posted
LIGHT, I would remind you and your Apostles and your Twelve and your Stake Presidents that Jesus already told us what would separate the sheep from the goats.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: LIGHT, I would remind you and your Apostles and your Twelve and your Stake Presidents that Jesus already told us what would separate the sheep from the goats.
The Apostles ARE the Twelve.
The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles make up the 15 Apostles on the earth.
I'm curious about your interpretation of this scripture, kmboots. Are you saying that salvation rests solely on our actions toward others?
If that is your point of view, what is your take on the scriptures where Jesus indicates that baptism is essential for salvation? (Matt. 25, Mark 16, John 3) If baptism is not essential for salvation, why was Christ baptized?
Note that Mormon doctrine is filled with echoes of the parable of the sheep and goats. Giving aid to the hungry, comforting the afflicted, helping the poor, etc., is a huge part of being Mormon. King Benjamin, in the Book of Mormon, makes it plain that salvation cannot be had, no matter what ordinances or other commandments you obey, unless one is humble and serves the poor and destitute.
I also note that for all his talk of charity, giving, and loving others, Jesus didn't really excuse anyone who was persistent in their sins. He offered mercy; but he never (to my recollection) said, "Don't worry. You'll be fine. Keep doing what you're doing."
I feel like we've had this conversation before...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem here is that the fundamental definition of a central doctrine of our faith has come into question in a public forum, and I will not stand down from that doctrine.
But here's the thing: your doctrine does not need to be codified in secular law. Consider that there is already a separate Mormon concept of "Temple marriage" that has nothing to do with the secular law of marriage -- and yet Mormons are perfectly capable of telling the difference between the two forms.
The idea that same-sex marriage threatens the Mormon concept of marriage only makes sense if you think that preventing homosexuals from having stable, happy, public relationships with each other will somehow prevent homosexuality and encourage stable heterosexual relationships (and that you believe this is a valuable goal, natch, but that goes without saying in this case). I am completely unconvinced that this is the case, and frankly think the benefits to homosexuals of improving the cultural acceptance of homosexuality far outweigh the need for Mormons to occasionally add an adjective when talking about marriage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem here is that the fundamental definition of a central doctrine of our faith has come into question in a public forum, and I will not stand down from that doctrine. You will find that this is a matter of eternity for our faith. You will find that to redefine marriage in this way is, to many, solemn mockery before God.
Leave the word marriage out of it for a moment and ask yourself this. Is there a compelling reason why the government should forbid same sex partners from entering into the same contracts that are open to heterosexual couples? Should the government be allowed to discriminate between people because your religion deems their behavior sinful?
If two women are co-parenting a child should they be able to enter into a marriage contract that would insure survivor benefits for the child if either one of them dies? If two men have shared a home, lives and finances for many years, should they be allowed to enter into a legal contract that would guarantee them rights of next of kin? If two same sex adults form a household and share financial responsibility for each other, should they be able to enter into a contract that makes them on financial unit for government legal purposes? These aren't abstract philosophical questions, they are real and real people face these problems and suffer the consequences every day.
You consider it a sin for two men or two women to have sexual relations, but that's beside the point. Those sexual acts are legal with or without allowing same sex marriage. Do you consider it sinful for two people of the same sex to form a household? Is it a sin for two people of the same sex to love each other? Is it a sin for two people of the same sex to mingle their finances? Is it a sin for two people of the same sex to assume the responsibility for caring for each other. Is it a sin for two people of the same sex to cooperate in raising a child? I also am LDS, and I have never heard any church leader suggest any of those things are sins. Those are the things that are covered under a civil marriage.
Marriage has already been redefined so many times this argument is ridiculous. This is what happens when you start mixing church and state. When you allow religious leaders to solemnize government contracts and governments to regulate religious rituals.
