Should Christians Vote Yes on 1?

[imind]

You're wrong, Christian morals are based on an absolute standard. Anything that diviates from that is pressing another world view on Christianity.

you can play with semantics all you want, but one is telling others how to behave, and one isn't. it is a dishonest arguement.

 

[RonnyRulz]

Absoultely not, and I pray to God that He doesn't allow anyone to make such an awful amendment.

That will truly be the icing on the cake of how far we've gone from the original idea of: Freedom.

 

[127Rockledge]

Again, just because you don't accept a good argument doesn't make it "invalid" or "dishonest." The more sinful behavior we allow the more it becomes a cultural norm.

NewGuy, it really wasn't a good argument. It was an opinion.

That's the reason why morality is bad right now, the churches didn't pick up the ball when liberalism took over the schools.

I didn't know the church had power over the public school system.

 

[shredhead320]

Okay for anyone saying what marriage originally was was the Christian way is WRONG. The current Christian definition of love didn't come about til Christ. What about concubines and polygyny? That was in the Old Testament. I think if this issues comes up again I won't vote on it.

 

[LavenderLeaves]

God had mercy to give ted haggard another chance to breathe and live while even then he was battling with his secret sin. God is a merciful God. Why do you think we're even breathing today? - And for sure God allows all of us to discover ourselves. correct our mistakes, and learn to grow. i wouldnt have voted yes but at the same time, its not my opinion on whether i should have or not... because overall Jesus gives second chances, regardless...

 

[TracerBullet]

It's a question of protecting what marriage is, so that all these others who want their types of "marriages" will be stopped.

And what exactly is marriage being “protected” against?

There needs to be a line drawn someone in protecting marriage.

Why not draw that line at interracial marriages?

What about preventing non-Christians form being married?

What to say to those that believe only whites should have protected rights?

However, civil unions afford the same rights as marriage, and if say a liberal type church wants to give them a type of marriage ceremony that should be up to that specific church.

A marriage by any other name is still a marraige

Where will equal rights stop for all of those who prefer a different sexual lifestyle than the one of the Bible?

Like non-Christians

Or people who have been divorced like Ronald Reagan.




The larger question is since when does an interpretation of the bible dictate who has equal rights in this country and who is a second class citizen?

Why not a marriage between two men and four women?

Or one woman and eight men? I mean that's there "belief" and they deserve equal rights too... right?

Can you explain why gays and lesbians don’t deserve equal rights?

 

[TracerBullet]

What you seem to be saying is that hit is perfectly appropriate to use OT verses to condemn and to justify prejudice and discrimination against people one hates…but it is not acceptable to use OT verses right next to the ones being used to justify discrimination against people one likes.

Tracer,

Right. And since the O.T. laws cited regarding homosexuality are upheld by the N.T. as well, it is perfectly valid for Christians to cite the old laws, and therefore not a contradiction. The N.T. does, however, explicitly abrogate the dietary laws.

it would be easy to point out that Matthew 5:18-19 contradicts your claims here

if you wish to use the abridgment argument then you must note that John 13:34-35 indicates that everything from the OT are abridged with the single commandment of Jesus. Prejudice and discrimination are not an act of love no matter how many bible verses one trots out in a attempt to justify them.

I would also take issue with your definition of "prejudice" and "discrimination." Racism would be a wonderful example of sinful prejudice and discrimination. But homosexuality is an evil lifestyle, not an ethnic orientation, and I will take God's Word over yours.

You may wish to read up on just what racists think about prejudice and discrimination. Such people do not “hate” people with dark skin, rather they hate the sinful “lifestyle” some individuals with dark skin partake in, specifically acting as social equals to whites


Discriminating based on skin color is no different from discriminating based on sexual oriention

Everyone would agree that we should always discriminate in the sense of discerning or judging between good and evil. So discrimination really isn't the issue. The question is whose morality is the right one, and what standard of discrimination we are going to use.

You appear to be purposefully confusing discernment with discrimination.

Christians are constantly discriminated against by those who claim to be opposed to discrimination and who avow "tolerance."

Apparently I missed that on the news. There were states voting on constitutional amendments to deny Christians equal rights?

People like yourself know full well that Christianity and secular humanism can never co-exist in harmony, and that one side or another is ultimately going to prevail in the world. So let's not pretend that your version of "tolerance" actually exists.

I know this?

Wow…news to me.

 

[TracerBullet]

You're wrong, Christian morals are based on an absolute standard. Anything that diviates from that is pressing another world view on Christianity.

Which is why all Christians agree…

Um...no...wait...

 

[TracerBullet]

Again, just because you don't accept a good argument doesn't make it "invalid" or "dishonest." The more sinful behavior we allow the more it becomes a cultural norm.

And the more we allow hate and discrimination the more it will become a cultural norm.

 

[paleodoxy]

What you seem to be saying is that hit is perfectly appropriate to use OT verses to condemn and to justify prejudice and discrimination against people one hates…

What I "seem" to be saying? Stop equivocating. Which is it?

I am saying that it is perfectly appropriate to use OT verses to condemn evil behavior. In principle, you would agree with the right to condemn evil behavior. You obviously believe that it is 'evil' on some level to deny moral legitimacy to the homosexual lifestyle, or you wouldn't accuse me of being a bigoted, hateful person.

