Is my participation as a non-Christian required in any way for current Christians to reach salvation? If not, then why approach me? If so, why not be a little more nice about it?
that’s comforting! my secular country could turn into theocracy where Jews are tolerated but not dragged out in the streets. As it is, my gay friends are denied 1100 or so rights for reasons that make sense only to Christians.
How is it different? Outside of a court, anti-SSM marriages all reduce to Jesus is Love. Inside of a court, no witness has ever been produced that can explain the false claims of “traditions” behind marriage, not one.
Of course it is, but it is not my only one.
Sure, but “Jesus is Love” does not specify the context, and when the context is contested, the answer is generally that context does not matter - look at the issue of secularism of SSM for example. It can’t be both ways.
Also, I am not aware that English is the official language of Christianity, but I am aware that different languages have different words and cultural traditions and norms for related concepts. to the extent that Christianity is found worldwide, and preaches a universal method, I would be surprised if a claim that the universal message is in the English version only is an accepted school of thought. Especially when it seems clear that the Greek - maybe the original language for this concept? - has better words for the different context.
I am interested in the practical effects of the claim - because it seems quite clear that the issue has left the Church and become increasingly political in my lifetime. When only 3 words are used as a rallying cry/shibboleth, what is wrong with trying to understand the nuances and purposes to which they are put? Are Christians not really interested in transparency before someone joins the club? Is there something to hide?
That is that what the 3 words “Jesus is love” conveys to a non Christian, even if the claim itself is true.
Kinship rules vary by culture, to what extent must a culture have its kinship rules defined by the Christians in its midst?
Fine within one’s religious boundaries.
Lots? When the question was put to Christians against SSM (Prop 8 Proponents) in an actual trial before a secular court, why could not one single credible witness be produced to testify to this? There are 380 million people in the US, and not one could be found among “lots”?
Are there really “lots”, or does everyone think that there is without really stopping to measure?
At what point in this history did Christians stop being Jews and start being something else? Since the traditions of many religions were incorporated along the way, sometimes very early (I learned it on the dope!) are you comfortable saying that Christianity arose out of Paganism or whatever too?
You mean t he Christians are going to abandon 2000 years of history and revert to Judaism?
That would be a new one to me.
Well if you believe there is a way to get to Heaven and enjoy eternal bliss but that some people aren’t going there wouldn’t you try to convince people to get people to trust in Christ for forgiveness of their sins in order to be saved? And how were they “not being nice about it”?
As I said 1950s America had plenty of “moral laws” but it wasn’t a theocracy. I don’t think the Moral Majority types want a Christian version of Iran or Saudi Arabia for instance.
No, I don’t see how one logically follows the other. I think riding in my car is terrific, but I don’t feel any obligation to try to get everyone else to buy the same as me. The structure of the argument is the same.
As for not being nice, pestering individuals, not showing respect for social conventions of right place and time for everything, etc. Speaking to strangers when not spoken to, stuff like that.
More importantly, organizing campaigns designed to limit or even restrict the civil rights of people who fall afoul of their religious beliefs, regardless of the religious beliefs of the people involved, is pretty much the text book definition of “not nice”.
Oh but yes they do, they very actively campaign in every state and federally to codify at least some of their beliefs, and not minor ones, into secular law. Do you doubt that?
One’s eternal condition=/type of car driven.
Also “pestering” may be almost anything to easily annoyed people (not saying you are).
And moralistic laws as little to do with missionary activity.
No I do not. What I was saying is many of those laws were in place as late as the 1950s.
Well,if you are making a rational argument, then maybe you should lay it out in complete detail instead of appealing to my emotion 
I honestly don’t see why one follows form the other, nor why if one is eternal bliss (which to me takes it out of the realm of rational argument but I will wait to see what you provide before concluding it) and one is not, that the logic would be different.
Spending all day knowcking on the doors of strangers for example, when it is not Halloween and you are older than ~13, is pretty bad, yet common among the folks we are discussing. That is only one example.
the question, remember, is Jesus is love true? Because the political activity I am referring to is very definitely predicated on that claim.
Note “moralistic laws” is vague to the point of meaninglessness. I am referring, specifically, to Christian efforts to embed what we are discussing as the core tenet of Christian’s faith into our secular laws. There is no need for a euphemism, it is what it is. It is no secret.
Prop 8 in California most certainly was not in effect in the 1950s. Roe v. Wade was most certainly not in effect in the 1950s. As a Californian, I most certainly had marriage rights prior to Prop 8 that I don’t have now. The Proponents of that law are unabashed Christians. And when they faced a Federal Trial over the constitutionality of Prop 8, they could not produce a single credible witness willing to testify to the claims you are making and hinting at here.
This is a matter of public record. Perhaps you didn’t know it, but now you do. But please don’t claim it isn’t so, because it doesn’t help the discussion here at all.
But yes, I suppose a lot of this has been going on for over 100 years, which doesn’t make it right. If anything, it is only more egregious.
Well I suppose a religious debate often goes out of the nature of rational argument but here’s the idea in a nutshell
No different from a door-to-door salesman really.
Well Jesus is not just love, He is also justice and He is also morality. However abortion for instance, Christians wish to ban, because they believe it to be murder and murder is of course a terrible crime and thus they do it out of love. Thus I suppose in that sense Christians are implementing the spirit of “Jesus is love” into law. However my personal view is that banning all sins would not be in the spirit of “Jesus is love” since everyone is a sinner, many such laws are unenforcable, and so on.
Are you saying gay marriage was legal in California in 1950? Roe v. Wade, also, is a liberal ruling not a conservative/Christian ruling of any sort.
