"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." Martin Luther King Jr.
I think this is a great quote, particularly in light of the idea of legislating one's morality. It is often the case that any time a a citizen of the US, who is a Christian, tries to influence gov't through legislation, voting, lobbying, etc... they are told that we shouldn't legislate morality.
The problem is-laws are ALL about legislating morality. It is simply a matter of whose morality and do they (the laws and morals) make sense. Christians surely have a right to influence the governmental (sp) process. Thinkabout the recent rash of pro-homosexual bills that nearly make it a crime to even disagree with the goodness of homosexuality. You can only talk good about homosexuals, but never say how utterly dangerous homosexual sex is to the homosexual and promiscuous populations.
MLK makes a great point here in that laws cannot change a person's heart, but they can open the door to that change. It is not against the law to hate someone for any reason (and express that hatred verbally-part of the "danger of freedom of speech); it is wrong to act on that hatred (ie...kill, lych , beat up...).
And it surely should not be a crime just to disagree with a lifestyle choice. Beat them up, kill them- yes. Disagree, even hate? As an American-yes, as a Christian-we can disagree with-but not hate.
What do you think?
Derrick
8 comments:
Does anyone have any information of The Christian Courier? On christiancourier.com there is an article having quotes from The Christian News Encyclopepia. Admittedly, this is also a publication that I am not all too familiar with. In the book review of Michael Dyson's book," The True Martin Luther King Jr.", there is a quote from Michael Dyson. It goes like this," He ( Dr. King Jr. ) repudiated the doctrine of the diety of Jesus, and he rejected the concept that the Lord was raised bodily from the dead. King disdained the New Testament affirmation of Christ's virgin birth, asserting that the early Christians devised a mythological story to account for the moral uniqueness of Jesus of Nazareth. His theology has been profusely documented in The Christain News Encyclopedia."
I read similar articles and wonderered if anyone had additional information of the validity of either The Christian News Encyclopedia or The Christian Courier. These were pretty bold statements.
Derrick Bright said...
christiancourier.com seems to be an ok site after just a cursory glance. The article titles seem to suggest it can be trusted, though I would really have to reserve judgement.
The article, while having little to do with the "content of my post" seemed interesting. I can neither confirm nor deny the veracity of the content of the article you referred to, but perhaps it could be a topic sometime down the road.
Or perhaps you could do a little more research and give us an update on what you find.
It makes for a better book if you can dig up controversy, and even if he were not a Christian (as it seems to allude to), it wouldn't ruin the quote of the day or much of the stuff he taught; much of which seems to line up with Judeo-Christian values.
Though I could not say for certain that he was a true believer. If he denied the resurrection, the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, then I would say he was not a Christian in the Biblical sense.
He may have sounded Christian (as many do), but if he believed another gospel, I am afraid he would still be separated from God by His sins just like anyone else. Only God knows, I suppose.
Derrick
Ahh, but what I posted no longer has any link to my original post. I must stop that. :-)
Derrick
The content of your post seems exacting in the sense and context of your last entry line. As Christians, we may disagree. To hate is not nor never should be an option.It is indeed becoming more correct in a political sense to be "punished" by disagreeing or being scriptually against homosexual freedoms and associated legislation for such. In my business, my materials and legal documents are scrutinized under a microscope to ensure that I have not "offended" the lifestyle of anyone.This includes but is not limitied to a homosexual parenting home situation.
I don't think it matters if you are scripturally against homosexuality. The PC crowd does not want you to accept, as normal, behavior that goes against nature. Plus, there are several options for disagreeing with homosexuality that are not necessarily Biblically based.
Derrick
The homosexual population is generally becoming more accepting that their homosexual nature is indeed "natural" and does not go against nature. Much of the science ( et all ) community that stand firm in the evolution theory may also agree that homosexual nature may indeed be natural.Biblically based Word of God might indeed be the best option for disagreeing with homosexuality.True, there are other options, but none hold as fast and true as The Bible.
Russ said:
"The homosexual population is generally becoming more accepting that their homosexual nature is indeed "natural" and does not go against nature.
I would say it is more accurate that homosexuals want to find a way to justify their behavior. Saying it is natural seems to help them out. Or so they think. It is natural for me to go to go pee, but it does not give me any justification to do it anywhere I please. Their are certain moral restrictions on where or whom I may do my business.
Russ said:
Much of the science ( et all ) community that stand firm in the evolution theory may also agree that homosexual nature may indeed be natural.
The main problem is that they do not have any evidence that it is natural or genetic. The study that came out (no pun intended) a few years ago has been shown to have no bearing on what some in the media want us to believe about it being genetic. Even the lead researcher, who is homosexual, said it did not prove much.
Also, just because evolutionists see this kind of behavior in nature does not mean it is acceptable behavior for the moral creatures humans are. There are different standards. (ex...we cannot eat our young just because they are sick)
Russ said:
Biblically based Word of God might indeed be the best option for disagreeing with homosexuality.True, there are other options, but none hold as fast and true as The Bible.
Biblically, and perhaps relationally, I might be willing to agree with you; however, I think in the postmodern arena we are in these days, the argument that "the Bible says it is an abomination so you shouldn't do it falls on deaf ears. Especially in the political realm.
In our personal relationships, to use this line of reasoning would depend on whether the person we are talking with has any confidence in what the Bible says.
Derrick
I agree. For Christians, it is (or should be) a fairly easy and clear concept that homosexuality is not acceptable based on what the bible says. However, using that as the only basis for argument these days will get you nowhere with a non-believer. There are many logical, moral, and scientific arguments that we can use against homosexuality without even mentioning the bible as one.
Post a Comment