Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1291 of 1540 (825610)
12-16-2017 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1290 by jar
12-16-2017 1:19 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
Christians must answer to God above all governments, and if it weren't for the perversity of our government's forcing gay marriage on us there wouldn't have been any conflict.
Again Faith, that is NOT what Jesus taught.
Gay marriage has never been forced on anyone in the US and making that claim is simply another misrepresentation of fact, truth and reality.
What's the matter with you, jar? I've proved that it's forced on us, you are in the weird position of outright denying the facts. Give it up and acknowledge the truth and stop this crazy arguing with the obvious.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1290 by jar, posted 12-16-2017 1:19 PM jar has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1292 of 1540 (825611)
12-16-2017 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1289 by Faith
12-16-2017 1:12 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
quote:
Christians must answer to God above all governments, and if it weren't for the perversity of our government's forcing gay marriage on us there wouldn't have been any conflict.
That’s funny because you are really arguing that the government must answer to Christians. Look Faith, I know that denying rights to gays is a big part of Christianity and I know Christians told a lot of lies to stop it happening. (I say Christians because real Christians ought to know better.)
But you lost because of the obvious injustice of your cause - and to go on lying and lying is the real perversity.
The fact is that gay marriage is simply a matter of civil law. Christians are not commanded to take control of civil law, nor does gay marriage hurt Christians in any sense other than offending the bigots among them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1289 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 1:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1293 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 1:29 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1293 of 1540 (825612)
12-16-2017 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1292 by PaulK
12-16-2017 1:26 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
Nice statement of pagan perversity, nice collection of lying accusations there too. Well done.
No, government doesn't have to answer to Christians. Government is free to persecute us, feed us to the lions, whatever.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1292 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2017 1:26 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1300 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2017 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1294 of 1540 (825614)
12-16-2017 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1286 by jar
12-16-2017 7:02 AM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
Reality Faith shows that civil rights were the result of the Enlightenment movement not Christianity or any other religion.
Exactly what I realized when first encountering the ridiculous claims of the Radical Religious Right (RRR) immediately after they helped to get Reagan elected the first time. Immediately apparent was the right to follow whatever religion you wish, nor no religion at all, which in a theocracy would be the crime of apostasy, usually a capital offense. And then there is the right to reject a government which does not serve us and to form our own government through our own efforts for our own benefit as a people, which first rejects the Christian-based belief in the Divine Right of Kings and then promotes the very ideas which the RRR openly denounced as "secular humanism." The RRR's claims made absolutely no sense then and they still made no sense today.
Later I learned about the Christian Reconstructionist (CR) movement which was actively advocating replacing the US Constitution (and all our civil rights) with an Old Testament theocracy. Although they went into decline in the 1990's, in the 1980's they were the RRR's political mentors even though they differed in theology (premillennialism v. postmillennialism) and the CRs had a multigenerational plan (hence their great interest in exploiting home-schooling) while the RRR wanted to do it overnight through the force of law. In 2008, that movement was officially declared dead, but its goals are still being sought by Dominionists (their detractors' name for modern theocrats like Ted Cruz and Mike Pence) -- I think they now call themselves something like Christian Nationalists (hint, the sound of the first four letters of "Nationalismus" became "Nazi" -- also, the official Christian Nationalist movement was founded in 1942 to promote an anti-semitic agenda).
Around 1987, Christianity Today ran an article about Christian Reconstructionism and quoted several of its leaders and writers. A recurring theme was denouncing democracy and human rights as having been invented by Satan and so, of course, they must be the first to go.