And proponents of the law weren’t only Christians, it also included Mormons and Muslims among others.
What claims of mine are you talking about exactly?
But this is not a debate, it is an opportunity to explain the claimed truth of “Jesus is love”. since the statement is clearly in the simple form of equivalence, and the definition of truth is the rational one, the argument must ultimately be rational. I have given a lot of leeway so far, but you are introducing a new topic that is not rational in the least. Let’s just drop it.
That is a circular argument in a rational sense, because it relies on terms that are defined only within the realm of the original claim. Such as “sin”. Most non-Christians don’t have any, or at least the same, concept of sin. For one example.
Let’s drop it.
That favorite character of the American landscape that no one has ever considered annoying and worse. Yet I don’t see door to door salesman approaching at every place I go.
That is the correct, and offensive as it is contrary-to-all-American-history-and-philosophy of society view
I am not aware that folks are conctrating on laws that are not enforceable at all. Prop 8 for example, which banned same-sexc marriage and all the rights that went with it, is very enforceable. People can not get married who could before, and they can not claim rights, or benefits of married people, where they could before.
There were no laws explicitly banning it, and to the extent it was not allowed, it was ruled unconstitutional in retrospect and its effect null and void in 2008.
I am not going to get into an argument about of Mormons are Christians, but the Proponents, who created the Prop, funded it, and defended it in Court are most certainly a collection of Christians (and Mormons if you must).
This again is a matter of public record. There has been a trial and an appeal by precisely this group, there is no secret as to who they are. They are most certainly not Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans or atheists. They are most certainly Christians.
Anything you have said regarding laws for example. If you wish to continue down that road, then please review the trial record of Prop 8, and the campaign history and material of all anti-SSM campaigns across 50 states and at the Federal level before continuing.
Otherwise, let’s drop that as unhelpful to explaining the apparent veracity of “Jesus is Love”, as it adds nothing helpful to the discussion.
Not_Alice, you confuse the bejeezus out of me. 
Do you want people’s views on whether “Jesus is Love” is fundamental to Christianity or do you want to debate whether Christians who oppose same-sex marriage are hypocritical?
You act as if all Christians are fundamentalists who oppose same-sex marriage, want to ban abortion and support prayer in school. You do understand they’re a more diverse group than that, don’t you?
You seem irritated that a phrase like “Jesus is Love” is ambiguous and might be interpreted differently by different people. But surely you see that other phrases from other religions can also be ambiguous. “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy,” for instance – what exactly is the Sabbath and how should one keep it holy? A lot of different people have conflicting ideas about that.
Why are you so focused on Christians who oppose same-sex marriage? I believe many Jews and Muslims share that opposition.
Many of your statements suggest you expect logic and unanimity from Christians. Do you expect the same from Jews? If so, then why are there different branches of Judaism and conflicting beliefs? Why are there oral traditions and conflicting interpretations?
A key fact to remember when trying to understand any religious belief is that people are illogical and emotional. You don’t understand how one Christian can believe Jesus is literally love and another can laugh at that and another can see Jesus as a purifying fire? The answer is that people are illogical and contradictory and liable to believe whatever they want to believe.
Bottom line: I think you’re looking for a level of logic and internal consistency that doesn’t exist in any religion. That may be frustrating, but that’s people for you.
I’m sorry. This seems to be semantic game-playing. You say the very phrase “Jesus is love” is something you are constantly confronted with by Christians. I just Googled the exact phrase- 104,000 entries & the first page
are all links to a song or songs titled that. The second page is mostly the same,
with the only two exceptions being a quote by renown theologian Miley Cyrus and
a reference to a religious parody blog that used the name “Jesus is Love”. I see no evidence that those three words are a rallying cry.
And now you seem to imply there is some sort of bait & switch when Christians use the word “love” in different contexts and speculate that we’re hiding something. No, we are not. The Global Christian Conspiracy did not sent me a memo to obfuscate the word “Love” so we could be mean to gays.
The numbers of the votes tell. Prop 8 got a majority of votes in CALIFORNIA- the state which has inspired the word “Californication”. Not exactly a hotbed of Puritanism. If “lots” of Californians voted for Prop 8, and they did, I don’t think it’s an extrapolation to say that lots of Christians are against SSM. What does the court have to do with whether “lots” of people decided that. The court is a place by which law is judged, not numbers.
70 AD, with the fall of the Temple/Priestly/Sacrificial Mosaic Covenant system, was a major point, with all the Jewish Christians fleeing Judea for safer havens and probably taking refuge with the early mixed Jewish-Gentile Christian communities in Asia Minor. As the Apostles & their immediate followers died out & Gentile converts took leadership we see in the 100-200 AD writings more incorporation of Greek & Roman thinking patterns & practices into Christian faith and a greater repudiation of distinctive Judaic practices (Sabbath, Kosher diet & Festivals). Alas, while the Council of Nicea settled the important questions of Jesus’ place as Deity and the Christian canon of Scriptures, it also tragically codified repudiation of Jewishness into official church law. Whereas the Apostolic Church faced the problem of Judaizers wrongly teaching Gentiles that to become Christian, they had to become Jewish, be circumscised & eat Kosher, the Orthodox-Catholic Church now adopted the opposite heresy of demanding that Jewish believers in Jesus give up their distinctive Jewish covenantal ways.
Christianity arose out of Judaism, was transplanted in Pagan cultures. Along the way, it adopted various Pagan/Gentile ideas & practices. However, Christianity did not arise out of Paganism. Its roots are Jewish, but some of its developments have Pagan influences.
