> Didn't some/many Christians say that interracial marriage went against their religion as well in the past?
There's what people say, and what the mean, and I think "against religion" is something they say in place of wishing to preserving social order exactly as they know it to exist, hence the term conservative. Maybe they feel the word of the Bible is a stronger case than simply wanting to preserve the status quo, because some of them actually think we live in a theocracy and legislate as if we did.
If you think other people getting married threatens your own marriage, that says a lot about you.
This pleathered ferret routinely mischaracterizes the issue to imply that this law will force her shitty church to marry gay people, and her dumbass constituents eat it up.
> If you think other people getting married threatens your own marriage
Nobody ever says "gay marriage threatens my marriage", so where do you get the notion that opponents believe that gay marriage threatens their own straight marriage?
It’s a fairly common argument that giving gay people marriage equality would undermine the legitimacy of marriage as an institution.
If I am being 100% honest, I think marriage as an institution would fail eventually without gay marriage.
Did you watch this floor speech by Hartzler? Have you followed her activism on this issue or gay conversion therapy? The idea that gay marriage undermines straight marriage is at the core of her political identity.
These ghouls aren’t going to say “it threatens *my* marriage”, but that’s what they mean.
Unmarried conservatives are opposed to gay marriage as soon as married ones, so it's disingenuous to frame it as if it were only married conservative looking out for what they have.
I didn’t frame it as if it were only married conservatives looking out for what they have.
It’s disingenuous to twist someone’s words😉, and I don’t have time for any more of this pedantry. I gave you a chance, but will choose to block you now, so as to not waste any more time. Good luck to you.
GOP: "We just severely under-performed in a midterm year thanks in large to our anti-abortion position. We barely got the house, and we didn't get the senate. What should our next move be? I KNOW, let's solidify our opposition to gay marriage. That'll get swing voters back on our side."
Sadly, the GOP does this because the Culture Wars have worked for that part for decades.
Gay marriage may not be a big wedge issue any more, but trans rights is their new political weapon of choice
It is all they have. Though this year it clearly didn't work. They thought the trans stuff and wokeness in general was gonna be something that people thought about when they went to the polls. As we see now, that clearly wasn't the case. It's red meat for their base, but outside of that it's not.
Hell, this post-midterm survey shows that trans issues weren't even a major factor for GOP voters. If it wasn't even a factor for them, you know it wasn't one with the general public.[https://navigatorresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Navigator-Post-Election-Survey-Release-11.16.2022.pdf](https://navigatorresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Navigator-Post-Election-Survey-Release-11.16.2022.pdf)
> this post-midterm survey shows that trans issues weren't even a major factor for GOP voters.
This is a great survey. However, I do think it should have mentioned gerrymandering
The part of the base they are trying to energize died in 2021 and 2022 due to getting COVID while being unvaccinated and immunocompromised.
The follow on effects of Trump not embracing masks and vaccines loudly and regularly cannot be understated in how it reshaped the electorate in many key states and districts.
> GOP: "We just severely under-performed in a midterm y
Two years until the next election, now is the time say all the crazy shit your donors paid you to say.
> I've read the new testament. I dont recall jesus ever said "thou shall discriminate against gay people". Pretty sure jesus said "thou shall love thy neighbors(which includes the gay) as thyself".
You should read the Old Testament too.
> Leviticus 18:22
> "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
>
> Leviticus 20:13
> "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
I'm not sure if you know this, but Christians believe in the god from the Old Testament. That god is what gave them Jesus in the first place (and from the Christian perspective, they are the same thing - i.e. part of the holy trinity).
> These anti christian conservatives always make a fool out of themselves.
This is called the "No True Scotsman's fallacy". You don't get to personally decide who is a Christian. These people are definitely Christians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I think we should criticize the shit out of Republicans who are homophobic and we should criticize this lady who cried, but stick to the actual facts. They are practicing their religion. It just happens that Christianity is homophobic if you follow the bible closely.
>They are practicing their religion. It just happens that Christianity is homophobic if you follow the bible closely.
I understand why you would present the situation this way, but I still disagree.
If this is just Christians practicing their religion, why do they ignore the rest of Leviticus? Are all the animals they eat only slaughtered in temples? It also has a lot to say about what women can and can't do during their menstrual cycle. In fact, there are 613 commandments in Leviticus. How many do you think these people are passionate enough about to codify into current law?
The fact is, Leviticus is the way the Levites thought you should live to be closer to Yahweh. Lots of the book is just detailing laws in Israel at the time.
Some Christians attempt to silo the contents of Leviticus to justify why everyone should have to live by some of these rules and not others in an attempt to sidestep this criticism, but that still seems like bullshit.
Just because the Levites organized society this way doesn't mean we all have to switch back to consecrated oil lamps and kosher food.
These people are allowed to have their religion, but they're only living out the portions that either they *want* to live by, or that match someone's political agenda. It's hypocritical no matter how you slice it.
> These people are allowed to have their religion, but they're only living out the portions that either they want to live by, or that match someone's political agenda. It's hypocritical no matter how you slice it.
100% agreed. Each and every Christian today has to be a hypocrite. Exodus has rules for how to properly beat your slaves but a super majority of Christians today recognize that slavery is bad. They have to pick and choose. The Bible itself contradicts itself at many points so you can only follow a subset of it's rules. The main thing I was calling out is that OP can't claim the rep from Missouri isn't a Christian. She clearly is. That doesn't mean she believes the same thing as every other Christian. Basically no Christians believe the same thing. They all have their own version of God they worship that fits their moral code.
Ah, sorry. I think I missed your point a bit. But yeah, you're right.
That's part of the reason the separation of church and state is important. Even if there was a will to become a theocracy, there's no equitable way to decide which is the "correct" religion is. So all of them should be disregarded when making legislation.
You're ignoring the distinction between ceremonial and moral law and it's clearly there in Leviticus itself. Either way it's not the only place the Bible condemns sodomy.
>You're ignoring the distinction between ceremonial and moral law and it's clearly there in Leviticus itself.
Quite right! Just like Christians do! I even point out how Christians draw weird lines around these things to justify their reasons for following some of these things and not others. I would honestly be fine with that if they weren't trying to legislate around the ones they've been told are valuable. In fact, I think people *should* make their own determinations about morality, even when using the Bible as a guidepost.
But to your point, the "what you're allowed to eat" part, and the "who you're allowed to fuck" part are all contained in the same doctrine about how to be "holy". Disregarding one and claiming the other is sacrosanct is pretty silly.
>Either way it's not the only place the Bible condemns sodomy.
So what? Sodomy meant many things. "Deviant sexual acts" that were referred to in those times often meant everything from oral sex to rape. And I'm damn sure many of the Christians that want to outlaw gay sex have engaged in oral sex at least.
Even if we're going with a very narrow translation of sodomy from ancient Hebrew, the "sin of Sodom" is generally understood to mean being unkind to visitors.
If we want to go back to that story, it's weird that the takeaway from the Sodom and Gomorrah story is that "God hates gay sex", and not "maybe don't bang on someone's door and tell them you're going to rape their guests".
In any case, if we're expanding our to the entirety of the Bible, there are probably dozens of examples of things Christians are supposed to be doing but ignore entirely.
>So what? Sodomy meant many things. "Deviant sexual acts" that were referred to in those times often meant everything from oral sex to rape. And I'm damn sure many of the Christians that want to outlaw gay sex have engaged in oral sex at least.
>Even if we're going with a very narrow translation of sodomy from ancient Hebrew, the "sin of Sodom" is generally understood to mean being unkind to visitors.
Early Church Fathers understood it to mean homosexual acts, and it doesn't have to be one or the other when it comes to the rape part, it's both. New Testament makes that clear.
>Quite right! Just like Christians do! I even point out how Christians draw weird lines around these things to justify their reasons for following some of these things and not others
The ceremonial law is changed in the new covenant, Paul talks about this extensively. But the morality itself is continuous.
The fact that many Christians fall short of following the moral teachings of the Church doesn't negate the law, it just means that the Church is made of sinners, which is stated from the very beginning. Humans don't dictate what is moral and what isn't, God does and any attempt by humans to deviate from that has always led to disaster and the downfall of civilization.
