Are nonbelievers responsible for following Christian values?

[Jon-Marc]

The only thing God expects from unbelievers is for them to repent and turn to Him for forgiveness and salvation. He doesn't tell unbelievers to stop doing what is natural for tehm to do, but He wants them to accept His Son as their Saviour. The only people He expects and commands to "Be ye holy, for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16) are those who claim the name of Christ Jesus as their Saviour.

 

[Foreigner]

For me, this is an issue of freewill. Are nonbelievers allowed to live their own lives? Are Christians supposed to enforce God's purposes on nonbelievers?

-- "Freewill" cuts both ways.
A non-believer has the right to pursue what he/she wishes.....but I have the exact same right to pursue what I believe is right, or oppose what I believe is wrong. I do not sacrifice that right just because I am a Christian.

Why does the non-believer have the right to support what they believe with their whole heart in the ballot box, but a Christian doesn't?
Does the source of that belief nullify the right to supporting that belief? According to the US Constitution, the answer is no.
Being blessed to be a Christian does not nullify my rights as an American citizen.

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.

Are nonbelievers allowed to live their own lives? Yes. But I as a believer has that exact same right......

.......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.)

In fairness to the school system, they were overcautious because "non-believers" (read:atheists) were able to argue before the school board that by a school allowing a student to have freedom to live their faith (even as they acknowledged they weren't evangelizing) would give the impression the school "favors" that religion and could prompt the "non-believers" to file a suite against the school.

apsen2,
God didnt create believers and non-belivers. He created all people and wishes that none perish but all come to repentance. The free will He gave all people is to choose Him or not. He didnt give people any right to reject Him.
It is democractic society that gives all citizens the right to vote for what they think is best, so when Christians vote for God's purposes society either imposes them on all or imposes ungodly laws on all.
This has been explained to you. Christians are not required to shrink back just so unbelief and rejection of God can flourish. How could you pray Your Kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as in heaven if you are more concerned about upsetting those who dont want it?

-- Amen.

Upsetting people? Not my concern.

I have no problem witnessing Christ - my problem is legislating Christ.

-- 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.

Without even hearing HOW they witnessed or the words they used, you made blanket assumptions, accusations and criticisms over what they had done.

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?

Do you really believe that 'Christian Europe' was better off during the Dark Ages when they were forced into Christianity or today when people have to fight against the secular culture for their Christianity?

-- 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.

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."

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.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Foreigner,

Great post!

I agree completely - they will be held accountable at Judgment for not turning their lives to Christ. But, are we expected to legislate these laws now?

One of the reasons that I'm in favour of confining to privacy, those who wish to engage in abominable practices, is that there is a link between what we hear and see and our mental health, as well as our spiritual health.

Deuteronomy 28:33 The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway: 34 So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.

Job 31:1 I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.

Isaiah 26:3 Thou wilt keep [him] in perfect peace, [whose] mind [is] stayed [on thee]: because he trusteth in thee.

{mind: or, thought, or, imagination}



Those verses brought to attention, the New Covenant does not desire to make hypocrites of people, but rather that they should honestly turn from sin to receive healing and salvation by faith, but, Paul states clearly:

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers.... etc


Is this a double standard in scripture, or, is it the fairest way to deal with people so that they have the greatest opportunity to repent from their hearts?


The amount of temptation which Christians face because of nonChristian behaviour is not a new challenge to their sanity or sanctity. Rather, it is par for the course, and it could be worse and tougher to deal with - apart from the grace of God in the hour of need.

It's a kind of slow-burn persecution, and maybe we should take it as an opportunity to be refined in our love for the Lord, and to endure to the end?

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Yes it is interesting. Listen to the secular liberal spin and on one issue, one minute they will say there are hardly any Christians left and the next that most Christians (the nominal) one want this or that.
But the most laughable is when they say religion cant be in the public domain. If we match that and say we dont want a secualr liberal society they get very upset and it is usually the end of the conversation.
Just how arrogant, inequal and intolerant are those who come in the name of tolerance, equlaity and human rights. LOL

You have summed it up very accurately brightmorningstar.