When we are talking about legalizing gay marriage, we aren't talking about anything relating to legal to sex. With in many religions, marriage is a an ordinance or sacrament that solemnizes and legitimizes the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. But under law, marriage is just a legal contract between two people conferring certain rights and responsibilities, none of which have anything to do with sex. That's why many people are suggesting we change the words. Call the legal contract a "civil union" and leave the term "marriage" to churches and other NGOs.
Using the same word for the two very different concepts is confusing. But even if we keep the word marriage for both, I think most people are smart enough to figure out that they don't mean the same thing and deal with it. I'm sure God can figure it out and would not be offended by us showing charity and compassion to other human beings without concern about their severity of their sins.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT, there are churches which believe that marriage can be between any two adults who choose to marry. They celebrate same-sex marriage in their churches. If those denominations become a majority in this country should they be able to define marriage for your church?
I think, and suspect that you do to, that the answer is no. But neither should the definition used by your church be binding on those other churches. The Iowa Supreme Court decision does a really good job of spelling out the reasons why, in a society with freedom of religion, no one religion's definition of marriage can be given precedence over another.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: LIGHT, I would remind you and your Apostles and your Twelve and your Stake Presidents that Jesus already told us what would separate the sheep from the goats.
The Apostles ARE the Twelve.
The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles make up the 15 Apostles on the earth.
I'm curious about your interpretation of this scripture, kmboots. Are you saying that salvation rests solely on our actions toward others?
If that is your point of view, what is your take on the scriptures where Jesus indicates that baptism is essential for salvation? (Matt. 25, Mark 16, John 3) If baptism is not essential for salvation, why was Christ baptized?
Note that Mormon doctrine is filled with echoes of the parable of the sheep and goats. Giving aid to the hungry, comforting the afflicted, helping the poor, etc., is a huge part of being Mormon. King Benjamin, in the Book of Mormon, makes it plain that salvation cannot be had, no matter what ordinances or other commandments you obey, unless one is humble and serves the poor and destitute.
I also note that for all his talk of charity, giving, and loving others, Jesus didn't really excuse anyone who was persistent in their sins. He offered mercy; but he never (to my recollection) said, "Don't worry. You'll be fine. Keep doing what you're doing."
I feel like we've had this conversation before...
I am not saying that salvation rests solely on our behaviour toward others. Nor am I saying that Mormons are uncharitable - though many of them seem capable of voting against having the government reflect those charitable ideals and allowing charity to be a personal act. I am saying that Jesus gave a very specific metaphor about sheep and goats and very specific actions and for someone (and I apologize for my confusion regarding your hierarchy) to appropriate that language to say, "what really separates sheep and goats is something quite different" is a little appalling to me. If he has said, "this is what separates good Mormons from bad ones", he would be welcome to it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nor am I saying that Mormons are uncharitable - though many of them seem capable of voting against having the government reflect those charitable ideals and allowing charity to be a personal act.
The first objection I understand. The second, not so much. 'Allowing charity to be a personal act--' in the context of this conversation, what do you mean?
What's your position on raising taxes in order to better support the welfare system?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh. Probably shouldn't have included that as it is a bit of a distraction from the point. I am just saying separating personal religious ideals of charity from how we vote on what the government should do could be a good model for LIGHT to use in separating his personal religious ideals of sexuality and needing the government to reflect that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From a religious perspective, it is not charitable to encourage or support someone in their sin, kmboots, which is what legalization of same-sex marriage can be said to do.
Within the brand of Christianity which I belong to, it is also not permissible to abuse the sinner in any way, or to trick them, or remove their capacity for agency. I'm afraid that we don't always live up to the ideal.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it's okay to separate one's morality from the way that someone interacts with public government. It feels like censorship.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't believe you. If you really didn't want to, you'd spend some time working on your own ethical questions without hiding behind your church as an excuse.
quote:I will render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's.
You don't think secular marriage law, in this context, would be "Caesar's?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry about being scary. "You're scaring me" is just another rhetorical trick intended to disempower one's ideological adversary. You're not scaring anyone at all.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From a religious perspective, it is not charitable to encourage or support someone in their sin, kmboots, which is what legalization of same-sex marriage can be said to do.
