Calling all Evangelicals...how would you respond to this?

[sailingaway]

Interesting. I like this.

that is what secularists don't understand is the PURPOSE behind most (not all, for everyone) of the religious push back. They see the state encroaching into religion everywhere, and see this as the state DICTATING the substance of a sacrament. They know that Catholic churches now have to offer abortions if they take federal funds and don't want religious organizations to have to close (as Catholic churches have) or perform something they don't see as a sacrament. Ron's approach that government stays out of it addresses that issue.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

You can't legislate repentance. It has to be genuine from the individuals heart.

This as well.

 

[sunghoko]

Every state has marriage age laws. Up to them to decide if marriage should be defined as between man/woman/goat

 

[69360]

Well...this commentator also said in the same article...



So he is making the case that our economic troubles are connected with our aberrant sexuality.

These people make me ill. They are false prophets. They twist the words of God to their world view. Real Christians believe the everyone is equal and God loves us all just as he created us.

 

[Maestro232]

The more the federal government is empowered on this issue the more likely it is to impose a definition of marriage on everybody that evangelicals can't accept.

Excellent.

 

[FriedChicken]

Government standing in the marriage issue puts the government in a position to play God.
As a Christian myself I find that to be a very scary role for government to play - because even if they use that power to do well intended enforcement of biblical principles at first it puts them in a position to to do the opposite with the same power.

The Christian church, generally speaking, has done a poor job of reaching out and ministering to gays and has focused more on making gay relationships illegal. If we as Christians want to see a change in our country towards more Godly principles than we need to start ministering and praying to our neighbors and making sure that our government remains in its constitutional confines so we are still free to discuss our beliefs with others.

When the government acts outside of the constitution, even for well intended reasons, it opens the door to backfiring on our faith.
If we continue to allow the federal government to act outside of the constitution for moral reasons than I can see a society in the future proclaiming it to be "immoral" to preach the word to non-believers or "immoral" for Christian pastors to deny marriage ceremonies to homosexuals.

The kingdom of heaven is further expanded when the government stands out of the way while the spirit works through us to change hearts for Christ.

I also consider it a slap in the face to me, my wife and God when I'm required to get a marriage license. We should not require permission from the state.

 

[Captain Caveman]

As I would say it to a pastor.... beit Baptist or Pentecostal, or other "denominational" systems.....

If there must be legalities involved, make it an issue of contract rights (or contract violations, in the case of separation).

Those who do not care about something legally binding, will just shack up in their sins or be Married before witnesses and God.
Those who are in their sins, homosexual or strait, aren't really in God's will anyway, are they? That's the sad part.

Many marriages were entries in a family Bible, before government got involved.. although I understand local courthouses and townships recorded the marriage in their records as well, sometimes.

Just my thoughts. You could call me a "Bapti-costal", if you need to define me.. but I'm not much for organized religion (there are good churches of course).

 

[PastaRocket848]

So, the following excerpt is from a Pastor/commentator who likes much of Ron Paul, but this is the central issue for him that would like to see Paul as Secretary of Treasury rather than President. I'm interested in hearing from Evangelical Christians how you would interact with this...

i would tell that guy it's time to claw his way out of the 1700's. seriously.. we can't pander to these people. they're backward. anyone who thinks the federal gov't should be telling people how many people they can have sex with in a given instance or who they are allowed to fall in love with is a religious wingnut bigot. period. thankfully these people are going the way of the dodo bird.. and quick.

this is what is wrong with the republican party. "conditional conservatives". they're all about real conservatism, fiscally, and in terms of their individual liberty to practice their religion. unfortunately all that goes out the window once they want gov't to force their morality on the masses.

 

[Tinnuhana]

And then some people flip out about the imposition of shariah law! Moral people can create a moral society; laws about morality can't. Like RP whispered after Herman Cain discussed his 9-9-9 plan in debate: "You won't be president forever"; meaning you are laying tghe groundwork for another president with same power of government, to come in and raise it to 15-15-15 or whatever.
By the way, the arguments already given, are great...just developing on one of the angles. Like, any gov't big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take it all away. Besides tax revenue resource, wasn't gov't involvement in marriage to prevent biracial marriage and to support a eugenics agenda? Just asking.

