Hypothetical Question

[Umaro]

Let's say that tomorrow when you woke up, the majority religion of America was not Christianity, but another one. The holy text of this dominnant religion says that interracial marraiges are against their diety, because if we were meant to, their deity would not have created multiple races. They also cite several passages from their text, which state it is a sin. There is so much support for this that there is a large push in the government to outlaw interracial marraige, even for those who do not follow this dominant religion.

How would you feel about this situation? Would you consider these people bigots? Are they justified in their view to the point of outlawing interracial marraige? Can you see the direct parallel I'm making?

 

[Adstar]

Let's say that tomorrow when you woke up, the majority religion of America was not Christianity, but another one. The holy text of this dominnant religion says that interracial marraiges are against their diety, because if we were meant to, their deity would not have created multiple races. They also cite several passages from their text, which state it is a sin. There is so much support for this that there is a large push in the government to outlaw interracial marraige, even for those who do not follow this dominant religion.

How would you feel about this situation? Would you consider these people bigots? Are they justified in their view to the point of outlawing interracial marraige? Can you see the direct parallel I'm making?

I would not see them as bigots. I would see them as being mislead people who believe in and trust in the teachings of a god that does not exist.

Remember you would have to distinguish between their belief in the teaching and their view that it should be instituted as a law of state.

There are two different issues here. One is the right of people to believe in a teaching and to make the personal decision to live by it and the other is the issue of making that teaching imposable upon others by making it a law of worldly authority.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[calidog]

Can you see the direct parallel I'm making?

I see that you are making a parallel.
I can't say that I agree there is a direct parallel.
I can't say I agree with any or all inferred assumptions.

Impossible for me to give any answer.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

I see your parallells here however the biggest difference between reality and your hypothetical situation is christians today do not force an unbeliever to subscribe to their rules. In history sure there have been misguided attempts to force people to subscribe to christianity but most christians would not vote to force people to conform to the bibles views on life today. What is the point. I do not agree with the teahings of Islam but that does not mean I don't tolerate their right to belive what they choose. After all God gave mankind freedom of choice, who are we to take choice away unless when it violates another in some way.

 

[ny5i]

Let's say that tomorrow when you woke up, the majority religion of America was not Christianity, but another one.

Majority religion in the US is not the same as politically dominant religion. Today Christianity is the major religion according to all polls... yet the government is constantly struggling with issues that, if taken from a Christian perspective, would be black and white (no pun intended).

There is so much support for this that there is a large push in the government to outlaw interracial marraige, even for those who do not follow this dominant religion.

For this to happen there would have to be an amendment to the law of the land (the Constitution). The process to do this is an extremely belabored one. http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html gives a step by step process required to pass an amendment.

Even once an amendment has been passed there are steps in place to revoke it... look at prohibition as an example of that happening.

How would you feel about this situation? Would you consider these people bigots? Are they justified in their view to the point of outlawing interracial marraige? Can you see the direct parallel I'm making?

Now for the crux of your post. There is a parallel here and I see it. Marriage is not about my opinion, it is about the opinion of God. Christians marry in the eyes of their community and in the eyes of God. What you're talking of is only the first part (community).

In that case, let me answer your question with another question. Why are you trying to persuade a secular concept into a religious term?

 

[prophecystudent]

Are they bigots? In my view they are. Why? because what they are "preaching" violates God's fundamental standard. It says in scripture that God is no respecter of persons. That means that no person in inherently better, or worse, than any other.

Are they incorrect in their belief? Yes. Could they make it the law of the land? I doubt it. There are too many people in this country that would not stand for the political process necessary to change the constitution, specifically the first amendment.

May I ask why you ask this question? Are you trying to establish that Christians are bigots?

Fred

 

[salida]

I agree with Adstar.

They would believe in a god that doesn't exist and are greatly deceived.

 

[Umaro]

"christians today do not force an unbeliever to subscribe to their rules"
There is a huge push to outlaw gay marraige

"Why are you trying to persuade a secular concept into a religious term?"
I don't think the opposition to an alternative lifestyle based on scripture qualifies as a secular concept.


"Are you trying to establish that Christians are bigots?"
I'm not trying to say Christians are bigots. That's an incredible generalization. I do believe those who are opposed to gay are bigots however, since I see it as no different than those against race.

"They would believe in a god that doesn't exist and are greatly deceived."
Don't you think the Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons, and every other religion feels the same way regarding Christians?

 

[ny5i]

"christians today do not force an unbeliever to subscribe to their rules"
There is a huge push to outlaw gay marraige

And those changes would require the same legal process I mentioned in answering your hypothetical question.

