Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Question 8....

November 4th, 2008 will no doubt go down in history as pivotal in American history. We elected a person of African descent to the highest office in the land. A man at least as capable as all the others who've held the office. The color barrier has been shattered! I wept with pride as Mr. Obama spoke from Chicago on election night with eloquence I haven't heard from a modern president.

That pride was tempered when I learned that on this same historic night the people of California decided to write discrimination into their state constitution. On a night where one wall came tumbling down, organized religion worked to build another one.

In an ostensibly secular country what possible secular reason could be given to allow for a majority to revoke a civil right from a minority?

I've heard many...

Marriage is a God-given blessing bestowed upon a man and a woman.

No. Marriage in the eyes of a state is a civil contract. It is simply called marriage by tradition. It could just as easily be called a civil union. If that would make the religious 'wing-nuts' happy i would gladly convert my 'marriage' to a civil union. It doesn't matter a damned to me what they call it so long as it is recognized by the state.

For thousands of years marriage has been accepted as the union of a man and a woman who are we to change that.

So what? For hundreds years it was acceptable to hold people in bondage or indentured servitude with no recourse. Now it is unthinkable for most people. For thousands of years women were considered property of the their fathers or husbands. When Elizabeth Cady-Stanton agitated for women's suffrage many quoted the holy bible and shamed her for going against God's plan. Time and human morality marched on. In the end Christianity was dragged into the 20th century kicking and screaming.

Allowing same-sex marriages will destroy American culture and lead to societal breakdown!

Oh please! We here in 'librul' Massachusetts have allowed gays to marry since 2004. Guess what? The sun still rises. Crops still grow. Tides still come in and recede. Interstingly God has not decided to 'smote' us for our rebellious ways. No hurricanes, famine nor pestilence*. Life goes on.

To the those in California who are disgusted and infuriated by the passage of that disgraceful piece of legislative discrimination: Protest!!! Fight!!! Scream and shout!!! Surround those churches night and day and voice your displeasure. Never stop, never give in. Demand action. Be a thorn in the side of legislators such that they have no choice but to give you the rights you deserve.

I think it's time to TAX the good churches of California for their partisan polticking!

R.

*foot note from wifey: I forgot to include locusts. Just because it sounds funny!

53 comments:

1godsgal said...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220

Is this justified and ok too Robert? I don't think I've ever heard you so angry against my beliefs....makes me sad.

ricbooth said...

Well there are voices of peace and grace within the gay community. Anita's blog post should be of interest to you:

http://www.sisterfriends-together.org/the-grace-of-god-is-my-only-chance/

Interestingly, Anita is a lesbian Christian. Yet another category for your ever expanding views of Christians Robert. As an atheist turned Christian at age 39 I’ve seen this and other arguments from both sides. In my atheist days, like you, I was confused. It made no sense. As a Christian, strangely enough, it makes even less sense to me.

I am with Tony Campolo. The state should get out of the marriage business. An ordained Christian pastor should never have to say, “And now by the power vested in me by the State of Blah, I now pronounce you …” Like the state is the final authority…haha. How poetically ironic.

I think Christians have been attempting to legislate Jesus (I sometimes call this legislating love) for … well centuries. I think adultery was against the law in the Puritan community of your liberal state’s past. AND I believe the offense was punishable by death.

Somewhere along the way, we discovered a better way… rather than imposing faithfulness with a law from without we instead try to reach hearts for Christ so that faithfulness would come from (the Holy Spirit) within.

In much the same way, for the Christians who are passionately against homosexuality, it would seem more fruitful to enlist the Holy Spirit rather than adding another law and, in fact, it would seem more Christian as well.

In The Pleasures of God, John Piper quotes Patrick Johnstone and I think he says it best: “The church deprived of political power is free from the burden of trying to use human power to dominate and influence the world.”

Anonymous said...

How about God designed marriage as a blessed union between a man and a woman. How about GOD is against homosexuality. He didn't create Adam and Steve, did He? It makes no diffrence what it would do to 'society', it matters what God has blessed and what He has called abomination. That's just the scriptural viewpoint - I am not trying to argue, just stating a position. You cannot read Scripture and come away with any other position....unless of course you twist Scripture to justify sin.

Ric, I am going to forget that you seem to consider homosexual activity/relationships acceptable behavior for Christians.

Dan

SirRobert said...

Deb: My comments were not addressed directly at you. But I cannot help how I feel. This is a very sore subject for me.

Ric: There are many Christians, I am good friends with many of them, who are completely supportive of the rights of ALL consenting couples to marry. In no way do I lump all of you together. :)

Dan: I wont even honor your comment with a response. What you would choose to make law is beneath human dignity. If we went by biblical law we'd still be stoning disobedient children and silencing 'uppity' women. While I understand where your interpretation comes from, it is by no means proven that it is the one and true will of the Almighty. That is your delusion...

anita said...