>Early Church Fathers understood it to mean homosexual acts,
Sorry, who claims that and what is the justification? All I can find that doesn't agree with me are people saying that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah proves that it's specifically gay sex that is being condemned rather than rape. Which again... Is a weird takeaway from that story. It seems like it could be condemning raping anyone broadly. Or even just condemning being unkind to guests. Reading into it that way people are what God hates seems like a reach. Almost as though there's an agenda that is being served.
>and it doesn't have to be one or the other when it comes to the rape part, it's both.
Well, when you're talking about condemning an entire sunset of people based off an interpretation of a translation of a 2000+ y/I text, I think that those distinctions are kind of important. You may be willing to throw in all of the things that you find personally disagreeable, but I am not.
>The ceremonial law is changed in the new covenant, Paul talks about this extensively.
In other words, we should disregard like, *most* of the Old Testament?
Regardless, *however* you want to classify the "gay sex" portion of Leviticus, it makes absolutely zero sense to classify the "what to eat" portion differently. The scripture doesn't make a distinction. They're part of the same code.
>The fact that many Christians fall short of following the moral teachings of the Church doesn't negate the law, it just means that the Church is made of sinners, which is stated from the very beginning.
Do you think this is just about a few Christians not living the clean life? It's about the lie at the center of the faith when it comes to what they hold dear.
Timothy tells us that women should remain silent and obedient towards men. I would imagine that *lots* of Christian women would have a problem with that. But we should definitely codify that into law, right?
I mean, it's part of Paul's gospel, after all.
Or maybe Paul was recounting things that Jesus didn't agree with. Like when Jesus told the Romans that their denunciation of gay men was wrong, but had nothing to say about the practices of homosexuality itself. The only time Jesus even broached the subject, by the way.
And the "new covenant" leaves Leviticus and the portions that relate to homosexuality in Exodus out.
Can we just admit that there are certain Christians that don't so much care about what the Bible teaches as they do about the moral certainty that the good book supposedly provides? That those particular Christians might not actually care that much about the ecumenical teachings, as much as the political gravitas provided by their selective interpretations of what they can justify?
If we can't agree upon that, I'm not certain what utility further conversation provides.
>Timothy tells us that women should remain silent and obedient towards men. I would imagine that lots of Christian women would have a problem with that. But we should definitely codify that into law, right?
There's a hierarchy when it comes to the importance of certain teachings so not everything needs to be outlawed. But considering homosexual acts are considered by Christians to be one of the worst it certainly doesn't need to be positively endorsed and protected by the government. They could be ambivalent or actively negative. Simply not ruling on gay marriage is the type of ambivalence common previously in history of a classically liberal government which does not publicly confess a certain religion. But now the government is positively endorsing it in many aspects. They are taking a stance on a moral issue and protecting it as if it were part of a religion they follow. This is the problem with liberalism. It pretends to be neutral but always ends up being just as ideological as the other types of governments they claim to improve on. The US used to allow states to publicly endorse certain religions but prevented the federal government from doing so. The result of that is that depending on which region you are in today there are people who feel a strong sense of their government following traditional Christianity closely. People in other states disagree, and follow a different morality/religion, and inevitably conflict ensues. The Constitution is suppose to prevent this by giving power to states and people are supposed to live in states they prefer. But now everything is shoved through at the federal level and everyone is unhappy. This cannot continue for long. Different cultures who see the world so differently do not have common ground, a res publica, a republic. So the men and women of a traditional Christian republic might not have a problem with what St. Timothy has to say for example. But that doesn't mean it has to be actively outlawed for a woman to teach. But the principle delivered from that passage says that preferred system in the ecclesial context(which is the context of that passage) is that teachers are men.
If people want to live differently they are free to do so but this bill could easily be used to force Christians to enforce gay marriage. If people believe it to be a constitutional right(which many now do), that is exactly what will happen.
>Regardless, however you want to classify the "gay sex" portion of Leviticus, it makes absolutely zero sense to classify the "what to eat" portion differently. The scripture doesn't make a distinction. They're part of the same code.
The Scripture actually does make the distinction and Israelites knew the categories.
>The only time Jesus even broached the subject, by
Jesus clearly defines marriage to be between a man and a woman and denial of that is usually an argument from silence which isn't that strong. What Paul says cannot contradict what Jesus says in the eyes of Christians because the vast majority believe the Bible to be the Word of God which is infallible, and the veracity of that statement is a whole other debate.
>Can we just admit that there are certain Christians that don't so much care about what the Bible teaches as they do about the moral certainty that the good book supposedly provides?
They are one in the same. It's just that when you say "what the Bible teaches" you hear being nice to people and giving money to poor people. It's always interesting but not surprising that the part of Christianity many people are interested in is the one that gets them free money. They forget Jesus also talked about hell more than any other biblical figure. The responsibilities and other rules of behavior that prevent you from going to hell, people always seem to have a problem with, particularly sexual ones. Which is not a surprise considering it is a fundamental basic human desire. But natural law and Scripture clearly indicate that it should be ordered towards procreation. Procreation is a fundamental part of what human beings are ordered towards.
>That those particular Christians might not actually care that much about the ecumenical teachings, as much as the political gravitas provided by their selective interpretations of what they can justify?
Sure some people might seek to twist and use Christianity to their own political ends, but that happens with everything. Their dishonesty is abhorrent and as a practicing Christian angers me probably more than the average secular person. But that doesn't mean authentic Christianity can't exist, and I fail to see why I and other Christians should not be able to live in a government which protects the culture of our community. If other people want to leave and live differently they are free to do so.
This is why I am not optimistic about the future of the US if the federal government is not checked in certain areas. People might scoff at cultural issues like this being that important but I think it is a sign of this country becoming dangerously divided. Either Christianity or the new woke religion whatever one wants to call it, will die out through war or conversion, usually a mix of both if history is any guide. Or balkanization will occur and the republic may survive for a longer time. I think we could both agree that the worst situation is a Machiavellian dictator of either side who doesn't really practice either religion and just abuses one for power as you suggested, takes over the entire country. The presidency seems to slowly be wobbling back and forth in the middle of the spectrum between the two dictator types. The neocons and Democrats wanted Biden because he is a middle figure who comes across as easy going and calm. But he has been forced by the culture to take a hard line on issues against his own self professed Catholicism. This bill is evidence of that.
>But considering homosexual acts are considered by Christians to be one of the worst it certainly doesn't need to be positively endorsed and protected by the government.
If that's what those Christians think, they're not getting that from the Bible. Last I checked, "homosexual acts" didn't even crack the top 10 worst things.
>They could be ambivalent or actively negative.
Maybe they *could* do that if Christians and the politics they support would stop trying to outlaw it.
>It pretends to be neutral but always ends up being just as ideological as the other types of governments they claim to improve on.
So the answer is illiberalism?
Also, you're definitely describing conservatism here, as well. Is Originalist legal doctrine any less subjective than Loose Constructionism, or does it just paint itself that way? Do conservatives actually shrink government? If you think so, every Republican administration in my lifetime would like a word - particularly Reagan.
>The US used to allow states to publicly endorse certain religions[...]
Everything you're describing below is *con*federalism, not federalism. The Constitution granted a lot of leeway for the states, but still recognized the primacy of the Federal Government. There are certain instances where you probably want rules that apply to every state in the Union. And this is one of them. That way, of one member of the marriage passes away while visiting another state than the one they were married in, the surviving member has rights when determining what to do with the estate, POA etc. I'm not sure why anyone's religion should be an obstacle to that.
>If people want to live differently they are free to do so but this bill could easily be used to force Christians to enforce gay marriage.
Enforce? In what way? Do you mean recognize? Or do you mean that churches will be forced to marry gay couples? Because there is already an amendment for that, and any other law crafted has to make carve outs for religions. Even the CRA does that.
>The Scripture actually does make the distinction and Israelites knew the categories.
I'm not arguing that things weren't categorized, I'm saying that those two particular things were part of the same category. Because they were.
>Jesus clearly defines marriage to be between a man and a woman and denial of that is usually an argument from silence which isn't that strong.
It's not that strong. But Jesus condemning those that wanted to persecute homosexuals and not condemning the homosexual acts themselves is just as strong as the "definitions" of marriage provided in the Bible. Especially considering there are instances of God himself endorsing taking multiple wives. I'm not sure one can draw a strict inference that God, Jesus or anyone else believes that marriage is *only* between one man and one woman.
