What would Jesus really do?

[The_Professor]

"Incidentally, I take a different approach to what gets us into, or keeps us out of, heaven.  It is not sin that gets you, it is lack of repentance (though that is, of course, in itself a sin).  It is not a very popular position to take, but a hardened criminal who finally (and sincerely) repents and turns his life around (bringing forth, as John the Baptist required, fruits meet for repentance) is in far better eternal shape than the person whose sins were of a lesser nature, but who never felt the need to repent. We are all sinners, so nobody gets a freebie.  It is repentance that leads to heaven through Christ's atonement.  So our job is not to condemn or judge, simply to call to repentance.  Everything beyond that is between God and the individual."

Actually, I see our two posts in agreement. I concur with your post. The key, as you correctly point out, is repentance. That is why some people (like my wife) believe that suicide is a mortal sin because you cannot repent since you are dead...dead..dead. I, myself, am not so sure on this latter issue. I have heard too many contrary positions from too many reputable Bible scholers to have formed my own opinion on the matter. BTW, rumor has it that John Wayne, for example, repented on his deathbed so I expect, hopefully many years from now, to see him in Heaven. Gotta ask him some cool questions about his movies, etc. As you also point out, I also have heard of murderers who sincerely repent before the legal injection. I also expext to talk to them one day. Gonna be a fascinating time around the old corral that day! 

[Lanya]

You know who I want to talk to---the thief on the cross next to Jesus. 

Heaven for me will be seeing my mother again.

[Universe Prince]

UP, I think it is inaccurate to say that we are trying to use the law to prohibit homosexual behavior.  I think we are trying to keep the law as it is concerning marriage.  We are not asking for change, they gay rights movement is.  Perhaps that change is needed, but I think it is wrong.

If the goal is to keep the law as it is concerning marriage, then why is there a call for laws to "protect" marriage? And how is that not an attempt to make Christian religious preferences into law? Whose rights are violated by homosexuals getting married? Not mine that I can tell. On the other hand, preventing two people from entering into what is essentially a legal agreement that is allowed for nearly everyone else, that looks a lot like an infringement on their rights. That mainstream Christianity doesn't agree with the practice is, imo, irrelevant. Mainstream Christianity doesn't agree with adultery or pornography either, but I don't see anyone arguing that we need to protect marriage from strippers, porn stars, or adulterers who want to get married. Mainstream Christianity calls not believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Risen Savior a sin too, but I don't see anyone proposing constitutional amendments to prevent Pagans and atheists from getting married. So I don't see any reason why the Christian objection to homosexuality should be cause for a legal barrier to homosexual marriage.

[BT]

The laws being called for to protect marriage are actually laws to codify the standard definition of marriage. The standard definition by historic custom being that of a union between a man and a woman.

[Stray Pooch]

BT is correct.  There has not, in the past, been a need for a standard definition of marriage because it has been a common value.  When the Mormons tried to legalize polygamy, the courts held that enforcing the previously understood definiition of marriage was not violating the religious rights of Mormons.  Whose rights are violated by polygamous marriage?   There were, to be fair, allegations that women were being forced into these marriages against their will, but the truth is, such things can happen in monogamous marriages as well.  Such abuses, if they existed at all, were not inherent in polygamy, but in human nature.

Because homosexuality is not accepted as normal by the majority of people, but the courts are increasingly supporting a liberal interpretation of the Constitution , it has become necessary to amend the Constitution in order to reflect the will of the people.  In fact, it is highly unlikely that this will occur, because a very large proportion of those who do not consider homosexuality to be acceptable behavior nonetheless are loathe to amend the Constitution to limit freedoms.  I completely respect this position, but I disagree with it.  I myself am admittedly inconsistent in my opinion, since I disapprove of anti-sodomy laws but approve of anti-gay marriage laws.  But when it comes to the basic institution of marriage, I believe that protection of traditional marriage is vital to society.