Godsgal-->I realize your question was to Robert so pardon my intrusion. It's never okay for anyone to demean or threaten the life of another for standing up for what they believe or for being who they are. Just as the majority of gay people I know would never hold every conservative Christian accountable for the hate-filled threatening speech of a few extremist anti-gay chuckleheads (who self-identify as Christian), I would trust that Conservative Christians would grant the same to gays and lesbians and not color us all by the idiocy of a few chuckleheads that fall on our side of the camp.

And with you, it's make me sad too Godsgal, sad that anyone, regardless of whether they're gay or straight, would hold so much rage and hate within them for another human being. Consider how it must pain the heart of God.

Robert--> I appreciated very much your post. Thank you.

skunnydroppings said...

I still don't know how I feel about this topic, but I am always happy to see believers thinking outside of the box. How do you feel about gay couples adopting children that need a home? This is another issue I haven't settled.

PS Your wife sounds cute "include locusts." :-)

Anonymous said...

Firstly for the "legistlating morality" crowd:

Try to think of one law that does not make a moral pronouncement and then tell people that they must abide by that moral pronouncement. You will find that there isn't one. Laws unavoidably reflect the morality of a society. Think.

OK, Robert, this is really badly thought out. I won't cover everything, not even close to enough time, and correcting your logical and philosophical, not to mention historical, missteps in the past hasn't helped.

"decided to write discrimination into their state constitution"

Robert, all of government makes distinctions, that is, all of government discriminates in one way or another. Any group with any particular greivance could content that they are being discriminated against. There is no such thing as any law that does not by necessity make these distinctions. Presumably you are also for pedophiles having some sort of governmental endorsement, or at least, getting out of the pedophile marriage business. Why would you be against it, even if you chose to use "discrimination" in a bad sense, which I don't think you can define properly, or in a neutral sense, like, "Robert can't discriminate between basic legal distinctions and bigotry."

Think for crying out loud.

"revoke a civil right from a minority?"

What a massive misstatement. Robert, are you really saying that 4 ajudicators can arbitrarily bestow a right? Does such a fiction resemble your purported dedication to the founding fathers or civic knowledge? As well, since you appear to think that 4 adjudicators can arbitrarily bestow rights, and you have your undies in a bundle over this, you must be against democratic action determining rights.

Let's review: 4 dudes with robes can give "rights" whenever they want, but the people can have no say in the matter.

Explain "right" Robert. And think.

"Marriage in the eyes of a state is a civil contract."

Look at the phrase with which you are making a contrast, do it very deliberately, and find the non-sequiturs in the contrast. I can find 3.

This one though, is when I stopped reading over concern that I was actually getting stupider reading this:

"For hundreds years it was acceptable to hold people in bondage or indentured servitude with no recourse."

You just compared marriage between and man and a woman with slavery. Not a functional moral compass to be found for miles.

This is really bad, R.


Robert, it is not hard to fool people who don't think v
This is really miserably thought out.

Anonymous said...

I just gave up and entered what I had. It's not worth talking to someone who isn't willing to try and think about this at all.

You are smarter than this.

Jason

SirRobert said...

Jason

Where do I start!

Try to think of one law that does not make a moral pronouncement

Did I say that laws weren't attempts to codify morals? I KNOW THAT! The morals we we codify are the ones that are necessary to facilitate a functioning and cohesive society. Not draconian rules from some dusty old book that also prescribed stoning for disobedient children.

What morals are we codifying by disallowing two people to marry our engage in a civil contract that protects their rights? Do tell.

all of government discriminates in one way or another.

So basically...everyone else is doing it why can't I?

That's your basis for being allowed to discriminate against feeling people?

That's pathetic Jason and so un-Christ-like! WWJD indeed!

Presumably you are also for pedophiles having some sort of governmental endorsement

WHAT?! And you accuse me of NOT thinking?!

Pedophilia involves an adult taking advantage of an underage child you jackass! Why are you constantly either making a strawmen out of my convictions or twisting them into an argument for the absurd?

THINK....indeed Jason!!

Marriage as far as the state is concerned IS nothing more than a contract! If you want it blessed or sanctified or what ever magical 'gobble-dy gook' added to it...pick the church or other delusion of your choice and have fun! I am not suggesting that ANY church be required to engage in ceremonies to wed gay couples...this is simply a state legal matter to me.

Don't you EVER presume to tell me to 'think'! I do think constantly with my head AND my heart!

4 ajudicators can arbitrarily bestow a right

One of the most important jobs of a judiciary is to protect a minority from the tyranny of a majority! Why can't YOU see that?

We are ALL entitled to equal protection under the law. ALL of us! Gay people aren't asking for the right to molest children. They aren't asking for special privileges! They want their assets and rights protected much as a heterosexual couple's rights would be.

Rights should NEVER simply be left to a majority rule they are too damned important to be trusted to the mob. On this I am in full agreement with John Adams!

