 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > What is marriage? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 8/7/2004 5:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | Was/is the marriage covenant primarily a religious ceremony?
By saying, "yes," then no atheist or agnostic persons should be allowed such a social status and ceremony (even one witnessed and presided over by a public official at City Hall).
By saying, "No," then no homosexual union should be prohibited within the framework of our government or society.
Perhaps my logic is flawed, but, this is the problem I have with the recent political issue regarding homosexual marriages. If the marriage covenant is purely a Christian (or for any purpose, religious) convention, then marriage should be upheld under such standards provided by such religion. (In other words, "marriage" is reserved for a heterosexual CHRISTIAN--or Jewish, Muslim, etc.--couple.)
But, again, if marriage is primarily a social construct, then doesn't it hold that any human union be allowed under such guidance?
This is a bit off-topic, and certainly more political in nature, but it is a heated issue in the current climate of national affairs, and relevant to a point. Plus, I'm curious. How's that?
 (This guy is becoming my mascot...)
"What's partner yoga?"
"It's when you're two with the universe."
-My Friend Keith
---
When life gives you dish rags, you make...a kite that won't fly in the rain. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/7/2004 5:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
I would think you should have some kind of celebration analagous to the Jewish wedding feast to fittingly and PUBLICLY express your love to your mate and to God for establishing the institution. It sounds hokey, maybe, but I think it has substantive value. It at least demonstrates to your small world of friends and family that you don't take the institution of marriage lightly.
AMEN | | Back to Top | | |
|
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 8/7/2004 5:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I've never made a poll, so I couldn't resist. Due to my relatively recent appearance on this forum, I'm probably rehashing old ground, but here it goes. What's the difference between marriage and the closest of friends? Only three things are obvious to me. They are necessarily opposite genders. They can have sex. They commit to each other for life. There's also that thing about being one flesh, but for the life of me I can't figure out what that means. If it's just some emotion that I wouldn't understand because I'm not married, I'm going to be very disappointed. Maybe "one flesh" has to do with the commitment, or maybe it has to do with the sex.
So is it...
"What's the difference between marriage and the best of friends?" I honestly couldn't vote by picking any of your answers (even the funny ones, though I appreciate your sense of humour). Marriage should be the most intimate relationship this side of heaven. It should represent - as closely as possible - the intimacy that we have with the Father; the oneness of spirit, an intimacy that involves body, soul and spirit; yet allows us to grow as individuals in all of those areas as well. One flesh - yet uniquely created individuals. I believe that the fruit of the spirit should be evident in a marriage relationship.
I realize that we experience this in the flesh, and that we bring a lot of our own experience, and perceptions to it - but the Father knew that would be the case. He created our physical bodies in this incredible way to enjoy an intimate union with another human being - but, of course, it was never meant to be merely a physcial union, but the sweetest connection possible between two people. (Enough of that...I'm making even myself blush here  ) I believe that marriage should enhance both people. I heard a saying twenty-some odd years ago: "Love is an offering of roots and wings." That is the kind of love the Father offers us, and that is the kind of love that we should experience within a marriage as well.
My thoughts,
Jo-Anne
And by the way, it is possible to share a friendship that is deeply spiritual, and meaningful - without the physical intimacy.
God Bless. I'll enjoy reading the others' responses.
Jo-Anne
Yes Jo-Anne!
This thread is quite interesting. I agree, mostly, that marriage is to be the most intimate of all human relationships. Certainly in the physical. I do agree, Jo-Anne, that it is a representation of the marriage of Christ and His bride. These are both mysteries. I say they really cannot and should not be analyzed or dissected to try to gain understanding. We should ponder this blessing like a dad and mom looks at a new-born babe...I've had four, and the experience absolutely defies explanation. I could say lots and lots about it, but I'd doubt the first 1% of the reality would be conveyed. NOw, if you'd stood beside me while my wife gave birth, you might get 5%. My hope is that Sahid would be helped to understand not by intellectual description, but say more by a parable -style input. Sometimes Jesus tells a story rather than a teaching, cause these secret things don't do well with just words. Sahid keeps asking of the unmarrieds union and how that differs or is similar. Paul did say they too become one. I like how POW gave a word picture of the fizzing soda can. I'd embelish that a bit and say that in a Christian Marriage I think the fizz can be released, yes, but I think it is replenished with the blessing of God on the union. Now, the sinful sexual union has no such blessing, and will quickly fizzle out. The shame and disgrace that is due to that couple will pile on day by day... hopefully, God will grant them conviction leading to repentance.
