Here's some of what the Bible says about these things.

John 1:14 (New King James Version)

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

---

Leviticus 20:13 (New King James Version)

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

---

Romans 1:24-27 (New King James Version)

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

---

Matthew 5:27-29 (New International Version)


27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

----

In light of this last bit of scripture, how do you think Jesus would feel about abortion? He clearly has no tolerance for sin so do you think he would accept ripping unborn babies apart?

I think if you want to believe that, it is your right. I think it has no place in politics.

What if somebody said that your beliefs and convictions have no place in politics? Would you accept that?

great, another newbie "OT-only" poster existing solely to stir the politics/religion pot...or perhaps another alter-ego of a regular.

And with biblical quotes no less. A package deal!

I'll answer anyway.

I'm afraid you misunderstand me. If you have a moral belief that homosexuality is wrong, I may disagree but I believe you have a right to translate that into political choices and political actions.

But trying to impose that on others in a religious context, as a religious mandate, is what leads us down the path we are on now. The Taliban mix religion and government. I don't believe America should.

No, I'm saying that the basis of our laws "stealing is illegal" and "murder is illegal" should be based on secular morality, not religious morality. If there happens to be a religious teaching that says "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill", fine and dandy. They've reached the same conclusion based on whatever THEIR morality system is (and that's a good thing) but the METHOD of getting to that point shouldn't be intertwined with the political system AT ALL. Ever. The minute we go trying to rely on religion as the basis of all moral decisions as the foundation of our laws, we're on the slippery slope of sliding down into theocracy. It has to be nipped in the bud and cannot be tolerated to any degree if our system is to work.

Just realized Rodeo & my posts kinda crossed - I think we're more-or-less saying the same thing.

By "work" you mean, for example, allowing abortion, partial-birth abortion, gay rights etc.? To some of us that is the bottom of the slipperiest slope.

Yep :)

I didn't realize that the (old?) testament spoke to homosexuality ... I know there are plenty of gay Christians, so I did not think of it as a religious issue. I am no expert, so I'll plead ignorance here.

But the point remains ... religion and politics make a bad mix. Not for the people that use religion to gain power (see the 1st post here), but for the country.

I would like to offer up this explanation for why we can't agree on moral issues.

.

Matthew 13:36-43 (New International Version)

The Parable of the Weeds Explained

36Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
37He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

and

John 8:42-47 (King James Version)

42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Please don't use wide sweeping stereotype statements. That would be like me saying all those people who don't go to Church worship the devil. That is simply not true.

Isn't religious intolerance a basic part of the problem we are now facing in the ME? And, are not Christians as capable of prejudice as other religions?

I really do not understand why people have to be "forced" to be saved. The information is out there, people are free to pick and choose if they so desire. My faith is mine; my beliefs are personal. Should anyone else have the right to dictate what I am to believe and how to act? Would the world not be a better place if people led by example rather than forcing a belief system on others?

Acceptance of differences should be the cornerstone of a truly free society, or at least tolerance. A superior attitude re: "faith" should be discouraged.

Yes, I fear intolerance in any way, shape or form. I may not agree with someone else's choice of lifestyle, but if that individual treats me with dignity and respects others, creates no social unrest, and obeys civil law, then I find that acceptable.

Will someone please point out where I am in error?

Yes, I do vote for politicians I know to be liars and fakes. I would venture that you do too. We all do. That is what politics and leadership have degenerated to in this country, with the lock our two major parties have on us. I would dearly love to see both of them losing ground until we no longer are left to choose between two flavors of liars and fakes.

Does anyone honestly believe that Democrats who support gay marriage for political gain are above joking about gays? Does anyone believe that "green" liberal candidates do not joke about "tree huggers" and other environmental zealots, then take off in their private jets to get picked up by a huge motorcade to be transported to their big corporate welfare lobbying dinner? C'mon; all of Washington is tainted by such hypocrits. They are not the sole province of the right, and certainly not constrained as fundementalist Christians. They come from all walks, representing all interests in public and deriding them in private.

Rodeo, you are once again displaying your blind faith in your side. Life must be pretty simple when left is always good and right is always bad; much less though required to get through your day. The rest of us see the shades of gray on both sides and try to deal evenly with them. Try it sometime, unless you really think your head will explode or something.

Christ himself didn't force anyone to accept his teachings and be saved but he made it clear that if they did not repent, they would go to hell for being unjust.

You say that acceptance and tolerance should be the cornerstone to a free society but would you draw the line somewhere? Would you, for example, tolerate honor killings or forced female circumcision to respect some peoples' religious beliefs?

how about accepting and tolerating the fact that good , clean living people can live god pleasing lives without believing that christ is the ONLY way to god?

T:

Your final paragraph shows you did not read my post carefully. Did I not state Reread it and then ask a rational question.

Your interpretation of Christ's words in interesting, but I doubt that "unbelievers" who lead a good and yes, "holy" life such as the Dali Lama will be condemned to everlasting damnation. THAT is the elitist attitude that I rail against. And, yes, I am a Christian. However, since I am not an "evangelical", I have been told by same that I am "not really a Christian and am not saved". How do you address that attitude?

If I "rail" against them it is because they are trying to force their beliefs on others. Simple as that. Sadly, most people are confused enough about what to believe that they take barbs like that personally. I do try to follow the tenet od loving the sinner and hating the sin. But, I am not always successful in that quest.

I also believe that those who are the loudest in their assertion that their way is the only way are deeply uncertain and require verification of their belief system. Of course that is a personal opinion and just posted to clarify my position on acceptance and tolerance.

or are at least lacking the conviction of their faith?

That is indeed another way of looking at it in even fewer words.