No, hopefully, the Church will abandon the heresy of Gentilizing Christianity & once more welcome Jewish & B’nai Noah Gentiles who circumcise, eat Kosher, keep Sabbath & the Festivals AND who trust in Lord Messiah Jesus. Hopefully, we will also incorporate the Festivals & Special Days into the Christian Calendar. (Tisha B’Av is gonna be awkward, I admit.) And hopefully the Jewish world will recognize that secularizing assimilation is far more dangerous to Jewish survival than acceptance of Lord Messiah Jesus as stop casting out Jewish adherents to Jesus.
Good Lord, this conversation is all over the place. I started my previous post last night, had to go to work, & then picked it back up to complete without reading what had transpired. Now that I’ve read it, it is confusion worse confounded.
At first, here were the OPs concerns-
What Christians mean by “Jesus is Love”?
Do Christians consider Jesus as anything more than Love?
Why do Christians have to bother people about it?
Then it became-
Is the JIL phrase some sort of whitewash for the anti-SSM agenda?
What is the relationship between Judaism & Christianity?
And now this has gotten into the Christian Right’s agenda & impact on politics.
Can we narrow this down to one subject?
Alice…
I understand the discomfort you feel. I was a secular humanist for over 30 years. I love the steely comfort of naturalist answers. However, if you give this thread a chance, you will see that there are more cogent, logical answers that will give you an exciting insight to the nature of the world, of people and the God who created them.
The apostle Paul complemented the Boreans for not excepting everything they were taught or told without first studying and testing it. This is what we are doing in a forum for intelligent people to discourse.
IMO, I associate the practice and the actions of everyday Christianity much more with “tough love” than with any kind of all-embracing mercy or caring or agape.
Loving everyone is easiest to just pay lip service to. It does not fulfill the promise of Matthew, where it says that “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” (Note the self-gratification implicit in the verse.) Nor does it resolve with the God of the Old Testament, who was history’s greatest hardass.
Ultimately, Christ died not so much to give us a Get Out of Hell Free card, but as a kind of role model for Christians: to show them that it is necessary both to suffer, and to cause others to suffer, in God’s name.
Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say “what I went through, you must also.” But the idea is close to the hearts of many - Christians or not. A pain shared is half a pain, as the old (non-scriptural) adage goes, and it doesn’t matter if it’s shared through commiseration or through infliction.
Frankly, I don’t understand why you snipped the paragraph in which I tried to explain (my understanding of) the meaning of “Jesus is love” (Post #79). It’s a central tenet because it goes to salvation and why Christians consider Jesus worthy of worship. THAT, as Charles Schultz might have said, is what Christianity is all about, Charlie Brown.
As for why SSM is different, it’s different because Christian opposition thereto (by no means universal) is not a central tenet. Any more than was support of slavery. Homosexuality was criticized by Paul and that’s about all the NT has to say on the subject. You assert the Christian opposition to SSM is based on JIL, but I’ve never heard that. Rather, it’s based on Paul, tradition and, we’ll probably agree on this, simple homophobia. (I support SSM, btw.) Surely it’s not surprising that some people will try to dress up their personal prejudices with Godly words.
We meet that IMHO by pointing out this is supposed to be a secular society, not a theocracy, by pointing out SSM does no harm to traditional marriage and by arguing that society should evolve, just as it evolved to eliminate slavery and permit no-fault divorce. And, yes, if you like, by pointing out that JIL is irrelevant to SSM.
As an atheist I believe Jesus is love from the tennis scoring perspective.
Your original statement was:
I answered that I do not see a distinction. The ones making a distinction base it upon a certain interpretation of what marriage and relationships are supposed to be about, from a Christian perspective. If marriage is a God-provided “natural” relationship for procreative sex, then male-female relationships are good and holy and just and sanctioned, but same-sex relationships are vile and evil and unholy and apart from God and unnatural. So the practical difference is that one couple is holy and sanctioned by God while the other is not. That’s all there is to it.
You seem to be asking for logic where there is none. The answer is “BECAUSE I SAID SO!” Why can’t I eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? BECAUSE I SAID SO. Why must we circumcise? BECAUSE I SAID SO. Why must I keep the Sabbath holy, and honor my father and mother, and not put milk in the same refridgerator as meat? BECAUSE I SAID SO. Why can’t I marry a same sex partner? BECAUSE I SAID SO. It’s the rules.
It’s like the Game show Jeopardy - “Oh, I’m sorry, you didn’t phrase your response in the form of a question. You lose.” It’s the rules.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! 
There’s that L word again.
Irrelevant from a Christian perspective. First off, there is a major cultural hurdle of what “marriage” is. Marriage is a social contract, telling yourself and others about expectations. Through the development of our culture, there are actually 2 separate social aspects relying on separate “authorities” and spheres of influence that are being called upon. One is the religious aspect, the “covenant with God”; the other is the record with the state, and the legal partnership. But the thing is, the institution of “marriage” derived from a time when the distinction between the authorities was not made - sanctioning by the Church for God also sanctioned for the legal bond of the state. They were the same arrangement. This is the heritage of the word “marriage” that many run-of-the-mill Americans are relying upon when they make the judgment that “marriage is special”. This is why even moderate to liberal Christians who defend same sex relationships and agree to allow civil unions with all the attendant rights and legal bonds will still argue it shouldn’t be called marriage. To them, that word reflects a religious angle.
It’s not based in logic, or reality, or any legal definition. It’s purely an emotional “that’s the way it is” response. It is very difficult to logically argue against because their position does not stem from logic.
