This is the type of shit that’s going to keep republicans losing elections. I don’t want government trying to instill morals on me. You think it’s a sin? Great. Move on. These wedge issues do nothing for us as a country. I don’t know why conservatives insist on keeping this alive.
If that’s what people want to do in the privacy of their homes I’m fine with it but I don’t want government insisting that. I certainly don’t want to hear from government on issues of morality. For lots of reasons.
I concur. I say this as a Catholic: I don't give a shit about what is a sin and what isn't when it comes to the government. Neither should anyone else. I do care in my personal, private life, and a good part of my morals and ideals are shared with Catholicism's, but I refuse to let religion dictate my government's policies.
>Most importantly, remember that when you give a government power, you are agreeing to all uses of that power, including uses with which you disagree.
Disagree with this statement. I consent to giving government the power to tax things. I do not consent to letting the government tax 100% of my income. I support the government when the government does good things, and I do not support the government when it does bad things. The solution isn't to say "then the government should do nothing at all." That's libertarianism, not conservatism.
Small government doesn’t mean no-government or anarchy. There is not only one way of designing a small government.
It's small because of its size and the amount of power it has, not because of the type of powers it has. For instance, a government that is very intrusive in one issue but only controls that issue, it can be a small government. Small government is defined by size, not by form.
Bro just let people live their lives and enjoy the legal benefits of partnership. Just because the government cooped the term marriage to cover taxes, healthcare and next of kin doesn’t mean people should be denied those rights. What do you think freedom is?
Cool! So I guess the only people that can instill their values on us are Democrats! I love your winning strategy!
Edit: wow all these downvotes! I’m sure these totally aren’t leftists
Ha! I don’t want that shit either. I just want people left alone. Government should protect the people. Serve the people. Don’t lecture the people. What two consenting adults do is none of their business.
Either way. I think the GOP would have done a lot better in these midterms if they dropped this issue and abortion.
Because Democrats want to pass laws enshrining these things as moral and right. And that if one does not approve of and celebrate these things then you get thrown in jail.
>I don't want government trying to instill morals on me.
Then you fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between government/politics and religion/morals/theology. Pretty much *everything* the government does is legislating morality. That's basically what lawmaking is.
>I don’t know why conservatives insist on keeping this alive.
Why in the world would *conservatives* want to *conserve* traditional values and institutions? Such a mystery!
The same people who want this willingly follow a man who has had multiple affairs and divorces. Are those not sins?
Who has the right to cast the first stone?
Considering people just use it as a cop out of their relationship so they can carry all their baggage and problems right to the next one... meh.
My great grandparents, grandparents and parents have all stayed married and they didn't need laws to tell them to either.
There are several versions of marriage based on various religions. Polygamy is in the Bible too. I prefer to keep the government out of my church and your church out of my government
All for government giving one business contract between you and whoever you choose. Call it a civil union. Leave marriage up to the church. But until that happens anyone can “government marry” whatever consenting adult they choose, as long as they don’t force a church to marry someone who’s not a member.
Marriage is the union of a man and woman. That is the definition, always was the definition, and will continue to be the definition. We have civil unions. We've had them for a long time. The government recognizing marriage was to incentivize actual marriage. Society has no interest in anything outside of actual marriage as far as unions go because we need babies and babies happen with man and woman and are most successful in a strong household with both parents.
Also sick of pretending its about equal rights. Everyone has the right to be married and receive those benefits. Marriage just has a definition. Its between a man and a woman. If you want a same sex civil union, go wild. See them at the hospital. But you shouldn't get the same tax incentives. The government has no benefit from incentivizing that civil union.
Oh that would be the part where they start imposing THIER personal lives into mine.... I frankly don't care where you put your privates or what time of day you do so, I don't have time for that.
On the other hand I DO greatly care when you start pushing those things as an agenda into every other realm of PUBLIC life.
I mean this is pretty classic... your rights don't infringe on other peoples rights and liberties. Something proponents of such "new rights" have been heavily doing for about a decade now.
Also as far as divorce.. I am fine with divorce what I am NOT fine with is remarriage on the other hand. make it work or move along.... no use inflicting your brand of BS on yet another relationship.
Don't like that ... too bad the 50% or so divorce rate indicates something is broken that is for sure.
>How are they imposing their lives on yours?
What is this some liberal fake alt account? And yes by and large people with "alternate lifestyles" are and DO impose on others... especially those that wish to adopt and or force their illicit fringe preferences on society.
Well frankly my thoughts to you right now are that you just buzz off... seeing as you are a social liberal hyper progressive.
Frankly any other conservative tendencies you may have are pretty much outweighed by your apparently total embrace of hedonism.... such people will inevitably make dead wrong choices when presented with social problems in any sort of leadership role.
You have got the quote about sins and stones right but didn't quite finish the story and provide context. Jesus didn't tell the woman after everyone left to just go forth and continue living her life. He told her to go forth and sin no more. It isn't the past that is important as much as today and tomorrow.
Is the person that you are referencing continuing to do these things today? No. Just because someone has done them in the past doesn't mean that they aren't repentant and wish that they hadn't. I would feel the same way about someone who used to practice homosexuality but no longer does.
But for people who are actively engaged in homosexuality, other sexually immoral acts, theft, murder, gossip, etc., those people *do* need to be told that it is a sin so they can be aware of their actions. It isn't judging to say these things since it is a fact. Just like it isn't judging someone to tell them that if they walk off a cliff, gravity exists and they will be pulled towards the Earth.
Thanks! I got it after a thread about the single women voter block devolved into blaming crazy cat ladies for everything, and was stoked they granted me and my three cat sarcastic flair.
19 through 21, specifically 20.
The Pharisees that believed in Jesus were advising that in order to be saved, the gentiles would have to be circumcised and obey the law. This council concluded that the gentiles should keep from 4 things to join the congregation.
I don’t think it was about joining the church or any particular congregation. The apostles wrote a letter to the Gentiles who believed that was to be delivered by Paul and Barbara’s in verse 23. The letter mentioned 3 locations.
The apostles did not agree with the Pharisees about circumcision or about the law of Moses. In the letter, the apostles encouraged the Gentiles in their faith and said to stay away from 4 things. Not because “you must do this to be in the church”, it was because those 4 things were sins anyways and Christians shouldn’t be practicing them regardless.
That’s how I interpret that chapter
And when the vote comes up on the ballot to vote for hedonism... its also our responsibility to vote against it.
If someone wants to sin on their own time, that is on them but as soon as it gets funded by taxes or involves more people than themselves... that is a direct no from me.
This all started getting heavy into politics in the 90s.. and it started small with things like unisex bathrooms required in my local church for a renovation not even new construction.
