[LUconn]

I thought this was about Don't ask don't tell and whether or not it should exist.

[El Scorcho]

I'm a graduate of LU, but I am connected to Liberty Counsel in that I whole-heartedly agree with their purpose and their efforts, and I'm pretty familiar with those efforts because I get their Liberty Alerts.

The alerts are why? Interesting.

Someone else asked if I believe we have freedom of religion... yes, I do. The First Amendment guarantees it; however, that doesn't mean that we as Christians should not elect those who are like-minded and should not legislate based on principles grounded in Scripture. I hope that answered the question.

I asked that. Me. El Scorcho. Hello.

Your answer does give me some insight into your mode of thought, and you do appear to answer my question. I feel that your explanation betrays your answer, however, so I'm not sure where you really stand. I believe we were given a proper framework by which we could govern ourselves and be free to practice our faith as we see fit, as could others. That would be the constitution. By legislating based on principles found in our scripture, how can we truly say we believe in liberty for others to practice their own faith? If they're bound by laws rooted in our faith, how can they feel free to practice their own? Are we now simply deferring to majority rule? And, if we are, is that a precedent we want to set? That seems dangerous to me as political power is often fleeting.

I prefer to grant liberty to the individual citizens whenever possible, which I believe is the proper constitutional position. Personal liberty (where is does not conflict with the liberties of others) is the American ideal. Establishing national policy on the basis of a single faith (even if it's the one I subscribe to) seems much too small of an idea for these United States in my opinion. Let freedom ring, to put it simply.

You see, I believe that in scripture God clearly outlined his chosen vehicle for affecting social change. That vehicle is the church through the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's what God gave us and I believe He expects us to use it and it only to change the hearts of man. Without changing the heart with the gospel, sin is to be expected. It is the norm. It is the state of the world we live in. We Christians should not accept that norm in our own lives but in the world around us it is what we should expect. If we want to change it we must be serious about ourselves, the church.

In light of that, it has been my opinion for some time now that efforts to affect sin through politics are not only folly, but also bad stewardship. The church has limited resources and I don't believe for a second that they're best spent trying to fight behavior with laws. If the behavior is not affecting the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of our fellow Americans then we ought not be concerned with it. We are to be about the business of the gospel and worrying about legislating the specific sins of those around is not a part of that, in my opinion. It's a waste of time that will ultimately accomplish nothing but to further alienate those we should be reaching. Further, I'm not of the belief that God needs us to establish law to prevent sin or protect His kingdom. He kind of got out of the law business after the Old Testament, if I'm not mistaken. Something about us needing salvation and the law being ineffective for that.

With apologies to the Chancellor as I know that seems like a bit of a rabbit trail, but I say all of that to provide background for why I believe Don't Ask Don't Tell is bad policy. I don't believe it's worth the time of Christians to support it as that's a waste of resources that could otherwise effectively be used to change lives with the gospel via the church. I also don't see New Testament biblical grounds for governing sinners with such standards. That is a standard for us, the followers of Christ; the church. To expect the world at large and those not in a relationship with God to be governed by such rules is madness to me.

I believe freedom is the framework for our great nation and one that can provide the church with the ultimate latitude for reaching the lost. It is unfortunate to me to see so many that would rather limit that freedom in the name of the gospel than leverage it to actually apply the gospel and see what could be done with it.

[ToTheLeft]

[thepostman]

that makes too much sense and lines up too much with the gospel of Christ Scorcho....try again

[ALUmnus]

I asked that. Me. El Scorcho. Hello.

While I have a differing opinion (I'm sooo tired of arguing right now), where the heck have you been? It's so much more fun around here with certain people.

[mosborne]

Since we are on the topic of homosexuality in the military and some on this post continue to ponder why we as Christians should care about this issue, check this out:

http://www.indystar.com/article/2010093 ... -away-gays

Here we have a small business who has paid all of the necessary fees and rent payments in order to operate in this public vendors market, who now may lose their location because a homosexual group wanted to force them to make a product for a cause that they did not believe in.

Can anyone on this thread honestly defend that?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. It is, in fact, proof of the point many here are trying to make. This turned into a "If you're not for this right wing anti-gay agenda, then you're a gay lover and need to be told why you're wrong."