Also, Mr. Jefferson felt that the constitution should be torn up every 20 years and re-written to reflect new realities. I think THAT would be a marvelous idea.

You accuse me of not thinking and... BULL SHIT Jason!!!

Slavery WAS defended by the Bible by many leaders of the day.

Women WERE treated as property for more than 2000 years. Policies endorsed and defended by the Christian church.

YOU do NOT get to decide to deny civil rights to a minority because a majority deigns it be so! The 13th amendment would never been passed, had it been left to simply a pure majority vote of the population. Would it have?

You accuse me of not thinking....I accuse you of having no heart and of NOT even beginning to understand what the word compassion means.

I know plenty of Christians who do...

While their understanding and interpretation of the bible may be colored by their own subjective morality, I'll take theirs over yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Your knowledge of the Bible is impressive and your interpretations may very well be true and accurate to intentions of its writers. However, your belief that the Bible is the ONE true and divinely inspired code for human behavior that all others must yield to is a notion based only on your emotion and your faith. I'll say this to you as I said it to Dan...THAT, my friend, is YOUR delusion. I must respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree!

R.

SirRobert said...

@Anita

I got so wrapped up in responding to Jason's completely WRONG characterization of my position and his misunderstanding of the duties of a modern state that I forgot to welcome and thank you for stopping by!

@Skunny

This issue of homo-sexual couples adopting children is a bit more dicey to be sure. I do think that children need both a feminine AND a masculine influence in their lives. That said, can said couples be capable of providing a loving and protective home for children who desperately need them? I have said this before: We allow ANY heterosexual couple become parents simply by virtue of them being physically capable the deed. Does innate physical capability qualify heterosexual couples to be parents? That raises another question: Can a committed homosexual couple raise a well rounded member of society?

I will give an affirmative answer to all those questions above by giving them the benefit of the doubt. I will choose LOVE.

R

SirRobert said...

Ric

I forgot to comment on your thoughtful response.

Yes indeed Massachusetts had some of the most draconian laws ever devised by man.

And now here we are the most BLUE of the 50 states...leading the way of civil rights.

I am so proud to be a citizen of the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

My wife is actually more strident than I about these matters. She actually suggested we detach our selves from North America float out to Scandinavia. The idea has little appeal to me knowing what I do about their cuisine.

I do so love that quote you referenced and I believe that the country...nay the world would no doubt be a far better place if the majority of people took it to heart!

R.

SirRobert said...

Seriously here....

Did Jason just equate civil rights for homosexual couples with rights for pedophiles?!

Pardon me but...

WHAT THE F@#$!!!!

R.

Anonymous said...

Outstanding.

"Not draconian rules from some dusty old book that also prescribed stoning for disobedient children."

Says who? You? Your blind spot is not only in the subjectivity of your own position, but your poor thought in the matter is butressed by your vociferous whining about how clearly your subjective opinions are clearly superior to others, and for no other reason than you think it.

No other reason, Robert. Subjective, pragmatic nihilism. Just like a good liberal oligarch: the morals which all must obey have now changed because those who have now acquired power say so.

And you show your spots in the matter in the following:

"That's your basis for being allowed to discriminate against feeling people?"

Feeling people..that is always your baseline. You always reach a point in your arguments at which nothing is right or wrong apart from the fact that you feel that way. This is your benchmarks – your feelings. Even worse, existentialist, pragmatic nihilism.

It is unavoidable here that you are for the government endorsement of gay marriage, which may not seem like a problem to you. The problem is that gay marriage has no basis in anything apart from feelings. Now whether you are a full blast materialist like yourself or a 6 day creationist, marriage between and man and a woman has an obvious edge. I don't think I need to explain it to you. There is a reason that no major society in history has codified a relationship between anything other than between a man and a woman, and it certainly isn't because many leaders in those societies didn't

feeel

a certain way. Robert, you are proclaiming that to positively legistlate based on feelings is quite obviously the right thing to do.

Our founding fathers do much more rolling over in their respective graves over your subjective musings than any religious person asserting that something is right because it is right, not because four frumps, or one blogger in his pajamas, says so.

“Pedophilia involves an adult taking advantage of an underage child you jackass! Why are you constantly either making a strawmen out of my convictions or twisting them into an argument for the absurd?”

Because just as with your frighteningly irresponsible - and seemingly prideful - ignorance with regards to Obama and the born-alive act, you don’t know anything about those who are constructing the family law for these position papers, nor do you know what their own stated motives are in the matter. As with this:

“Did Jason just equate civil rights for homosexual couples with rights for pedophiles?!”

Find some of the family law info on Paula Ettelbrick, Nancy Polikoff, Martha Fineman, and Martha Ertman. You cannot think that the subversion of any traditional morality is not what is on the agenda once you read their opinions on the matter.