Another writer (Bell?) was quoted as explicitly advising that they must very strongly insist upon their own rights of religious liberty for the expressed purpose of depriving everybody else of their religious liberty. And we are now seeing that advice being put to active use as today's aspiring theocrats use their own "religious freedom" as justification for breaking the law and destroying everybody else's civil rights. QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1286 by jar, posted 12-16-2017 7:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1295 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 1:34 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 1296 by jar, posted 12-16-2017 1:38 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1295 of 1540 (825615)
12-16-2017 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1294 by dwise1
12-16-2017 1:30 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
I've never met a Christian Reconstructionist myself, probably couldn't even name one. But I see that a fringe movement can serve the forces of antiChristianity quite well. What do you suggest, hanging us? Execution at dawn? Concentration camps?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1294 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 1:30 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1297 by jar, posted 12-16-2017 1:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 1302 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 2:16 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1296 of 1540 (825617)
12-16-2017 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1294 by dwise1
12-16-2017 1:30 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
dwise1 writes:
Exactly what I realized when first encountering the ridiculous claims of the Radical Religious Right (RRR) immediately after they helped to get Reagan elected the first time.
It's interesting that Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater totally rejected the idea of religion having any place in politics and of Ronald Reagan as a leader of anything beyond maybe the Screen Actors Guild (a union).
And one of the major purposes in the creation of the Authorized King James Bible was as a tool to justify the Divine Right of Kings and it follows the same mentality as the current Christian Cult of Ignorance and Dishonesty; that what God ordained trumps what the people want and that all power is vested in those anointed by God.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1294 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 1:30 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1298 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 1:44 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1297 of 1540 (825618)
12-16-2017 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1295 by Faith
12-16-2017 1:34 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
Faith writes:
I've never met a Christian Reconstructionist myself, probably couldn't even name one. But I see that a fringe movement can serve the forces of antiChristianity quite well. What do you suggest, hanging us? Execution at dawn? Concentration camps?
Of course not Faith. In fact we plan on supporting your right to behave as you wish within your society as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1295 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 1:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1299 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 1:47 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1298 of 1540 (825619)
12-16-2017 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1296 by jar
12-16-2017 1:38 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
Yes the Divine Right of Kings was wrong but in context it was intended as a counter to the assumed right of the Pope to rule over kings and everybody else. Context can lead to views that create unforeseen problems but ignoring context leads to such ludicrous accusations as yours.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1296 by jar, posted 12-16-2017 1:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1301 by jar, posted 12-16-2017 1:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1299 of 1540 (825621)
12-16-2017 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1297 by jar
12-16-2017 1:42 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
Of course not Faith. In fact we plan on supporting your right to behave as you wish within your society as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.
And Satan himself no doubt, who has more freedoms these days than Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1297 by jar, posted 12-16-2017 1:42 PM jar has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1300 of 1540 (825623)
12-16-2017 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1293 by Faith
12-16-2017 1:29 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
quote:
Nice statement of pagan perversity, nice collection of lying accusations there too. Well done
But it is all true. Gay marriage opens the civil and legal status of marriage to gay couples. Christians object to that and have openly sought to deny those benefits - such as coverage on a partner’s health insurance.
It is also a fact that whenever you talk about gay marriage as hurting Christians you always talk about anti-discrimination legislation instead which is an almost entirely separate issue. And you cannot possibly be ignorant of that by now - aside from the fact that familiarity with the cases would tell you that - it’s been discussed to death here.
When a Christian in the West claims persecution it is always almost a lie - a demand for special privileges. And so it is in this case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1293 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 1:29 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1304 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 2:45 PM PaulK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1301 of 1540 (825624)
12-16-2017 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1298 by Faith
12-16-2017 1:44 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
Faith writes:
Yes the Divine Right of Kings was wrong but in context it was intended as a counter to the assumed right of the Pope to rule over kings and everybody else.
Again Faith, reality simply says you are wrong. James I & VI was a PROTESTANT, and it was to assert the Kings position over the other nobles, parliament and the peoples.
England had adopted a Protestant State Church under Henry VIII and with the exception of the sort time Mary was queen had remained a Protestant Nation.
James I & VI wrote his treatise The True Law of Free Monarchies in 1598, sixty five years after Henry VIII broke with Rome and it dealt with Kingship and the role of Parliaments and Subjects. It had nothing to do with the Papacy.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1298 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 1:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1302 of 1540 (825627)
12-16-2017 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1295 by Faith
12-16-2017 1:34 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
I've never met a Christian Reconstructionist myself, probably couldn't even name one.
