Evangelical perceptions of coming persecution

[Evangelical]

I just find it interesting, and yes I agree with the premise, that my Pastor's sermon today was about Persecution (the end of the Beatitudes) and how he applied it to his views of the coming "fairness doctrine" and how homosexual marriage is limiting Church practices.

The Pastor viewed that this would happen within 6 months at latest; 9 months.

I think this view will solidify segregation between the States, those supporting Gay Marriage (Post-Christian) and those remaining Christian.

 

[homo#1]

The States that refused to accept gay marriage shouldn't be allowed to be called "Land of the Free", instead, they should all be called "Land of the sexually repressed".

 

[Toro]

Using Big Government to restrict individuals' actions certainly isn't freedom. But then again, evangelical "conservatives" have never had a problem restricting individual freedom if they believed it violated their definition of morality.

 

[Evangelical]

Both of you are idiots.

 

[homo#1]

We're idiots? You're the one who needs a pastor to tell you what to think

 

[strollingbones]

the disciplines figured jesus would return in their life times....doesn't your bible say not even the angels in heaven know....so your minister is a "false prophet" me i would be a changing churches....

 

[homo#1]

More proof that the bible is total crap

 

[KittenKoder]

the disciplines figured jesus would return in their life times....doesn't your bible say not even the angels in heaven know....so your minister is a "false prophet" me i would be a changing churches....

Now that's the logic that seems to escape many. But meh, let them keep wasting time preparing for something that will likely never come, at least they're keeping busy.

 

[Bfgrn]

the disciplines figured jesus would return in their life times....doesn't your bible say not even the angels in heaven know....so your minister is a "false prophet" me i would be a changing churches....

The disciplines AND Sarah "empty vessel" Palin...

Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. “She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board,” said Munger, a music composer and teacher. “I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, ‘Sarah, how can you believe in creationism — your father’s a science teacher.’ And she said, ‘We don’t have to agree on everything.‘

“I pushed her on the earth’s creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she’d seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them.”

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. “She looked in my eyes and said, ‘Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.‘”

Sarah Palin Thinks Jesus Will Return in Her Lifetime, and That the Earth is Less Than 7,000 Years Old | dmiessler.com

 

[homo#1]

How can a supposedly "great" country like the US be run by people who believe in invisible superbeings from another dimension? No wonder you're attacking everyone in sight, you're insane.

 

[Toro]

Both of you are idiots.

Says the seer of the coming "segregation" of America.

Six to nine months you say? That sounds right along Terral's timeline of the FEMA extermination camps. Surely that can't be a coincidence.

 

[AllieBaba]

Using Big Government to restrict individuals' actions certainly isn't freedom. But then again, evangelical "conservatives" have never had a problem restricting individual freedom if they believed it violated their definition of morality.

You have an example of that?

 

[Toro]

Using Big Government to restrict individuals' actions certainly isn't freedom. But then again, evangelical "conservatives" have never had a problem restricting individual freedom if they believed it violated their definition of morality.

You have an example of that?

Yes, gay marriage.

 

[C-101]

Using Big Government to restrict individuals' actions certainly isn't freedom. But then again, evangelical "conservatives" have never had a problem restricting individual freedom if they believed it violated their definition of morality.

You have an example of that?

Yes, gay marriage.

If you're going to make that point, then you must also acknowledge that everyone, not just conservatives, since as long as marriage has existed has in effect restricted freedom by not legalizing homosexual "marriages".

The concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman is not a recent revelation born with the conservative movement, but rather a tradition deeply embedded in all of human history.

Conservatives are merely advocating the upholding of such a tradition, and I find it preposterous that you claim conservatives want take away a "right" that has never existed.

Big Government does not have to do anything. It merely must maintain the definition of marriage as it has always been.

 

[Old Rocks]

Using Big Government to restrict individuals' actions certainly isn't freedom. But then again, evangelical "conservatives" have never had a problem restricting individual freedom if they believed it violated their definition of morality.

