Marriage equality

[StingX]

Re: Marriage equality

The fundamentalist thing is a cop-out. There is failure to adhere to doctrine, which is practicing one's religion falsely.

I'm not sure what you mean. Strictly adhering to whatever doctrine is what fundamentalism is. Are you saying that there are only fundamentalist religious people and all other members of a religion that are not strictly adhering to their doctrine are falsely practicing?

It appears we disagree on both the history and the role of a neighbor here, so there's not much more I can add to the issue.

Not sure what you mean by this.

I believe the peace we seek is within our hearts. Striving for a better world is a noble goal. Still it is an ideal. It shall always be that one person's vision of happiness looks like another's misery. The immutable truth is that any peaceful civilization of this world is transitory. The utopia we seek is not of this world. Christians do not tread the path to a peaceful world, they walk on God's path to a peaceful eternity. Know that the Lord's people have not chosen to become obstacles to anyone's vision of happiness. God chose us to be ministers of the Word, to live as servants of righteousness. Sometimes this involves rebuking people or wanting the best for them. Religious people are individuals with freedoms just like everybody else. It just so happens that our pursuit of happiness looks like His vision. Remember that if our liberty is an impediment to your sense of peace, your quarrel is not with us but with God.

That line of thinking is very troubling to me because it is destructive and self-righteous. Do you not see that a group like ISIS is following the exact same logic in their actions?

As for the Islamists, they are a people of death. I have no respect for the poison they call a religion. Their god Allah is a bloodthirsty demon who instructs his pitiable souls to do unspeakable horrors. However, it is telling that when they put their barbarism under the cloak of religion, secularists are quick to compare them to Christians. It shows a lack of empathy for people who think differently than them. Honestly, I would say they lack a willingness to understand the difference between the two and cling to an animus against religion in general. When it comes down to it, by their fruits you shall know them. One group seeks to homogenize the world into an Islamic State and kill or enslave anyone who thinks differently. The other group seeks to live freely and spread the good news of their victorious risen Savior.

Fundamental Muslims have done terrible things, fundamental Christians have done terrible things. I'm not going to be tricked into thinking that all Muslims are bad and all Christian's are good just because they hold a slightly different superstition than the one that is popular at the time and place of my own birth. Remember, Allah is just the Arabic translation of God. I find it strange that you claim that secularists comparing those two religions shows a lack of empathy for those who think differently than them, when the line above that you called Muslims "people of death" and "pitiable souls" when literally the only reason you think that is because they think differently than you.

Again, it's all about how deeply and strictly adhere to whatever religion that one follows. Perhaps there are more seriously fundamentalist Muslims than seriously fundamental Christians, I'd have to see some information on that, but at their core, they both have goals to be the world's singular religion either by conversion or by the death of those who disagree with them. We are living in a time period in which the balance of power and wealth is favored to the Christian side, which is why we don't see blatantly Crusade-ish and outright religious violence from Christianity right now. But even right now at this very moment, we have Evangelical Christians in our government who are opposing a deal with many of the other world's powers to stop Iran from developing nuclear weaponry. Not because it's a bad deal, but because they do not want to make a peaceful deal with Iran. They, as well as many of the equally religious people from Israel, want to go to war because Iran is an Islamic country. This behavior is more subtle than a group like ISIS, but it's along the same line of reason; to slay the infidels.

Considering who put who in jail in this case, I find the comparison between the two insulting and harboring a complete lack of awareness.

I feel like you are intentionally misunderstanding the situation. Kim Davis was not in jail due to any of her religious beliefs, she was in jail because she refused to do her job as an elected official even when the court system demanded she do it. Imagine if you were the manager of a burger joint and you hired a new employee. The new employee is Hindu and says, "According to the doctrines of my religion, cows are sacred animals so to protest this establishment serving beef, I will refuse to serve every customer that comes in until beef is no longer served." You know what that guy would be? Fired. Gonzo. This is the same thing that Kim Davis did, but since she in an elected official, she cannot simply be fired from her job. She must be impeached. Since she could not currently be impeached but refused to do her job, the court system ordered her to do her job. Since she still refused to do her job, she was put in jail in contempt of court.

[SportaKandy]

Re: Marriage equality

Are you saying that there are only fundamentalist religious people and all other members of a religion that are not strictly adhering to their doctrine are falsely practicing?

Yes. There is a scale of orthodoxy. The closer one is to orthodox, the closer one is to Truth.

It appears we disagree on both the history and the role of a neighbor here

Not sure what you mean by this.

