Churches, Christians and Gay Rights

[Izdaari]

I strongly prefer that my church not take stands on any political issues. Being against sin? Preaching against sin? Sure. But passing laws against sin is another matter entirely. I don't think it's what Jesus would have us do.

I second that. I'd also add that the people in the church need to be more worried about their own sins than the sins of others. (See my first post.)

So, if you were in Nazi Germany when Hitler was persecuting Jews, you'd want your church to remain neutral......

Godwin's Law in action.  :

OK change Hitler to Stalin and Jews to Christians....
And maybe we should have a referendum on Mike Godwins Law.......

I'm baffled that you actually believe that what two people voluntarily do with each other in the privacy of their own home is comparable to the deliberate genocide of an entire people group.

I second that bafflement. They are not remotely comparable. 

 

[Izdaari]

Actually, our Founders borrowed heavily from guys like Voltaire, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke (to varying degrees). You are aware of what their ideas regarding social contract are, right? Do you know what classical liberalism is?

I do! I am a classical liberal. I call myself a libertarian because the term "classical liberal" is unlikely to be understood anymore except by poli-sci majors.

 

[rsc2a]

Actually, our Founders borrowed heavily from guys like Voltaire, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke (to varying degrees). You are aware of what their ideas regarding social contract are, right? Do you know what classical liberalism is?

I do! I am a classical liberal. I call myself a libertarian because the term "classical liberal" is unlikely to be understood anymore except by poli-sci majors.

I always knew you were one of them daggum liberals. 

 

[Izdaari]

Actually, our Founders borrowed heavily from guys like Voltaire, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke (to varying degrees). You are aware of what their ideas regarding social contract are, right? Do you know what classical liberalism is?

I do! I am a classical liberal. I call myself a libertarian because the term "classical liberal" is unlikely to be understood anymore except by poli-sci majors.

I always knew you were one of them daggum liberals. 

But not liberal in the sense of voting Democrat! And not in the sense of being a "neo-evangelical" or a slightly less fundamentalist Christian than the one making the comment. 

I am classical liberal, like Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke (yes, he considered himself one, though conservatives claim him now), not a modern liberal like Nancy Pelosi.

My previous AoG church might have been fairly described as "neo-evangelical". But I'm leaving that behind, about to officially become a member of a *gasp* mainline (though orthodox) church. I started confirmation class this week. So calling me a theological liberal now is a label I have no problem with, though I still hold to the 1910 "Five Fundamentals" and to the historic Christian creeds. In that sense, I suppose you could say I'm a liberal fundamentalist. 

 

[rsc2a]

But not liberal in the sense of voting Democrat! And not in the sense of being a "neo-evangelical" or a slightly less fundamentalist Christian than the one making the comment. 

I am classical liberal, like Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke (yes, he considered himself one, though conservatives claim him now), not a modern liberal like Nancy Pelosi.

I know...liberal...as in welfare...it's even in the Constitution! 

[quote author=Izdaari]My previous AoG church might have been fairly described as "neo-evangelical". But I'm leaving that behind, about to officially become a member of a *gasp* mainline (though orthodox) church. I started confirmation class this week. So calling me a theological liberal now is a label I have no problem with, though I still hold to the 1910 "Five Fundamentals" and to the historic Christian creeds. In that sense, I suppose you could say I'm a liberal fundamentalist. 
[/quote]

I don't know why you stopped believing the Bible. 

 

[Izdaari]

But not liberal in the sense of voting Democrat! And not in the sense of being a "neo-evangelical" or a slightly less fundamentalist Christian than the one making the comment. 

I am classical liberal, like Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke (yes, he considered himself one, though conservatives claim him now), not a modern liberal like Nancy Pelosi.

I know...liberal...as in welfare...it's even in the Constitution! 

[quote author=Izdaari]My previous AoG church might have been fairly described as "neo-evangelical". But I'm leaving that behind, about to officially become a member of a *gasp* mainline (though orthodox) church. I started confirmation class this week. So calling me a theological liberal now is a label I have no problem with, though I still hold to the 1910 "Five Fundamentals" and to the historic Christian creeds. In that sense, I suppose you could say I'm a liberal fundamentalist. 

I don't know why you stopped believing the Bible. 



[/quote]

Nala the Laughing Cat (ORIGINAL)

 

[Mathew Ward]

I'm baffled that you actually believe that what two people voluntarily do with each other in the privacy of their own home is comparable to the deliberate genocide of an entire people group.

The problem is not what the do in the privacy of their own home.  If you rebember in the 80's they said they us alone and let us do our own thing.  Now a homosexual couple wants to be recognized by the state as a heterosexual couple.  That does not sound like a privacy of their own home but an activism.

 

[Ransom]

I'm baffled that you actually believe that what two people voluntarily do with each other in the privacy of their own home is comparable to the deliberate genocide of an entire people group.