Although once you find it, you may find it appealing since you consider it to be worthwhile to reassert “rights” every few years. What is wrong with liberals who think that rights coming from the state is not a problem. Robert, if rights come from the state, rights can be taken away from the state. Like so many liberals who are against property rights in the name of “fairness”. Surely you must be for fairness, Robert. Your vision of democracy fluxuates between ochlocracy and anarchy.

“Don't you EVER presume to tell me to 'think'! I do think constantly with my head AND my heart!”

Clearly. All these well informed opinions.

“One of the most important jobs of a judiciary is to protect a minority from the tyranny of a majority! Why can't YOU see that?”

Wrong. Their duty is to enforce the laws as written, not to legistlate, which is what they are doing. If you were half the founding fathers scholar you imagine you are you would know that.

“I think THAT would be a marvelous idea.”a

Of course you do. In your world nothing is wrong and nothing is right apart from the bee in your bonnet today. Tomorrow, we’ll see.

“I'll take theirs over yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday.”

Of course you would. See immediately above.

“YOU do NOT get to decide to deny civil rights to a minority because a majority deigns it be so!”

apriori assertion of ‘rights’…you still cannot say what such a thing as “right” could possibly mean if their logical assertion morphs with a fickle public. The word “right” ceases to mean anything. Surely you must be able to see that.

You are using ‘right’ in a way in which it has no meaning. Just because you say the word doesn’t mean that it bears any of the force the word should carry.


Which may be your goal.

Jason

SirRobert said...

Jason

Is it YOUR contention that we SHOULD stone disobedient children. Come on Jason let's hear YOUR opinion on that heart-warming piece of biblical advice?

Do we or do we not stone my elder son for disobeying his parent's rule forbidding food in his room last night?

Instead of trying to paint me into some subjective corner why don't you tell us what YOU would do!

As for your view that the laws of the land must be based in some archaic book...NONSENSE.

Are you suggesting some sort of draconian Christian Sharia law?

My support for the rights of homosexual couples stems from my view that all citizens deserve equal protection under the law of a state.

The state should no more ENDORSE gay marriage than it should heterosexual marriage. It should just treat them equally with regards to civil matters which all most people want.

I really don't care whether or not there is some traceable basis for its acceptance in history or some dusty old book. that's the beauty of being human we can leap beyond ridiculously tribal views and try to embrace a more enlightened approach.

I also don't give a damned what the founders think of our morals today THEY ARE DEAD! This is OUR world now. And while they had many GOOD ideas they had some that were morally suspect. Need I go into them again?

My passion for this issue comes from family members who I see being discriminated against for who they want to love.

You seem so concerned with those that aren't here and so willing to relegate to second class citizenship those that ARE here, and who are differnt. What does that say about YOU? I have already stated to you on many occasions that there may be something to the Pro-life argument so don't wrap these two distinct issues up and part of the same hypocrisy!

If the states only job is to enforce law as written why the hell do we have the ability to amend the Constitution? What does the 'Legislative' branch of government do? Notwithstanding the rubber stamp approach the Congress took in the last 8 years.

Traditional Morality....my ASS!!! Where father knows best, where women were barefoot pregnant and most of importantly...silent? You can have it.

R.

SirRobert said...

Jason re-read the following and tell us what it means to YOU instead of parsing what YOU think it means to ME:

The kind invitation I receive from you, on the part of the citizens of the city of Washington, to be present with them at their celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of American Independence, as one of the surviving signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and the fate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the honorable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. It adds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal participation in the rejoicings of that day. But acquiescence is a duty, under circumstances not placed among those we are permitted to control. I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. Thomas Jefferson, June 24, 1826

ricbooth said...

I'd like to distinguish between "legistlating morality" and "legislating Jesus." I see these as very different. Jason's comment on legislating morality hints at the reality: The laws in a democracy will reflect the morality of the majority. There will be a few oddities but for the most part our legislation is a reflection of us.

Legislating Jesus is a what church people do when their way of life appears threatened. It is our last ditch resort. Many got up our of their pews and got out in to their communities carrying signs and handing out "tracts" about legislation? Taking time to talk to people ... about how to vote?

I think this is so sad. Where are all those church people now? They were at all the malls and street corners last month... Are we not evangelizing, with great passion, our way of life in this world.

It is no wonder that this is how the world sees the Christ.

SirRobert said...

The laws in a democracy will reflect the morality of the majority.

At the time of the 13th amendment I am quite SURE that the majority of the population did NOT see black people as the equal of white.

It was only buy the mechanics of our Constitution that the amendment passed.

R.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, you gave the quote, and you want me to explain it to you. Cute. It is your quote, you cited it, you defend it, you explain it, Robert. For you to import yet another batch of selectivity and then demand that I defend your intentions is an extremely badly blocked diversion. If the quote is such a lay up for your point of view, it shouldn't take you too long to explain it. You brought it up, now stand up, Robert.

Your first three sentences at 1049 are awfully desparate, don't you think? Again, this is your post, you are trying to defend an idea (really badly) and now you want to change the subject because you smell your britches burnin.

