Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[Kylyssa]

Well put AnimatedDirt

Isn't it really up to god to judge on judgement day. Until then, lets just live harmoniously and accept other people for who they are.

You're obviously not too keen on accepting conservative Christians for who they are. As always, tolerance really means "tolerance for those who I support."

American Conservative Christianity supports bigotry against women, gays, and non-whites.  It serves as the basis for hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and the Hutaree.  You have the right to exist but not the right to control the laws.  Allowing such hate groups to exist is tolerance.

There's no law against you practicing your religion, bigotry included in most cases.  How is not letting your sect control the laws intolerance?

[Kylyssa]

No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.

They aren't contradictory.

You can practice your religion and voice your opinions freely.  That is your right.  However, dictating that everyone follow the rules of your religion is not your right.

Can you see how that steps on other people's religious freedom, if they are forced to obey the tenets of your religion through laws?  Pretend for a second that the dominant religion in America were Islam.  Would you still be keen for the religious tenets of the majority religion made into laws?

[LegendarySandwich]

No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.

AnimatedDirt is saying, in a nutshell, don't force your beliefs down other peoples' throats. Does your version of Christianity require you doing that?

[TheJackel]

No, I think God created the institution of marriage and so does "own" it.  However, my religious convictions SHOULD NOT DICTATE SECULAR CIVIL LAW.  Therefore, I support the gay community in gaining the CIVIL right to marriage and all that secular society gives as civil rights through marriage.

:hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:   Even when I was a Christian I strongly believed in a secular government. It would actually scare me to see what Christian fundamentalists would do if it weren't.

In regards to marriage being an institution, It is not an institution what-so-ever. That is an argument commonly used to claim ownership, and to reject marriage as being valid or even relevant in other religions. The fact is, marriage is and always was a legal contract of consolidating property, and wealth. The Love things is a figure of symbolism to seemingly legitimize it as if people actually require marriage to have commitment or love for each other.

I suggest Voter actually read:

http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum ... &start=110

Mytoch,

Your arguments are completely baseless! All of your arguments are merely circular arguments designed to turn this discussion into pure ignorance in order to hide an agenda that you are clearly trying hide. And this is evident in your assertion of marriages being a "Union" and an "institution". These are clearly religious points of view that assume the right to ownership of marriage! You keep playing irrelevant games of idiocy in dragging this discussion into FALSE statistics that I have found to be not only wrong, but also incorrectly gathered by the same process used in basic polling.. These are highly inaccurate and very subjective to bias because the 100 people they sampled is laughable.  In fact, I am clearly going to state that your entire argument is utter nonsensical! I suggest you look up what marriage was prior to the 19th century! These traditions still exist today kiddo. Marriage is traditionally a business contract that supplies financial and marital benefits between couples or even between families that set to gain from such contractual deals. In fact marriage was used in many cases to unite opposing powers under contract much like a peace treaty.

'Treaty of the Pyrenees
(November 7, 1659) Peace treaty between France and Spain. From the end of the Thirty Years' War (1648) until 1659, Spain and France fought almost continuously. When Philip IV of Spain did not receive the expected Habsburg support against France, he concluded a peace settlement that ceded border regions to France. The treaty also involved a marriage compact between Louis XIV and the Spanish infanta Maria Teresa, which established Louis as the most powerful monarch in Europe."

Treaty_of_Perpetual_Peace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Perpetual_Peace

And have fun reading this one: Biblical examples!
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:bp6 ... clnk&gl=us

Native American marriage:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/t ... rriage.htm

All you are doing Mytoch, is trying to find desperate reasons to keep homosexuality away from being recognized by the government, and by the term marriage. This is simply because you feel that marriage is a "Union" and an "institution" to which is only a religious iteration of what marriage is.. You keep trying to say that you are keeping your religion out of it, but in fact you are not!, you are only trying to hide that fact through nonsensical and irrelevant arguments. And what is worse, you are trying to support your argument with utter BS statistics that are still irrelevant even if said statistics were to have been magically correct!

You are thus still trying to play a Theocritus role in governing who should be able to get married and who shouldn't be based on your own sense of religious morality. You have provided no valid reason why homosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed to marry under the same term of marriage.. Nor have you provided any relevant argument to support why such equal benefits can not be applied.. At best, all you did was provide excuses to cover up your intentions to protect your precious "union" / "Institution" of marriage!

Marriage was never an institution or a union son! It's only considered as such by the religious institution! Hence, you have proven yourself to be attempting to lay claim to the ownership of "marriage".. You are pretty sly, but not for this white guy! In fact I found your argument to be the very exact common argument used by the religious lobbyists to ban gay marriage.. Thus, it makes you question the credibility of anything you have stated thus far!  Many of them view this as a "Culture" war.

here is your basic and obvious religious argument in a nut shell: And are also the same typical arguments made against such other marriage legalization's in the 19th century when concerning Jewish marriage, women's equal rights, and numerous other examples that became legalized.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0063.html

Other examples:
 http://www.jimfeeney.org/againstgaymarriage.html

Here is something interesting. statistics on homosexual marriage support by age groups, and by state! Notice the religious bible belt being the lowest! :shake:

However, it's good to see some Christians realize that a Secular system is the best system possible for equality. Because once you go Theocritus, people start dying, getting persecuted, or Socially outcast to being second hand citizens.. As shown in every case of Theocracy in human history.

