Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Constitutional Amendment; A theological perspective
Topic Started: Jun 4 2006, 08:22 AM (648 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
No kidding, flag buring is far more important an issue!


Jane "But, without the Fed gov in it, each state's laws would not necessarily be recognized in another state. you might end up in jail in Texas for something that was perfectly legit in New York. etc."

Isn't that the way it is now? Most states recognize each others laws out of self-interest.

The answer to your question though can be found in the Federalist Papers, #10, where Madison considers the problem of factions forming a tyranny of the majority. Limiting the federal government to enumerated powers, and leaving the rest to the state and the people, eliminates that problem, as well as political pandering to special interests. The idea is each state is supposed to be able to experiment with what works best and in time, as that solution is found, adjust to and adopt it. This is spontaneous order in action, as opposed to judicial activism or legislative fiat.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DocInBird
Member
They are kidding, right? They want to amend the constitution so that their personal beliefs become law? My mind wanders back to a time when an old crooner was on the Johnny Carson Show. He wanted a ban of all R rated movies because some Christian might be tempted to go see one, and thus go to hell.

I have to ask this question. Why is our government involved with marriage? What business is it of theirs? Okay, before you mention taxes, why does marriage have anything to do with taxes? I don't understand this.

Some of the folks against gay marriage get way out there. They portray folks as "hating heterosexual marriage" and trying to destroy "procreation at a time when the world really needs procreation." Did you know that the world is under-populated? Wow. These people even have their own scientists. Those of us that live in reality, think the opposite.

But I welcome opposing opinions.
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
Isn't that the way it is now? Most states recognize each others laws out of self-interest.


most, but not all.
guns, for instance... big difference in AZ and NJ laws
if we leave it to states to define and regulate marriage, a gay couple will have to reside in certain states to enjoy the privileges of marriage.
and then, when/if they travel to other states for business or pleasure, their privileges will change accordingly.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Where will gays marry under such an amendment?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
Upon reading the following by a Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, I thought it might provide some food for thought for many of us. I have included only a rather short excerpt.

Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink

Quote:
 
In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated--no, free--to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us?

Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago, when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slaveholders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?

What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus' identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God sides with the powerless. God liberates the oppressed. God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel's imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Excellent article! Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?"
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
The writer of the article referenced in the first post (from the Denver Post) doesn't know what he is talking about. Consider this quote:
Quote:
 
We know that even the most committed biblical literalists don't swallow everything the Bible has to say - such as that various categories of people should be stoned to death for offenses that are not even crimes in contemporary society.

Not true at all. We do "swallow" everything. Stoning was the Israelite method of capitol punishment, under their law. Since the law was fullfilled by Jesus, it is no longer necessary to apply this law. An example of this is in the book of Acts, where Peter is told by God to eat "unclean" food.
Quote:
 
4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: 5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'

    8"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'

    9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

from bible.com

Homosexuality is condemed as sin both in the new testiment and the old. This notion that we are interpreting the bible wrong is inacurate. It is one of the more plain and easy to understand issues of the bible. These people are just playing mind games.

Fact is, unless we have a constitutional admendment, we will have gay marriage. Period.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Colo_Crawdad
Jun 6 2006, 02:09 PM
Upon reading the following by a Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, I thought it might provide some food for thought for many of us.  I have included only a rather short excerpt.

Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink

Quote:
 
In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated--no, free--to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us?

Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago, when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slaveholders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?

What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus' identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God sides with the powerless. God liberates the oppressed. God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel's imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.

The writer of this article left out the part where the "harlots" repented of their sins. Yes, homosexuals are accepted into the kingdom of God, AFTER they repent of their sins, like the rest of us.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan "Since the law was fullfilled by Jesus, it is no longer necessary to apply this law. An example of this is in the book of Acts, where Peter is told by God to eat "unclean" food."

By your reasoning then any supposed law against homosexuality was fulfulled by Jesus:

Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 9 2006, 01:37 PM
Alan "Since the law was fullfilled by Jesus, it is no longer necessary to apply this law. An example of this is in the book of Acts, where Peter is told by God to eat "unclean" food."

By your reasoning then any supposed law against homosexuality was fulfulled by Jesus:

Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

You are not understanding what Jesus is saying. If you "love your neighbor as yourself", you will not commit adultry and murder, and you will not steal, covet or lie. If you do those things, you are not loving your neighbor as yourself.

If you are right, Jesus would be contradicting himself when he said:
Quote:
 
9"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
(mat 19:9)

Jesus fullfilled the law by writting the law on our hearts.
Quote:
 
THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
        AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
        I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
        AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"
Heb 10:16 - quote from Jer 31:33

There are 2 different types of laws in the Torah:
1. Priestly laws concerning sacrifices and temple worship. Jesus fullfilled these by becoming the sacrifice.

2. Sundry laws - These laws Jesus fullfilled by writting them on our hearts. These are summed up by saying love your neighbor as yourself.

Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan "You are not understanding what Jesus is saying."

You are not understanding what Jesus is saying.

Gee, ain't that a grand argument.



How is Jesus contradicting himself, he didn't forgive adultery in Romans 13:0 nor in Matthew 19:9. He is being consistent.

But since he mentions nothing of homosexuality, he is saying it is among other commandments comprehended ias love thy neighbour as thyself.

And that's only if you see some supposed prohibition against homosexulaity elsewhere in the Bible.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply