Speaking for myself, I find the concept of homosexuality to be absurd and disturbing. I am of the opinion that it is a route taken by those who have certain relationship problems/emotion-development abnormalities that arise from environment. An environment that develops and encourages this abnormality will necessarily change abnormality to a seeming "normality" over time. We've seen that happen over the past 60 years, and very little has been done to correct it.
Let me say this, it is not normal. It is unobserved in nature, pseudo-scientific, ephemeral observations to the contrary notwithstanding. It is pointless, non-productive, and, frankly, disgusting.
Now, as for homosexual unions being called marriage, the idea is preposterous. Marriage is a specific institution, long defined by the Bible and affirmed by a cultural lineage from which I, for one, descend.
Children play "house." Do they really run a household while playing house? Of course not. It is not really a house, and they are not truly fulfilling any supposed role in the course of the role-playing game. The concept of the household is just pretend, not to be taken seriously by adults who understand what a household is and how it is run, no matter how well the children imitate the adults. The game is usually over after a few minutes.
(Unless you've got the industrious kid who invents invisible currency or improvises barter and starts a business in the next room selling canned goods and toy cars, which wouldn't be successful, of course; there is no government in the game to make it so. <--- Comic relief.)
The same situation occurs when homosexuals pretend to be married. They all groan and whine about us not accepting them, the government won't legitimize them, and so on. We throw them pacifiers with, "Well, I don't care what you do in private," which is true for me... unless I have to talk to one. You see, I'm both a Christian and a normally functioning individual. I have a normal understanding of life and a normal perspective on its ins and outs - culturally, emotionally, and historically speaking.
I don't want to have anything to do with homosexuals. Convince me why I should, if you think I am wrong. Why would I want to have a conversation with a person who thinks those kinds of thoughts? I don't even want to write about it. I believe they have a right to engage in whatever sinful activities they wish, but I will continue to warn them, the wages of sin is death.
Having the right doesn't mean it is right, and because something is wrong doesn't mean we should disallow them. God will be the Judge, He sees and knows all of our hearts better than we ourselves do.
I differ from many Christians in that I don't want the government to influence culture, even for the better; that is the place of the church, and transferring authority from the church to the government is not a scripture-endorsed policy. I will fight tooth and nail for what is right in the Eyes of God, but I will do everything in my power to ensure the government is not involved in the process.
By adjusting the government to enforce my morality (instead of limiting it to constitutional powers only), I endanger my rights to my own life by legitimizing that illegitimate authority, and I weaken the power granted by God to the church and its individual members. Government banning gay marriage is not a conservative position. Getting government out of the institution of marriage and returning its regulation to the church is the only consistent stance we can take, in my opinion.
I don't want a government "in the bedroom" or the kitchen or living
room, or anywhere else that I am making a decision about how I spend my
time and with whom, just so long as they protect my and everyone's right
to live my life as I see fit.
And I see fit to live my life for God, failings though I may have; I see fit to live my life with a sense of reason, lapses though there may be; I see fit to live my life respectful of others, wrong though they may sometimes be; I see fit to live peaceably, malicious as the world may be at times.
And finally, friends, I close with the question at the heart of this post. I ask you, what on earth does this subject have to do with chicken sandwiches?
16 comments:
I honestly understand what you are saying here, but every law is a legislation of some sort of morality and laws can and do change hearts and attitudes. It usually takes some time, but if X is illegal, people tend to view it as bad, because it's against the law. If you change the law and make X legal, after a while, people begin to think it's good because it's now legal. I agree that government shouldn't dictate personal standards, but they can't avoid legislating morality. The question is whose morality are they going to legislate? You have to have laws, and the church doesn't make the laws. Sometimes a law is just there to keep people from being as bad as they could be.
Understood.
It is your contention, then, that using the government to set the standard of morality is how Christians should go about changing the culture.
I take the point of view that it is the church, as a corporate entity and as individuals, who should change the culture.
It is not the place of government, biblically, constitutionally, or logically speaking, to change hearts and attitudes; that is the place of God and His people.
This attitude, in proper measure across the country, would reduce homosexuality far more effectively and in a more principled manner than by force of government.
Christians lose credibility when we don't get our way (as the world would see it), and then we call on government to force others to comply with God's Word pertaining to personal matters.
Government coercion is a tactic of evildoers, and it will be our nation's ruin.
God's Word is not compulsive, but it is absolute. Society should be shaped by the church, and any obstacle in our way must be overcome by the Word of God, not the dictate of the state.
Sorry to double-post, but I have a question.
"... But every law is a legislation of some sort of morality..."
Whose morality is enforced with Obamacare?
The liberal thought that health care is a right and that it is wrong to make people pay for it. (Or that it's a moral right for people to have it)
I'm not saying that government is how Christians should influence the culture, but that government should not begin repealing or changing laws that outlaw immoral behavior (homosexuality, polygamy, prostitution, etc). We shouldn't look to government to replace the church, but the government can't take an a-moral stance on things.
Actually, Obamacare is going to force people to pay for something they otherwise wouldn't. Everyone must have insurance or pay an annual penalty to the federal government.
It also heavily regulates the policies and income of insurance companies.
Assuming, however, that it is about taking from those who have and giving to those who don't, what would be wrong with that?
Did Jesus tell us to give to the poor? What is wrong with welfare?
Besides, there is no law against homosexuality (that I'm aware of), and I support disallowing any level of government to recognize homosexuals playing house as "marriage."
Further, I would like to work toward disallowing the state to regulate or have any form of control over actual marriage, as that is the purview of the church and family.