Years ago , secular journalists (usually liberals) had a "saying" they used behind the scenes. They termed it ....

"The Great Unspoken Thing"

What they were referring to was how they had slowly dropped all "God-fearing" values from media .

They were very successful.. I have been around long enough to remember that nearly every public discussion revolved around a foundation of respecting right and wrong and representing good (Christian) values and decency.

Heck.... I remember how upset Walt Disney was when there was the slightest hint that the belly-buttons of the mouseketeer singing group might show on TV because of the shortened uniforms they were wearing.

Television Producers were sensitive about violating decent family values.

Compare that to what our children are exposed to nowadays. wow !!

Secular anti-church promoters still celebrate the day they got God out of the way. I repeat , amongst themselves they called it ....

"the great unspoken thing"

I just spoke it for you. And I wanted everybody to know there has always been an agenda behind the scenes .... often in media and broadcasting ... to bash the Christian and eliminate his values.

I expect the devil enjoys all their accomplishments.

 

[aspen]

-- "Freewill" cuts both ways.
A non-believer has the right to pursue what he/she wishes.....but I have the exact same right to pursue what I believe is right, or oppose what I believe is wrong. I do not sacrifice that right just because I am a Christian.

I agree.

Why does the non-believer have the right to support what they believe with their whole heart in the ballot box, but a Christian doesn't?
Does the source of that belief nullify the right to supporting that belief? According to the US Constitution, the answer is no.
Being blessed to be a Christian does not nullify my rights as an American citizen.

I agree.

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?

Are nonbelievers allowed to live their own lives? Yes. But I as a believer has that exact same right......

Indeed.

.......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.

In fairness to the school system, they were overcautious because "non-believers" (read:atheists) were able to argue before the school board that by a school allowing a student to have freedom to live their faith (even as they acknowledged they weren't evangelizing) would give the impression the school "favors" that religion and could prompt the "non-believers" to file a suite against the school.

Avoiding lawsuits is what institutions are motivated by - I think you would cringe to hear the yearly lawsuits that are filed against the government agency my former wife works at - first they are sued for taking clients on outings then they are sued the next for not giving the clients their freedom or working hard enough to integrate them back into the community

-- 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.

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.

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.

-- 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....

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?

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.

 

[elysian]

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.

 

[jiggyfly]

For me, this is an issue of freewill. Are nonbelievers allowed to live their own lives? Are Christians supposed to enforce God's purposes on nonbelievers?

While the Christian religious institution has indeed tried to enforce what they believe to be God's mandate on the world, it is not authorized by God. It is HolySpirit's responsibility to do so during this age ( age of the ekklesia) but it is the body of Christ's responsibility to be witnesses to what Jesus is doing in this age.

Most christians I know still live their own lives religiously rather than worldly. But many are beginning to seek after the rest that is in Christ Jesus and ceasing from their religious works.

 

[Foreigner]

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.

 

[aspen]

Foreigner, on 30 June 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

-- 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?

All I asked was for you to explain the differences - I wasn't claiming that voting for Christian based laws is equivalent to Sharia Law. My biggest fear is legalism - I think the Catholic Church fell into this practice during the Middle Ages - I just do not want to see it happen again. I understand that you are more worried about the other extreme - that our country might slide further into moral plurality - for me, I believe that authentic Christian values and transformed lives based on Christ's justification and sanctification shine brightest when the prevailing culture is allowed to follow their own path because eventually, individuals will find out how meaningless it really is.

-- 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.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-app_n_497440.html

http://www.chron.com/life/mom-houston/article/Conservative-backed-curriculum-OKi-d-for-1705426.php

These two links above, describe the same incident - I included both because the articles include different information. The curriculum in question was adopted in May 2010.

http://www.bluenc.com/nc-school-board-engineered-conservative-benefactor-draws-civil-rights-scrutiny

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930906&slug=1719696

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1999-10-24/news/9910240059_1_evolution-state-board-chicago

Especially since "conservative school boards" likely oversee a private school, not a public school.