My one little question:
Cannot a man be closer to a man friend even than his wife? Remember King David talked of Jonathan's love as greater even than that of a woman?
another little one:
cannot a married man have a close, intimate, yet not physical relationship with women?
Blessings All | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/7/2004 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | To much to reply to! But that's a good problem.
Quest, yeah, what you said.
Jeff, if Jewish betrothal is our example, then how can you say that you have to live on your own to get married. All the Old Testament examples I can think of have a man going to the woman's father, who she happens to be living with. Yeah, make it public. But public doesn't neccesarily mean ceremony. My eye color is public knowledge (blue, by the way), but I've never held a ceremony to commemorate it.
Spark, your joking, but yeah. Except I'd call it adultery.
Squint, I'm not saying it's a religious ceremony, except in the sense that everything is religious. When you mix yellow and blue paint, you get green. It not really religious; it's just the way it is. Yes, God made it that way, and yes, it's a big deal to him, but I wouldn't call it a religious ceremony.
Barry, go ahead and try parables, but if they don't make sense, I don't know how effective they'll be in convincing me. Using feeling without reason is a whole 'nuther topic, and I am firm on where I stand. To your questions I would answer both with yes, but be careful.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 8/7/2004 9:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Wow, just imagine the number of bigamist we have in the world today
When you look at all the single parent families and all the parents who are not fulfulling their duty as parents... then you might seriously wonder if polygamy is so bad. Afterall in the bible there were times when polygamy was allowed for reasons that seem not so different from the present society we live in today in a way.
Seriously, it sounds like some of you have a need for intimate friends of the opposite sex outside of your marriage -- I'm assuming you would think polygamy to be a great thing to allow so that you could have as many intimate opposite sex relationships without ever having to worry about becoming too intimate. I don't know, just a thought.
Personally, I have a hard enough time keeping up with my own marriage and family without bringing in more men to be nonsexually intimate with so polygamy wouldn't work for me. Where people have the time or energy to be intimate with more than one person is beyond my little brain. I have close friends but we are not intimate.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 8/7/2004 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | sometimesisquintquote:
But, again, if marriage is primarily a social construct, then doesn't it hold that any human union be allowed under such guidance?
Good point and one in which I am perplexed in thought on. Is marriage primarily a social or a religious symbol? This is a great question/thread, Sahid!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/7/2004 10:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Squint,
quote:
Was/is the marriage covenant primarily a religious ceremony?
Certainly not.
quote:
By saying, "yes," then no atheist or agnostic persons should be allowed such a social status and ceremony (even one witnessed and presided over by a public official at City Hall).
There can be a celebration without having any avowed religious significance at all.
quote:
By saying, "No," then no homosexual union should be prohibited within the framework of our government or society.
I pretty sure that IS flawed logic. I would suspect that marriage has a definition which precludes such relationships as same-sex or animal-human, etc. Obviously one can change the definition, but such a change would be required. And that's what the gay rights movement is pushing for. But if we can change it for them, why stop there?
quote:
... this is the problem I have with the recent political issue regarding homosexual marriages. If the marriage covenant is purely a Christian (or for any purpose, religious) convention
It's not, as I understand it. It is a human, hetero-sexual covenant. It can include polygamy with one man and plural women. But natural law is what would delimit it's meaning; not societal relativism.
quote:
But, again, if marriage is primarily a social construct, then doesn't it hold that any human union be allowed under such guidance?
I assume you mean under a particular society's "guidance," in which case I would answer, "yes." But that's a relativistic view of marriage, which has no fixed definition. Marriage would need to be defined before any proper deductions could be made about it.
quote:
(This guy is becoming my mascot...)
He's my favorite, too!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/7/2004 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
quote:
Jeff, if Jewish betrothal is our example, then how can you say that you have to live on your own to get married. All the Old Testament examples I can think of have a man going to the woman's father, who she happens to be living with.
If you are referring to Jacob, he was working FOR Laban for the bride. In that sense, he had left his father and mother and was employed making a living. I think the betrothal probably was a way of getting "dubs" on a particular woman UNTIL you could become financially prepared to consummate.
quote:
Yeah, make it public. But public doesn't neccesarily mean ceremony. My eye color is public knowledge (blue, by the way), but I've never held a ceremony to commemorate it.