Within the brand of Christianity which I belong to, it is also not permissible to abuse the sinner in any way, or to trick them, or remove their capacity for agency. I'm afraid that we don't always live up to the ideal.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it's okay to separate one's morality from the way that someone interacts with public government. It feels like censorship.
It is also pretty clearly uncharitable to leave people homeless or without healthcare. Do we insist that the government reflect those charitable priorities as well? I am not suggesting (here) that one needs to separate morality from interactions with public government. I am suggesting that there be some consistency about it. Or if not, we ask ourselves why.
LIGHT, "I want to be nice and good and I don't know the answers but my church says x so I have to go along with it" is not an excuse. You don't get nice points for "the church says so". You have a heart and a mind and a choice and bear the responsibility for your decisions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are a part of the church. You are also a human being with a brain. You are saying that, on topics on which you believe your church has spoken, you do not need to use your brain.
I find that problematic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Lighten up. You can explain your position without sounding like a Bruce McConkie knock-off. Just use a normal, conversational voice, like you'd use when you talk with your friends.
quote:You don't think secular marriage law, in this context, would be "Caesar's?"
Jesus side-stepped that question when it was put to him, you know.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is also pretty clearly uncharitable to leave people homeless or without healthcare. Do we insist that the government reflect those charitable priorities as well? I am not suggesting (here) that one needs to separate morality from interactions with public government. I am suggesting that there be some consistency about it. Or if not, we ask ourselves why.
I don't see the inconsistency you see. Can you explain?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is also pretty clearly uncharitable to leave people homeless or without healthcare. Do we insist that the government reflect those charitable priorities as well? I am not suggesting (here) that one needs to separate morality from interactions with public government. I am suggesting that there be some consistency about it. Or if not, we ask ourselves why.
I don't see the inconsistency you see. Can you explain?
It seems important to supporters of Prop 8 that the government of the whole country reflect their specific religious ideals about marriage and family life. Is it similarly important that the government also impose religious ideals with regard to such clearly mandated issues of providing for the poor and taking care of the sick? For some, it may be. For others, why not?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is also pretty clearly uncharitable to leave people homeless or without healthcare. Do we insist that the government reflect those charitable priorities as well? I am not suggesting (here) that one needs to separate morality from interactions with public government. I am suggesting that there be some consistency about it. Or if not, we ask ourselves why.
I don't see the inconsistency you see. Can you explain?
It the naturalistic fallacy: specifically, the "good" in "morality" is synonymous with good, and so that which is non-moral in basis (for example, rationalist civil government) is necessarily a-moral, because a philosophy not based in terms of "morality" is also not concerned with "good."
A very typical Christian argument runs along the lines of this fallacy- specifically that the goodness of humanity is synonymous with the teaching of religious morals, and that goodness is impossible without a specified moral worldview. This is why Christians ask atheists sometimes what stops them from just killing people, or going bananas, as if Christian morality is totally synonymous with the ethical and moral reasonings of the individual mind, and that without that kind of morality, we are unable to hold onto a stable worldview without become overloaded with our own inner conflicts, and exploding. It doesn't occur to them, or they are not taught to consider, that it is possible that "morality," as in a will to seek the collective good, is learned mimetically within a society, and that it naturally appeals to the human mind for adaptive purposes.
In this particular comment, there is also an appeal to incredulity along the lines of: "if the government gets involved in one moral question, why not *all* moral questions?" Which employs the naturalistic fallacy, ignoring the fact that this is, concerning government, a question of the proper functioning of democracy and government in its approach to individuals, and not its approach to morality.
I think what is being said is: "Government should not be involved in morality, or else fully involved" when in fact it is being argued that government should be involved in "doing good," which is not solely in the domain of the morality that is conceived of by Christians.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems important to supporters of Prop 8 that the government of the whole country reflect their specific religious ideals about marriage and family life. Is it similarly important that the government also impose religious ideals with regard to such clearly mandated issues of providing for the poor and taking care of the sick? For some, it may be. For others, why not?