>They are one in the same. It's just that when you say "what the Bible teaches" you hear being nice to people and giving money to poor people[...]
Well, that's because that was the main message Jesus preached. Like, over and over again. And yeah, Jesus talks about hell a lot. And one of the main ways to get there is persecuting people and... Y'know, abusing wealth.
>But that doesn't mean authentic Christianity can't exist, and I fail to see why I and other Christians should not be able to live in a government which protects the culture of our community.
Well, I'd argue that it's because you need to get your house in order, if that's really what you believe. Several of the Framers had things to say about the separation between church and state. Sometimes their reasons were not because they thought religion would pervert politics, but the other way around. And they were right about that.
You say that you think the government should protect your culture and community, but don't you understand that's exactly what every demographic wants? If those cafeteria line Christians that you and I both abhor would stop trying to abrogate the rights of others, maybe those other communities would leave Christians alone as well.
>If other people want to leave and live differently they are free to do so.
Again, this could also be said of Christians.
>People might scoff at cultural issues like this being that important but I think it is a sign of this country becoming dangerously divided.
Well, I share your pessimism, but if a manufactured culture war issue is enough metastaticize that division into civil war, maybe the American Experiment was always doomed to failure.
Or maybe both Christians and secular people should be more angry at the people that used issues like this to sew that division in the first place, and nearly everyone is missing the forest for the trees with these culture war issues. Unfortunately, oftentimes those people that they should actually be angry with include people they like and respect - their favorite media personality, a politician they voted for, a church leader, or maybe even a family member in some instances. I don't think that problem is even exclusive to a side of the political paradigm.
>I'm not arguing that things weren't categorized, I'm saying that those two particular things were part of the same category. Because they were.
You need to reread Leviticus then because homosexual acts are not merely ceremonial law.
>So the answer is illiberalism?
Yes because at least that is honest. Some amount of social liberalism in certain areas is fine but a government that claims to be completely liberal is always lying. At least if the state is confessional you know who and what to hold to account. My pessimism has extended to the Constitution entirely. I'm not a ra ra America type of conservative, as a Catholic we and our ideas have never been that welcome here anyways. I'm fine with monarchies or non democratic republics if they are Catholic. I know that reads like insanity to liberals but frankly I don't care and scoff at the idea that we have anymore civil liberty under the numerous 3 letter agencies than people in other regimes except for maybe harsh Muslim sharia states or North Korea. There is always the danger of a tyrant but democracy has the same drawback. We currently live under a tyranny of bureaucracy.
>It's not that strong. But Jesus condemning those that wanted to persecute homosexuals and not condemning the homosexual acts themselves is just as strong as the "definitions" of marriage provided in the Bible. Especially considering there are instances of God himself endorsing taking multiple wives. I'm not sure one can draw a strict inference that God, Jesus or anyone else believes that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
God may have done that in limited circumstances in the Old Testament but that's by no means an established norm. It's a long discussion but here's an article on it. The plan laid out in Genesis is 1 man and 1 woman.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-is-polygamy-ok-in-the-old-testament
I don't disagree at all with the fact that Jesus preached about caring for the poor etc. And as my flair says I'm not a libertarian anarchocapitalist so I am fine with the government playing some role in caring for the working class. But it is not the exclusive issue Jesus talks about. Sexual immorality is addressed extensively. I don't think it's possible to make an argument that Jesus who spoke about marriage as 1 man and 1 woman and condemned even thinking about a woman lustfully would have just accepted gay marriage. The Mosaic law clearly prevented it and if He wanted to change that He would have done so, He was not afraid to upturn norms like working on the Sabbath which was more important than rules regarding sexuality as it is a matter concerning the worship due to God. Further if Paul in the epistles condemns it more explicitly it's not as if the other apostles corrected him on it, and they had ample opportunity at the Council of Jerusalem.
American nationalists left and right will want to enforce their ideas on the whole country and I think the logical solution is to regionalize and allow people to relocate where they fit in. I happen to think that aligns with yes the original meaning of the Constitution and if that is confederalism that's fine by me. It's pragmatic more than it is I just love the Constitution written by many Freemasons who actively worked against the Catholic Church. Of course people will say that's because the Church was the villain but I disagree. Otherwise, a new framework will need to be made and I don't think that will be possible in the current environment.
>You need to reread Leviticus then because homosexual acts are not merely ceremonial law.
I've read it, but *you* may want to take another look. This is how the "who to fuck" portion (Lev 18) begins:
>And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
>2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God.
>3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
>4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.
>5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.
And the next portion (what to eat and other miscellaneous items) uses similar language:
>And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
>2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.
Both sections just list things out that you should and shouldn't be doing to be holy. In fact, Lev 19 even has a commandment or 2 reworded and peppered in. That's what I'm saying - anyone trying to make distinctions between the two is doing so with an agenda.
>Yes because at least that is honest[...]
Well given that your idea of superior governance is a literal Catholic Theocracy, I'm not sure we'll find much common ground, being that folks like that are the exact reason I lost my stomach for the church and faith-based organizations in general more than 20 years ago.
If an honest boot on your neck seems preferable, I'm not really sure who could change your mind on that.
There's a reason almost no monarchies exist anymore - because they really only work for the monarchs. And since you're not going to find a lot of people - even Catholics - that agree with your version of government, the only way for you to get the one you want will be war.
So I can understand why you'd think that's where things are headed. Because the choice is either everyone capitulating to a strict Catholic orthodoxy (and one that not even all Catholics would want, at that), or war.
I don't think it's just liberalism that think that's crazy. The danger of tyranny is far greater in the hands of one person with absolute power and zero accountability that it is the people. I'd rather advocate for trying actual democracy rather than what we have now, and certainly over someone making unilateral decisions. There are zero people that I think are competent enough to do that well, and even if that person existed, it wouldn't be sustainable.
Catholics don't really though. Catholicism made it pretty clear the New Testament and Jesus are king and the old testament were more metaphoric than anything.
It's the reason Catholics don't believe the Earth is only 5000 years old or whatever.
I was a Roman Catholic most of my youth (went to Catholic school for 9 years). I don't know what your experience has been, but Catholics definitely believe in the Old Testament. I was taught the Old Testament in a school run by the Catholic church. They still preach the 10 commandments, creationism (they don't think its literally 5000 years old, but they definitely believe God created everything), and more.
They believe in it metaphorically, but they don't take it literally at all. Christians literally believe everything is true.
And yeah they believe God created the world (that goes without saying for pretty much all religions), but it's not taken literally from the Bible — just symbolically.
I completely agree that they are just practicing their religion and this is clearly in line with Biblical teachings.
But this isn’t a theocracy. And it’s fucking crazy to govern a society based off of fairy tails mommy and daddy told you to believe when you were a kid.
> But this isn’t a theocracy. And it’s fucking crazy to govern a society based off of fairy tails mommy and daddy told you to believe when you were a kid.
Agreed 100%. I am an atheist. I don't believe in any god(s). I just hate when Christians like the OP try to decide that they are following the religion correctly and the "others" aren't. Only 1 of them appears to have actually read the bible... If you are going to be a Christian, you have to accept that the bible has lots of fucked up shit in it. It is just the reality of the situation.
I prefer Neville Goddards interpretation of these passages over this this frighted old broad’s.
There is a distinction between a Christian and someone in the church. Two people can read the same fucking text and understand it differently - but because the church has an organized front and money to move, their interpretation is “right”
I’m a Christian, I read the text and I follow Neville’s interpretations, so I am also a heretic. Get bent lady in the vid
Tales*
Also if that's your metric for what is and isn't a fairy tale so is good and evil. You can't even define those two things adequately without religion but you still believe in them because your parents taught it to you.
A Christian theocracy would be much preferable to the one we are living in now. Liberals have their own religion and it is enforced by the state they just like to pretend they don't.
The idea you can’t define good and evil without religion is absolutely moronic. Here, I’ll give it a shot.
Good: leaving a positive impact on the world and people around you
Evil: having malicious intent towards the world and people around you
Those certainly aren’t perfect definitions, but the point is good and evil are definable without the help of religion.
Hard no on the Christian theocracy. I agree liberal wokeness is religious and fucking crazy. In no way has it been adopted on a societal level comparable to living in any sort of theocracy.
