Persecuted Christians In America!

[sharkman]

I would say Bubber makes a fair point in this regard. Whether it is literally "Christ's word" or not, it is fair to use that term because Christians consider the entire Bible to be the Word of the Lord.

In any case, the Bible does urge people to accept law of the land, though I would say that is within reason. If the law expects us to reject Christ or restricts our freedom to be Christian and heed our own moral law, it would be wrong not to break it.

The Bible is clearly opposed to homosexual sex, but Jesus commands us to follow those morals, not legislate them. It is also a sin to take the Lord's name in vain. And likewise to have other Gods. Which is worse, as far as Christianity is concerned, homosexuality or worshiping another God? Can you legislate that? Was it morally right to beat the Son of God and nail him to a cross? What was His reaction? Gay marriage, in and of itself, does not restrict our right to practice Christianity. However, it would be a much different matter if the state tried to compel Churches which oppose gay marriage to perform the rite.

Paul went to countries like Rome and Greece, where homosexuality was not uncommon. He preached his beliefs, he did not start a political party to bring morality reform.

Okay, what points of mine are you refuting or agreeing with?

[Moonlight Graham]

The bannings sounds very unconstitutional.

[Moonlight Graham]

All because of a legitimate religious belief.

"legitimate religious belief" is a bit of an oxymoron don't you think?

[jefferiah]

Okay, what points of mine are you refuting or agreeing with?

None, perhaps.

Edited August 9, 2012 by jefferiah

[betsy]

OMG! You’re right. I was going by Christ’s Word when he indicated to the woman at the well in John 4 that those who did not enter a covenant before God weren’t really married. But, lo and behold, He also indicated that what the government says goes: “"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Romans 13:1-20)

EXCEPT - and that's a big except - when the government's law contradicts the explicit commands of God.

Matt 19

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Romans 1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Leviticus 18:22, 24

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things

Deuteronomy 23:17-18

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

So since the Canadian government has recognized same-sex marriage, and they did so under the authority of God, it is blasphemy to oppose this ruling.

Male and Female.

And any Christian church who goes against this explicit authority of God is a false church. It is a dead church - spiritually dead. Any preacher/priest preaching what goes against this explicit authority of God is a false preacher.

Edited August 9, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

OMG! You’re right. I was going by Christ’s Word when he indicated to the woman at the well in John 4 that those who did not enter a covenant before God weren’t really married. But, lo and behold, He also indicated that what the government says goes: “"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Romans 13:1-20)

So since the Canadian government has recognized same-sex marriage, and they did so under the authority of God, it is blasphemy to oppose this ruling.

Furthermore, not only does same-sex marriage contradicts the authority of God as explained above.....the practice of same-sex sexual relations is strictly forbidden, and had even contributed or the main reason, that brought upon the wrath of God in the OT.

Genesis 19 (a lengthy read)

[jefferiah]

Furthermore, not only does same-sex marriage contradicts the authority of God as explained above.....the practice of same-sex sexual relations is strictly forbidden, and had even contributed or the main reason, that brought upon the wrath of God in the OT.

Genesis 19 (a lengthy read)

I agree with you morally on the issue. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. The state cannot change my belief on the matter.

Many things are forbidden in the Bible. Idol worship is forbidden. Worshipping another God is certainly a grave sin as well. It is the first commandment. We cannot legislate that however. Ours is not a kingdom of this world.

Edited August 9, 2012 by jefferiah

[betsy]

I agree with you morally on the issue. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Many things are forbidden in the Bible. Idol worship is forbidden. We cannot legislate that however. Ours is not a kingdom of this world.

No, we cannot legislate it. We can only try....by praying for our government authorities to do the right things according to God.

And for us Christians to stand firmly on our ground.

Edited August 9, 2012 by betsy

[Shakeyhands]

Shady, why would you start a new thread for this? What was wrong with the other one?

[bleeding heart]

And any Christian church who goes against this explicit authority of God is a false church. It is a dead church - spiritually dead. Any preacher/priest preaching what goes against this explicit authority of God is a false preacher.

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Matthew 19:23-24

It would appear, Betsy, that the percentage of "dead churches" and "false preachers" accounts for the overwhelming majority of them.

Edited August 9, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

When the day comes where some pro-homosexual, anti-Christian man stocks up on hand guns and assault rifles and heads on down to the Westboro Baptist Church in Florida, opening fire and killing the Phelps clan, and then, AND THEN, some atheist, lets call her Patricia Robertson, goes on her TV program viewed by millions of people every week, and says that this is what Christians deserve as a logical end result of the old phrase "and eye for an eye" found in the Old Testament, well, then I will feel like we have reached true equality.

Zing.

[jefferiah]

It would appear, Betsy, that the percentage of "dead churches" and "false preachers" accounts for the overwhelming majority of them.

Most preachers do not run mega-churches.

[bleeding heart]

Most preachers do not run mega-churches.

I'm not talking of the profitability of the church or the personal wealth of the preacher.

As per Betsy's assertions, I'm talking about what they do--and don't--believe, and preach to their congregations.

[cybercoma]

There it is: "Stop persecuting for my beliefs that involve the persecution of others."