You said, "[The pilgrims] persecuted the people already populating the area for their religious beliefs or what they determined to be a lack thereof." This is the academic multi-cultural historical perspective. I adhere to the traditional American perspective that the pilgrims came here and subsequently spread the good news. Out of love for God & neighbor, they taught the natives about Jesus and the precepts for salvation. The past was imperfect, but we know that God causes all things to work together for good. What may in fact be unjust persecutions on their part are all part of a divine plan. If not for them, we would not be where we are today. I undertand that missionary work breaks away from some of the principles of classical liberalism or modern day libertarianism. However, the truth is best served by moral imperatives. A community is built on a compassion for one's neighbor. This means wanting the best for them. There is a balance to be had between a Plato style republic and a Rand style republic. I acknowledge this as the role of a neighbor.

Do you not see that a group like ISIS is following the exact same logic in their actions?

The Islam religion is not just a set of ideas. It is not simply a logical framwork or a way of thinking. It based off of real-world evil like Muhammed and the false instruction of supernatural beings. The pagans were instructed by fallen angels whose pride drove them to assume the role of false gods. If the Islamists belive this Allah is the true God, it stands to reason that the spirit/demon would maintain that fascade. Our Father gives us commands, so this false god gives his followers commands. Thus Allah seeks to mimic the object of his scorn and envy. He seeks to become a god himself.

you called Muslims "people of death" and "pitiable souls" when literally the only reason you think that is because they think differently than you.

Let's be clear, the pitable souls are those practicing their religion correctly (ISIS). With the sharia law, the killings, etc. Obviously, if a Muslim is peaceful they are not a person of death. Still if they claim to follow Islam, yet are selectively following the prophet, then their religion is little more than a ethnic or cultural carryover.

I feel like you are intentionally misunderstanding the situation.

I understand. It is the timeless struggle between man's law and God's law. A woman worked in an office without issue for 27 years. Man's law changed. There was a shift in the balance of freedom. She went to jail. Now she's out and pouring over her fan mail. It's all really predictable and sad. This is life. Will she turn the other cheek and get thrown in jail again? Haha! Only time will tell.

[StingX]

Re: Marriage equality

Let's be clear, the pitable souls are those practicing their religion correctly (ISIS). With the sharia law, the killings, etc. Obviously, if a Muslim is peaceful they are not a person of death. Still if they claim to follow Islam, yet are selectively following the prophet, then their religion is little more than a ethnic or cultural carryover.

Yes, finally something we can totally agree on; hardcore religious fundamentalists are dangerous. But do not make the mistake in thinking that that only applies to the radical fundies in Islam. It applies to, at the very least, the big three religions in the world: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The great majority of people of all religions, I assume yourself included, do not live their lives in strict adherence to whatever scripture they believe to be true even if they say that they do. They pick and choose which parts are convenient for them to follow or personally agree with and ignore those which do not fill those criteria. A relevant example is being against gay marriage due to religious beliefs. People like to look at Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a women, both of them have committed an abomination" yet do not follow the next words of "they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them." Here in the Western World, most of the religious anti-gay activists, who have chose, to follow that first part of scripture, are not killing gay men because they have chosen to ignore the other part of the scripture. It does happen, and those people are condemned for their awful actions because they are dangerous radicals. We do commonly see that kind of behavior in countries in the Middle East, and their actions are equally as condemned because they too are dangerous radicals.

Yes. There is a scale of orthodoxy. The closer one is to orthodox, the closer one is to Truth.

I feel as if this statement contradicts the one above. On the one hand, you condemned a strict adherence to a faith, but here you promote it.

You said, "[The pilgrims] persecuted the people already populating the area for their religious beliefs or what they determined to be a lack thereof." This is the academic multi-cultural historical perspective. I adhere to the traditional American perspective that the pilgrims came here and subsequently spread the good news. Out of love for God & neighbor, they taught the natives about Jesus and the precepts for salvation. The past was imperfect, but we know that God causes all things to work together for good. What may in fact be unjust persecutions on their part are all part of a divine plan. If not for them, we would not be where we are today. I understand that missionary work breaks away from some of the principles of classical liberalism or modern day libertarianism. However, the truth is best served by moral imperatives. A community is built on a compassion for one's neighbor. This means wanting the best for them. There is a balance to be had between a Plato style republic and a Rand style republic. I acknowledge this as the role of a neighbor.

This is the classic problem of evil, where evil is committed and the power, existence, and intention of a god is questioned. Your argument is a standard reconciliation of the issue in which it is all part of a greater good, in this case, the concept of "God's plan." This argument opens up a huge discussion about free will, the power of a god, and objective morality. I'm going to try and not derail this thread less than it already has been my simply summing it up as, "agree to disagree."

[SportaKandy]

Re: Marriage equality

The words "they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them." is an admonition for the sinner to change his ways or face judgement. This may occur by the wrath of God in this world, but in most cases refers to final judgement of the soul. It is between the individual and his Creator and is therefore not taken up as a physical task but by fools.

It would seem we are veering into a territory that is above and beyond the issue here. Out of respect for you and anyone who reads these arguments, perhaps we should now bring this thread to a close: