Ideally, yes. But I don’t trust the motivation. It’s too easily clouded by our desire - usually a very well sublimated desire - to punish the wicked or disobedient, or our belief that the world will do likewise.
It’s an idea that’s still out there in conservative circles (see: Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family) - and indeed was a lot more widely accepted just 50 years ago than it is today. For that reason, I feel that the more “traditional” one’s particular flavor of Christianity, the more likely those beliefs about a) causing suffering or b) inflicting it will have some influence. It need not be obvious; it need not even be conscious.
.
It takes 2 to debate. You are making assertions that are implausible, even in their closed universe. I was hoping for better, but this has devolved into same old same old. You yourself say you don’t really believe what you are saying. I could make pretty much the same case you are myself, b ut I wouldn’t want to defend it either.
Right. You aren’t, but they do. And they insist on managing MY life at multiple levels on that basis. Before that can be allowed to happen, it is fair to ask the basis for that insistence and for the answer to be persuasive, more persuasive than a parent telling a kid “because I said so”.
Yes, and seeing that in print might be helpful for readers in general here, but it is at best a restating of the premise on the matter I already have. The area where I live voted the highest in favor of Prop 8, and I have heard it all before, straight from the mouths of “babes”.
But their evidence reduces to “Jesus is love”. They don’t believe the evidence is contrary.
I recognize that. I am not pushing you hard, trust me. I am only responding to what you choose to say.
Right. They appear to consider our country’s laws as secondary to their belief in the Bible, and arguably they believe that non-Christians are allowed here only at their Christian prerogative. On the basis of “Jesus is love”. I don’t care what they do in church, but to move it to the public realm is delusional.
That is utter crap. There has never been such a law, and marriage lawsy change often and frequently as cultural norms change. this is a recent legal claim.
On a personal level, no one can say how their marriage is affected for the worse, because it isn’t. They don’t even need to be under oath, they just can’t do it.
Again, utter crap. They are being misled that we don’t live in a secular country, and so their cries of plans to live in a theocracy ring hollow. They think we already do.
Well, collectively, they are either deliberately ignorant with a different agenda than they are willing to admit, or plain stupid.
Which Christians? What is the history of this? I would think it is pretty recent, at the scale we see it now. certainly in my adult lifetime.
But more liberal denominations do not have the same problems with SSM or secular laws, and they to profess Jesus is Love.
So if Jesus is Love is other than a fallacious claim , how do you (generic you) resolve this dichotomy?
They know. The information has been presented to them. They care because they chose to deliberately ignore common sense, likely because they feel their place in heaven is assured all the more if they treat people like shit, all in the name of “Jesus is Love”, which again is Orwellian and frightening.
So they do know that Jesus is Love is a pure emotional claim and not supportable in fact?
Well, to use myself as an example, I don’t hold “Jesus is Love”, or any other religious nuance to the word love, contrary to all Christians according to you.
Also, I know enough of non-Western culture to know that the sense of “love” that we have is not universal at all, even without the religious connotations. It doesn’t exist historically in Japan, and it doesn’t exist in in India. As both countries became/become westernized, this is a big issue in their popular culture such as films. Probably the same for China, and already we are approaching half of the world’s population who don’t understand love as I do, let alone as Christians do.
That is imposible if they believe Jesus is equated to love, as you have asserted at length. Others do not make that distinction, and all are speaking English. Either you are assuming all believe Jesus is love, even if not Christian, or now you are saying Christians don’t believe Jesus is love.
Can’t be both ways.
But others do, very the distinctly ambiguos use of “love” in Jesus is love.
That is fine in Church, but in secular arenas, or for non-Christians, that is entirely meaningless. Surely you see that?
I never assume. I know plenty of people who are married for whom procreation is impossible, and possibly for who even intercourse is impossible, yet they are allowed to get married.
Cultural preference for whom? None of my relatives have ever had a church wedding, even when they married Christians. And I understand that Churches don’t simply do marriages for anyone what walks in the door, nor should they.