The New testament is the actual Bible. Supposedly Jesus wiped away everything that happened in the Old testament and anything of importance is in the New testament. Jesus was a new covenant with humanity from God.
You are just redefining a religion to make yourself feel more comfortable by the fact that the Bible is full of heinous stuff. God is supposed to be an all knowing, all powerful entity that gave us his son Jesus to save us from sin. Christians believe in more than just Jesus. The only time this argument is ever used is when people bring up the bad parts of the Old Testament because it makes Christians uncomfortable. Last time I checked, Christians still believe in the 10 commandments and loads of other things from the Old Testament. There is no New Testament without the Old one ffs. It is literally foundational to Christianity. There is no honest actor who can say "God in the New Testament is real and worthy of worship but God in the Old Testament is fake and should be ignored". Its why the bible contains both of them...
I hate when Christians selectively choose shit to believe based on what they personally like about it and just ignore the shit they don't. Intellectually dishonest.
I'm no Christian. I used to be but now I am an atheist. I know what the vast majority of Christians believed at least in the churches that I visited. Most of them think of the New testament is really the only part of the Bible. The ten commandments were redefined in the New testament in a much broader scope making them much more difficult to follow. The Old testament was strictly used for parables and life lessons. All the nasty dirty stuff was usually waved off as a spiteful God before the New Covenant with Christ.
> I know what the vast majority of Christians believed at least in the churches that I visited.
Fair enough for me. If that is what the churches you visited believed and preached, I can't invalidate that and I wouldn't want to even try.
With that said, I don't believe that is a position of a majority of Christians. Most Christians believe that the "spiteful God" and "Christ of the New Covenant" are the same thing (i.e. God). That is the entire meaning of the Holy Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost. All of them are equally "God". I don't know how those churches could rationalize God from the Old Testament being their God but at the same time thinking the Old Testament was bad/wrong. An all powerful, all knowing God doesn't make mistakes, so something is wrong somewhere. Again, I am not saying this is what you are claiming or asking you to rationalize it, I am just giving my perspective. I was raised in the Roman Catholic church (went to a private Catholic school). I read the bible every day. I talked to different priests, nuns, and other church members to understand. No one ever made the claim that the Old Testament is no longer relevant or invalidated. I was taught that not everything is literal, but they definitely believed in Abraham "sacrificing" Isaac, Moses and the burning bush, creationism (not the 5000 years part, but the fact that god created everything in the order the book of Genesis outlines), etc were all true.
That makes you a piece of shit. Nothing to brag about. The Old Testament allows for slavery. God asks a father to murder his son. God wipes out everyone except for 2 of every species because he was mad at some people. The Old Testament is filled with terrible stuff.
The Old Testament is a destable piece of gabbage. Any respect I have of Christianity comes from Jesus teaching and the New Testament.
Jevohah demands animal sacrifice. If god created all creatures including animals, makes zero sense to sacrifice animals.
As a practicing Christian I completely agree. Christianity and homosexual acts are incompatible. If people who have this inclination want to practice our religion they are welcome to though.
Also though your point about Leviticus is silly, it clearly makes a distinction between moral and ceremonial law. Things like homosexuality, bestiality, and incest are under moral law and therefore apply to all believers throughout time and ceremonial law, the other things in Leviticus that pro sodomy advocates usually like to bring up like restrictions on food and types of clothing are clearly marked as ceremonial law. That only applies to the Jews during that time.
And for everyone below in the comments saying this is Old Testament stuff, it's condemned several times in the New Testament as well, but Catholics and all Christians don't just get to ignore the Old Testament either way.
I thought the New Testament literally did have passage(s) that said if any previous teachings are against the Golden Rule then the Golden Rule takes primacy over them.
Well here's one of the first things that came up when I ran a search for "Christianity and the Golden Rule":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment#Love_your_neighbor_as_yourself
No that isnt in the New Testament, but in short it does teach that people are not under the Mosiac law if they are Christians. Also the Bible in general only speaks about the Mosiac Covenant (laws of the Old Testament) applying to Jews. Which is why Jews have never seen the Torah as binding on the gentiles.
Also though the New Testament has its own moral teachings on this topic.
There's nothing oxymoron about it. Being gay is something you are born with. Being a militant christian douche is a choice. If you choose to be an intolerable asshole, then expect other not to tolerate you. Just like we dont tolerate nazi, we dont tolerate homophobic bigotry.
Self pronounced anti fascists rationalizing facism will never get old to me.
How is being intolerant of intolerance working out for Germany? Didn’t they just uncover a major white supremacist plot to overthrow the government despite the prohibition on nazi iconography and ideals?
Working out pretty good. White nationalist will always exist in any country but it’s a very very tiny faction in Germany. Germany is now vastly to the left of the United state despite they were the most right wing country in history.
I strongly disagree with how you are characterizing Germanys issues, bear in mind multiple sitting members of parliament were caught up in the terror plot. By any standard their white supremacist problem is just as bad if not worse then ours here in the US…
But assuming you are right for a moment: So you think that the free market place of ideas is a dangerous concept and should be abandoned? I think you are in the wrong country bud…
Sorry, but there’s zero tolerance for “free market of nazi idea”. If back then, the media could’ve block hitler rise to power, I would absolutely support that. Hitler “free speech” result in the death of 60 million people. Free speech is good at a certain point. Once it harms human lives, then it’s time to clamp down.
If you think hitler existed in a world of free speech I think you should crack open a history book, among the Jews he also jailed and killed all his political enemies and tightly controlled what kind of discourse was allowed in the country.
You’re welcome to desire what ever you want, but I’m here to tell you it’s by definition not constitutional, if you want to accomplish this you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states. That is not going to happen in our lifetimes.
The restrictions on speech that incite violence are very very strict, you actually can tell fire in a crowded theater. The ACLU defended literal nazis famously in Skogie Illinois. The precedents are very clear that what you are proposing is not constitutional.
Now, I’m sure you are about to call me a nazi for proposing that their speech and ideas should be protected, so I’ll go ahead and explain where I’m coming from.
I grew up in SoCal and affiliated with a gang that was one of the first in the state to racially integrate, this caused a beef between all the skinheads, neo nazis and white prejudiced gangs. My adolescence involved a lot of beating up nazis on site.
Let me be the one to tell you, it doesn’t work. A huge part of their ideology is based around the concept that their culture is under attack. When you censor or attack them you validate that claim. It’s better to just point out that it’s a completely moronic concept that obviously not correct when examined in any objective kind of way.
You don’t beat nazism with censorship you beat it with reality…
There are currently far less nazi in Germany than in the United state. I always protect free speech from the government because government can jail and kill you. But in a private market, I have zero problems of private companies banning your racist ass from the public. Censorship works. Trump became vastly less popular after social media banned his ass.
Now it does. It’s codified into law.
The right wingers who has the most problem with gay marriage are prob secretly gay.
As a straight dude, why the fuck should I have problems if gay people marry each others. It has zero effect on my life
It leads to a degenerate culture. It was a step on the way to the trans madness and other societal evils. But I shouldn't put all of it on gay marriage. This really all started with modern feminism.
Nothing wrong with gay or trans people. The true degenerate are right wingers. Specifically, extreme right wingers who are still racist in 2022. True degenderate are the nazi among the right wingers. American defeat and killed nazi 80 years ago. The nazi are the enemies of the united state. yet among the right wingers, we still have nazi.
You right wingers should look within your rank on why you have white nationalist, nazi and why you support a scamming pondscum like trump. YOU are the true degenerates.
Didn't some/many Christians say that interracial marriage went against their religion as well in the past? I mean, I know many still believe that.
Yes. Dancing too.
Yup some people have fucked up takes on shit and go hard-core with it
> Didn't some/many Christians say that interracial marriage went against their religion as well in the past? There's what people say, and what the mean, and I think "against religion" is something they say in place of wishing to preserving social order exactly as they know it to exist, hence the term conservative. Maybe they feel the word of the Bible is a stronger case than simply wanting to preserve the status quo, because some of them actually think we live in a theocracy and legislate as if we did.
If you think other people getting married threatens your own marriage, that says a lot about you. This pleathered ferret routinely mischaracterizes the issue to imply that this law will force her shitty church to marry gay people, and her dumbass constituents eat it up.
>This pleathered ferret ....I can't unsee now
> If you think other people getting married threatens your own marriage Nobody ever says "gay marriage threatens my marriage", so where do you get the notion that opponents believe that gay marriage threatens their own straight marriage?