You are laying an awful lot of responsibility at the feet of Christians rather than observing that our cultural heritage in English is to gloss over the fact that there are distinct meanings for the word “love” that are context driven.
Any parent will tell you they love their children. Talk to people about meeting someone special and falling in love. Those are not the same thing. People speak of making love. Some people love their car, they love their wife - is that the same love? Our culture has embedded this ambiguity and works around it, rather than recognizing it and trying to address it directly. American christians are a product of our culture and operate within that culture. They might could try to argue for the distinct forms of the word, but they don’t see the need in the same way that the vast bulk of society does not see the need and so does not create/steal a different word for the different aspects.
Oh come on. The whole point is homosexuality, for sexual relationships that are also emotional relationships. Could there be couples bonding purely for the emotional aspects and not having any sex? Sure it’s possible, but highly unlikely, because most humans are looking for the physical part of the relationship, too. Otherwise why are they getting married? What’s the point, if not to declare that the relationship is more than just best friends? If Adam and Steve are just best friends, they can live in the same house and roommates and share rent, and hang out together, whatever. You only need “marriage” to signify something more.
Bullshit. Marriages for them are 2 component arrangements - the State recognizing the religious ceremony. Yes, there is a civil contract element, thus the paperwork that has to be signed. But the use of priests/ministers and the practice of getting married in churches, and the recitation of vows that include heavy-handed invocations of God and God’s sanction indicate that they strongly feel the religious element is as much a part of the “marriage” as the state legal bond that occurs. To them, the marriage is a religious arrangement that the State acknowledges, rather than an arrangement that the State provides that they can opt to formalize in a church by a priest rather than a courthouse by a judge. They see the “civil marriage” as an alternate form available to those losers who can’t muster the decency to get married by God - like atheists, etc.
What, that love is an ambiguous word, and so is marriage? I honestly have no idea. I gave up christianity ~20 years ago. I don’t spend that much time trying to get into their heads.
You have clearly misunderstood. The claim is that salvation cannot be achieved except by accepting Jesus into one’s life. The path is only through Jesus, not only for Jesus.
To many christians, proselytizing is not just an option, it is a requirement. They are directed by the Bible to seek out and witness - it is a mission. Thus the word “missionary”. They have an obligation to not only live as God directs them, but to try to bring others to that same relationship with God. So yes, going door-to-door and knocking and trying to tell you about their specific version of christianity is an important means of trying to ensure everyone hears the Good Word - the specific “Good Word” of their denomination/sect. It’s not enough that you have heard the name Jesus, it’s that you know about their church’s interpretation of the Bible and their specific subset of beliefs.
While their path to heaven is given by their acceptance of Jesus, that acceptance is acknowledged and demonstrated by how well they fulfill their obligations - including witnessing.
While most of us find door-to-door salesmanship – whether religious or secular – to be annoying, it nevertheless is a path to ensure everyone has the opportunity to hear the word. It is far more effective for ensuring contact than posting a billboard or taking out a TV ad. “Yes, I visited 27 houses today and talked to 12 people, 7 of whom took my literature, and 1 said he might visit our church. SCORE!”
I don’t follow where you get this. I don’t see how “Jesus is love” is intended as a comment or retort to the idea of SSM. “Jesus is love” is intended as an explanation/appeal of what Jesus stands for, why he is special. The attitude of christians with respect to SSM marriages does not appear to me to be related to their exhortations about Jesus. It is based upon their beliefs about the nature of marriage and moral judgments about homosexual sex.
If you are saying no one has been able to provide evidence of law to support their beliefs, I agree. But they still believe this. It’s not based upon a legal position, it’s based upon a cultural expectation picked up from parents and church and society and the way we frame our conversations about sex and relationships and marriage.
Once again, you are expecting logic from a non-logical argument.
And I’m confused exactly how a question about what “Jesus is love” means became a discussion about same sex marriage and why many christians reject that idea.
Transparency? Dude, they want you to join because it is the moral thing to do, it is to save your soul from eternal hell. All argumentation begins with the pretext that God really exists as some anthropomorphic all powerful being, that God actually created the Earth and the universe (the process and timeframe up to the individual), and that God sent himself as his own son - Jesus - to be a human, then suffer on the cross, die, be carted off to hell and suffer the worst punishment there for 3 days, then be resurrected in body and spirit to return to heaven (after making a brief pit stop on Earth again to prove he resurrected). What “transparency” are you looking for?
To the extent that christians believe that the kinship rules are derived from their God and what their God says, primarily in the Bible, and that God is the source of all morality. They believe, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the laws of our society derive primarily from God, with perhaps some secular additions like traffic laws and the like. Seriously.
You seem to fail to grasp that to the Christian, their religious boundaries apply to everyone, even those who choose not to believe, because God is the source of morality, so God’s rules about morality apply to everyone. Those who choose not the follow them are EVIL. Or at least engaging in evil. It’s called “sin”, and rejecting God is not choosing not to participate in the game, it is being stuck in the game and refusing the only way to win.
There may be no legal justification for this belief, but the belief is widespread nonetheless.
Very early in the formation of Christianity, there was a rivalry between the Jewish christian followers of the Apostles like Peter, and the gentile followers of christianity who rejected the Jewish nature but took on the other teachings about Jesus - e.g. Paul. The non-Jewish christianity won out over the Jewish version - to be Christian was not just to be a sect of Judaism, it was its own thing, and rejected the strict rites and requirements of Judaism to appeal to Gentiles, to make conversion easier. By the time Constantine made Christianity the official religion circa 300 AD, that change had been made.