Marriage is public, not private, and it has legal and economic ramifications beyond two people having a little sodomy "in the privacy of their own home."

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I strongly prefer that my church not take stands on any political issues. Being against sin? Preaching against sin? Sure. But passing laws against sin is another matter entirely. I don't think it's what Jesus would have us do.

I second that. I'd also add that the people in the church need to be more worried about their own sins than the sins of others. (See my first post.)

So, if you were in Nazi Germany when Hitler was persecuting Jews, you'd want your church to remain neutral......

Godwin's Law in action.  :

OK change Hitler to Stalin and Jews to Christians....
And maybe we should have a referendum on Mike Godwins Law.......

I'm baffled that you actually believe that what two people voluntarily do with each other in the privacy of their own home is comparable to the deliberate genocide of an entire people group.

What 2 people do in the privacy of their own home has nothing to do with legal recognition of  gay marriage.
I'm assuming homosexual activity regularly occurs in NC now.....
And, the post about Stalin and Russia was noy comparing it to gay marriage....but in response to the ridiculous notion that a church has no business taking a political position.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Actually, our Founders borrowed heavily from guys like Voltaire, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke (to varying degrees). You are aware of what their ideas regarding social contract are, right? Do you know what classical liberalism is?

I do! I am a classical liberal. I call myself a libertarian because the term "classical liberal" is unlikely to be understood anymore except by poli-sci majors.

I always knew you were one of them daggum liberals. 

But not liberal in the sense of voting Democrat! And not in the sense of being a "neo-evangelical" or a slightly less fundamentalist Christian than the one making the comment. 

I am classical liberal, like Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Edmund Burke (yes, he considered himself one, though conservatives claim him now), not a modern liberal like Nancy Pelosi.

My previous AoG church might have been fairly described as "neo-evangelical". But I'm leaving that behind, about to officially become a member of a *gasp* mainline (though orthodox) church. I started confirmation class this week. So calling me a theological liberal now is a label I have no problem with, though I still hold to the 1910 "Five Fundamentals" and to the historic Christian creeds. In that sense, I suppose you could say I'm a liberal fundamentalist. 

Classical liberalism isn't completely compatible with libertarinism....for instance, Locke believed that no tolerance should be shown for atheists, who were seen as amoral, or to Catholics, who were seen as owing allegiance to the Pope over their own national government.

Social liberals  do differ from classical liberals especially in the role of government in our lives.

 

[Izdaari]

Classical liberalism isn't completely compatible with libertarinism....for instance, Locke believed that no tolerance should be shown for atheists, who were seen as amoral, or to Catholics, who were seen as owing allegiance to the Pope over their own national government.

Social liberals  do differ from classical liberals especially in the role of government in our lives.

I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I don't agree with Locke on those matters. He had his facts wrong. Atheists are not necessarily amoral; some are more moral than most Christians. And Catholics do not necessarily slavishly follow the Pope.

In today's terms, a classical liberal, updated for the 21st century, would probably be called a libertarian-conservative... and I'm comfortable enough with that label. But it covers a lot of ground: I'm somewhere in between Murray Rothbard and Bill Buckley. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Classical liberalism isn't completely compatible with libertarinism....for instance, Locke believed that no tolerance should be shown for atheists, who were seen as amoral, or to Catholics, who were seen as owing allegiance to the Pope over their own national government.

Social liberals  do differ from classical liberals especially in the role of government in our lives.

I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I don't agree with Locke on those matters. He had his facts wrong. Atheists are not necessarily amoral; some are more moral than most Christians. And Catholics do not necessarily slavishly follow the Pope.

In today's terms, a classical liberal, updated for the 21st century, would probably be called a libertarian-conservative... and I'm comfortable enough with that label. But it covers a lot of ground: I'm somewhere in between Murray Rothbard and Bill Buckley. 

I like the philosophy behind the libertarian philosophy, for the most part, but don't see it working in practice. Someone has always legislated morality, since humans first formed a government....and I believe Christians do not lose their right to br politically active when they are converted.

 

[Izdaari]

I like the philosophy behind the libertarian philosophy, for the most part, but don't see it working in practice. Someone has always legislated morality, since humans first formed a government....and I believe Christians do not lose their right to br politically active when they are converted.

I hear you, but I still don't agree there's any necessity or benefit to legislating morality, except when there's a clear case of protecting someone's rights by doing so.

As, for example, we lock up the immoral fool who burglarizes houses to pay for his drug habit. But we don't do it out of moral outrage that he steals or uses addictive drugs. We do it because having a civilized society requires that we can feel safe in our houses, and reasonably confident that when we come home, they haven't been broken into.