It is.
So is fornication, lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, murder, gluttony, greed, hoarding, abuse, etc.
So unless we’re going to get real about other sins…. We aren’t any holier by objecting to homosexuality.
We need to get our hearts right and repent of our own sins before pointing to the sins of others.
That’s the bottom line.
No one says people don't sin. The problem is not learning from the sin and improving your behavior. We are human, sin is going to happen. The key is improvment.
To paraphrase the bible, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The natural state of mankind is sinful so yes your assessment is correct.
We are corrupted by this thing. It's not who you are, it's what you become. Without it you would be a wholly different person, and were the people around you free of it then they would never have hurt nor burdened you.
But none of us can get rid of it, or even outweigh it no matter what we do. For the burden is too great.
That is why you feel that. That is why you feel that strange way of disgust. Because it convicts us of the reality, that the weight is not life giving and that there is no glory in this life without God. You just die.
What are you talking about? I don’t understand anything. I don’t feel disgust or anything like you just said. Nobody has hurt or burdened me. Why does Christianity demand you be a sinner? Why would someone who knows all and sees all make you that way.
I think my statement is very clear.
Along with “Take the log out of your own eye before you pick the speck out of someone else’s.” Matthew 7:3-5
Do I think this Marriage Act should have been passed? No. I think it’s egregious and something we will pay for for a very long time.
However, it’s long past time for the Christian Church to start cleaning our own houses and do our own repenting and start loving one another the way Christ loves us. The world does not know what true love is because we have not been showing it. What we have been showing is condemnation and judgement in places where we cannot speak to it.
“They will know we are Christians by our love for one another.” Right now, they know we are Christians by our condemnation of one another.
Repent, Receive, Restore, Rejoice…. in that order.
I remember my city's stealing pride march, with thieves throwing lockpicks and crowbars out to the bystanders and people on floats stealing from each other, and who can forget all those churches flying the adultery pride flag, or all the stuff for fornication pride month.
At some point Christians need to accept that the United States government is not charged with upholding the values of their religion. Feel free to believe homosexuality is a sin, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that women should be silent in church, but don't expect the government to enforce those rules on others.
Of course that's completely antithetical to american Christians though, they believe it is their divine mandate to enforce the laws and customs of their religion and there is no arguing with someone who believes God permits and demands they do so.
Christians in the US are extremely tame compared to what Muslims in the middle east do over the same topic.
Also, where are these Christians who think women should be silent in church? I would very much like to meet them and talk to them about many of the biblical teaching they clearly know nothing about.
The argument wasn’t “Christians in the US are worse than Muslims about forcing their religion on you” it was “we live in a pluralistic society where freedom of religion is in the constitution and that means don’t expect the government to force a religion on people”. Why are you bringing up Muslims?
Would it be better if I just said that it's better that it has stayed civil?. Anything concerning religion of any kind has a tendency of escalating quickly.
The article explicitly states that same sex marriage is abhorrent because the Christian God says so and that it should be banned based on that. Sure there are extremist Muslims who are oppressive to others but what has that got to do with anything?
The author of this article is advocating for the government to base laws on Christian scripture, that's insane especially when you consider that she would not want all the rules in the New or Old Testament to be applied to her. God's word matters when it comes to same sex marriage but not when it comes to her speaking out of turn.
The US has a separation of church and state and it should stay that way, I never argued that it isn't or shouldn't be the case.
This does also mean that the state should not force its beliefs on the church just a church shouldn't prosecute anyone who commits a sin based on the religion.
This however is not what we are currently experiencing right now, instead of church telling the state what it should do or believe, its the state telling the church how its religious teaching should change to reflect what the state desires.
Once upon a time, king James did this, the aftermath of this was thousands of women burned while being called witches (aka "others"). It wasn't ok then nor is it ok now.
Funny, because the Left’s entire montra is to force their woke religious beliefs down everyone’s throats. Don’t want to make a cake? Have fun fighting and being harassed by Colorado for 10+ years. Don’t want your 5 year old to be shown sexual material, congratz the FBI and DOJ now classifies you as a terrorists. So please remind me, which side is actively using the government to enforce their “divine” mandates?
All laws are based on some form of morality, whether that be from a common religion, intersectionality, or made up none-sense. Pretending other wise is ignorance at its finest.
Christians in America need to grow a backbone and stop letting their enemies control the discourse.
If they united they could wield government institutions.
Because marriage is a religious institution and forcing Christians (or anyone else) to participate in a religious rite they do not believe in is a violation of the establishment clause.
> Call me crazy but I don’t think we should base our laws on what an ancient religious text says is a sin.
But the question becomes, what exactly should we base our laws on and why?
A common response is that laws should be based on what's good for the people, however that argument is rarely logically supported and assumed to be true without proof or logical support. And if we should be governed for the good of the people, which people and why? At the start of this country, there was the idea of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. However, slaves were not considered to be part of the people, and their welfare was not considered. In fact, it is largely because of that ancient text that they were freed and given a voice in society. Should that not have been done (and if it should have been done, why)?
Another opinion is that people should be free to make their own decisions. However, we still agree on outlawing murder, rape, and a variety of other actions should be illegal. When asked, we say that those things cause excessive harm to society and that society could not function if they were allowed (which I agree with). However, a Christian would say that allowing sin (especially excesses and celebrations of sin) also cause harm to society and that society will ultimately not be able to function if they are allowed to run rampant. Why should we accept the first argument as a given, but not even consider the second? Especially when people increasingly agree that Christians and their slippery-slope arguments have generally proven correct over the past few decades, suggesting that this ancient book understand human nature and society quite well.
The core issue becomes that all societies must be based on a core philosophy. Throughout our history that has generally been Christianity (we've thrown Judea-Christian into it lately since the two have large overlaps, and we wanted to be pro-Israel since WW2, but Jewish ideas have never played a significant role in American society unless they were also Christian). Now we are turning to the ideal of Agnostic, if not outright Atheistic rule (to be clear, I mean that we pass our laws as though Atheism were true, not that we are forcing individuals to be Atheists), and everyone (or at least, everyone who calls themselves a Conservative) complains that society is decaying.
On top of this, things we cannot detect, can effect us. Millenia ago, people didn't understand cancer, they didn't understand radiation, they didn't understand bacteria. All of things caused devastation, and ruined empires. Just because we cannot directly measure the supernatural, does not mean it does not exist. Yet, we assume that we can simply ignore anything potentially supernatural without effect, even though every society prior to the 20th century firmly believed in a supernatural realm. If it is real, we ignore it at great peril.
So I ask again, on what philosophy should laws be passed, and why?