Hm. That's not an inconsistency, seeing as how the two subjects are not related. I don't think that believing that the government should interfere in one place necessarily means they should interfere in ALL places.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems important to supporters of Prop 8 that the government of the whole country reflect their specific religious ideals about marriage and family life. Is it similarly important that the government also impose religious ideals with regard to such clearly mandated issues of providing for the poor and taking care of the sick? For some, it may be. For others, why not?
Hm. That's not an inconsistency, seeing as how the two subjects are not related. I don't think that believing that the government should interfere in one place necessarily means they should interfere in ALL places.
How does one decide and why would they decide on this particular imposition of morality?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I know I have a brain, Tom. What would you have me do? Would you have me think up a way to both follow what the Church asks of me and to compromise my standards? Those don't really go along together..."
Really? Because it looks exactly like what you're doing. Compromising on the possibility of a broader view because your Church asks you to.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How does one decide and why would they decide on this particular imposition of morality?
Perhaps it isn't an "imposition of morality." I know it might look like one, to you anyway. Still, there are "impositions" of "morality," all over the law, and they have everything to do with the rule of law and order before morality even comes into question.
It's immoral to drive drunk, and yet you don't call all anti-drunk driving campaigns "moral" campaigns. They can be civic campaigns, and they can appeal to civic duty. It is uncivil to drive drunk, after all. And these are not the same things. For you it may be immoral to have gay sex, and yet it is not uncivil to do so. It has no detrimental effect on society.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you have me think up a way to both follow what the Church asks of me and to compromise my standards?
No. Presumably you have standards which are not those of the church. I am asking you to use your brain to reconcile your standards with the requests of the church.
If your standards prevent you from recognizing the value of extending marriage to same-sex couples, of course, that's a different issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does one decide and why would they decide on this particular imposition of morality?
Ah! Motivation. I can't know for anyone but myself.
Nor can I but it seems like an area of self-investigation that could prove fruitful. I think it is important, particularly for someone who hasn't thought this all the way through to examine why a Christian would find it more important for the government to defend a certain type of sexual morality than to fee the hungry and take care of the sick. There may be reasons. In the usual scripture, Jesus seems to me to have different priorities. I don't know enough about LDS scripture to know if he had other things to say there.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is important, particularly for someone who hasn't thought this all the way through to examine why a Christian would find it more important for the government to defend a certain type of sexual morality than to fee the hungry and take care of the sick. There may be reasons. In the usual scripture, Jesus seems to me to have different priorities.
This is a very good question. Do many Christians out there believe Christ would care more about who the government declares "married" than about the hungry or the sick?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Avoiding the motivation discussion entirely...
quote:I think it is important, particularly for someone who hasn't thought this all the way through to examine why a Christian would find it more important for the government to defend a certain type of sexual morality than to fee the hungry and take care of the sick
The delta makes a difference, I think. It's a pretty big change, after all. Not that feeding the hungry, administering to the sick is less important than morality, but that it's a particular type of morality which has been standard for a long time (decades, even!) is undergoing radical change.
In other words, if someone is suffering a heart attack, you don't focus on their breast cancer while giving them CPR.
quote:In the usual scripture, Jesus seems to me to have different priorities. I don't know enough about LDS scripture to know if he had other things to say there.
Are you sticking to the gospels only, or are you looking at the standard Bible? (By standard, I mean the King James Version) Do you accept that Jesus agreed with what was written in the Old Testament? Where do you feel he would deviate?
I know you're Catholic, but IIRC, your interpretation of what scriptures apply when isn't predictable.
Mormons have other scriptures that address this particular issue (welfare vs. immorality). In the Book of Mormon, Jacob the prophet calls out that immorality is a worse sin than failing to provide for the poor.