There are plenty of Conservative Public School Boards in our country.

Since leaving a Public School doesn't give you the option of taking your tax dollars financing your education 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.

http://www.darwinsfinance.com/americans-kids-opt-out-school/

One of the responsibilities of living in a Democracy is funding public education. This reality is based on the fact that a democracy cannot survive without an educated populous. I have paid taxes supporting public schools all of my life and I have no children. One of the objects of public education is to teach children how to make educated decisions about the world we live in. Indoctrination is frowned upon - liberal or conservative. Unfortunately, teaching children to make up their own mind carries the inherent risk that they might end up sharing different opinions from their parents. I think it is good for kids to be exposed to differences - especially when they are allowed to discuss them in a nurturing environment like their Christian home.

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.

Is exposing children to different points of view the same as 'forcing their beliefs'? I am not sure any authority is able to force any belief in our post-modern world. As challenging as it is living in a relativistic culture - it does promote the tendency for all ideas - atheistic and Christian to be challenged and not simply accepted as fact. Scientists are often just as frustrated that kids are not millitant about their belief in evolution as Christians are about their doctrine not being taken seriously.


So, perhaps the question should actually be, "Are Christians responsible for following non-believers values?"

Actually, I think this is a great question. My answer is absolutely, 'no'. If homosexuals tried to past a law banning heterosexual marriage, I would most certainly vote no.

-- 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.

Well, then I misspoke.


-- Again, yes you have. A simple perusal of your previous posts on the matter show that.

Once again, I must have misspoken.

-- You and God are going to have a very interesting conversation on this topic one day.

Agreed!! I am looking forward to it!

Unfortunately, it will likely be very one-sided, with you saying mainly, "but, but, but...."

On the contrary! I think we will have a good laugh together about how short-sighted I was on Earth. Living in a dimension that does not allow us to see the future and forces us to look backwards to understand the present certainly has its limitations. God knows this and so do I. All I can do is my best to understand it all and trust that God is going to lead me to love my way through it.

-- 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.

Ok - I hope I cleared up this misunderstanding. It is not easy for me to get my point across using this form of communication. I did not mean to present a direct comparison - only a comparison between a few similar characteristics.

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."

If Hell is invoked as a consequence for noncompliance it appears quite similar to me.

-- 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.

The problem is that God never defined marriage. No did he punish people for having more than one wife. He certainly never turned his face away from Abraham or David for engaging in plural relationships and marriages. I am willing to believe that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes, but not based on the flimsy idea that God defined marriage and that all God fearing people in the Bible complied or were punished for violating this definition.

And you have what appears to be rather short-sighted vision on this.

Don't we all? The human perspective is limited - even the human perspective of God's word.

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.

Yeah, I reject the 'slippery-slope' perspective. I will face each problem as it comes.

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.

We have the first amendment in America, which protects our free speech from legal prosecution.

If you do not think that is what is going to happen here, then you are naive, at best.

If dealing with problems as they arise, rather than second guess all my decisions based on what might happen in the future means that I am naive or worse - I guess I am naive or worse. I am not afraid to be wrong.

And do you really believe that once the definition of marraige is thrown out, that will be the end of it?

I believe that there will always be people who want to push their agendas. My response is to live according to my own Christian based values and principles.

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.

If they are consenting adults who are not posing a threat to the safety of our society, I not sure what anyone can say against it. Also, it is not like these people are restraining their behavior because it is currently illegal - hedonism is has always existed and I believe those who choose to practice it will become spiritually bankrupt on Earth and punished in Eternity. I do not think that prosecuting them under human law is going to make any difference at all. I fact, I would rather have them our of jail and living among Christians who can witness Christ with their lives and words than in jail surrounded by their own kind. Once again, do I believe hedonism is morally right? not according to my understanding of God's laws, but if they are not Christian they answer to God, not me.

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.

People have the option of living their lives as victims and hedonists and sinners - we have the option of living our lives as followers of Christ. I believe our Christian witness is the best way to free people from their slavery - prosecution of human law often leads people to feel even more victimized. People who are unable to take responsibility for their poor choices are only going to be re-enforced in their opinions by being thrown in prison.