You are making my point. You are making light of marriage. I'm not saying I can prove a celebration/ceremony is necessary. I just don't think it's totally irrelevant, either. The fact that the vast majority of women who marry prefer such a celebration is evidence in and of itself that it has some evidential basis in human nature.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/7/2004 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the props, Quest.
I'm making light of the institution, not the objective reality. I was talking about Jacob's wives. They had not left their father. Women are people too.
For the homosexual stuff, I think marriage as the act of sex requires a man and a woman. It's not sex (coitus if we need to get technical) without a man and a woman. As far as the politics go, who cares? If they want the ceremony and the legal document, fine. Don't throw them in jail or stick 'em with a fine or take away their legal status. Marriage as a legal state is meaningless except for property ownership issues, tax law, and adoption. (Maybe I missed something, but you get the idea.) If they want to share property, let them. It's the a good thing to share. Remember that Jesus guy? If they want fairness in tax law, let them have it. We hetrosexuals like tax breaks. Maybe we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. The name Jesus keeps getting stuck in my head. If they want to adopt, let them. Do you know how many kids need someone to adopt them? Would we rather the state be their legal guardian? The hetrosexual community hasn't taken care of these kids, and the homosexual community probably won't either, but why can't they help? Because they will screw the kids up? Try living under the state's guardianship, and see if you don't end up a little crazy. Sure hetrosexual couples' adoption would be best, but that doesn't mean that singles and homosexual can help when married couples don't.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/7/2004 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | sahid,
quote:
I'm making light of the institution, not the objective reality. I was talking about Jacob's wives. They had not left their father. Women are people too.
You're right. I assumed you understood that I meant the part that said the MAN would leave his father and mother and cleave to a WIFE.
quote:
For the homosexual stuff, I think marriage as the act of sex requires a man and a woman. It's not sex (coitus if we need to get technical) without a man and a woman.
Then why are they called homoSEXUAL??
quote:
As far as the politics go, who cares?
The OT makes it clear (to me at least) that a society that sanctions fornication, sodomy, or adultery will be leavened and corrupted. The NT uses the same principle to warn us of tolerating fornication in the church. In short, I care. If the sanction of porneia leads to leavening of the church, how much more would it corrupt children? You may be too young to know it, but our society did not tolerate partial-birth abortion, homosexuality, or modern levels of promiscuity just a few decades ago. Coincidence? Nah, the lump is being leavened. The tables are turning - www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04070505.html
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/7/2004 2:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid,
quote:
We can make laws til our arms fall off, and it will do nothing about the leaven. It is the leaven. I'm disappointed that those who are most well known for identifying with Jesus are those who most resemble the Pharisees who opposed Him. (No one specific, just the movement in general.)
I can't make even one law, nor do I vote except as a protest vote for third parties. You said who cares about political policy - I said I do. I can't imagine how you can be indifferent to a child being brought up in an environment that you claim to believe is immoral.
quote:
I never said we should tolerate fornication in the church. The Bible is clear as to handling the matters that are within the church. But outside the church who's going to cast the first stone?
Paul didn't say to not tolerate fornication in the church simply because it's wrong, but because it will adversely AFFECT US. So if you don't care about whether children are adversely affected by their environment, I don't know what to tell you. Or do you KNOW that being raised by homosexual parents will be better than a foster home? If so, then present your evidence. Appealing to a distaste for laws is not evidence. Christ did not say God's Law was leaven, He said the Pharisees' traditions were leaven.
quote:
The political debate is over homosexuals having equal rights under law.
Even liberal judges say equal protection of the laws only applies when groups are "similarly situated" - minors don't have the same rights as adults because they're not similarly situated. You yourself said homosexuals can't have sex - so seemingly you don't think they're "similarly situated" either. Regardless, the burden of proof is on you to prove that heterosexuals and homosexuals ARE similarly situated so as to require the same marital rights.