The main issue people had was the way LC presented the issue, and the attitude towards homosexuals that is underlying to the whole issue, which you continue to show.

What do you believe your post what trying to show? Are you trying to advocate that since homosexuals do things you don't agree with, that they shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military? Do you think that homosexuals are the only ones who take legal action when discriminated against?

Liberty Counsel fights ON BEHALF of Christians who do this EXACT SAME THING when they are discriminated against (Take legal action to defend themselves). So your point in fact debunks the very organization you originally tried to defend!

But like I said, it points to a sickening underlying attitude towards homosexuals.

Unfortunately, your response is quite weak. This has much to do with the conversation, because other military members who have moral objections to homosexuality could be subject to situations like the ones witnessed in Indianapolis.

You failed to effectively respond to any of my points, rather when you clearly had no response, you immediately accused me of having some sort of bigoted attitude. Any proof?

[Kolzilla41]

Nobody here is defending homosexuality. Also, the city is in their right to ask them to leave. If the City Market is a local government owned property and the lease has some sort of documentation on discriminatory practices, they are within their right. If enough people are willing to support their business, then they should be able to open a store on their own and sustain it. Not saying it is correct.

[ValuesVoter]

You see, I believe that in scripture God clearly outlined his chosen vehicle for affecting social change. That vehicle is the church through the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's what God gave us and I believe He expects us to use it and it only to change the hearts of man. Without changing the heart with the gospel, sin is to be expected. It is the norm. It is the state of the world we live in. We Christians should not accept that norm in our own lives but in the world around us it is what we should expect. If we want to change it we must be serious about ourselves, the church.

In light of that, it has been my opinion for some time now that efforts to affect sin through politics are not only folly, but also bad stewardship. The church has limited resources and I don't believe for a second that they're best spent trying to fight behavior with laws. If the behavior is not affecting the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of our fellow Americans then we ought not be concerned with it. We are to be about the business of the gospel and worrying about legislating the specific sins of those around is not a part of that, in my opinion. It's a waste of time that will ultimately accomplish nothing but to further alienate those we should be reaching. Further, I'm not of the belief that God needs us to establish law to prevent sin or protect His kingdom. He kind of got out of the law business after the Old Testament, if I'm not mistaken. Something about us needing salvation and the law being ineffective for that.

With apologies to the Chancellor as I know that seems like a bit of a rabbit trail, but I say all of that to provide background for why I believe Don't Ask Don't Tell is bad policy. I don't believe it's worth the time of Christians to support it as that's a waste of resources that could otherwise effectively be used to change lives with the gospel via the church. I also don't see New Testament biblical grounds for governing sinners with such standards. That is a standard for us, the followers of Christ; the church. To expect the world at large and those not in a relationship with God to be governed by such rules is madness to me.

I believe freedom is the framework for our great nation and one that can provide the church with the ultimate latitude for reaching the lost. It is unfortunate to me to see so many that would rather limit that freedom in the name of the gospel than leverage it to actually apply the gospel and see what could be done with it.

Nobody here, as far as I know, believes that the law can save a soul. In fact, Romans 3:20 hits the nail on the head when it discusses the purpose of the law not being to declare men righteous based on their observance of the law, but to make men conscious of their sin. (See also Romans 7, Galatians 3-5, Timothy 1, etc.)

Thus, to say that God got out of the law business after the Old Testament, well, that's not really true. Besides, we don't get to completely ignore what God did in raising up His followers to serve as the head of the government (ex. David and his lineage), nor are we to forget those who confronted rulers who were oppressive (ex. Moses to Pharoh and Nathan to David). Practically the entire Old Testament defies your perspective on the role of Christians in society and government.

Additionally, we are to use the law to further God's purposes. That is what Liberty Counsel and the American Center for Law and Justice do. That is what Paul did in Acts 16 when he demanded an escort because of his citizenship. He used the law to further his purposes. It is because of organizations like LC and ACLJ that many Christians have had the opportunity to lead children at public schools and people at public parks (and etc.) to the Lord. I'd also like to believe, and correct me if you know differently, but I'd like to believe that those who are affiliated with organizations like LC and ACLJ are also involved in a local church body and share Christ's love with those they come in contact with regularly.