I very much doubt that you could, giving that officially designated Christian Reconstructionists were pretty much dying out in the 1990's. But their ideas and goals do still carry on and are advocated by many "true Christians". Whenever you see one of them advocating making the Bible the Law of the Land, making America a Christian Nation, making their form of Christianity either the official American religion or at the very least have it rank above all other religions (including most forms of Christianity) and dictate what the laws should be, advocate that only members of their form of Christianity should be allowed to hold public office or wield political power, then you are seeing one of them. They do live and you don't need special sunglasses to see them either.
In fact, I am quite certain that you personally know at least such person. Extremely personally know that person.
What do you suggest, hanging us? Execution at dawn? Concentration camps?
Of course not. Those are what Christians would do and historically have done when they have been in power.
No, what we need to do is to keep you from grabbing the political power that you crave so much that, as we now witness every day, you will all line up to flatter and curry favor from the Anti-Christ in order to gain it.
What we need to do is to keep you from perverting civil government for the sake of your religion.
Volume 1 of a book researching the lies of historical revisionists, Liars for Jesus, ended with a false claim of Blackstone's book on English Common Law, kind of a "Common Law for Dummies", held much sway in the Colonies when in reality lawyers had little patience for it. A prominent lawyer of the time,
St. George Tucker, was quoted. Tucker was a Revolutionary War officer and a renowned lawyer, law professor at the College of William and Mary, and US District Judge for Virginia under President Madison. He was also an abolitionist who had worked out a plan for the freeing of the slaves.
His quotes are yet another example that the idea of church-state separation was held by many, especially by those who gave that matter any thought at all. It should be noted Tucker had a low opinion of atheism, yet he considered civil government far safer in the hands of atheists than in the hands of theists. The ellipses are Rodda's or her source's.
quote:
...The pretext of religion, and the pretences of sanctity and humility, have been employed throughout the world, as the most direct means of gaining influence and power. Hence the numberless martyrdoms and massacres which have drenched the whole earth with blood, from the first moment that civil and religious institutions were blended together. To separate them by mounds which can never be overleaped, is the only means by which our duty to God, the peace of mankind, and the genuine fruits of charity and fraternal love, can be preserved or properly discharged. This prohibition, therefore, may be regarded as the most powerful cement of the federal government, or rather, the violation of it will prove the most powerful engine of separation. Those who prize the union of the states will never think of touching this article with unhallowed hands....
Yet again, the Wall of Separation albeit through a superficially different metaphor.
quote:
Civil establishments of formularies of faith and worship, are inconsistent with the rights of private judgement. They engender strife . . . they turn religion into a trade . . . they shore up error . . . they produce hypocrisy and prevarication . . . they lay an undue bias on the human mind in its inquiries, and obstruct the progress of truth . . . genuine religion is a concern that lies entirely between God and our own souls. It is incapable of receiving any aid from human laws. It is contaminated as soon as worldly motives and sanctions mix their influence with it. Statesmen should countenance it only by exhibiting, in their own example, a conscientious regard to it in those forms which are most agreeable to their own judgments, and by encouraging their fellow citizens in doing the same. They cannot, as public men, give it any other assistance. All, besides, that has been called a public leading in religion, has done it an essential injury, and produced some of the worst consequences.
