You have every right to think that adultery - or homosexuality for that matter - are not good things. But to try to get it outlawed (“made unacceptable in judicial perception” as you call it) is an entirely different matter. In doing so you are forcing a moral judgement that you derive from your faith unto others who do not share that faith.
That depends on what “promoting” and “encouraging” entails for you. To use your TV show example: Of course you do not have to watch the shows you do not like. And there is nothing wrong with telling the others in your household that you do not like them, why you do not like them and that you recommend to watch your show instead. Ideally you should also listen, while they are making an argument for why they prefer their show - but that is up to you.
The problem starts when you try to forbid one of your family members to watch their favourite show, because you do not like it. Then promoting and encouraging becomes forcing and imposing. I am sure you agree that there is a difference.
Lol. I avoided the frying pan, so it’s all good. I’m going to cite one of the cogent scripture passages in the NT that instructs spiritual- minded believers to “gently admonish” believers caught in sin. Again, please don’t think Christians are walking around out there with a fly swatter just waiting to smack a fly (wayward believer).
Galatians 6:
1Brothers and sisters, if a person gets trapped by wrongdoing, those of you who are spiritual should help that person turn away from doing wrong. Do it in a gentle way. At the same time watch yourself so that you also are not tempted. 2Help carry each other’s burdens. In this way you will follow Christ’s teachings. 3So if any one of you thinks you’re important when you’re really not, you’re only fooling yourself. 4Each of you must examine your own actions. Then you can be proud of your own accomplishments without comparing yourself to others. 5Assume your own responsibility.
This is entirely true. But…isn’t that the nature of how we build societies? I mean, I base my opposition to the death penalty on moral and ethical grounds that are not shared by (the majority of) my countrymen. Nevertheless, I seek to have it outlawed. I believe that our society would be better if the law were in accordance with my morality.
Folks like ICanOnlyTryMyBest seek the same thing: to create the society they think is best for everybody. I disagree with them on this–and many other–issues, and will oppose their idea of what is best to the extent of my abilities, but seeking to create law based on morality is, well, no sin.
We rarely agree on anything, but this is an excellent pot. It’s kind of amazing that it need even be said, but I think it serves of a timely reminder of reality.
Wow andros…this is extremely insightful and wise. I especially love how you provided an example to Bring home the point you are making- way cool. If you don’t mind, may I “steal” your words here (paragraph one) and use them as my own, or would you prefer me citing your name and giving you credit for such wisdom?
You are making an excellent point. It is true: whenever we weigh in on a political argument that has a moral component we argue based on our own morality. Is it also true that seeking to create law based on morality is no sin? Well … yes and no. If your goal is to live in a culturally diverse society, a certain degree of tolerance for the moral values of the minorities living among you is indispensable. In questions that more or less affect all of society in the same way such as the death penalty, that element has no large significance. But if a heterosexual majority attempts to outlaw the sexuality of the homosexual minority, the matter is different. Then it is no longer a matter of everyone presenting their moral viewpoint but rather that of a majority lording over the minority.
I do not think the masses would agree with me, that Christianity is different from religion, but nonetheless it is true. I don’t want to rabbit trail too much, for respect of the forum, but Christ did not come to create religion; He came to re-establish our relationship with God which was broken in the Garden of Eden. Thus, He came so that we could have a relationship with God.
As for banning it, I can already see signs pointing to this inevitable outcome. It makes me sad.
Sorry, but I’ve never seen a list of major religions where Christianity was either absent or had a special notation stating how it wasn’t really a “religion”.
Okay, you don’t have religion-you have “A Relationship With God”. Ever stop to think that to people of other religions it means the same thing?
BTW, would you mind telling us what religious sect you follow?
There is a new problem in America which is causing countless deaths, it is called Texting and Driving. In my state it is now illegal to text and drive. Why was this law passed, because people got hurt and that is not good. Same rules could be applied with drinking and driving, fictitiously yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie theater, and many more. We pass laws all the time based on moral choices, so going back to one of my original questions - “Where or what is the authority by which we build our foundation of standards?”
My goal is not to make everyone like me, that would be an insult to society. I want diversity, I want creativity, but left to ourselves with no authority to benchmark against we will end up moving too quickly towards a standard of laissez faire with no proper checks and balances.