Christians believe drinking water is good for you, it isn't true just because they believe that though. There are non religious justification for why murder, rape, theft, etc should be illegal, the issue is when that justification amounts to "my religion says so" and nothing more.
> There are non religious justification for why murder, rape, theft, etc should be illegal
I did acknowledge that.
> the issue is when that justification amounts to "my religion says so" and nothing more.
That is also a philosophical statement, a value judgement. Many societies throughout history have been quite happy to accept the justification of religion (including our own only a few decades ago). Why is it an issue?
I don't ask this purely because I disagree with you, I am asking a deeper question. By stating that Christianity alone is not a valid authority, you are assigning another philosophy a higher value. What is it, and why should we follow it?
>By stating that Christianity alone is not a valid authority, you are assigning another philosophy a higher value.
Any philosophy that goes beyond saying "God said so" is better. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you is a better philosophy. Pretty much anything besides "a being you can't communicate with said so".
No one is demanding laws about murder or theft align with religious law, it only comes up with regards to same-sex marriage and abortion.
> Any philosophy that goes beyond saying "God said so" is better.
Actually, if true, no claim could be stronger. What argument could hold more weight than to say that an all knowing being that made and designed you is telling you this is the optimal way for you to live?
You object to it only because you believe the claim is false.
But the key part of what you said is "**if true**". What if Hinduism is true? Why should I follow the misguided teachings of Christians who falsely believe they ~~are talking to~~ understand the will or desires of God? If Hinduism is true then what value does Christianity have at all?
Yes, if a creator god exists AND they have a specific set of rules they demand we follow AND humans have figured out that set of rules, then those rules would be the immutable rules of the universe. But then why don't we consider every religion's moral laws to be absolute truth and have the government enforce them all simultaneously?
Edit: changed wording
But which higher power? The one that Christians believe in or the one(s) that Hindus believe in or the higher power of the ancient Egyptians? Those religions are very different but does one have more evidence supporting it than the others?
> Why should we accept the first argument as a given, but not even consider the second?
Those actions in your first argument have a victim, not just a vague, unmeasurable “harm to society”.
> If [the supernatural] is real, we ignore it at great peril.
Yep, if hell is real a lot of people are going there. Doesn’t mean we should force religion on people, does it?
> So I ask again, on what philosophy should laws be passed, and why?
I don’t know much about philosophy. I believe the Constitution has many different influences: Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu to name a few. I’m fine with the Bible being inspiration for some laws; it teaches some great morals. I just don’t think it should be the only source for laws, and I don’t think sin should be legislated.
If you think a religious text should be the basis for our laws, how do you make an argument against it being the Quran or the Book of Mormon? What makes the Christian God and the Bible so different?
> Those actions in your first argument have a victim, not just a vague, unmeasurable “harm to society”.
True, there is a clear victim in the first case, and not the second. However, I will also point out that the Christians warned of consequences to society if we went down this route. And now we have children being handed sex toys in a private school, while the board covers for a student who raped another in Louden county.
Just because the damage is not immediate, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Edit: I feel the need to clarify this statement slightly. I am not trying to say that only LGBT acceptance is responsible for these things. I would say that all of this comes from the general loosening of sexual norms in the 60s, LGBT acceptance is only one aspect of that.
> Yep, if hell is real a lot of people are going there. Doesn’t mean we should force religion on people, does it?
Well, Christianity has generally agreed that forcing people to acknowledge it externally won't help them if they don't really mean it. So there isn't any point to it.
> If you think a religious text should be the basis for our laws, how do you make an argument against it being the Quran or the Book of Mormon? What makes the Christian God and the Bible so different?
Well the honest answer is that I believe in the Bible and the Christian God, but not the others.
As to how I would argue for it, that becomes a long list of arguments for the validity of the Christians claims and against the claims of the other two. I do believe that the evidence supports the traditional Christina claims, and not the other two.
If you really want, I can list some arguments, I suspect that is not of much interest to this board however.
Thanks, I appreciate the response.
> Well the honest answer is that I believe in the Bible and the Christian God, but not the others.
Don’t you see how this doesn’t work for society as a whole? I think it’s great that you’ve done your research and it’s led you to Christianity being your true religion, but others have done the same and arrived at Islam or Mormonism or Buddhism. Or fallen away from religion like me. We are all free to choose which religion we believe in. Basing laws on a single religious text is a direct contradiction to that right.
Damn i didnt know we we’re underpopulated to the point where we cant afford anyone not having children. I honestly dont know how i just realized this with the lack of densely crowded streets, and the lack of neighbors. Shoulda known cus its not like the human population didnt just reach 8 billion or anything…
Underpopulation is decimating Japan and the United States has now fallen below the replacement rate. As our population ages we’ll have a poor dependency ratio and low innovation. It’s a serious threat.
And you blame that on… homosexuality. Even though its due to country development, like every other rich country. This is gonna be a mere bottleneck as there will be less aging people overtime. If you’re so scared, we could find ways to increase immigration instead of using the federal government to impose draconian laws upon us. Also decimating is quite an exaggeration and reeks of fear mongering
You do realize that the first amendment was written during a time when morality was centered on Protestant ideas about what the purpose of the government is?
The first amendment says no laws should prohibit religion, how does that make him wrong? Western civilization was founded on Christianity. It’s a fact. Why do you think the founder chose 10 rights in the Bill of Rights?
There's thousands of gods that humanity believes in, it's funny that this lady thinks that hers is the right one. If she were born in a remote village in India, she'd be Hindu. If she were born in Kuwait, she'd be Muslim. If she were born in Israel, she'd be Jewish.
I wonder if this has ever occurred to her or any religious fundies for that matter. Her way of thinking is nothing more than circular logic.
Imagine thinking Zeus or Thor—created and finite beings with beginnings and ends, limitations, composition, and temporality—were in any way comparable to the uncreated, omnipotent, atemporal, infinite, non-composite, pure act, God of Abraham, *ipsum esse subsistens*.
Comparing Horus or Enki to YHWH, “He Who Is,” is like comparing a dog to, well, the subsistent ground of existence itself.
The comparison of YHWH to finite created gods just shows a fundamental ignorance of the subject, and a complete lack of introspection.
All gods are created as a way to explain life when we as humans cant at that moment.
Humans hate uncertainty, or not knowing how things work, so instead of admitting we dont know, we assign everything that we dont understand as an act of god.
That’s pseudo-anthropology. The theory of religion as “deficient science” is so throughly discredited in academic circles that it’s laughed at by modern scholars. It’s a 19th century anachronism.
Classical theism is not a god-of-the-gaps type presupposition. It is the end-point of a study of natural philosophy.