And, btw, our laws against those drugs are what make them so expensive that he has to steal to pay for them. For an addict, just not using them because he can't afford them isn't an option. In economic terms, we say the demand is inelastic. The public good might be better served by legalizing them, and perhaps taxing them enough to pay for drug treatment programs. And why should we operate a price support program for organized crime anyway?

FWIW, I was a conservative before I was a libertarian. I used to read National Review every issue, including all the years of back issues at the library. I hero-worshiped Buckley and wanted his job when I grew up. But in learning conservative theory, I also learned libertarian theory, because that entailed studying the great classical liberals and free market economists. And those made a lot more sense to me than the conservatives did. I remained active on the conservative side for some years after becoming a libertarian, in Young Americans for Freedom and in the Young Republicans, but I was pushing hard for libertarian ideas within them.

I certainly agree that Christians don't lose their right to be politically active when they convert. I sure didn't. I was already a libertarian when I converted... and that didn't change. I never saw any reason for it to, no conflict between libertarian principles and Christian principles. Jesus never advocated any coercive means of enforcing morality, and I see no need for his followers to go where he wouldn't.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The OP about churches being forced to allow gay marriages in their buildings is simply the next step  toward the homosexual  agenda masked as an equality issue.

 

[Izdaari]

The OP about churches being forced to allow gay marriages in their buildings is simply the next step  toward the homosexual  agenda masked as an equality issue.

You keep saying that, but you don't support it, and it doesn't make any sense. What homosexual agenda are you talking about? It sounds like nutty conspiracy theory junk to me.

I have friends in Seattle's LGBT community, and while some of them are politically active, they sure don't all agree on any agenda, other than to oppose R-74 this fall, which would repeal WA's new gay marriage law. And while some would like to get married, none of them want to do it in a church that doesn't want them.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The OP about churches being forced to allow gay marriages in their buildings is simply the next step  toward the homosexual  agenda masked as an equality issue.

You keep saying that, but you don't support it, and it doesn't make any sense. What homosexual agenda are you talking about? It sounds like nutty conspiracy theory junk to me.

I have friends in Seattle's LGBT community, and while some of them are politically active, they sure don't all agree on any agenda, other than to oppose R-74 this fall, which would repeal WA's new gay marriage law. And while some would like to get married, none of them want to do it in a church that doesn't want them.

The fact that there is a marriage amendment on the ballot goes to illustrate the gay rights agenda.
The church under fire for ahem...discriminating against a gay couple by not allowing them use of their buildings is another....
The photography company fined 6K for choosing not to work a gay marriage commitment ceremony...

The gay rights agenda is well documented and no secret.

Do others who practice immorality also deserve equal protection under the law?

Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Izdaari]...I have friends in Seattle's LGBT community...[/quote]

You really need to work on being "seperate". 

 

[Izdaari]

The OP about churches being forced to allow gay marriages in their buildings is simply the next step  toward the homosexual  agenda masked as an equality issue.

You keep saying that, but you don't support it, and it doesn't make any sense. What homosexual agenda are you talking about? It sounds like nutty conspiracy theory junk to me.

I have friends in Seattle's LGBT community, and while some of them are politically active, they sure don't all agree on any agenda, other than to oppose R-74 this fall, which would repeal WA's new gay marriage law. And while some would like to get married, none of them want to do it in a church that doesn't want them.

The fact that there is a marriage amendment on the ballot goes to illustrate the gay rights agenda.

Gay marriage is already law in WA. It passed both houses of the legislature and was signed by the governor. There is a campaign to put it to a referendum to overturn that, but it's by no means certain that it will get enough signatures, so it may not be on the ballot.

The church under fire for ahem...discriminating against a gay couple by not allowing them use of their buildings is another....
The photography company fined 6K for choosing not to work a gay marriage commitment ceremony...

The gay rights agenda is well documented and no secret.

You keep saying that, but I'm still not seeing any documentation.

The politically interested gays I know are conservative, liberal and libertarian, and of almost any party. Ok, most are liberal and Democrat, but that's normal for Seattle. They agree on gay marriage but on precious little else. Most do not favor getting married in a church that doesn't want them, or on getting pictures from a reluctant photographer.

Do others who practice immorality also deserve equal protection under the law?

Sure. Everybody does, if it doesn't involve committing acts of aggression against others.

Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?

No. I believe pagan temple prostitution, keeping sex slaves, and raping visitors to your city are condemned.

But if I believed it was? That wouldn't change my political position at all, because it isn't relevant to it.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]...I have friends in Seattle's LGBT community...

You really need to work on being "seperate". 
[/quote]

Oh yeah!  ;D

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Do others who practice immorality...[/quote]

Whose morality?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...also deserve equal protection under the law?[/quote]

Yes. (See Amos.)

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?[/quote]

Yes...along with a variety of other sexual relationships that evangelical Americans are a lot less vocal about.