The politics of Gay rights.

[Roadkill]

If their employer is asking them to do something they are spiritually convicted against doing, ummm... yeah. A person in Kim Davis' position has a few options:

1.) Do their job.
2.) Quit their job and find employment where they don't have to do something they are opposed to.
3.) Get the Supreme Court to reverse their gay marriage decision.

If you want to "fight back" and not let the government have all the power, the best way isn't to not do one's job, it's to elect a president who will elect Supreme Court Justices who are against gay marriage. Trump surprisingly did well in his selection of a Justice.

What I don't understand is how there is a conservative majority in the Supreme Court but abortion and gay marriage are still the law of the land. Sure, Justices don't "create" law, they only "interpret" law, but we all know this is anything but the truth. Don't they have the ability to reverse this?

You forgot the 4th option, Stand up and fight for your God no matter the cost.

You seem to forget that there is another element in our Government that goes under the radar a lot. The Bureaucrats, they can help or harm depending on the side they take on the issue. For the most part they do not answer to the American public for their actions.

 

[AdolfHipster]

You forgot the 4th option, Stand up and fight for your God no matter the cost.

You seem to forget that there is another element in our Government that goes under the radar a lot. The Bureaucrats, they can help or harm depending on the side they take on the issue. For the most part they do not answer to the American public for their actions.

Voting is a great way to "stand up and fight" but millions of people still don't do it unfortunately. Let's be a little pragmatic... which do you think will have a greater impact on getting about the changes you want: A.) voting or B.) going on a solo crusade against the government ala Kim Davis?

Don't get me wrong, voting for a president to select like-minded Supreme Court Justices will be a long fought battle... You have to wait for these Justices to die before you replace them and hope only the liberal ones go first. The right president not only has to win the election, but be in office during the time of the Justices' death. Then you have to hope the Supreme Court Justices reverse some of their changes.

I'll repeat, the Supreme Court has a conservative majority but they are either waiting or refusing to reverse some of their decisions (abortion and gay marriage). Ultimately, we cannot count on the government to do God's work. The government isn't a theocracy. The best we can do is obey the laws of the land and run our homes like the word of God says in spite of how the government is ran.

 

[dailybread]

The court is about to decide that based on the gay couple and the baker.

That popped in my head as soon as I clicked on this thread!

 

[dailybread]

I'll pass on Starbucks. For the price of one Starbucks coffee I can buy coffee for a week to drink at home

What about Dunkin Donuts?

 

[dailybread]

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:
neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Leviticus 18:

Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not H3808 lie H7901 with H854 mankind, H2145 as with H4904
womankind:H802 it H1931 is abomination. H8441
H8441 תּעבה תּועבה tô‛êbah tô‛êbah
Feminine active participle of H8581; properly something disgusting (morally),
that is, (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry
or (concretely) an idol: - abominable (custom, thing), abomination.
H8581 תּעב tâ‛ab
A primitive root; to loathe, that is, (morally) detest: - (make to be) abhor (-red),
(be, commit more, do) abominable (-y), X utterly.

(HOT+) ואתH854 זכרH2145 לאH3808 תשׁכבH7901 משׁכביH4904 אשׁהH802 תועבהH8441 הוא׃H1931

This verse kept playing in my head with each and every post I read!

 

[Roadkill]

Voting is a great way to "stand up and fight" but millions of people still don't do it unfortunately. Let's be a little pragmatic... which do you think will have a greater impact on getting about the changes you want: A.) voting or B.) going on a solo crusade against the government ala Kim Davis?

Don't get me wrong, voting for a president to select like-minded Supreme Court Justices will be a long fought battle... You have to wait for these Justices to die before you replace them and hope only the liberal ones go first. The right president not only has to win the election, but be in office during the time of the Justices' death. Then you have to hope the Supreme Court Justices reverse some of their changes.

I'll repeat, the Supreme Court has a conservative majority but they are either waiting or refusing to reverse some of their decisions (abortion and gay marriage). Ultimately, we cannot count on the government to do God's work. The government isn't a theocracy. The best we can do is obey the laws of the land and run our homes like the word of God says in spite of how the government is ran.

We should obey God's law rather than Man's. True we will pay the consequences here but the rewards in heaven for doing so are great.

