Mr. Roper hated unmarried people more than gay people.
I am a Christian. I’m quite familiar with the type of argument you are making. But it only works if you have other Scripture to back you up.
And I will flat out say there is no Scripture that says that you should not do business with sinners. It doesn’t just contradict Jesus. It contradicts the entire thrust of the New Testament. How can you “Go into all the world and preach the gospel” if you can’t be around sinners?
Without that, there’s no way you can bring up the fact that Peter said we should obey God’s law and not man’s law. Because there is no God’s law to be obeying in this case.
I am an atheist. Just pointing out that the Bible does indeed condemn lying.
Yes and no. *Thou shalt not bear false witnesses against they neighbor *is not an injection against all lying anymore than thou shalt not murder is an injunction against all killing.
I agree, that’s why I mentioned mentioned Proverbs 6:16-19 which is much more categorical.(istm)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm
Lying to “save yourself and your loved ones” appears to fall under the category of the venial sin of Adulation.
I find it quite strange when people try to use the “render unto Cæsar” passage as a proof-text for a strict church-state separation. I mean, come on, this is the Gospel that has been read at the British coronation service for the last thousand years! The Pharisees didn’t ask Jesus if it was lawful to pass laws with religious motivations. They asked Jesus if it was lawful to obey the laws of the secular authority. And the answer was: “Yes, so long as the secular authority does not overstep its bounds by intruding on God’s domain.”
Why are Christians singled out? Here are Muslims in Dearborn doing the same thing:
Pretty selective outrage.
That’s how you have chosen to interpret the passage. Jesus does not say what you’re implying he did, either in this passage or anywhere else. Nowhere does he espouse a philosophy of rebellion or civil disobedience. He didn’t even resist when the soldiers came for him (I’m guessing a modern-day Jesus would have taken out one of those dudes, at least).
If you want to talk about strange, look at all the Teabaggers who claim to love them some Jesus but hate them some taxes. Especially when the taxes go to poor and sick people. Now THAT is strange.
My biggest issue with this nonsense is that there is now a law on the books that allows you to say “EEEEEW Icky!” about the way a person was born.
born, not “EEEEEW you make stupid decisions in who you marry” or something like that.
so now in Indiana its ok to not serve blacks if you are old school xian/morman?
'Cause there are a shitload more Christians in the US than there are muslims?
But seems like one could mentally add “and the tiny minority of muslim-owned businesses” every time you read about this issue, and be good to go.
Excellent plan. Add it mentally, but don’t actually say it out loud. We wouldn’t want the Muslims to do anything “crazy”. Also, we should all be willing to tolerate Muslim homophobia, it only becomes offensive if Christians do it. Gotcha. Happy Easter.
Nonsense.
The only difference is that gays are now well organized, well funded, and in a mood to fight.
So far, other sinners (or, if you prefer, violators of Christian tenets) haven’t banded together and tried to make their crimes officially respectable.
And may your Easter basket be as full of straw as your posts. Cheers.
There is a difference between doing buisiness with sinners, because that’s 100% of your customer base and condoning/profiting specifically from their sins in full knowledge of them.
Jesus did have unusual (for His time) ammounts of contacts with public/notorius sinners, but it’s always a “teaching moment” and “sin no more” time. He goes to Zaccheus’ house and it ends up not with Jesús saying “thanks for the food you bought with your ill-gained money” but with good ol’ Z-man giving the money back. He helps the adulteress and then doesn’t say “I know you were horny, that’s Ok, it’s natural”.
Helping a sinner commit a sin or cause scandal with that sin is wrong. Helping the gay couple with their wedding is a sin, helping the gay couple with jumper cables isn’t.
The whole “render unto Caesar” thing doesn’t mean “always follow the law, not matter what it says”. Christians have the duty of opposing unjust laws and accept the punishment for not following it.
This is the kind of law the “principled” people say the dislike but they will surely will disobey another law when that one conflicts with their ideas.
No. Why would you think it is?
Hint: Can a state nullify the [federal] Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Short answer- No.
When Indiana passed their law the majority of states (30 total, 19 by law and 11 by state constitution) and the federal government had similar religious protections. Religious freedoms can still be restricted as long as there’s a substantial government interest in doing so and there’s not a less restrictive way to meet the interest. Protected classes have held up against those religious protections. There was never a realistic reason to think it would be applied differently in Indiana.
To make it even clearer, the Indiana law as amended Thursday explicitly exempts claims of religious freedom when named protections such as race and sexual orientation are included. Sexual orientation is not a protected class by state law although it is in some local laws protecting a good chunk of Hoosiers. Race is protected statewide though. The law now clearly and explicitly prevents claims of religious protection for businesses based on race. The amendment did specifically exempt religious leaders and organizations from that restriction of religious protection. They can still assert religious freedom and the issue could be litigated in accordance with the tests.
If you are a religious leader in one of the blatantly racist neo-pagan norse strains becoming popular among white supremacists, you could still claim religious protection if asked to conduct, for example, an interracial marriage. That issue could be litigated. If your day job, when not leading worship to Odin, was owning a restaurant you would still be expected to serve lunch to customers and hire employees regardless of race. The state RFRA would not offer any religious protection in that case.
I want someone to cite the scripture and verse that tells Christians they have a duty to oppose unjust laws.
And I also want someone to explain to me how–if civil disobedience is such a Christian notion–it’s only been quite recently that Christians have been espousing it. They sure didn’t espouse it when all those Christians (black folk) were held in bondage for 300 years. It was a Hindu who inspired MLK. Not a Christian. If Christians truly are compelled by Christ to resist authority, they sure waited long enough to show it.
From Romans 13:1-7
Bolding mine.
Until you find me a passage anywhere in the Bible that contradicts this, I will continue to believe that fundamentalist Christians are completely misguided about what their god will judge them for.
I want to go back to something astorian said about the liberal Episcopalian who won’t fight for the military due to his moral convictions:
*
The religionists who are seeking a variance for their bigotry want the benefits of taking a valiant stand (eternal life in heaven) without facing any of the earthly consequences. They are akin to the draft dodger who wants to escape the responsibilities of military service without having to suffer any legal ramifications.
Which kind of takes away the “valiant” part of “valiant stand”, right?
Philosophical question here: Does God really want the law to coerce people to do the “right” thing? Or would he rather people do the “right” thing regardless of what they law says? Which stance is consistent with an entity who makes a big to-do about free will?
If you wany to make the general point that some/many/most Chrisitians have been assholes and not live according to their own professes beliefs, I won’t fight it.
Since I’m not a fundamentalist Christian I will not speak for them.
As a Catholic, this link may help.. The gist is that we have the general duty of obeying laws, except when they go against God’s will.
Also, it’s sad and lame when people bring the “mixed fabrics” thingy to Christians…it’s like asking why we don’t sacrifice lambs.