You have an example of that?

Evangelicals in the Southern States were the last holdouts on the miscagenation.

 

[Toro]

If you're going to make that point, then you must also acknowledge that everyone, not just conservatives, since as long as marriage has existed has in effect restricted freedom by not legalizing homosexual "marriages".

The concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman is not a recent revelation born with the conservative movement, but rather a tradition deeply embedded in all of human history.

Conservatives are merely advocating the upholding of such a tradition, and I find it preposterous that you claim conservatives want take away a "right" that has never existed.

Big Government does not have to do anything. It merely must maintain the definition of marriage as it has always been.

Actually, that's not the case. Marriage has not always been defined as a man and a woman. Men used to have many wives, including in Christian nations.

But I shan't quibble.

The fact that something has been defined historically as such does not necessarily make it acceptable. The abolition of slavery is a recent phenomenon, and blacks did not have full rights in many states even 5 decades ago. Women weren't considered legal persons 100 years ago, or at least on the same legal level as men. But at one time, it was perfectly acceptable that men could subjugate women and own other human beings. This was codified in law. And the law by definition is a set of rules set forth by society that will be enforced with violence if need be through the power of the state. This is the state restricting the actions of people, which is a restriction of freedom.

Certainly, it is not only the Church that opposes gay marriage. However, it is certainly the Church which is most vociferous and strident in its opposition to gay marriage, and uses the pulpit to preach against what is a contract that is entered freely by two individuals. This is an imposition on the free actions of individuals undertaken of their own consent, yet the state - with the vast majority of Christians supporting the state - restricts the rights of individuals to freely enter into a binding contract.

Now you can make very interesting arguments opposing gay marriage and what it means to social organization. Is polygamy now acceptable? Seems to me that it is inconsistent to allow gay marriage but not more than two people of legal age and of their own consent to marry. However, by not allowing two people to enter freely into a contract because of their sexual preferences, Christians are imposing their moral values through the power of the state and restricting the free actions of others.

 

[C-101]

Actually, that's not the case. Marriage has not always been defined as a man and a woman. Men used to have many wives, including in Christian nations.

In the context of multiple wives it still is true. Each marriage is an individual compact between a man and a woman. Not two men or two women.

The fact that something has been defined historically as such does not necessarily make it acceptable. The abolition of slavery is a recent phenomenon, and blacks did not have full rights in many states even 5 decades ago. Women weren't considered legal persons 100 years ago, or at least on the same legal level as men. But at one time, it was perfectly acceptable that men could subjugate women and own other human beings. This was codified in law. And the law by definition is a set of rules set forth by society that will be enforced with violence if need be through the power of the state. This is the state restricting the actions of people, which is a restriction of freedom.

And yet, women in some cultures were free as were Africans. History did not start in 1776. The right to such freedoms DID exist in some cultures and was subsequently taken away in others.

As far as I know, homosexual "marriages" have never existed until now nor was it ever considered a right in history.

Your statement is that conservatives wish to restrict freedom. What freedom has been restricted? It never existed in the first place.

Was the right for a man to marry a man ever a God-given right?

Certainly, it is not only the Church that opposes gay marriage. However, it is certainly the Church which is most vociferous and strident in its opposition to gay marriage, and uses the pulpit to preach against what is a contract that is entered freely by two individuals. This is an imposition on the free actions of individuals undertaken of their own consent, yet the state - with the vast majority of Christians supporting the state - restricts the rights of individuals to freely enter into a binding contract.

I don't care what homosexuals do in their life. They can be homosexual all they want for all I care. But having an alternative lifestyle contrary to human nature does not establish a sense of exclusive entitlement or rights. I could profess my love for my car but that does not entitle me to the right of marrying it. My alternate lifestyle could be behaving like an animal in public causing a horrible ruckus, but it does not give me the right to do so.