It is also inaccurate to make the argument that Christians do not object to adultery and strippers and the like.  In fact, until very recently adultery has been a crime in most states.  In some it still is.  In the military you can still be jailed for it.  I know a man who was discharged for the crime.  (Dummy left a love note tohis married lover on a teletype screen.)  Christian groups routinely object to strip clubs or porn shops and there are whole ministries dedicated to helping victims of pornography addicition and those involved in the sex industry.  Christians objected to making no-fault divorce and the like easier to obtain on the grounds that the institution of marriage - and thereby society itself - would deteriorate. This has, in fact, happened.  Marriages have become disposable and the children of these marriages pawns in court battles.  Christians object to divorce as a general rule, allowing that sometimes it is justifiable (in cases of abuse, for example).   But it is a battle which we have already lost.  Many Christians objected to birth control and abortion on the grounds that it would lead to promiscuity, the dissolution of marriage and the acceptance of sexual perversions as normal. This has, in fact, happened.  We lost that battle too. 

The fact, as unpopular as it is, is that the degeneration of a society follows a predictable, and prophecied, path.  This society continues along that path.  Christians have long recognized it; they have warned our nation and have exercised the vote to try to stop the slide.  There is little doubt that we will lose the current battle, because Satan has deceived many people into confusing personal freedom for license to commit evil.  This is in large part because he has also managed to confuse many Christians into confusing the duty to call for repentance for a duty to judge others.  Consequently, many believe that the excesses of a few taint the honest effort on the part of many to simply sustain the moral course that has held society together for thousands of years.  It is neither hompphobia nor hate that drives me to object to gay marriage.  It is an understanding on my part of my own place in society, and a recognition of the consequences of evil choices.  It is not wrong to vote your conscience, even if that vote offends someone else.  Those who approve of, or at least do not object to, gay marriage have the same right, and their votes are equally acceptable actions.  The ultimate consequence of our collective choices - like those of our individuakl choices - are beyond our ability to control. 

I believe that a continued moral slide will derail this entire society, and that the freedoms upon which our nation was founded will ultimately be destroyed through excesses.  By the time that happens, it will be too late to turn back.  The United States, as our founders knew it, ceased to exist starting with the civil war.  I believe the United States that we know will cease to exist altogether within our children's lifetime without a significant reawakening.  Terror attacks and a series of natural disasters aren't getting our attention.  Just like in Biblical times, anyone who tries to suggest that God is trying to tell us something is laughted down and marginalized.  Like I said, the path is predictable and prophecied.

[Religious Dick]

If the goal is to keep the law as it is concerning marriage, then why is there a call for laws to "protect" marriage? And how is that not an attempt to make Christian religious preferences into law? Whose rights are violated by homosexuals getting married? Not mine that I can tell. On the other hand, preventing two people from entering into what is essentially a legal agreement that is allowed for nearly everyone else, that looks a lot like an infringement on their rights.

Hold on a minute there! First off, it's not just a legal agreement between two people. There's nothing preventing any two, or three, or any number of consenting adults from concluding such a contract between themselves now (this may no longer be true in Virginia, where a recent ballot initiative might also have outlawed such agreements. I'm not entirely clear on the actual consequences). Legal marriage is, specifically, a legal agreement between two people, and the state, with certain prerogatives guaranteed by the state.. In other words, it isn't just a contract between two people, it's a contract between two people and the Representative of society at large.

I will illustrate: one of the justifications advanced by advocates of gay marriage is that hospitals will be required to admit partners in gay marriages visitation rights in the same manner they're required to grant visitation rights in straight marriages.

Now think about that. The hospital isn't a signatory to the marriage contract, but it's bound by conditions of a contract between two other people. How many other contracts are required to be honored by outside parties? When you buy a Ford under warranty, is an auto shop that isn't part of the Ford franchise bound to honor the terms of that warranty? Of course it isn't. A marriage is one of the few, if not only, contracts that creates obligations on the part of non-signatories. That is distinctly different from any other forms of contract.

Second, I take issue with "agreement allowed to almost everybody else". Actually, it's an agreement allowed in only one circumstance that I'm aware of. People form all kinds of relationships that don't enjoy special protections by the state. There's no protections for people who form bowling teams or garage bands. Why not? Because those relationships, like gay relationships, are of no consequence to anyone else besides the participants in them.  So, why are straight relationships of interest to society at large, but not gay ones? Isn't that treating them "unequally"?

It sure does treat them unequally, which is entirely justifyable, because they are not equal situations! Any honest examination of equality would have to consider equality of consequences. We can do that easily enough by isolating the variables. Consider  - what would be the consequences if people, from this day forth, failed to form gay relationships? What would the country look like 20 years from now?