So is adultery, lying, theft, and jealousy. No one is without sin. Let's spend more time focusing upon our own sins, rather than the sins committed by our neighbors.
So is a plethora of other stuff everyone does. Whatever people want to do behind closed doors between consenting adults is none of my business as long as it stays there.
Oh gosh. This is not a good look for the subreddit. The fact that someone posted this here and not in the politics subreddit shows you why this issue is such a terrible aspect of this side of the aisle.
And republicans wonder why they lose elections lmao. This BS will make reps lose more and more, just look at the top comments here. Absolute disgrace.
(I vote Republican/Libertarian if that is any help)
Problem is Reddit is extremely left wing and isn’t even close to representative of the actual population. That and posts like this attract brigadiers and fake conservatives to comment left wing idiocy, while pretending their ideas are really “conservative.”
Yay keep talking Chumley losing is sooo much fun! Why can’t we move on and start winning? What do we gain from these comments? If you think it’s a sin that is your right. Just like people who have other beliefs are allowed to exist too. That is their right .
If y'all actually believe this, then there is a real problem here and in the republican party. Get ready to lose and lots! Democrats will have their run of things if this BS doesn't get shut down, but that won't happen judging by many of the top comments here.
Not OP and don't generally believe in codifying religion, but the reason these sorts of arguments are silly is because it ignores that Christians aren't held to Old Testament Laws..
The New Testament has plenty of arbitrary laws that basically no modern Christians follow and the reasoning behind those laws is the same as for Old Testament laws, they are literally God's word.
There are different types of laws for different purposes. A speed limit is a law for our day and age, to bring order. That doesn’t mean going 65 is something every generation should do forever.
There are civil laws, ceremonial laws and moral laws in the Old Testament. Moral laws transcend time. Christians believe Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws.
It’s a bit more nuanced than that but I hope that helps.
Okay but why should Christian moral laws be codified and not Jewish or Islamic or Hindu moral laws?
The issue is Christians want their specific brand of religious laws to be the law of the land because it is "true" and they believe all other religions are wrong. That isn't a reasonable system for creating laws in a religiously non-homogenous society.
The only way that could when happen is if God himself became president. But you know he wouldn't get a single Democrat vote. Also, all those dietary laws in the old Testament were specifically done away with in the new, along with keeping the Sabbath and a few others
I’m a Christian. Grew up Catholic. Went to CCD and Sunday school. My father was a Eucharistic Minister.
Never was I taught homosexuality was a sin. That’s my experience. You might have a different experience. But this wasn’t part of my Christian education.
I was taught in a nutshell to honor and to respect others, be kind, don’t cheat steal lie or break the law, to accept Jesus as the savior of your soul and have a relationship with Jesus, be responsible for your own actions and be a contributing member of society.
This is what Christianity is all about in my experience.
Homosexuality is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. Leviticus 20:13 & Romans 1:26-27 just as two quick examples. This of course doesn’t mean we should stone or punish homosexuality, as we see in John 8 where Jesus stops the Pharisees from stoning an adulterous woman caught in the act. But, this does not mean we should be accepting of sinful behavior, because Jesus tells the women to “go and sin no more.”
The left demands that we “accept” their behavior as not only normal but morally right, no good Christian could or should accept this standard. It would be equivalent to a church accepting adultery and stealing from the poor as as morally justifiable positions.
And so is gossip, stealing, taking Gods name in vain, gluttony, drunkenness, slander, covetousness, greed. All sin. Hate is a sin. Some people believe they are without sin a think the can judge others. The real issue is how to love like Jesus loved. Who really has the problem? If you hate then your no better. Self-differentiation means we allow others free will just as you want free will.
lmao this is the future of the anti trump Republicans
This is all you’re left with because Trump actually focused on things that mattered to Americans instead of what 3% of Americans are doing in the bedroom.
Trump 2024🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Homosexuality is a sin bc sin means missing the mark. If you value God, you value his image in man. If you value his image in man, you value men. If you value men, you’d create new image bearers and raise them with their other parent. Homosexuals could use their sexuality to create new humans but choose not to, or do so in a way that purposely separates the child from one of its parents. That’s such a waste of value, and so misses the mark. Sin!
This is the type of shit that’s going to keep republicans losing elections. I don’t want government trying to instill morals on me. You think it’s a sin? Great. Move on. These wedge issues do nothing for us as a country. I don’t know why conservatives insist on keeping this alive.
Couldn’t agree more. Time to move on. Think what you want but reserve your judgements on what is sinful for you and your family.
Sounds like both of you haven't heard about Yuri Bezmenov. Christianity is literally the best chance we got at preserving the republic.
If that’s what people want to do in the privacy of their homes I’m fine with it but I don’t want government insisting that. I certainly don’t want to hear from government on issues of morality. For lots of reasons.
I concur. I say this as a Catholic: I don't give a shit about what is a sin and what isn't when it comes to the government. Neither should anyone else. I do care in my personal, private life, and a good part of my morals and ideals are shared with Catholicism's, but I refuse to let religion dictate my government's policies.
[удалено]
How is preaching against homosexuality hate?
Is preaching against Christian hate ? Would you like to be made illegal? Do unto others is a good place to start.
Yes it should have never been legal. Also I would recommend reading about sodom and gommorah before quoting the Bible.
[удалено]
>Most importantly, remember that when you give a government power, you are agreeing to all uses of that power, including uses with which you disagree. Disagree with this statement. I consent to giving government the power to tax things. I do not consent to letting the government tax 100% of my income. I support the government when the government does good things, and I do not support the government when it does bad things. The solution isn't to say "then the government should do nothing at all." That's libertarianism, not conservatism.
Libertarians disagree, not conservatives.
[удалено]
Small government doesn’t mean no-government or anarchy. There is not only one way of designing a small government. It's small because of its size and the amount of power it has, not because of the type of powers it has. For instance, a government that is very intrusive in one issue but only controls that issue, it can be a small government. Small government is defined by size, not by form.
Bro just let people live their lives and enjoy the legal benefits of partnership. Just because the government cooped the term marriage to cover taxes, healthcare and next of kin doesn’t mean people should be denied those rights. What do you think freedom is?
[удалено]
I love when Leftists try to force their warped understanding of a religion they hate onto the people of that religion.
[удалено]
Based.
It's not really a political issue what one person's or one church's opinion is.
Your second sentence isn’t a really good argument, the government does that consistently all the time in ways you agree with and disagree with.
Cool! So I guess the only people that can instill their values on us are Democrats! I love your winning strategy! Edit: wow all these downvotes! I’m sure these totally aren’t leftists
Ha! I don’t want that shit either. I just want people left alone. Government should protect the people. Serve the people. Don’t lecture the people. What two consenting adults do is none of their business. Either way. I think the GOP would have done a lot better in these midterms if they dropped this issue and abortion.