I appreciate the Great Commission and I appreciate the role of the church in spreading the Gospel. I'm not quite sure why we as Christians should be so timid to profess the Gospel to our friends but refrain from making any real impact on the world by avoiding positions of and opportunities for influence. God has a plan for each of us. He's called some of his amazing followers to positions of great influence, some serving in Congress, some in the Judiciary, others as pastors and teachers who reach multiple people daily and weekly. I am so grateful that He has led people to steward their time in different ways where they can reach different people in different ways.

[El Scorcho]

Practically the entire Old Testament defies your perspective on the role of Christians in society and government.

Yes, but we're not living in the Old Testament or under Old Testament law or methods. That was the point of sending Jesus. The theocracy wasn't sufficient. In fact, if I recall, the people were looking for a king to be their savior. They wanted a political hero. They wanted another David. Instead, God sent Jesus who was the antithesis of that.

Additionally, we are to use the law to further God's purposes.

We are? I've never seen this mandate in scripture. I thought our mandate was the Great Commission and the methodology for that was pretty well outlined in scripture. I don't think I need to cover that here. We're all familiar.

I'd also like to believe, and correct me if you know differently, but I'd like to believe that those who are affiliated with organizations like LC and ACLJ are also involved in a local church body and share Christ's love with those they come in contact with regularly.

I don't profess to know, but I'd hope so. But, again, I'd like to see the resources committed to pushing theocratic law be used for pushing the gospel instead, which was my point in mentioning the local church. I hope they're involved as I would hope any Christian is involved in the local church, but I wish they'd quit chasing the theocratic dream and realize the gospel is the only thing that will affect the change they seek.

I'm not quite sure why we as Christians should be so timid to profess the Gospel to our friends but refrain from making any real impact on the world by avoiding positions of and opportunities for influence.

I certainly didn't advocate being timid with professing the gospel, so I'm not sure I follow. It's the "real impact" you mention that I have a problem with. "Positions and opportunities for influence" are not how the gospel spreads. It's not how God instructed us to spread it. Positions of influence are great if you've got a political agenda or need. I don't think the gospel is either of those things. I think misguided attempts to stop sinners from sinning are both of those things, but not the gospel. Let's not equate or confuse the two.

Bottom line: Don't Ask Don't Tell accomplishes nothing for the kingdom of Christ. It simply keeps some Christians feeling like they're keeping the sinners in line, which must somehow please God. I disagree.

[El Scorcho]

I asked that. Me. El Scorcho. Hello.

While I have a differing opinion (I'm sooo tired of arguing right now), where the heck have you been? It's so much more fun around here with certain people.

Hmm. Where haven't I been? I've been busy but I'm here. I just read more than I write these days. Well, until this week.

[mosborne]

Nobody here is defending homosexuality. Also, the city is in their right to ask them to leave. If the City Market is a local government owned property and the lease has some sort of documentation on discriminatory practices, they are within their right. If enough people are willing to support their business, then they should be able to open a store on their own and sustain it. Not saying it is correct.

No, the city is not within their rights to ask then to leave. Renting property from the government does not give it the right to force you to participate in an activity that you do not want to participate in. Also, the owners were not discriminating against homosexuals, they were choosing not to participate in the promotion of homosexuality; there is a difference. If indeed the city has discrimination codes that are forcing people to support homosexual organizations or any organization for that matter; then the city is infringing on people's Constitutional rights.

[Kolzilla41]

Nobody here is defending homosexuality. Also, the city is in their right to ask them to leave. If the City Market is a local government owned property and the lease has some sort of documentation on discriminatory practices, they are within their right. If enough people are willing to support their business, then they should be able to open a store on their own and sustain it. Not saying it is correct.

No, the city is not within their rights to ask then to leave. Renting property from the government does not give it the right to force you to participate in an activity that you do not want to participate in. Also, the owners were not discriminating against homosexuals, they were choosing not to participate in the promotion of homosexuality; there is a difference. If indeed the city has discrimination codes that are forcing people to support homosexual organizations or any organization for that matter; then the city is infringing on people's Constitutional rights.

If it's written into the lease agreement, yes it is.You have the right as a business owner to not sign that contract or negotiate the terms before you sign.