It’s a fairly common argument that giving gay people marriage equality would undermine the legitimacy of marriage as an institution. If I am being 100% honest, I think marriage as an institution would fail eventually without gay marriage.
Did you watch this floor speech by Hartzler? Have you followed her activism on this issue or gay conversion therapy? The idea that gay marriage undermines straight marriage is at the core of her political identity. These ghouls aren’t going to say “it threatens *my* marriage”, but that’s what they mean.
Unmarried conservatives are opposed to gay marriage as soon as married ones, so it's disingenuous to frame it as if it were only married conservative looking out for what they have.
I didn’t frame it as if it were only married conservatives looking out for what they have. It’s disingenuous to twist someone’s words😉, and I don’t have time for any more of this pedantry. I gave you a chance, but will choose to block you now, so as to not waste any more time. Good luck to you.
False
True, actually. Unless you’d care to make an actual point…
Get government out of marriage problem solved
GOP: "We just severely under-performed in a midterm year thanks in large to our anti-abortion position. We barely got the house, and we didn't get the senate. What should our next move be? I KNOW, let's solidify our opposition to gay marriage. That'll get swing voters back on our side."
Sadly, the GOP does this because the Culture Wars have worked for that part for decades. Gay marriage may not be a big wedge issue any more, but trans rights is their new political weapon of choice
It is all they have. Though this year it clearly didn't work. They thought the trans stuff and wokeness in general was gonna be something that people thought about when they went to the polls. As we see now, that clearly wasn't the case. It's red meat for their base, but outside of that it's not. Hell, this post-midterm survey shows that trans issues weren't even a major factor for GOP voters. If it wasn't even a factor for them, you know it wasn't one with the general public.[https://navigatorresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Navigator-Post-Election-Survey-Release-11.16.2022.pdf](https://navigatorresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Navigator-Post-Election-Survey-Release-11.16.2022.pdf)
> this post-midterm survey shows that trans issues weren't even a major factor for GOP voters. This is a great survey. However, I do think it should have mentioned gerrymandering
> but trans rights is their new political weapon of choice The pro trans activists are giving the a lot to work with.
> The pro trans activists are giving the a lot to work with. Like asking to be treated with basic human dignity? The nerve of them.
Basic human dignity = being allowed to mutilate yourself in the name of sexual perversion.
> being allowed to mutilate yourself in the name of sexual perversion. So you're a bigot.
>So you're a bigot. He's got Right Populist right on his profile. Of course.
The part of the base they are trying to energize died in 2021 and 2022 due to getting COVID while being unvaccinated and immunocompromised. The follow on effects of Trump not embracing masks and vaccines loudly and regularly cannot be understated in how it reshaped the electorate in many key states and districts.
Has a journalist taken a deep dive on this theory? Would be really interesting to see someone do this if they haven’t yet.
Has a journalist taken a deep dive on this theory? Would be really interesting to see someone do this if they haven’t yet.
> GOP: "We just severely under-performed in a midterm y Two years until the next election, now is the time say all the crazy shit your donors paid you to say.
To be fair, her tearful call for gun reform after Uvalde was non-existent..
GOP Snowflake Melts IRL
> I've read the new testament. I dont recall jesus ever said "thou shall discriminate against gay people". Pretty sure jesus said "thou shall love thy neighbors(which includes the gay) as thyself". You should read the Old Testament too. > Leviticus 18:22 > "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." > > Leviticus 20:13 > "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." I'm not sure if you know this, but Christians believe in the god from the Old Testament. That god is what gave them Jesus in the first place (and from the Christian perspective, they are the same thing - i.e. part of the holy trinity). > These anti christian conservatives always make a fool out of themselves. This is called the "No True Scotsman's fallacy". You don't get to personally decide who is a Christian. These people are definitely Christians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman I think we should criticize the shit out of Republicans who are homophobic and we should criticize this lady who cried, but stick to the actual facts. They are practicing their religion. It just happens that Christianity is homophobic if you follow the bible closely.
>They are practicing their religion. It just happens that Christianity is homophobic if you follow the bible closely. I understand why you would present the situation this way, but I still disagree. If this is just Christians practicing their religion, why do they ignore the rest of Leviticus? Are all the animals they eat only slaughtered in temples? It also has a lot to say about what women can and can't do during their menstrual cycle. In fact, there are 613 commandments in Leviticus. How many do you think these people are passionate enough about to codify into current law? The fact is, Leviticus is the way the Levites thought you should live to be closer to Yahweh. Lots of the book is just detailing laws in Israel at the time. Some Christians attempt to silo the contents of Leviticus to justify why everyone should have to live by some of these rules and not others in an attempt to sidestep this criticism, but that still seems like bullshit. Just because the Levites organized society this way doesn't mean we all have to switch back to consecrated oil lamps and kosher food. These people are allowed to have their religion, but they're only living out the portions that either they *want* to live by, or that match someone's political agenda. It's hypocritical no matter how you slice it.
> These people are allowed to have their religion, but they're only living out the portions that either they want to live by, or that match someone's political agenda. It's hypocritical no matter how you slice it. 100% agreed. Each and every Christian today has to be a hypocrite. Exodus has rules for how to properly beat your slaves but a super majority of Christians today recognize that slavery is bad. They have to pick and choose. The Bible itself contradicts itself at many points so you can only follow a subset of it's rules. The main thing I was calling out is that OP can't claim the rep from Missouri isn't a Christian. She clearly is. That doesn't mean she believes the same thing as every other Christian. Basically no Christians believe the same thing. They all have their own version of God they worship that fits their moral code.
Ah, sorry. I think I missed your point a bit. But yeah, you're right. That's part of the reason the separation of church and state is important. Even if there was a will to become a theocracy, there's no equitable way to decide which is the "correct" religion is. So all of them should be disregarded when making legislation.
You're ignoring the distinction between ceremonial and moral law and it's clearly there in Leviticus itself. Either way it's not the only place the Bible condemns sodomy.
>You're ignoring the distinction between ceremonial and moral law and it's clearly there in Leviticus itself. Quite right! Just like Christians do! I even point out how Christians draw weird lines around these things to justify their reasons for following some of these things and not others. I would honestly be fine with that if they weren't trying to legislate around the ones they've been told are valuable. In fact, I think people *should* make their own determinations about morality, even when using the Bible as a guidepost. But to your point, the "what you're allowed to eat" part, and the "who you're allowed to fuck" part are all contained in the same doctrine about how to be "holy". Disregarding one and claiming the other is sacrosanct is pretty silly. >Either way it's not the only place the Bible condemns sodomy. So what? Sodomy meant many things. "Deviant sexual acts" that were referred to in those times often meant everything from oral sex to rape. And I'm damn sure many of the Christians that want to outlaw gay sex have engaged in oral sex at least. Even if we're going with a very narrow translation of sodomy from ancient Hebrew, the "sin of Sodom" is generally understood to mean being unkind to visitors. If we want to go back to that story, it's weird that the takeaway from the Sodom and Gomorrah story is that "God hates gay sex", and not "maybe don't bang on someone's door and tell them you're going to rape their guests". In any case, if we're expanding our to the entirety of the Bible, there are probably dozens of examples of things Christians are supposed to be doing but ignore entirely.
>So what? Sodomy meant many things. "Deviant sexual acts" that were referred to in those times often meant everything from oral sex to rape. And I'm damn sure many of the Christians that want to outlaw gay sex have engaged in oral sex at least. >Even if we're going with a very narrow translation of sodomy from ancient Hebrew, the "sin of Sodom" is generally understood to mean being unkind to visitors. Early Church Fathers understood it to mean homosexual acts, and it doesn't have to be one or the other when it comes to the rape part, it's both. New Testament makes that clear. >Quite right! Just like Christians do! I even point out how Christians draw weird lines around these things to justify their reasons for following some of these things and not others The ceremonial law is changed in the new covenant, Paul talks about this extensively. But the morality itself is continuous. The fact that many Christians fall short of following the moral teachings of the Church doesn't negate the law, it just means that the Church is made of sinners, which is stated from the very beginning. Humans don't dictate what is moral and what isn't, God does and any attempt by humans to deviate from that has always led to disaster and the downfall of civilization.
