Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[TheJackel]

Voter, I don't think anyone is saying that you should not have the right to vote however you want.

Yes, some are, and others are demonizing me for doing so, if not actually saying I should lose the right.

Incorrect. Nobody demonizes you for your right to vote. You are essentially trying to blur the lines of church and state to which is specifically against the Constitution. Hence, we are telling you (which you think is demonizing) that it's against the constitution, it's Theocritus, oppressive, it's the persecution of other peoples rights to get married, or a form of bigotry (by definition) to which are against that very document that protects us all! You are trying to equivocate secular Government as being oppressive to your religious agenda of installing Theocritus/bigot legislation. Do you even understand that? Do you even know what's written in the constitution? Government isn't there as a tool to use to govern everyone else's personal lives according to your moral religious ideology son. Government is there to provide basic functional services, and protections to all of it's citizens. Your problem is that you apparently think government is there to govern every aspect of your religious and moral constructs. It has to be Secular Voter! It has to be completely separate from Religion, and moral persecutions such as banning Gay marriage.

Gay marriage does absolutely nothing in terms of walk over your rights, moral beliefs, or anything for that matter. What they do is none of your concern or business, so stop acting like you think you should have power over such matters.

And the other delusion is that Christians think they have to "Do GODS work"..Funny how they don't grasp the brainwash in that, especially considering they believe in an all knowing and all powerful entity. A very big clue to the non-existence of something when you have beings professing and trying to enforce the Will of some invisible Icon of worship. It's the most clever use of brainwashing and control ever thought of. Sounds more like they think their lives are of servitude vs living their own lives, and to worship something. So when does the Horses mouth speak for itself and profess it's own will? Sorry, but I don't trust mankind to be exacting the will of an invisible sky fairy Especially in government!

[AnimatedDirt]

Under those vague positions of sociology yes

heh...

The problem I have with this is that many Christians like to think the institution is not a secular institution and that they own it. Hence, voter doesn't realize that is what he's attempting to destroy and replace with his Theocritus version of it.

I think you're right.  Christians do not own marriage.  If God is, then He does.  However, the civil perks that come with the term "marriage" are owned by man/society.  That is what the gay community, I believe, is looking for and what I'm 100% in favor of giving equally.

And I would disagree with Wiki, contracts don't necessarily translate to being institutions in my view. I view them as separate concepts entirely. But that is just my opinion

It just seems to go against the norm.  I can, however, accept your opinion.

[Stevil]

The only thing I corrected you on was that marriage is not an institution

Just for giggles...

Wikipedia - Marriage and; Wikipedia - Institution

:p

When I got married there were two aspects to it, one socially and one legally.
We had gathered our closest friends and family and spoke our personalised vows as intent of commitment towards each other.
We signed a legal document in front of friends and family which made our new family official under the laws of the country.

So it was a legal arrangement but it was also a cultural ritual to mark an important new stage of our lives.

Note: There were no faith leaders and no mention of any gods. Christianity or any other faith were void from our wedding although I am sure some of the guests were religious and may or may not have made prayers in their minds with regards to our marriage.

[Voter]

Basically the thinking that it is our Christian duty to legislate God's morals/laws on secular society.  It is not our duty to do so.

That in no way supports your view, as they could see that duty as a fulfilment of God's will, rather than a substitute due to God's apathy.

[AnimatedDirt]

It is when it gets installed into a Theocracy. Things like that is how people start killing each other, or how persecution begins.

I agree 100%!

[AnimatedDirt]

Basically the thinking that it is our Christian duty to legislate God's morals/laws on secular society.  It is not our duty to do so.

That in no way supports your view, as they could see that duty as a fulfilment of God's will, rather than a substitute due to God's apathy.

Oh, I think it does.  Go back and do some reading in the OT about "God's" laws and how Israel added to and made hundreds of do's and don'ts bullet points to His law.  To add to God's law is to assume God missed something.  Check Mark 7 and read how they did this.  Therefore to legislate "God's law" onto secular society to avoid giving individuals CIVIL perks is to misrepresent God's intentions in His law(s).  One can presume God is against gay marriage, but to then make a law against it when no law of God exists specific to CIVIL perks in SECULAR society?  God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  There is no difference.  Both are sinners, one no more or less than the other.  Both need grace equally and both can receive that grace in their sinful state gay or straight, married or single...

[Tank]

Basically the thinking that it is our Christian duty to legislate God's morals/laws on secular society.  It is not our duty to do so.

That in no way supports your view, as they could see that duty as a fulfilment of God's will, rather than a substitute due to God's apathy.

Oh, I think it does.  Go back and do some reading in the OT about "God's" laws and how Israel added to and made hundreds of do's and don'ts bullet points to His law.  To add to God's law is to assume God missed something.  Check Mark 7 and read how they did this.  Therefore to legislate "God's law" onto secular society to avoid giving individuals CIVIL perks is to misrepresent God's intentions in His law(s).  One can presume God is against gay marriage, but to then make a law against it when no law of God exists specific to CIVIL perks in SECULAR society?  God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  There is no difference.  Both are sinners, one no more or less than the other.  Both need grace equally and both can receive that grace in their sinful state gay or straight, married or single...

I thought that there was a bit in Romans somewhere that says that homosexuality is a punishment created by God and thus all homosexuals are God's creation? Which rather contradicts the underlined.  

[Voter]

Oh, I think it does.  Go back and do some reading in the OT about "God's" laws and how Israel added to and made hundreds of do's and don'ts bullet points to His law.  To add to God's law is to assume God missed something.