[ToTheLeft]

Nobody here is defending homosexuality. Also, the city is in their right to ask them to leave. If the City Market is a local government owned property and the lease has some sort of documentation on discriminatory practices, they are within their right. If enough people are willing to support their business, then they should be able to open a store on their own and sustain it. Not saying it is correct.

No, the city is not within their rights to ask then to leave. Renting property from the government does not give it the right to force you to participate in an activity that you do not want to participate in. Also, the owners were not discriminating against homosexuals, they were choosing not to participate in the promotion of homosexuality; there is a difference. If indeed the city has discrimination codes that are forcing people to support homosexual organizations or any organization for that matter; then the city is infringing on people's Constitutional rights.

If it's written into the lease agreement, yes it is.You have the right as a business owner to not sign that contract or negotiate the terms before you sign.

Making cookies for homosexuals is not a sin. There's no "but God's law trumps human law" thing here. I agree with bob, if the people above you (the government) say you can't discriminate, then you can't discriminate.

If the homosexuals said you had to be adulterous with them, that's one thing. But making them some cookies is not a sin, and refusing to make the cookies is a bit childish in the first place.

[El Scorcho]

No, the city is not within their rights to ask then to leave. Renting property from the government does not give it the right to force you to participate in an activity that you do not want to participate in. Also, the owners were not discriminating against homosexuals, they were choosing not to participate in the promotion of homosexuality; there is a difference. If indeed the city has discrimination codes that are forcing people to support homosexual organizations or any organization for that matter; then the city is infringing on people's Constitutional rights.

If it's written into the lease agreement, yes it is.You have the right as a business owner to not sign that contract or negotiate the terms before you sign.

Making cookies for homosexuals is not a sin. There's no "but God's law trumps human law" thing here. I agree with bob, if the people above you (the government) say you can't discriminate, then you can't discriminate.

If the homosexuals said you had to be adulterous with them, that's one thing. But making them some cookies is not a sin, and refusing to make the cookies is a bit childish in the first place.

Sorry TTL and FlamerBob, I'm going to have to disagree with you guys on this (though I'm not sure how it's relevant to Don't Ask Don't Tell). A private business owner should not be forced to operate his business however any customer demands. What if the business owner was Jewish and the customer wanted a cookie with a swastika on it? Should the business owner be forced to make Nazi cookies? No. That would trample the rights of the business owner.

It would be different if the customer was refused service simply because the owner knew they were homosexual. That would be a valid discriminatory problem. Although some libertarians more extreme than myself would argue that this would still not be a problem. I disagree. I don't believe you can refuse service to someone based on who they are. Refusing based on what service they're seeking is a different story.

[ToTheLeft]

Sorry TTL and FlamerBob, I'm going to have to disagree with you guys on this (though I'm not sure how it's relevant to Don't Ask Don't Tell). A private business owner should not be forced to operate his business however any customer demands. What if the business owner was Jewish and the customer wanted a cookie with a swastika on it? Should the business owner be forced to make Nazi cookies? No. That would trample the rights of the business owner.

It would be different if the customer was refused service simply because the owner knew they were homosexual. That would be a valid discriminatory problem. Although some libertarians more extreme than myself would argue that this would still not be a problem. I disagree. I don't believe you can refuse service to someone based on who they are. Refusing based on what service they're seeking is a different story.

It depends on the language in the contract. Typically I agree with you on this, but if they signed an agreement, regardless of who the agreement is with and how fair/unfair the contract is, they should abide by it.

It's a situation where the "landlord", regardless of whether it's public or private, really is in control of the situation thanks to the agreement.

But this is politics, and has nothing to do with topic at hand. Which speaks even more to the ridiculous fact that this article was brought up to defend Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Gays who are complaining about a business who won't make them rainbow cookies has nothing to do with Don't Ask, Don't tell. I put "ValuesVoter" and friends on ignore so I don't have to deal with that anymore.

I always appreciate your perspective, Scorchy. You usually see things similarly to the way I do, and can express yourself better than I can, as well.