Cite please. I want evidence the rejection of SSM and other political activity defends itself with “Jesus is love”.
Cite for where anyone is trying to establish “Jesus is love” as a law.
Prop 8 didn’t need to be explicitly stated in the 1950s because it was the default expectation of society. Anyone attempting a same sex marriage would have been rejected, and probably violently opposed. The fact that our social expectations about relationships have relaxed enough to give acceptance to same sex relationships at all is what allows scrutiny of the application of laws about marriage to situation where they would never have been applied before. Ergo, the current furor over SSM and the “need” for Prop 8. So there certainly was a legal gray area between the 1950s and the enactment of Prop 8. But doesn’t mean a legal argument in 1950s would have been successful, any more than legal claims against “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on our money have been legally accepted.
You asked what else christians believe Jesus is if he is not just love. And we have given dozens of valid answers. And we have attempted to explain what that phrase means to christians, both through discussions of the definition of love at work, and at examining the intent of the phrase rather than just defining the words. Yet for some reason you do not appear to accept either form of answer as valid.
From the Christian perspective, you don’t get a vote. Sin applies whether you accept it or not. To them, God is the source of morality and Good. Apart from God is Evil. Not accepting Jesus is the equivalent of choosing Evil. You don’t get to say “I reject your rules and play a different game.” They take that as conceding that you lose. You’re still stuck in the game.
But what does it mean to have “brotherly love”? Is not “tough love” the practice of motivating someone to change their behavior by not helping them do the destructive practices they are choosing? Is it not born out of the expectation of that same brotherly love, that the person is harming himself and others and needs to change, but attempts to assist and suggest the necessary changes are not working, so a stronger hand is needed? Is not the motivation the same?
That seems to be a fairly disturbed and distorted view of Christianity by any means. Nothing in my experience suggests making others suffer is a necessity of Christianity. Now certainly elements of christianity have taken their own righteousness to extremes and caused suffering in the name of God, and certainly some have interpreted the use of application of suffering to lead to conversion as acceptable. But it takes a Torquemada to think that the application of suffering is righteous. That is not a mainstream position at all.
That’s not all there is to it.
It would be if the Christians who wish to impose their beliefs on secular laws did not feel that way. And if Christian sects and denominations were unanimous in your claim, which they are not. And if Christians or their God got to sanction non-Christian marriages.
But it is NOT the rules. Sects and denominations differ on all the points you mentioned above. Why take the view or the squeakiest wheel as any more authoritative than any other?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
yes, it is fundamentally at the basis for our government, and since Christians want to make Jesus’ love embedded in the government, well, as you said, that’s the rules.
If only! Are you suggesting that the majority of the opposition to SSM is not claiming Christianity interpretations as the reason for the objection?
If I ever go back in time to the middle ages, I will keep that in mind. But we don’t live in the middle ages, or this mythical country no one can ever quire name. We live in the United States, and the laws regarding SSM (would) only address the secular aspect of the social contract you mentioned.
This argument of yours has been made and rejected in In Re Marriage Cases in California, which remains the law of the land pending the Constitutionality of Prop 8. No such claims were made in the Federal Prop 8 case, at least not to the point that a credible witness could be persuaded to take the stand and say it.
So one is left to conclude that either there is a clear difference between secular and non-secular aspects of marriage, and for the secular part, Jesus has zero to do with it despite assertions to the contrary, or, that certain Christian faiths really do want to blend two separate social contracts and embed their beliefs in our secular laws. It can’t be both ways.
That is nonsense. There are Christian denominations who support SSM just fine. And a civil union is not a marriage, it is a separate but try to be equal kluge.
It is easy to argue logically in the court of law. No one cares what they do in Chuch, that is their right. But it is easy to argue in a court of law, where they DO need to argue logically, present witnesses and evidence, and having been given the chance, failed to do so.
If they can make that distinction, among themselves, fine, but non-Christians don’t have the context by definition. And moreover, if they can make the distinction about “love” in context, and expect all others to do so, why can’t they make the distinction about “marriage” in context?
Can’t have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously.
Are Greek Christians working in a different context? How about non-Western Christians whose language has no such concept for love as we have?
Sorry, can’t play the “it’s the culture” card and expect that no one will notice that the “Jesus is love” thing is universal across all cultures and all languages where Christianity exists and is expressed.
Steal a word?
Being perpetually misunderstood is not reason enough to coin a new word?
And why are they so sure about love but not marriage again?
That’s the lamest 3rd grade level argument I ever read on SDMB.
For a civil marriage, there is no need to consummate the marriage either once or regularly. Is there such a thing in a Church marriage?
There are over 1000 rights that come with marriage at the Federal level alone. No one ever asks the natur3e of the relationship between the partners, either before or after the marriage. You are deluding yourself if you thing otherwise.
So if someone doesn’t want to get married in a Church - or can’t, they are losers? Who is spewing bullshit here? I think you are on the edge or undoing the careful work you laid out earlier if this is the true view: a disrespect for people that arises from teh core tenet of Christianity. Sheesh.
Marriage is not ambiguous.
Are you a loser?
You have clearly misunderstood. The claim is that salvation cannot be achieved except by accepting Jesus into one’s life. The path is only through Jesus, not only for Jesus.
So ignoring social conventions and even other tenets of their beliefs when convenient is a “mission from God”? Why would anyone be interested in such a thing?
Well, they are generally happy to leave without that, so you aren’t right about this.
My uinderstanding, possibly incorrect, is that they need not accept Jesus until their dying breat to get the same benefits. So why the rush if it means upsetting people and treating them as they wouldn’t want to be treated.
