• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why does Paganism scare Christians?

Discussion in 'Christianity and World Religion' started by EnemyOfReason, Mar 24, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. theophilus777

    theophilus777 Guest

    +0
    And yet this is the issue, and the cause for resistance from Christians.

    NOT the other things you have said.

    Do you really want to be known for spreading lies? And how would that help anything?

    Exactly my point! Make reasonable arguments, and any opposition to them is very little. Paperwork created and completed by people is completely distinct from God's Blessing of marriage. So why does it matter so much what paperwork people create and fill out, if its called this or that? Just don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining, and don't tell me a homosexual couple is the same thing as a heterosexual couple, because clearly they aren't.

    This is not a reasonable question. You know better than this.

    Ramming down the throat is not going to create the kind of equality anyone wants, either. If nobody ever came up with a solution better than civil unions they would still be afforded all the civil rights anyone could ever ask for. You simply can't legislate the sorts of things this battle has turned into. The fact of the matter is a LOT of people who hold homosexuality to be sin have decided to be on the side of SSM simply out of pity, eager to grant these people civil rights. That in no way means gays have any victory that is meaningfully above civil unions that grant equal civil rights. They want to stress out over a word? No, it's social acceptance they want. And that is what they are losing by being engaged in an adversarial relationship over this. That's how you make enemies, not friends. Its bad strategy. It sets their cause back.

    You can't legislate the kind of non-discrimination you would like to impose on my business, either. it's a contract. Which means its not binding if I don't enter into it. These things are settled exactly as you mentioned previously, by free market forces. if somebody wants to be a tool about it, that probably won't be so good for business. Then somebody else takes advantage of the opportunity, and the marketplace decides if this is a good thing or a bad thing. That is the way social change is effected, not by pretending you have some power to declare what another person thinks or feels.

    Btw, 40+ years ago Christians were providing facilities for gays to meet, and support for those who attended those meetings. Who peed in your Cheerios?
     
  2. theophilus777

    theophilus777 Guest

    +0
    You can argue the point here all you want, but I am stating the most common reason for objection.
     
  3. awitch

    awitch @PluckyDuck3 on Twitter

    +1,610
    United States
    Pagan
    Private
    US-Democrat
    Unfortunately for Christians, they don't have a monopoly on marriage. There are many who's definition of marriage does not resist marriage and you're definition does not trump that.

    Like I said, we have the archived audio and video and Internet postings that come first hand from the Christians who made them, completely verbatim and in context.

    Yes, very good. Heterosexual couples are composed of different gender people and homosexual couples are composed of same gendered people. The mechanics of sex is a little different, too. Other than that, it's pretty much the same.

    It's absolutely reasonable so don't dodge it. If you're going to deny services to a group of people because you disagree with their sinful lifestyle, then why aren't you going to deny service to Muslims, Witches, Jews, and atheists too? Clearly you god gets just as frowny with my marriage than with a homosexual couples. Ah, but then everyone sins, don't they? But of course, you're not going to refuse service to everyone, just the people you want to discriminate against out of your own personal biases.

    Anyone else notice how much people love to use the ramming down the throat expression?

    That depends on where you live. In many states, it's already the law.

    The law doesn't work that way. I didn't sign any agreement that I have to obey the speed limit or pay my taxes. Guess what happens if I don't?

    Right. And now their helping to pass "Kill the Gays" bills in foreign countries. Personally, I think you sound the like the one with the tainted cereal.
     
  4. katautumn

    katautumn Wandering, not lost.

    +155
    Other Religion
    Married
    US-Democrat
    That isn't what you initially stated. You alluded to the fact that Pagans have some sort of mystical knowledge of a reality Christians aren't privy to. I was asking you to clarify what reality that would be.
     
  5. theophilus777

    theophilus777 Guest

    +0
    I realize you may prefer to constantly move the goalposts, but let's take them one at a time instead. You made a claim, I addressed that. Christian resistance to the idea is not due so much to your claim, but to this idea that marriage is a blessing bestowed by God. And even you as an atheist married via JoP inherit that Blessing.

    What you have in the gay legal action to insist on marriage is as classic a definition of ramming down your throat as is possible. What makes you think this will advance any causes, or do anything other than stir up trouble? Its a strategy guaranteed to do exactly that. What makes that a good idea?

    Why mess with that? Aren't Court records clearer? How many people do you think your tactics represent? How many people do you think will be duped by such things?

    And the legal rights sought can be EXACTLY the same, with what it is called being pretty much the same. Why is that a problem? Or rather, why is that SO important as to deprive a whole people group of the rights they actually do deserve? Because that's exactly what's happening right now.


    No, you're being completely unreasonable. Let me count the ways ... OTOH, forget it.