-- 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.

Our government is based on a free society. The Founding Fathers allowed for the existence of non-Christian populations in our country when they separated Church from State. They were products of centuries of European religious wars and religious tyranny and wanted above any else to be free from all it. I believe they would be much more worried about religious encroachment on government then secularization. Our government must attempt to protect the interest of all it's citizens if we are going to remain a free society.

Especially when, as a Christian, you know that this displeases God and causes him to turn His face further away from your country.

How can God turn His head further away? Does the degree of His head in relationship to our country matter? We have enough consumerism, hedonism, and materialism in our country to repel most heathens, let alone God. I believe God is giving sinners enough rope to hang themselves - hopefully them will turn away from their own stench and towards Him. We need to be concerned about our own witness - not the restriction of the sins of the nonbeliever.

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?

Really? I thought we were actually moving away from complacency over the past 50-60 years in our country. Instead of the homogeneous, mainline Christian culture and complacency that lead to the WASPy suppression of all minority POV and vanilla, dry, social communism of the 50s; we are now in a world where we need to stand up on our own two feet and make real decisions about our sanctification - there more opportunities to make real differences in the lives of our neighbors. Like Jesus told the crowds about hating their fathers and mothers in order to follow Him - we have rejected the complacency of our parents and embraced a dynamic faith required for picking up OUR cross and following Him.

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.

Nah, if I were complaining or whining or crying I would be focused on bemoaning the fate of my country and talking about the good old days and thinking about all the great things we have lost. Instead, I am embracing the reality of the moment and looking forward to the future and choosing to love my way through all the fears and potential sins involved in the future. Pointing out that old ways of trying to reach a post modern mindset are no longer effective is not complaining.

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.

Why would I claim that God condones sin?

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.

How about, 'I refuse to cast the first stone?" Or "I chose to love them and continued to have faith that God would convict their hearts rather than passing laws that would send them to prison"

 

[brightmorningstar]

aspen2,

I have no problem witnessing Christ - my problem is legislating Christ.

As Foreigner points out, what you are saying about not upsetting people is not consistent.

But as to this point, in most countries it is democracy that legislates. So your problem is democracy. Democracy doesn’t legislate Christ, it legislates the majority view.
One already has laws in place that are in line with Christ’s teaching, so would you vote for them? Would you vote for legislating against theft, false testimony, murder, etc? These legislate against people. I suspect you would vote to legislate for them. So there must be some issues that are in line with Christ’s teaching that you don’t want to vote for because you don’t agree with them enough to want to have them legislated. ie ‘gay marriage’

 

[aspen]

aspen2,

As Foreigner points out, what you are saying about not upsetting people is not consistent.

But as to this point, in most countries it is democracy that legislates. So your problem is democracy. Democracy doesn’t legislate Christ, it legislates the majority view.
One already has laws in place that are in line with Christ’s teaching, so would you vote for them? Would you vote for legislating against theft, false testimony, murder, etc? These legislate against people. I suspect you would vote to legislate for them. So there must be some issues that are in line with Christ’s teaching that you don’t want to vote for because you don’t agree with them enough to want to have them legislated. ie ‘gay marriage’

You are choosing not to open your eyes and see that a society cannot exist if theft, false testimony or murder were allowed to exist unpunished. Homosexuality is a sin against self, not society. The problem is not with my view of Democracy at all - the problem is with your inability to see that societal norms are changing in this country in regard to homosexual marriage - your view will become the minority viewpoint in the next decade or sooner.

 

[brightmorningstar]

aspen2,

You are choosing not to open your eyes and see that a society cannot exist if theft, false testimony or murder were allowed to exist unpunished.

Ah ok so you do vote to legislate against people some things that are in line with God’s purposes based on whether you personally think it is harmful to society.
So therefore your objection is not as you claimed about forcing beliefs on others, but whether you consider society can exist with or without it.

Homosexuality is a sin against self, not society.

