To settle this once and for all, Ron Paul on Gay Marriage...

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

"Traditional" marriage, in the majority of human history, is polygamy.

Those who are obsessed with the issue "doth protest too much...methinks".

It's just another red herring. Feel free to debate endlessly.

lol excellent point. (about the polygamy)

I don't feel it is a red herring though.

I do think it is very dangerous that any percentage of this movement would be willing to just ignore this issue.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Of course the prop 8 effort was not comprised of people who are against government legislated marriage, it was comprised of people who want their own personal views codified as law. Likewise, most of the gay lobby is comprised of people who want their own personal views codified as law. I disagree with both, and as I say, I abstained on prop 8, which I think was the only right way to go.

I agree that gays have a right to equal treatment under the law, and the law has no business making distinctions about personal morality.

You must also recognize, though, the rights of those who oppose gay marriage. Marriage has been around for thousands of years. This is not about a desire to outlaw a behavior, this is about opposition to the redefinition of what marriage is.

Say, for example, that the government somehow got control over the definition of "celibate" -- I'll use this as an example, because I think it is illustrative, not because I think it is analogous in every way to the gay marriage issue. They regulated it, licensed it, and otherwise screwed around in what was no business of theirs. They keep a rather traditional definition, however -- a "celibate" person is one who does not have sex. Years pass, to the point where the public recognizes a "celibate" person as one who has been deemed so by the state.

Also, suppose the state institutes certain special privileges for those who are deemed "celibate".

Now suppose, for whatever reason, perhaps in an effort combat STDs, the state redefines "celibate" to mean, "one who does not have unprotected sex".

Can you see how this would cause an outcry? Monks, nuns, and priests who have centuries long traditions of "celibacy", as well as those who have vowed to be "celebate" until marriage, and others, would view this as a direct attack against them and their traditions.

It is completely understandable to me that gays are offended that they are not treated equally, and given equal rights. It is also completely understandable to me that those with a traditional definition of marriage are offended by the state's efforts to change it.

Gays must recognize and appreciate the rights of those for whom marriage is a millenia long oral and written, religious and moral tradition, and who do not wish to see the definition changed. Those who ascribe to a traditional definition of marriage need to recognize and appreciate the rights of gays to equal treatment under the law, and equal rights.

The only way everyone's rights can be protected is to stop fighting against each other, and recognize that the real culprit is out of control government power.

There are a lot of religions with ancient traditions, many of which are far older then Christianity. Does that mean they get special treatment when it comes to defining things? This is why we don't make laws to respect the establishment of ANY religion. Period.

I am totally ok with getting the state out of it. But the more I study what the extreme of the Christian right does, the more I worry for the future. When I hear people in this movement say things like "I don't care if Chuck Baldwin makes it illegal for me not to go to church on Sunday as long as he gets rid of the Federal reserve" (Yes, actual quote) I begin to wonder just how messed up the freedom message could get from all this.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

It is a dangerous thing to ascribe motives to people we don't understand out of our own fears and imagination.

Are you secretly trying to take over the world and force everyone by law to be christian and pray three times a day and read the bible and live exactly the way you say? No?

I guarantee you there are those in the gay lobby who think you are, because they are ascribing motives to you out of their own fears and imagination.

Perhaps you should not do the same.

I know there are people out there who feel that way, I don't think they are the majority, but I have met a man who made it clear he would execute me as a heretic if the law didn't prevent it.

I have seen the protests of military funerals.

And I have seen religious persecution.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Can't we just all agree that gays can build their own churches and get married at their own free will and that the government has nothing to do with it?

We don't need to write huge articles to recognize this.

Get the state out of marriage, that's it.

Sure thing.

Proposal 8 proves that there are people who will not be satisfied with that.

 

[tremendoustie]

I know there are people out there who feel that way, I don't think they are the majority, but I have met a man who made it clear he would execute me as a heretic if the law didn't prevent it.

I have seen the protests of military funerals.

And I have seen religious persecution.

Yeah, sadly those people exist. I don't know if this is what you saw on the military funeral, but I heard of a "church" which was basically a scam where they act incredibly offensively at funerals and then try to sue if their "protests" were hindered. Here it is: Westboro Baptist Church.

Seriously scummy.

And as for your run of the mill haters, I'm not sure how hating people ties into Christ's message. Apparently they think the first century was bizzaro century, where everything you say means the opposite ... so obviously loving people, even your enemies, doesn't apply ...

I bet there are those who hate all Christians too, of course. There are those who would be the manifestation of all Tones's fears.

