Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians

[tonorator]

This I would whole-heartedly agree on (see, we heathens aren't ALL bad, plus we don't crowd up Heaven for you believers)

......kinda lost me........

 

1413884[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

what i think is behind most divorces (especially when kids are involved) is some level of selfishness. people are unable to put their needs on the backburner for the benefit of others. that was my point behind "mini-God." we think that we are ultra important and that we should not have to compromise ... that things shouldn't be difficult at time and we have to compromise. so we satisfy our own selfish needs at the expense of the marriage/family. over time, this breaks down the relationship and people bag it and the kids suffer. there is so much more tied up in the concept of marriage than just a legal contract ...

[Ursa Majoris]

marriage = the union of a man and a woman.  that is the definition of the word.  to jump up and claim that the rights and benefits associated with it should be extended beyond this definition should not then be exclusively granted for same sexes.  my point is that the rights and benes could then be argued for by any two or group of people.

 

1413827[/snapback]

 

 

 

Voter = any white, male property owner originally. We have modified that somewhat. Why wouldn't we modify the definition of marriage, if indeed it has ever been so defined?

[tonorator]

Voter = any white, male property owner originally.  We have modified that somewhat.  Why wouldn't we modify the definition of marriage, if indeed it has ever been so defined?

 

1413996[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

there is nothing stopping us from doing so ... our system of laws is set up so those laws can be changed, and we may very well redefine marriage if enough people believe it should be.

 

i'm just expressing my opinion, based on my beliefs, that marriage is one institution that should not be redefined and that it represents something that transcends our laws. our laws should support it as defined vs. try to redefine what it stands for. it supports society as the foundation upon which we can bring happy, healthy kids into the world and is consistent with biblical teachings. if that foundation has cracks, we should work to strengthen it futher, reinforce it, not redefine it. again, my beliefs that i hold dear. it is clear we all do not agree on this point.

[Ursa Majoris]

there is nothing stopping us from doing so ... our system of laws is set up so those laws can be changed, and we may very well redefine marriage if enough people believe it should be.

 

i'm just expressing my opinion, based on my beliefs, that marriage is one institution that should not be redefined and that it represents something that transcends our laws.  our laws should support it as defined vs. try to redefine what it stands for.  it supports society as the foundation upon which we can bring happy, healthy kids into the world and is consistent with biblical teachings.  if that foundation has cracks, we should work to strengthen it futher, reinforce it, not redefine it.  again, my beliefs that i hold dear.  it is clear we all do not agree on this point.

 

1414013[/snapback]

 

 

 

I admire your stamina and your ability to not lose your temper, I must say. That biblical teachings thing bugs me though. Didn't the bible teach us to stone adulterers to death and a bunch of other stuff we've grown out of?

[Caveman_Nick]

i'm just expressing my opinion, based on my beliefs, that marriage is one institution that should not be redefined and that it represents something that transcends our laws.  our laws should support it as defined vs. try to redefine what it stands for.  it supports society as the foundation upon which we can bring happy, healthy kids into the world and is consistent with biblical teachings.  if that foundation has cracks, we should work to strengthen it futher, reinforce it, not redefine it.  again, my beliefs that i hold dear.  it is clear we all do not agree on this point.

 

1414013[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Both fortunately (for many reasons tied to religious oppression throughout history) and unfortunately (because at the heart of the values that built this country is the thought process you espouse), there really isn't a place in our laws for the type of definition of marriage that you and others would like to hold dear.

 

The problem at this point is that our laws don't define it. I for one would like to see the step taken to do so, and hope very much that we do not take the step backwards that would bring us to your definition.

 

There is nothing stopping you from holding dear all that you believe goes with marriage and allowing yourself to be bound in this way either in your own religion or in your own heart. Those things can provide everything you have described. That doesn't mean they should be mandated in law.

[tonorator]

I admire your stamina and your ability to not lose your temper, I must say.  That biblical teachings thing bugs me though.  Didn't the bible teach us to stone adulterers to death and a bunch of other stuff we've grown out of? 

 

1414017[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

there are a lot of happenings in the old testament that i struggle with ... but what overshadows those issues is the story of jesus christ in the new testament. for many, many years i dismissed all of christianity because of my dismay for the teachings in the old testament, the confusing nature of the bible, the notion that the bible read more like a book of fairy tales vs. a practical guide to live your life, the fact that i couldn't see God or know that He was real, and on and on. i ripped anyone who became a christian as someone living in a fantasy world.