According to God’s Biblical testimony all sexual immorality is a sin against ones own body. So would you abstain from imposing any sexual immorality of people? What about incest, paedophilia, polygamy, bestiality?
One might also argue that homosexuality is a sin against society, in the OT we see societies were destroyed because of sin.

The problem is not with my view of Democracy at all –

Well yes it is in respect of you saying you wont legislate for Christ, the legislation is a democracy criteria.

the problem is with your inability to see that societal norms are changing in this country in regard to homosexual marriage - your view will become the minority viewpoint in the next decade or sooner.

I am in the world but belong to the Kingdom of God, history shows the world ebbs and flows on the issue, but God’s Kingdom remains the same, the view for Kingdom members remains the same.
Furthermore when you say my view will become a minority view, that implies yours wont? . I would have expected you to say our view, which is God’s view.

 

[dragonfly]

the problem is with your inability to see that societal norms are changing in this country in regard to homosexual marriage - your view will become the minority viewpoint in the next decade or sooner.

Homosexuality is a sin against self, not society.

aspen, don't you see that if more and more people practise homosexuality - because it is a spiritual hook which is, and can be, acquired - that this is not beneficial to society? In the end, 'society' will not be safe for those who do not wish to participate, because the spirit which controls the man or woman who is trapped by it, is a predator. And, it is profoundly disruptive to the actual person as a human being.

And, it will certainly not restrict itself to consenting adults. It doesn't now. It never has done. And the fact that that's what the law permits, is no safeguard whatever, against people who are driven by a power to which they have willingly yielded before they realised the devil plays for keeps.

 

[Selene]

Homosexuality has an impact on society. Studies have shown that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental and physcial health as compared to heterosexuals especially among men. Studies have shown that gay men have a much higher sexually transmitted diseases because they practiced sodomy or anal sex. The rate among lesbians is lower because most lesbians do not engage in the practice of anal sex. This part of the human body was never designed to take in anything, but to take out waste. To condone homosexuality or even same sex marriage would be considered cruel if these studies are actually true. It would only be an endorsement to diseases among gays. Below is a quote from one of the weblinks I provided below:

Historical and current research reveals evidence for significant concern about the mental and physical health and probable longevity of homosexual individuals. As a group, those who engage in homosexual practices tend to have higher mental and physical health risks and potentially much shorter life spans. Research has consistently demonstrated that homosexual sexual practices place individuals at risk for some form of mental disorder ranging from mood disorders, to suicide (Herrell et al, 1999; Ferguson et al, 1999; Bailey, 1999; Sandfort et al, 2001; Ferris, 1996). Further, studies have even shown that these differences continue to be the same even among societies that accept homosexuality (Berman, 2003). This report is clearly not the first to present differences by sexual orientation as researchers who conducted this survey seem to assert.

http://narth.com/doc...hicalcheck.html

Other studies regarding homosexuality are also provided in the following weblinks.

http://www.narth.com...us/medical.html

 

[aspen]

aspen2,
Ah ok so you do vote to legislate against people some things that are in line with God’s purposes based on whether you personally think it is harmful to society.
So therefore your objection is not as you claimed about forcing beliefs on others, but whether you consider society can exist with or without it.

Ah I see you are still trying to trap me with my own words.....boring! I am not sure how Jesus could stand it for three years - I have only had to endure for a couple of weeks.,,,

First, I am only speaking about laws against homosexuality for nonbelievers - you are the person who is trying to bring in other laws and circumstances. Second, I refuse to vote for laws that restrict the behaviors of nonbelievers that does not impact society. Once again, this is a clear statement - yet the more you want clarification, the more muddy the water becomes....hmmm, could this be intentional on your part, I wonder?

According to God’s Biblical testimony all sexual immorality is a sin against ones own body. So would you abstain from imposing any sexual immorality of people? What about incest, paedophilia, polygamy, bestiality?

How many times are you going to ask me to compare apples with oranges?

One might also argue that homosexuality is a sin against society, in the OT we see societies were destroyed because of sin.