But knowing how old the earth is, the origins of humans, and related facts, do you still believe there was really an Adam and an Eve? (That whole story makes no sense, but that may be an issue for a different thread…or is it? )
Even evangelicals are questioning this.
If this part breaks down, other parts will as well.
I love that you asked this and know first hand the difference. I grew up religious so I know that religion stems around doing good so that God will accept you into His kingdom. How much good must someone do? Isn’t there a measuring stick that I can use to see if my good outweighs my bad? Nope! This ends up producing guilt, anxiety, fear and ultimately bitterness. Sure these people are “Christians” but do they really know (study, pray, serve, trust, etc) their Savior? They might and I hope the really do!
The Book of John chapter three touches on this when Jesus and Nicodemus are discussing what it means to be “saved”.
A relationship, on the other hand, involves trust and interaction. Jesus paid all my debt on the cross so I don’t have to work my way to heaven. Rather, I live my life as a “new creation” and my response is to serve him out of pure gratitude, much like I would my parents whom I love and respect.
I am not a gifted writer so I am probably not doing this justice, in a quick Google search I found many writings which are more eloquent. Here is one example: God Hates Religion | Defining the Narrative
You ask what religious sect am I? I am none, I am a Christian.
What makes less sense to you, that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th or that a God-man came down and died on a cross and rose from the dead?
As a Christian if I believe in the later, for me it make most sense that I believe in the former. Have you read C.S. Lewis’ - Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument?
Agreed whole-hardheartedly. I cannot make you a Christian nor does it do God justice to force people to follow His laws. That is not my responsibility, however I must protect my family and those around me by voicing concerns to those laws which do not promote what God says is true.
I cannot stop people from aborting children, but I can adopt a child from a mother who is torn between two decisions. I can voice my thoughts on abortion and why I am against it. I can fund and volunteer at anti-abortion operations. I can teach my children about the dangers of sex before marriage.
I am not against you, but I want to preserve as much of society that I can which aligns with God’s standards. The same argument you bring can also be switched and addressed to you. Your standards, however they are defined, should not be forced on me. I feel you would agree with that statement, less you discount yourself as the aggressor.
No, you do not “know” any such thing, and that is not the established definition of “religion”. Believe it or not there are religions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the god you worship, so “religion stems around doing good so that God will accept you into His kingdom” can’t possibly be true, can it?
This argument ignores the very important distinction regarding victim vs. victimless crimes. We all agree that human life is of great value, so we make murder illegal. Anyone could be murdered, so it’s relevant to us all.
Nobody can be the victim of consensual homosexuality.
Of course, there are laws where victimhood is spread out to the general public, such as seatbelt and helmet laws. In those cases, we have to make a strong argument that the laws are for clear public good, without making recourse to religious propositions, and the majority has to agree, and it has to pass constitutional muster.
Good luck trying to do that about homosexuality. It used to be the norm but thankfully that wool has been lifted from our eyes, just as have so many other traditional values that are in the Bible that we now ignore. I’m pretty confident that the homophobes are a dying breed, and that it won’t really have that big an impact on Christianity.
Oh, the whole Jesus thing makes almost no sense at all. How’s the quote go? God sacrificed Himself to Himself to circumvent a rule He put into place Himself. Compared to that, looking around at the world as thinking, “Somebody had to make all this stuff,” is pretty straightforward. On the other hand, nearly every fact we’ve learned about the earth and the universe at large flatly contradicts the concept of a seven day creation cycle, where as there’s merely no evidence for Jesus’s divinity. So while it makes less sense, Jesus-as-God at least hasn’t been (and really can’t be) disproven.
Personally I am not fearful of homosexuality, I do not accept it as proper behavior based on the standards that I uphold, but then again I have to be true to who I am just like you must be true to the standards you uphold. I would also not treat a person who practices homosexuality any different than one who practices heterosexuality.
Will it have a big impact on Christianity, perhaps and perhaps not. If it doesn’t then I would feel disappointed that those who claim to follow Christ did not uphold His standards of righteousness.
Homosexuality, like pornography, does hurt society by lowering the standard of the whole. Why is it wrong for an adult and a minor to have consensual sexual relationships? Does that not fall into the category of not hurting anyone and yet it yields jail time for the adult. Why not bestiality? That sure doesn’t hurt anyone.
I am not advocating either, but when you lower your moral standards then the line of where to stop becomes less obvious. Again, it all falls back on what is the authoritative standard?