Therein lies the rub. You and I have diametrically opposing definitions of good and evil, because we are coming from totally different philosophical, religious and worldview perspectives. Bare accusations apart from reason or philosophical discussion just poisons the well -- a logical fallacy.

I could just as easily throw all kinds of unappealing epithets your way. But that would hardly establish my argument now, would it?

but it is not acceptable to use OT verses right next to the ones being used to justify discrimination against people one likes.

Huh? You've lost me.

it would be easy to point out that Matthew 5:18-19 contradicts your claims here

It would be far from easy, Tracer, because the Christian who studies his Bible and is informed theologically like he should be, is going to know a lot more about his faith than someone who isn't a Christian.

"heaven and earth" in Matt.5:18 is being used in a political/national context, and refers to the Judaic economy that was later to be destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans. The apocalyptic language of Jesus here and in Matt. 24 regarding the national fate of Israel has a long prophetic tradition going back to the OT, and numerous examples of these cosmic, apocalyptic expressions regarding the downfall of ancient empires and civilizations could be easily produced from OT Scripture in reference to Edom, Egypt, Babylon, and other civilizations -- events fulfilled thousands of years in the past.

Similarly, you cite John 13:34-35 with no interpretation, and claim knowledge in an area where you are obviously unstudied. Jesus' commandment to love one another already finds its origin in the O.T. -- the Two Great Commandments (which sums up the whole Law): (1) To Love God and (2) Love one's neighbor. He was not proclaiming something new. The "newness" of it was that Jesus became the embodied fulfillment of the principle, such that the specifics of application with regard to particular OT laws were permanently altered or abrogated, while others retained their power.

You may wish to read up on just what racists think about prejudice and discrimination. Such people do not “hate” people with dark skin, rather they hate the sinful “lifestyle” some individuals with dark skin partake in, specifically acting as social equals to whites.

How can I continue to debate with someone who doesn't even understand the basic categories and definition of racism? Racism is the belief that one or more races are genetically inferior to another race or other races. Ever read up on Darwinism? Nazism? The Ku Klux Klan? (I could go on, but I digress...)

Discriminating based on skin color is no different from discriminating based on sexual oriention

So you assume.

You appear to be purposefully confusing discernment with discrimination.

In certain contexts, they are fundamentally identical. There can be subtle differences in meaning within other contexts.

There were states voting on constitutional amendments to deny Christians equal rights?

No, there's a dishonest individual on a message board, who, in spite of my constant appeal to LOVE with regard to homosexuals, is so stubbornly INTOLERANT of my position that he insists on calling me a hater with impunity.

 

[paleodoxy]

Keeping the thread alive for Tracer

 

[InHisSpirit]

My fear with changing the laws now is that we will see more unusual "marriages" be requested. What would stop then a 50 year old from saying he was born attracted only to 8 year old girls and he should have the right to marry her? Or for tax reasons only we have people wanting to marry their pets? It's not about the homosexual lifestyle for me, we are commanded by God to love all - after all NO SIN is seen as worse or unequal to another, the only ultimate is not accepting Jesus as the Messiah. I think if you make no changes in what we have we do not open "pandora's box" of marriage. The homosexual relationships will continue and continue to end times. We should be loving them as we do anyone else. period. After all we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We have benen COMMANDED to love our neighbor as ourselves.

 

[127Rockledge]

My fear with changing the laws now is that we will see more unusual "marriages" be requested. What would stop then a 50 year old from saying he was born attracted only to 8 year old girls and he should have the right to marry her?

A minor cannot legally give consent, therefore, a minor cannot legally be married.

Or for tax reasons only we have people wanting to marry their pets?

Likewise, animals cannot legally give consent.

 

[paleodoxy]

A minor cannot legally give consent, therefore, a minor cannot legally be married.

Likewise, animals cannot legally give consent.

Not for NOW anyway...

 

[tiredwalker]

Not for NOW anyway...

There is enough straw in here to build a fire.

 

[127Rockledge]

Not for NOW anyway...

???

 

[tiredwalker]

???

I'm going to sleep with visions of little straw men sliding down slopes, slippery slopes.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Hey, dolphins are people too.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

My fear with changing the laws now is that we will see more unusual "marriages" be requested. What would stop then a 50 year old from saying he was born attracted only to 8 year old girls and he should have the right to marry her? Or for tax reasons only we have people wanting to marry their pets? It's not about the homosexual lifestyle for me, we are commanded by God to love all - after all NO SIN is seen as worse or unequal to another, the only ultimate is not accepting Jesus as the Messiah. I think if you make no changes in what we have we do not open "pandora's box" of marriage. The homosexual relationships will continue and continue to end times. We should be loving them as we do anyone else. period. After all we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We have benen COMMANDED to love our neighbor as ourselves.

U.S Federal Govt Does not = The Church

 

[paleodoxy]

I'm going to sleep with visions of little straw men sliding down slopes, slippery slopes.

I'll bet you couldn't produce the logical/academic definition of the slippery slope fallacy without looking it up on the Internet after posting this post.

In fact, I know you don't understand the slippery slope fallacy, since you've conflated it with the 'straw man' fallacy.

Give me a call back when you learn something...