Well, then you better start outlawing Hollywood and fornication. Like Jesus said, clear out the beam in your own eye first - in this case, those sins that you might actually be temped by, yourself, rather than the minority sin of homosexual behavior.

Well yes it is in respect of you saying you wont legislate for Christ, the legislation is a democracy criteria. I am in the world but belong to the Kingdom of God, history shows the world ebbs and flows on the issue, but God’s Kingdom remains the same, the view for Kingdom members remains the same.

Really? Well, I hope the women in your life cover their heads when they go to church; wear their hair long; do not talk in church, or teach men. Won't legislate for Christ? You make that sound like a sin - where does the Bible tell us to legislate for Christ?

Furthermore when you say my view will become a minority view, that implies yours wont? . I would have expected you to say our view, which is God’s view.

Still trying to claim that I approve of homosexuality, huh? It sure would make it easier for you to dismiss my opinion, wouldn't it? Sorry, homosexual behavior is a sin according to the Bible and will be judged by God. We are not called to dictate the behavior of nonbelievers.

Rather than continue contributing to your circular reasoning, I have decided to get off the ferris-wheel. Unless you can produce a verse that tells us that we are called to dictate or restrain the sinful behavior of nonbelievers, I am finished with this conversation - it ceased to be interesting for me days ago.

aspen, don't you see that if more and more people practise homosexuality - because it is a spiritual hook which is, and can be, acquired - that this is not beneficial to society? In the end, 'society' will not be safe for those who do not wish to participate, because the spirit which controls the man or woman who is trapped by it, is a predator. And, it is profoundly disruptive to the actual person as a human being.

How is this different from fornication? Has fornication ruined the United States? Has fornication brought down God's wrath on the United States? Should we outlaw fornication?

And, it will certainly not restrict itself to consenting adults. It doesn't now. It never has done. And the fact that that's what the law permits, is no safeguard whatever, against people who are driven by a power to which they have willingly yielded before they realised the devil plays for keeps.

I reject slippery-slope reasoning. It is impossible to outlaw all behaviors that people might abuse in the future.

Homosexuality has an impact on society. Studies have shown that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental and physcial health as compared to heterosexuals especially among men. Studies have shown that gay men have a much higher sexually transmitted diseases because they practiced sodomy or anal sex. The rate among lesbians is lower because most lesbians do not engage in the practice of anal sex. This part of the human body was never designed to take in anything, but to take out waste. To condone homosexuality or even same sex marriage would be considered cruel if these studies are actually true. It would only be an endorsement to diseases among gays. Below is a quote from one of the weblinks I provided below:

Historical and current research reveals evidence for significant concern about the mental and physical health and probable longevity of homosexual individuals. As a group, those who engage in homosexual practices tend to have higher mental and physical health risks and potentially much shorter life spans. Research has consistently demonstrated that homosexual sexual practices place individuals at risk for some form of mental disorder ranging from mood disorders, to suicide (Herrell et al, 1999; Ferguson et al, 1999; Bailey, 1999; Sandfort et al, 2001; Ferris, 1996). Further, studies have even shown that these differences continue to be the same even among societies that accept homosexuality (Berman, 2003). This report is clearly not the first to present differences by sexual orientation as researchers who conducted this survey seem to assert.

http://narth.com/doc...hicalcheck.html

Other studies regarding homosexuality are also provided in the following weblinks.

http://www.narth.com...us/medical.html

Yep. Homosexuality is certainly not what God had in mind, but it is a reality, nonetheless. We live in a Fallen world - how is man's puny sense of justice going to fix this world? The answer is - it cannot fix it. Only God's transformation in the hearts of sinners can change their focus and then their behavior..

 

[Selene]

Yes, I agree that with God's help, homosexuals can make the choice not to have sexual relations with people of the same sex. There is one person I know who is gay and he attends my Church everyday. Homosexuality is his cross because he is attracted to men. However, he remained celebate and is actively involved in the Church. He is a role model for other homosexuals to follow. There are others like him. I am not saying that they can get rid of their attraction to same sex.....just as some men cannot get rid of their attraction to certain females (for example blondes, asians, etc.). It is their cross to bear. Also, I ran across an article of a gay person who made the choice to marry a female. I don't know if he's still gay, but according to the article, he made the choice to stop being gay. The article was dated 2010.

http://www.peter-ould.net/2010/01/18/the-day-i-decided-to-stop-being-gay/

 

[Foreigner]

Foreigner, on 30 June 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

-- 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?