Acceptable to whom? Knocking on my door to witness is never socially acceptable to me, it is imposing on me.
\
Such as their beliefs about marriage among other things?
Why would that matter unless they get some benefit from it?
Not my experience at all. They might leave that day, but they won’t make any effort that they or others fromtehir church/group won’t come back another time.
Actually that is not true. they are well versed in the law, which is that the 1st Amendment applies. And generally it has been my experience that local police are aware of the distinction too, to their credit. On this, the proselytizers are correct.
Plus, trespassing has specific requirements that few American houses would meet.
So why, when asked directly how their life is better, in the here and now, when Adam and Steve 3000 miles away are prevented from marrying, can they not provide an answer, not even a poor one? What precisely is the benefit to them in the here and now from applying “Jesus is love” to secular laws to prevent Adam and Steve from marrying despite their love that is identical to anyone else’s that is allowed to marry?
I want to know the nature of the claim that is at the heart fo not just ssm, but other claims that our country already is and always has been a theocracy, or that it should be in the future.
Then, I would like to understand how a religious belief can be used as justification for the above in the US with a (apparently) straight face.
Actually, I have said several times that not all denominations/sects agree on the point that others have claimed as universal explanations of “Jesus is love”. I have friends who are Christian, married in their church, and as gay as the Nile is long.
No, irritated that it is increasingly a threat to our secular country. Before this recent development, there was no need to delve into the particulars of various beliefs in order to understand local, state, and federal political issues.
Of course. But they aren’t trying to remake the US into a a theocracy, among other ways, by embedding their religious beliefs into secular law. Surely you see the difference?
Because Christians are the ones organizing and funding this and other campaigns to remake the US into a Christian Theocracy.
No, what I expect is for people to separate their religious beliefs from secular laws. That goes for all who hold religious beliefs.
No, bottom line is probably any 10 year old understands that. The issue here is why this even matters in a secular arena, and that is a recent development on this scale.
Y’all should come to public government meetings where I live then. But OK, maybe there is a minor variation too. People say “Jesus is [ lots of things}” which equates them all. You know that.
What is the reason to be mean to gays?
Perhaps you don’t know the history, the very reason for Prop 8. The Courts DID rule that CA law allowed SS marriage, and in fact always had,even if no one had pressed the case until 2008. See the decision In Re: Marriage Cases.
Prop 8 arose as a way to assert that numbers are where laws are judged, not courts, pure and simple.
That is pretty self-serving, telling other religions, of which your own “arose from”, and rejected wholesale soon after, that the older religion should get over the intervening millenia - MILLENIA! of hate, and convert.
I generally like your posts on religious matters on this board, but this paragraph is unexpected, and very disturbing! Surely you understand why.
Well, I wanted it to be in GQ, but moderators forced it to GD against my request because they didn’t think it could be kept to one subject. Given the broader forum forced on me, the OP is not what I would have written had I wanted this forum in the first place.
I am interested in why JIL (and related non-secular phrases) are used to justify political action in a secular arena.
Since I am not of the religion, but am interested in the issues, it is important to me (and I hope others) to understand the underlying logic and motivation of those so acting contrary to my interests. That’s just politics.
Then you probably are not looking closely at the arguments for Prop 8, from a region where count after county voted 75% for Prop 8. Or listening to the testimony of the follow-on court cases, or the punditry around them. Or paying attention to the arguments of such groups as NOM and Focus on the Family.
But to seek, successfully, to have their Godly words embedded into secular law is not very American.
Have you ever persuaded a JIL’er (to coin a phrase) by pointing this out? Or did you simply cause them to redouble their efforts?
That might be true if they weren’t running around saying our Founders made this a Christian nation (despite all evidence from the Founder’s own written and spoken words), in effect claiming that our laws are not now and never were meant to be secular. IOW, we live in a theocracy.