Free actions are subject to a core set of values and principles. The minute society decides to discard values and principles in favor of popular will is the minute we descend into a state of anarchy.

Now you can make very interesting arguments opposing gay marriage and what it means to social organization. Is polygamy now acceptable? Seems to me that it is inconsistent to allow gay marriage but not more than two people of legal age and of their own consent to marry. However, by not allowing two people to enter freely into a contract because of their sexual preferences, Christians are imposing their moral values through the power of the state and restricting the free actions of others.

DING DING DING!

You are only helping my argument. Once we allow homosexual marriages, what's next? Do you approve of underage marriages? Suppose your child wants to marry at age six. Who are you to restrict his free actions? Suppose an animal rights activist wants to marry an animal. Who are you to tread on their right to marry?

There is a fine line to be drawn. If you go down this road of "discrimination" nonsense then you stand to be permissible of ALL free actions.

Society is governed by values and principles. The moment you take away those values and principles on what basis can law be made appropriate? None.

There is only so many times you can cross the line in the sand before walking off the cliff:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QSlvUn1YH4[/ame]

 

[Toro]

And yet, women in some cultures were free as were Africans. History did not start in 1776. The right to such freedoms DID exist in some cultures and was subsequently taken away in others.

Right. I'm not arguing that. However, your argument rests on "Historical convention is this, thus we should do that." But historical convention is not always correct. In fact, it often is not correct.

As far as I know, homosexual "marriages" have never existed until now nor was it ever considered a right in history.

Your statement is that conservatives wish to restrict freedom. What freedom has been restricted? It never existed in the first place.

And blacks never had freedom in America in the first place.

The freedom that is being denied is the right to enter into a legally binding contract that everyone else is allowed to enter but a small minority are not because they are different.

I can make other arguments of religious conservatives restricting freedom of action based on moral values, such as euthanasia or illicit drug use, but we'll stick to this.

Was the right for a man to marry a man ever a God-given right?

Who said rights are God given?

I don't care what homosexuals do in their life. They can be homosexual all they want for all I care. But having an alternative lifestyle contrary to human nature does not establish a sense of exclusive entitlement or rights. I could profess my love for my car but that does not entitle me to the right of marrying it. My alternate lifestyle could be behaving like an animal in public causing a horrible ruckus, but it does not give me the right to do so.

What "exclusive entitlement or rights" are we talking about? I didn't realize that marriage - an act that every single person can engage in - was an "exclusive entitlement" or "right."

I'd argue that if you are against gay marriage, don't get married to a homosexual. But don't deny the rights that everyone else has to homosexuals.

As for marrying your car or your dog, that is a canard. Cars and animals are property under the law. Human beings are not. The law is how human beings organize themselves in a civil society, not how cars or dogs organize themselves. And all human beings are meant to be equal under the law.

Free actions are subject to a core set of values and principles. The minute society decides to discard values and principles in favor of popular will is the minute we descend into a state of anarchy.

And that's my point. You are imposing your Christian values (and I'm saying "you" in the third-person) to restrict the actions of others based on your moral code. There is no evidence to suggest nor reason to believe that allowing 3% of the population the same rights as the other 97% would somehow descend this country into anarchy.

 

[C-101]

Right. I'm not arguing that. However, your argument rests on "Historical convention is this, thus we should do that." But historical convention is not always correct. In fact, it often is not correct.

All I'm establishing in this point is that conservatives are not taking away rights as you say, but rather preserving traditional values and principles that have always existed.

And blacks never had freedom in America in the first place.

The freedom that is being denied is the right to enter into a legally binding contract that everyone else is allowed to enter but a small minority are not because they are different.

I can make other arguments of religious conservatives restricting freedom of action based on moral values, such as euthanasia or illicit drug use, but we'll stick to this.

Some were free and some were not. Again, you ignored my point on history. It did not start at 1776. Our actions were not of our own accord but based upon other countries restriction of freedoms, principally monarchies. Some countries and cultures, (such as the United Provinces) permitted freedom in all shapes and forms as God-given rights. As English citizens, we took those rights from others and that translated into the US. Rights that we all enjoy today were originally present with our Lord, but were taken away and corrupted by men.

