The politics of Gay rights.

[Embankment]

No because National laws do not supercede God's law. Remember that in Revelations that it states that God will judge the Nations. What do you think this implies? To me it says that God is going to Judge the Nations on how they treated Israel and on how they upheld his laws.

What is Gods law regarding this issue?

 

[Billyd]

Maybe pray to God to open your own eyes, that might help.

I do that daily.

 

[maxwel]

Taking someone's rights away based on religious principles is the definition of theocracy.
Not everyone is going to follow biblical principles and I'm not going to vote to force them to do so
America is about freedom

Few Bits of Clarification:

Dude,
I'm not picking on you, but sometimes we all need to slow down and clarify things, and just sort out the logic a bit.
This happens when we're all discussing emotional issues.



1. Definition of Theocracy:
"Taking someone's rights away based on religious principles"... is not actually the definition of theocracy.

Here's a definition from the Oxford dictionary, which is generally well respected.
def. "A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god." ‘



So a theocracy is s system of government RULED by RELIGIOUS PRIESTS....
not a government that lets citizens VOTE, and sometimes those citizens vote based on religious beliefs.

* What we have in America IS NOT: a PRIEST RULING OVER THE CITIZENS.
* What we have in America IS: a right for everyone to vote, and people vote according to their conscience, and sometimes that is based on their religious beliefs... but everyone is EQUALLY FREE to vote according to their beliefs.


2. It is FINE to pass laws based on morals, because ALL LAWS ARE BASED ON SOMEONE'S MORALS;
even the choice to allow gays to marry was based on SOMEBODY'S MORALS,
therefore we need to relinquish this slogan that "we can't pass laws based on morals"...
ALL LAWS ARE BASED ON MORALS.

All laws, in every country, are based on SOMEBODY'S morals and ethics: that what laws are; they are rules of conduct (allowable behavior based on ethics) for running a society.

In our country we vote, and in theory those votes guide the political process according to the MORALS & ETHICS OF THE MAJORITY.

EVERYONE votes according to their own moral standards, including atheists... so a christian has the SAME RIGHT to vote according to HIS MORAL STANDARDS.
Nothing wrong with voting according to your moral standards... everyone does this.

 

[Ellsworth1943]

Why shouldn't they have rights?

Because God said their lifestyle is sin and no one has the right to sin.
Let me repeat, no 0ne has the right to sin.

 

[Dude653]

Because God said their lifestyle is sin and no one has the right to sin.
Let me repeat, no 0ne has the right to sin.

Free will.....

 

[Dude653]

Few Bits of Clarification:

Dude,
I'm not picking on you, but sometimes we all need to slow down and clarify things, and just sort out the logic a bit.
This happens when we're all discussing emotional issues.



1. Definition of Theocracy:
"Taking someone's rights away based on religious principles"... is not actually the definition of theocracy.

Here's a definition from the Oxford dictionary, which is generally well respected.
def. "A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god." ‘



So a theocracy is s system of government RULED by RELIGIOUS PRIESTS....
not a government that lets citizens VOTE, and sometimes those citizens vote based on religious beliefs.

* What we have in America IS NOT: a PRIEST RULING OVER THE CITIZENS.
* What we have in America IS: a right for everyone to vote, and people vote according to their conscience, and sometimes that is based on their religious beliefs... but everyone is EQUALLY FREE to vote according to their beliefs.


2. It is FINE to pass laws based on morals, because ALL LAWS ARE BASED ON SOMEONE'S MORALS;
even the choice to allow gays to marry was based on SOMEBODY'S MORALS,
therefore we need to relinquish this slogan that "we can't pass laws based on morals"...
ALL LAWS ARE BASED ON MORALS.

All laws, in every country, are based on SOMEBODY'S morals and ethics: that what laws are; they are rules of conduct (allowable behavior based on ethics) for running a society.

In our country we vote, and in theory those votes guide the political process according to the MORALS & ETHICS OF THE MAJORITY.

EVERYONE votes according to their own moral standards, including atheists... so a christian has the SAME RIGHT to vote according to HIS MORAL STANDARDS.
Nothing wrong with voting according to your moral standards... everyone does this.

Ok.
So for the sake of this conversation I'll change the word theocracy to religious tyranny.

 

[maxwel]

But to cherry pick favorites in defense of God is hypocrisy..

Duh all scripture is right.. does not make one sound in argument when they speak against some sin and not others.

It's embarrassing and the main reason nobody listens to most Christians

MORE DISTINCTIONS:
Does hypocrisy, or lack of balance, cause a sound argument to become unsound?



1. There is a distinction between WISE CONDUCT, and a SOUND ARGUMENT.
They are not the same.


2. As Christians, God DOES want us to use both wise conduct and sound arguments... but these things are not the same, they are distinct propositions, and one is not necessarily contingent on the other.