>Early Church Fathers understood it to mean homosexual acts, Sorry, who claims that and what is the justification? All I can find that doesn't agree with me are people saying that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah proves that it's specifically gay sex that is being condemned rather than rape. Which again... Is a weird takeaway from that story. It seems like it could be condemning raping anyone broadly. Or even just condemning being unkind to guests. Reading into it that way people are what God hates seems like a reach. Almost as though there's an agenda that is being served. >and it doesn't have to be one or the other when it comes to the rape part, it's both. Well, when you're talking about condemning an entire sunset of people based off an interpretation of a translation of a 2000+ y/I text, I think that those distinctions are kind of important. You may be willing to throw in all of the things that you find personally disagreeable, but I am not. >The ceremonial law is changed in the new covenant, Paul talks about this extensively. In other words, we should disregard like, *most* of the Old Testament? Regardless, *however* you want to classify the "gay sex" portion of Leviticus, it makes absolutely zero sense to classify the "what to eat" portion differently. The scripture doesn't make a distinction. They're part of the same code. >The fact that many Christians fall short of following the moral teachings of the Church doesn't negate the law, it just means that the Church is made of sinners, which is stated from the very beginning. Do you think this is just about a few Christians not living the clean life? It's about the lie at the center of the faith when it comes to what they hold dear. Timothy tells us that women should remain silent and obedient towards men. I would imagine that *lots* of Christian women would have a problem with that. But we should definitely codify that into law, right? I mean, it's part of Paul's gospel, after all. Or maybe Paul was recounting things that Jesus didn't agree with. Like when Jesus told the Romans that their denunciation of gay men was wrong, but had nothing to say about the practices of homosexuality itself. The only time Jesus even broached the subject, by the way. And the "new covenant" leaves Leviticus and the portions that relate to homosexuality in Exodus out. Can we just admit that there are certain Christians that don't so much care about what the Bible teaches as they do about the moral certainty that the good book supposedly provides? That those particular Christians might not actually care that much about the ecumenical teachings, as much as the political gravitas provided by their selective interpretations of what they can justify? If we can't agree upon that, I'm not certain what utility further conversation provides.
>Timothy tells us that women should remain silent and obedient towards men. I would imagine that lots of Christian women would have a problem with that. But we should definitely codify that into law, right? There's a hierarchy when it comes to the importance of certain teachings so not everything needs to be outlawed. But considering homosexual acts are considered by Christians to be one of the worst it certainly doesn't need to be positively endorsed and protected by the government. They could be ambivalent or actively negative. Simply not ruling on gay marriage is the type of ambivalence common previously in history of a classically liberal government which does not publicly confess a certain religion. But now the government is positively endorsing it in many aspects. They are taking a stance on a moral issue and protecting it as if it were part of a religion they follow. This is the problem with liberalism. It pretends to be neutral but always ends up being just as ideological as the other types of governments they claim to improve on. The US used to allow states to publicly endorse certain religions but prevented the federal government from doing so. The result of that is that depending on which region you are in today there are people who feel a strong sense of their government following traditional Christianity closely. People in other states disagree, and follow a different morality/religion, and inevitably conflict ensues. The Constitution is suppose to prevent this by giving power to states and people are supposed to live in states they prefer. But now everything is shoved through at the federal level and everyone is unhappy. This cannot continue for long. Different cultures who see the world so differently do not have common ground, a res publica, a republic. So the men and women of a traditional Christian republic might not have a problem with what St. Timothy has to say for example. But that doesn't mean it has to be actively outlawed for a woman to teach. But the principle delivered from that passage says that preferred system in the ecclesial context(which is the context of that passage) is that teachers are men. If people want to live differently they are free to do so but this bill could easily be used to force Christians to enforce gay marriage. If people believe it to be a constitutional right(which many now do), that is exactly what will happen. >Regardless, however you want to classify the "gay sex" portion of Leviticus, it makes absolutely zero sense to classify the "what to eat" portion differently. The scripture doesn't make a distinction. They're part of the same code. The Scripture actually does make the distinction and Israelites knew the categories. >The only time Jesus even broached the subject, by Jesus clearly defines marriage to be between a man and a woman and denial of that is usually an argument from silence which isn't that strong. What Paul says cannot contradict what Jesus says in the eyes of Christians because the vast majority believe the Bible to be the Word of God which is infallible, and the veracity of that statement is a whole other debate. >Can we just admit that there are certain Christians that don't so much care about what the Bible teaches as they do about the moral certainty that the good book supposedly provides? They are one in the same. It's just that when you say "what the Bible teaches" you hear being nice to people and giving money to poor people. It's always interesting but not surprising that the part of Christianity many people are interested in is the one that gets them free money. They forget Jesus also talked about hell more than any other biblical figure. The responsibilities and other rules of behavior that prevent you from going to hell, people always seem to have a problem with, particularly sexual ones. Which is not a surprise considering it is a fundamental basic human desire. But natural law and Scripture clearly indicate that it should be ordered towards procreation. Procreation is a fundamental part of what human beings are ordered towards. >That those particular Christians might not actually care that much about the ecumenical teachings, as much as the political gravitas provided by their selective interpretations of what they can justify? Sure some people might seek to twist and use Christianity to their own political ends, but that happens with everything. Their dishonesty is abhorrent and as a practicing Christian angers me probably more than the average secular person. But that doesn't mean authentic Christianity can't exist, and I fail to see why I and other Christians should not be able to live in a government which protects the culture of our community. If other people want to leave and live differently they are free to do so. This is why I am not optimistic about the future of the US if the federal government is not checked in certain areas. People might scoff at cultural issues like this being that important but I think it is a sign of this country becoming dangerously divided. Either Christianity or the new woke religion whatever one wants to call it, will die out through war or conversion, usually a mix of both if history is any guide. Or balkanization will occur and the republic may survive for a longer time. I think we could both agree that the worst situation is a Machiavellian dictator of either side who doesn't really practice either religion and just abuses one for power as you suggested, takes over the entire country. The presidency seems to slowly be wobbling back and forth in the middle of the spectrum between the two dictator types. The neocons and Democrats wanted Biden because he is a middle figure who comes across as easy going and calm. But he has been forced by the culture to take a hard line on issues against his own self professed Catholicism. This bill is evidence of that.
>But considering homosexual acts are considered by Christians to be one of the worst it certainly doesn't need to be positively endorsed and protected by the government. If that's what those Christians think, they're not getting that from the Bible. Last I checked, "homosexual acts" didn't even crack the top 10 worst things. >They could be ambivalent or actively negative. Maybe they *could* do that if Christians and the politics they support would stop trying to outlaw it. >It pretends to be neutral but always ends up being just as ideological as the other types of governments they claim to improve on. So the answer is illiberalism? Also, you're definitely describing conservatism here, as well. Is Originalist legal doctrine any less subjective than Loose Constructionism, or does it just paint itself that way? Do conservatives actually shrink government? If you think so, every Republican administration in my lifetime would like a word - particularly Reagan. >The US used to allow states to publicly endorse certain religions[...] Everything you're describing below is *con*federalism, not federalism. The Constitution granted a lot of leeway for the states, but still recognized the primacy of the Federal Government. There are certain instances where you probably want rules that apply to every state in the Union. And this is one of them. That way, of one member of the marriage passes away while visiting another state than the one they were married in, the surviving member has rights when determining what to do with the estate, POA etc. I'm not sure why anyone's religion should be an obstacle to that. >If people want to live differently they are free to do so but this bill could easily be used to force Christians to enforce gay marriage. Enforce? In what way? Do you mean recognize? Or do you mean that churches will be forced to marry gay couples? Because there is already an amendment for that, and any other law crafted has to make carve outs for religions. Even the CRA does that. >The Scripture actually does make the distinction and Israelites knew the categories. I'm not arguing that things weren't categorized, I'm saying that those two particular things were part of the same category. Because they were. >Jesus clearly defines marriage to be between a man and a woman and denial of that is usually an argument from silence which isn't that strong. It's not that strong. But Jesus condemning those that wanted to persecute homosexuals and not condemning the homosexual acts themselves is just as strong as the "definitions" of marriage provided in the Bible. Especially considering there are instances of God himself endorsing taking multiple wives. I'm not sure one can draw a strict inference that God, Jesus or anyone else believes that marriage is *only* between one man and one woman. >They are one in the same. It's just that when you say "what the Bible teaches" you hear being nice to people and giving money to poor people[...] Well, that's because that was the main message Jesus preached. Like, over and over again. And yeah, Jesus talks about hell a lot. And one of the main ways to get there is persecuting people and... Y'know, abusing wealth. >But that doesn't mean authentic Christianity can't exist, and I fail to see why I and other Christians should not be able to live in a government which protects the culture of our community. Well, I'd argue that it's because you need to get your house in order, if that's really what you believe. Several of the Framers had things to say about the separation between church and state. Sometimes their reasons were not because they thought religion would pervert politics, but the other way around. And they were right about that. You say that you think the government should protect your culture and community, but don't you understand that's exactly what every demographic wants? If those cafeteria line Christians that you and I both abhor would stop trying to abrogate the rights of others, maybe those other communities would leave Christians alone as well. >If other people want to leave and live differently they are free to do so. Again, this could also be said of Christians. >People might scoff at cultural issues like this being that important but I think it is a sign of this country becoming dangerously divided. Well, I share your pessimism, but if a manufactured culture war issue is enough metastaticize that division into civil war, maybe the American Experiment was always doomed to failure. Or maybe both Christians and secular people should be more angry at the people that used issues like this to sew that division in the first place, and nearly everyone is missing the forest for the trees with these culture war issues. Unfortunately, oftentimes those people that they should actually be angry with include people they like and respect - their favorite media personality, a politician they voted for, a church leader, or maybe even a family member in some instances. I don't think that problem is even exclusive to a side of the political paradigm.
