Christian Leaders Threaten Civil Disobedience Pending SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling

[Desdichado]

Since when is speaking forth our convictions 'forcing someone into submission'??? Are we not to expose evil ever just because we also have a sinful heart? Under that guideline no Christian would speak.
By God's grace we will be glad for persecution when it comes but for now I'm glad for the freedoms we have to proclaim the Gospel and expose EVIL for what it is.

Also, the fundamental role of the state is to punish evil and reward good. Evil and good are determined by a moral worldview. The moral worldview from which Paul wrote was the Biblical Christian worldview.

Ergo, it stands to reason that a fundamental, Biblically mandated, function of state is to legislate and enforce the law of Nature and Nature's God. When this does not happen, it is incumbent on Christians to, at the very least, speak out.

Additionally, the reason why the Christians were initially martyred was almost entirely political. Disavowing Emperor worship and state Paganism as true and worthy religions was both a religious and political affront to the Roman state and culture. You couldn't separate the two. Neither could the Biblical Christian worldview be separated from the political implications of the Biblical Christian worldview.

In short, Christians have been in the game of civil disobedience and political activism long before it was cool.

 

[RickyZ]

I was watching a news program last night that did a segment focusing on the Christian groups outside the supreme court protesting. They made it a point to clearly and repeatedly label Christians as a hate group.

 

[jamie26301]

Also, the fundamental role of the state is to punish evil and reward good. Evil and good are determined by a moral worldview. The moral worldview from which Paul wrote was the Biblical Christian worldview.

Right... but Paul didn't live in a Republic, where the two are to be separated. And in his advocating to submit to government, he was talking about the Roman - pagan - government! In context, he is talking about coexisting with enemies (see end of chapter 12). And I'm sorry, but I still don't know where any Apostle tells us to dictate laws to reflect what we believe. They focus a heck of a lot more on themselves, and santification. Maybe I'm wrong.

And you're right in that there were Christian influences in our government, however, there were great pains took not to make the Constitution look favorable of any religion. In fact, the "Creator" was invoked not so much as "there is a God, you better believe it" but to demonstrate that these rights are fundamental rights you are BORN with, as a human being. Their audience was largely Christian, so they needed to use language that was understood but also ambigious enough to allow other thoughts be free. "Man created in the image of God" was something they understood and would grasp.

Read it objectively, apart from anything else these men wrote, and it's pretty clear that it doesn't favor one over another. The only thing it would be "against" is atheism, but as I said, the "Creator" was not used to establish a deity, but to communicate innate rights.

Ergo, it stands to reason that a fundamental, Biblically mandated, function of state is to legislate and enforce the law of Nature and Nature's God. When this does not happen, it is incumbent on Christians to, at the very least, speak out.

But this is the thing. "Enforce nature's God." Well, what does that mean? Ok, let's forbid gay marriage. Since we're forbidding marriage by enforcing nature's God, why not be consistent and forbid gays to live together? Why not forbid them to date?

This is the thing about enforcing "absolute" morality under an absolute understanding of God. It's inconsistant to say you forbid marriage because homosexual relationships are wrong, and yet permit them otherwise.

So my challenge to Fundamental Christians is that if you believe it is absolutely wrong, and so marriage for such is forbidden, then be consistiant. Go all the way. Because you're not advocating "absolute morality" if you don't.

And once you bring this in, under the justification of God, then what could happen next is another law created under the justification of God. It's not that everyone who rejects this is anti-Christian; it's because they're anti-theocracy, and it opens the door for that, just as we've begin to close it. Scripture was weilded against women's rights and abolishion/civil rights, so obviously people don't want to turn around again, in that respect - only Christians, strangely.

And need I remind anyone, that Israel in which WAS a theocracy, UNDER the true God, had a far better share of evil kings than good ones. So even Scripture itself yeilds the idea that theocracies are not ideal. It didn't even work for God's people.

Additionally, the reason why the Christians were initially martyred was almost entirely political. Disavowing Emperor worship and state Paganism as true and worthy religions was both a religious and political affront to the Roman state and culture. You couldn't separate the two.