Who said rights are God given?

Our founders. Where did rights come from if not God?

What "exclusive entitlement or rights" are we talking about? I didn't realize that marriage - an act that every single person can engage in - was an "exclusive entitlement" or "right."

Again, you are wrong. An underage child cannot engage in marriage. A person who loves their car cannot marry it. Homosexuals cannot marry.

By allowing such things we give them exclusive entitlement or rights based upon their preferences, not their intrinsic rights.

You have the right to marry in the traditional fashion, but not to your own preference and permitting such preferences would be entitlement.

I'd argue that if you are against gay marriage, don't get married to a homosexual. But don't deny the rights that everyone else has to homosexuals.

If you would read closely I'm not. You cannot see past your preconcieved notions that opposition to gay marriage is offensive and discriminatory. These notions are the result of the liberals controlling the debate and your unwillingness to be labeled a bigot by them.

As for marrying your car or your dog, that is a canard. Cars and animals are property under the law. Human beings are not. The law is how human beings organize themselves in a civil society, not how cars or dogs organize themselves. And all human beings are meant to be equal under the law.

And thus, you have principles and values. But you are willing to discard those for homosexuals. Once you discard them, they're gone; you can't get them back.

And then all law is made according to mob rule and not principles or values.

Once the order as described is broken, there is nothing standing in the way of animal/human marriages.

You also forget that humans were once property too. Who's to say that a school of thought will come when there is no ownership or property? (Hint: It already exists. It's called socialism.)

And that's my point. You are imposing your Christian values (and I'm saying "you" in the third-person) to restrict the actions of others based on your moral code. There is no evidence to suggest nor reason to believe that allowing 3% of the population the same rights as the other 97% would somehow descend this country into anarchy.

You don't get it, do you? Ever since the US was born we have become a progressively more liberal nation with only brief respites of conservatism.

We are on the same teetering edge that Europe was on following WWII. They crossed every line in the sand and then plunged into the abyss of socialism.

We too, are doomed to the same demise unless we hold on to core American values and principles. Allowing gay marriage is only breaking one of these core values and princples. But combined with the current state of our nation it is enough to lead us into a state of perpetual anarchy, one that is not governed by principles and values but one ruled by a carnal, materialistic government.

Anarchy is not necessarily the absence of laws, but of values and principles that define the measures of appropriate law.

 

[Toro]

And thus, you have principles and values. But you are willing to discard those for homosexuals. Once you discard them, they're gone; you can't get them back.

And then all law is made according to mob rule and not principles or values.

Yes, I'm sure to the torches and pitchforks crowd, giving homosexuals "special" rights by allowing them to marry is a breakdown towards anarchy.

However, that's what they said about giving blacks the vote too. Somehow, the nation survived.

Once the order as described is broken, there is nothing standing in the way of animal/human marriages.

Of course there is. Animals are not people.

You don't get it, do you? Ever since the US was born we have become a progressively more liberal nation with only brief respites of conservatism.

We are on the same teetering edge that Europe was on following WWII. They crossed every line in the sand and then plunged into the abyss of socialism.

We too, are doomed to the same demise unless we hold on to core American values and principles. Allowing gay marriage is only breaking one of these core values and princples. But combined with the current state of our nation it is enough to lead us into a state of perpetual anarchy, one that is not governed by principles and values but one ruled by a carnal, materialistic government.

You should get outside of the country more. It should be noted that when the church had far more influence in Europe and the continent was much less secular and far more conservative than it is today, Europeans habitually slaughtered each other on a semi-regular basis, including killing somewhere around 50 million in the last century alone. It's better now.

I'm amazed at how little faith people who make your argument have in Americans. Allowing 3% of the population to marry, and BANG!, civilization as we know it is over.