But this laffer…

"As for your view that the laws of the land must be based in some archaic book...NONSENSE."

…demonstrates a complete lack of self-reflection. You are saying that the fickle goop between your ears is superior to the archaic book. Good thinkin.

You see Robert, I don't have to paint you into a subjective corner, because that is the only address you have. You have you, your feelings, and you.

That's all.

There is nothing more subjective. There is nothing more transient.

And here is where your own words once again accuse you more loudly than anything I could say.

"It was only buy the mechanics of our Constitution that the amendment passed."

Was it wrong before the government said it was wrong?

Jason

ricbooth said...

I think 13th amendment was abolishing slavery ... not to be confused with equality. Jim Crow Laws, Civil Rights Act, laws banning interracial marriages, etc reflected the morality of the majority.

SirRobert said...

I know what the quote says and I know what it means to me. what does it mean to YOU?

You are very good at taking down people who try to make a stand. But, you rarely take one yourself.

You are saying that the fickle goop between your ears is superior to the archaic book.

Yes I am! Especially when it comes to treatment of children and women and my fellow man!

Was it wrong before the government said it was wrong?

Of course it was but there were those that used the Bible to defend its institution. The Book you claim to be the one, the only, the true book of morality. I have news for you; yours is just yet another interpretation of a dated and dusty book. While it may be accurate to the intent of its writers...that don't make it the one and only way!

Was it wrong before the government said it was wrong?

I'll ask YOU another question is something Good or Evil because the God you bend your knee to says it is or does goodness or evil exist independently of Him? The Greeks were dealing with this issue long before Paul; and there is still argumentation still going on today. You telling me that you have this all figured out?

SirRobert said...

I think 13th amendment was abolishing slavery

Yes and if left to a pure popular vote do you think it would have passed?

Would you have left its fate to the whim of the majority?

R.

Anonymous said...

Other points of yours are worth addressing.

"all citizens deserve equal protection under the law of a state"

Oh, you just GOTTA explain how that applies.

"The state should no more ENDORSE gay marriage than it should heterosexual marriage"

Have you read your own post? It's as if your defensiveness in the matter has detatched your now-brain from your when-you-posted-brain.

"I also don't give a damned what the founders think of our morals today THEY ARE DEAD!"

Again, like a brain fog between you and literally hundreds of apopoplectic gestures to a bunch of dead guys made by you. Your sudden disowning of them is convenient to the point of disengenous. And once again you prove my point by disowning them, but then quoting them.

-The only parallel with the pro-life matter here is your happy ignorance with regards to what is actually going on in the trenches of both of these issues.

"second class citizenship those that ARE here"

This has no meaning. Every one is exactly the same in this matter, again, the only distinguishing concept is feelings. Second class citizenship based on feelings? Think.

"Traditional Morality....my ASS!!! Where father knows best, where women were barefoot pregnant and most of importantly...silent? You can have it."

Again, with the selectivity. Is this really how you think everyone lived? No, of course not. It is a convenient picture to paint for a person who has run out of ideas.

Lastly, remember that the actual application of "Traditional Morality" within your own life is the very thing that you got so hurt over just last week. Last week you were nine shades of defensive over what is most certain a reflection of traditional morality in your own family, in your own calling as a father. Now it's your ass?

Really?

Robert, you don't know what you believe.

SirRobert said...

I said, "all citizens deserve equal protection under the law of a state"

You said : Oh, you just GOTTA explain how that applies.

The myth of America; That's what I believe in. All people equal in the eyes of the law. What aren't you getting here? I don't care if gay marriage get's your knickers, or even your God's for that matter. That's irrelevant in a secular society.

I said: "The state should no more ENDORSE gay marriage than it should heterosexual marriage"

I admit endorse is the wrong word. What I mean is the state should not be pronouncing judgment as to the moral standing in a religious context of one relationship over another.

I said "I also don't give a damned what the founders think of our morals today THEY ARE DEAD!"

You said: Your sudden disowning of them is convenient to the point of disengenous. And once again you prove my point by disowning them, but then quoting them.

Is everything all or nothing with you?

I very much admire the founders for the ideal they tried to create...in no way did these men fully live up to that ideal. Jefferson was a slave-holder who wanted to be free. Ummmmm...huh?

America is a study in dichotomy and double-speak!

AGAIN, I am a believer in the myth of America....that which we aspire to be. I honor the founders for their vision and I accuse them for not putting it fully into practice.

I said: "Traditional Morality....my ASS!!! Where father knows best, where women were barefoot pregnant and most of importantly...silent?

You said: Is this really how you think everyone lived?

I'd be willing to bet that's how many lived, and how many would like things to be again today. I have heard such from many who proclaim themselves as Christ-followers... some of them even female.

R.

Anonymous said...

Robert, you brought the quote up! Now you can't find the fortitude to explain why you did so in the first place?!

