Again,democracy vs republic,there's a difference. Your premise is wrong.
So you only want Christians to have rights? You will be singing a different tune when we get a Muslim president enforcing Sharia laws
Again,democracy vs republic,there's a difference. Your premise is wrong.
But we are biblically instructed to proclaim His Word to others.We are not Biblically instructed to force our beliefs on anyone
So you only want Christians to have rights? You will be singing a different tune when we get a Muslim president enforcing Sharia laws
So you only want Christians to have rights? You will be singing a different tune when we get a Muslim president enforcing Sharia laws
That's the underlying principle in this situation - as in all situations. Men and women need Christ - not to be told to conform themselves to a legal requirement.
The Church has, of course, preached against behaviour down through the years - and not preached Christ. A lot have, mind you, and good on them. But whatever the sin (and I mean *whatever*), the solution is not observance to a written code but salvation through the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
I disagree with it too but non christians have rights in this country too. Basing law on religion results in tyranny....Sharia law is an example of this
I will ask you one thing. What law has congress passed to allow same sex marriage? I will ask one more what law has congress passed to allow abortion.
It is Judicial tyranny. Laws made by Judges that are not elected by the people. But rather shoved down our throats.
Congress makes law and the Supreme court interprets the law, they do not and cannot make law, But, we as a people have allowed them to make law we are ruled in this nation by 9 people. Which is unconstitutional.
true, But one can let them be, without being pro gay marriage. That was my point.
But the problem is that for some reason, we Christians in general have real trouble distinguishing between allowing someone to do something we don't agree with, and actively agreeing with them, on specifically this issue
We marry people who have already had sex all the time.
We marry people who have been divorced already all the time.
We live in societies where we essentially already allow gay people to have sex, to adopt children, etc, without feeling like we generally agree with what they do, in the same way we allow people to get drunk, to blaspheme, etc. Somehow, we survive all this without feeling complicit in other peoples sin, as it were.
But for some reason, on this issue, we can't step back and go "We can accept this as a legal allowance in our society, even though we disagree with it morally." In fact, in some cases we are actively obstructionist.
In Australia, we are currently talking about a plebiscite (essentially a binding national vote) on same sex marriage. We are planning to do this even though it will have no legal weight, even though some parliamentarians have said they may not honour the outcome of the vote in terms of how they conduct any vote in Parliament itself, and even though there's enough data to suggest that a large proportion, usually a majority, are in favour of same sex marriage in some form. The vote will cost tax payer money, but it's not clear what it will actually accomplish aside from tax payer funded ad campaigns for both sides. It's not even clear whether a 'Yes' vote would lead to an immediate vote on the floor of Parliament.
In the case of Kim Davis, she not only refused to sign licenses, but also made the rest of her office refuse to sign licenses. I'm sure she's signed licenses for people who were already co-habiting. She's probably signed licenses for divorcees (herself being a divorcee several times). I found it amazing that Christians everywhere were going in to bat for her and her beliefs, despite her being a Oneness advocate who denies some of the most central claims about the nature of God.
At what point are we not just simply voicing our disagreement, and are we just being obstructionist, and becoming incredibly hard headed and blinkered on a single issue? What point does that serve in sharing the gospel with people? How much time and effort are we spending on essentially telling non-Christians what to do with their lives that could be better spent elsewhere?
Can a mature Christian be pro-gay marriage?
There are a number of individuals within the Church that categorize themselves as evangelicals who are promoting gay marriage.
Many of them are younger Christians, and they tend to be gay or bisexual themselves. However, some churches, as we know, support gay marriage and even gay leadership within the church.
My position is that this is one of the issues which sort out true Christians and organizations that God is working through from those that are not true Christians and organizations that he is not working through. It is going to become plainer and plainer which people and organizations belong to Him and which people and organizations are in rebellion against Him, despite their claims.
Can a mature Christian be pro-gay marriage?
There are a number of individuals within the Church that categorize themselves as evangelicals who are promoting gay marriage.
Many of them are younger Christians, and they tend to be gay or bisexual themselves. However, some churches, as we know, support gay marriage and even gay leadership within the church.
My position is that this is one of the issues which sort out true Christians and organizations that God is working through from those that are not true Christians and organizations that he is not working through. It is going to become plainer and plainer which people and organizations belong to Him and which people and organizations are in rebellion against Him, despite their claims.
Actually that is only a minor issue.
That's the problem with alot of the so called the church, we pick certain sins to judge, while essentially ignoring sins we do not deem as real bad. And we wonder why the world calls us hypocrites, and no one wants a thing to do with God.