with it or not.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Surely you are not so naive as to believe that churches do not have influence or exercise pressures in the political arena. |
Surely you are not so naive as to believe that having an influence on how a person votes is the same as directly telling a person how they should vote. Churchgoers are not brainwashed to vote one way or the other. They are independent thinkers with their own personal convictions. The liberal media likes to spotlight conservative churchgoers, but they tend to ignore liberal churchgoers, so it's easy to think that all Christians are politically conservative. The fact is that there are plenty of liberal Christians out there too. In the last three US presidential elections, Christian votes were split almost 50-50 between the republican and democratic candidates. Generally, Christians who attend church are more likely to side with Republicans (about two-thirds), but as we all know, there are plenty of people who call themselves Christians but don't attend church regularly. Those people tend to side with Democrats (also about two-thirds). Regardless of what the liberal media wants you to think... Christianity is not brainwashing people to oppose gay rights legislation. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 11:05:33 PM · #4610 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
[quote=RayEthier]
Not even close. Jesus death does not even register with hordes of people, particularly those that came before him.
Discussing things with you is almost a lost cause since you only see the religious aspects of the discussion to the detriment of other very salient issues. The crux of the argument is that you seem to suggest that interpretation of the bible to meet 21st century standards will alleviate all of the problems and you can't seem to comprehend that to some of us that is simply "Gerry rigging" and not truly a viable solution. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Well, I could say that discussing things with you is almost a lost cause since you only see the non-religious aspects of the discussion... If the Bible IS truthful in what it says, then Jesus' death was for everyone, regardless if they chose to believe it or not. |
Big IF and I would bet oodles of money that all those people that existed prior to the arrival of Jesus, all of those of never heard of Jesus, and the millions that believe in some other deity would vociferously argue that what you are advancing is unadulterated balderdash.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 23:11:12. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 11:11:25 PM · #4611 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sin = immoral act. |
Wrong right off the bat. Sin is more correctly defined as breaking God's perfect law. God's law is not the same as morality. God's law IS moral, but you can break God's law (or sin) by doing something that most people would consider a moral action.
Originally posted by scalvert:
"All people are sinners that need to repent" = all people commit immoral acts to such an extent that repentance is necessary. Therefore, all people are immoral to the level of capital offense. I remain offended, though I can't wait to see the contortion you'll need to explain that one away. |
Are you offended because you think God sends children and mentally impaired people to hell, or are you offended by the idea that all people are in need of a savior? |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 11:15:55 PM · #4612 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Big IF and I would bet oodles of money that all those people that existed prior to the arrival of Jesus, all of those of never heard of Jesus, and the millions that believe in some other deity would vociferously argue that what you are advancing is unadulterated balderdash. |
Oh, I see. So you think that God is automatically going to condemn everyone that lived before Christ and that He won't give them a chance to accept Salvation through Jesus Christ in the afterlife? I'm sorry that you incorrectly believe that God is cruel. You know, the Bible says that God is loving and merciful. Do you think that you know God better than the Bible does? |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 11:33:23 PM · #4613 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Big IF and I would bet oodles of money that all those people that existed prior to the arrival of Jesus, all of those of never heard of Jesus, and the millions that believe in some other deity would vociferously argue that what you are advancing is unadulterated balderdash. |
Oh, I see. So you think that God is automatically going to condemn everyone that lived before Christ and that He won't give them a chance to accept Salvation through Jesus Christ in the afterlife? I'm sorry that you incorrectly believe that God is cruel. You know, the Bible says that God is loving and merciful. Do you think that you know God better than the Bible does? |
Let me dust off my bible and find exactly where it says that one can get salvation by accepting Jesus in the afterlife. I was always under the impression that this was something that had to be done during one's trek on earth. Well... that sure changes things now don't it.
Oh in passing...you never did tell me what is going to happen to all those poor folks who believe in another God.
Did I mention that we seem to be digressing from the topic just a tad.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 23:39:03. |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 12:03:48 AM · #4614 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Let me dust off my bible and find exactly where it says that one can get salvation by accepting Jesus in the afterlife. I was always under the impression that this was something that had to be done during one's trek on earth. Well... that sure changes things now don't it. |
I don't know if God will give people a second chance in the afterlife, I'm just posing that question as a possibility. However, when asking about people that existed prior to the arrival of Jesus, keep in mind that Jesus is eternal, and he has always existed and has always been God even before he came to earth as a man. God is three persons, so everyone that worshiped God before Jesus came to earth worshiped the same God that Christians worship today.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Oh in passing...you never did tell me what is going to happen to all those poor folks who believe in another God.