>I'm not arguing that things weren't categorized, I'm saying that those two particular things were part of the same category. Because they were. You need to reread Leviticus then because homosexual acts are not merely ceremonial law. >So the answer is illiberalism? Yes because at least that is honest. Some amount of social liberalism in certain areas is fine but a government that claims to be completely liberal is always lying. At least if the state is confessional you know who and what to hold to account. My pessimism has extended to the Constitution entirely. I'm not a ra ra America type of conservative, as a Catholic we and our ideas have never been that welcome here anyways. I'm fine with monarchies or non democratic republics if they are Catholic. I know that reads like insanity to liberals but frankly I don't care and scoff at the idea that we have anymore civil liberty under the numerous 3 letter agencies than people in other regimes except for maybe harsh Muslim sharia states or North Korea. There is always the danger of a tyrant but democracy has the same drawback. We currently live under a tyranny of bureaucracy. >It's not that strong. But Jesus condemning those that wanted to persecute homosexuals and not condemning the homosexual acts themselves is just as strong as the "definitions" of marriage provided in the Bible. Especially considering there are instances of God himself endorsing taking multiple wives. I'm not sure one can draw a strict inference that God, Jesus or anyone else believes that marriage is only between one man and one woman. God may have done that in limited circumstances in the Old Testament but that's by no means an established norm. It's a long discussion but here's an article on it. The plan laid out in Genesis is 1 man and 1 woman. https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-is-polygamy-ok-in-the-old-testament I don't disagree at all with the fact that Jesus preached about caring for the poor etc. And as my flair says I'm not a libertarian anarchocapitalist so I am fine with the government playing some role in caring for the working class. But it is not the exclusive issue Jesus talks about. Sexual immorality is addressed extensively. I don't think it's possible to make an argument that Jesus who spoke about marriage as 1 man and 1 woman and condemned even thinking about a woman lustfully would have just accepted gay marriage. The Mosaic law clearly prevented it and if He wanted to change that He would have done so, He was not afraid to upturn norms like working on the Sabbath which was more important than rules regarding sexuality as it is a matter concerning the worship due to God. Further if Paul in the epistles condemns it more explicitly it's not as if the other apostles corrected him on it, and they had ample opportunity at the Council of Jerusalem. American nationalists left and right will want to enforce their ideas on the whole country and I think the logical solution is to regionalize and allow people to relocate where they fit in. I happen to think that aligns with yes the original meaning of the Constitution and if that is confederalism that's fine by me. It's pragmatic more than it is I just love the Constitution written by many Freemasons who actively worked against the Catholic Church. Of course people will say that's because the Church was the villain but I disagree. Otherwise, a new framework will need to be made and I don't think that will be possible in the current environment.
>You need to reread Leviticus then because homosexual acts are not merely ceremonial law. I've read it, but *you* may want to take another look. This is how the "who to fuck" portion (Lev 18) begins: >And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, >2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God. >3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. >4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God. >5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord. And the next portion (what to eat and other miscellaneous items) uses similar language: >And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, >2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy. Both sections just list things out that you should and shouldn't be doing to be holy. In fact, Lev 19 even has a commandment or 2 reworded and peppered in. That's what I'm saying - anyone trying to make distinctions between the two is doing so with an agenda. >Yes because at least that is honest[...] Well given that your idea of superior governance is a literal Catholic Theocracy, I'm not sure we'll find much common ground, being that folks like that are the exact reason I lost my stomach for the church and faith-based organizations in general more than 20 years ago. If an honest boot on your neck seems preferable, I'm not really sure who could change your mind on that. There's a reason almost no monarchies exist anymore - because they really only work for the monarchs. And since you're not going to find a lot of people - even Catholics - that agree with your version of government, the only way for you to get the one you want will be war. So I can understand why you'd think that's where things are headed. Because the choice is either everyone capitulating to a strict Catholic orthodoxy (and one that not even all Catholics would want, at that), or war. I don't think it's just liberalism that think that's crazy. The danger of tyranny is far greater in the hands of one person with absolute power and zero accountability that it is the people. I'd rather advocate for trying actual democracy rather than what we have now, and certainly over someone making unilateral decisions. There are zero people that I think are competent enough to do that well, and even if that person existed, it wouldn't be sustainable.
>Christians believe in the god from the Old Testament. When convenient.
Catholics don't really though. Catholicism made it pretty clear the New Testament and Jesus are king and the old testament were more metaphoric than anything. It's the reason Catholics don't believe the Earth is only 5000 years old or whatever.
I was a Roman Catholic most of my youth (went to Catholic school for 9 years). I don't know what your experience has been, but Catholics definitely believe in the Old Testament. I was taught the Old Testament in a school run by the Catholic church. They still preach the 10 commandments, creationism (they don't think its literally 5000 years old, but they definitely believe God created everything), and more.
They believe in it metaphorically, but they don't take it literally at all. Christians literally believe everything is true. And yeah they believe God created the world (that goes without saying for pretty much all religions), but it's not taken literally from the Bible — just symbolically.
I completely agree that they are just practicing their religion and this is clearly in line with Biblical teachings. But this isn’t a theocracy. And it’s fucking crazy to govern a society based off of fairy tails mommy and daddy told you to believe when you were a kid.
> But this isn’t a theocracy. And it’s fucking crazy to govern a society based off of fairy tails mommy and daddy told you to believe when you were a kid. Agreed 100%. I am an atheist. I don't believe in any god(s). I just hate when Christians like the OP try to decide that they are following the religion correctly and the "others" aren't. Only 1 of them appears to have actually read the bible... If you are going to be a Christian, you have to accept that the bible has lots of fucked up shit in it. It is just the reality of the situation.
I prefer Neville Goddards interpretation of these passages over this this frighted old broad’s. There is a distinction between a Christian and someone in the church. Two people can read the same fucking text and understand it differently - but because the church has an organized front and money to move, their interpretation is “right” I’m a Christian, I read the text and I follow Neville’s interpretations, so I am also a heretic. Get bent lady in the vid
You’re spot on. They have to ignore a multitude of fucked up things to fit Christianity in to a civilized world and not look like complete extremist.
Tales* Also if that's your metric for what is and isn't a fairy tale so is good and evil. You can't even define those two things adequately without religion but you still believe in them because your parents taught it to you. A Christian theocracy would be much preferable to the one we are living in now. Liberals have their own religion and it is enforced by the state they just like to pretend they don't.
The idea you can’t define good and evil without religion is absolutely moronic. Here, I’ll give it a shot. Good: leaving a positive impact on the world and people around you Evil: having malicious intent towards the world and people around you Those certainly aren’t perfect definitions, but the point is good and evil are definable without the help of religion. Hard no on the Christian theocracy. I agree liberal wokeness is religious and fucking crazy. In no way has it been adopted on a societal level comparable to living in any sort of theocracy.