The problem is it shouldn't be a solo crusade. We should all be doing this.

Why should we hope in a Government that has failed us to do the right thing? It's getting worse not better. It's time to stand up before it's too late. They are already interfering with how we run our households, so sticking your head in the sand will not be the answer.

 

[AdolfHipster]

We should obey God's law rather than Man's. True we will pay the consequences here but the rewards in heaven for doing so are great.

The problem is it shouldn't be a solo crusade. We should all be doing this.

Why should we hope in a Government that has failed us to do the right thing? It's getting worse not better. It's time to stand up before it's too late. They are already interfering with how we run our households, so sticking your head in the sand will not be the answer.

We are only accountable for what we can personally control. Voting to reflect values that are consistent with your spiritual beliefs is hardly "sticking one's head in the sand." The bible doesn't say "Be subject to the laws of the land unless it goes against anything I stand for..." I mean, Christ willingly allowed the people to crucify Him. Don't you think He could have stopped it if He wanted to? I do get your way of thinking though and would be supportive of organizing people together so that it isn't a solo crusade. However, what Kim Davis did was absolutely that...

Question for you: Do you wish the US (and other countries) would be Christian theocracies?

 

[Roadkill]

We are only accountable for what we can personally control. Voting to reflect values that are consistent with your spiritual beliefs is hardly "sticking one's head in the sand." The bible doesn't say "Be subject to the laws of the land unless it goes against anything I stand for..." I mean, Christ willingly allowed the people to crucify Him. Don't you think He could have stopped it if He wanted to? I do get your way of thinking though and would be supportive of organizing people together so that it isn't a solo crusade. However, what Kim Davis did was absolutely that...

Question for you: Do you wish the US (and other countries) would be Christian theocracies?

You really don't understand the testing we are under in the form of Governments do you? God is proving to us that we can't self govern ourselves. We have to go by his Rule of Law in order for a Government to be Successful. Can Christians, who are still under the curse of sin, govern themselves? NO, we will become corrupted like all the others. Only Jesus and The Father can rule and we can only be able to follow once removed from the curse of death.

 

[AdolfHipster]

You really don't understand the testing we are under in the form of Governments do you? God is proving to us that we can't self govern ourselves. We have to go by his Rule of Law in order for a Government to be Successful. Can Christians, who are still under the curse of sin, govern themselves? NO, we will become corrupted like all the others. Only Jesus and The Father can rule and we can only be able to follow once removed from the curse of death.

I don't want to assume... is this a "Yes, I believe the governments ought to be Christian theocracies?"

 

[willfollowsGod]

I question if you even read what I wrote in the post you're quoting...

You and I both agree that a Christian should have the right to NOT bake the cake. It doesn't matter the reason. He/she is paying to run their business and should have complete autonomy (not the government). If the baker wants to refuse service (for whatever reason) to gays because her conscience would suffer, then the baker should have the right. If the baker wants to deny service to a Black person because the person is Black, that baker should have the right to refuse service. I just don't think their business would be lucrative if they had this kind of business practice.

Now then, to Kim Davis, I don't care if she had worked there for years prior to the Supreme Court making a decision to recognize gay marriage. What relevance is it?

If Kim Davis lived and worked for the same department back in 1967 (the year the Supreme Court ruled interracial marriages shall be granted/recognized) but then refused to do her job and grant marital licenses to interracial marriages she should quit her job too. This is not like the baker... Davis works for a public service. If you don't see the difference between "public" and "private" sector jobs, we should end this discussion now. She could have worked there for 30 years and it doesn't mean anything. If her conscience is that affected, leave... but don't interfere with other people doing THEIR job. The best way to fight back against this is to elect presidents who will select like-minded Supreme Court Justices.

Having said all that... marriage is between God, husband, and wife. I have no idea why governments are even involved in granting licensing. If the state got out of the marriage business, this wouldn't even be an issue. Not a popular opinion, but it's the truth.