But, those are the minority, in both cases. And there's enough evil in the world without adding evil motives to people where they don't exist.

I know there were many who supported prop 8 who weren't haters, they were just misguided people trying to protect what they believed to be the right definition of marriage.

And, I know there were many who supported the supreme court decision who weren't anything close to tradition haters, or christian haters, they just wanted equal rights.

We just need to realize that the bogeyman isn't the guy across the issue from us, and he's probably not half so bad as our imaginations make him out to be. The worst of the worst is not typical.

The people who, in their arrogant pseudo-benevolence, think they should fit all of our lives into their little boxes, to regulate, define, tax, and mange them, and then to make us fight each other over the scraps of what's left of our rights -- it is those people who are not half so good as our imaginations make them out to be.

 

[tremendoustie]

There are a lot of religions with ancient traditions, many of which are far older then Christianity. Does that mean they get special treatment when it comes to defining things? This is why we don't make laws to respect the establishment of ANY religion. Period.

When it comes to defining things, the government shouldn't. There's no special treatment, religious or non, just people, who should be free to make their own decisions about what they believe, and what definitions they hold.

In the definition I gave above, it would be wrong to redefine chastity to include protected sex. But, it was also wrong for the government to define it in the first place, excluding protected sex.

As a side point, making no law respecting an establishment of a religion means government should view religion as it views sneezing. It just doesn't care -- it treats every organization and person exactly the same whether they are religious or not.

To make "no law respecting" something means exactly that -- to ignore it. If I write a law to specifically exclude, include, give preferential, or disfavorable treatment to a person or organization based on their religion or lack therof, then I am making a law with respect to that religion.

Do not think that because someone has an opinion which is based on their religious beliefs, that somehow they have no right to a voice.

I am totally ok with getting the state out of it. But the more I study what the extreme of the Christian right does, the more I worry for the future. When I hear people in this movement say things like "I don't care if Chuck Baldwin makes it illegal for me not to go to church on Sunday as long as he gets rid of the Federal reserve" (Yes, actual quote) I begin to wonder just how messed up the freedom message could get from all this.

There are people who will say almost anything inane, especially on the internet. I could go on a search engine and in five minutes provide numerous examples showing that any segment of the population is filled with uneducated, unintelligent, barely intelligible, extremist nuts.

Probably someone trying to convince you to vote for baldwin based on the idea that his opposition to the fed is way more important than any concerns you might have about his religious views. And, the person vastly overstated their case, and went to absurd extremes, as often happens on the interwebs.

I betcha I could find some statement on a gay rights site about how all christians should be burned at the stake, if I looked for it.

These people are unserious people being unserious, I wouldn't worry about it. They don't constitute any significant portion of any segment of the population, and they certainly don't represent the future.

Don't fall into the trap tones does .

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Mark my words...if that passes in all the states...look for the gays to start demanding ministers to marry them against their religious beliefs and expect the ACLU to be in on it. tones

 

[Brian4Liberty]

lol excellent point. (about the polygamy)

I don't feel it is a red herring though.

I do think it is very dangerous that any percentage of this movement would be willing to just ignore this issue.

Government and individuals should "ignore" most issues. Which means that efforts to push certain group's preferences into government code are a bad idea. People need to get over their natural inclination to force everyone to be an exact duplicate of themselves.

There are so many important issues, yet gay marriage and abortion are the main ones that get discussed in the general public (as litmus tests). That makes the Democrats, Republicans, the Oligarchy/Plutocracy, and an assortment of special interests very happy...they are red herrings.

 

[tremendoustie]

Mark my words...if that passes in all the states...look for the gays to start demanding ministers to marry them against their religious beliefs and expect the ACLU to be in on it. tones

Tones, do you love gay people, just the way they are, or do you dislike or even hate them? Because that's the feeling I get from a lot of your posts. (I could be totally wrong, I just get that vibe).

Do you really think the battle that needs to be fought is in the courts and the government? Do you remember the verse about not battling against flesh and blood?

And so what if the worst that you imagine comes to pass. Christianity has thrived under extremely adverse circumstances, throughout history. Lawsuits are peanuts compared to being used as human torches, being thrown in prison, tortured, etc. I think the reason it has thrived in these circumstances may be because it has a way of putting our priorities back on track ...

What do you think Christ would do if he were hanging out nowadays? I betcha he'd be having a beer and hanging out with a bunch of gays, among other people (hopefully including me). I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be collecting signatures for the next ballot initiative.

