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

I think the difference between us is that you believe that the bible was transcribed by God word for word, while I believe that it was inspired by God. The latter leaves room for the personal biases of its writers, while the former does not.

That said, I am not homosexual. I do not 'practice' what God has called an abomination. I simply think that the ban on homosexuality was a silly rule decreed by people with, admittedly, many of the same prejudices we do today. As I said before, God, who made both the rationality we use to guide our morals and decisions, and (according to you) the ban on homosexuality. Since I think the former conflicts with the latter, I give reason precedence, as I do not believe God would give us rules without a solid reason behind them. After all, why would you even worship such a God that would give rules out arbitrarily? In the end, I get the feeling that if it said in the bible that you had to jump off a bridge, you'd be the first in line.

 

I think the difference between us is that you believe that the bible was transcribed by God word for word, while I believe that it was inspired by God. The latter leaves room for the personal biases of its writers, while the former does not.
........[/QB][/QUOTE]

Dear Brett,
What I hear you saying is that the Bible DOES teach against homosexuality. But that makes no difference because the Bible is not authoritative. If it does not make sense to your reason, then reason is paramount. This seems to be a different line of approach than Rev. Joshua's, who seems to be saying likewise that the Bible is not direct revelation from God, but in any case, a proper understanding of what the Bible really says is that it is not against committed, monogamous, homosexual relationships.

There seems to be conflicting rationales here on WHY your viewpoint is held. Am I detecting a real difference here?

Karen

 

Because He is all-wise, all-knowing, and can do anything He pleases. He is God!!! Who on earth are you to question why He decides what He does? He is perfect in EVERYTHING that He does and says. He does everything according to the good pleasure of His will. The reason He "arbitrarily" makes laws for us to follow is because He is God and He has the right to do it.

Explain...what possible reason could there have been for Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of that tree in the garden? Solely because God told them not to. PERIOD. He doesn't have to check with you or anyone else before He makes a decision. God is NOT politically correct. He doesn't have to check with His "constituents" to see if a law makes sense with them before He decrees it.

BTW, if God told me to jump off a bridge, you better believe I would do it in a heartbeat.

Tell me, what logical reason was there for God to command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac unto Him? There is no logical reason. It was simply because God wanted it to be done.

I don't understand what kind of hope someone can have when they pick apart the bible and only believe what they want to believe out of it. Now THAT'S not logical.

 

I don't 'pick apart' the bible; in fact, the homosexuality tenet is one of the only (in fact, probably THE only) thing in the bible I do not agree with.

Perhaps that bridge example was too subtle. Pretend that God told you to kill all people with blue eyes. Would you obey? Remember, under your line of reasoning, a good reason for this is wholly unnecessary, as god has the sovereign right to do whatever He pleases.

Under my worldview, however, God has created a world in which morality is the result of rationality and the obvious beneficial impact of kindness and charity onto others. I don't understand how you think that any being, even God, can perform ANY action, and it will automatically be considered moral. Morality should depend on the virtue of the act, not the being who performs it. Such is a philosophy of moral nihilism, as nothing is inherently 'wrong'.

 

So who's right . . . you or God?

 

Under the Christian worldview, morality is the result the decrees of a righteous God. Your "rationality" blurb smacks of secular humanism. If morality depended on the virtue of the act, then morality would be subjective. Your secular humanism leaves you worse off than nihilism! Everything or nothing is right and everything or nothing is wrong! The Christian worldview says that the perfect, righteous, Almighty God who created everything has declared what is right and what is wrong, and cannot commit an immoral act because of His sinless, perfect, righteous, holy nature. These things are without error and are not up for debate!

 

Brett:

[sarcasm mode]
No doubt God is VERY happy that this is all you've found to question in His Word!
[/sarcasm mode]

I think that IF I were going to question God, I'd certainly pick some topic that was not so specifically addressed by Him!!

John Wells:

A very sobering question; if you are serious about who God is; and serving Him!

 

A hypothetical situation . . .

Religion X and their religous text The Holy Book of X believe that heterosexual sex is an abomination and use their political influence to pass a law making it illegal. Mary and Bob are charged with breaking this law and eventually their case reaches the Supreme Court which decides that the law is unconstitutional.

I would think that most posters would agree that the Supreme Court in this hypothetical situation made the correct choice.

 

just-want-peace, I already said that I believe the Bible is inspired, not dictated, by God. Thus, I do not 'disagree' with God on the subject, I simply believe that God himself did not decree that homosexuality is an 'abomination', as that law makes no sense. I believe that was a reflection of its writers' prejudices.

John Wells, I do admit that my views do resemble humanism in a way. However, I simply cannot understand how morality CANNOT depend on the virtue of the act. By contrast from your point, the belief that no act is immoral except under consideration of the actor's (?) identity is ridiculous - that is true moral nihilism.

Again, I ask you: if God told you to kill all blue-eyed people, would you obey? Surely, there is a point where rationality must take over? If God told me to do so, I would not believe it is him (probably Satan!!) simply because I know that God would never command something so ridiculous. What assurances do you have of that under your views?

 

Not sure where you got this from. It sure wasn't me!