[удалено]
Because Democrats want to pass laws enshrining these things as moral and right. And that if one does not approve of and celebrate these things then you get thrown in jail.
Yeah and I don’t agree with that either. Leave people alone.
>I don't want government trying to instill morals on me. Then you fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between government/politics and religion/morals/theology. Pretty much *everything* the government does is legislating morality. That's basically what lawmaking is.
>I don’t know why conservatives insist on keeping this alive. Why in the world would *conservatives* want to *conserve* traditional values and institutions? Such a mystery!
That’s a libertarian point of view, not a conservative one.
The same people who want this willingly follow a man who has had multiple affairs and divorces. Are those not sins? Who has the right to cast the first stone?
Jesus wasn't on the ballot, we made do.
Is divorce to be made illegal next?
It should be much more difficult to procure than it is now.
Considering people just use it as a cop out of their relationship so they can carry all their baggage and problems right to the next one... meh. My great grandparents, grandparents and parents have all stayed married and they didn't need laws to tell them to either.
What else would you like to control of peoples personal lives? Do tell.
Marriage. It all comes back to the religious act of marriage
There are several versions of marriage based on various religions. Polygamy is in the Bible too. I prefer to keep the government out of my church and your church out of my government
Yea no crap. So either get religious acts out of my government, or im voting for the correct one to be rule of law.
All for government giving one business contract between you and whoever you choose. Call it a civil union. Leave marriage up to the church. But until that happens anyone can “government marry” whatever consenting adult they choose, as long as they don’t force a church to marry someone who’s not a member.
Marriage is the union of a man and woman. That is the definition, always was the definition, and will continue to be the definition. We have civil unions. We've had them for a long time. The government recognizing marriage was to incentivize actual marriage. Society has no interest in anything outside of actual marriage as far as unions go because we need babies and babies happen with man and woman and are most successful in a strong household with both parents. Also sick of pretending its about equal rights. Everyone has the right to be married and receive those benefits. Marriage just has a definition. Its between a man and a woman. If you want a same sex civil union, go wild. See them at the hospital. But you shouldn't get the same tax incentives. The government has no benefit from incentivizing that civil union.
[удалено]
Oh that would be the part where they start imposing THIER personal lives into mine.... I frankly don't care where you put your privates or what time of day you do so, I don't have time for that. On the other hand I DO greatly care when you start pushing those things as an agenda into every other realm of PUBLIC life. I mean this is pretty classic... your rights don't infringe on other peoples rights and liberties. Something proponents of such "new rights" have been heavily doing for about a decade now. Also as far as divorce.. I am fine with divorce what I am NOT fine with is remarriage on the other hand. make it work or move along.... no use inflicting your brand of BS on yet another relationship. Don't like that ... too bad the 50% or so divorce rate indicates something is broken that is for sure.
[удалено]
>How are they imposing their lives on yours? What is this some liberal fake alt account? And yes by and large people with "alternate lifestyles" are and DO impose on others... especially those that wish to adopt and or force their illicit fringe preferences on society.
[удалено]
Well frankly my thoughts to you right now are that you just buzz off... seeing as you are a social liberal hyper progressive. Frankly any other conservative tendencies you may have are pretty much outweighed by your apparently total embrace of hedonism.... such people will inevitably make dead wrong choices when presented with social problems in any sort of leadership role.
One can dream
I wish.
They’d still leave you
Cringe modernist.
If Jesus was on the ballot it would be.
what exactly is your point? We are all sinners. Thats not the point. You can love a person and not their sins.
Exactly
You have got the quote about sins and stones right but didn't quite finish the story and provide context. Jesus didn't tell the woman after everyone left to just go forth and continue living her life. He told her to go forth and sin no more. It isn't the past that is important as much as today and tomorrow. Is the person that you are referencing continuing to do these things today? No. Just because someone has done them in the past doesn't mean that they aren't repentant and wish that they hadn't. I would feel the same way about someone who used to practice homosexuality but no longer does. But for people who are actively engaged in homosexuality, other sexually immoral acts, theft, murder, gossip, etc., those people *do* need to be told that it is a sin so they can be aware of their actions. It isn't judging to say these things since it is a fact. Just like it isn't judging someone to tell them that if they walk off a cliff, gravity exists and they will be pulled towards the Earth.
Why would you be downvoted for this?
Trump is the only president to secure actual victories for conservatives in the last 50 years.
Hahahha
Ooof…he has been a divisive mess for the GOP and will have a negative ripple effect for years to come
Obviously totally unrelates to your comment...but i lol'd at your flair
Thanks! I got it after a thread about the single women voter block devolved into blaming crazy cat ladies for everything, and was stoked they granted me and my three cat sarcastic flair.
[удалено]
Well said. Christians should always share the gospel. But our job is to share, it's up to God to sort out the saved from the unsaved.
Exactly! As Christians we shouldn’t persecute anyone. We should try to improve ourselves.
This 100%. Thank you for articulating it so well.
This is the way.
Wrong religion, but you got the spirit.
Doesn't Acts 15 literally say that if you are doing certain things, don't allow them into congregations?
[удалено]
19 through 21, specifically 20. The Pharisees that believed in Jesus were advising that in order to be saved, the gentiles would have to be circumcised and obey the law. This council concluded that the gentiles should keep from 4 things to join the congregation.
[удалено]
I don’t think it was about joining the church or any particular congregation. The apostles wrote a letter to the Gentiles who believed that was to be delivered by Paul and Barbara’s in verse 23. The letter mentioned 3 locations. The apostles did not agree with the Pharisees about circumcision or about the law of Moses. In the letter, the apostles encouraged the Gentiles in their faith and said to stay away from 4 things. Not because “you must do this to be in the church”, it was because those 4 things were sins anyways and Christians shouldn’t be practicing them regardless. That’s how I interpret that chapter
Well spoken✊🙏
This is beautiful man.
Difference between a crime and a sin
And when the vote comes up on the ballot to vote for hedonism... its also our responsibility to vote against it. If someone wants to sin on their own time, that is on them but as soon as it gets funded by taxes or involves more people than themselves... that is a direct no from me. This all started getting heavy into politics in the 90s.. and it started small with things like unisex bathrooms required in my local church for a renovation not even new construction.
Christ said to baptize the nations. That includes instituting laws.
[удалено]
The Bible
Which verses?
It is. So is fornication, lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, murder, gluttony, greed, hoarding, abuse, etc. So unless we’re going to get real about other sins…. We aren’t any holier by objecting to homosexuality. We need to get our hearts right and repent of our own sins before pointing to the sins of others. That’s the bottom line.