In the next quote, from the preceding quotes I interpret his reference to "such a religion" as being a religion established and imposed by the state as opposed to "genuine religion" which is private and up to each person. Rodda notes here that Tucker is not condoning atheism, yet he argues that it is less dangerous to government and society than superstitions and religious fanaticism:
quote:
It has been long a subject of dispute, which is worse in it’s effects on society, such a religion or speculative atheism. For my own part, I could almost give the preference to the latter . . . Atheism is so repugnant to every principle of common sense, that it is not possible it should ever gain much ground, or become very prevalent. On the contrary, there is a particular proneness in the human mind to superstition, and nothing is more likely to become prevalent . . . Atheism leaves us to the full influence of most of our natural feelings and social principles; and these are so strong in their operation, that, in general, they are a sufficient guard to the order of society. But superstition counteracts these principles, by holding forth men to one another as objects of divine hatred; and by putting them on harrassing, silenceing, imprissoning and burning one another, in order to do God service . . . Atheism is a sanctuary for vice, by taking away the motives to virtue arising from the will of God, and the fear of future judgment. But superstition is more a sanctuary for vice, by teaching men ways of pleasing God, without moral virtue; and by leading them even to compound for wickedness, by ritual services, by bodily penances and mortifications; by adoring shrines, going pilgrimages, saying many prayers, receiving absolution from the priests, exterminating heretics, &c....13
As we can plainly see, opposition to aspiring theocrats trying to seize political power has been opposed since the founding of thie nation. And for very good reasons.
So then the solution to the grave danger you pose to America would be to keep your damned dirty paws off of the Wall of Separation which protects the rights of the people (borrowing from Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance).
BTW, I just learned that Chris Rodda has published Volume 2 and it is ready for free download at her site given above.
Edited by dwise1, : "theocrats" --> "aspiring theocrats"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1295 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 1:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1303 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 2:37 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1303 of 1540 (825628)
12-16-2017 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1302 by dwise1
12-16-2017 2:16 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
I wish I had the time and the energy to muster the evidence because the evidence is that America was conceived as far more Christian than you think, and the direction it is now headed is not at all what the Founders had in mind despite their Deist inclinations. Of course once the secularists have managed to redefine it there's not much hope of resurrecting original intent. I think I'll try to assemble the facts anyway though I may not waste them here.
The other way to read the history is that the nation was Christian through and through in all its thinking at all levels except for the few who had the power to pervert it and hence betrayed its Christian foundations. The leaving of God out of the Constitution was actually protested by Christians who said it was indeed a betrayal. Of course it took a century or two for the Christian roots to be pulled up as they now are and paganism to reassert itself.
Either way paganism now owns it, and barring a great revival (which would find you hightailing it to some other part of the planet) I suppose we can expect its deterioration into a third world swamp to continue unabated.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1302 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 2:16 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1304 of 1540 (825629)
12-16-2017 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1300 by PaulK
12-16-2017 1:56 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
Gay marriage opens the civil and legal status of marriage to gay couples. Christians object to that and have openly sought to deny those benefits - such as coverage on a partner’s health insurance.
Even closer to home, there's the very basic right of a spouse to being with their loved one in the hospital, especially when that loved one is dying. And gay couples with children had always had to fear having their children taken away from them when travelling through states that did not recognize their marriage.
It has been suggested that all marriages be made civil unions for sake of civil and legal status and that they can then also go to their own church for a religious marriage ceremony. As I understand it, that is how it is done in several countries.
But what makes that kind of argument moot is that so many of our laws written at all levels of government, as well as in far more contracts, explicitly refer to marriage. For that reason and to avoid the legal nightmare that could ensue, gay marriage has to be marriage in order to ensure the conference of all legal and civil rights to the spouse.
When a Christian in the West claims persecution it is always almost a lie - a demand for special privileges. And so it is in this case.
That is also the basis for cries of "racial discrimination against whites". They are losing their special privileges and cannot not endure being like everybody else (despite still not having lost the majority of their special privileges).
Though there is also that odd "martyrdom fantasy" pathology that many Christians, seem afflicted with. I hope they find a cure for it soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1300 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2017 1:56 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1305 by Faith, posted 12-16-2017 2:51 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1305 of 1540 (825630)
12-16-2017 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1304 by dwise1
12-16-2017 2:45 PM


Re: on marriage as a civil contract
Looks to me like we'll become the equivalent of dhimmis. That's persecution enough.
Actually, since all this has to bring the nation under God's judgment, what very likely could happen is that it will become predominantly Muslim. Wonder how you'll like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1304 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 2:45 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1306 by PaulK, posted 12-16-2017 3:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024