[Stevil]

However, my religious convictions SHOULD NOT DICTATE SECULAR CIVIL LAW.  Therefore, I support the gay community in gaining the CIVIL right to marriage and all that secular society gives as civil rights through marriage.

Hey there AnimatedDirt I admire your ability to do that.

[TheJackel]

However, my religious convictions SHOULD NOT DICTATE SECULAR CIVIL LAW.  Therefore, I support the gay community in gaining the CIVIL right to marriage and all that secular society gives as civil rights through marriage.

Hey there AnimatedDirt I admire your ability to do that.

I completely agree.. And I hope he's not just saying that. We must at all times keep government secular in order to treat everyone equally without persecution. Government must remain neutral in such matters. Otherwise we will likely self-collapse into something like Afghanistan, or worse.

[Voter]

No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.

AnimatedDirt is saying, in a nutshell, don't force your beliefs down other peoples' throats.

In the second sentence he is. In the first sentence he's saying the opposite. I'm trying to clarify what he actually means.

Does your version of Christianity require you doing that?

My version of American government allows me to vote as I please. Does yours?

[Voter]

American Conservative Christianity supports bigotry against women, gays, and non-whites.  It serves as the basis for hate groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and the Hutaree.  You have the right to exist but not the right to control the laws.  Allowing such hate groups to exist is tolerance.

There's no law against you practicing your religion, bigotry included in most cases.  How is not letting your sect control the laws intolerance?

Actually I'm making the exact same argument.

You have the right to exist, but not the right to control the laws.

The legal process (both legislative and judicial) will progress. On the legislative side, I'll vote as I see fit. So will you.

[The Magic Pudding]

Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?
Yes, that Jesus dude.

[Tank]

Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?
Yes, that Jesus dude.

Actually you're damn right. JC is vicariously responsible for all evil done in the name of Christianity as  being God he could undoubtedly put right what some of his followers have done wrong. But patently chose not to.

[AnimatedDirt]

No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.
In the second sentence he is. In the first sentence he's saying the opposite. I'm trying to clarify what he actually means.

Vote your conscience and trust God to lead your leaders.  If same sex marriage is allowed, what difference is it to you?  The problem is that most Christians fear man is more powerful than God.  If God is God, then let Him guide and steer.  Christians don't believe God can do His will and so assume it is their job to DO IT ALL.  What faith, eh?

Live your life and vote according to your conscience.  If it be following Christ, then do so.  There is no law (yet) preventing you from living by your chosen/adopted morals.  If secular society allows all marriage, this then does not force on you anything against your morals.  Let every man live according to their own beliefs, within the law of the land, peaceably and equally.

[LegendarySandwich]

No, there's no requirement to set aside your religious beliefs/convictions.  Just don't dictate them on SECULAR society when they don't want it.

These two sentences seem contradictory.
In the second sentence he is. In the first sentence he's saying the opposite. I'm trying to clarify what he actually means.

Vote your conscience and trust God to lead your leaders.  If same sex marriage is allowed, what difference is it to you?  The problem is that most Christians fear man is more powerful than God.  If God is God, then let Him guide and steer.  Christians don't believe God can do His will and so assume it is their job to DO IT ALL.  What faith, eh?

Live your life and vote according to your conscience.  If it be following Christ, then do so.  There is no law (yet) preventing you from living by your chosen/adopted morals.  If secular society allows all marriage, this then does not force on you anything against your morals.  Let every man live according to their own beliefs, within the law of the land, peaceably and equally.

This sounds extremely reasonable, but I doubt Voter will listen. Somehow, allowing rights to gay people will take away his rights. I'm not sure how.

[Davin]

This sounds extremely reasonable, but I doubt Voter will listen. Somehow, allowing rights to gay people will take away his rights. I'm not sure how.

Because your trying to take away Voter's right to limit other people's rights.

[LegendarySandwich]

This sounds extremely reasonable, but I doubt Voter will listen. Somehow, allowing rights to gay people will take away his rights. I'm not sure how.

Because your trying to take away Voter's right to limit other people's rights.

In that process, we're gaining more rights than we're losing.

[Voter]

Vote your conscience and trust God to lead your leaders.

OK. That's all I want to do. Some people here equate that with bigotry or even installing a theocracy.

If same sex marriage is allowed, what difference is it to you?

Not much. That's why I've previously said that I would live peacably with that outcome. So, I don't see why you're asking the question.

The problem is that most Christians fear man is more powerful than God.  If God is God, then let Him guide and steer.  Christians don't believe God can do His will and so assume it is their job to DO IT ALL.  What faith, eh?

What if God's guiding and steering them to their actions? He frequently works through people. IMO it's a tough Biblical sell to say we shouldn't act in accord with God's morality because that would indicate a lack of faith.