I agree with this. What I don't agree with, not that this is intended in the argument, is the idea that "Christian" means "good" leader or "good" idea. We must have discernment for a reason, and that's because you can't rely on labels to tell you who you're dealing with. Cyrus of Persia was pagan, yet he felt moved to allow the Jews to go back home and I believe he funded the rebuilding of the temple. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, yet unlike the promdominate picture of them we have in Scripture, he was inquisitive. And even Paul had to win trust.

A label means nothing, and imo, that's why creating/supporting laws or ideas solely because they are Christian, selecting a side because they are Christian, is not wise. A wolf doesn't enter the fold as he is - they will know he's an enemy. So, just as a wolf adorns sheep's clothing, an unrighteous man may adorn the label "Christian." Surely we know this?

 

[jamie26301]

Right... but Paul didn't live in a Republic, where the two are to be separated.

My mistake, Rome was a Republic - what I was thinking of is established, state beliefs.

 

[jamie26301]

As for monuments and things like this that depict religious symbols - I'm kinda on the fence about that. To me, it's one thing to enforce religion through the law, and through indoctrination in schools. But when you're speaking of historical relics, or cherished pieces in local communities, that's different, imo.

But if an individual public school has a picture of Jesus up, and the majority is ok with it, being a Christian community, I don't see why this needs to be brought to court. I get the impression that much of the objection to these kinds of things, that doesn't directly indoctrinate or endorse a religion, is from pure spite. It's a grey area, but unless someone points to the painting (a teacher) and say "This is the Son of God, He died for your sins" or some other religious instruction, I don't see how it forces any child to believe or act a certain way. To me, on a personal, community level, that should be left to the population of that area.

 

[crossnote]

Also, the fundamental role of the state is to punish evil and reward good. Evil and good are determined by a moral worldview. The moral worldview from which Paul wrote was the Biblical Christian worldview.

Ergo, it stands to reason that a fundamental, Biblically mandated, function of state is to legislate and enforce the law of Nature and Nature's God. When this does not happen, it is incumbent on Christians to, at the very least, speak out.

Additionally, the reason why the Christians were initially martyred was almost entirely political. Disavowing Emperor worship and state Paganism as true and worthy religions was both a religious and political affront to the Roman state and culture. You couldn't separate the two. Neither could the Biblical Christian worldview be separated from the political implications of the Biblical Christian worldview.

In short, Christians have been in the game of civil disobedience and political activism long before it was cool.

hehe, are you sure you're 25? At 25 I had trouble lacing two sentences together .
I would only say that today civil disobedience/activism amongst Christians is almost taboo.

 

[zoii]

it isn't necessary to be so upset over this. Its just people in love wanting to spend their lives together. I don't think Christians need to feel threatened really... well that's my view anyway

 

[crossnote]

it isn't necessary to be so upset over this. Its just people in love wanting to spend their lives together. I don't think Christians need to feel threatened really... well that's my view anyway

I'm not sure if God Who is love is of the same 'love' as they teach you in school. There is a difference between love which is sacrificial (John 3:16) and lust which is selfish. ..

Romans 1:18-21, 24-28
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

EASIER VERSION...

Romans 1:18-21, 24-28
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness,
19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,
27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.

 

[zoii]

I'm not sure if God Who is love is of the same 'love' as they teach you in school. There is a difference between love which is sacrificial (John 3:16) and lust which is selfish. ..

Romans 1:18-21, 24-28
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

EASIER VERSION...

Romans 1:18-21, 24-28
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness,
19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,
27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.

Those passages don't really mean anything to people in love.... n I don't think I need to explain what love is - we all know what it means. People who love each other aren't evil for wanting to spend their lives together; or at least I don't think its something that we have to get distressed about.

 

[RickyZ]

Zoii, where does this stop? Science has shown that the same 'wiring' that makes people gay makes other people pedophiles. A lot of pedophiles insist they 'love' the children they molest. Since they do it in love shouldn't we just live and let live with them? How about polygamists? They use the word love too, I guess maybe that's ok as well? So where do you draw the line, and what do you say to people who then don't like where you've drawn it?