However, throughout the Book of Mormon, it's the people's mistreatment of the poor and their pride in their social standing that does them in time and time again. This remains true through almost the end of the Book of Mormon, when class and riches matter less because of the warfare occurring. Then Mormon, the prophet at the time, makes a statement to the effect that virtue and chastity matter more than just about everything, and that to deprive someone of it is especially foul.
As Mormons, though, we don't rely on ancient scripture alone to make our doctrine: we rely quite heavily on the word of modern prophets. The Proclamation on the Family to the World is clear about the Church's stance on what marriage should be. It also issued a call for all governments of the world to support those standards.
Note that at the same time that the church is pushing its moral agenda in society, it's also strengthening its welfare and charitable services; doctrinally, providing for the poor has been added to the purposes of the church. (Previously, it had been: Preach the Gospel, Redeem the Dead, and Perfect the Saints. Provide for the Poor had been part of Perfect the Saints)
There's no reason that I can see that both topics cannot be addressed.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will be able to say more later, ad I am on my phone, but: the point I was getting at, LIGHT, was that if you get to impose your beliefs, the why don't those who consider LDS to be unchristian get to run you all to the sea?
If they do not get to impose their faith on you, why should you get to impose your faith on others? Or should they get to act to get rid of you? I know such people, and thy would say you are going to he'll for denying Christ.
So again: do they have the right to impose on you? If you ignore Christlike empathy with your fellow human beings, maybe self preservation will help you see my point, Do unto others as you would have done to you.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mormons have other scriptures that address this particular issue (welfare vs. immorality). In the Book of Mormon, Jacob the prophet calls out that immorality is a worse sin than failing to provide for the poor.
However, throughout the Book of Mormon, it's the people's mistreatment of the poor and their pride in their social standing that does them in time and time again. This remains true through almost the end of the Book of Mormon, when class and riches matter less because of the warfare occurring. Then Mormon, the prophet at the time, makes a statement to the effect that virtue and chastity matter more than just about everything, and that to deprive someone of it is especially foul.
That would seem enough to answer my question.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Maybe you missed my note to kmboots, but generally it's not considered Christlike to support or assist someone in committing sin. Forgiveness is one thing; permission is something else.
quote:if you get to impose your beliefs, the why don't those who consider LDS to be unchristian get to run you all to the sea?
'Cause we got laws against that sort of thing.
By the way, we ran West. To the desert. And when the government said, "Stop your barbarous marriage practices!" we said, "Okay."
Until recently, it wasn't just the rabidly religious that held the belief that SSM should not be condoned by law. It was pretty much everyone. Again: the delta makes a difference in people's reactions to this subject.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That would seem enough to answer my question.
Well...you'd think so, huh? But I think one of the things that has been consistent in the gospel, from the time that it was presented to Adam, until now, is that different times are...different.
We face different challenges today than we did even 50 years ago. Not to mention 1400, or 2000, or 2600 years...
So it's not like the Book of Mormon is the absolute...standard on what is important in our day. It's incredibly important to the faith, don't get me wrong. But the words of the living prophets matter more.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem I have with Light's reasoning is that good members of the church have thought about it, studied, consulted our leaders and then voted in favor of SSM. The church in response to them said vote your conscious and bishops and stake presidents you can NOT in any way punish them for voting that way. The church gave its ok to vote however a member felt was right. So, saying you voted this way because the church said so is not completely honest. And those of us who voted for SSM are not aligning against God- at least not if you take the prophet at his word.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem I have with Light's reasoning is that good members of the church have thought about it, studied, consulted our leaders and then voted in favor of SSM. The church in response to them said vote your conscious and bishops and stake presidents you can NOT in any way punish them for voting that way. The church gave its ok to vote however a member felt was right. So, saying you voted this way because the church said so is not completely honest. And those of us who voted for SSM are not aligning against God- at least not if you take the prophet at his word.
posted
Scott, if your church considers chastity and sexual morality a higher priority than charity than it makes sense for your members to do so as well.
