Except they are have been real times Govt cracked down on religious rights, and also, trhe issues of abortion and same sex marriages were already decided by GOD as sinful and evil prac tices, who are we to disoby Him?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should the government prohibit same-sex marriage?
- Thread starter Felipe Rios
- Start date
Would you have wanted anything to do with Jefferson when he proposed treason?
Then stand with us who work to protect religious liberty for all.
No one is forcing you to have an abortion or marry someone of the same gender, so you cannot claim that the government is forcing you to sin.
Stand with us who are prophets to our culture, advocates for pro-life positions (not just anti-abortion) and for sexual purity and restoration from sexual sin.
When he and the other Founders rebelled against England? I don't know. It would be quite arrogant of me to assert what I would do during a historical age without understanding the nuances of the situation.
I may well have been a captive of my culture and rebelled against England, and then later rebelled against the United States like my ancestors did during the Revolution and the Civil War, but I would hope to be led by Christ to assess the situation and know His guidance.
Then apparently you think it is optional to believe Romans 13, which says there is no power but that of God, and he who resists the power will receive to himself damnation. Do you believe that or do you disbelieve it?
I believe Paul's view in Romans 13, but I don't believe your interpretation of Romans 13:1-2 out of its context.
Let's look at the relevant part of Romans 13:
13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Paul sets up the general principle that human kingdoms are part of God's current order for a fallen world. Then he moves on to explain the nature of the kingdoms that are part of God's current order:
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
As we can clearly see, the kingdoms that are supported by God are kingdoms that promote human flourishing, that praise righteous behavior and punish evil with the power of the sword. Kingdoms like that are ministers of God to control evil.
So it is absolutely can be the right thing to do to resist a government that is characterized by evil. For instance, it was right for Christians to undermine and resist the evil of the Third Reich, and many other totalitarian genocidal governments of the last 100 years. The exact way of doing so can be as gentle as a prophetic word to the government decision-makers all the way to the complete overthrow of a government that is perpetuating evil and punishing righteousness. That is where we need to be mindful of what Jesus leads us to do in that situation.
My point is that in the sight of God, those 2 things are abominations, and the Governemtn should be on the side of god, and not Satan on those issues!
The ramer sof the US Constitution themselves though made provisions to have an insurrection if for example the govt bacame now a monarchy!
Since the power of the government is the power of the sword (that is, denial of property -- fines and/or seizure, force, imprisonment, execution), what should the government do about it?
Sounds like you should petition for laws to make abortion illegal and provide for those women who become pregnant and need assistance in order to put their children up for adoption. I would agree with that.
Regarding persons who experience same-sex attraction, what do you propose doing about that?
Not legalozing it as acceptable behavior for a wedding to happen!
Please give me an example of a "provision" made by the framers in our laws for insurrection. At this moment, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please think about the definition of insurrection. Insurrection would be an overthrow of any legal provisions.
How does that prevent sin?
Have you also considered that marriage, even same-sex marriage, is better than promiscuity and brings more stability to society?
The framers gave provosion for the people to have and revolution and overthrew tryanny, such as a monarchy being adopted here...
Again, name that "provision" made in the laws or constitution of the United States.
Actually was in the preamble, as they appealed to by Natural law God gave to all certain rights, and that if any goverment sought to impose or restrict those rights, were free to rebel and overthrew that government! The very basis of the American revolution...
Last edited:
Okay, so you are referring to the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, not a legal provision of the Constitution that forms the United States government. So it is not correct at all to say that the Framers of the Constitution made provisions for insurrection.
Now, to your point:
Let's look at the opening text of the Declaration:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
There's a lot going on here, but Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration are saying that if they are going to take such an extreme action to separate from England, they must have some good reasons to do it. And if we read the Declaration all the way to the end, we will see what those reasons are.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
They make a foundational assertion, formed by both a Christian worldview and Enlightenment philosophy, that all [free] persons are created equal and have inherent rights bestowed on them by God. No human authority or government has the right to impose upon these fundamental freedoms of life, liberty, and the right to pursue human flourishing. The "pursuit of Happiness" has been gravely distorted by many, but at its heart is the enlightenment belief that human beings have the right to set their individual course in life -- to pursue the satisfaction of their soul -- as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. There is some Christian truth mixed up in that, but it is an optimistic idea that does not fully take into account the effects of sin in this fallen world.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
They assert that ordinary people, the ones the Creator has made, must provide consent to human governments for them to be legitimate. It is a refutation of monarchies, dictatorships, and any totalitarian government.
— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
They assert that if government undermines or destroys the fundamental liberties of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or the consent of the government, the people have the right to alter or abolish it, or even create a new government that will be more amenable to the fundamental liberties previously stated.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
They note that altering, abolishing and creating a new government is NOT something to be done lightly, for it will produce enormous suffering and allow evil until the new government can fully assert its beneficial influence and power over society. Changing the government is a last resort after trying everything else.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Jefferson and the signers then turn their attention to what they describe as the Despotism of the King of English and his government, and assert that they have the right "to throw off such Government" and provide a new form of government that will preserve the inherent rights of humanity.
At that point, they get specific about a historical circumstance which is well beyond out discussion here.
So the Founding Fathers did give us an example (not provision) to follow. If the government forces people to lose their life, their liberty, their right of self-determination, or their voice in the affairs of government, insurrection can be considered as a last resort.
Do you think your grievances with abortion rights and same-sex marriage measure up to the standards of the Founding Fathers? More importantly, do they measure up to the standards of Romans 13?
Last edited:
Do you accept that the Founders did see that in extreme times, revolution was acceptable and needed?
In the specific case that produced the Declaration of Independence, they obviously believed that the situation was extreme. Obviously they saw revolution as acceptable and needed.
Why are you asking me if I believe that the signers of the Declaration actually believed what they wrote?
Please note, just because I believe them doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them. I'm just taking them at their word.
Judges should take them at their word, and not put their own desired results into the equation!
What in the world are you talking about?
What "judges?"
What "desired results?"
Has the conversation somehow suddenly spun back to the Supreme Court Justices deciding on same-sex marriages? If so, whose "word" are they taking and what "desired results" are you talking about?