[thepostman]

The government shouldn't be going into the real estate business anyways...and the government should worry more about keeping themselves in check and less on what private businesses are doing

[ToTheLeft]

The government shouldn't be going into the real estate business anyways...and the government should worry more about keeping themselves in check and less on what private businesses are doing

My point is once you've sold your soul to the dev... er... government, you have to do as they regulate/say.

I agree with you and Scorchy. I just think if their agreement has language that says they have to do something, or not do something, they should abide.

[JK37]

Is that the only option when in disagreement with someone - ti ignore them completely? Do we really not possess the ability to read their variant opinion and say nothing when nothing more can be said? I find it interesting that we could allow someone of a different opinion to get so under our skin that we can't control ourselves enough to still listen to them.

I don't see groups like LC and ACLJ as trying to create a theocracy, though I do not like the tone of LC's now infamous DADT email. To me, it seems that those involved in this debate stand on one of two sides: 1) perceived theorcracy, or 2) Christians should be totally dissolved politics. Though it seems to be the libertarians here believe in self-government, I'm not sure I'd trust longer than 10 minutes today. Its too close to the postmodernist, subjective ideology that abounds today, and with which I disagree.

But I ask, why can't a third side exist, which doesn't purport a theocratic design, but does advocate that IF we're going to make any laws, it would be good for them to be pleasing to God? To me, that's where LC and ACLJ stand.

[thepostman]

The government shouldn't be going into the real estate business anyways...and the government should worry more about keeping themselves in check and less on what private businesses are doing

My point is once you've sold your soul to the dev... er... government, you have to do as they regulate/say.

I agree with you and Scorchy. I just think if their agreement has language that says they have to do something, or not do something, they should abide.

I guess...but its still wrong

[ValuesVoter]

I'd like to see the resources committed to pushing theocratic law be used for pushing the gospel instead, which was my point in mentioning the local church. I hope they're involved as I would hope any Christian is involved in the local church, but I wish they'd quit chasing the theocratic dream and realize the gospel is the only thing that will affect the change they seek.

I completely agree with JK37 here.

Is that the only option when in disagreement with someone - t[o] ignore them completely? Do we really not possess the ability to read their variant opinion and say nothing when nothing more can be said? I find it interesting that we could allow someone of a different opinion to get so under our skin that we can't control ourselves enough to still listen to them.

I don't see groups like LC and ACLJ as trying to create a theocracy, though I do not like the tone of LC's now infamous DADT email. To me, it seems that those involved in this debate stand on one of two sides: 1) perceived theorcracy, or 2) Christians should be totally dissolved politics. Though it seems to be the libertarians here believe in self-government, I'm not sure I'd trust longer than 10 minutes today. Its too close to the postmodernist, subjective ideology that abounds today, and with which I disagree.

But I ask, why can't a third side exist, which doesn't purport a theocratic design, but does advocate that IF we're going to make any laws, it would be good for them to be pleasing to God? To me, that's where LC and ACLJ stand.

You're obviously entitled to your own opinion, but according to your view on how resources should be used, it seems that you think that every Christian should enter into full-time ministry. God calls people to impact the lives of others and share the Gospel in different ways. I'd like to encourage you to do what you're called to and to allow others to use their "resources" for the Kingdom as they believe God is leading them to.

It's also clear about lying, gossip, and hate, but should we legislate that all lying, and all gossip, and all hate be illegal? I know there are statutes that protect consumers and businesses when it comes to disclosing false information (or lying), and that gossip (let's call it insider trading) is on some levels made illegal. But Scripture is clear that all gossip is a sin, so why do we stop there? Should the police break down your door when you and your friends talk about some of the things that go on in your group? An action that some would say is clearly gossip. Scripture is Scripture, and sin is sin. It just seems that many believers want to pick on the things that everyone else does when it comes to legislation. "I'm not a homosexual, so we should ban it. I gossip, let's not ban that." Pick any other sin if gossiping isn't your thing. Gluttony works just as well. Let's ban Thanksgiving, or at least fine people that eat more than one slice of pumpkin pie. It can't be healthy (and our bodies are a temple).