"Especially when it comes to treatment of children"

Really? I thought you said not to go there. So let's go there, with the Bible in hand.

"Of course it was but there were those that used the Bible to defend its institution. The Book you claim to be the one, the only, the true book of morality."

This reasoning is completely garbled. Do you see the first "but"? With what are you making a contrast? These two thoughts are only connected by one word: slavery. But, there's that "but" as if your logic in the matter speaks for itself.

You need a few propostitional steps between these two clauses

And if you want to go where bad people go with ideas, we could revist your own variety of meaninglessness it's accompanying thin faith structures, and see how it faired in Berlin, Moscow, and Peking. I'll give you a hint, it faired exactly as horribly as Nietzsche thought it would.

"yours is just yet another interpretation of a dated and dusty book. While it may be accurate to the intent of its writers...that don't make it the one and only way!"

I don't think that this is garbled, although most of this is such a mess I'm not sure. But if I am understanding you, you are actually defending interpretations, the same interpretations your rightly decry just above. hmm.

Robert, are you really defending the postmoderns and their spineless view of language? Or are you defending those who saw the Bible as an endorsement of treating someone of another race as less than human?

Do you know which side of this you are on? An emergent-style suspicion of words and intentions and having-a-point would suit your self-centeredness in the matter, but you have always put way too much stock in words meaning something to suddenly, only to now conveniently decide that they mean nothing, or are wide open for reasonable interpretation.

Jason

SirRobert said...

Man... we could just do this all day couldn't we?

We are too alike and too different to co-exist in the existential plane.

Were we to actually meet there might be a an explosion like that of the meeting of matter and anti-matter.

R

ricbooth said...

Robert,

Its a little weird having this side conversation while all these exclamation marks and uppercase letters are flying back and forth.

I guess my point is it (13th ammendment or any since for that matter) passed by a majority in the senate and house and was ratified by the required number of states (how many is that?). the politicians were voted in by a majority, etc... It did take a couple of centuries and several failed attempts at legislation and a war.

I guess you're asking if I think the majority of the people would have passed it in 1865... I don't know. Certainly not in Mississippi ;)

SirRobert said...

You said But, there's that "but" as if your logic in the matter speaks for itself.

The unstated reference was to my later question; Does good and evil exist independent of God?

You said: you are actually defending interpretations, the same interpretations your rightly decry just above

Well some forward looking individuals used the Bible to agitate for abolition. Those were beneficial interpretations of scripture from a general societal view point. Though the Southern states would found them decidedly detrimental. Who was right?

Most Biblical interpretations generally stem from a preconceived idea. Wouldn't you say?

R.

SirRobert said...

Ric

This actually forced me tolook up the process:

To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

Wow! So amending the Constitution is quite nicely isolated from the 'mob'.

The founders really were geniuses.

R.

Anonymous said...

“What I mean is the state should not be pronouncing judgment as to the moral standing in a religious context of one relationship over another.”

I’m not sure what you didn’t understand about reading your own post. “Religious context.” what? You are trying to back door concepts again so that you can revise what you said and reframe it in a way which doesn’t resemble at all what you first said. You do this a lot.

“I'd be willing to bet that's how many lived, and how many would like things to be again today. I have heard such from many who proclaim themselves as Christ-followers... some of them even female.”

There you go! Proof! Sample size of Robert and the people he talks to, clearly a statistically significant sample. A cursory look at history indicates that your tin-foil-hat view of Christian morality is as selective and subjective as nearly everything else you have said to this point.

Every concept can and has been abused. The fact that ideas have been misused says nothing about the ideas themselves, it only speaks to the fact that people suck, and your constant citation of abuses, without addressing the missuses and abiblical ideas behind them is part of the problem.

“Is everything all or nothing with you?”

Robert it isn’t just an issue of finding what you like and leaving the rest. When you want to talk high-minded and moral you vaguely cite the founding fathers and the constitution, as if you are crossing yourself while passing the dead (actually that is exactly what you are doing) but then when the rubber meets the road, you equivocate in the matter. You dodge your purported love of our heritage when the crap hits the rhetorical fan almost every time.

“America is a study in dichotomy and double-speak!”

Stop talking about this like it is a Petrie dish. You are making real time assertions about leveraging real influence in order to bring about real time civic changes. And you cite ‘rights’ as the basis for doing so. This is not an angels on the head of a pin question, your listless aphorisms indicate only that your highmindedness has yet to meet the quickly moving, hot pavement below – that “rights” is a meaningless concept to you. A study in double speak…you can be certain I’m going to hold that batch of idiocy over your head a lot.

"all citizens deserve equal protection under the law of a state"

My issue with this is that it does not go towards explaining how it could possibly apply HERE. You are saying this in a context. From what are those homosexuals who want to be “married” being protected and how is there an inequity. Laws are specific – you are not. These ideas have real world applications, what do those words mean.

