I hope this makes sense
Submitted by Forgiven on September 10 2001 16:45:11
In reply to Let's try again. Since nobody will answer below. submitted by A.I. Watcher on September 10 2001 07:00:46
|
The Old Testament has no doubt that behaviour of society makes it liable for the judgement of God, whether it is the covenant people of God or anyone else - (Nahum, Jonah and Jeremiah). Within the laws given to Moses, which establish the theocratic state that Israel was to be, there are a lot of cases where people are told to enforce the laws against idolatry and sexual immorality by the death penalty. The New Testament seems to suggest that 'my kingdom is not of this world' - and therefore that the theocratic principle needs to be abandoned. However when a society becomes overwhelmingly Christian, then the tendency to enshrine Christian principles in that society is rather strong. In some cases this is relatively non controversial - I have yet to come across a secularist who argues that we should abandon the 7 day week as a basic structure of organising the passing of the year. However there is a more open debate about the principle of a 'day of rest' that should be enforced. My own view is that this offers a useful way of providing at least one day a week when a family is more likely to be together. A totally seperate argument is that by discouraging work on Sundays, people are freed to attend worship. The specific issue of 'blue' laws raises a number of issues. The specific Christian input is in seeing 'looking as equal to doing' and so wants to reduce the exposure of the population to the opportunities to look. However the feminist argument of reducing the person being looked at to a 'object' is also supported by Christians. There is the third argument that 'looking leads to doing' - which is a empirical debate that remains unresolved by those studying it. Both the first and third arguments, combined with the Christian emphasis on chastity (no sex outside marriage, only with the partner once in) lead to a belief that pornography is not helpful. In the light of that belief, it is not unreasonable for Christians to offer that perspective to the wider public. We may be right, or we may be wrong - but we are offering our belief. In the early 19th century it was the evangelicals - the 'fundamentalists' as you would describe them - who offered their perspective that the slaves being bought across from Africa were fully human and so deserved better treatment than being slaves for ever. (Just remember that the American revolution cost the African Americans an extra 32 years of slavery, as slavery was ended in the British Empire in 1832; you had a civil war which was entered with no specific intention to end slavery. One of the causes of the American revolution was that a British court had ended slavery in England in 1774.)Without the Evangelical input there can be little doubt that slavery would have continued in the western world indefinately. So - I have provided the theological basis for the intervention - at times overdone. I have offered examples of where the Christian perspective is now overwhelmingly accepted - which wouldn't have happened if some Christians hadn't believe they had the right to speak out and organise politically. On the basis of all these lines of logic, it becomes clear that there is an ideologically consistent explanation for Christians offer their view on the gay issue, and seeking to organise to enforce it. You may not agree with their arguments - but it is a sign of a lack of intellectual consistency to fail to respect their right to argue it. Unless you think African Americans should be back as slaves.... |
Follow ups: