The misdirected in the Supreme Court. They have affirmed doom on this country

Just want to add a few more things on this subject:

I know that we as Baptists strongly believe in the seperation of church and state. But this is not a matter of the church pushing its values on the state.

This is a matter of keeping protecting society and keeping some resemblance of order.

Hear me out. I love the Word of God but I can prove my case for this without ever quoting from God's law regarding homosexual behavior.

It should not be underappreciated that 3 of the 6 judges vehemently opposed this ruling, these are three very intelligent, well read individuals who understand the Constitution and the ramifications of this ruling(they are not Bible thumping fundamentalists as some you would like to call them).

So why would three, very intelligent, well read,
logical individuals vehamently oppose this ruling?

They are not even elected officials so they don't have to be worried about being voted out of office.

Here maybe are some of the reasons:

If we say that it does not matter what consenting people do the privacy of their own homes - then how can we outlaw drugs that are used in the privacy of their own homes?

Everyone on both sides(including the Justices) know that this will lead to homosexuals fighting for homosexual marriage, adoption and other special rights.

If we say two men can marry, why not three? Can't three men or two men and one women marry eachother? Why not 5 - 3 men and 2 women?

You see when you say marriage is not strictly a sacred union between a man and women then how can you draw the line anywhere? It is a matter of logic.

Next we will have homosexuals fighting to be openly gay and be school teachers who teach and influence our children. They will even fight to teach in Christian schools and be members of churches and if we refuse them they will say we are biggots and go after churches and christian schools using hate laws.

It has been pointed out by Justices in both Texas and the Supreme court that this threatens to tear the fabric of our society apart.

IFBReformer

 

One more post:

This is a hot subject to me especially because I have a close relative who is a homosexual - he has been living with his "partner" for 3 years.

I have told him that I love him but I hate his sin and pray for him.

I want to clearify something which may actually bring me into disagreement with my conservative brethren.

I don't think big brother should be coming into our homes - but I think the anti-sodomy laws are good.

Here is the reason - the anti-sodomy laws say that we as society do not approve of or condone this behavior - but we don't need to break down the doors of peoples homes.

If we take away the anti-sodomy laws that is akin to approving and condoning the homosexual lifestyle as a legitamate one and it gets the ball really rolling on homosexual rights.

That is my biggest beef with this.

IFBReformer

 

But that's just it - some people's doors are being bust in on. That's part of the issue of the Lawrence case. If it's not something we're going to enforce, or think should be enforced, it shouldn't be illegal.

By the by, if anyone honestly thinks that this ruling is going to make more people start engaging in sodomy or pre-marital sex, you've really been living under a bushel. The fact that there have been laws against it really doesn't stop it from happening. I've never heard anyone stress out over whether or not to have sex because it might be illegal for them to do so. Really.

It's the principle of the thing.

 

IFBReformer,

I have been serving a church with a large contingent of gay and lesbian members for three years. I can say with absolute confidence that one's sexual orientation is in no way an indicator of one's suitability to teach school, adopt children, be in a healthy relationship, etc.

The only arguments against homosexuality are that some people think it's icky and some people think God doesn't like it. Personally, I think fundamentalism is icky and that God doesn't like it. Consequently, in a theocracy, if I could get enough people to agree with me we could make fundamentalism illegal.

Fortunately, we live in a society that does not allow theology or "ickiness" to determine what is legal or illegal. (As many people have pointed out, Saudi Arabia is the perfect example of a place where theology and cultural prejudices determine the laws.)

Joshua

 

Sorry...

If you're not fundamentally sound in the things that you do and believe, there is no foundation to build upon. No foundation, no building. All your efforts are in vain. You go down the wrong path.

 

Ahh...Joshua? Isn't a theocracy by nature "fundamentalist"?

 

As I was saying...

 

James - "Fundamentally sound" and fundamentalism are not synonymous.

Mike - Good point, but you could have a liberal theocracy as well (imagine if the UCC ran the country - something that even I probably wouldn't like. )

Joshua

 

Well, if you knew the first thing about our world, you'd know that Saskatchewan is a province in Canada. Additionally, we are saved by faith in Christ, not in which biblical tenets we agree with. Many of my Christian friends don't agree with each and every thing in the bible, although we all agree with the fundamentals.