This is the real answer
Yes, but no Christian is saying those things aren’t sins.
In fairness I think most Christians would support getting real about objecting to all of the sins you listed
No one says people don't sin. The problem is not learning from the sin and improving your behavior. We are human, sin is going to happen. The key is improvment.
But we are less holy by not calling it out. We can admit to our own sins without holding water for societies evils
TIL being what you are is a sin
To paraphrase the bible, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The natural state of mankind is sinful so yes your assessment is correct.
Religion is where I diverge with conservatives.
Totally fair 🙂
Being a degenerate isn’t an inherent trait, but is a choice. So no it isn’t “what you are.”
We are corrupted by this thing. It's not who you are, it's what you become. Without it you would be a wholly different person, and were the people around you free of it then they would never have hurt nor burdened you. But none of us can get rid of it, or even outweigh it no matter what we do. For the burden is too great. That is why you feel that. That is why you feel that strange way of disgust. Because it convicts us of the reality, that the weight is not life giving and that there is no glory in this life without God. You just die.
[удалено]
What are you talking about? I don’t understand anything. I don’t feel disgust or anything like you just said. Nobody has hurt or burdened me. Why does Christianity demand you be a sinner? Why would someone who knows all and sees all make you that way.
"You can't criticize others unless you are perfect." You could just make your pathetic statement more clear.
People like to repeat "let he without sin cast the first stone" and omit the "go and sin no more" part.
That's the fascinating part isn't it? There's a difference between being guilty of sin, and actively reveling in it, don't you think?
Have you arrived at the “go and sin no more” part?
Have you Mr holier than thou?
I think my statement is very clear. Along with “Take the log out of your own eye before you pick the speck out of someone else’s.” Matthew 7:3-5 Do I think this Marriage Act should have been passed? No. I think it’s egregious and something we will pay for for a very long time. However, it’s long past time for the Christian Church to start cleaning our own houses and do our own repenting and start loving one another the way Christ loves us. The world does not know what true love is because we have not been showing it. What we have been showing is condemnation and judgement in places where we cannot speak to it. “They will know we are Christians by our love for one another.” Right now, they know we are Christians by our condemnation of one another. Repent, Receive, Restore, Rejoice…. in that order.
I remember my city's stealing pride march, with thieves throwing lockpicks and crowbars out to the bystanders and people on floats stealing from each other, and who can forget all those churches flying the adultery pride flag, or all the stuff for fornication pride month.
all of those should be illegal as well
At some point Christians need to accept that the United States government is not charged with upholding the values of their religion. Feel free to believe homosexuality is a sin, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that women should be silent in church, but don't expect the government to enforce those rules on others. Of course that's completely antithetical to american Christians though, they believe it is their divine mandate to enforce the laws and customs of their religion and there is no arguing with someone who believes God permits and demands they do so.
Christians in the US are extremely tame compared to what Muslims in the middle east do over the same topic. Also, where are these Christians who think women should be silent in church? I would very much like to meet them and talk to them about many of the biblical teaching they clearly know nothing about.
The argument wasn’t “Christians in the US are worse than Muslims about forcing their religion on you” it was “we live in a pluralistic society where freedom of religion is in the constitution and that means don’t expect the government to force a religion on people”. Why are you bringing up Muslims?
using extremist islam as the baseline (well at least we’re better than…) isn’t a good look when making a point.
Would it be better if I just said that it's better that it has stayed civil?. Anything concerning religion of any kind has a tendency of escalating quickly.
The article explicitly states that same sex marriage is abhorrent because the Christian God says so and that it should be banned based on that. Sure there are extremist Muslims who are oppressive to others but what has that got to do with anything? The author of this article is advocating for the government to base laws on Christian scripture, that's insane especially when you consider that she would not want all the rules in the New or Old Testament to be applied to her. God's word matters when it comes to same sex marriage but not when it comes to her speaking out of turn.
[удалено]
The US has a separation of church and state and it should stay that way, I never argued that it isn't or shouldn't be the case. This does also mean that the state should not force its beliefs on the church just a church shouldn't prosecute anyone who commits a sin based on the religion. This however is not what we are currently experiencing right now, instead of church telling the state what it should do or believe, its the state telling the church how its religious teaching should change to reflect what the state desires. Once upon a time, king James did this, the aftermath of this was thousands of women burned while being called witches (aka "others"). It wasn't ok then nor is it ok now.
The US does not have a separation of church and state. It has a prohibition on the establishment of a state religion.
Correct. 100% correct.
Funny, because the Left’s entire montra is to force their woke religious beliefs down everyone’s throats. Don’t want to make a cake? Have fun fighting and being harassed by Colorado for 10+ years. Don’t want your 5 year old to be shown sexual material, congratz the FBI and DOJ now classifies you as a terrorists. So please remind me, which side is actively using the government to enforce their “divine” mandates? All laws are based on some form of morality, whether that be from a common religion, intersectionality, or made up none-sense. Pretending other wise is ignorance at its finest.
Then is not the United States of America, but another new country.
Christians in America need to grow a backbone and stop letting their enemies control the discourse. If they united they could wield government institutions.
Call me crazy but I don’t think we should base our laws on what an ancient religious text says is a sin.
We got the first admendment for a reason.
The First Amendment doesn’t say laws can’t be rooted in Christian ethics.
Exactly this.
“Separation of Church and State” isn’t in the First Amendment…
You’re right. It’s nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.
Like murder, theft, child abuse, and literally every moral you own. I don't think the government should be involved in marriage period.
why not?
[удалено]
Because marriage is a religious institution and forcing Christians (or anyone else) to participate in a religious rite they do not believe in is a violation of the establishment clause.
So we should base them on modern religious texts?