Did I mention that we seem to be digressing from the topic just a tad.
|
Well, the Bible specifically says that salvation is through Jesus Christ. If you don't worship Jesus then you won't be with Jesus in eternity.
And yes... we should try and stay on topic. |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 12:11:41 AM · #4615 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sin = immoral act. |
Wrong right off the bat. Sin is more correctly defined as breaking God's perfect law. God's law is not the same as morality. God's law IS moral, but you can break God's law (or sin) by doing something that most people would consider a moral action. |
Wrong yourself. I didn't make that up- it came from a dictionary. Sin: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law
Originally posted by scalvert:
"All people are sinners that need to repent" = all people commit immoral acts to such an extent that repentance is necessary. Therefore, all people are immoral to the level of capital offense. I remain offended, though I can't wait to see the contortion you'll need to explain that one away. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Are you offended because you think God sends children and mentally impaired people to hell, or are you offended by the idea that all people are in need of a savior? |
All of the above. For extra credit, I'm also offended that anyone would hold such a dim view of the human race.
Message edited by author 2010-03-08 00:13:28. |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 12:24:25 AM · #4616 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
And I would argue that atheism is universally vile because it reduces humanity to a cosmic accident without value and purpose. |
Has the bible's contempt for humankind rubbed off on you? Just because you can't imagine the universe without resorting to fanciful nonsense doesn't make the entire thing null and void.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
And by the way, the central message of the Bible is that Jesus Christ died to restore our relationship with God and give us the hope of eternal life. |
I think there's more than a few Jews who would take exception to that. |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 12:42:02 AM · #4617 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I would argue that atheism is universally vile because it reduces humanity to a cosmic accident without value and purpose. |
An idea that elevates humanity to creating its own value and purpose: living and working solely for the benefit of our children and fellow humans rather than the pleasure of some cosmic overlord threatening a fate worse than death is vile; yet a system literally designed to induce subservience, block social progress, squelch education and the shun others who don't share your own beliefs is preferable? Hmm... while you're re-checking the definition of sin, you might want to look up vile, too. I don't think it means what you think it means. |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 12:57:36 AM · #4618 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm sorry that you incorrectly believe that God is cruel. You know, the Bible says that God is loving and merciful. Do you think that you know God better than the Bible does? |
I'm sorry that you incorrectly believe that God is loving and merciful. You know, the Bible describes God as cruel, petty and jealous throughout— the whole entrapment of humanity with the apple and talking snake thing, the Great Flood, allowing the apostles to die horrible deaths, "creating" labor pains, biblical orders to kill babies and take virgins, turning a woman to salt for looking the wrong way, inflicting disease and natural disasters, assuming Hell as the default destiny of all people... Do you think that you know God better than the Bible does? |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 02:40:50 AM · #4619 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Wrong yourself. I didn't make that up- it came from a dictionary. Sin: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law |
Hmmm... it seems that you picked a very generalized definition for sin. Mr. Webster's definition #2 is what sin is as it pertains specifically to Christianity.
Originally posted by scalvert:
All of the above. For extra credit, I'm also offended that anyone would hold such a dim view of the human race. |
Ah yes... because the atheistic prospect that life ultimately comes to a meaningless death is so much brighter than the Christian view of eternal life in paradise. Isn't it a hilarious joke that evolution made us humans so darn hopefully fixated on the future, when all that the future holds is death? Our hope for a better tomorrow is really just natures nasty sense of humor isn't it :)
Originally posted by Louis:
Has the bible's contempt for humankind rubbed off on you? Just because you can't imagine the universe without resorting to fanciful nonsense doesn't make the entire thing null and void. |
Has societies contempt for Christianity rubbed off on you? Are you one of those "life has meaning because I say it does" people? If not, what does give life meaning? I've always wondered how an atheist would answer that question...
Originally posted by Louis:
I think there's more than a few Jews who would take exception to that. |
You must have fallen asleep during that lecture in Catholic school... The Torah and the Bible are not the same.
Originally posted by scalvert:
An idea that elevates humanity to creating its own value and purpose: living and working solely for the benefit of our children and fellow humans rather than the pleasure of some cosmic overlord threatening a fate worse than death is vile; yet a system literally designed to induce subservience, block social progress, squelch education and the shun others who don't share your own beliefs is preferable? Hmm... while you're re-checking the definition of sin, you might want to look up vile, too. I don't think it means what you think it means. |
Ah... the view of the humanist. There's a couple of problems with that. 1) There is no objective gain, and there's nothing that will give meaning to your life. You cannot give meaning to yourself (you just convince yourself that you can). Other people give meaning to your life. But all those other people (and their memories of you) are going to die and come to nothing someday. 2) If you're wrong and God does exist, then you're not really such a noble person, instead you're a blind and pitiful person who rejected God.