You made th same lame arguments they do up above. Read your own words for how it follows.
Which are one and the same. You said Marriages are about and for Love. Jesus is Love. do the math.
It is about a legal position. IN every state, and at the Federal levels, they seek to pass legislation about civil marriage. Courts are trying cases about laws, not religious beliefs. Christians are eager to create the laws, and defend them in court. To suggest otherwise implies you have a giant imagination, but neither I nor anyone else here will buy it.
Because on the one hand you say the definition of love is vague, but then demand a very specific meaning for it in the context of secular marriage. If it is vague for you, it is vague for all, and if you use it in a way that doesn’t make sense, then it is incumbent of you to accept the hypocrisy of expecting a single definition when it suits you and a vague one when that suits you.
There is nothing “moral” about that. It is the basis for the club is all.
So all Christians believe all countries should be theocracies embedding their own beliefs? Or just some do?
That is the kind of transparency I think would serve the world well to have honesty about.
I know plenty of Christians who go to Church regularly and are more than average devout who would label that claptrap. They believe other people’s lives are their own business. You have never met this type of Christian?
Then where is the reasoning that says secular laws should reflect Christianity?
Prop 8, 30+ States with anti-SSM Const. Amendments, DOMA, etc. See the arguments in favor, who the proponents are, etc.
Prop 8, 30+ States with anti-SSM Const. Amendments, DOMA, etc. See the arguments in favor, who the proponents are, etc. Also see Roe v. Wade arguments for 30 years or so. Blue laws that still exist. Need I go on?
So you advocate violence now to counteract the love 2 people have for each other? Is this among the ambiguous meanings of love that you said Christians could not come together to clear up?
The former has been accepted by Courts up until the Supreme Court, and that case it dropped because it said the defendant did not have standing. But they did not rule on the merits of the case.
As for the latter, I have never heard a claim that “ceremonial deism” is behind Prop 8or similar efforts, have you? Because that his the legal issue at trial in the latter matter you mentioned.
So I fail to see either connection.
Sure, they are valid in a narrowly constrained world inside some but not all denominations.
But the actual application of what you say seems not only self-serving, but downright dangerous to non-Christians, and you appear to be suggesting that it is a moral mission from God to convert all others, and to create theocracies, possibly as means to convert them. This is not theoretical, as we have listed many laws, very large and important ones, that demonstrate this principle,. and no case has been made to counter it.
This calls into question as to why Jesus is Love should be anything other than a marketing message for something that is really not in the buyer’s best interest.
Oh I am just a pawn to my neighbors? That is comforting how?
No, that is just bullshit rationalizations for behavior even the most obnoxious Christians wouldn’t teach a 2 year old.
You have been describing and explaining nothing BUT that for this entire thread.
marriage is love, jesus is love, you should accept jesus, bit no, you can’t get married.
that is your argument, and it causes people to suffer. don’t pretend you don’t see the suffering.
It is mainstream, like I said, 35+ states have such laws, and so do we all at the Federal level. Is that not mainstream to you?
[splitting this post because it exceeds 20000 characters]
Wow. Just wow. For someone who did not want a debate, you seem very intent upon debating the merits and validity of the beliefs I am describing. I am not trying to defend any of these beliefs. I fully agree with you that many are misguided or erroneous. My purpose is to explain what the beliefs are, to describe to the best of my ability the mindset behind the behavior. You seem to be taking this as me defending their beliefs and mindsets. I do not. I have tried to make clear that I am no longer a Christian.
I am not trying to say that they are correct in this belief. I am trying to describe the mindset behind their rejection of same-sex relationships in general and marriages in particular. Many Christians fundamentally believe that “marriage” is a special relationship sanctioned by God, in the same way they fundamentally believe that there is a God, that Jesus is real, that humans have an eternal soul that will extends beyond death and will face consequences from the choices we make in life. This is the motivation that many christians have for trying to impose new legislation to protect “marriage”. Just like they fundamentally believe that the United States is a Christian nation - despite all evidence to the contrary.
I am not saying that any of those views are correct. I am saying that those are various beliefs that various religious people hold as truths because they believe that that is the way it is. “We follow this rule because it is the rule. God said so.” I am not trying to defend my own beliefs. I am trying to explain their thought process by giving examples.
We are not on the same page. You are speaking about the legal structure. I am speaking about the emotional state that gives the motivation for the behavior of those who are vocal opponents of SSM, who are strident defenders of “under God” in the pledge and “In God We Trust” on our money and “Invocations” - prayers - to open government meetings and such. I don’t argue they are right, I argue “this is what they believe”. Trying to convince me they are wrong is wasting your breath, I’m already there.
[QUOTE=not_alice]
When Adam and Steve stand in front of a Justice of the Peace, most certainly not a man of God, and declare their love for each other, and Justice declares them married, Justice (and the State) does not ask Adam and Steve to either consummate the marriage, nor to distinguish between eros and agape type love.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Irishman]
Irrelevant from a Christian perspective.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all, and I don’t see where you get that. To the Christian opposed to SSM, their rejection of SSM is not based upon a legal understanding of marriage as a civil contract. It is based upon an emotional/intuitive/culturally embedded belief that marriage is a natural arrangement that has an inherent structure of male and female. A large part of that feeling comes from religious teachings and lessons from the Bible. To them, the fact that we have a civil arrangement that formalizes the legalities of a marriage is society framing that natural relationship within our governmental structure, but the government doesn’t define marriage and is not the source of marriage.
