The issue of homosexual “marriage” is not necessarily more important than the issue of feeding hungry people and working for peace. Christians are called to oppose sin and perform acts of charity and peace at the same time. Military downsizing, diplomacy advocation, and enviromental protection law are somewhat subjective depending on the current state of the culture and much less black and white than doctrinal and moral issues.
I agree, but at election time, we do indeed often have to prioritize. Which is more important: opposing “sin” or supporting charity and peace?
Does that mean that we focus on the doctrinal and moral issues to the exclusion of the others? Merely because they are supposedly easier to deal with? Anyway, the debate over these moral issues in popular society would suggest that perhaps they are not as black and white as you think.
No. I don’t need to prioritize. I can do both. I give of my time and my money to help the poor and underprivledged and I support all legislation that opposes grave immorality through letters, phone calls, votes, and other forms of legislator support.
Christians can have differing opinions on military size, diplomacy advocation, and environmental policy but black and white moral issues do take priority as institutionalizing sin is always wrong, whereas policy in the above issues is debateable. This obviously contrasts with your last statement that seems to imply that moral truth is subjective, whereas Jesus did not clam this to be true. Jesus accepted the entire Jewish moral law which delcared homosexual acts to be abominations. Further, Jesus put such an emphasis on the priority of immoral acts (sin) that He, as God, died a hideous death to free us from our own depravity. As followers of Christ, it’s best to accept the gift rather than to ignore the cross.
Okay, I see where you are coming from, and I hate to bring up old tired points, but the Jewish moral law includes all sorts of purity, eating, and liturgical customs that Jesus accepted, but that we ignore. This would include eating lobster, an “abomination”. Why this issue? The reason I ask is that it seems from much of the post-election commentary and discussion, that the gay marriage issue had a huge impact on the election (despite the fact that Kerry also opposed gay marriage.) I’m trying to understand this. Why is this issue so important? Why vote on this issue or any moral issue exclusively? Is it really because it’s easier to understand a candidate’s stand on moral issues and easier to understand the issues themselves?
Okay, I see where you’re coming from. Two quick points though:
Did Jesus ever advocate that Adultery be made legal? NO Did he promote or even allow adulterous relationships? NO!
No, Jewish Moral Law still stands. What you are refering to here is Jewish Ceremomial Law. The law of Cleanliness vs. the Law of Sinfullness.
Don’t believe the hype. It’s already been disproved that this issue decided the election. The voters were more concerned about security than moral values. The exit poll question put the alternatives to the voters in a rather stupid way. Garbage in, garbage out.
Jesus prevented the death penalty for the woman but this did not negate the moral law against adultery. In fact, he reaffrimed it as a sin immediately following his writing in the sand. Eating with sinners is not a sin - no problem there. Gathering grain and touching lepers were disciplinary laws rather than moral laws. Authority over demons demonstrated that He was God.
This takes a great deal of OT study to understand. The moral laws came first. Violation of the moral laws required disciplinary laws that were a sort of punitive process to get the people back to morality. A modern day example is any addictive sin - it ultimately takes more than just saying “you won’t do this” or “you will do this”. It takes additional disciplinary measures to overcome the habitual sin. When Jesus came, He freed us from the old Jewish disciplinary laws because He was (and is) sufficient to overcome all sin - now our discipline is prayer, works of charity, fasting, adoration etc - all acts of unifying ourselves with Jesus - the only one in whom freedom can be obtained.
As I said before, working for peace is vitally important - however, good and faithful Christians can differ on approach. It seems that you think Kerry’s approach for peace was better than Bush’s. Many other Christians disagree. Further, you oversimplify when you homosexual “marriage” is the only issue when there were many other issues, including abortion, embryo destruction, euthanasia, cloning, faith-based initiatives and other moral issues on the table in the past election.
I completely disagree. I think moral issues were in fact the deciding factor. Our politicians simply have a hard time listening. The elections in 2004, 2002, 2000 have increasing favored pro-life, pro-family candidates and, in every election speech I heard by a Republican candidate, the loudest cheers came when pro-life and pro-family issues were discussed. I wasn’t surprised by the exit polls. It’s what the people want.
That’s not clear. He certain was against the particular adultry law of the time and did not suggest a different version.
Are you implying adultery may not be a mortal sin?
I’m suggesting it may not be a civil offense.
Didn’t you hear His command to the adultress, “Go and Sin No More?”
It may not warrant the death penalty, but since adultery laws have been removed, or not enforced, we certainly have seen a sharp increase in adultry, fornication, sodomy, abortion, etc.
:clapping:
Fix, you’re getting soft. I think you are becoming a liberal!!:bigyikes:
I am generally opposed to the death penalty. I am not a republican. I am a Catholic who is tired of the ever pervasive moral relativism and secular humanism.
same with me, sweetheart.
good to see we agree on something, honey.