I thought I remembered you advocating libertarianism previously. Libertarians are opposed to government benefits to heterosexual married couples and homosexual partners. They don't oppose laws that protect life, liberty, and property of all citizens - they oppose laws that take from some to give to others. The libertarian would ask, "Why should a common law married couple, that receives no benefits from the government, be taxed to aid a legally married couple? After all, there are common law marriages that outlast legal marriages." OR "Why should a couple who chooses to have children get tax breaks that childless couples have to subsidize?" Am I wrong about you being libertarian?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/7/2004 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't have any proof that homosexual parents are better than no parents. Neither do I have proof that sinful parents are better than no parents. But you're wrong; the burden of proof is not on me. We should start with the assumption of freedom for all and then, when there is good reason, freedoms can be limited. You don't have to prove that freedoms are just; you have to prove that their limitations are. At least that's what I think. To me it looks like the example God has set: giving freedom dispite our poor choices. I am not indifferent to children. I've spent a good amount of time working with children of different ages. I don't have stats, but from what I've seen, as long as there is no abuse, having a home is a good thing.
Yeah, I'm a libertarian. I don't think money should be involuntarily redistributed. But that's not changing anytime soon. Until the public sees throught the lie that government is Robin Hood, we are going to have to put up with redistribution. So if we are giving other people's money away, let's at least give it away fairly. I'm not going to add up your sins and do the math to find out what you deserve. I'm not in a possition to administer that kind of justice. Only God is. I need only consern myself with loving God and loving my neighbor. If my neighbor is being abused, I am to help them. If the only way to keep people safe is to keep the abuser away from my neighbors, then it's appropriate to keep him or her away. I don't want to get into Libertarianism too much here, because some people seem allergic.
BTW, which third party?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 8/8/2004 12:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
In my view Sahid is right on when he says that when two people decide to be together as man and wife then they are married. Government really has nothing to say about this and neither does the church (or work either for that matter).
Good enough. I know of many people who are committed to one another and are living together. In your opinion, since they haven't "officially" tied the knot, are they married? What I am trying to decipher is whether they are living in sin. These folks have lived together for years and are monogamous in their relationship.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/8/2004 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid,
quote:
I don't have any proof that homosexual parents are better than no parents.
You advocated homosexual parents over State guardianship. What evidence leads you to this preference?
quote:
But you're wrong; the burden of proof is not on me. We should start with the assumption of freedom for all and then, when there is good reason, freedoms can be limited. You don't have to prove that freedoms are just; you have to prove that their limitations are. At least that's what I think.
Absolute statements don't get us very far. No one thinks we should start with NO laws and then learn as we go. By the time you're old enough to vote, you know a LOT about what is required for a functioning society. So some freedoms are KNOWN by then to be bad without any future testing. Rom. 13 makes it clear that the role of govt. is to praise well-doing and to cause evil-doers to fear. How can it do that when it is sanctioning what scripture, natural law, and the common sense of the vast majority of the human race says is wrong?
quote:
To me it looks like the example God has set: giving freedom dispite our poor choices.
In the beginning, God didn't allow vengeance for violence. The world then became filled with violence. So after the Flood, God instituted capital punishment to deter such violence. So the very fact that we have govt. today is because God instituted it. Otherwise, we still couldn't even have laws against murder. So to pretend that Christians can talk about proper govt. apart from God is wrong.
quote:
I am not indifferent to children. I've spent a good amount of time working with children of different ages. I don't have stats, but from what I've seen, as long as there is no abuse, having a home is a good thing.
Aye, but a foster home is a home. They're not homeless. So I'm curious as to how you know homosexual parents are better than the alternative "homes" in a statistical sense. There is a difference in parents sinning and sanctioning sin. But in this case, the parents are sanctioning sinfulness that Rom. 1 clearly says is a violation of natural law. Those parents are teaching their children to agree with sinfulness that puts them at odds with scripture, natural law, and the common sense of the vast majority of humans. Thomas Jefferson was no Christian, but he never advocated making laws contrary to natural law. Indeed, he criminalized homosexual behavior. Once you abandon even natural law as a guide for human behavior, you can't even argue against murder - except because you oppose it personally, (which is no argument).
quote:
Yeah, I'm a libertarian. I don't think money should be involuntarily redistributed. But that's not changing anytime soon. Until the public sees throught the lie that government is Robin Hood, we are going to have to put up with redistribution. So if we are giving other people's money away, let's at least give it away fairly.