I read what you said and mostly I agree but I disagree with the option or ultimatum of do your job or else. It is relevant that she was at her job before the change of law that made SSM legal. Again, you are seeing it through a racial or inborn thing, a Christian sees it through a behavior lens. I disagree with your interracial marriage argument, if she were marrying a white man and a black woman, who were a husband and a wife, she would be obeying God and not the civil authority that was wrong then since God did not ban interracial marriage in the Old Testament and New Testament only that one from the Jewish faith was not to marry one who did not serve the God of Israel. You seem to not see the other side. When you work for God and he is your boss (not just the civil authorities) you follow what he says whether it is in the public or private sector. She was not interfering with those who were doing their job. There is no difference to God. What about what Daniel did when he prayed to God disobeying the law that said he could not do such a thing or he would face death or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who were thrown into the fiery furnace because King Nebuchadnezzar told them to worship his image and they explained why they could not and thrown in anyway? There is a time when a Christian has the right from God to disobey civil authority and count the cost. In fact when someone asked Kim Davis on whose authority she did this, she said on God's authority, that should show where her heart is. What about Acts 5:29? I understand your position but I wish you could put yourself in Kim Davis' shoes, Barronelle Stutzman's shoes, Jack Philips shoes, the Kleins' shoes, etc. This is not as simple as you make it out to be and no Kim Davis' crusade was not against the government. God bless.

 

[willfollowsGod]

I don't want to assume... is this a "Yes, I believe the governments ought to be Christian theocracies?"

You misunderstand our position. We want a government that allows Christians to follow their Christian beliefs in how they do business, associate, express themselves, etc. Also, even if I wanted a Christian theocracy, it would not be the same as the Islamocracy as seen in the Middle East except Israel. I don't see how our position is dangerous and stop assuming that is what we want. God bless.

 

[AdolfHipster]

I read what you said and mostly I agree but I disagree with the option or ultimatum of do your job or else. It is relevant that she was at her job before the change of law that made SSM legal. Again, you are seeing it through a racial or inborn thing, a Christian sees it through a behavior lens. I disagree with your interracial marriage argument, if she were marrying a white man and a black woman, who were a husband and a wife, she would be obeying God and not the civil authority that was wrong then since God did not ban interracial marriage in the Old Testament and New Testament only that one from the Jewish faith was not to marry one who did not serve the God of Israel. You seem to not see the other side. When you work for God and he is your boss (not just the civil authorities) you follow what he says whether it is in the public or private sector. She was not interfering with those who were doing their job. There is no difference to God. What about what Daniel did when he prayed to God disobeying the law that said he could not do such a thing or he would face death or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who were thrown into the fiery furnace because King Nebuchadnezzar told them to worship his image and they explained why they could not and thrown in anyway? There is a time when a Christian has the right from God to disobey civil authority and count the cost. In fact when someone asked Kim Davis on whose authority she did this, she said on God's authority, that should show where her heart is. What about Acts 5:29? I understand your position but I wish you could put yourself in Kim Davis' shoes, Barronelle Stuzman's shoes, Jack Philips shoes, the Kleins' shoes, etc. This is not as simple as you make it out to be. God bless.

These are things we may differ on:
1.) The US is not a theocracy nor should it be. I'm a strong believer in liberty. You don't legislate someone into salvation. God has given us free will... it's up to us to exercise it righteously and in a manner He commands us and not to abuse it.
2.) The US government granting marital licensing is irrelevant to God. It's not the state that I make a 3-way covenant with, it's me, my future wife, and God. The US can grant marital licensing to homosexuals, but do you think for one minute God recognizes it? So as far as I'm concerned, Kim Davis works for a government agency that doesn't represent our God... Quit, or do your job... sounds reasonable.
3.) Because I disagree with Kim Davis' actions, I am not looking at it from her point of view. I see her point of view... she feels entitled to not do her job (or allow her deputy clerks to do the same, she had the gay couples go to another county to get their licenses) on grounds that God forbids it. Well, we all agree God forbids homosexuality, but it's been legal for quite some time... the only difference is that the government is allowing them to get married (which isn't recognized by God).
4.) You say she didn't stop anyone from doing their job when clearly she did. Kentucky clerk Kim Davis jailed, refuses to let deputy clerks issue gay marriage licenses | AL.com

 

[AdolfHipster]

You misunderstand our position. We want a government that allows Christians to follow their Christian beliefs in how they do business, associate, express themselves, etc. Also, even if I wanted a Christian theocracy, it would not be the same as the Islamocracy as seen in the Middle East except Israel. I don't see how our position is dangerous and stop assuming that is what we want. God bless.