All I asked was for you to explain the differences - I wasn't claiming that voting for Christian based laws is equivalent to Sharia Law.

-- Why would you need me to "explain the differences" unless you truly don't see any?
And if you reread your original question after what I typed, it does indeed indicate you hold "voting for Christian based laws" equivalent to Sharia Law.
So.....?



There are plenty of Conservative Public School Boards in our country.

- Your links would not open. There are some Conservative public school boards but they are far outnumbered by Liberal ones.
And the ACLU doesn't seem to want to help enforce the rights of the students in Conservative school districts.



Is exposing children to different points of view the same as 'forcing their beliefs'?

-- Allowing only one view to be discussed and shown to be acceptable in school is hardly "exposing children to different points."
And we both know that is exactly what is happening in school as far as the topic we are discussing.




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."

If Hell is invoked as a consequence for noncompliance it appears quite similar to me.

-- Aspen, please quit making ridiculous statements.
Invoking hell, which does nothing to anyone in this world if they choose not to believe in it, is NOT the same as torture and capital punishment.
Honestly, please quit the silliness...



-- 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.

The problem is that God never defined marriage.

"He answered. "Have you not read that he who created from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his WIFE, and the two shall become one flesh.'"

- Sure sounds like he did....




No did he punish people for having more than one wife. He certainly never turned his face away from Abraham or David for engaging in plural relationships and marriages.

-- So, you think today God has no issue with concubines, plural sexual relationships and multiple spouses?
Either it's still that way today or it isn't. Which is it?
(Psssst....if you pause for a minute, there are a great many things God did and tolerated in the old Testament that He doesn't today. )



I am willing to believe that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes, but not based on the flimsy idea that God defined marriage and that all God fearing people in the Bible complied or were punished for violating this definition.

-- So, you're "willing to believe" that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes? Gosh, that's big of you.
Aspen, you really need to stop. It is harder and harder to take you serious when you say things like this.
No one here - except you - has said that "all God fearing people in the Bible complied or were punished for violating that definition." NO ONE.
Why imply that then?

.

If you do not think that is what is going to happen here, then you are naive, at best.

If dealing with problems as they arise, rather than second guess all my decisions based on what might happen in the future means that I am naive or worse - I guess I am naive or worse. I am not afraid to be wrong.

-- And it is that short-sightedness that causes the "being wrong" to have serious repercussions.
That would be fine if the only one it had serious repercussions for is the person who was short-sighted.
History shows that isn't the case, at all.



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.

If they are consenting adults who are not posing a threat to the safety of our society, I not sure what anyone can say against it.

-- I am not surprised. Neither at your opinion, nor the fact that you cannot comprehend the threat to our society.
What if the "consulting adults" are a man and two women? A woman and two men?
What if the "consenting adults" are brother and sister? Father and daughter?
What if it is a woman and her dog? A man and his horse?

You see no negative repercussions for society? Amazing.



People who are unable to take responsibility for their poor choices are only going to be re-enforced in their opinions by being thrown in prison.

-- Aspen, you have to STOP THIS. It is outright dishonesty.
No one here is talking about or calling for someone to be thrown into prison because they are gay or support gay marraige.
My church welcomes gays with open arms. The message is shared and they can come and go as they please.




Our government is based on a free society. The Founding Fathers allowed for the existence of non-Christian populations in our country when they separated Church from State.

-- Aspen, please get real. There were a long litany of practices and activities that have never been accepted by our government, from the Founding Fathers forward. Including homosexual behavior.



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.

Why would I claim that God condones sin?

-- You just think God condones YOU condoning sin.
What? You don't condone sin? And how are the sinners supposed to know that if your approach is "no talk, just love?"