I hate to break it to you, but it's not going to change. Libertarians don't advocate non-libertarian laws just because the government is not libertarian yet. I have a gay friend that argues just that way. But he's honest enough to call himself a liberal.
quote:
I need only consern myself with loving God and loving my neighbor.
Then I would think you would recommend that federal judges uphold their solemn oaths and return jurisdiction over abortion, homosexual activity, etc. to the States where the 10th amendment kept it; and then, if some States keep laws against homosexual practices, rest in knowing that God will sort it out justly one day.
Moreover, if God is loving, would he forbid homosexuality if it was actually a good thing? So what sense does it make to say WE shouldn't be homosexual but then turn right around and act like we have to sanction homosexuality for society to SEE if that's a proper liberty or not? We already KNOW it's not. Something is wrong morally precisely BECAUSE it's not good for you.
quote:
BTW, which third party?
I was for Ron Paul under the Libertarian Party, because he's a constitutional libertarian. I've also voted for the Constitution Party.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/8/2004 8:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
In my lexicon porneia is defined as sex that is unlawful, prostitution, unchastity, incest, and cultic sex. None of these rule out "premarital" sex as initiating marriage, except a strict interpretation of unchasity.
Merriam-Webster's defines fornication as:
"consensual sexual intercourse between a man and esp. single woman who are not married to each other; also : the crime of engaging in fornication."
Thayer's defines porneia as:
1. illicit sexual intercourse (illicit means unlawful)
1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
2. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
3. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,
2. metaph. the worship of idols
1. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
quote:
But if this interpretation is right, then even sex within marriage is immoral. Married people are not usually considered chaste.
Merriam Webster defines "chaste" as:
1. Pure from unlawful sexual intercourse; virtuous; continent.
So married people are in fact considered chaste, so long as they do not engage in unlawful sexual intercourse.
quote:
I think there is a case to be made for "premarital" sex not being immoral if there is commitment, and there are no other partners.
Attempting to rationalize sleeping with one's girlfriend by no means justifies it in the sight of God. If you're really committed to her and love her like you say you do, you won't be looking for ways to justify sex before marriage, you'll just do the right thing. If sex is the same thing as marriage to you, then you either have a very low view of marriage, of commitment, or both, or you would go ahead, do the right thing, and marry the girl before you slept with her.
One has to truly wonder how you would define fornication and divorce.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/8/2004 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Once again, so much to respond to. Here goes.
Quest, they are most certainly living in sin. So are you. So am I. But, their monogamous sexual relationship is not sinful. It's exactly what God prescribes.
Jeff, I don't think you understand what it's like to have the state as your guardian. Some kids may get a foster home, but a lot aren't that lucky. We need to coax esperanza to post some more on this subject, because she has first hand experience working with girls who have no foster home. The workers as far as I know are heterosexual, but guess what the girls are doing. Well, I won't steal any more thunder. E-mail her if you want the details. Foster homes... right.
By the time you're old enough to log on the internet you'll know that there is diversity among libertarians. What you describe is definitely right of center and I not sure a majority of Americans would agree with you. I know quite a few homosexual wouldn't. People used the same arguments to perpetuate racism, slavery, and sexism. "These people should be treated with less respect. It's natural law." Well, it's only natural to those who benefit. Others don't necessarily see it as natural. If the government has the right to forbid marriage to homosexuals why not thieves? Why not gossips? Why not every sinful person?quote:
So after the Flood, God instituted capital punishment to deter such violence. So the very fact that we have govt. today is because God instituted it. Otherwise, we still couldn't even have laws against murder. So to pretend that Christians can talk about proper govt. apart from God is wrong.
I'm not one of those Christians. I think God should definitely be the deciding factor in how we govern ourselves. So how does God handle sin? With the death penalty. I agree. I think that predates the flood with animals being sacrificed to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness. But, surprise surprise, Jesus offered Himself to be sacrificed for our sin. If He hasn't fully paid for sin, why did He die? If He has fully paid for sin, how can we require more payment?
In the Old Testament God criminalized homosexuality. He also criminalized lying, eating pork, stealing, and putting cheese on the same plate as meat. Have you ever broken these rules? No marriage for you! Jesus gave us a new commandment which was really not so new. "Love one another." Yeah, now I can eat bacon and eggs without worrying about the eternal consequences. I'm not saying homosexuality is right. I'm just saying judge not lest you be judged. There is plenty of sin to be found in every person. If everyone was to get what is fair and we were to judge ourselves, I would advocate as much war and violence as possible, because that's what we deserve, not just a ban on marriage. Don't think that heterosexuals deserve any more than homosexuals. We're all sinners. quote:
Once you abandon even natural law as a guide for human behavior, you can't even argue against murder - except because you oppose it personally, (which is no argument).