"Why are you trying to persuade a secular concept into a religious term?"
I don't think the opposition to an alternative lifestyle based on scripture qualifies as a secular concept.

I said something before this that plays into my question and my reply:

Marriage is not about my opinion, it is about the opinion of God. Christians marry in the eyes of their community and in the eyes of God. What you're talking of is only the first part (community).

The opposition to gays claiming they can partake in the sacrament of marriage is what Christians are opposed to. The argument in defense of same-sex marriage is based on the fact that the couple should be afforded equal rights under the law.

The law, in this case, that the defenders are typically talking about is state or federal law, not God's law. Using the word marriage makes the concept a hot-button emotional issue because of the fact that now it is not only man's law but God's law that is being questioned. In challenging whether or not God would smile on a same-sex marriage you confront Christians of all theologies and denominations.

It was not that long ago that what your hypothetical question proposes was a reality. Interracial marriage was a taboo in many countries, still is in some, that would get a man or woman ostracized from society. In Israel it goes farther, saying that a wedding between a Jew and Gentile can occur but will not be recognized as a marriage legally.

Since this thread is about your hypothetical issue and not gay marriage, technically if the laws being proposed were to pass there is always the chance for an appeal or a judicial challenge. That is the joy of our method of government.

Speaking of government, I'll restate my previous question adding the following: The more liberal leaning side of the democratic party is the side that has been credited with championing the acceptance of "gay marriage." They also consistently push for the separation of church and state. Why then are they pushing for a concept that puts the state into the church? Why are you trying to persuade a secular concept into a religious term? The religious concept is the sacrament of marriage. The secular concept is "alternative lifestyles."

 

[KarateCowboy]

Let's say that tomorrow when you woke up, the majority religion of America was not Christianity, but another one. The holy text of this dominnant religion says that interracial marraiges are against their diety, because if we were meant to, their deity would not have created multiple races. They also cite several passages from their text, which state it is a sin. There is so much support for this that there is a large push in the government to outlaw interracial marraige, even for those who do not follow this dominant religion.

How would you feel about this situation? Would you consider these people bigots? Are they justified in their view to the point of outlawing interracial marraige? Can you see the direct parallel I'm making?

Well I wouldn't call them bigots. To be a bigot is to be obstinate in your beliefs. I might call them stubborn, but I don't have hate in my heart so I would not call them bigots.

Your analogy falls short in that you should say "Imagine that interracial marriage is a universal moral wrong regardless of religion". Then it might work.

 

[seajoy]

"christians today do not force an unbeliever to subscribe to their rules"
There is a huge push to outlaw gay marraige

"Why are you trying to persuade a secular concept into a religious term?"
I don't think the opposition to an alternative lifestyle based on scripture qualifies as a secular concept.


"Are you trying to establish that Christians are bigots?"
I'm not trying to say Christians are bigots. That's an incredible generalization. I do believe those who are opposed to gay are bigots however, since I see it as no different than those against race.

"They would believe in a god that doesn't exist and are greatly deceived."
Don't you think the Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons, and every other religion feels the same way regarding Christians?

Marriage began in the bible (Adam and Eve)...therefore the rules on marriage were set long ago.

You are actually taking something religious, and turning it into something secular. God ordained marriage. It's between a man and a woman.

 

[Umaro]

How exactly is marraige only a religious concept? Does that mean that I, an athiest, cannot be married? And if I can be married despite having no religion, why can't the homosexuals?

 

[seajoy]

How exactly is marraige only a religious concept? Does that mean that I, an athiest, cannot be married? And if I can be married despite having no religion, why can't the homosexuals?

How, exactly is it only a secular concept? God instituted marriage for a man and a woman (bible does not say they must be Christians, so yes, you can marry ).

Homosexuality is an abomination...so, of course, they cannot marry.

 

[Gentle]

Let's say that tomorrow when you woke up, the majority religion of America was not Christianity, but another one. The holy text of this dominnant religion says that interracial marraiges are against their diety, because if we were meant to, their deity would not have created multiple races. They also cite several passages from their text, which state it is a sin. There is so much support for this that there is a large push in the government to outlaw interracial marraige, even for those who do not follow this dominant religion.

How would you feel about this situation? Would you consider these people bigots? Are they justified in their view to the point of outlawing interracial marraige? Can you see the direct parallel I'm making?

I would wonder what kind of Philip K Dick situation I was in and if it had to do with acid in past days. Bigots..whats their reasoning? I wouldn't jump to that conclusion but backwards, yes.
peace

 

[Adstar]

"Are you trying to establish that Christians are bigots?"
I'm not trying to say Christians are bigots. That's an incredible generalization. I do believe those who are opposed to gay are bigots however, since I see it as no different than those against race.