Ouch! You've caught yourself in the trap of your own context (that will leave a mark). "a system literally designed to induce subservience, block social progress, squelch education and the shun others who don't share your own beliefs" -- That thinking is a product of your lifetime and your culture. Back in the day (2,000 years ago) when people actually believed the Bible and lived according to its teachings Christianity was on the cutting edge of social progress, education, and humility.
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm sorry that you incorrectly believe that God is loving and merciful. You know, the Bible describes God as cruel, petty and jealous throughout— the whole entrapment of humanity with the apple and talking snake thing, the Great Flood, allowing the apostles to die horrible deaths, "creating" labor pains, biblical orders to kill babies and take virgins, turning a woman to salt for looking the wrong way, inflicting disease and natural disasters, assuming Hell as the default destiny of all people... Do you think that you know God better than the Bible does? |
Hmmm... so you think that descriptions of a person's actions are the same as descriptions of a person's character? Are you saying that God is cruel because you believe that some of his actions were cruel? Some people think it's cruel that murderers have to sit in a jail cell for their whole life... but that's justice. I'm sure the families of the victims don't think it's cruel. Notice that in all your scenarios, death and destruction is the result of rebellion against God (i.e. justice). Just because somebody does something that you disagree with doesn't automatically make them cruel. |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 08:13:45 AM · #4620 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Let me dust off my bible and find exactly where it says that one can get salvation by accepting Jesus in the afterlife. I was always under the impression that this was something that had to be done during one's trek on earth. Well... that sure changes things now don't it. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't know if God will give people a second chance in the afterlife, I'm just posing that question as a possibility. However, when asking about people that existed prior to the arrival of Jesus, keep in mind that Jesus is eternal, and he has always existed and has always been God even before he came to earth as a man. God is three persons, so everyone that worshiped God before Jesus came to earth worshiped the same God that Christians worship today. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Oh in passing...you never did tell me what is going to happen to all those poor folks who believe in another God. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Well, the Bible specifically says that salvation is through Jesus Christ. If you don't worship Jesus then you won't be with Jesus in eternity. |
OK lemme see if I get this right. My forefathers, (Before the arrival of Christ) believed in the Gitche Manito so (according to you) they worshipped the same God that Christians worship today. However, the descendents of these people still worship the same Gitche Manito even after the arrival of Christ (something which seemingly runs counter to your last quote about salvation throught Jesue Christ.)
... will they be saved or will they be damned to hell for all eternity.
From my perspective, these two comments of yours are seemingly diametrically opposed.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/08/2010 03:00:37 PM · #4621 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
OK lemme see if I get this right. My forefathers, (Before the arrival of Christ) believed in the Gitche Manito so (according to you) they worshipped the same God that Christians worship today. However, the descendents of these people still worship the same Gitche Manito even after the arrival of Christ (something which seemingly runs counter to your last quote about salvation throught Jesue Christ.) |
That's not really what I was trying to say. I don't know what god they worshiped. No human can worship God unless they know God, and the only way anyone can know God is if he reveals himself to us. Since God is not material, he can't be discovered or tested... he has to reveal himself. God revealed himself to the Jews through prophets, and he revealed himself to a lot more people through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and he revealed himself to even more people through the Bible. How, when, or to whom God revealed himself to other than that, I have no idea. Prophets, Christ, and Scripture are only three ways that God reveals himself. There are a bunch of other ways, but they are subjective and personal (visions are one example). I don't pretend to know who worshiped/worships the living God. Only God knows who's really worshiping him.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... will they be saved or will they be damned to hell for all eternity. |
I have no idea. Ask God if you really want to know. But... I doubt he'll tell you :) If God gave us some way to tell who was going to heaven and who was going to hell then we would just use that information to discriminate. Do you really think God would trust us with that information? If some person knew their spot was reserved in heaven, he/she would get lazy and stop living to please God. I don't think that's what God wants.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
From my perspective, these two comments of yours are seemingly diametrically opposed. |
Realize that a lot of what I'm saying is just speculation. I don't have all the answers. Now, can't we get back on topic? |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 04:22:36 PM · #4622 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Hmmm... it seems that you picked a very generalized definition for sin. Mr. Webster's definition #2 is what sin is as it pertains specifically to Christianity. |
Not quite back on track yet, Johnny...
So, on one hand you claim that sin is universal. That it applies to everyone. People tell you that this very concept is offensive, and you proceed to get into a semantic argument about the definition of sin with them. Then you try to use the definition of sin only as it applies to Christians.