Now, what would happen if people failed to form straight relationships? What would the population look like 20 years from now? Smoked dope with any Shakers lately? I didn't think so. Obviously, society at large has an interest in encouraging and facilitating hetero relationships that it doesn't have in encouraging and facilitating gay relationships.

And no, don't even start with the argument that not every straight marriage produces off-spring, either. That's a frivolous argument. The object of requiring people to stop at red lights is to prevent collisions with oncoming cross-traffic. The fact that I'm occasionally stopped at a red light and there's no cross-traffic in sight does not negate the utility of the law requiring me to stop. We make our laws to accommodate usual and expected circumstances, nobody even pretends that a body of law can be created to accommodate every outlier circumstance. As Ayn Rand put it, "We don't make our laws based on lifeboat situations, because most people don't live in lifeboats". Or, to put it another way, "Hard cases make bad laws".  Also, note that we only put traffic lights at intersections where there's a possibility of cross-traffic. We don't randomly stick them out in the middle of nowhere on streets with no intersections where there's no possibility of cross-traffic at all.

There isn't even a libertarian argument here. The freedom to form relationships of your own choosing and engage in whatever sexual behavior you prefer without interference is a whole different thing from demanding that society at large sanction and endorse it. You have the right to behave as you choose. You don't have the right to demand my endorsement.

Happy Easter!

[The_Professor]

BT is correct.  There has not, in the past, been a need for a standard definition of marriage because it has been a common value.  When the Mormons tried to legalize polygamy, the courts held that enforcing the previously understood definition of marriage was not violating the religious rights of Mormons.  Whose rights are violated by polygamous marriage?   There were, to be fair, allegations that women were being forced into these marriages against their will, but the truth is, such things can happen in monogamous marriages as well.  Such abuses, if they existed at all, were not inherent in polygamy, but in human nature.

Because homosexuality is not accepted as normal by the majority of people, but the courts are increasingly supporting a liberal interpretation of the Constitution , it has become necessary to amend the Constitution in order to reflect the will of the people.  In fact, it is highly unlikely that this will occur, because a very large proportion of those who do not consider homosexuality to be acceptable behavior nonetheless are loathe to amend the Constitution to limit freedoms.  I completely respect this position, but I disagree with it.  I myself am admittedly inconsistent in my opinion, since I disapprove of anti-sodomy laws but approve of anti-gay marriage laws.  But when it comes to the basic institution of marriage, I believe that protection of traditional marriage is vital to society.

It is also inaccurate to make the argument that Christians do not object to adultery and strippers and the like.  In fact, until very recently adultery has been a crime in most states.  In some it still is.  In the military you can still be jailed for it.  I know a man who was discharged for the crime.  (Dummy left a love note to his married lover on a teletype screen.)  Christian groups routinely object to strip clubs or porn shops and there are whole ministries dedicated to helping victims of pornography addiction and those involved in the sex industry.  Christians objected to making no-fault divorce and the like easier to obtain on the grounds that the institution of marriage - and thereby society itself - would deteriorate. This has, in fact, happened.  Marriages have become disposable and the children of these marriages pawns in court battles.  Christians object to divorce as a general rule, allowing that sometimes it is justifiable (in cases of abuse, for example).   But it is a battle which we have already lost.  Many Christians objected to birth control and abortion on the grounds that it would lead to promiscuity, the dissolution of marriage and the acceptance of sexual perversions as normal. This has, in fact, happened.  We lost that battle too. 

The fact, as unpopular as it is, is that the degeneration of a society follows a predictable, and prophesied, path.  This society continues along that path.  Christians have long recognized it; they have warned our nation and have exercised the vote to try to stop the slide.  There is little doubt that we will lose the current battle, because Satan has deceived many people into confusing personal freedom for license to commit evil.  This is in large part because he has also managed to confuse many Christians into confusing the duty to call for repentance for a duty to judge others.  Consequently, many believe that the excesses of a few taint the honest effort on the part of many to simply sustain the moral course that has held society together for thousands of years.  It is neither homophobia nor hate that drives me to object to gay marriage.  It is an understanding on my part of my own place in society, and a recognition of the consequences of evil choices.  It is not wrong to vote your conscience, even if that vote offends someone else.  Those who approve of, or at least do not object to, gay marriage have the same right, and their votes are equally acceptable actions.  The ultimate consequence of our collective choices - like those of our individual choices - are beyond our ability to control. 