To which I and everyone else should never rest from saying, in whatever style is needed, FUCK YOU.
That is not what theocracy means.
Where I live, the vast majority of Christians want their religious beliefs embedded into secular law. Check out the Prop 8 results by County in the Central Valley, especially the southern part, for a cite.
Also, note that the very same beliefs are embedded into law already in ~38 states and at the federal level (DOMA).
This is not an academic argument, it has already happened, and the effort is to extend it.
And their separation of non-secular and secular has carried the day for most of our 220 years under our current Constitution, but no more.
Those are not cites, those are blanket statements thrown out. I want a link showing quotes that include “Jesus is love”.
NO, I DO NOTADVOCATE 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.
[/QUOTE]
See the campaign materials for Prop 8, spoken and written. See the briefs and decisions in In Re: Marriage Cases, and the current Federal trial regarding the Constitutionality of Prop 8, and the appeal. That is just in California. To the extent that JIL is a core tenet of faith, and that and that and other core tenets of faith are held as the reason to vote for the Prop, that is the cite. Happy reading. Let me know when you are done, I will have more for you. But that is a lot already to go through in one go.
You insist I accept the ambiguity of “love” in english when convenient, but you can’t handle the ambiguity of “you” as either the personal you, the inclusive you, or the editorial you? Interesting, because while my rights and yours were taken away by your alleged ungrasped ambiguity, no such effort was ever made regarding mine. See the difference?
More conservative than Newdow faced? Which new justices since then do you think hold a different view on the matter than the Justice they replaced?
I would probably agree with you on the ceremonial deism, but that is (mostly) settled law. For a counter-example, see the recent La Jolla Cross case. The issue Newdow raised is not settled at all, and someone else is free to bring it.
Newdow was just a few years ago. I was not alive in the 1950s, so tell me, which relevant part of the Constitution changed since then?
So in effect you are saying for this (large) group, there is no practical distinction between the Constitution and the Bible when it comes to how they interact with others? If that is even remotely correct, how is that different from them believing and acting as though they already live in a theocracy, and part of their mission to convert others involves making sure the rest of us come to accept it too?
So, I should sit back and accept and enjoy their claims that live in a Christian theocracy?
Again, this is a relatively recent political development.
Well, let’s see what Doug or others have to say on that. I am interested.
I agree with you here, except for the extent “Jesus is love” plays any particular role.
It is utter crap, but it is utter crap I have heard stated to me.
You are correct. The most they can come up with is some blabber about the “sanctity of the institute of marriage”. They can’t iterate any specific way it affects their marriage.
The only tangible claim I have heard at all is a financial claim regarding allowing of benefits to a much larger number of relationships, and even that is not convincing.
By stressing that “Jesus is love” is not an any way an element of their rejection of SSM, that the rejection of SSM is based on other elements of their religious and cultural upbringing, and “Jesus is love” is their attempt to explain why Jesus is special and why people should become christians, especially their version of christian?
[QUOTE=Irishman]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=not_alice]
So they do know that Jesus is Love is a pure emotional claim and not supportable in fact?
[/QUOTE]
No, they will argue with you over the nature of what a “fact” is, and accept specious claims as the same evidence as dropping a ball and watching it fall. They are not necessarily aware that their motivations are emotionally driven - they think they have logical arguments and evidence to support their position. Like I said, they are engaged in rationalizations to defend their preconceptions, but they don’t realize that is what they are doing.
I am not aware of any special nuance to the word “love” in that phrase that is unique to christians, but like I stated, I think that phrase is odd and have to interpret it for myself. I will admit to having heard that phrase back when I was in church, but it’s not like it was recited from the pulpit or chanted as a refrain or otherwise some special teaching. It was a statement to try to explain the nature of Jesus and why he would sacrifice himself for the wrongdoings of everyone else. I’m certainly not aware of it being a justification for any particular actions or legal arguments.