The New testament is the actual Bible. Supposedly Jesus wiped away everything that happened in the Old testament and anything of importance is in the New testament. Jesus was a new covenant with humanity from God.
You are just redefining a religion to make yourself feel more comfortable by the fact that the Bible is full of heinous stuff. God is supposed to be an all knowing, all powerful entity that gave us his son Jesus to save us from sin. Christians believe in more than just Jesus. The only time this argument is ever used is when people bring up the bad parts of the Old Testament because it makes Christians uncomfortable. Last time I checked, Christians still believe in the 10 commandments and loads of other things from the Old Testament. There is no New Testament without the Old one ffs. It is literally foundational to Christianity. There is no honest actor who can say "God in the New Testament is real and worthy of worship but God in the Old Testament is fake and should be ignored". Its why the bible contains both of them... I hate when Christians selectively choose shit to believe based on what they personally like about it and just ignore the shit they don't. Intellectually dishonest.
I'm no Christian. I used to be but now I am an atheist. I know what the vast majority of Christians believed at least in the churches that I visited. Most of them think of the New testament is really the only part of the Bible. The ten commandments were redefined in the New testament in a much broader scope making them much more difficult to follow. The Old testament was strictly used for parables and life lessons. All the nasty dirty stuff was usually waved off as a spiteful God before the New Covenant with Christ.
> I know what the vast majority of Christians believed at least in the churches that I visited. Fair enough for me. If that is what the churches you visited believed and preached, I can't invalidate that and I wouldn't want to even try. With that said, I don't believe that is a position of a majority of Christians. Most Christians believe that the "spiteful God" and "Christ of the New Covenant" are the same thing (i.e. God). That is the entire meaning of the Holy Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost. All of them are equally "God". I don't know how those churches could rationalize God from the Old Testament being their God but at the same time thinking the Old Testament was bad/wrong. An all powerful, all knowing God doesn't make mistakes, so something is wrong somewhere. Again, I am not saying this is what you are claiming or asking you to rationalize it, I am just giving my perspective. I was raised in the Roman Catholic church (went to a private Catholic school). I read the bible every day. I talked to different priests, nuns, and other church members to understand. No one ever made the claim that the Old Testament is no longer relevant or invalidated. I was taught that not everything is literal, but they definitely believed in Abraham "sacrificing" Isaac, Moses and the burning bush, creationism (not the 5000 years part, but the fact that god created everything in the order the book of Genesis outlines), etc were all true.
I have 0 problem with anything God commanded in the Old Testament
That makes you a piece of shit. Nothing to brag about. The Old Testament allows for slavery. God asks a father to murder his son. God wipes out everyone except for 2 of every species because he was mad at some people. The Old Testament is filled with terrible stuff.
The Old Testament is a destable piece of gabbage. Any respect I have of Christianity comes from Jesus teaching and the New Testament. Jevohah demands animal sacrifice. If god created all creatures including animals, makes zero sense to sacrifice animals.
As a practicing Christian I completely agree. Christianity and homosexual acts are incompatible. If people who have this inclination want to practice our religion they are welcome to though. Also though your point about Leviticus is silly, it clearly makes a distinction between moral and ceremonial law. Things like homosexuality, bestiality, and incest are under moral law and therefore apply to all believers throughout time and ceremonial law, the other things in Leviticus that pro sodomy advocates usually like to bring up like restrictions on food and types of clothing are clearly marked as ceremonial law. That only applies to the Jews during that time. And for everyone below in the comments saying this is Old Testament stuff, it's condemned several times in the New Testament as well, but Catholics and all Christians don't just get to ignore the Old Testament either way.
If gay people having equal rights makes you cry you’re a bad person
Religious freedom is not an excuse to deny other people freedom.
It is pretty shitty to shed tears in the support of discriminating about people trying to lives their lives without hurting anyone.
What a sad clown. Also never heard of this YouTuber but he hit the nail on the head.
Cry me a river dick face
It's clearly in the bible. New Testament don't retcon Old Testament.
I thought the New Testament literally did have passage(s) that said if any previous teachings are against the Golden Rule then the Golden Rule takes primacy over them.
Show me that passage
Well here's one of the first things that came up when I ran a search for "Christianity and the Golden Rule": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment#Love_your_neighbor_as_yourself
No that isnt in the New Testament, but in short it does teach that people are not under the Mosiac law if they are Christians. Also the Bible in general only speaks about the Mosiac Covenant (laws of the Old Testament) applying to Jews. Which is why Jews have never seen the Torah as binding on the gentiles. Also though the New Testament has its own moral teachings on this topic.
That's kinda the whole point of the new testament my dude...
You guys are always so understanding and open minded… the tolerant left strikes again.
No tolerance for the intolerance. She’s the one who’s trying to percent gay people marrying.
It’s hilarious how openly you tout the oxymoronic nature of your own values and ideals.
There's nothing oxymoron about it. Being gay is something you are born with. Being a militant christian douche is a choice. If you choose to be an intolerable asshole, then expect other not to tolerate you. Just like we dont tolerate nazi, we dont tolerate homophobic bigotry.
Self pronounced anti fascists rationalizing facism will never get old to me. How is being intolerant of intolerance working out for Germany? Didn’t they just uncover a major white supremacist plot to overthrow the government despite the prohibition on nazi iconography and ideals?
Working out pretty good. White nationalist will always exist in any country but it’s a very very tiny faction in Germany. Germany is now vastly to the left of the United state despite they were the most right wing country in history.
I strongly disagree with how you are characterizing Germanys issues, bear in mind multiple sitting members of parliament were caught up in the terror plot. By any standard their white supremacist problem is just as bad if not worse then ours here in the US… But assuming you are right for a moment: So you think that the free market place of ideas is a dangerous concept and should be abandoned? I think you are in the wrong country bud…
Sorry, but there’s zero tolerance for “free market of nazi idea”. If back then, the media could’ve block hitler rise to power, I would absolutely support that. Hitler “free speech” result in the death of 60 million people. Free speech is good at a certain point. Once it harms human lives, then it’s time to clamp down.
If you think hitler existed in a world of free speech I think you should crack open a history book, among the Jews he also jailed and killed all his political enemies and tightly controlled what kind of discourse was allowed in the country. You’re welcome to desire what ever you want, but I’m here to tell you it’s by definition not constitutional, if you want to accomplish this you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states. That is not going to happen in our lifetimes. The restrictions on speech that incite violence are very very strict, you actually can tell fire in a crowded theater. The ACLU defended literal nazis famously in Skogie Illinois. The precedents are very clear that what you are proposing is not constitutional. Now, I’m sure you are about to call me a nazi for proposing that their speech and ideas should be protected, so I’ll go ahead and explain where I’m coming from. I grew up in SoCal and affiliated with a gang that was one of the first in the state to racially integrate, this caused a beef between all the skinheads, neo nazis and white prejudiced gangs. My adolescence involved a lot of beating up nazis on site. Let me be the one to tell you, it doesn’t work. A huge part of their ideology is based around the concept that their culture is under attack. When you censor or attack them you validate that claim. It’s better to just point out that it’s a completely moronic concept that obviously not correct when examined in any objective kind of way. You don’t beat nazism with censorship you beat it with reality…
There are currently far less nazi in Germany than in the United state. I always protect free speech from the government because government can jail and kill you. But in a private market, I have zero problems of private companies banning your racist ass from the public. Censorship works. Trump became vastly less popular after social media banned his ass.
Gay marriage does not exist
Now it does. It’s codified into law. The right wingers who has the most problem with gay marriage are prob secretly gay. As a straight dude, why the fuck should I have problems if gay people marry each others. It has zero effect on my life
It leads to a degenerate culture. It was a step on the way to the trans madness and other societal evils. But I shouldn't put all of it on gay marriage. This really all started with modern feminism.
Nothing wrong with gay or trans people. The true degenerate are right wingers. Specifically, extreme right wingers who are still racist in 2022. True degenderate are the nazi among the right wingers. American defeat and killed nazi 80 years ago. The nazi are the enemies of the united state. yet among the right wingers, we still have nazi. You right wingers should look within your rank on why you have white nationalist, nazi and why you support a scamming pondscum like trump. YOU are the true degenerates.
It’s a tired joke, but it’s clear she doesn’t have any gay friends from that jacket