I will take the assumption that I clearly know it IS GOD talking to me. God didn't tell Joshua to lead Israel to "kill all blue-eyed people," but God did tell Joshua to wipe out entire nations of people, men, women and children! I'm glad Joshua didn't resort to relativistic human reasoning (rationality) to second guess God! I hope I would be strong enough to trust God's sovereignty and perfect righteousness if He told me to do something similar!

Ditto!

 

Perhaps I don't quite understand what philosophy you have in regards to morality. Clearly, the bible must be our guide, and in the bible, it clearly states that many ACTIONS are forbidden. It is moral nihilism if you think that the actions aren't what determines morality, but the being that performs them. God would never go against his own prohibitions.

But Joshua was destroying people who were heathens, those who would go to hell and probably make their offspring go to hell as well. Killing blue eyed people is different, as it is utterly and completely inane and arbitrary. So am I correct in interpreting your post to mean that if God told you to kill all blue-eyed people, you would obey?

 

If there was no doubt it was God, yes! Are you making the stand that you would disobey God because you would determine His command to be in error, making Him no longer a perfect God? My God is incapable of error.

As you said, "God would never go against his own prohibitions."

 

Well, you're definitely entitled to your opinion, but it makes me uneasy to think that someone would kill all blue-eyed people for any reason, even if it was by God's decree. I too believe that God cannot make an error, but I believe the reason for that is because he is inherently virtuous, not because he has sovereign power. Sure, god cannot make an error, but what value is there in this if he cannot err by definition (he is God), rather than he is a wise and moral being?

Frankly, I find your willingness to abandon common sense troublesome. If God told me to kill blue-eyed people, and I knew it was God, then this would be a God I would no longer worship. Killing people because they have blue eyes is absolutely wrong in each and every case. But since I believe God is a rational and moral God, I am confident that He would not tell anyone to do such a thing.

By the way, I'm pleased that we're having such an interesting discussion.

 

Well, here we go, check this out:

Day after Supremes ruled, suit filed for same sex marriage. (No agenda here, folks!)

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/37224.htm

 

Brett, I broke down and assigned your response numbers so as to better address each point.

1. That was the question you put forth. Yes, it doesn’t appear to be consistent with the God of the Bible! But then, look at what God told Abraham to do! (Gen 22:1-19) Abraham, go and sacrifice your son Isaac on an alter of fire! This is in direct violation to Lev 18:21. Based on your attitude in # 5, you wouldn’t have obeyed like Abraham did. Now here is, I think, the biblical answer to your rather ludicrous question: If God told me to go and kill all blue-eyed people, I would start making preparations to carry out His command, thinking that one of two things are going to take place. Either God is testing my faithfulness like He did Abraham and will not allow me to follow through with the order, or at that moment in time all blue-eyed people are “heathens, those who would go to hell and probably make their offspring go to hell as well,” to quote you!

2. It’s not by definition, it’s by God’s character. May I suggest you read “The Knowledge Of The Holy” by A.W. Tozer.

3. God is His own self-existent principle of moral equity, and when He sentences evil men or rewards the rightous, He simply acts like Himself from within, uninfluenced by anything, that is not Himself.

4. Wow! You absolutely have been brainwashed by secular humanism!

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:20-21)

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” (1 Corinthians 3:19-20)

O LORD Almighty, blessed is the man who trusts in you. (Psalm 84:12) Something you aren’t always willing to do, apparently (# 5).

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil. (Proverbs 3:5-7)

“Common sense” is a good thing to have and use, but it is not to take precedence over godly wisdom!

5. See # 1.

6. You criticize the question that you proposed! But that’s OK, it’s been fun!
I do hope you will read the book I mentioned and seek guidance from a strong biblically based Christian on how to overcome your secular humanism worldview. You seem like a really nice person.

 

Purely from the perspective of Constitutional Law, the Supreme court clearly is in error here, but this is nothing new. Since the war of Northern Agression, the power of the US Federal Government has grown to the point the State government is now nothing more than a puppet state that hides the real amount of federal taxes we pay by being a middle man, with no real power because any time they want to flex their muscles, the feds threaten to take away funding, or use the Supreme court to change State Law. Clearly from a Constitiutional perspective, the ruling is absolutly ludicrous. As dumb, unenforceable, and useless as any law that attempts to regulate specific private behaviour is, Texas should have every right, through their legistative body to pass a law that a majority of their people feel is correct and right. Again, the Feds will use money and the supreme court to remove any law that does not conform to their current image of politically correct thought, and raw emotionalist crap.

I am not one who really is hot on Legislating morality, as a metter of fact, I vote, and that is about the extent of my political activism. The only other influence I feel obligated to have on the culture around me is one of Spiritual influence. I cannot save America by running for president and outlawing every vice that I think is sin, and putting people in jail for listening to CCM, but by prayer, and helping my church to be a place where God's name and reputation are being made famous in the community, I am helping to make a difference.

From a Christian perspective, the law in Texas being struck down makes little difference in my view. It was not be enforced anyway. The freedoms of consitutional law concern me, since the slippery slope continues, and this is more evidence of that, along with the freedoms we have already lost (necessarily or otherwise) because of the law changes brought on by 9/11. My concern is really not that texas no longer has a sodomy law, which in my view is not that much of a positive influence, but that the Supreme court relies more on public opinion, and culutural mores then they do on the law, specifically the constitution. I don't understand the outcry either, this is the exact outcome I expected.