My argument against murder is that it infringes on the liberty of others. Coercion and fraud are reasonably outlawed without appeal to natural law.quote:
Libertarians don't advocate non-libertarian laws just because the government is not libertarian yet. I have a gay friend that argues just that way. But he's honest enough to call himself a liberal.
Well, I do. Small steps as long as they're possible. If you want to label me a liberal, fine. Jesus was a liberal too. His main opponents were the conservatives. Of course the liberal/conservative dichotomy breaks down, so it's not my favorite way of thinking of things. quote:
Then I would think you would recommend that federal judges uphold their solemn oaths and return jurisdiction over abortion, homosexual activity, etc. to the States where the 10th amendment kept it; and then, if some States keep laws against homosexual practices, rest in knowing that God will sort it out justly one day.
Let it be a states issue. I'll just say the same things again 50 times. When did I make you think that I thought it was not a states' issue?
God also forbid adultery, but Jesus said, "I do not condemn you either. Go. From now on sin no more."
I'll look into the Constitution Party. But there are a few things in the Constitution that I think should be changed, not that we shouldn't live by it until then.
JEE, if you were to ask Paul what he meant by sexual immorality, he'd just look at you funny. He didn't speak English. He spoke Greek and probably a few other languages, none of them English. It doesn't matter what Webster defines sexual immorality to be, because Paul never forbid sexual immorality. He forbid porneia. As is very common, the Greek word and it's English counterpart don’t translate exactly. The English adds meanings that the Greek doesn't. I doubt you'll find a translation of the Bible (except the Message or the Living or something like that) which translates porneia as any sex outside of marriage. Maybe someone does translate it that way. If there is someone, I'd like to know there reasons.
This is an emotional topic, and I've been pretty frank, but I want everyone to know that I don't have any hard feelings toward anyone here.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/8/2004 2:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid,
quote:
Jeff, I don't think you understand what it's like to have the state as your guardian. Some kids may get a foster home, but a lot aren't that lucky. We need to coax esperanza to post some more on this subject, because she has first hand experience working with girls who have no foster home. The workers as far as I know are heterosexual, but guess what the girls are doing. Well, I won't steal any more thunder. E-mail her if you want the details. Foster homes... right.
I'm sure the state is a bad guardian. After all, it has given us partial-birth abortion and now, apparently, wants gay rights. But the state has a duty defined by God to praise good and deter evil. If I advocate that the state sanction homosexuality by creating gay/lesbian marriage, then I am advocating that the state be derelict in it's duty. Which in turn makes ME wrong. If the State has no problems calling good evil and evil good, we should pretty much abstain from using the State and instead, in those few cases where we can, STOP it from doing more harm. Helping it DO things will usually backfire on us.
quote:
By the time you're old enough to log on the internet you'll know that there is diversity among libertarians. What you describe is definitely right of center and I not sure a majority of Americans would agree with you. I know quite a few homosexual wouldn't.
The polls show that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. And American's will probably continue to become more antil-Christian. Harry Brown, the last presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party disagrees with you (www.planetout.com/news/election/scorecard/browne.html). There is diversity in every Party, but there is a core represented by the platform. If the LP's platform is as meaningless as is the Republican's, then it is TOTALLY meaningless.
quote:
People used the same arguments to perpetuate racism, slavery, and sexism. "These people should be treated with less respect. It's natural law." Well, it's only natural to those who benefit. Others don't necessarily see it as natural. If the government has the right to forbid marriage to homosexuals why not thieves? Why not gossips? Why not every sinful person?
The government doesn't have the right to forbid marriage to homosexuals. By the definition of marriage that has been accepted for millenia, there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. It's only purpose in re-defining marriage is to SANCTION the behavior. That's wrong, and it's wrong for you to back them doing it. The State could provide civil unions with all the same benefits, but the gay-rights movement will never be satisfied with that - because they want official sanction.
