A Christian who votes againt gay marriage is a hypocrite, especially when he doesn't preach with the same vigor againt adultery, gambling, and addictions.
-- As soon as adulterers, gamblers, and those with addictions begin lobbying to have it taught in schools that their lifestyles are acceptable and attempt passing hate speech laws stating that anyone who speaks out against them should be punished, even jailed, then get back to me......
Our churches speak out against them FREQUENTLY, explaining why it is wrong, that God still loves those people who do those things, but expects them to turn away, and then provide assistance with dealing with those areas.
My church offers marraige counseling, courses and counseling on a wide array of additions, and even helps pay for the treatment in hospitals and treament centers of those who cannot afford it.
Please get the facts before you speak next time.
.
Foreigner, on 30 June 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:
And by opposing something that I feel will do more harm than good to America and its citizens, that is NOT the equivilant of calling for Sharia Law.
How is it different?
-- So calling for a ban on the sale of handguns.....is Sharia Law?
Calling for drunk drivers to lose their license for five years after their third conviction.....is Sharia Law?
Calling for a convicted sex offender to not be allowed to live next to a middle school.....is Sharia Law?
.......although many times non-believers and my gov't often don't think so:
= At my daughter's high school this last Spring, the Valedictorian was told she would not able to give credit to Christ during her graduation speech because someone might be offended. (Those giving speeches have to submit them ahead of time to be vetted.) Why? Someone might be offended.
= The students were allowed to select their own music for their senior class recitals, but a boy was forbidden from playing the INSTRUMENTAL version of "I exalt thee" on his trumpet. The teacher confirmed the music matched the complexity, difficuly and range necessary to qualify, but again, someone might be offended.
= When the student reminded the teacher that the song isn't played before anyone, but that a CD or zip drive with the song recorded in the sound booth at school was all that was necessary and a team of 2 or 3 teachers would listen to it and grade it on performance alone, the teacher said someone might here him rehearsing or recording.
= A student's family had to exercise their rights as Americans and threaten a lawsuit when the school informed parents that students would not be allowed to have their pictures be put in the school yearbook if they are wearing a cross or a crucifix. Again, the reason given.......someone could be offended.
= This although the school had allowed students the year before to wear t-shirts for the yearbook that said "I'm Here, I'm Queer, Get Used To It" and "Keep You're Rosaries Off My Ovaries." (For some reason they drew the line at t-shirts that called to legalize marijuana. Go figure.)
Yes, all of your examples seem like an overreaction by liberal school boards. I am sure I can google and present overreactions by conservative school boards, as well.
-- If you could, along with corresponding proof that the the school board got their way anyway, that would be a tale for the grandkids.
But obviously that isn't likely.....
Especially since "conservative school boards" likely oversee a private school, not a public school.
That means that a person is likely there by choice, after vetting the school and what it stands for and allows.
That also means that if a person didn't like what that school would or wouldn't allow, they could leave....taking their money with them.
Since leaving a Public School doesn't give you the option of taking your tax dollars financing your educaiton with you, that means that your are - unless you are wealthy enough to pay for a Private School out of pocket - stuck. Trapped, if you will.
And that means that non-believers have the right to force their beliefs and opinions on believers, and there is nothing the believers can do about it.
So, perhaps the question should actually be, "Are Christians responsible for following non-believers values?"
-- Not your concern? But you have more than once criticized OTHER Christians on this site for "upsetting people" when they witness.
And them saying "not my concern" obviously doesn't fly with you.
You are right I have criticized other Christians for upsetting people - but not because they were hurting the people feelings - my criticism has been directed at the style in that they witness God, which in those situations, I believe is ineffective.
-- I would disagree. If you were to peruse your previous posts on homosexuality, you yourself would see that you criticized ALL efforts at witnessing to homosexuals.....except your personal "don't speak, just love" stance. You have never once sanctioned any other method of evangelizing to them.
Without even hearing HOW they witnessed or the words they used, you made blanket assumptions, accusations and criticisms over what they had done.