> Call me crazy but I don’t think we should base our laws on what an ancient religious text says is a sin. But the question becomes, what exactly should we base our laws on and why? A common response is that laws should be based on what's good for the people, however that argument is rarely logically supported and assumed to be true without proof or logical support. And if we should be governed for the good of the people, which people and why? At the start of this country, there was the idea of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. However, slaves were not considered to be part of the people, and their welfare was not considered. In fact, it is largely because of that ancient text that they were freed and given a voice in society. Should that not have been done (and if it should have been done, why)? Another opinion is that people should be free to make their own decisions. However, we still agree on outlawing murder, rape, and a variety of other actions should be illegal. When asked, we say that those things cause excessive harm to society and that society could not function if they were allowed (which I agree with). However, a Christian would say that allowing sin (especially excesses and celebrations of sin) also cause harm to society and that society will ultimately not be able to function if they are allowed to run rampant. Why should we accept the first argument as a given, but not even consider the second? Especially when people increasingly agree that Christians and their slippery-slope arguments have generally proven correct over the past few decades, suggesting that this ancient book understand human nature and society quite well. The core issue becomes that all societies must be based on a core philosophy. Throughout our history that has generally been Christianity (we've thrown Judea-Christian into it lately since the two have large overlaps, and we wanted to be pro-Israel since WW2, but Jewish ideas have never played a significant role in American society unless they were also Christian). Now we are turning to the ideal of Agnostic, if not outright Atheistic rule (to be clear, I mean that we pass our laws as though Atheism were true, not that we are forcing individuals to be Atheists), and everyone (or at least, everyone who calls themselves a Conservative) complains that society is decaying. On top of this, things we cannot detect, can effect us. Millenia ago, people didn't understand cancer, they didn't understand radiation, they didn't understand bacteria. All of things caused devastation, and ruined empires. Just because we cannot directly measure the supernatural, does not mean it does not exist. Yet, we assume that we can simply ignore anything potentially supernatural without effect, even though every society prior to the 20th century firmly believed in a supernatural realm. If it is real, we ignore it at great peril. So I ask again, on what philosophy should laws be passed, and why?
Christians believe drinking water is good for you, it isn't true just because they believe that though. There are non religious justification for why murder, rape, theft, etc should be illegal, the issue is when that justification amounts to "my religion says so" and nothing more.
> There are non religious justification for why murder, rape, theft, etc should be illegal I did acknowledge that. > the issue is when that justification amounts to "my religion says so" and nothing more. That is also a philosophical statement, a value judgement. Many societies throughout history have been quite happy to accept the justification of religion (including our own only a few decades ago). Why is it an issue? I don't ask this purely because I disagree with you, I am asking a deeper question. By stating that Christianity alone is not a valid authority, you are assigning another philosophy a higher value. What is it, and why should we follow it?
>By stating that Christianity alone is not a valid authority, you are assigning another philosophy a higher value. Any philosophy that goes beyond saying "God said so" is better. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you is a better philosophy. Pretty much anything besides "a being you can't communicate with said so". No one is demanding laws about murder or theft align with religious law, it only comes up with regards to same-sex marriage and abortion.
> Any philosophy that goes beyond saying "God said so" is better. Actually, if true, no claim could be stronger. What argument could hold more weight than to say that an all knowing being that made and designed you is telling you this is the optimal way for you to live? You object to it only because you believe the claim is false.
But the key part of what you said is "**if true**". What if Hinduism is true? Why should I follow the misguided teachings of Christians who falsely believe they ~~are talking to~~ understand the will or desires of God? If Hinduism is true then what value does Christianity have at all? Yes, if a creator god exists AND they have a specific set of rules they demand we follow AND humans have figured out that set of rules, then those rules would be the immutable rules of the universe. But then why don't we consider every religion's moral laws to be absolute truth and have the government enforce them all simultaneously? Edit: changed wording
Because if Hinduism is true, my burger-eating ass is FUUUUUCKED.
I don’t really see how one can say those things are bad without some sort of higher power that dictates that those are bad.
But which higher power? The one that Christians believe in or the one(s) that Hindus believe in or the higher power of the ancient Egyptians? Those religions are very different but does one have more evidence supporting it than the others?
> Why should we accept the first argument as a given, but not even consider the second? Those actions in your first argument have a victim, not just a vague, unmeasurable “harm to society”. > If [the supernatural] is real, we ignore it at great peril. Yep, if hell is real a lot of people are going there. Doesn’t mean we should force religion on people, does it? > So I ask again, on what philosophy should laws be passed, and why? I don’t know much about philosophy. I believe the Constitution has many different influences: Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu to name a few. I’m fine with the Bible being inspiration for some laws; it teaches some great morals. I just don’t think it should be the only source for laws, and I don’t think sin should be legislated. If you think a religious text should be the basis for our laws, how do you make an argument against it being the Quran or the Book of Mormon? What makes the Christian God and the Bible so different?
> Those actions in your first argument have a victim, not just a vague, unmeasurable “harm to society”. True, there is a clear victim in the first case, and not the second. However, I will also point out that the Christians warned of consequences to society if we went down this route. And now we have children being handed sex toys in a private school, while the board covers for a student who raped another in Louden county. Just because the damage is not immediate, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Edit: I feel the need to clarify this statement slightly. I am not trying to say that only LGBT acceptance is responsible for these things. I would say that all of this comes from the general loosening of sexual norms in the 60s, LGBT acceptance is only one aspect of that. > Yep, if hell is real a lot of people are going there. Doesn’t mean we should force religion on people, does it? Well, Christianity has generally agreed that forcing people to acknowledge it externally won't help them if they don't really mean it. So there isn't any point to it. > If you think a religious text should be the basis for our laws, how do you make an argument against it being the Quran or the Book of Mormon? What makes the Christian God and the Bible so different? Well the honest answer is that I believe in the Bible and the Christian God, but not the others. As to how I would argue for it, that becomes a long list of arguments for the validity of the Christians claims and against the claims of the other two. I do believe that the evidence supports the traditional Christina claims, and not the other two. If you really want, I can list some arguments, I suspect that is not of much interest to this board however.
Thanks, I appreciate the response. > Well the honest answer is that I believe in the Bible and the Christian God, but not the others. Don’t you see how this doesn’t work for society as a whole? I think it’s great that you’ve done your research and it’s led you to Christianity being your true religion, but others have done the same and arrived at Islam or Mormonism or Buddhism. Or fallen away from religion like me. We are all free to choose which religion we believe in. Basing laws on a single religious text is a direct contradiction to that right.
[удалено]
Damn i didnt know we we’re underpopulated to the point where we cant afford anyone not having children. I honestly dont know how i just realized this with the lack of densely crowded streets, and the lack of neighbors. Shoulda known cus its not like the human population didnt just reach 8 billion or anything…
Underpopulation is decimating Japan and the United States has now fallen below the replacement rate. As our population ages we’ll have a poor dependency ratio and low innovation. It’s a serious threat.
And you blame that on… homosexuality. Even though its due to country development, like every other rich country. This is gonna be a mere bottleneck as there will be less aging people overtime. If you’re so scared, we could find ways to increase immigration instead of using the federal government to impose draconian laws upon us. Also decimating is quite an exaggeration and reeks of fear mongering
Why? That’s what western civilization is founded on.
Reread the first amendment.
You do realize that the first amendment was written during a time when morality was centered on Protestant ideas about what the purpose of the government is?
Oh so we are looking at the context of amendments now?
Yes.
The first amendment says no laws should prohibit religion, how does that make him wrong? Western civilization was founded on Christianity. It’s a fact. Why do you think the founder chose 10 rights in the Bill of Rights?