I don't think it is remotely what Jesus had in mind, but as I am not a member of your church, that is okay.
It does clear up what I thought was an inconsistency. It had not occurred to me that a Christian sect would decide that. I appreciate the clarification.
I am not sure what different time have to do with it as both sex and poverty have been around for a while.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not sure what different time have to do with it as both sex and poverty have been around for a while.
Different generations have different trials. For the people in the Book of Mormon, for much of their history, class and racial warfare was an enormous spiritual burden.
In Joseph Smith's day, the obstacles were persecution, apostasy, and normalizing/standardizing the church.
In Brigham Young's day, it was persecution and the westward movement.
Etcetera.
Immorality is the obstacle lots of our leaders are pointing at as our generation's particular devil. I don't think that it's that serving the needy is LESS important; just that our standards of morality are being challenged more frequently.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, what your church decides is important is not really my business except where it tries to influence the public sphere. I was just surprised.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I didn't think your characterization of the church's agenda ("Immorality > welfare"> was quite nuanced enough. I wanted to make sure you were aware of the whole picture.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem I have with Light's reasoning is that good members of the church have thought about it, studied, consulted our leaders and then voted in favor of SSM. The church in response to them said vote your conscious and bishops and stake presidents you can NOT in any way punish them for voting that way. The church gave its ok to vote however a member felt was right. So, saying you voted this way because the church said so is not completely honest. And those of us who voted for SSM are not aligning against God- at least not if you take the prophet at his word.
but if you know god's position - marriage is between a man and a woman - how would voting for SSM not align your will against his?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will be able to say more later, ad I am on my phone, but: the point I was getting at, LIGHT, was that if you get to impose your beliefs, the why don't those who consider LDS to be unchristian get to run you all to the sea?
They can't do that because persecuting a certain religion is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
Morality can be legislated, but only within the limits set up by the Constitution on the government's legislating power. So, they can't run LIGHT out to sea for being Morman. But they could run him out to sea if he felt it was right to smoke pot or not pay taxes or pollute rivers and the majority disagreed on moral grounds - because those are things the government is allowed to legislate.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Why would God's definition of what He considers "marriage" matter to secular law?
because you cant have two opposing definitions of the same concept. besides, why would he state his definition at all unless it mattered? for a theist, doesnt divine law trump secular law?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:because you cant have two opposing definitions of the same concept
Of course you can. We have those all the time.
quote:for a theist, doesnt divine law trump secular law?
I would imagine that for an ethical theist, divine law would only trump secular law when trumping is necessary.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And something to do with how much we should impose our particular idea of divine law onto other people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:because you cant have two opposing definitions of the same concept. besides, why would he state his definition at all unless it mattered? for a theist, doesnt divine law trump secular law?
Well, yes, actually. It's just that I think one of the most important 'divine laws' (and I don't even like that term, because of its propensity for misuse-my definition of misuse, obviously) could be put this way: 'make up your own mind so long as it's not hurting anyone!' And gay marriage wouldn't hurt anyone. Even assuming God really does dislike gay marriage in the extreme, a notion I don't grant, well, we're already doing all sorts of things by Christian lights that God just can't stand.
Tons of things. And yet when it comes to gays shackin' up and bein' recognized for it, suddenly a bunch of Bible thumpers come out of the woodwork and suddenly say, "This far, no further!" Suddenly it's Thermopylae or something. It's not for divorce, it's not for booze and drunkeness, it's not for care for the poor and welfare, it's not for warfare, it's not for the death penalty, it's not for adultery, it's not for, it's not for...but gays getting together? Ohhhhhhh, no sir!
And that's why I dislike it when folks start talking about divine law. They don't mean it's 'divine law'. What they mean is, "It's a personal opinion I don't want you to be able to object to."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, that is what I thought, too. It seems these are all trumped by sex other people are having.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