That's not a logical argument; that's a biblical argument. As I implied earlier, I refuse to believe that God could make laws without a sound rational basis for them. Arbitrarity and irrationality is not the nature of a perfect being, and thus not the nature of our Lord. I believe that the ban on homosexuality was prescribed by people who had the same "icky" mentality as Joshua mentioned.

 

Joshua,

Let me say that at least the close relative that I have who is openly living in the homosexual lifestyle is honest enough to say that Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.

Thats why he rejects the Bible as the Word of God.

Romans 1:18-19 & 26-28(NIV)
"18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them...

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done."

So what part of Romans chapter 1 don't you understand? What part of "shameful lusts", "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones" and "indecent acts" don't you understand.

We as Christians can debate issues, and as Baptists we can as well. But in all honesty someone calling themselves a "gay-Christian" is like someone calling themselves a "muslim-jew".

You worship a different Christ than that of the Bible and you seek to have teachers tell you what your itching ears want to hear.

The clear fact is that you are living in open, defiant sin against God - and worst part is you try and call yourself a Christian.

I hope you will repent and turn to Christ.

IFBReformer

 

Okay. I put my 2 cents in earlier and I've kind of stood by the wayside to let others comment, BUT I just have to say something about this.

You are sitting there saying that scripture is not a logical argument. You are saying that God does not have the right to decide what is and is not a sin. You don't seem to understand that God, in His perfection, does not have to be logical to you. It is in His good pleasure that He decided what does and does not constitute sin. You are teaching heresy because you are claiming that the Bible is no longer sovereign, and that God's word is WRONG!!! For shame. I suppose the only scripture you will accept as the truth is in the Book of Brett.

You are interpreting scripture to fit your own definition. If God does not agree with you, then He must be wrong, right? I can only say that I'm glad that I won't be in your shoes when God decides to use the rod of chastisement on you. You are in for a whipping boy.

Now, I will not be posting to you anymore because I will not continue to argue with someone who claims to be a Christian, but who openly rejects the written word of God as being true.

 

IFBR - our disagreement about the nature of Jesus or the doctrine of salvation. That's why all the "get saved" and "get the Holy Spirit" and "you're not a real minister" rhetoric is more than a little absurd.

Our disagreement is about whether or not a particular behavior - within the context of a committed and exclusive relationship - is sinful. If I'm wrong, the "great" sin that my GLBT congregants will have committed under my leadership will have been to physically express their love for their partners. The world is in no way a worse place as a result.

My congregants will have still been taught that they - like all of us - are sinners in need of salvation by grace through the death of Jesus. They will still have been taught the importance of prayerfully studying the scriptures. They will still have been taught of our obligations as Christians to lead a separate and transformed life.

Christians have always disagreed about which behaviors are sinful - that doesn't make them any more or less saved. The classic example is the number of good Christians who supported the institution of slavery. They were wrong, and their support of such an evil system was unquestionably sinful. Yet they were still saved.

One of us is wrong here. That doesn't make either of us unsaved of un-Christian.

Joshua

 

I doubt that many adults base whether they will engage in consensual sexual relations with another based on whether specific acts are legal.

As for comparing homosexuals with rapists or pedophiles, there is a major difference between two adults consenting to an activity and an adult forcing sexual activity upon someone else without their consent.

I think it sets a dangerous precedent to have a "sex police" monitoring the behavior of consenting adults. We've all probably heard horror stories about Departments of Virtue in fundamentalist countries. I would much rather see all the energy and finances directed towards prevention of sexual abuse and rape.

 

Madelyn, from a legal perspective, you are correct. But, what about biblically? Do you think God considers one of these sins lesser than another? In human nature, we would usually think that the worst sin one could commit would be to kill another person. But, I would say that a sin against God is much greater than any sin we could commit against one another.

 

At least one of you.

That's correct. Fortunately we are not saved because of our theology.