Or simply to recognize that God did not provide every detail in the written law and left some interpretation and implementation up to us. Note that Moses was judging cases, then he appointed additional judges. God didn't "miss" things, he left them to our discretion.

Check Mark 7 and read how they did this.

In Mark 7, Jesus chastises them for placing man-made rules above God's law - the very thing you suggest we do.

Therefore to legislate "God's law" onto secular society to avoid giving individuals CIVIL perks is to misrepresent God's intentions in His law(s).  One can presume God is against gay marriage, but to then make a law against it when no law of God exists specific to CIVIL perks in SECULAR society?

Earlier you said I could vote my conscience, but you're now again arguing against that position.
Personally, if I'm given a choice between something that is consistent with God's will and something that isn't, it's a no-brainer - I'm going wiht God's will. I find your argument that going against God's will actually demonstrates greater faith to be ludicrous.

God loves the homosexual equally as much as He loves the heterosexual.  There is no difference.  Both are sinners, one no more or less than the other.  Both need grace equally and both can receive that grace in their sinful state gay or straight, married or single...

Sure, but that has nothing to do with societal rules. You can insert any sin in their and say God loves those that commit it, but we still regulate many of them.

[Sophus]

In Mark 7, Jesus chastises them for placing man-made rules above God's law - the very thing you suggest we do.

Can't resist throwing this recent quote by Jeffy Joe into the mix:

The spirituality of science: “Look at that King Bird-of-paradise. Breathtaking!”

The spirituality of religion: “Look at that King Bird-of-paradise. Breathtaking! I know the One who painted it. I know how He thinks. He doesn’t think we should let gays get married”

[Tank]

I think that the posts of Voter and AnimatedDirt have answered my OP very well. It would appear that any one Christian can not be held responsible for Christianity as just two can't agree with each other  

[Stevil]

I think that the posts of Voter and AnimatedDirt have answered my OP very well. It would appear that any one Christian can not be held responsible for Christianity as just two can't agree with each other  

However I feel that Voter's stance that he should not only obey the bible "word of God" but should also enforce this onto non Christians shows that there is a contingent of Christians that could be lumped into teh "responsible for Christianity" basket. Although as I have previously stated in this thread I have concerns with regards to the ability of each of these people to have free mind and will as they have been compromised by the teachings of Christianity.

[Tank]

I think that the posts of Voter and AnimatedDirt have answered my OP very well. It would appear that any one Christian can not be held responsible for Christianity as just two can't agree with each other  

However I feel that Voter's stance that he should not only obey the bible "word of God" but should also enforce this onto non Christians shows that there is a contingent of Christians that could be lumped into teh "responsible for Christianity" basket. Although as I have previously stated in this thread I have concerns with regards to the ability of each of these people to have free mind and will as they have been compromised by the teachings of Christianity.

I understand your point. Now how can I hold AnimatedDirt to account for Voter's (presumed) stance when both Voter and AnimatedDirt have independently come to their respective Christian world view and self declaration? I don't think I could. The label Christian is so nebulous and varied it is effectively meaningless in terms of defining group action and therefore responsibility.

IMO all one can do is hold an individual accountable for their thoughts and actions. Why they think and behave the way they do is a separate issue. One could argue that the bibles attitude to homosexuality is wrong as it ignores the right of the individual to determine there own actions and that those actions, when consensual between adults, do no harm to those involved. Thus the bible attempts to codify acceptable human behaviour when apparently god gave us free will and will judge us his own way when he gets around to it.

Each and every one of us are responsible for how we act on the thoughts and imaginings that run through our minds. IMO the world would be a much better place if people recognised the need to behave within two guidelines, 'Do no harm.' and 'Do unto others as you would have done unto you.' See, no god required. Personal responsibility, a respect for personal freedom, tempered by recognition of the common good is what's needed.

Now humans being humans there would be infinite debate about what 'Do no harm.' means. Consider abortion as an example. One camp would consider the mother's well being in the balance of mother vs child, while the other camp would only consider the child. But I doubt that there would be significant debate that stealing, violence to others, rape, murder and war would were bad. If the world ran under those two precepts there could never be a war and all the wasted trillions of dollars could be spent on feeding and homing the poor etc. etc.

Dogmatic collective world views (Communism, Nazism, Catholicism, Islam etc.) are dangerous because they dilute, erode and displace responsibility from the individual to the group. They exploit the tribal mentality of humans and as such place power in the hands of people who crave power. This worked while the world appeared to have infinite space and resources but it does not work now as we face a population growth that will lead to the death of billions and the destruction of the Earth's entire ecosystem.

So I still don't think I can hold AnimatedDirt responsible for Voter's behaviour just because they both define themselves as Christians. But can I hold both of them responsible for supporting a world view that in the main supports unrestrained population growth?

[Ihateyoumike]

I think only one christian was responsible for christianity, and I'm pretty sure he was a jew. And didn't he already pay the price for it by getting nailed to a cross?

I don't think the punishment was harsh enough to fit the crime.  

[Voter]

I understand your point. Now how can I hold AnimatedDirt to account for Voter's (presumed) stance when both Voter and AnimatedDirt have independently come to their respective Christian world view and self declaration? I don't think I could. The label Christian is so nebulous and varied it is effectively meaningless in terms of defining group action and therefore responsibility.

The label religious is even more nebulous. Yet, consider Whitney's recent thread on the mother who killed her son in a botched exorcism. It's posted on the Religion rather than the Current Events board, and no additional comment is given. The reasonable inference is that she thinks all religion bears responsibility for the actions of this one person.

[Voter]

.