I'm not some super great person on this, and I don't want to be the guy with the plank trying to pick out the sawdust -- goodness knows I need to take this to heart too, but isn't the right approach to love people, to act Christ-like, and not worry as much about what political leaders do?

I am worried that we are hurting our witness because of our wrong priorities. If you asked 100 random Americans what the first word that popped into their head was when they thought, "Christian", I bet most of them would be nothing we want to be associated with. Would any of them be love?

I don't mean to offend, just some things to think about.

 

[RonPaulMania]

Tones, do you love gay people, just the way they are, or do you dislike or even hate them? Because that's the feeling I get from a lot of your posts. (I could be totally wrong, I just get that vibe).

He can hate the act, but not the person. Acts don't define people as a person.

Do you really think the battle that needs to be fought is in the courts and the government? Do you remember the verse about not battling against flesh and blood?

That's missing the point. Not battling against flesh and blood is a reference to the bigger fight, but it does not exclude it. It's a manifestation through flesh and blood.

What do you think Christ would do if he were hanging out nowadays? I betcha he'd be having a beer and hanging out with a bunch of gays, among other people (hopefully including me). I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be collecting signatures for the next ballot initiative.

While he wouldn't be getting sigs for initiatives, he wouldn't be hanging out with homosexuals and having beer as a hang-out. He would be preaching about the adulterous nation, about the sin of Sodom, and said those who don't follow those words are going to Hell. You know Christ spoke of Sodom and He mentions Hell more than Heaven right?

I'm not some super great person on this, and I don't want to be the guy with the plank trying to pick out the sawdust -- goodness knows I need to take this to heart too, but isn't the right approach to love people, to act Christ-like, and not worry as much about what political leaders do?

Sorry, it's a Christians' obligation to fight not only for life everlasting but this world too. While this is not Heaven and Christ's kingdom is not of this world it certainly must be established that we are to prepare for Christ through politics. The politics that most resemble God's will are most perfect.

I am worried that we are hurting our witness because of our wrong priorities. If you asked 100 random Americans what the first word that popped into their head was when they thought, "Christian", I bet most of them would be nothing we want to be associated with. Would any of them be love?

Love and correction are not mutually exclusive. The first spiritual work of mercy is the correction of sinners. While I know you are repeating politically correct things in an innocuous way, I still think you don't recognize the New Testament as the embodiment of the entire Christian ethic spiritually or politically.

 

[Bman]

Sorry, it's a Christians' obligation to fight not only for life everlasting but this world too. While this is not Heaven and Christ's kingdom is not of this world it certainly must be established that we are to prepare for Christ through politics. The politics that most resemble God's will are most perfect.

This is the same logic that has teens over in the mid-east strapping bombs on their backs and walking into large crowds.

The looming problem with christianity is not the words of Jesus. It's the belief that one is carrying out gods will as if you were god yourself. When you do something for goodness sake take a little responsibility and let the bible out of it. Why some here would argue that gays are forcing their beliefs on christians, I would have to wonder what people like yourself think you are doing. The hypocrisy and blind faith that looks past reason will keep me ever far from those who wish to organize themselves under religious text.


If you want to believe something great. But leave god out of it because in all honesty my belief in god and such isn't anything like what you think. And if you want to tell me you are right and I am wrong. Well my only response would be best described by saying... Use your imagination.

 

[tremendoustie]

He can hate the act, but not the person. Acts don't define people as a person.

Sure, but if you love someone, but hate something they're doing, that means you'll treat the person with love. The person should feel loved by you, not rejected by you.

(by the way, tones is a woman)

That's missing the point. Not battling against flesh and blood is a reference to the bigger fight, but it does not exclude it. It's a manifestation through flesh and blood.

Not at all. No person is our enemy. Our enemies are those things which corrupt and distort God's creation, most especially man, each of whom Christ commands us to love as ourselves.

There is no person which is our enemy. To set up human beings as our enemies is to become more destructive then constructive, and to completely abandon the example that Christ showed us.

While he wouldn't be getting sigs for initiatives, he wouldn't be hanging out with homosexuals and having beer as a hang-out.

Consider these examples:

Matthew 9
10 Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, “Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when Jesus heard this, He said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. 13 “But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Luke 15
1 Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. 2 Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
3 So He told them this parable, saying, 4 “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

Luke 7
36Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. 37When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, 38and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.

39When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."

40Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.

41"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[d] and the other fifty. 42Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"

43Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.

44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."

48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

5When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." 6So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7All the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a 'sinner.' "

But, no, I'm sure he'd be hating on the gays, probably wouldn't go anywhere near them without a bullhorn and a sandwich board .