 

it was only after digging into the life of jesus that my heart changed. i won't put my full testimony here, but suffice it to say that i went from one of the biggest naysayers and doubters to having my heart opened up to the life of christ, how he lived, what he said, and why he died. i'd be happy to PM or talk to anyone who would want to hear it. after you go through the new testament completely, it casts the old in a very different light. you start to see that all the activity and practices in the old testament were there to support the coming of the messiah. i won't say i understand all of it or can piece it all together perfectly, but i dedicated myself to research and a personal journey to find my truths, and i was transformed. it is funny that many naysayers and athiests/agnostics, when they truly dig in and do their research, turn out to be christians. not all, but many. c.s. lewis and lee strobel are two that i admire. strobel is an attorney that went out to disprove religion, and ended up writing 'the case for christ.' lewis was an athiest for most of his life, and then became one of our most notable christians.

 

there's no reason to lose my temper - i actually love these discussions. for most of my life, i was on the other side, so i know many/all the arguments. i'm only coming up on 2 years of accepting christ into my heart, so i'm still quite the newbie.

[Ursa Majoris]

That's odd, because Christ would be the last to condemn, I would have thought.

[yo mama]

i'm just expressing my opinion, based on my beliefs, that marriage is one institution that should not be redefined and that it represents something that transcends our laws. 

1414013[/snapback]

 

 

 

Marriage cannot transcend laws, as it embodies a legal status conferred upon two people by a government.

 

I agree that being married is little more than two people who profess to make a commitment to one another. "That" part trascends laws. However, whether or not a governmental agency recognizes that union *is* a question of law.

 

My opinion on this issue is the same as it was last time it came up: if religious institutions wish to limit who they will or will not marry, that's their business, and no government should be allowed to force them to do otherwise. If governments wish to limit who they will or will not marry, via justices of the peace or what have you, that's the voters' business, and no religious institution should be allowed to force the gov to do otherwise.

Edited April 11, 2006 by yo mama

[Ursa Majoris]

take it back to jesus.  he's the example.  as said before, he didn't persecute, he didn't judge, he didn't condemn.  he taught.  he healed.  he set and example.  i fall way way way way short of his example, but i offer to you that no finer example of how to live a life has ever been known.  those that truly follow his teachings and accept him as the son of God are/were not the ones doing what you say above.

 

christianity is really quite a beautiful, graceful thing.  what an incredible shame that it is treated with such carelessness and misinterpretation.  those that are clearly not in line with christ's teachings who claim to act under the guise of "religion" are scorned as much by christians as they are by everyone else.  unfortunately, it has become perceived as open-minded to go along with the scorning of the entire faith vs. the misguided individuals.

 

1413805[/snapback]

 

 

 

I think you might have screwed your own anti-gay marriage argument here.

[Caveman_Nick]

If governments wish to limit who they will or will not marry, via justices of the peace or what have you, that's the voters' business, and no religious institution should be allowed to force the gov to do otherwise.

 

1414049[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

And not the court's

[Ursa Majoris]

And not the court's

 

1414058[/snapback]

 

 

 

Unless it's unconstitutional.

[tonorator]

That's odd, because Christ would be the last to condemn, I would have thought.

 

1414048[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

not sure of your point here? i don't think i noted any instance of Christ condemning ... he expressed his dissatisfaction, to be sure, but it was always done at the same time of teaching and attempting to enlighten.

 

my hope is that the christians who want to speak out against homosexuality do not desire to do it in order to purely condemn, judge, or "play God." i'm hoping that they just want to be able to share their view openly that homosexuality is not aligned with the Christian life and then hopefully see the opportunity to discuss it as an opportunity to share the good news of the gospel. in a very minute way, i'm trying to do just that here. so at GIT, this discussion would not be possible. again, i would hope it could be done in a very humane way, not full of anger and strife. true followers of Christ would hopefully be emulating the example He set for us.

 

unfortunately, i think the media enjoys the opportunity to paint this story as christians chomping at the bit to condemn, which gets everyone's emotions flowing and starts to invoke the pat robertson comments. i don't always agree with pat robertson, and it isn't far to continue to equate the faith with the actions or specific statements of certain individuals. christianity is much more than that, and it is in fact centered on grace, forgiveness, and loving each other vs. condemnation.

[yo mama]

And not the court's

 

1414058[/snapback]

 

 

 

The courts are supposed to enforce the law. If the law is ambigious, the courts must interpret the law. And if the law is unconstitutional, the courts must abolish so much of the law as makes it so.

 

So the courts play a role here.

[Ursa Majoris]

christianity is much more than that, and it is in fact centered on grace, forgiveness, and loving each other vs. condemnation.

 

1414066[/snapback]

 

 

 

That's my point right there.

[tonorator]

I think you might have screwed your own anti-gay marriage argument here. 

 

1414052[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

don't confuse Christ's tolerance, care, and teaching of sinners with his acceptance of abominations against God. Jesus was very clear and definitive about what was right, and he was the ultimate teacher in that he challenged others to think and respond. beyond that, the bible is full of stories about the importance of reaching every single individual and sharing with them the gospel.