There is the problem. Christians are followers of God. God has stated that the sexual act of homosexuality is an abomination. Therefore Christians would not be Christians if they approved of sexual relations between homosexuals. This does not mean that we are against or hate homosexuals. We are against sodomy. just as we are against other sexual sins such as rape, paedophilia and adultery. Why because we believe God. All sinners who accept Jesus as their Savoir have forgiveness in eternity. This includes all people who are sexual sinners.

"They would believe in a god that doesn't exist and are greatly deceived."
Don't you think the Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons, and every other religion feels the same way regarding Christians?

So what? They are entitled to their beliefs. What does it matter to us, we believe in God and the Messiah Jesus we are confident in the truth we hold. If any of these groups think we are deceived then i feel sad for them.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[BelindaP]

I find some of the answers so far amusing, considering that interracial marriage was outlawed on supposedly "Christian" grounds up until the 60s and 70s. You aren't posing a hypothetical question at all; you've warped us back 50 years. How quickly people forget...

 

[FrAnthony]

Let's say that tomorrow when you woke up, the majority religion of America was not Christianity, but another one. The holy text of this dominnant religion says that interracial marraiges are against their diety, because if we were meant to, their deity would not have created multiple races. They also cite several passages from their text, which state it is a sin. There is so much support for this that there is a large push in the government to outlaw interracial marraige, even for those who do not follow this dominant religion.

How would you feel about this situation? Would you consider these people bigots? Are they justified in their view to the point of outlawing interracial marraige? Can you see the direct parallel I'm making?

I imagine I would feel a lot like the early Christians did when they were in Pagan lands...why do you continue to look for justification for doing what is not Christian and asking questions that you have no true intention of trying to understand?

 

[Umaro]

"why do you continue to look for justification for doing what is not Christian and asking questions that you have no true intention of trying to understand? "

Agreeing and understanding are two completly different things. I can understand the motives and viewpoints of the Christians just fine without thinking the same way. It always bothers me when I seek information and people assume I have some ulterior motives. And it's not just Christians I ask, but everyone. And as for the looking for justification for what is non-christian, I'm simply looking for reasons other than "because it's in the bible." I have no problem with beliefs, but I do have a problem with unjustifiable beliefs. Besides, one should always examine both sides of an issue. What kind of person would I be if I excluded evidence? As an athiest, my entire worldview is based on empiracle evidence and I can't simply go ignoring aspects I don't like.

 

[FrAnthony]

And as for the looking for justification for what is non-christian, I'm simply looking for reasons other than "because it's in the bible." I have no problem with beliefs, but I do have a problem with unjustifiable beliefs. Besides, one should always examine both sides of an issue. What kind of person would I be if I excluded evidence? As an athiest, my entire worldview is based on empiracle evidence and I can't simply go ignoring aspects I don't like.

The only real problem with this approach is that "because it's in the bible" is, in fact, evidence. If we are looking for the answer to a question, the Bible is the place we look for evidence. Asking hypothetical questions, which in this case takes nothing more than looking back at the situation of a Christian in early Christianity, seems to do little good. You want "empiracle evidence", but reject the Bible and ask hypothetical questions...you are contradicting yourself.

I understand if you do not trust that the Bible is evidence since you are an Athiest, but then you are just dancing around in here instead of seeking truth. If you ask a Christian a question, you should expect the Bible to always be referenced as support for our beliefs. Unfortunately we do not always agree on the context/interpretation...humans are funny like that. But we do agree that it is most definitely valid evidence.

 

[Key]

It always bothers me when I seek information and people assume I have some ulterior motives. And it's not just Christians I ask, but everyone.

It might be the nature of your question, or how you ask and respond to.

I notice you have not responded to the more in depth and more complete answers, and only focused on the ones that left open gaps, or points that could be countered.

That might have something to do with it.

And as for the looking for justification for what is non-christian, I'm simply looking for reasons other than "because it's in the bible."

Well, "Tho Shall Not Kill" is also in the Bible, and at the time it was written, the fact that it was in the "Bible" for many people of that era and time, this was the only motivation not to kill someone that they felt wronged them, or insulted them.

There is a great amount of weight in the fact that "Because it is in Bible" as far as the Christian life Goes.

I have no problem with beliefs, but I do have a problem with unjustifiable beliefs.

Please define this "Unjustifiable Beliefs" that you have problems with, or what they are exactly.

Besides, one should always examine both sides of an issue.

What do you mean "Both Sides"?

As an athiest, my entire worldview is based on empiracle evidence and I can't simply go ignoring aspects I don't like.

What is this "Aspects" thing you are talking about, and how to they relate to empirical evidence?

God Bless

Key