I was also curious about one other statement in your post.
"I don't want the government to influence culture, even for the better"
How can you keep government from influencing culture? I don't think it's possible.
And though I'm not in favor of using the government to legislate religion, how do you propose that the church keep the whole country moral? Not everyone who hears the gospel is going to get saved, and not everyone who is instructed by the church is going to reform. Sometimes you need government to restrain bad behavior in order to keep a society from falling apart.
Oh, forgot to answer your other question. There is nothing wrong with giving to the poor, and Jesus did tell us to give to the poor. However, he never said that we should rob the rich to give to the poor. It was to be done through your own desire to help, not through someone forcing you to help. I don't recall Jesus telling the disciples to go through the country and plunder rich people so that they could give to the poor.
And government is doing such a good job with that!
Actually, the church once did influence the entire country, and it was only in the last fifty years that it became almost completely complacent about affecting the culture, because that was once the expectation of the church.
You are right to assume the church is not the end-all solution to the problem of immorality. But neither is government. There will be immorality until the world ends, and the Bible is very clear on that point. But it is also clear what His intention is to curb it.
Now, as far as government not influencing culture? It is the culture which defines the government. Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. People empower the state. You don't start civilization with the state, the state is a product of society.
And, I can't stress this too much, I am not an anarchist. I believe government is 100% necessary for a safe and free society. But its purpose is to protect private property, protect commerce, and create an environment that facilitates advancement in society.
That is a big job, but despite the great and necessary duties to perform, the scope of government should be limited to specific things, as was done in the U.S. Constitution.
Remember, the men who populate the offices of government come from the very culture which put them there.
Now, you say the Bible doesn't say to rob from the rich to give to the poor... that it should be of your own volition?
1. Is taxation plunder?
2. If government mustn't remain morally neutral on anything, why should they let rich people keep all that money (the love of which is the root of all evil), when there are starving people in America and throughout the world?
3. If people are supposed to do the right thing out of their own free will, and not through coercion, how is that congruent with anything else you have hitherto said?
If we're talking about legislating morality, why not legislate morality in this case?
I ask these questions to understand the principles behind your philosophy, as opposed to it simply being a knee-jerk policy of "problem-reaction-solution" statism.
I believe you asked about what Jesus said about helping the poor, and I answered by saying that I don't recall Jesus telling people to rob the rich to do it.
Taxation isn't always plunder. In some cases, like paying income to government officials, taxation is necessary. Who pays the government? Who is their boss? That's us, and if we elect them, we need to pay them. (Yet another argument for small government) I don't think they should vote themselves outrageous pay raises, but some taxes are necessary for things such as that. When they become used for abortion, Obamacare, education we don't agree with and so on, then it does seem like an unfair tax.
The love of money is the root of evil, not money itself. A dollar bill is amoral, but can be used for good or bad. If they government plundered the rich to give to the poor, that would be an immoral situation. They would be robbing people of rightly-earned money and I don't see that the Bible ever endorsed that.
Thirdly, I said that people should help the poor of their own free will. I do believe people should do right of their own free will, but do you want to repeal all laws on moral issues (murder, rape, theft) so that people obey of their own will? Would it be wise to withdraw all laws restraining bad behavior so that people obey because they want to?
I guess I should change that last line to say "so that people do good because they want to". If there are no laws, there isn't anything to obey. :)
Murder is the violation of one's right to live.
Rape is the violation of one's right to their own body.
Theft is the violation of one's right to their own property.
Laws are rightly made against these things, because the primary purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens.
Whose rights are violated by, for example, drinking alcoholic beverages?
Are not the rights to life and property given by God and understood by the common "Moral Law"? They are very much moral issues. Muslims don't believe that non-Muslims have a right to life, but anyone knows that they are wrong based on the Moral Law. People might not call it that, but it's what it is. It's a moral kind of common sense.
Legislating against murder is very much legislating morality, but it's a morality common to all men.
You are 100% right. Our rights are God-given, and you can look at it as moral law if you want; but you are also right that it is common sense (a term used by the founders of this country, including the agnostic/atheist Thomas Paine).
If we legitimize morality as the purview of government, as opposed to common sense, Islamic Sharia law should be considered a viable and legitimate (albeit different) form of government.
If, however, we allow government only to legislate from a strict, inclusive standard of common sense, the purview of which is restricted to life, liberty and property, government may only be beneficial, and never or rarely usurp and tyrannize their people with their own morality.
Honor killings are moral in Islam and Islamic countries. They are, however, not right. If murderers are protected under a moral law, the system which legitimizes it is wrong.
Common sense is common sense, and it is almost universal. Morality, however, is up for interpretation and may change with administrations, upheavals, revolutions, false gods, antichrists, and shifts in attitudes.
Look at how many people who claim to be Christians will tell you abortion is okay.
But it doesn't make common sense.
A free society requires a truly moral people, otherwise it will cease to exist. A free society also requires a non-interventionist government who will not punish people based on their thoughts, opinions, or their own private, personal activities.
The horrors of Catholicism, Geneva, Nazism, or any other state religion are lessons to me, if no one else, what authorizing government with the duty of legislating morality will mean.
You cannot expect to whip a society into a moral framework with more government. Not only is the government instituted by the people, but it is administrated by men of the people's choosing.
Let the church do its job, force the parents to raise their own children, let individuals be responsible, and let society look to God, not the state, as the ultimate authority.
At this point, all I can say is that I totally understand what you're saying, but something still doesn't seem right and I'm not sure what it is.
I think the most confusing part has been that we are continually agreeing.
;)
Post a Comment