“The unstated reference was to my later question;”

O, welcome to revisionism island, I am Mr. Rourke, your host. Let me say it again, the two propostions do not follow. It doesn’t matter if you did an interpretive dance sequence later, they still are incongruent.

“Most Biblical interpretations generally stem from a preconceived idea.”

Actually I would say that ALL communication is based on a preconceived idea, it is called context, and it is the clear concept which eludes most Christians completely. And there is no way to contextually, honestly to come away from the bible with an idea that slavery is endorsed by God. Saying THAT people did it pointedly avoids their exegesis in ariving at such a reading.

And in the context of slavery and its abolition, the reasoning on the matter had very little to do with, as you put it, “general societal view point.” Their reasoning was based, primarily, in the fact that people are made in the image of God, that they have inate value. This obviously goes towards the issue of “rights”. In the world that you want, the state distributes rights as they see fit. However the political or cultural wind may be blowing is how “rights” are to be applied. But rights do not come from other people, they come from the creator. There is no philosophical way around this.

So, you say that the 13th amendment righted a wrong. What made it wrong?

“I'll ask YOU another question is something Good or Evil because the God you bend your knee to says it is or does goodness or evil exist independently of Him?”

Since you’re doing everything you can to change the subject and move on, presumably you have given up on defending your moral moorings.

I think I understand what you are trying to ask, but since you are asking it you also must know that it is falsely dichotomous. There doesn’t have to be an ‘or’ in there.

God is good and says what is good. God understands evil because he knows what happens apart from his goodness.

You recognize basic goodness. You know it when you see it. Of course that gets gravely distorted in those who have given themselves to that which they know to be wrong. We have all experienced this in one form or another. We know that we are doing something wrong, we know that it is a bad idea, but we do it anyway, determining to resist the one in whose image we are made, determining our individuality, our own minigod. For instance, your healthy reluctance in matters of abortion is not able to squelch your view that “personal freedom” (read: sexual and lifestyle conveniece) must be the prime motivator in this debate. You turn your head, hoping to avoid the image of our own modern child sacrifice to the god of personal freedom burned into your retina forever. You don’t want to see, because you know it is wrong. But that doesn’t stop you from asserting that it is right. You recognize goodness, but you choose otherwise, showing that you would rather be god than do what is right.

Another example is the death of a loved one. Even the most vibrant Christian – knowing that the loved one is at the foot of Christ, infinitely happy to be in a completely selfless state, aware of nothing but him and his beauty - experiences loss. Why should such a think be? I say because death is just not the way it’s supposed to be. We know that death is evil, and we recoil at it. We are designed and our image reflects our inate push to relationship with others who also bear the imago dei, and as Christ cried out on the Cross, mourning a loss which he had never experienced, he demonstrated the complete version of what we experience greatly, greatly smaller when one we love dies. We recoil at the evil of it. But we still know it.

Anyway, this is a lot, lot, loooooooooooot, longer than this, and I’m sure that it will fire you up, which is great –

but know that these things have interpersonal application. These things have application in everything that we are. You ask:

You telling me that you have this all figured out?

No, my goodness sakes, I do not have it figured out. I do however, by no virtue or determination or activity of my own, have a great and glorious something - instead of absolutely nothing.

s'later

Jason

Indian Lake Papa said...

Greetings Robert! You created a storm here! :o) Some kind of lost their Christian composure! It is probably one of the most controversial subjects in the USA. A few years ago the state of Michigan put the marriage issue on the ballot. there was a petition circulated that put it on the ballot. They needed over 300,000 signatures, There was over 400,000 I believe. I obtained 200 signatures myself and my daughter did the same. We did not rant and rave, we put our beliefs into action, and the ballot vote went the way we were praying for. Not a lot of rhetoric - just followed the legal steps. Anyways that's how papa handled it. Have a great day, I may not agree the same as you, but I appreciate your perspective on the issues - makes this old man think and I take what you say seriously. Have a great day.

SirRobert said...

Papa

I'm glad someone does....

:)

R.

Anonymous said...

yeah, papa's glad you feel strongly about...sumpthin.

Tam said...

papa - we did the same thing here out west. no fight, no mess, just did what we were allowed to, legally, and exercised our voice and right to do so. simple as that.

robert, you are just as passionate on this as i am from the other side. so i can understand where youre coming from in that respect.

you know i dont agree with same sex...anything, or abortion due to my standards and morals based on my beliefs and partly based on personal experience. and i can vote certain things in or out of law based on my freedom to do so...which i will continue to do. and in the end, as i believe, God will have the final say. in the meantime...it is His job and right to convict the hearts of man. while it is my job to live in a manner that is pleasing to Him (which admittedly, i do not always do) but i try like heck, and hopefully, prayerfully, my life can make a positive difference for anothers. time will tell...

Anonymous said...

I guess Jesus lost His 'Christian composure' on a number of occasions, huh?