So? This “Jesus is love” meme appears to be something from within the last 50 years or so, becoming widespread within especially American churches (though I could be wrong about that). Christianity is certainly a Western concept being spread into those other nations, so even if that meme is expressed by christians in those countries, it is coming from a Western outlook being taught into the culture along with christianity.
I think this topic is pointless to continue. You asked what they mean, I tried to explain, but instead of listening to my answer, you keep trying to pick it apart, as if it should make sense.
About the only other approach I have with regards to SSM is to state from their position,
“Jesus is love, and Jesus is not gay, therefore love is not gay. So gays are not really in love, they are fooling themselves.”
I’m sure that doesn’t really answer the question, though. Not that they have any special claim to owning the word love, they just think they do.
Certainly, but the point is not your belief or my belief, it is their belief.
Look, I can’t argue with you that the nature of “marriage” has had many different uses and bases throughout various cultures in history, nor that marriage today is about an emotional commitment rather than procreation or financial purposes. Those may be individual goals or outcomes, but aren’t the underlying base in our society. But that does not change that many christians still feel there is some special, “natural” basis for “marriage” that is ultimately heterosexual. They have no real evidence for such, and come up with silly rationalizations to defend it, but that is their belief.
Well, I can only cite my own personal experiences and cognitive biases from my own upbringing. I am well aware that my experiences are a very limited subset, and not representative of the country as a whole. Maybe it comes from growing up in the south.
As an example, I have never been to a funeral like a typical movie/television funeral, where family members/friends deliver the eulogy, talking about the person and who they were and what they mean. The handful of funerals I have attended have all been Southern Baptist or similar, and consist of a minister giving a brief comment about the person as a means for launching into a sermon on why we should accept Jesus and be faithful christians and the like. Sure, there’s music and viewing the body, but there’s always a sermon, not a sharing of the person’s life and influence.
I can only cite that my personal experience as a teenager was hearing about JP weddings or the like with the connotation that there was something inadequate or lacking in them.
In that statement, I was not referring to door-to-door witnessing. Rather, having a conversation with someone, or professing God’s role in whatever achievement they accomplished, or the like. Sure, some of those are annoying and tedious, but they are much more socially acceptable than knocking on your door.
not_alice, I’m giving up. Not that you’ve proven your point. Several of us have said we never heard JIL used in the opposition to SSM. You respond by saying, in effect, read everything ever written and said on the subject and you’ll see. Which is nothing more than admitting you can’t give a cite. Contrary to your assertion, I have been paying attention. I’m not going to believe your claim without a cite. That’s how things work here. In any event, the correct response to the opposition (if they assert this) is that JIL is not pertinent to SSM. I don’t think you understand why, which is unfortunate. But I’ve expended as much effort on the point as I’m inclined to make. Especially since you keep snipping the parts of my posts dealing with it.
BTW, a nitpick. Prop 8 was already in the pipeline when the Marriage Cases decision was rendered. Indeed, the CA Supreme Court addressed an argument that it should withhold decision until the proposition had been voted on, and declined. It’s true the advocacy on both sides was influenced by the decision, but that’s rather different from what you asserted.
Since you’re the OP, you get the last word. Just don’t look for a further reply from me.
You are saying that the phrase “Jesus is love” is the heart of resistance to SSM and to the idea that Christianity has a privileged position in American law? Yet you have provided no evidence to support that statement yet. And in then you turn around and state that there are christians who also believe “Jesus is love” who accept SSM? What? So if one set of christians believes “Jesus is love” and accepts SSM and is not trying to make a theocracy (which you have stated in this thread), then why do you think another set of christians who state “Jesus is love” are using that phrase as their basis for their actions, as opposed to some other aspect of their religious beliefs? You seem to be implying that “Jesus is love” is the sole and core belief of christianity, that everything they believe arises from that one statement. That is false. Incredibly false.