    Sorry Bub but you're completely wet behind the ears. What else could I expect from a duck? If you can't think before you write, you're just too boring.
     
  6. dlamberth

    dlamberth Senior Contributor

    +970
    Other Religion
    US-Others
    Common by whom?

    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2014
  7. theophilus777

    theophilus777 Guest

    +0
    Is that how that turned out? I never had the ... patience to watch the whole thing. Thanks for the cliff notes
     
  8. ContraMundum

    ContraMundum Messianic Jewish Christian Supporter

    +2,798
    Christian
    Private
    You would have to agree that marriage is essentially a religious institution, right? Not naming one religion over another here, but merely stating the historic fact that marriage has always been primarily a religious institution- even in very ancient times it was solemnized by religious leaders or even tribal leaders with a religious significance.

    Interesting aside- one of the reasons hyper-left communism (not mainstream communism of course) sought to eliminate marriage was because of its religious connotations and the misguided perception that it somehow undermined gender equality.

    The point: IMHO the rejection of religion means you should also reject its institutions. They comne with the territory. This is of course the whole problem with "gay" marriage. No one should expect religions to roll over for minority forces who beg religions to validate the very things those religions are against. If you don't like the religion, find your own alternatives and leave the religions and their adherents alone. I'm all for civil equality and this may require a civil union act, but don't tell me you want to borrow our sacraments and rites and then turn them into the latest trendy ideal.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2014
  9. Syrokal

    Syrokal Church of Starry Wisdom

    386
    +18
    Other Religion
    Married
    That might have been your issue, your emotional desire to have something overrode your ability to logically and critically analyse.
     
  10. Syrokal

    Syrokal Church of Starry Wisdom

    386
    +18
    Other Religion
    Married
    Mind if I ask what kind of Luciferian Satanist?

    Because darn,, there are so many.
     
  11. Syrokal

    Syrokal Church of Starry Wisdom

    386
    +18
    Other Religion
    Married
    Absolutely, just be aware that Christianity is not the only, nor the first by a wide-margin to perform said Marriages.
    So why Homosexuals should be denied marriage on the basis of it contradicts Christianity, baffles me.

    The thing is no one would be borrowing your sacraments and rites.
     
  12. smaneck

    smaneck Baha'i

    +2,880
    Baha'i
    Single
    No one is trying to tell churches what they can or cannot do (except maybe its members.) By the same token, there will always be churches doing what's 'trendy', and you can't control that either.

    I would agree that government should get out of the marriage business entirely and leave it to the religions. Those gays who want to get married will be able to find some church or other religious organization willing to perform it. No one has to be coerced.
     
  13. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +8,724
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Others
    I'm not sure marriage being attached to the religious sphere historically necessarily makes marriage, in and of itself, a religious institution.

    But a large difficulty in that is that, for much (or most) of human history societies haven't exactly had a sense of a distinction between the religious and the secular. The two were intertwined in such a way that it would be nearly impossible to separate them. Insofar as allegiance to the State was itself allegiance to the State's gods, and thus to be an "other" in religious matters was to be a social outsider. This is one of the big reasons Rome took issue with Christians and Jews over, because these were two groups of people who refused to conform to Roman social norms, which meant adoration of Caesar as a living divine, and at least nominal worship of the gods for the good of the State.

    But I would say marriage has, in its many different forms in various cultures and societies, served less as a religious institution and has existed far more as a social institution. Namely the coupling of husband and wife to retain the familial line (often patrilineal) through offspring. Marriage then has historically been about making babies, and in patriarchal societies this has benefited men who either retain the one wife or many wives and thus carry on his seed to the next generation. Obviously this being far more important for the upper echelons of the society, to maintain the family name through ongoing generations. Now obviously marriage also exists in matrarchal societies, such as societies where polyandry is practiced.

    So the chief purpose of coupling has been largely for the sake of society, in a patriarchal one a man having a woman to himself to reproduce ensures that only his seed is passed on; which is also why polygamy has often been a common element in such societies. Whether monogamy or polygamy, this tends to be the societal element behind it. Giving it the sanction of the gods or God is secondary, and gives marriage the onus of the sacred and to break such bonds is to cause an infraction against the gods.

    The concept of marriage as the union of two mutually consenting adults, who choose one another out of love and commitment has largely been the product of the modern age. An age where the old tribal and monarchal order of human society has slowly been superseded by a democratic one. The preservation of the clan or tribe has become less necessary as our concept of society has evolved into that of the modern Nation State, with democratic and republican values of social equality and universal suffrage.

    This means not only do people tend to marry out of a conscious choice of love, but that some don't marry at all. Because the onus of social importance is no longer on the tribal or clan unit, but upon the individual him or herself, acting within the larger good of the democratic nation state.