I understand your perspective. I'm not sure that you understand mine. I wouldn't advocate for granting special rights to those who eat too much pie, gossip, or lie. (This would be an analogy to the special rights and penalties the homosexual activists have gained through hate crimes statutes and non-discrimination laws that are based on sexual orientation and gender identity, when neither of those are suspect classes and do not deserve an elevated status. I could elaborate on this, but won't do so here.) Nor would I ask the military to accommodate the obese or those who cause quarrels within their units through their lies and gossip

Sorry TTL and FlamerBob, I'm going to have to disagree with you guys on this (though I'm not sure how it's relevant to Don't Ask Don't Tell). A private business owner should not be forced to operate his business however any customer demands. What if the business owner was Jewish and the customer wanted a cookie with a swastika on it? Should the business owner be forced to make Nazi cookies? No. That would trample the rights of the business owner.

Yes -- we agree on something!

[El Scorcho]

I completely agree with JK37 here.

But I ask, why can't a third side exist, which doesn't purport a theocratic design, but does advocate that IF we're going to make any laws, it would be good for them to be pleasing to God? To me, that's where LC and ACLJ stand.

I must have missed JK37's post, so let me respond to JK37's final question as if it is to both of you since you are of one accord...

Answer: Why? Because that's not a third side. That's a theocracy. This...

IF we're going to make any laws, it would be good for them to be pleasing to God?

...is the problem. If we create laws in accordance with our theology then we are are pushing theocractic law. Not every American shares our theology and I do not believe they should be made by force to live in a way as if they do. Living a life that is pleasing to the Lord is something Christians do as a result of following Christ. God expects that of us. He does not expect that from those outside of His church. Does he expect us to tell them about sin and what He views as sin? Of course, but without grace by faith in Christ these people have no power to live sanctified lives. I think that for us to desire put them under laws requiring them to do so shows a lack of faith in the power of the gospel.

Which is yet another reason I take a pro-liberty stance on government. As long as life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness are protected then I believe the government has done its job. I don't believe God needs us to use force to make people live lives that are pleasing to Him. He never asked us to do that. He asked us to spread the gospel and let Christ change their hearts after which people will willingly subject themselves to His will for their lives.

I'd like to see the resources committed to pushing theocratic law be used for pushing the gospel instead, which was my point in mentioning the local church. I hope they're involved as I would hope any Christian is involved in the local church, but I wish they'd quit chasing the theocratic dream and realize the gospel is the only thing that will affect the change they seek.

You're obviously entitled to your own opinion, but according to your view on how resources should be used, it seems that you think that every Christian should enter into full-time ministry. God calls people to impact the lives of others and share the Gospel in different ways. I'd like to encourage you to do what you're called to and to allow others to use their "resources" for the Kingdom as they believe God is leading them to.

I never said I thought every Christian should enter into full-time ministry, nor do I believe it's implied by what I said. I said that the resources of the church ought to be spent on spreading the Gospel as that is the mission of the church. Christians can certainly do something else with their lives full-time, but when it comes time for the church to use the resources they have contributed, it'd better be used on reaching the world with the Gospel because that's the mission God assigned to the church. That obviously happens through all kinds of work on all kinds of levels.

However, to equate working to keep homosexuals from serving in the American military with sharing the Gospel is perverse, in my opinion. It has nothing to do with the Gospel and I'm not going to sit back and let others do things under the banner of Christianity that I believe do far more damage to the cause of Christ than they do good in an effort to create a false harmony. Christian theology is not that open to interpretation. What God leads and calls others to do is never in conflict with scripture. I see no scriptural basis for fighting Don't Ask Don't Tell. What I see is a political power struggle that's needlessly wasting vast amount of resources. If we were to truly (and successfully) fight for liberty for all we wouldn't have to fight to maintain power. We wouldn't have to make sure "our people" are in office. If we'd sit on the side of universal liberty we'd be free to spread the gospel with total latitude. Instead, we're mixed up in this power struggle in an attempt to use the law of man to enforce the laws of a God (who's already told us that He's not about the law) onto a people whose hearts know nothing of the grace that God instructed us to preach. It's a huge waste and it damages the cause we're called to.

[ToTheLeft]

[ValuesVoter]

If we create laws in accordance with our theology then we are are pushing theocractic law. Not every American shares our theology and I do not believe they should be made by force to live in a way as if they do. Living a life that is pleasing to the Lord is something Christians do as a result of following Christ. God expects that of us. He does not expect that from those outside of His church. Does he expect us to tell them about sin and what He views as sin? Of course, but without grace by faith in Christ these people have no power to live sanctified lives. I think that for us to desire put them under laws requiring them to do so shows a lack of faith in the power of the gospel.