 

[Created4]

"He has said that he is supportive of all voluntary associations"

This itself is a mis-quote. He does NOT support these associations, he believes that their right to choose this behavior is protected by the constitution. That same protection in the constitution protects our religious liberties. But when people mis-quote Ron Paul like this, call them out on it. Say: "He didn't say that" and then correct them. He doesn't personally support gay marriage, he does not personally support drug usage, etc. Help them to understand the libertarian concepts that protects their liberties as well.

 

[Maestro232]

If there must be legalities involved, make it an issue of contract rights (or contract violations, in the case of separation).

I like this too.

 

[jmdrake]

Because marriage involves property, and heirs, and dependent children, the civil magistrate will necessarily be involved. For example, Solomon adjudicated the custody fight between the two harlots over the baby.

You know, the idiocy of the above cannot be overlooked. People can have joint property and not be married. Some folks never marry or have children and still have heirs. And people who never marry have children all of the time. If two people set up default positions through contract they can handle all of those issues and then some.

Heck, even this "pastor's" own illustration undercuts his own argument. The two women Solomon adjudicated the child custody fight for were not married. So clearly by his own example marriage is not a prerequisite for civil adjudication of family issues.

Edit: I wonder if this pastor even realizes his "Marriage is a necessity to deal with kids, property and inheritance" is the same argument that proponents of gay marriage use to push for that "right"?

 

[Maestro232]

Thanks everyone. There are clearly some non-evangelicals responding here but there are some helpful takeaways too.

 

[Maestro232]

You know, the idiocy of the above cannot be overlooked. People can have joint property and not be married. Some folks never marry or have children and still have heirs. And people who never marry have children all of the time. If two people set up default positions through contract they can handle all of those issues and then some.

Heck, even this "pastor's" own illustration undercuts his own argument. The two women Solomon adjudicated the child custody fight for were not married. So clearly by his own example marriage is not a prerequisite for civil adjudication of family issues.

Edit: I wonder if this pastor even realizes his "Marriage is a necessity to deal with kids, property and inheritance" is the same argument that proponents of gay marriage use to push for that "right"?

Excellent

 

[flightlesskiwi]

Well...this commentator also said in the same article...



So he is making the case that our economic troubles are connected with our aberrant sexuality.

this is quite common.

what's apparently lacking in his understanding is: a sin is a sin is a sin is a sin.

sexual immorality is always listed as one among many sins.

what makes it qualitatively different in the bible is 1 Cor. 6 v. 18: Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

kind of like Ron says, eh?

also, last time i checked, God judges the individual not the nation.

when i think about the "God's gonna judge this nation and rightfully so because of ______" crowd, i also think: "well i guess that pastor/person/whatever, just isn't doing a good enough job to save the whole nation. standing in judgement with God on the outside world, and thinking they know God's mind and what He is or isn't doing with a nation. what a prideful and horrific place to be-- salvation by works under the guise of righteous morality."

which always leads me back to this verse: "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" Paul is speaking about believers judging non believers. (1 Cor 5:12)

imo, a lot of evangelicals are caught up in doing the opposite-- ignoring the filth rampant in their own ranks and screaming at a deaf world.

 

[samuel]

I love Jesus, here's my stance:

Humans cannot redefine reality; God establishes reality, including the definition of marriage. No amount of government intervention, regulation, or involvement can change what marriage actually is. Even if a presidential candidate were to come out and say that "marriage includes male-male relationships," marriage wouldn't include that kind of a relationship. Because it doesn't matter at all what the government does with respect to marriage, there is no use in wasting government time and funds on the issue. Privatization is the best solution.

 

[Miss Annie]

Ooops, tired. Wrong quote. Wrong place....... need a nap! LOL

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Just kind of tossing this in here. There's a good way to find out if somebody is with or against us. Liberty brings us together - if someone is looking for ways to distance themselves from Ron and the message, they don't believe in liberty.

 

[amy31416]

Why are evangelicals against free will?

 

[idiom]

I got irked by the Brimstone comment.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not for their general immorality which any city has, but for their inability to show 10 godly men between them.

Ten righteous individuals would have been all that was required for God to put up with everything else the population was up too.

The message of the Bible is not to go around telling others to stop being bad, but to start being truly good yourself.

When you get married in the church, after the pastor announces you are married you still go and sign the marriage license. Apparently God, the pastor and the community witnessing your vows and contract is not enough. You are only married after the government says you are. This is really absurd. Who gives the government the authority?