I've been posting on this board for a couple years now - I hope that I have not made blanket statements about how people witness. It seems more likely that my judgment was based on the information given to in the situation.
-- Again, yes you have. A simple perusal of your previous posts on the matter show that.
Honestly. Do you really believe that God calls us to stand by and allow ourselves and our children to sanction, by our inaction, activity that God himself calls an abomination, or that will take away our ability to voice our opinions as Christians?
If it involves restrictions on the private behavior of consenting adults, which does pose a direct threat to society - absolutely.
-- You and God are going to have a very interesting conversation on this topic one day.
Unfortunately, it will likely be very one-sided, with you saying mainly, "but, but, but...."
-- False choice. I know of no one today calling for a specific denomination to be "the law of the land" like it was in the Dark Ages. Any person with an inkling of common sense would admit that wasn't really Christianity in action back then in any way, shape, form, or style and God was grieved by the thing done and the demands made in his name.
Of course it wasn't Christianity - it was state forced Christian law without love. You have named my fear. It doesn't have to be a specific denomination - creating and enforcing laws that restrict the behavior of consenting adults, which doesn't provide a direct threat towards society can often lead to tyranny - I cannot believe I am having to explain this to a small government, conservative....
-- And I cannot believe I have to explain that you yet again presented your post as a direct comparison to how Christians are acting today.
Voting in opposition of something because you feel it would be a tragedy for America is not the same as letting the Pope or or Henry VIII declare torture or capital punishmen for someone because they went against "the will of God."
Allowing homosexuals to marry is a tragedy for America?
-- If it involves changing the definition of what God calls a marraige, and sanctioning an activity that God calls an abomination, thus causing His to turn His face further away from America, absolutely.
And you have what appears to be rather short-sighted vision on this.
Once this becomes law, the push to make it a hate crime for anyone to speak out against homosexuality - even from the pulpit - will crescendo.
A simple glance northward shows that. In Canada is is now ILLEGAL to voice an opinion against homosexuality - from the pulpit, a letter to the editor, or a soap box in a public park.
If you do not think that is what is going to happen here, then you are naive, at best.
And do you really believe that once the definition of marraige is thrown out, that will be the end of it?
I have already listened to more than once public speaker who has argued passionately that if marraige is no longer between just one man and one person, then there is no way to legally argue it is just between one person and another. Or even just between human beings.
And what law is going to be used as an example to thwart the opinion of these people?
The very arguments of privacy and "not hurting anyone" etc. etc. will be the very mantras that they will use.
And they will claim the same victimhood status.
That is NOT the same as voting against something that you as a Christian find destructive to society, morally reprehensible, will have a negative impact on your children or could eventually silence your right to speak as a Christian.
Actually, I believe I have said in the past that I respect this sort of reasoning against gay marriage a great deal more than making inane arguments against gay marriage like 'the parts don't fit' - but I am still not in favor of restricting the behavior of unbelieving adults; which does not provide a direct threat to society.
-- And that is the point you seem to miss.
Wanting to live in sin because you do not believe it is sin is one thing.
But wanting our government to change the very definition of something in order to sanction that type of activity is not something a Christian is expected to sit back and simply watch happen.
Especially when, as a Christian, you know that this displeases God and causes him to turn His face further away from your country.
Is it really so difficult to understand that the incredible decline in this country over the last 30-40 years has mirrored EXACTLY this country's embrace of the "freedoms" of sin and perversion and rejection of all things God?
You want to complain about Christians exercising their voting rights based on their faith, but never speak of non-believers exercising their voting rights to restrict even the private practice of Christian faith.
If you want to believe that God smiles upon people the "marraige" of two people that are going to be practicing a sin He calls an abomination, that is up to you.
But if you are going to admit that God likely does not smile upon it, yet you still support it, then you are going to have some explaining to do when you stand before Him. And, "But Lord, I did it out of love" isn't going to cut it.