There are no examples in the Bible where God says to remain silent about sin, hang with the sinners, and hope they find God through the non-condemnation of their sin.



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.

How about, 'I refuse to cast the first stone?" Or "I chose to love them and continued to have faith that God would convict their hearts rather than passing laws that would send them to prison"

-- So you are going to justify not actually sharing the Gospel in order to save homosexuals before it is too late as "refusing to cast the first stone?"

And Christians who actually share the message of God's love verbally are "casting the first stone?"

As far as "passing laws that would send them to prison," you really need to stop.
No one here is calling for that. Please act like an adult.

 

[us2are1]

For me, this is an issue of freewill. Are nonbelievers allowed to live their own lives? Are Christians supposed to enforce God's purposes on nonbelievers?

Every one is given the free will to accept or reject the gospel of Christ. Everyone can go on as they please until God puts a stop to them. Their going ons can stop by death or being maimed or many different causes which are all in the hands of God,.

Deuteronomy 32
39 'Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.

Isaiah 4
7. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.'

doing as they please will also end for everyone when the transition from the world into the Kingdom of Christ begins.

 

[Comm.Arnold]

Aww crap I can't believe I accidently clicked on one your pedantic little threads and read it by mistake.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,

Ah I see you are still trying to trap me with my own words.....boring!

Your own words trap you.

First, I am only speaking about laws against homosexuality for nonbelievers –

But you are not being asked about that.

Second, I refuse to vote for laws that restrict the behaviors of nonbelievers that does not impact society.

Ok but thats not consistent with God’s word, for some things you use the world’s thinking and worldly criteria. That is double-minded. James 2

How many times are you going to ask me to compare apples with oranges?

Now I have your answer, thanks, but they are only apples and oranges in worldly terms and thinking, in God’s terms they are the same wrong and wrong and error.

Well, then you better start outlawing Hollywood and fornication.

Well we would and do vote against it, fornication includes homosexual practice as well, it is any sexual practice outside faithful man/woman union. Your thoughts are of the world and not the Kingdom.

Like Jesus said, clear out the beam in your own eye first - in this case, those sins that you might actually be temped by, yourself, rather than the minority sin of homosexual behavior.

Thats liberal ‘interpretation’ for let people sin. Jesus said remove the plank in your own eye so that you may be able to remove the speck in the other person’s eye. Read Galatians 6, the believers help each other from sin, they dont say to each other remove your sin and leave it there.

Really? Well, I hope the women in your life cover their heads when they go to church; wear their hair long; do not talk in church, or teach men.

What like Phoebe who was a deacon? (Romans 16) I thought you were only referring to non-believers?

where does the Bible tell us to legislate for Christ?

Irrelevant, it is democratic government that legislates, but there is teaching on obeying the authorities where possible, if God allows authorities to be put in place, how come you don’t want them to ever legislate for Him?

Still trying to claim that I approve of homosexuality, huh?

No you have by what you said. Why didnt you say our view?

It sure would make it easier for you to dismiss my opinion, wouldn't it?

I and others are already dismissing your opinion, its too much from the world and not the Kingdom.

We are not called to dictate the behavior of nonbelievers.

Arguably we are. We are called to make disciples and teach them to obey all Christ taught, that in a way is dictating the behaviour of non-believers... to become believers.
Your thinking is caught in humanism. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Said Jesus.
Read Romans 13, God has His eye on governments and authorities, how can we refuse a part of it to do good?
You said you wont legislate for things that dont harm society
9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet,"[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
So dont say sin, as in homosexuality, doesn’t do harm to society, love does no harm to a neighbour.

Democratic society allows for each to vote for laws as to the way society is run, society includes believers and non-believers equally, they all have a right to vote for the laws they want. Society is going to impose those laws, and it is not forcing faith or belief on anyone.

It should have occurred to you that there is a gulf of some sorts between you and other posters here. It is them or you?

Aww crap I can't believe I accidently clicked on one your pedantic little threads and read it by mistake.

:unsure: I pray a seed of truth has nonetheless been sown in your mind and heart.