Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: abvax!iccgcc.DNET!benning@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Imposing Christian morality on nonbelievers Message-ID: Date: 11 Feb 91 01:12:49 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 88 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: > It's becoming more common for Christians to attempt (through boycotts > or legislation) to impose their moral standards on nonbelievers. Doug. Perhaps this is a result of being forced to swallow the "new- morality" of this present generation, which is: - God doesn't exist - If God doesn't exist, man can define what is right and wrong. - If someone says what you do is wrong, fund a lobby to put into law what you do.It is a "personal choice" and part of my freedom of expression as an American. - If it feels good then do it. An example: A group from the gay community marched on Washington and had many speakers. One speaker called for an end to sodomy laws. He said what two consulting adults do in private can NOT be legislated. "We are not harming anyone with our actions..." went the claim. Okay. Maybe he is right. Then the next speaker gets up and demands more federal money for AIDS research to save the lives of those dying of this illness. Hey wait. I though what two (or more) adults did in private wasn't going to effect me. Now they want more money (which I agree the money is needed) to cure an illness spread through the intimacy of these individuals while in the privacy of there own home. Sounds like wanting to eat the cake and have it also. That federal money comes from you and me. So if more is needed for AIDS research, we help pay for it. An example: I Tell my children that the Bible TEACHES that homosexuality is sin. And those who claim to be, are no different than adulterers or one who sleeps with their sister. It is rebelion against God and through Jesus bringing you new life through faith, you can overcome the sin, and live a "normal" life of "normal" God given relations with the opposite sex. THEN, Television tells my children dad is an old fashion dope. The Schools WANT TO open a gay-awareness SUPPORT OFFICE TO TELL school age boys that it is okay AND NORMAL to want sex with the quarterback. Dad gets hit with a civil right law suit and is forced to work the AIDS floor at the local hospital because the Judge thinks it will help Dad respect other people more than he did before. No. I think what you see as just a reaction of having Imorality shoved down the throats of Christians, through TV, movies, Schools, public figures (even elected representatives) who have attacked the moral characters of believers. Granted, If we did it right, we would do it through the power of God as the first believers did. But Lord help us, we do what we can. In America I would say there is freedom of religion, but don't practice it outside of your home. It has been made illegal (in my opinion). > > What are we trying to say: > > > (4) something else ? Yes. Something else. > > Whenever I see this happening, I wonder if the Christianity they practice > has any real power or virtue of its own, or whether it's just a form of > making rules rather than living by faith and trust. > Perhaps it is a form of making rules. But when laws are passed against you, this might seem the mose proper way to protect what you regard as precious. Mixed with faith and trust, this could be a credible reaction. Though I know the Lord forbids murder, I often wonder what I would do if my childrens lives were threatened. Would I attempt to free them through any means (violence, killing the attacker???) or would I trust them to the Lord through faith. Many times GOD requires faith and trust TO BE ACCOMPANIED with action. > Doug > B. Benning [Interestingly, the argument that "we are not harming anyone" is not one I recall being proposed in this group by Christian homosexuals. I don't know whether you're seriously suggesting that laws against homosexuality should be retained because of health consequences. If so, you might want to think very carefully about the implications of that type of argument. Perhaps the state should endorse homosexual marriage, on the grounds that AIDS is a consequence of promiscuity, not homosexuality per se, and encouraging homosexuals to have stable monogamous relationships would decrease the amount of trouble. --clh]