I don’t know how to be any more clear. Yes, there is a distinct difference between the secular aspects and religious aspects of marriage, but that doesn’t mean that everyone understands or accepts that. People believe what they believe, independent of the truth. And yes, certain Christians do expect their specific beliefs to be embedded in secular laws. Maybe without even realizing that is what they are doing - because the expectation is assumed. “That’s the way it is” is very difficult to disabuse people of.
I did not mean to imply that all christians are anti-SSM or anti-gay. My point was that there are liberal christians who still have a protectionist behavior to the word “marriage”. Arguing just how “liberal” they are is a distraction that misses the point. To many people, “marriage” carries an assumed and inherent nature that is not compatible with the idea of homosexuals participating as such.
You’re still talking a court of law. I’m talking about in their hearts and heads, which is what drives them to write and promote legislation to prevent SSM and to vote for legislation that prevents SSM. The reason you have enough support to pass prop 8 in California is because the bulk of people (at least who voted) don’t know and don’t care the truth about the nature of marriage. They have an emotional feel for what the word should mean and they act upon that feeling, and defend that feeling, and engage in rationalizations to protect their beliefs.
You seem to think that I am saying that Christians have a special understanding of “love” independent of the rest of American culture. I am not saying that at all. I did mention having a lesson about that, but that does not mean it is standard across churches. The “agape vs eros” thing is studied in seminaries, and I can’t speak for what other churches teach or do not teach. It seems that Catholics may have learned it. What I know is that I had a teacher who had some theology class and taught us a lesson, stressing the Greek words to show there is an inherent ambiguity to the word “love”, and trying to inform us about the nature of God’s love. That hardly qualifies as a blanket assertion that Christians everyone learn the same. I hope I did not convey that impression.
The ambiguity of the word “love” is embedded. I do not think Christians are using the word in any way distinct from the way any other English speakers use the word. If they delve into it at all, it is to make overt the awareness of something that is handled subconsciously most of the time.
I don’t know how to address those questions.
If it is a universal, it is because the concept comes from Western influence, so it has embedded Western values. The concept had to be translated into those languages from the people bringing the religion to that culture.
That’s a colloquial description for importing a word from another language.
Why do you think Christians have some sort of special position with regards to being misunderstood when using the word “love”, as opposed to any other English speaker? People who grow up speaking English learn the nuances of the language and are equally as prone to the embedded ambiguities as each other. Christians are not using “love” in a special way, they are using it the way any other English speaker uses it. English uses “love” to cover the emotion of bonding, but that relationship can also have a romantic element, depending upon context.
When christians say “Jesus is love”, I do not think they are saying “Jesus is romance”. They are saying “Jesus is deep emotional caring like between family members.” When they say “Jesus loves you”, they are not saying Jesus wants in your pants. They are saying that he has a deep emotional bond for you.
I don’t know how you are equating the phrase “Jesus is love” with SSM. You asked me to explain what I think that phrase means, and I did. At no time did I try to equate any and all love with Jesus. The act of feeling love is not Jesus. To be honest, that phrase in that form is puzzling to me, too, and I have tried to interpret it the way I understand it, which is to say it is an expression that Jesus cares about us deeply and wants the best outcomes for us and wants us to be happy. But really, that’s my understanding from when I was a Christian, which I am repeating only in an attempt to answer the question about what is meant. I no longer believe in Jesus, so any attempt to explain what is meant is either filtered through trying to put myself in the previous mindset, or else through my current beliefs. From my current mindset, it’s all pretty pointless. Jesus is a collective delusion. Jesus is a fictional being used to teach philosophical and moral lessons, like Yoda. Jesus is love? Er, okay, whatever.
As I understand it, when Adam professes his love for Steve, it is exactly the same as Fred professing his love for Wilma. Jesus does not enter into the picture for either situation. However, christians reject Adam’s love for Steve because of lessons from the Bible where God said it was wrong.
You are correct, nobody ever asks the nature of the relationship, everyone just assumes. You are correct, there is no check off box “do you have sex? How frequently?” etc.
I do not know what these “1000 rights” are, but will concede there are any number of default rights of marriage that any other form of civil contract would have to enumerate or may not qualify for.
I said “losers” with a certain amount of coloring from my now non-christian status. As for christians having disrespect for nonchristians, the amount of disrespect and the vocality of that disrespect varies, but I certainly think there is a cultural preference for a “church wedding”. And are you saying that christians are unable to be hypocritical?
Certainly from the mindset of many christians.
It is a small subset of christians that feel the need for door-to-door witnessing. The vast majority of christians do not engage in such practice. When they witness, it is through some sitation that makes their discussion socially acceptable. To the ones who do, witnessing is a stronger element of their particular beliefs, so it takes a higher priority. Also, I think the patterns they follow are from an earlier time, and social conventions have changed from when those practices were instituted. Knocking on strangers’ doors was more common then – door-to-door sales was much more common, for instance. So selling religion door-to-door was as acceptable as selling vacuums or encyclopedias. So their real problem is not to adapt to changing social expectations, to continue practices that are no longer welcome.
As for why anyone would be interested, you are taking it from the position that they are selling exchangable items, like vacuums or TVs. But from their perspective, they are sharing the Truth. You need to be informed of the Truth, or you will not be saved. They are doing you a favor, and you only need recognize the Truth. So people would be interested because they would wish to save their souls and end up in heaven, as opposed to rot in hell.