I wasn't assuming... I was asking (you're welcome to scroll up and reread my posts). Her response reflected that of a theocracy and I was wanting confirmation. I'll allow her to speak for herself.

If you don't see how your position that a non-theocratic government allows exceptions for a particular faith could be problematic, we don't have much to discuss further. The US isn't only filled with Christians... there are Muslims, Jews, Hindu, etc... I'd hate for there to be a majority of Islamic people in the US, only for them to turn their theocratic government into Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc...

When you work for a government entity, you are not expressing your beliefs... you're there to act as a representative of the state, doing work for the state. If you had your OWN business, by ALL means... you ought to run it how you see fit. You don't get the luxury of being paid to not do a public sector job... I'll say this though, I see a tide where society is more accommodating to Islamic beliefs and less to Christian. In fairness, if you do a public job, there should be no such accommodation. It's a waste of tax-payer money to hire people who will only do part of their job.

 

[Roadkill]

I don't want to assume... is this a "Yes, I believe the governments ought to be Christian theocracies?"

Though imperfect, can you name a better form of existing government?

 

[AdolfHipster]

Though imperfect, can you name a better form of existing government?

Okay, so it's safe to say you're answering "yes" you think the government should be a theocracy. This is why I didn't want willfollowsGod to speak on your behalf. I felt I understood your message and I think now we understand each other perfectly.

To answer your question: The current system is absolutely better than a theocratic government. In a theocratic government, you're at the will of "spiritually divine legislators" that know the will of God (regardless of which God it is) more than you... As such, they make laws that reflect their spiritual beliefs. This could mean you would have to, by law, follow Sharia Law. In the current system (granted it is still imperfect), people have the liberty to follow God (any God of their choice). They have the liberty to rebuke God... No one is prevented from worshiping the God of their choice. This sounds astronomically better than a theocracy... If you have something against liberty and free will, then I can understand why you think a theocratic government is best. If you value liberty, I don't see why on earth you'd advocate for it.

Do you believe you can legislation someone into salvation?

 

[willfollowsGod]

I wasn't assuming... I was asking (you're welcome to scroll up and reread my posts). Her response reflected that of a theocracy and I was wanting confirmation. I'll allow her to speak for herself.

If you don't see how your position that a non-theocratic government allows exceptions for a particular faith could be problematic, we don't have much to discuss further. The US isn't only filled with Christians... there are Muslims, Jews, Hindu, etc... I'd hate for there to be a majority of Islamic people in the US, only for them to turn their theocratic government into Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc...

When you work for a government entity, you are not expressing your beliefs... you're there to act as a representative of the state, doing work for the state. If you had your OWN business, by ALL means... you ought to run it how you see fit. You don't get the luxury of being paid to not do a public sector job... I'll say this though, I see a tide where society is more accommodating to Islamic beliefs and less to Christian. In fairness, if you do a public job, there should be no such accommodation. It's a waste of tax-payer money to hire people who will only do part of their job.

Now, that it is clear that you are asking if that is what I believe or Roadkill believes, it is clearer to me what you are saying about your position which I can respect just don't agree totally with. Thanks. God bless.

 

[kaylagrl]

We are only accountable for what we can personally control. Voting to reflect values that are consistent with your spiritual beliefs is hardly "sticking one's head in the sand." The bible doesn't say "Be subject to the laws of the land unless it goes against anything I stand for..." I mean, Christ willingly allowed the people to crucify Him. Don't you think He could have stopped it if He wanted to? I do get your way of thinking though and would be supportive of organizing people together so that it isn't a solo crusade. However, what Kim Davis did was absolutely that...

Question for you: Do you wish the US (and other countries) would be Christian theocracies?

Please watch the video. Ravi has the best answer on this subject I believe Ive ever heard.

[video=youtube;mx_oMnd-OHE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx_oMnd-OHE[/video]

 

[Roadkill]

Okay, so it's safe to say you're answering "yes" you think the government should be a theocracy. This is why I didn't want willfollowsGod to speak on your behalf. I felt I understood your message and I think now we understand each other perfectly.