I believe that a continued moral slide will derail this entire society, and that the freedoms upon which our nation was founded will ultimately be destroyed through excesses.  By the time that happens, it will be too late to turn back.  The United States, as our founders knew it, ceased to exist starting with the civil war.  I believe the United States that we know will cease to exist altogether within our children's lifetime without a significant reawakening.  Terror attacks and a series of natural disasters aren't getting our attention.  Just like in Biblical times, anyone who tries to suggest that God is trying to tell us something is laughed down and marginalized.  Like I said, the path is predictable and prophesied.

I totally concur, Pooch. and I sincerely thank you for your eloquence and dedication.

[Stray Pooch]

Religious Dick:  Awesome argument.  I must say, however, that I doubt the Shakers ever actually smoked any dope.  Too busy making chairs!     Seriously, well said.

Professor:  Thank you for the kind comments.  Allow me to return the compliments.

[Plane]

Christians are against theft , opression and murder  . These are not out of line with the majority of all the rest so there is no contraversy , but the Christian opposition to theft opression and m urder is from the same sorce as the Christian opposition to Homosexuality and abortion.

In that case, do you think people who are homosexual should be put in jail as is done for murderers and thieves?

No , because it wouldn't help anything . Jailing a Theif is necessacery to business and jailing a Murderer is helpfull to public health , but would jailing a homosexual improve something?

[Stray Pooch]

. . . would jailing a homosexual improve something?

His chances of scoring?

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. 

[domer]

I agree with Pooch that America is in a lamentable moral, hell, omnibus slide. But I disagree with him vehemently that his religion or its cognates are the answer, as much as, administered too much, they're the poison that will kill the beast. What I propose is fresh thinking and new structures, perhaps, to reclaim the public space for decency and intelligence, but then to create an intellectual ferment maybe where the old can be new again, or the new can simply learn from experience.

[Plane]

I agree with Pooch that America is in a lamentable moral, hell, omnibus slide. But I disagree with him vehemently that his religion or its cognates are the answer, as much as, administered too much, they're the poison that will kill the beast. What I propose is fresh thinking and new structures, perhaps, to reclaim the public space for decency and intelligence, but then to create an intellectual ferment maybe where the old can be new again, or the new can simply learn from experience.

Does morality require a standard?

[Stray Pooch]

Domer, while there is a component to (probably) any religion that sees itself as the answer to lifes problems, it is not accurate to state my position as viewing my religion (Mormonism in particular or Christianity in general) as the answer to all social ills.  It is a tenet of my faith that certain sexual sins are detrimental to society, but that fact (which I designate as such for the sake of argument) may be viewed independent of religious context.  Rejecting certain social ills without embracing religions which preach against such ills still carries with it a benefit.  Judaeo-Christian doctrine teaches "Thous shalt not kill" but most of the world accepts that moral view without embracing the faith.

I simply believe that resisting a change in the traditional definition of marriage will benefit society whether or not it is accompanied by mass conversions to Christianity.  That Christians fight for a particular agenda does not mean that we fight for theocracy.  That's why, in spite of my personal beliefs, I do NOT support school prayer - at least not mandatory prayer.   I do not, of course, deny that some Christians do actively seek a theocracy.  I do not support them.   

That said, however, I believe that following the tenets of God's law, as I understand it, will bring blessings oin this land and that failure to do so will bring unpleasant consequences.

[sirs]

I simply believe that resisting a change in the traditional definition of marriage will benefit society whether or not it is accompanied by mass conversions to Christianity.  That Christians fight for a particular agenda does not mean that we fight for theocracy.  That's why, in spite of my personal beliefs, I do NOT support school prayer - at least not mandatory prayer.   I do not, of course, deny that some Christians do actively seek a theocracy.  I do not support them.   That said, however, I believe that following the tenets of God's law, as I understand it, will bring blessings oin this land and that failure to do so will bring unpleasant consequences

HERE HERE.  Well concluded, and in complete agreement, Pooch.  Good dog   

[Universe Prince]

The laws being called for to protect marriage are actually laws to codify the standard definition of marriage. The standard definition by historic custom being that of a union between a man and a woman.

I am well aware of that. But I still have to ask, why do we need this? What is the purpose for such a codification when we obviously did not need one before?