To confuse "wise conduct" and "sound arguments'" is to commit the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem error occurs when we say there is something WRONG WITH A PERSON, and therefore his ARGUMENT FAILS.

This is great rhetoric when we just want to smear someone, but it isn't logically sound.
It doesn't work.


3. If someone is arguing for a certain Bible principle, which is clearly given in scritpure... THAT ALONE is a sound argument for a Christian.

Any sound argument is based on sound reasoning... not on the character of the person giving the argument.


4. If the person giving a sound argument is hypocritical or unbalanced, well the argument is still JUST AS SOUND...
but now you just hearing a sound argument from an unbalanced or hypocritical person.

But regardless of the person's character, a sound argument is still a sound argument.

Now, God CERTAINLY wants us to live with integrity, and compassion, and not be hypocrites.
God CLEARLY wants us to behave well.
However, someone's poor character does NOT change the soundness of a sound argument... it just makes us dislike him.


5. In zi's defense, I'll add that if we argue scripture in an unbecoming way, no one is going to listen, and it IS going to upset people. And it's certainly NOT the right way to do things.

However, according to the Bible, even if we DO share God's principles politely and gently, people are STILL going to get upset!
Nonetheless, we are still told to be polite, and treat people with compassion.
It is better for people to be upset with us without a cause... that's how it's supposed to be.

1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

 

[Ellsworth1943]

Free will.....

It is obvious that you have no concept of what the Scripture says about sin.
You are more concerned about the rights of people to sin than what God says about sin.
I just can not understand how you can call your self a Christian while supporting the right of people to sin.

 

[Dude653]

Christianity is on the decline for the following reasons
1. Hypocrisy.. people who claim to profess Christ but are mean and hateful
2. Persecution complex.. they think another group of people being given a right is somehow taking something away from them
3. Control freaks... they can't comprehend the fact that not everyone is interested in Christianity or the Bible
4. Cherry picking... they go all in for issues like same-sex marriage but you don't see them out picketing bars and strip clubs
5. Religious tyranny... they want to take other people's rights away based on their own religious beliefs

 

[Zi]

When I seen this on the main page I knew it was for me..

My brother and family are up for the holidays. Will be the last I see of them for a few years, spring he's reassigned to Hawaii..

I won't be on here for any length of time until they go.

I'll read and respond then..

MORE DISTINCTIONS:
Does hypocrisy, or lack of balance, cause a sound argument to become unsound?



1. There is a distinction between WISE CONDUCT, and a SOUND ARGUMENT.
They are not the same.


2. As Christians, God DOES want us to use both wise conduct and sound arguments... but these things are not the same, they are distinct propositions, and one is not necessarily contingent on the other.

To confuse "wise conduct" and "sound arguments'" is to commit the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem error occurs when we say there is something WRONG WITH A PERSON, and therefore his ARGUMENT FAILS.

This is great rhetoric when we just want to smear someone, but it isn't logically sound.
It doesn't work.


3. If someone is arguing for a certain Bible principle, which is clearly given in scritpure... THAT ALONE is a sound argument for a Christian.

Any sound argument is based on sound reasoning... not on the character of the person giving the argument.


4. If the person giving a sound argument is hypocritical or unbalanced, well the argument is still JUST AS SOUND...
but now you just hearing a sound argument from an unbalanced or hypocritical person.

But regardless of the person's character, a sound argument is still a sound argument.

Now, God CERTAINLY wants us to live with integrity, and compassion, and not be hypocrites.
God CLEARLY wants us to behave well.
However, someone's poor character does NOT change the soundness of a sound argument... it just makes us dislike him.


5. In zi's defense, I'll add that if we argue scripture in an unbecoming way, no one is going to listen, and it IS going to upset people. And it's certainly NOT the right way to do things.

However, according to the Bible, even if we DO share God's principles politely and gently, people are STILL going to get upset!
Nonetheless, we are still told to be polite, and treat people with compassion.
It is better for people to be upset with us without a cause... that's how it's supposed to be.

1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

 

[maxwel]

Ok.
So for the sake of this conversation I'll change the word theocracy to religious tyranny.

Dude, it's always fine to snip at me if it's funny, lol.


But seriously, for sake of any real debate, I don't think you can justify a word like tyranny here.

Why?

1. If, in our country, we believe in rule of law by the consent of the governed... well... we're talking about fair voting, and the consent of the governed... just as we all agree to in this society.

*A law you dislike, which everyone voted on, isn't tyranny... it's just a law you don't like.