 

[crossnote]

Those passages don't really mean anything to people in love.... n I don't think I need to explain what love is - we all know what it means. People who love each other aren't evil for wanting to spend their lives together; or at least I don't think its something that we have to get distressed about.

Since when is 'being in love' the determiner of civil law?

 

[crossnote]

Something to think about. Found this quote on Christianpost.com

"Jesus Christ himself could've been charged with hate speech crimes in Canada having defined marriage as between a man and woman, called people hypocrites, serpents, sinners and vipers while referencing scripture."


Read more at What If the Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Gay Marriage?

 

[RickyZ]

Jesus Christ is being charged with hate speech. That which is right being wrong and vice versa is being fulfilled today.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I remember those days. I think it was the paraquat.

hehe, are you sure you're 25? At 25 I had trouble lacing two sentences together .

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Jesus was executed for sedition. His message of Israel's restoration in the context of a coming universal rule by God Himself apart from the present religious order (e.g. Pharisees, Sadducees, etc...) posed a threat within the social and power matrix of first-century Judaism.

His proclamation of this new eschatological kingdom also posed a political threat to those most supportive of the present order, including the Roman authorities themselves. Even though Jesus presented no threat of a violent military takeover, his message of liberation and his growing popularity nevertheless made him a dangerous political risk which climaxed by Jesus’ activities subsequent to and upon His arrival in Jerusalem for the Passover.

Jesus Christ is being charged with hate speech. That which is right being wrong and vice versa is being fulfilled today.

 

[RickyZ]

I was referring to now. As we stand in His Name against sin and are called haters for it, is not Christ in us being labeled a hater as well?

What the sinners are gong to find out about hate is that they're really going to hate how they find out they are wrong at the Judgment.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Jesus was executed for sedition.

Perhaps from a human perspective. Another is that He was executed for blasphemy.

In reality, He was executed because God ordained it.

 

[zoii]

Zoii, where does this stop? Science has shown that the same 'wiring' that makes people gay makes other people pedophiles. A lot of pedophiles insist they 'love' the children they molest. Since they do it in love shouldn't we just live and let live with them? How about polygamists? They use the word love too, I guess maybe that's ok as well? So where do you draw the line, and what do you say to people who then don't like where you've drawn it?

Ricky - that's such an insulting and horrible thing you write about gay couples. You might not like that they are gay and don't want to see them married - but to imply gay people are to linked to paedophilia is just a mean thing to do and I'm feeling so upset that this site could be saying such a thing. Gay people must have to endure a lot and I am not going to add to the hate and misery thrown at them. What u are saying is just terrible of u to do - so I just wish them all the best.

 

[blue_ladybug]

I have several gay friends, including my neighbors across the hall from me, and I even know a couple transgenders. BUT while I have nothing against gay people, it is morally AND biblically wrong for two gay people to be married, IMO. Neither should they be allowed to adopt children. jmo

 

[RickyZ]

Ricky - that's such an insulting and horrible thing you write about gay couples. You might not like that they are gay and don't want to see them married - but to imply gay people are to linked to paedophilia is just a mean thing to do and I'm feeling so upset that this site could be saying such a thing. Gay people must have to endure a lot and I am not going to add to the hate and misery thrown at them. What u are saying is just terrible of u to do - so I just wish them all the best.

I thought after posting this that there might be some misunderstanding, so my apologies for not clarifying that statement. I didn't mean that Gay people are pedophiles. What I meant to infer was that science has shown that the things that dictate whether someone is gay or straight is also the things that make other people pedophiles. In other words, science has identified genes and such that influence whether someone will be straight, gay or pedo. But no one person will be a mix of these things. A gene might make one gay, or it might make one pedo, but it's not going to make someone a pedophile gay. While the causes are related, the outcomes are not. So I didn't mean to say gays are pedos, and I apologize for that confusion. I was just saying that what influences one also influences the other.

So, in that light, then do you support live and let live for pedophiles? And if not where do you draw the line?