I'm not saying there isn't right and wrong, or that sin isn't very real and very damaging, but we're called to love people, and we're called to love them even if we don't agree with everything they do.

I don't think preaching fire and brimstone with a holier than thou attitude ever accomplished much.

He would be preaching about the adulterous nation, about the sin of Sodom, and said those who don't follow those words are going to Hell. You know Christ spoke of Sodom and He mentions Hell more than Heaven right?

Hmm, funny thing, I just found over 350 references to heaven in the New Testament, but only 16 for hell. I tried with NIV, NAS, and KJ with similar results ...

Not that I think word counts mean much of anything anyway. I think if you read any significant portion of the New Testament, it's pretty clear that Christ consistently shows love to people of all backgrounds. He spent time with people who no one else would, and he taught people how to live.

Suprisingly, given that he was the one perfect guy on the planet, the one guy who could really pull off a good fiery sermon of condemnation without being a hypocrite, I can't remember him spending much time on that ...

Although, there was one group which Christ railed against pretty thoroughly. As I recall, he called them "hypocrites", "den of vipers", and "unwashed tombs". Yep, the pharisees. Those were the religious leaders of the day who thought they were all that, that they had it all figured out, and that looked down on everyone else.

You know, I'd much rather be a sinner who knows he needs help, and spends his time thinking about his own sin, than a pharisee who thinks he's the man, and spends his time thinking about the sins of others.

Sorry, it's a Christians' obligation to fight not only for life everlasting but this world too. While this is not Heaven and Christ's kingdom is not of this world it certainly must be established that we are to prepare for Christ through politics. The politics that most resemble God's will are most perfect.

No, I'm pretty sure Christ never said the kingdom of God was political, in fact, I'm pretty sure he made it quite clear it was not, and I'm pretty sure he gave no instructions about politics.

But, sure, let's go with it, let's say politics should reflect Christian morality.

Do you believe it would be Christ like of you to go over to your neighbor's with a gun, and threaten to throw them in a cage if they do not live according to Christian ethics? You don't? Well then, guess we shouldn't get the government to do that either.

That was easy, looks like God's the judge after all, as Paul mentions in 1st Corinthians 4:

103I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

It's kind of a relief actually, I'm glad I'm not accountable to Nancy Peloci for keeping God's law after all.

And you know, I'm pretty glad it's not my job to enforce God's law either. After all, I've got a pretty big struggle with sin going on myself, and, being as imperfect as I am, I wouldn't make a very good judge or prosecutor.

Love and correction are not mutually exclusive. The first spiritual work of mercy is the correction of sinners.

I don't think so. It seems like the first thing Christ did was show people love, or heal them in some way. And, even when he did correct people, he also did that in love. I don't even think it's my job to correct people unless I'm in some sort of spiritual leadership position, or maybe if I really think I can do it in a gentle way (In my experience you've gotta be careful, it's kind of like surgery). Plus, "spiritual correction" doesn't make much sense for someone who's not a Christian anyway.

I think if I were to project myself as some kind of voice of condemnation to the masses, I would be taking God's job, being a hypocrite, since I'm a sinner too, and probably ultimately driving people off.

I think the best I can do is try to show people love, and maybe introduce people to God and his word. Finger pointing, as best I can tell, is not my look-out.

While I know you are repeating politically correct things in an innocuous way ...

If I were worried about political correctness I wouldn't be here .

I still think you don't recognize the New Testament as the embodiment of the entire Christian ethic spiritually or politically.

Firstly, I don't think Christianity is an ethic, I think it's a relationship. And secondly, I don't know where on earth the word "political" is sneaking in as a description of Christianity -- I certainly don't see it in the New Testament.

Frankly the phrase "Christian political ethic" gives me the hebbie jeebies worse than Freddie Kreuger.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Yeah, sadly those people exist. I don't know if this is what you saw on the military funeral, but I heard of a "church" which was basically a scam where they act incredibly offensively at funerals and then try to sue if their "protests" were hindered. Here it is: Westboro Baptist Church.

Seriously scummy.

And as for your run of the mill haters, I'm not sure how hating people ties into Christ's message. Apparently they think the first century was bizzaro century, where everything you say means the opposite ... so obviously loving people, even your enemies, doesn't apply ...

I bet there are those who hate all Christians too, of course. There are those who would be the manifestation of all Tones's fears.

But, those are the minority, in both cases. And there's enough evil in the world without adding evil motives to people where they don't exist.

I know there were many who supported prop 8 who weren't haters, they were just misguided people trying to protect what they believed to be the right definition of marriage.

And, I know there were many who supported the supreme court decision who weren't anything close to tradition haters, or christian haters, they just wanted equal rights.

We just need to realize that the bogeyman isn't the guy across the issue from us, and he's probably not half so bad as our imaginations make him out to be. The worst of the worst is not typical.

The people who, in their arrogant pseudo-benevolence, think they should fit all of our lives into their little boxes, to regulate, define, tax, and mange them, and then to make us fight each other over the scraps of what's left of our rights -- it is those people who are not half so good as our imaginations make them out to be.

People like you give me hope for Christianity in the freedom movement.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Tones, do you love gay people, just the way they are, or do you dislike or even hate them? Because that's the feeling I get from a lot of your posts. (I could be totally wrong, I just get that vibe).

Do you really think the battle that needs to be fought is in the courts and the government? Do you remember the verse about not battling against flesh and blood?

And so what if the worst that you imagine comes to pass. Christianity has thrived under extremely adverse circumstances, throughout history. Lawsuits are peanuts compared to being used as human torches, being thrown in prison, tortured, etc. I think the reason it has thrived in these circumstances may be because it has a way of putting our priorities back on track ...

What do you think Christ would do if he were hanging out nowadays? I betcha he'd be having a beer and hanging out with a bunch of gays, among other people (hopefully including me). I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be collecting signatures for the next ballot initiative.

I'm not some super great person on this, and I don't want to be the guy with the plank trying to pick out the sawdust -- goodness knows I need to take this to heart too, but isn't the right approach to love people, to act Christ-like, and not worry as much about what political leaders do?

I am worried that we are hurting our witness because of our wrong priorities. If you asked 100 random Americans what the first word that popped into their head was when they thought, "Christian", I bet most of them would be nothing we want to be associated with. Would any of them be love?

I don't mean to offend, just some things to think about.

What many Christians generally fail to understand, is that Jesus's word is supposed to be inspiring. Not forced. Your attitude for example would give me admiration for your position, and would far more tempt me to consider your religion then any amount of hate mongering or fire and brimstone spiritual terrorism.

We should have a Quaker theocracy. Just have to figure out how to deal with national defense.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

He can hate the act, but not the person. Acts don't define people as a person.



That's missing the point. Not battling against flesh and blood is a reference to the bigger fight, but it does not exclude it. It's a manifestation through flesh and blood.



While he wouldn't be getting sigs for initiatives, he wouldn't be hanging out with homosexuals and having beer as a hang-out. He would be preaching about the adulterous nation, about the sin of Sodom, and said those who don't follow those words are going to Hell. You know Christ spoke of Sodom and He mentions Hell more than Heaven right?



Sorry, it's a Christians' obligation to fight not only for life everlasting but this world too. While this is not Heaven and Christ's kingdom is not of this world it certainly must be established that we are to prepare for Christ through politics. The politics that most resemble God's will are most perfect.



Love and correction are not mutually exclusive. The first spiritual work of mercy is the correction of sinners. While I know you are repeating politically correct things in an innocuous way, I still think you don't recognize the New Testament as the embodiment of the entire Christian ethic spiritually or politically.

You are supposed to be fighting.

Within yourself. And encouraging/inspiring other people to do so.

A good number of people I have met who are religiously motivated in their political activism generally have huge problems at home and in their own lives.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

This is the same logic that has teens over in the mid-east strapping bombs on their backs and walking into large crowds.

The looming problem with christianity is not the words of Jesus. It's the belief that one is carrying out gods will as if you were god yourself. When you do something for goodness sake take a little responsibility and let the bible out of it. Why some here would argue that gays are forcing their beliefs on christians, I would have to wonder what people like yourself think you are doing. The hypocrisy and blind faith that looks past reason will keep me ever far from those who wish to organize themselves under religious text.


If you want to believe something great. But leave god out of it because in all honesty my belief in god and such isn't anything like what you think. And if you want to tell me you are right and I am wrong. Well my only response would be best described by saying... Use your imagination.

It is also the same logic they used during the crusades. And the Inquisition. We need to find and root out the devil.

Eventually the line blurs really fast. You find yourself doing things that Christ would never do in pursuit of the "devil" and become the devil yourself. This was going on all over the place when the Constitution was written. That's why George Washington pointed out that the path to TRUE PIETY requires no help from government. And therefore he felt there should be no regulation respecting religion in the Constitution.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Sure, but if you love someone, but hate something they're doing, that means you'll treat the person with love. The person should feel loved by you, not rejected by you.