 

this is the one of the reasons Jesus was criticized and not accepted by the Jews. they expected a "king" to ride in on a high horse and be powerful and dominating. Jesus was just the opposite. he rode in on a borrowed colt on palm sunday and didn't own a single thing ... yet he has proven to be the most powerful king to ever have lived. he was open and approachable and spent most of his time with the sick, afflicted, sinful people who were most in need.

[Ursa Majoris]

don't confuse Christ's tolerance, care, and teaching of sinners with his acceptance of abominations against God.  Jesus was very clear and definitive about what was right, and he was the ultimate teacher in that he challenged others to think and respond. 

1414082[/snapback]

 

 

 

Did he ever teach that homosexuality was wrong?

Edited April 11, 2006 by Ursa Majoris

[Clubfoothead]

I know that I do..

 

1413595[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I've got the other half.

 

 

So I am supposed to be tolerant of one's right to be intolerant? I ain't no christian, somebody else can turn the other cheek.

[tonorator]

Did he ever teach that homosexuality was wrong?

 

1414084[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i'm not aware of any direct quotes from him on the topic, but the bible clearly speaks out against it.

 

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;it is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves by any of these things”(Lev.18:22,24) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them

have committed an abomination...”(Lev.20:13).

 

accepting Jesus as the son of God comes with accepting the above statements, and many others in the bible that show us how to live our lives. so homosexuality is a sin, one of many that we commit as imperfect human beings (i have a whole laundry list myself, not including homosexuality). Jesus came as God's answer to our sin, as our saviour through which we can repent and be clensed of that sin. this was the integral, central core of his teaching and one that cannot be separated from who He was.

[Randall]

i'm not aware of any direct quotes from him on the topic, but the bible clearly speaks out against it.

 

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;it is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves by any of these things”(Lev.18:22,24) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them

have committed an abomination...”(Lev.20:13).

 

accepting Jesus as the son of God comes with accepting the above statements, and many others in the bible that show us how to live our lives.  so homosexuality is a sin, one of many that we commit as imperfect human beings (i have a whole laundry list myself, not including homosexuality).  Jesus came as God's answer to our sin, as our saviour through which we can repent and be clensed of that sin.  this was the integral, central core of his teaching and one that cannot be separated from who He was.

 

1414104[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

There are no quotes from Jesus on it.

 

Yes, but how many times does the Bible stand up against divorce? The books covering homesexuality also propose stoning? What else does Lev say that is absurd today?

 

"Leviticus 20:27 "A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them."

 

To me banning homosexuality at that time was more a social institutional than spirtual law. Homosexuality is rarely mentioned in the Bible at all. I would guess it was used as much to encourage having baies while the people run away slaves as anything. Consider the social circumstance. Where else is it mentioned?

Edited April 11, 2006 by Randall

[bushwacked]

accepting Jesus as the son of God comes with accepting the above statements, and many others in the bible that show us how to live our lives.  so homosexuality is a sin, one of many that we commit as imperfect human beings (i have a whole laundry list myself, not including homosexuality). 

 

1414104[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

So how do you decide what verses to take litererally and which to take figuratively? This has always came across a little too convenient and self-righteous to me.

[Ursa Majoris]

i'm not aware of any direct quotes from him on the topic, but the bible clearly speaks out against it.

 

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;it is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves by any of these things”(Lev.18:22,24) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them

have committed an abomination...”(Lev.20:13).

 

accepting Jesus as the son of God comes with accepting the above statements, and many others in the bible that show us how to live our lives.  so homosexuality is a sin, one of many that we commit as imperfect human beings (i have a whole laundry list myself, not including homosexuality).  Jesus came as God's answer to our sin, as our saviour through which we can repent and be clensed of that sin.  this was the integral, central core of his teaching and one that cannot be separated from who He was.

 

1414104[/snapback]

 

 

 

But you're picking and choosing which bits of the Bible to accept, are you not? Otherwise it must surely be right to stone adulterers to death and all manner of other things, not to mention the whole Adam and Eve farrago.

[SuperBalla]

I saw all the Hyenas here and I figured I'd say hello.

[SuperBalla]

But you're picking and choosing which bits of the Bible to accept, are you not?  Otherwise it must surely be right to stone adulterers to death and all manner of other things, not to mention the whole Adam and Eve farrago.

 

1414118[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think Hell is going to be like? Stoning seems pretty cheap....I'd refrain from activities that would get me stoned...except getting stoned ofcourse.

[Clubfoothead]

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;it is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves by any of these things”(Lev.18:22,24) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them

have committed an abomination...”(Lev.20:13).

 

1414104[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So even God likes lesbians?

 

I saw all the Hyenas here and I figured I'd say hello.

 

1414122[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

[Bier Meister]

What do you think Hell is going to be like? Stoning seems pretty cheap....I'd refrain from activities that would get me stoned...except getting stoned ofcourse. 

 

1414123[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

wiegie! wiegie! this smells of a familiar topic.