They are generally willing to accept if you tell them to go away, they are generally willing to accept if you say you already have a religion or already know Jesus. They will attempt to persuade you to their sect, or provide you with literature about their special sect and the reason you should choose it over any other form of Christianity, because the whole purpose is that their sect is the right one, and others are wrong. Mormons want you to learn about mormonism, not just christianity. Seventh Day Adventists want you to be Seventh Day Adventists, not Catholics. They didn’t knock on your door to encourage you to go to any old church down the street, they want you to join their church. They will go away if you tell them to because if they do not, you can have them arrested for trespassing. And possibly because there’s only so much effort to put to someone who is not open to discussion.
That is a particular perspective, but it is not their perspective. To them, there are benefits of believing in Jesus in this live, as well as the eternal reward. So the rush to conversion is to make life here better, not just secure the eternal reward.
It’s a bit hard for me to explain their continued practice of witnessing in the knowledge that most of the people they encounter do not desire or appreciate said witnessing. Suffice it to say, that part of the behavior is not part of the motivation to join the religion, it is an obligation of being in the religion. The motivation is accepting the “Truth”, becoming “one with God”, etc.
[continued]
Once again, because apparently my phrasing was not clear, the motivation for christians is not based upon any kind of legal position. It is based upon their ingrained belief of the nature of what marriage is. So yes, they are passing legislation and trying to defend in court their beliefs, but their beliefs are not based upon any legal justification, they are based on emotions.
You are looking at it from your perspective, not theirs. From theirs, it is the moral thing to do.
I can’t say what all christians want. What I am saying is that a large number of christians in this country do not have the level of examination of these matters that you and I are engaged in. They believe that America was founded by Christians for christians, but is nice enough to let non-christians hang around as long as we don’t get in the way. The think that it is perfectly valid to encode moral expectations into the legal code, and that since their moral expectations are derived from Christianity, it is perfectly valid for America to have laws based upon Christianity.
Whether that makes America a Theocracy is also debatable. It is not imposing a state sect of christianity or a Chief Priest of the USA or anything. It is not imposing a fourth wing of government, nor is it placing any particular sect or denomination in charge. There is no religious oversight other than the people in the existing government offices using their personal religions in their decisions and actions.
Look, I am on your side when it comes to imposing laws on the nation based upon a religion’s specific moral judgments. I don’t appreciate it any more than you do. I am certainly not advocating that they should be doing this, or that it is right. All I am doing is attempting to explain the mindset of the people that I have interacted with.
I have and I certainly don’t claim that all or even the vast majority of christians want to force their religion to be the state religion. There are plenty of christians who think that religious choice is a necessity. And there are plenty of christians who do not share the attitudes I have described all throughout this thread. But I certainly have encountered this mindset a lot, even from folks who are not devout church goers or heavy witnessers or otherwise overbearing about their beliefs. Plenty of christians in name who don’t particularly make a big deal out of it and aren’t going to get in your face or lecture you on your personal decisions, not going to confront strangers about their lifestyles. But if the topic comes up, they will express similar statements, perhaps more carefully phrased, but in essence exactly what I describe. “Why are we changing the word marriage to be PC for gays?”
It’s an assumption on their part, an expectation born out of thinking that secular laws should to some degree regulate morality and since christianity (i.e. God) is the source of morality, there you go.
[QUOTE=Irishman]
Cite please. I want evidence the rejection of SSM and other political activity defends itself with “Jesus is love”.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=not_alice]
Prop 8, 30+ States with anti-SSM Const. Amendments, DOMA, etc. See the arguments in favor, who the proponents are, etc.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Irishman]
Cite for where anyone is trying to establish “Jesus is love” as a law.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=not_alice]
Prop 8, 30+ States with anti-SSM Const. Amendments, DOMA, etc. See the arguments in favor, who the proponents are, etc. Also see Roe v. Wade arguments for 30 years or so. Blue laws that still exist. Need I go on?
[/QUOTE]
Those are not cites, those are blanket statements thrown out. I want a link showing quotes that include “Jesus is love”.
NO, I DO NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE!!! How many times do I have to tell you that these are not my beliefs? Responses like this make me feel that you are not actually interested in learning about the motivations of the people involved, and despite your protests to the contrary, all you want to do is debate the rightness of the positions.
It was accepted by some courts, and the Supreme Court rejected the case on standing rather than face the issue and give clarification. This is seen by many as an evasion to preclude the court actually supporting Newdow. The current Court is more conservative, and the same arguments would likely not get the same consideration by this Court that the lower courts were accepting.
Both examples are cases where the courts of this country have sided with religious positions to appease the majority of society rather than accept the merits of the principles involved. The whole “ceremonial deism” is a gigantic FU.
In any case, the 1950s were a different time than now.
There are certainly christians that believe this. Again, “theocracies” is a debatable point, but certainly instituting some elements of christianity and some preferences and priviledges for christianity.
You are certainly welcome to view it as merely a marketing campaign that has no real connection to how they actually live. All I am trying to point out is from their perspective they believe Jesus is about love and they believe that the laws they wish to enact are noble and righteous, and they do not see any contradiction.
No, you’re not a pawn to your neighbors. The system exists. You’re stuck in the system. You can recognize and accept you are in the system, or you can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you are not in the system. But you still are going to face the consequences. It’s not supposed to be comforting, unless you choose to accept “the Truth”, accept Jesus and God, and thereby get saved.
To them, it’s a bit like gravity. You can deny gravity all you want, but step out a window and gravity will get you even if you refuse to believe.
There is a difference between suffering being the outcome, and suffering being the motivation. They do not wish to cause suffering, they are motivated by other desires. The fact that some people are unable to have their relationships sanctioned may cause them suffering, but the suffering is incidental, not the primary purpose.
Beware of Doug is saying that causing suffering is their intent. That is the claim I reject.