And if you think slavery is inherently wrong, you'll need to take that up with God, not me (Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, etc.). I don't have a problem with the State stopping slavery. But I do have problems with a State stopping it on that grounds that it is inherently evil. To do that is to undermine the Bible's influence in society, which is a bad thing.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So after the Flood, God instituted capital punishment to deter such violence. So the very fact that we have govt. today is because God instituted it. Otherwise, we still couldn't even have laws against murder. So to pretend that Christians can talk about proper govt. apart from God is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not one of those Christians. I think God should definitely be the deciding factor in how we govern ourselves.
He's also the deciding factor in how government should do THEIR duty.
quote:
So how does God handle sin? With the death penalty. I agree. I think that predates the flood with animals being sacrificed to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness. But, surprise surprise, Jesus offered Himself to be sacrificed for our sin. If He hasn't fully paid for sin, why did He die? If He has fully paid for sin, how can we require more payment?
Well, surprise, surprise, there was no death penalty authorized to man between the Fall and the Flood. The death penalty BY MAN was instituted after the Flood - and only for murder, explicitly.
quote:
In the Old Testament God criminalized homosexuality. He also criminalized lying, eating pork, stealing, and putting cheese on the same plate as meat. Have you ever broken these rules? No marriage for you! Jesus gave us a new commandment which was really not so new. "Love one another." Yeah, now I can eat bacon and eggs without worrying about the eternal consequences. I'm not saying homosexuality is right. I'm just saying judge not lest you be judged. There is plenty of sin to be found in every person.
Surely, you are not going to equate meat-regulations with homosexuality/adultery/fornication with regards to the duty of the State. Again, I have homosexual friends and acquaintences. I'm NOT advocating mistreating them as an individual. But you are advocating that the government re-define marriage for the purpose of sanctioning homosexual relationships. I don't think you have the right from God to support them in that.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once you abandon even natural law as a guide for human behavior, you can't even argue against murder - except because you oppose it personally, (which is no argument).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My argument against murder is that it infringes on the liberty of others. Coercion and fraud are reasonably outlawed without appeal to natural law.
They are, indeed, reasonably outlawed GIVEN that God says government is to praise the good and deter the EVIL. But God hasn't always given men the right to have govt. That's my point. Only God can authorize State action. Natural law is that law of nature's God that can be reasonably inferred from the natural order. There is no rational basis for morality apart from a benevolently created moral order - and thus no rational basis for a moral or reasonable State without a benevolent God; only one that rules on the principle of might makes right. Laws against fraud, apart from natural Law, are just means by which the majorities' sensibilities prevail over the minorities'.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Libertarians don't advocate non-libertarian laws just because the government is not libertarian yet. I have a gay friend that argues just that way. But he's honest enough to call himself a liberal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I do. Small steps as long as they're possible. If you want to label me a liberal, fine. Jesus was a liberal too. His main opponents were the conservatives. Of course the liberal/conservative dichotomy breaks down, so it's not my favorite way of thinking of things.
I get stuff from Harry Browne regularly. Apart from that I'm not current on the Party. Do they actually advocate the re-definition of marriage for homosexuals, now?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I would think you would recommend that federal judges uphold their solemn oaths and return jurisdiction over abortion, homosexual activity, etc. to the States where the 10th amendment kept it; and then, if some States keep laws against homosexual practices, rest in knowing that God will sort it out justly one day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let it be a states issue. I'll just say the same things again 50 times. When did I make you think that I thought it was not a states' issue?
My point is not JUST that it should be a state issue, but that as a Christian, I think you should either oppose re-defining marriage or be neutral on the matter in YOUR State - unless, of course, you can explain to me how Romans 13 authorizes the State to re-define marriage to sanction homosexual relationships.
quote:
God also forbid adultery, but Jesus said, "I do not condemn you either. Go. From now on sin no more."
There is nothing about that which contradicts the fact that the State is to praise good and deter evil. What we as individuals can and should do is different than what the State can and should do. We're not even supposed to punish thieves, obviously - only the government has authority to do that.
quote:
I'll look into the Constitution Party. But there are a few things in the Constitution that I think should be changed, not that we shouldn't live by it until then.
The Consitution Party has problems of it's own. But it's a good protest vote.
quote:
but I want everyone to know that I don't have any hard feelings toward anyone here.
Nor I, even though I'm still too young to even be on this forum.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 171 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:19 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|