how about a sack of lobsters?

I can't eat 'em anyway.

Smooth -

Better late than never.....


I didn’t see it that way. It may be semantics, but I didn’t feel the need to “stop” people from sinning, rather to “show them the error of the ways.” The idea being that once converted, the born-again person doesn’t have the desire to sin. Granted, we are still flawed and sinful, so that is kind of an exercise in futility. You don’t want to sin, but you are still going to. I guess it narrowed down to the mindset of the person doing the sinning.


I would disagree with you here. Without breaking the book back out, I remember that you had to live in both world’s together (the spiritual world and the material world). i.e. paying taxes, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” The true difference didn’t happen until there was a conflict between the two, in that case the rules of the spiritual world would trump. Just because it Jesus or Paul didn’t speak against homosexuality (I don’t know if it is or isn’t) in the New Testament, doesn’t negate the fact that the Old Testament considers homosexuality to be an abomination. The occurrences in the New Testament do not re-write the rules, but change how the rules are used against us. (i.e. salvation through sacrifice vs. salvation through grace)

I agree here. There is where I differ from the “religious-right”. If you are a true Christian, in my opinion, then you abide by the rules of the world and by the rules of your faith. If one conflicts with another, then the rules of your faith take over and control your life, not the lives of others.

Nowhere in the bible, that I am aware of, does it state that the government (whichever gov’t it is) must abide by the rules of Christianity (note: I said rules of Christianity, not the rules of a “church”.). It is a book of personal rules and guidelines, something for the individual, not the collective masses because the collective will all never believe the same way.

KMA,

Thanks for the response. I think we agree on the points, but my writing wasn't as clear as possible.


I agree with you that christians must live by the rules of both, allowing that if the civil law disagrees, then spiritual trumps civil.

However, I'm speaking about a certain claim I have heard from christian coalition members wherein they feel they have a moral obligation to stop people from marrying people of the same sex.

I realize that you don't feel the need to stop people from sinning, but I'm speaking about a particular brand of belief that argues it must pass laws to prevent people from engaging in sinful acts--and this isn't specific to homosexuality.

See what I'm getting at? I don't see a mandate in the bible to stop other people from sinning, so that claim seems bogus to me.

Divisions now are probably no worse than they've been throught America's history. When did we really all just get along?