To answer your question: The current system is absolutely better than a theocratic government. In a theocratic government, you're at the will of "spiritually divine legislators" that know the will of God (regardless of which God it is) more than you... As such, they make laws that reflect their spiritual beliefs. This could mean you would have to, by law, follow Sharia Law. In the current system (granted it is still imperfect), people have the liberty to follow God (any God of their choice). They have the liberty to rebuke God... No one is prevented from worshiping the God of their choice. This sounds astronomically better than a theocracy... If you have something against liberty and free will, then I can understand why you think a theocratic government is best. If you value liberty, I don't see why on earth you'd advocate for it.

Do you believe you can legislation someone into salvation?

First and foremost, don't lump True Christianity with those other mumbo-jumbo false religions. Second, you forget that Christianity is a Religion of Grace not one of the Law like the old Mosaic Law. It has to respect a person's free will but will go strictly by the Bible as far as Law. It would also have a means for True Repentance for the Individual who breaks the law. A Mercy Seat if you will. This would have to be modeled under God's court system, not Man's.

No I do not Believe you can Legislate someone to salvation. God recognizes free will as should we. But let us remember that in Ancient Israel God told the Hebrews not to allow these corruptions into their Government because of How they would be affected Morally by people trying to pervert them. He essentially told them to destroy them that broke the law. Because they did not do this Israel fell away from God.

 

[Roadkill]

Okay, so it's safe to say you're answering "yes" you think the government should be a theocracy. This is why I didn't want willfollowsGod to speak on your behalf. I felt I understood your message and I think now we understand each other perfectly.

To answer your question: The current system is absolutely better than a theocratic government. In a theocratic government, you're at the will of "spiritually divine legislators" that know the will of God (regardless of which God it is) more than you... As such, they make laws that reflect their spiritual beliefs. This could mean you would have to, by law, follow Sharia Law. In the current system (granted it is still imperfect), people have the liberty to follow God (any God of their choice). They have the liberty to rebuke God... No one is prevented from worshiping the God of their choice. This sounds astronomically better than a theocracy... If you have something against liberty and free will, then I can understand why you think a theocratic government is best. If you value liberty, I don't see why on earth you'd advocate for it.

Do you believe you can legislation someone into salvation?

Let us remember one thing here. This Earthly form of government will someday become God's Government here on earth. Don't think he is going to tolerate anything but absolute obedience to his Government. In his court system, you do have free will but you will certainly pay the penalty to the utmost.

 

[AdolfHipster]

First and foremost, don't lump True Christianity with those other mumbo-jumbo false religions. Second, you forget that Christianity is a Religion of Grace not one of the Law like the old Mosaic Law. It has to respect a person's free will but will go strictly by the Bible as far as Law. It would also have a means for True Repentance for the Individual who breaks the law. A Mercy Seat if you will. This would have to be modeled under God's court system, not Man's.

How do I not "lump" Christianity in with other religions when discussion a government ran by a theocracy? There isn't only one type of religious theocracy... We aren't discussing beliefs of each faith, but rather a government ran by a faith (it could be Christian or Islamic).

The fact you have to say "True Christianity" is already up for debate as to what it really even means. Is "True Christianity" whatever you (Roadkill) believes it is? Is it what a Mormon thinks it is? Is it what a Catholic thinks it is? Those are just the trivial problems... we haven't even scratched the surface of the potential problems that could arise from a theocracy (even a "True Christian" theocracy).

No I do not Believe you can Legislate someone to salvation. God recognizes free will as should we. But let us remember that in Ancient Israel God told the Hebrews not to allow these corruptions into their Government because of How they would be affected Morally by people trying to pervert them. He essentially told them to destroy them that broke the law. Because they did not do this Israel fell away from God.

I find it funny how in one breath you mention how we are in grace unlike that in the old Mosaic Law and then in another breath you point to an old testament example of God telling the Hebrews what NOT to do. Which is it? Under the current system, you can exercise your "True Christianity" and those who don't believe in it can choose not to. Your theocracy forbids certain freedoms that even the best of Christians could/do disagree on (alcohol to be allowed or not allowed for example).