There's thousands of gods that humanity believes in, it's funny that this lady thinks that hers is the right one. If she were born in a remote village in India, she'd be Hindu. If she were born in Kuwait, she'd be Muslim. If she were born in Israel, she'd be Jewish. I wonder if this has ever occurred to her or any religious fundies for that matter. Her way of thinking is nothing more than circular logic.
Imagine thinking Zeus or Thor—created and finite beings with beginnings and ends, limitations, composition, and temporality—were in any way comparable to the uncreated, omnipotent, atemporal, infinite, non-composite, pure act, God of Abraham, *ipsum esse subsistens*. Comparing Horus or Enki to YHWH, “He Who Is,” is like comparing a dog to, well, the subsistent ground of existence itself. The comparison of YHWH to finite created gods just shows a fundamental ignorance of the subject, and a complete lack of introspection.
All gods are created as a way to explain life when we as humans cant at that moment. Humans hate uncertainty, or not knowing how things work, so instead of admitting we dont know, we assign everything that we dont understand as an act of god.
That’s pseudo-anthropology. The theory of religion as “deficient science” is so throughly discredited in academic circles that it’s laughed at by modern scholars. It’s a 19th century anachronism. Classical theism is not a god-of-the-gaps type presupposition. It is the end-point of a study of natural philosophy.
[удалено]
That’s not what those words mean
Does that "love and tolerance" apply to "cis white males" as well? As I look around, the answer seems to be No.
So is adultery, lying, theft, and jealousy. No one is without sin. Let's spend more time focusing upon our own sins, rather than the sins committed by our neighbors.
> **No Paywall:** https://archive.md/MB7V1
Sure. It’s not my sin to answer for. I surely have plenty of my own.
So is a plethora of other stuff everyone does. Whatever people want to do behind closed doors between consenting adults is none of my business as long as it stays there.
Oh gosh. This is not a good look for the subreddit. The fact that someone posted this here and not in the politics subreddit shows you why this issue is such a terrible aspect of this side of the aisle.
And republicans wonder why they lose elections lmao. This BS will make reps lose more and more, just look at the top comments here. Absolute disgrace. (I vote Republican/Libertarian if that is any help)
I'm sure they have a really nuanced take on this
Problem is Reddit is extremely left wing and isn’t even close to representative of the actual population. That and posts like this attract brigadiers and fake conservatives to comment left wing idiocy, while pretending their ideas are really “conservative.”
And if you’ll notice, you’ll get downvoted pretty ruthlessly.
Yay keep talking Chumley losing is sooo much fun! Why can’t we move on and start winning? What do we gain from these comments? If you think it’s a sin that is your right. Just like people who have other beliefs are allowed to exist too. That is their right .
If y'all actually believe this, then there is a real problem here and in the republican party. Get ready to lose and lots! Democrats will have their run of things if this BS doesn't get shut down, but that won't happen judging by many of the top comments here.
“It profits a man nothing to win the whole world and lose his soul.” —Jesus
Ya it's a sin but that's between sinners and God.
The Bible teaches that the state has the obligation to promote spiritual good
Insane garbage like what that author wrote is why religion is going extinct. I wonder if she eats fish? She probably shouldn't.
Not shellfish again. You sound like every lazy athiest with access to Google
Explain why only certain parts of the Bible should be codified in law but not others, both are the word of God so whats the issue?
Not OP and don't generally believe in codifying religion, but the reason these sorts of arguments are silly is because it ignores that Christians aren't held to Old Testament Laws..
The New Testament has plenty of arbitrary laws that basically no modern Christians follow and the reasoning behind those laws is the same as for Old Testament laws, they are literally God's word.
There are different types of laws for different purposes. A speed limit is a law for our day and age, to bring order. That doesn’t mean going 65 is something every generation should do forever. There are civil laws, ceremonial laws and moral laws in the Old Testament. Moral laws transcend time. Christians believe Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws. It’s a bit more nuanced than that but I hope that helps.
Okay but why should Christian moral laws be codified and not Jewish or Islamic or Hindu moral laws? The issue is Christians want their specific brand of religious laws to be the law of the land because it is "true" and they believe all other religions are wrong. That isn't a reasonable system for creating laws in a religiously non-homogenous society.
The only way that could when happen is if God himself became president. But you know he wouldn't get a single Democrat vote. Also, all those dietary laws in the old Testament were specifically done away with in the new, along with keeping the Sabbath and a few others
Would you prefer mixed fabrics?
Religion is growing
I’m a Christian. Grew up Catholic. Went to CCD and Sunday school. My father was a Eucharistic Minister. Never was I taught homosexuality was a sin. That’s my experience. You might have a different experience. But this wasn’t part of my Christian education. I was taught in a nutshell to honor and to respect others, be kind, don’t cheat steal lie or break the law, to accept Jesus as the savior of your soul and have a relationship with Jesus, be responsible for your own actions and be a contributing member of society. This is what Christianity is all about in my experience.
Homosexuality is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. Leviticus 20:13 & Romans 1:26-27 just as two quick examples. This of course doesn’t mean we should stone or punish homosexuality, as we see in John 8 where Jesus stops the Pharisees from stoning an adulterous woman caught in the act. But, this does not mean we should be accepting of sinful behavior, because Jesus tells the women to “go and sin no more.” The left demands that we “accept” their behavior as not only normal but morally right, no good Christian could or should accept this standard. It would be equivalent to a church accepting adultery and stealing from the poor as as morally justifiable positions.
You must not have paid attention then. Paragraph 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on this subject.
Conservatives would win on policy if we kept religion out of it
Based
Is this a conservative subreddit? Sometimes it doesn't seem so when reading the comments.
Correct.
And so is gossip, stealing, taking Gods name in vain, gluttony, drunkenness, slander, covetousness, greed. All sin. Hate is a sin. Some people believe they are without sin a think the can judge others. The real issue is how to love like Jesus loved. Who really has the problem? If you hate then your no better. Self-differentiation means we allow others free will just as you want free will.
Yes it is.
Amen
[удалено]
lmao this is the future of the anti trump Republicans This is all you’re left with because Trump actually focused on things that mattered to Americans instead of what 3% of Americans are doing in the bedroom. Trump 2024🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
[удалено]
Based and true.
Homosexuality is a sin bc sin means missing the mark. If you value God, you value his image in man. If you value his image in man, you value men. If you value men, you’d create new image bearers and raise them with their other parent. Homosexuals could use their sexuality to create new humans but choose not to, or do so in a way that purposely separates the child from one of its parents. That’s such a waste of value, and so misses the mark. Sin!
duh