What does 'Christian composure' look like anyway? Is it defined somewhere in scripture? Or is it miss-defined based on passages taken out of context?

Anonymous said...

What about just plain "Thus saith the Lord" As a reason for beliving something. There is NO reason for a believer to be wishy-washy where God has made it plain, and say "I believe, based on MY beliefs,as if it is somehow out of place to say what God has already said! Are we believers a bunch of wimps? Or do we entertain doubts about scripture's authority, to our shame and Satan's delight?

Christian said...

Ah... Satan's Delight. Best served with creme fraiche, although some have settled for heavy whipping cream. But remember, light on the the cinnamon my boy, light on the cinnamon!

Christian said...

1 Corinthians 13

Thus sayeth the Lord.

No, sorry.

Thus sayeth, Paul.

We get confused over this.

Anonymous said...

heh. heavy whipping, indeed.

"We get confused over this."

What's this "we" crap. You got a pet turd?

J

SirRobert said...

at least we can laugh....

no one is getting a pyre ready for the other! ;-)

...yet!

R.

Indian Lake Papa said...

Sometimes I think I laugh too much - but not so! Poor mama, sometimes I read the posts and comments and weep uncontrollably - even my own. Just too wimpy I guess. Not sure where it came from, but from my perspective God gave me the tender heart, at least I give Him the blame! LOL ! Keep the pyre on the shelf!

Anonymous said...

First time here; just passing through probably but I might be back.

Robert, love your thinking.

Jason, I'm a Christian who happens to be in a long-term, committed relationship with another woman [which would entail marriage if it were an option where I live]. I agree with you that ethics ultimately come from God, but I completely disagree with your blindness in regard to the interpretation of Scripture on this issue.

Robert's right: people have always interpreted Scripture according to their own contexts and "lenses." And those lenses are comprised of upbringing, experiences, and a variety of influences.

The vast majority of Christians in the 19th century U.S. didn't have the enlightened view of Scripture you have regarding slavery.

Is it possible that people a generation or two from now will also view the issue of homosexuality with this same benefit of hindsight and conclude that people of the early 21st century were really off base on the issue, despite their sincerity, just as do now with people in the 19th century?


Love wins.

SirRobert said...

uh oh!

SirRobert said...

@anonymous

I appreciate your thoughts and your solidarity.

But you may have really 'stepped in it' now!

Looking frightfully over his shoulder towards Gloucester!

R.

1godsgal said...

How about over your shoulder towards Medford?????

Anonymous...while I appreciate that you may have serious blinders on in dealing with this issue, the Bible is quite clear, as well as God about homosexual relationships.

Romans 1:26-27 “For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for the unnatural ones, and like wise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. He committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Not much confusion or debate here. The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality as sin. In the Romans passage above, it’s even indicated that homosexuality is a form of punishment for itself.

Leviticus 18:22 “You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.”

Leviticus 20:13 “If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.”

Before anyone starts spewing about the Old Testament scripture, and that we need to heed everything then and stone adulterers etc., just note that the condemnation of homosexuality is found in the New Testament as well….so the case is made without even mentioning Leviticus.

Furthermore, Hebrews 13:4 states: “Marriage must be honored among all and the marriage bed kept undefiled, for God will judge sexually immoral people and adulterers.” Outside of marriage, sex is prohibited. So then we get to “If two homosexuals are ‘married’ then that permits their union….uh…no

When God created a suitable mate, he did not create another man…if he found that suitable I think He coulda done it…..”That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his WIFE, and they become a new family.” Genesis 2:24

Ephesians 5:22-23 explains the relationship between a man and a woman in terms of the relationship between Christ and the Church, even quoting Genesis 2:24. God hold the marriage relationship to be very important. If the Bible (which it does) speaks of marriage as between a man and a woman, (which it does) and sex as being ok only as part of a marriage (which it does) then homosexuality is not condoned by God.

SirRobert said...

Deb

I wasn't expecting you to chime in. ;-)

Welcome as always.... even though we disagree! :-)

R.

1godsgal said...

I know, but you'll come around =)

SirRobert said...

Your confidence is noble...

...but i wouldn't hold my breath! ;-)

R.

1godsgal said...

LOL....isn't that being close minded? hmmmm

Anonymous said...

It's OK. Anonymous doesn't find it fitting to explain - just to say that...umm, presumably she..does.

It would be worthwhile to engage the matter, but I don't think that it is going to happen.

Jason

SirRobert said...

@Deb

It's not terribly close-minded. It is a confidence in the strength of my 1st initial principle we spoke of. There IS the possibility that SOMETHING could crack that rather tough standard. If anyone could manage that I think we both agree it's the almighty! ;-)

R.

1godsgal said...

And we agree once again!!!! Coolness...have a good rest of the weekend friend...

=)

b4d6uy said...

wait a minute. Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since 2004 and that's the same year that they started reversing the flag.

WTF!?!

SirRobert said...

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! He is of no consequence!