Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I don't see how that is that hard to answer. They think that society is better living non-sinful life. Also, just because someone has to choose their own salvation, doesn't mean that they cannot be guided.
Now, I have a couple of questions:
What is wrong with someone using the tenets of the Bible as their moral code? If someone has the same beliefs, but they didn't come from the Bible would they be any more/less valid?
Also, I define homosexuality as the ACT of people of the same sex having physical relations. Why should that act gain special status over any other behavior someone chooses? And if it is fine, why not polygamy, or get rid of age of concent laws?
|
well, I actually agree with both of your last propositions. I see no reason why polygamy should be barred or age of consent laws--which appear to be completely arbitrary in their implementation from state to state and a very real subjugation of the 'minor' body based upon the notion that people under a socially constructed age of reasoning capacity have no ability to choose their own course of sexuality. hopefully no one will translate that into support for molestation or rape. however, there are ways to effect and aid consensual acts of sexuality between people of varying age gaps in positive manners. I know of at least one nation that does so effectively.
I see nothing wrong with someone using the bible as a basis for moral evaluation or even judgement on one another. I even think that homosexuals, at least the ones I know, would rather face scorn than disenfranchisement and/or political subjugation. Sounds weird, but hate me all you want, just don't codify it!
But I'm not saying that one ought not to do that--I really don't support such actions, but that is not particularly material to my point. obviously I would rather people not hate or even dislike one another or their actions.
I don't think any act should gain special status. not even straight marriage, but it has it. but that's not the point either.
the point is that I want to know where christians derive a moral requirement, in the same sense they feel a moral requirement to stop the killing of babies who can't defend themselves, to stop two adults from engaging in civil recognition of their union?
as in, if they don't stop civil unions or gay marriages, they will be held accountable before god on judgement day for not putting an end to it.
it's one thing to think, god's going to ask me why I allowed babies to go unprotected. I might have to say I tried to stop people from killing them.
but they won't be asked: why did you let gays get married? because the rational answer is, hey, they're sinners. even if I passed a law, they would still keep doing it outside my sight. and you would be perfectly righteous to exclaim that your responsibility was met by excommunicating them from the community of believers.
but if it isn't a requirement, then you have to come to terms with the misuse of scripture to satisfy your own comfort zone. that someone sinners infringe on your personal space. which they do, by their very existence. but you don't possess this world yet. by your own belief system, if you subscribe to the bible, you are to let sinners play their selves out until the coming so they can be judged by he who holds the sword.
when you usurp that authority, you diminish the glory of he who is the true judge. he's reserved that right for himself. I hope you understand that--because that's what you'll be judged on in this case.
Christians, I think you need to meditate on this.