Do you really believe that laws outlawing murder, battery, and assault show a lack of faith in the power of the gospel? Because, I'm pretty sure that's what you just indicated.

I never said I thought every Christian should enter into full-time ministry, nor do I believe it's implied by what I said. I said that the resources of the church ought to be spent on spreading the Gospel as that is the mission of the church. Christians can certainly do something else with their lives full-time, but when it comes time for the church to use the resources they have contributed, it'd better be used on reaching the world with the Gospel because that's the mission God assigned to the church. That obviously happens through all kinds of work on all kinds of levels.

I suppose my understanding of the church was that of the body of believers, not an entity that people are contributing to, and that is why I understood your comments regarding how we use our resources to be so limiting. Now, I understand that you believe Christians can impact lives "on all kinds of levels," but, not by working in politics or the government. Is that a fair conclusion?

However, to equate working to keep homosexuals from serving in the American military with sharing the Gospel is perverse, in my opinion. It has nothing to do with the Gospel and I'm not going to sit back and let others do things under the banner of Christianity that I believe do far more damage to the cause of Christ than they do good in an effort to create a false harmony. Christian theology is not that open to interpretation. What God leads and calls others to do is never in conflict with scripture. I see no scriptural basis for fighting Don't Ask Don't Tell. What I see is a political power struggle that's needlessly wasting vast amount of resources. If we were to truly (and successfully) fight for liberty for all we wouldn't have to fight to maintain power. We wouldn't have to make sure "our people" are in office. If we'd sit on the side of universal liberty we'd be free to spread the gospel with total latitude. Instead, we're mixed up in this power struggle in an attempt to use the law of man to enforce the laws of a God (who's already told us that He's not about the law) onto a people whose hearts know nothing of the grace that God instructed us to preach. It's a huge waste and it damages the cause we're called to.

I believe that you can be correct. I believe that the Westboro Baptist folks are perfect examples of what you're discussing. I disagree that attempting to prevent the passage of laws that endorse sinful behavior has nothing to do with the Gospel, but it's obvious that we could go back and forth on that issue forever. I wish we lived in a Utopia where people had complete freedom and we could expect them to follow the lead of the Holy Spirit in how they exercised that freedom. However, we all know that everyone will not come to the saving knowledge of grace and even those that do often act in unbiblical ways. Therefore, we must have laws to reign those people in.

I would like to encourage you to look at exactly what the homosexual activist movements are looking for. They (the activists), including Chai Feldblum, an Obama appointee, have specifically stated that they believe the rights of homosexuals trumps religious freedoms.

They use the judicial system to force bakers, photographers, and churches to endorse their same-sex marriages, and doctors and surgeons to perform gender transformations. They are forcing Christians to endorse their lifestyles, and I am glad that some people are willing to fight back.

When I say fight back, I mean in a loving way. I don't believe LC and ACLJ should turn into Westboro Bapstists, but I have no problem with them standing for Christian principles, in a nation that was founded by Christian men who crafted our founding documents (our system of government) only after prayer and fasting.

[ALUmnus]

And, as seems to be the norm these days, a judge has taken it upon herself to be the deciding factor in this whole thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101012/ap_ ... n_military

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

[JK37]

This...

IF we're going to make any laws, it would be good for them to be pleasing to God?

...is the problem. If we create laws in accordance with our theology then we are are pushing theocractic law.

I capitalized the IF for emphasis, but I sense the emphasis was either misinterpreted, or overlooked completely. There has to be a difference between aggressively initiating law-making with a theocratic motivation, and simply advocating that what laws are made are crafted with Scripture in mind.

To attempt to make my point another way, Scorcho, let me ask this: If a Christian member of legislature at any level is voting on a law, to where does he/she go for direction upon how to vote? Should that Christian not look to God, or to Scripture, for direction?

Should we as voting members of society not consult our Christian convictions when voting in elections?

Would you advocate that Christians not have any part of the legislative process - be it as a lawmaker, voter, or some other position?