Can anybody else tell me what's wrong here?
|
|
|
|
03/10/2010 04:50:37 PM · #4623 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Hmmm... it seems that you picked a very generalized definition for sin. Mr. Webster's definition #2 is what sin is as it pertains specifically to Christianity. |
Not quite back on track yet, Johnny...
So, on one hand you claim that sin is universal. That it applies to everyone. People tell you that this very concept is offensive, and you proceed to get into a semantic argument about the definition of sin with them. Then you try to use the definition of sin only as it applies to Christians.
Can anybody else tell me what's wrong here? |
Well, if I may interject (and I'm pretty much always on Mousie's side, actually):
Seems to me what's wrong here is that Mousie's gone semantic. Look, here's the issue: we are all human, we are all imperfect, we have all done things we are ashamed of, it's the human condition. If you're a Christian, you talk about this stuff as "sin", but that doesn't mean it goes away and doesn't apply if you don't buy into Christianity, so there's no real point in getting hung up on the definition of "sin". There may be some things THEY consider sins that YOU don't, but that's not fundamental to the argument here.
What IS worth getting hung up on is the Christian insistence that we are BORN as sinners, and have to be saved. That's a sort of a fundamental drawback to the whole idea of Christianity, in my opinion. I don't doubt that, in the end, pretty much all of us need to be "saved" in some way or another, whether by God or a wise friend's stern words of advice, but that's another kettle of fish entirely.
R. |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 07:10:55 PM · #4624 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Then you're misunderstanding what the Bible actually says. The Bible tells us that ALL sins are wrong, and ALL people sin. No person escapes sin. All people are sinners that need to repent. If that message is only offensive to gays, then something is tragically wrong. It should be offensive to all people, so that all people will repent. According to your logic, all people face the same discrimination since the Bible teaches that all people are wrong. Unless of course that merely saying someone is wrong is not the same as discriminating against them (which I believe is the case). Can't I believe that abortion is wrong without discriminating against Democrats? |
If only all Christians had your perspicacity...
Why is there such a furore about gay rights? Surely Christians should be up in arms about far more widespread issues, like infidelity and the existence of divorce law.
In fact... looking at the argument from the opposite perspective, should the state permit unfaithful Christians to divorce? If unfaithful Christians who were married in church are allowed to divorce (a secular act that is contrary to religious law), then why aren't gay people allowed to marry (a secular act, even if it is contrary to religious law)? In many ways the gay wedding is less obnoxious to religious law because the participants never pretend to be subject to it.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2010 09:42:04 PM · #4625 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
If only all Christians had your perspicacity...
Why is there such a furore about gay rights? Surely Christians should be up in arms about far more widespread issues, like infidelity and the existence of divorce law.
In fact... looking at the argument from the opposite perspective, should the state permit unfaithful Christians to divorce? If unfaithful Christians who were married in church are allowed to divorce (a secular act that is contrary to religious law), then why aren't gay people allowed to marry (a secular act, even if it is contrary to religious law)? In many ways the gay wedding is less obnoxious to religious law because the participants never pretend to be subject to it. |
Well, that is why I support covenant marriage. In my opinion, all marriages performed in a Christian church should be "covenants", not necessarily in the legal term, but definitely in the sense that the couple understands their marriage is not merely a contract that gives them certain rights, but that Christian marriage is a covenant between two people and God. "Marriage", as it exists today, isn't much more than a contractual agreement between two people and the government.
In all honesty, I think the furore is partially because gay marriage is a strong reminder that in our society, marriage has been reduced to a meaningless agreement that gives two people additional rights. Of course the gay rights movement is not the cause of this problem, it just acts as a reminder. Obviously the rights that have been attached to marriage are the whole reason (or at least most of the reason) why gay couples are struggling for the ability to get married. You don't need to be married to have a special ceremony, to wear a ring on your finger, or to be in love. You do need a marriage to obtain certain rights, which is root issue. Some people get married strictly for the benefits, and many people live together and participate in extramarital sex, and even more people get married and divorced multiple times. All three situations have contributed to the degradation of marriage. Basically, I am a much stronger proponent for something like covenant marriage, that seeks to restore the sanctity of marriage, than I am an opponent of something like gay marriage. Before you know it, single people will be struggling for the same rights all in the name of equality. In some respect, equality is the enemy of sanctity. Think about it. Being an American has less significance and meaning today than it did 200 years ago, because many people throughout the world have many of the same rights and privileges in their country. The more people that have access to something, the less special that something is. So, I would be supportive of creating a new category of marriage, such as covenant marriage, that has absolutely no additional rights (in fact it involves willingly giving up rights), which in turn would make me more open to gay marriage.
At any rate Matthew, I agree with you. Christians should be more concerned with upholding the sanctity of Christian marriage, and less concerned with what the government decides regarding secular marriage. |
|