* I might add that when a law is NOT voted on by the governed, but the consent of the governed is ignored, in the manner same-sex marriage was determined soley by 5 people on the supreme court... THAT might actually qualify as tyranny.


2. There are more reasons... but I think #1 plenty for now.

 

[Dude653]

Dude, it's always fine to snip at me if it's funny, lol.


But seriously, for sake of any real debate, I don't think you can justify a word like tyranny here.

Why?

1. If, in our country, we believe in rule of law by the consent of the governed... well... we're talking about fair voting, and the consent of the governed... just as we all agree to in this society.

*A law you dislike, which everyone voted on, isn't tyranny... it's just a law you don't like.

* I might add that when a law is NOT voted on by the governed, but the consent of the governed is ignored, in the manner same-sex marriage was determined soley by 5 people on the supreme court... THAT might actually qualify as tyranny.


2. There are more reasons... but I think #1 plenty for now.

It's tyranny because it's taking someone's privileges away based on a religious principle. A religion and not everyone follows or is even interested in. So if your religion says it's wrong to chew grape Bubblegum, not everyone follows your anti bubblegum Doctrine so why shouldn't they be allowed to chew grape Bubblegum?

 

[Dude653]

Or putting people in jail for victimless crimes is another example of tyranny... but that's another subject

 

[Ellsworth1943]

Christianity is on the decline for the following reasons
1. Hypocrisy.. people who claim to profess Christ but are mean and hateful
2. Persecution complex.. they think another group of people being given a right is somehow taking something away from them
3. Control freaks... they can't comprehend the fact that not everyone is interested in Christianity or the Bible
4. Cherry picking... they go all in for issues like same-sex marriage but you don't see them out picketing bars and strip clubs
5. Religious tyranny... they want to take other people's rights away based on their own religious beliefs

Christianity is on the decline because of so call Christians defending the right of sinners to sin instead of preaching the Gospel, standing up for the truth, and praying that the sinners would repent and turn to God.

When was the last time you presented the Gospel to a sinner?

Please stop with your vendetta against Christianity as you defend sin.

 

[Dude653]

Show me anywhere in the Bible where it says I'm personally responsible for keeping people from sinning.
Or where it says I'm accountable for anyone else's life

 

[preacher4truth]

Christianity is on the decline because of so call Christians defending the right of sinners to sin instead of preaching the Gospel, standing up for the truth, and praying that the sinners would repent and turn to God.

When was the last time you presented the Gospel to a sinner?

Please stop with your vendetta against Christianity as you defend sin.

He preaches a social gospel. It is against the truly converted, and concentrates instead on the alleged abused rights of the perverted and anybody else who loves the Gospel and sound doctrine. Social gospel saves exactly no one.

 

[maxwel]

Christianity is on the decline for the following reasons
1. Hypocrisy.. people who claim to profess Christ but are mean and hateful
2. Persecution complex.. they think another group of people being given a right is somehow taking something away from them
3. Control freaks... they can't comprehend the fact that not everyone is interested in Christianity or the Bible
4. Cherry picking... they go all in for issues like same-sex marriage but you don't see them out picketing bars and strip clubs
5. Religious tyranny... they want to take other people's rights away based on their own religious beliefs

Actually...
Christianity is increasing in number worldwide,
but I think it's remaining about the same as a percentage of the population.

 

[maxwel]

It's tyranny because it's taking someone's privileges away based on a religious principle. A religion and not everyone follows or is even interested in. So if your religion says it's wrong to chew grape Bubblegum, not everyone follows your anti bubblegum Doctrine so why shouldn't they be allowed to chew grape Bubblegum?

So having an ethical view, if it's based on religion, is tyranny.

Hmmm.

So I guess... having an ethical view, if its NOT based on religion... is ... fine.




So, if instead of basing my views about gay marriage on religion, I just based them on my "personal preferences"... it would no longer be tyranny to be against gay marriage?

Your objection to my view is simply HOW I ARRIVE at my view?

How is that logical?

The method for arriving at my views determines whether they're good or bad???

Is that logical?




If I was against gay marriage because of "person preferences", then my view would no longer be tyrannical, and it would be just fine?

Great.

Then let me change my vote... I'm now officially against gay marriage for reasons of "personal preference".



I guess now, by your own logic, you MUST accept my views as being a reasonable personal choice.

 

[stand2]

Show me anywhere in the Bible where it says I'm personally responsible for keeping people from sinning.
Or where it says I'm accountable for anyone else's life

Well, The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill". Civilizations have taken this quote and passed laws forbidding murder. Therefore if you murder someone, you will be held accountable for the life you took.

 

[tourist]

Vote for me!
The queens can bugger all they want, and the bakers can tell them to hit the road.

Bakers don't have any rights and get sued if the customer don't like the frosting.