Also, by the way, tones is a woman.



Not at all. No person is our enemy. Our enemies are those things which corrupt and distort God's creation, most especially man, each of whom Christ commands us to love as ourselves.

There is no person which is our enemy. To set up human beings as our enemies is to become more destructive then constructive, and to completely abandon the example that Christ showed us.




Consider these examples:











But, no, I'm sure he'd be hating on the gays, probably wouldn't go anywhere near them without a bullhorn and a sandwich board .

I'm not saying there isn't right and wrong, or that sin isn't very real and very damaging, but we're called to love people, and we're called to love them even if we don't agree with everything they do.

I don't think preaching fire and brimstone with a holier than thou attitude ever accomplished much.




Hmm, funny thing, I just found over 350 references to heaven in the New Testament, but only 16 for hell. I tried with NIV, NAS, and KJ with similar results ...

Not that I think word counts mean much of anything anyway. I think if you read any significant portion of the New Testament, it's pretty clear that Christ consistently shows love to people of all backgrounds. He spent time with people who no one else would, and he taught people how to live.

Suprisingly, given that he was the one perfect guy on the planet, the one guy who could really pull off a good fiery sermon of condemnation without being a hypocrite, I can't remember him spending much time on that ...

Although, there was one group which Christ railed against pretty thoroughly. As I recall, he called them "hypocrites", "den of vipers", and "unwashed tombs". Yep, the pharisees. Those were the religious leaders of the day who thought they were all that, that they had it all figured out, and that looked down on everyone else.

You know, I'd much rather be a sinner who knows he needs help, and spends his time thinking about his own sin, than a pharisee who thinks he's the man, and spends his time thinking about the sins of others.




No, I'm pretty sure Christ never said the kingdom of God was political, in fact, I'm pretty sure he made it quite clear it was not, and I'm pretty sure he gave no instructions about politics.

But, sure, let's go with it, let's say politics should reflect Christian morality.

Do you believe it would be Christ like of you to go over to your neighbor's with a gun, and threaten to throw them in a cage if they do not live according to Christian ethics? You don't? Well then, guess we shouldn't get the government to do that either.

That was easy, looks like God's the judge after all, as Paul mentions in 1st Corinthians 4:


It's kind of a relief actually, I'm glad I'm not accountable to Nancy Peloci for keeping God's law after all.

And you know, I'm pretty glad it's not my job to enforce God's law either. After all, I've got a pretty big struggle with sin going on myself, and, being as imperfect as I am, I wouldn't make a very good judge or prosecutor.




I don't think so. It seems like the first thing Christ did was show people love, or heal them in some way. And, even when he did correct people, he also did that in love. I don't even think it's my job to correct people unless I'm in some sort of spiritual leadership position, or maybe if I really think I can do it in a gentle way (In my experience you've gotta be careful, it's kind of like surgery). Plus, "spiritual correction" doesn't make much sense for someone who's not a Christian anyway.

I think if I were to project myself as some kind of voice of condemnation to the masses, I would be taking God's job, being a hypocrite, since I'm a sinner too, and probably ultimately driving people off.

I think the best I can do is try to show people love, and maybe introduce people to God and his word. Finger pointing, as best I can tell, is not my look-out.



If I were worried about political correctness I wouldn't be here .



Firstly, I don't think Christianity is an ethic, I think it's a relationship. And secondly, I don't know where on earth the word "political" is sneaking in as a description of Christianity -- I certainly don't see it in the New Testament.

Frankly the phrase "Christian political ethic" gives me the hebbie jeebies worse than Freddie Kreuger.

If this were Mortal Kombat, right now Shao Kahn would be saying "FINISH HIM!" and then shortly afterward: "tremendoustie wins...FATALITY!"

But in all seriousness, tremendoustie if your not a pastor you should seriously consider it. You reminded me of the things I liked about being a Christian when I was.

There is a really old movie with John Wayne called "Angel and the Badman". I strongly suggest you check it out. It's public domain now.

 

[mrwiizrd]

It is NOTHING but a PLOY to further destroy Christianity in the USA..and I will DAMN well fight it. tones

You scare me more than the thought of George W Bush in a locked closet with the Constitution and a paper shredder, and I'm not even gay.

The Constitution Party must have a message board more suited to your ideology someplace.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

YOU with 48 posts. you don't know me. LOl tones

 

[Knightskye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M#t=2m01s

Right to the second.