The core belief of christianity is that Jesus is God incarnate in human form, God’s son sent to live as a human, then die on the cross and spend three days in hell to suffer for the sins of the world, and finally be resurrected to serve as the new covenant, and replace the need for the old covenant of Judaism. “Jesus is love” is merely an expression of Jesus’s motivation for his sacrifice. It may even be something of a catchphrase, but it’s certainly not a core belief.
Their belief that the US was founded on Christianity and does and should have privileges for christianity is not founded on “Jesus is love”, or even “Jesus is God”. It is founded on misinformation, incorrect history and misperception of history.
They don’t believe they are “being mean” to gays. They believe they are standing up for what is natural and good. They believe that gays are the ones who are being mean, sticking their gayness into society’s face and parading their sinfulness around as something to be proud of, something to aspire to. They think they are protecting everyone’s children from “choosing to be gay”. Perception is all in point of view.
You have yet to prove that JIL is used to justify anything.
Every time someone tries to explain the motivation, rather than saying “Ah, I see” or “Yes, I knew that”, or “Can you clarify this?”, you start judging the beliefs and motivations. That’s not conducive to learning what you wish to learn.
You have not provided a cite. You have provided a blanket statement “go look at some random stuff.” Please provide a link to an example, where the phrase “Jesus is love” is stated as part of the justification. Don’t tell us to go find and wade through any number of documents that might be anywhere. If the stuff is so easy to find, then pull it out and link to it. You are the one making the claim, you do the legwork.
We’re engaged in a person to person exchange, I made a comment about a specific kind of attitude, and you responded with the comment that “you are advocating violence”. There is nothing in that statement that is ambiguous, it was a direct accusation. If you’re going to play games, I will cease to participate in this discussion and will report you to the moderators for trolling.
No, I am saying that they would like to enact their moral code as part of the legal code, and have done so to some degree.
Many people wish to enact moral codes into legal codes, their ideas about morality affect what they think people should and should not do. It makes sense that christians who believe the Bible is the source of morality would try to take those ideas to the laws they enact.
For some of them, they probably do feel that way. I don’t claim we should agree with them.
I said nothing about what you should feel or do. I only expressed what they think.
I did not say anything about the Jewish community at large converting, I only hoped in the above post for the Jewish community at large to stop treating those Jews who do recognize Jesus as Messiah & Lord as traitors.
If I did call for all Jews everywhere to convert, I do see how that would be disturbing. A large portion of the Christian Church from the 300s into the early 1900s have treated the Jews abominably. Very accurately did John of The Revelation warn about aspects of Christ’s Bridal Church becoming a Blood-drunk Whore (Chapter 17). Hopefully, Christ’s siccing The Beast on her in the forms of the French & the Communist Revolutions have purged the Persecuting Whore aspect of the Church.
Still, I do believe & hope for the time that every ethnic group, culture & person with all free will embraces & surrenders to YHWH God as Father & Jesus His Only Son as Savior & Lord. One thing that every Christian should pray is “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven”. But I believe that will only come after a series of extraordinary events have occurred that will give all peoples & each person a reason for such faith. A chastened & purified Christian Church will also be the outcome & the participant of such events, but it will be God/Jesus Who will accomplish them, not the Church.
Thank you for the compliment, but I don’t see why that post above is so surprising. I have several times on the board defended the Messianic Jewish movement (tho I wished for a better name for it), various aspects of U.S.
Christian Conservatism, and an earthly manifestation of God’s/Christ’s Kingdom.
The post you object to is probably relatively mild compared to some others I’ve posted in the past.
So if one set of christians believes “Jesus is love” and accepts SSM and is not trying to make a theocracy (which you have stated in this thread), then why do you think another set of christians who state “Jesus is love” are using that phrase as their basis for their actions, as opposed to some other aspect of their religious beliefs? You seem to be implying that “Jesus is love” is the sole and core belief of christianity, that everything they believe arises from that one statement. That is false. Incredibly false.