    And it is at this crossroads in civilized history that this conversation of marriage is happening.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  14. ContraMundum

    ContraMundum Messianic Jewish Christian Supporter

    +2,798
    Christian
    Private
    I thought I'd answer this even though I'm really only chiming in mid-conversation...

    God Blesses even non-believer marriages. Just like He causes the rain to fall on both the righteous and the wicked. He loves you regardless.

    Nor are they hard to get.

    You seem to be contradicting yourself here, unless I am mistaken- or don't get your points or the laws you live under.

    You have all the rights your civil union (or "marriage" - a primarily religious term) bestows and yet you don't feel equal? While there might be a formal distinction (the term "marriage" vs "civil union") there is no material distinction (eg. the same civil and legal rights apply to both), so why all the complaining?

    Am I missing something?
     
  15. ContraMundum

    ContraMundum Messianic Jewish Christian Supporter

    +2,798
    Christian
    Private
    That's the point. It has always been, no matter which way you dice the carrot, primarily religious- especially in nations with a historic Judeo-Christian majority. All this deconstruction, gender dicing and over-analysis really gets us nowhere. It is possible in the modern world to have religious people who are termed "married" and those who "opt out" to have a civil union and everybody wins and has equal rights before the law. This allows both for religious freedom without infringing upon the beliefs of religions and for the freedom to be secular as well.

    I really, really think that Christians need to stop surrendering their heritage to be "liked" by the world. For the vast majority of Christians, marriage is a sacrament- Protestants being the exception (but still holding no low view of it). It is celebrated by and for Christians. Non-Christians may not partake of the sacrament of Christian marriage nor should they want to. However, the church can recognise civil unions done outside of the Church especially unions celebrated by other Abrahamic faiths. No problem.

    So, riddle me this- why do secular people want to be called "married"? They don't want to "marry" in the Church, nor with its blessing nor do they believe in a God who made them male and female to compliment each other in the rearing of children. Let's just be honest and frank and put political correctness on the backburner. They want a recognized, legal union with all the rights of Christian marriage. Nothing wrong with that, is there? But why call it marriage or (God forbid) redefine marriage so as to include unions that are not gender complimentary? To my mind, it's no different to people wanting to be baptized while rejecting God and the Church. They are chasing the certificate but not the substance.
     
  16. ContraMundum

    ContraMundum Messianic Jewish Christian Supporter

    +2,798
    Christian
    Private
    Depending on the laws of your nation. Many nations have a defined notion of what legally constitutes marriage. This of course forms the bedrock for further laws (eg. child care and rearing laws are based on the natural family unit) how marriage functions legally in society, what processes are involved and necessary etc. As far as I know, nations who have thus far rejected the notion of gay "marriage" do so on the basis of their laws or constitutions having a scientific, biological and religious definition of marriage being "between a man and a woman" and this also therefore excludes polygymy, homosexual marriages etc.

    So overturning legal precedent is not simple, as redefining marriage on the basis of biological necessity and at the same time protecting religious freedom has proven a headache for the gay lobby in many countries. To redefine marriage legally means that religious institutions who reject gay marriage may no longer have a strictly legal definition of marriage. So even though religions bequeathed the terms and conditions of marriage to the state, the state would have to overule those very same terms. It would be an infringement of the state onto the church and thus an attack- albeit subtle- on the beliefs of religions.

    Secondly, one could never successfully argue that the marriage laws in Western nations are not based on religious precedent- often dating to eras well beyond the formal establishment of religious insitutions or the rule of law. It simply wouldn't work legally- well not in countries I am familiar with.

    Yes, they would, just in a deformed manner- and our theology too. Call it a civil union and the problem dissolves.
     
  17. smaneck

    smaneck Baha'i

    +2,880
    Baha'i
    Single
    Uh, those of us who belong to other Abrahamic faiths don't call our unions 'civil' we call them marriages.

    Because marriage isn't exclusive to Christianity?

    Historically Christianity hasn't really liked marriage all that much, placing it well behind celibacy.
     
  18. smaneck

    smaneck Baha'i

    +2,880
    Baha'i
    Single
    Why would we want to give Christians a monopoly on marriage?
     
  19. ContraMundum

    ContraMundum Messianic Jewish Christian Supporter

    +2,798
    Christian
    Private
    OK. I don't think I said that. I said "unions" for Abrahamic religions, not "civil". Careful reading.

    Is Baha'i a recognized religion for legal purposes?

    You've engaged in hyperbole again. It's a sacrament, this is far more sacred than celibacy.
     
  20. ContraMundum

    ContraMundum Messianic Jewish Christian Supporter

    +2,798
    Christian
    Private
    No one is arguing for that! Read.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...