[jefferiah]

There it is: "Stop persecuting for my beliefs that involve the persecution of others."

Well, having a political belief on gay marriage does not necessarily translate to actively persecuting anyone. So, I think it was certainly wrong of Emanuel and others to say to Chick-Fil-A you aren't welcome here.

[bleeding heart]

Yep.

Or: "Why can't our Christian children bully the gays? Sooo unfair."

[jefferiah]

Yep.

Or: "Why can't our Christian children bully the gays? Sooo unfair."

Who here is saying anything that remotely resembles that?

[cybercoma]

Well, having a political belief on gay marriage does not necessarily translate to actively persecuting anyone. So, I think it was certainly wrong of Emanuel and others to say to Chick-Fil-A you aren't welcome here.

Yes it does. Give me one good reason two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to marry each other?

I agree with you about Chick-Fil-A as a business.

[bleeding heart]

Who here is saying anything that remotely resembles that?

Here? No one, to my knowledge...though Betsy's opinion has yet to be sought out on the matter.

[bleeding heart]

Well, having a political belief on gay marriage does not necessarily translate to actively persecuting anyone. So, I think it was certainly wrong of Emanuel and others to say to Chick-Fil-A you aren't welcome here.

I'm inclined to echo cybercoma more or less exactly. I agree that politicians are way out of bounds in trying to deny the company.

But we're not talking about "having a political belief" translates into persecuting anyone; it's when one uses that "political" [sic...actually, religious] belief to interfere with equal rights....that's the issue.

And how is it a "political" belief, exactly?

Hell, the religious objections are more legtimiate than "political" ones; and that's setting the bar pretty low.

Edited August 9, 2012 by bleeding heart

[jefferiah]

And how is it a "political" belief, exactly?

The belief as to whether it should be legalized or not is a political one. Legitimacy is irrelevant. People are allowed to have political opinions, legitimate or not. Not that you disagree with that. You have already said you have no argument. But just pointing out that in that respect it is political.

Edited August 9, 2012 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Here? No one, to my knowledge...though Betsy's opinion has yet to be sought out on the matter.

I sincerely doubt that Betsy wants gays to be bullied.

[jefferiah]

Yes it does. Give me one good reason two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to marry each other?

I have said that I don't believe you can legislate religious morality. But I don't know that Chick-Fil-A has actually stopped gays from being gay or marrying.

Edited August 9, 2012 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

Hell, the religious objections are more legtimiate than "political" ones; and that's setting the bar pretty low.

This. Religious objections are never legitimate logically. They may be right in some situations, but they're irrational. Religious doctrine is tautological.

Moreover when religious doctrine becomes part of public discourse vis-a-vis social policy, then it absolutely deserves the kind of deep scrutiny and debate that all public policy ought to be subjected to.

Religious people find this insulting because they feel deeply that their religious opinions are divinely inspired and any contradiction to that is not just wrong, but the worst kind of evil imaginable.

Again, it comes down to what Stephen Weinberg said, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." All of this persecution of homosexuals (and other things that I don't really want to derail the thread with) from the best of places. I know people like betsy have the best intentions with what they're doing. They're trying to do good things, but their religious conviction makes them blind to the fact that perhaps their position is oppressive and wrong. Believe it or not, this kind of insanity applies equally as well to even more extreme and violent religious acts, such as those who shoot up abortion clinics or Islamists that slaughter others in the name of Allah. They believe their acts are Just and Holy. Anything against it is not just wrong, it's evil. In reality, the true evil is making good people do evil things by conning them into thinking they're doing evil. As part of the Christian mythos about Satan, there is no better example of the way a Satanic figure works than that.

Anyway, my point is that when religion crosses over into public policy, it necessitates scrutiny, whether the religious find this objectionable or not. That's what's so insidious about the blurring of religion and politics. There are hoards of religious people that are not extremists, but they underpin the belief that scrutiny of religion is evil. Meanwhile, scrutiny in politics is expected and rational.

Edited August 9, 2012 by cybercoma

[bleeding heart]

The belief as to whether it should be legalized or not is a political one. Legitimacy is irrelevant. People are allowed to have political opinions, legitimate or not.

I never faintly hinted at what opinions anyone should be "allowed" to have. That's not even a debate.

Christ, we're back yet again to Sarah Palin intimating that hostility to her opinions is repressing her "freedom of speech." (This is the kind of assessment made by those who have no concept of what "freedom of speech" is.)

But if it a political opinion, what is the reasoning behind it?

From a religious perspective, a person can toss around some Biblical quotes, express their belief that God Himself has made it clear, and so that's the genesis of their opposition.

But "politically," what is the reasoning?

Even the most wrongheaded and odious political beliefs have reasons, whatever their worth. A thinking person doesn't support or excoriate the welfare state...just because. The White Nationalists, jaw-droppingly ridiculous as they are, can tell you exactly why races need to be separated by national/geographical boundaries. Socialists and Randians can argue at length, and with genuine philosophical knowledge, about their respective visions for political economy.

So what's the "political" objection to same-sex marriage, besides "it's our word"?