Posted on 04/04/2015 6:53:25 AM PDT by lqcincinnatus
At the simplest level, there are seven questions central to the debate over same-sex marriage that rarely if ever gain public review. I have written on them below, and what you read here has been refashioned for proper presentation before the United States Supreme Court when it reviews four cases on the matter April 28, 2015. 1. What is the Source for Unalienable Rights? 2. Is Marriage a Right or a Liberty? 3. How Does the Creator Define Human Sexuality? 4. God-given Rights or Human-defined Rights? 5. Is the Declaration of Independence Honored Anymore? 6. Can a Healthy Social Order be Rooted in Pansexuality? 7. Is Homosexuality a Fixed Trait?
(Excerpt) Read more at virtueonline.org ...
Your premise is flawed for a basic reason, the radical homosexuals consider their god to be immediate pleasure and satisfaction while Christians consider God to the the Almighty. Asking them to consider God in their thinking is a dead end. They have long since written him off since he disagrees with their lifestyle as well. He will get his chance to write them off in his own time.
Marriage like human rights comes from God, not man. Therefore man can no more change marriage than he can change the direction of the setting sun.
God is truth...but to be a rational man....truth is God... even an atheist if they contend they are rational must have truth as God...and bow to it ...despite thier wants... else are nothing but irrationally
prove to.other by logic their thinking is irrational, illogical and does not stand up to any critical thinking...
it is how you prove a law “unlawful”..it's how you prove a right does not come from arbitrarily from men's whims... but from the creator external to man..the rules of natural law
Crush a leftist by proving him just an ignorant bible thumper..just something different bible, like the New York Times book on the month
I understand what you are saying, and I somewhat agree, though I still always involve God in the conversation. The problem is that when you (I) do that we will never convince the other side of that our position has merit because they don’t believe in God or they believe in some fairytale version of who God is. I think the best we can do is pray that they allow His Holy Spirit into their hearts and opens their eyes.
Meanwhile, we wonder what God is waiting for. Why doesn't He just blast the leftiies with their abominations so we can live our righteous Christian lives? But God has already told us what He is waiting for in 2 Peter 3:9. He wants no one to perish, but all to repent. That includes the homosexuals who are mocking the testimony that comes out of our mouths with the counter-testimony that comes from our actions.
And the money we send to companies that promote the homosexual lifestyle still funds the homosexual agenda, regardless of what we say. Why don't more of us make the sacrifice of researching alternatives to those companies?
It's not only what we say that will win people to our side, but how we live. "Faith without deeds is dead."
Funny, that even the demons acknowledged Jesus as Christ, but not the secularists.
Once you mention the Bible or God in a discussion, any other points you might make are immediately and totally discredited in the minds of those you are trying to convert.
So, do we want to make converts, or do we want to go thru motions that make us feel good about ourselves?
Look up the Apostle Paul’s speech on the Areopagus. He spoke to his listeners in terms they could understand and accept. Had he started preaching the risen Christ immediately, he would simply have caused his listeners to walk away.
To my mind, Christians who use the Bible as an authority to make a point to unbelievers are much like the crazy bearded guy with a sign downtown, standing on the corner and shouting about the world soon to end.
Does he really think anybody is going to listen to him? Of course not. At bottom, his choice of method is a form of exhibitionism and narcissism. It’s not about changing the minds of others, it’s about flaunting himself as a superior person.
Very much like a great deal of leftist posing.
As Vinegar Joe Stillwell said after being ejected by the Japs from Burma, ""I claim we got a hell of a beating. We got run out of Burma and it is humiliating as hell. I think we ought to find out what caused it, go back and retake it."
Note the "find out what caused it" phase. Stillwell didn't propose more of the same, fighting the same way to produce the same result simply out of a refusal to submit.
Fighting to the last man may be noble and brave, but it won't win the war. I propose we figure out why we're losing the battles, develop new strategies and tactics and counter-attack.
I recommend we stop implementing Einstein's purported definition of insanity, trying the same things over and over and expecting different results.
The demons remember where they came from and know all they have lost. The secularist are ignorant.
I don’t think there is any alternative. If we don’t rely on the Bible for our truth, there is no reason anyone else is wrong.
It is amazing that God gives us free will and even with our sins, Jesus still loves us and wants us to love Him.
We are all sinners and we leave judgment to God, we endure like Jesus did the sinfulness of the world.
Yet we need to stand up for the right and moral way and detest the immoral and political correct way of the world.
I highly recommend the christian movie “Do you believe?
Your comment: “It’s not only what we say that will win people to our side, but how we live. “Faith without deeds is dead.” I agree.
A right is a
1) a moral concept
2) a moral principle
3) a prerogative
4) a sanction to independent action
defining proper relationships between individuals in an organized social context.They are the moral requirements of man in a social context.
The logical validation of individual rights can be proven through an appropriate process of reduction without referring to God or the Bible.Each of man's natural rights has a specific source in a rational objective ethics, which rests on an objective view of the nature of man as a rational being, which rests on a rational objective metaphysics and epistemology.
When this is done, the only rights that are formulated in terms of broad abstractions and resting directly on universal ethical principles are the same as those that are God-given: life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
However I do think the terms God and Bible can be use in the debate if you pivot them 180 and put on the other.person arguments
....the word bible just means book.......well liberals /leftist are always prattling on about “their” books..ie their bibles
so point it out the are just thumping a different book as there bible authority and why should you value their “Bible” any more than any other “Bible”..
Get them to see just how unthinking they are.. that they must use critical thinking and logic and reason against what the read and hear to validate...to test... they must question
its what we do with the media all day long and find what passes for “proved truth” “settled science” is highly highly questionable when tested with critical thinking...
But with the left what they are feed by the Media is gospel truth... it's their Bibles..
To get them to think past what they get from today's intellectually inbred academia and media is half the battle.
The other is the word God... they rant on about this arbitrary supernatural being God being a dictator and they will not follow it
But logic dictates, reason dictates, truth dictates it's the foundation of science... so you don't like God.. well you still have a dictator ruling..called logic reason and truth...
You may want to be an atheist but you're still stuck with a God ruling over you if your are a rational man
~~~~~~~~~
The very first command of God to Mankind:
Genesis 1:28 -- King James Version (KJV)28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply...
No queer "marriage" can do that.
While I agree that strictly religious arguments may be counter-productive in changing the general trajectory, they’re not counter-productive logically. But logic, like ethics and esthetics, ceased to be requirements for graduation from nearly every “certified” university in the country during the 60’s upheavals. Thus, one “argument” appears to be as good as another, the winner simply a matter of might. And the Left has mastered this specious, phony strategy—cowing institutions (not simply universities and their attendant psychological, psychiatric dependent departments and graduates, but churches of just about every stripe) with nothing less than blackmail. And our Supreme Court, our Congress, certainly our president, and (as Asa Hutchinson apparently felt justified in admitting), our miseducated CHILDREN have condoned it.
——Politics always rests upon a moral foundation.——
Not progressive politics...
Their foundation is the acquisition of power and control...
Nothing moral about it at all
That’s all fine. The pursuit of happiness to one person is having sexual relations with another man. It’s not harming the continuity of society if most of society is not partaking. And since, by even the most liberal numbers only 10% of the population is partaking, that is not “most” so society and civilization will be unharmed.
Just playing a little devil’s advocate here.
According to the CDC it's 3%, but that's only if you count the prison inmates who don't have a choice if they want sex. It was 2% including inmates, but the prisons are filling up fast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.