Kadin

In another thread, you said "I am an atheist and biblical passages shouldn't dictate legal opinions."  Do you believe in God? 

We must understand that a lot of language used in Psalms and several other places in the Old Testament is very poetic and anthropomorphic. For example, when God asks Adam "where are you," we know that God is omniscient and therefore knows where Adam is. However, that language is used to highlight a point that Adam hid himself from God. Another example is when the Bible refers to God relenting on multiple occasions, even though we know that God likely does not change His mind. This language is used to convey a story in a way that people at the time hearing these stories could understand certain concepts and grasp the lessons. When we hear about the Lord laughing at the wicked, it's not so much God mocking those people and reveling in their despair. Rather, it shows that God is unwavering in His word and commitment to His people. When those who hate godliness make plans to attack godly people, this passage says in response God simply laughs, for He knows His Way is the truth and those evil schemes are doomed to fail. 

What does this have to do with Black Lives Matter?  

I agree that most people do not believe that at face value, but that does not change the data or high profile cases where beatings and killings of black people were captured on video and not punished. Can you think of many cases where a white person's killer was given a slap on the wrist or no punishment at all? (There are probably a handful of cop cases like that, as police are routinely given the benefit of the doubt when they shoot people.) It seems BLM brings up many grievances, and some are much more legitimate than others. 

It is pretty disheartening to see someone disparage a legitimate grievance by bringing up a red herring meant to shame the group which holds the legitimate grievance in the first place. That would be like the working class pointing out some grievances with the elites or public policy that hurts them, and in response saying if they really cared about their prosperity and security they would pipe down, get a better education and find a new job to focus on their own shortcomings. It's true that everyone should be accountable for their advancement and behavior, but it's also true that some people experience hardships that can be acknowledged and addressed by society, government, etc. Not every situation can be remedied, but patterns can tell a story we might hope to improve. 

I'm also not sure what BLM can do to address single motherhood outside of encourage present fathers, and look to diminish unwanted pregnancy through sex education and accessible birth control. I believe they are doing all of those things. 

This is another red herring but I'll address it. It turns out there is racial disparity in the solving of murder cases as well. Chicago does a terrible job at solving murders, especially when the victim is black. That is actually the trend of every major city. There are several reasons for this trend, but it contributes to the idea that black lives are not worthy enough to invest in solving their murder cases. 

I don't agree with privatizing police, but this seems like a tangent. Of course some people get away with killing white people. I'm saying there are many cases where a perpetrator is caught beating or killing a black person on video (such as the case with Ahmaud Arbery) where there IS evidence, and routinely getting away with it anyway. Can you name many cases where that has happened to white people outside of police killings? 

Again, I said nothing about public policy. I'm in the religion forum asking Christians to interpret their views on biblical passages as it relates to social justice issues and the way they see the world. 

No, that is part of why I don't find that behavior to be righteous. 

It is my understanding that Black Lives Matter is not solely about police brutality. It's about people getting away with killing black people, suggesting black lives are not valued as much as white people in the criminal justice system overall. George Zimmerman got away with killing Trayvon Martin. Soon Ja Du killed 15 year old Latasha Harlins, was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and received NO jail time. The list goes on. These are black teenagers who were needlessly killed and their perpetrators got away with it virtually scot free, while many black people rot in jail for things like drug offenses.  It's not about the likelihood of abuse by officers (though that plays a role), it's not about black on black crime which certainly is a problem -- it's about the ways in which historically many people received NO penalties or a slap on the wrist for beating or taking black lives. Who knows if the killers of Ahmaud Arbery would have even been charged had it not been for public pressure. It wasn't until the video of his killing went viral months after the incident that the perpetrators were even arrested and now being tried for felony murder. That's why BLM is bringing things to the media spotlight. The seeming lack of regard for black lives in a handful of ways  is what BLM is about, not just cops. 

That being said, I wasn't asking for a legal or political opinion at all in this thread, and I would prefer to keep that to the Politics forum. This is the Religion forum. I was asking what Christians thought about this Bible passage in relation to All Lives Matter.

I have heard people relate or describe Black Lives Matter as described in Luke 15:

Do you think this is similar to the message of Black Lives Matter? When 100 sheep go missing, Jesus leaves the 99 and goes looking for the 1. The other sheep wonder, "don't we matter" which is similar to All Lives Matter. Of course the other sheep matter, but they're not the ones in danger so they are not the ones Jesus is paying attention to.  

Directly after this passage follows the Parable of the Lost Coin and the Parable of the Prodigal Son. They reflect the importance of redemption and asking forgiveness. They analogize persons who are lost souls, and the significance and joy of them finding their way through God's grace. It is specifically the sinners or non-believers that need God most, so there is special attention paid to those people despite being less than ideal models of God. 

I'm not saying black people are lost souls, but what do these passages mean to you in relation to the BLM movement, or having compassion for people who do not glorify God or live by His example? The Bible is filled with stories about empathy, compassion and forgiveness even for those who are not worthy. The lesson is to exemplify God's grace to others, and by doing so you and them can be saved. How can we be more Christian in our politics or social politics to live by God's word? 

Which part of YOUR religion (organized church) or faith (your personal beliefs) do you struggle with the most? For example, if you are Catholic you might struggle with how your church handled abuse allegations. Or if you are Jehovah's Witness, you might resent that you are discouraged from having relationships outside the faith. 

I said nothing in favor of banning "assault weapons" so you are attacking an argument I never made. That is fallacious (straw man). 

That is false. What I actually said is:  "There is potential for more damage when you use certain kinds of guns, ammo or modifiers. I agree the terminology of what constitutes an assault weapon is unclear and often manipulative, but I don't think that is a reason to disregard the entire premise rather than figure out better wording and clarifications."

As you can see, I said nothing about banning assault weapons. I said we can figure out better wording and clarifications for what society thinks ought to be banned. The term assault weapon could be disregarded entirely as far as I'm concerned.  

What you did was cite a pro gun article with someone else's opinion. That is not demonstrating anything, especially because I think the article is stupid. For instance, it says "The purpose of a gun is not generally to kill. A handgun is designed for self-defense at short distances." How is a handgun going to be used in self-defense at short distances?  Obviously the gun would be used to shoot someone and significantly injure or kill them, or threaten to via its capacity to do so; that is how it defends you. So relying on the argument that "guns don't kill" is  pedestrian. It is lame to rely on semantics to make a point. 

Guns have the capacity to kill and are often used to kill. That's what matters. That's why they are regulated. That's what you keep disregarding. I've repeated that we regulate other potentially dangerous things (drugs, alcohol, cars, etc.) and you've continuously ignored that point. Why is it okay to regulate those items but not guns when guns are far more dangerous and used to intentionally kill more often than drugs, alcohol and cars are? You can't say guns are above regulation because of our constitutional rights. I've already explained why the constitution is not absolute. 

And constitutional scholars have debated how you can interpret the 2A for centuries. If the purpose of it is to protect us from tyrannical government, why are we not given a right to nuclear weapons as well? I also asked you if everyone is endowed by God with unalienable gun rights, why do you think society (someone like you) has a right to determine and regulate people's access to guns by  their age, criminal status, etc. but you did not respond. 

There is no way to determine if Jesus was gay. You do not have to act on your sexual impulses to have a sexual identity, and acting on sexual impulses does not necessarily indicate your sexual identity (i.e. experimentation, sex for procreation). Even if Jesus never had sex with a man, it does not mean he did not ever think about it or want to.  And even if Jesus did have sex with women, it does not mean he did not desire men. The scriptures would have no way of knowing what Jesus desired. What makes him above sin is not acting on sexual desires outside of relationships sanctified by scripture (heterosexual marriage). 

That's fine, we can certainly use your word. You said that there's no point in creating certain gun regulations because criminals will not follow the law anyway. I then asked you what's the point of making ANY laws, since criminals won't follow those laws either? Laws don't stop criminals from rape, theft or even speeding, so why do you think it's useful to have those laws? You have not answered. 

This is a tangent that attacks regulation and terminology I have not referenced at all. 

See above post. In response to your post #21, you said we make laws because we expect people to follow them. I don't see why we shouldn't make laws for gun control then, or why you think it matters that some people won't follow the law. People who break those laws should be punished. I did not say anything about defunding law enforcement, nor did I say that I expect everyone to follow the law.  I said if it is harder to get guns, they will be less likely to be used to facilitate crimes. 

If you are trying to say that criminals get their hands on guns even with regulation, that is true. That is why some progressives want to ban guns entirely, or create licensures and other barriers to deter certain people (i.e. those who want to commit a crime of passion) from buying a gun in the heat of the moment. Others want to make it so that certain people can't legally obtain guns. If they want to get guns, they will have to purchase on the street which drives up cost. The more expensive and dangerous something is to buy, the less likely people are going to buy it. There are all different kinds of propositions for gun control, and you've already said that you support regulation. It sounds like you support society picking and choosing who is eligible for the right to gun ownership and who isn't. Are you a progressive? 

Presumably, nontrinitarian Christians are familiar with those Bible verses and still do not accept the trinity. How would you personally describe or defend the trinity to those people? 

Then what do you mean by unalienable rights? 

This is similar to the question you asked earlier about banning "what's in people's heads." We cannot prevent every tragedy, but we do take steps to prevent some such as regulating the objects or substances people can use to harm themselves or others. Drugs is a good example. 

If it is harder to get guns, it is less likely they would be used as frequently to commit crimes. See stats on gun violence in Europe vs. the U.S. (which is more useful than just comparing cities in the U.S. with different laws, since crossing state lines with weapons or selling them undetected within the country is not very difficult). There is also some research to suggest that laws do affect human behavior. For example, more people smoke marijuana or started smoking it more regularly where it has been legalized. 

I did not say guns are not regulated. I asked why guns should not be regulated to someone who believes gun rights are unalienable.

Nontrinitarian Christians do not believe in the trinity, they do not believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equal as one.

These folks believe that only the Father is without beginning, that the Father is greater than the Son in all things, that the Son had a beginning, and he was brought forth at a certain point as "the firstborn of all creation" and "the only-begotten son." They do recognize Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and Redeemer, and believe that after his ascension to Heaven he resumed his pre-human identity, but exalted to God's right hand until the last days.

They do not believe that the Holy Spirit is an actual person, but rather refers to God's power or character depending on the context. They believe the Holy Spirit is God's "active force" that He uses to accomplish His will. Judaism and Islam also reject the concept of the trinity. How would you describe or defend the trinity to these people, and  nontrinitarian Christians in particular? 

How do you distinguish a real religion from a fake one, i.e. a satirical joke (pastafarianism) or even cult? L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer who brought Scientology to the world, and Scientology has been fighting many legal religious freedom battles in defense of their practices and privacy. How do you, or do you not, distinguish someone like L Ron Hubbard from someone like Joseph Smith, Siddhartha Gautama or the prophet Mohammad? Is there something in particular that makes someone or something a "legitimate" religion or religious leader that deserves recognition, rights and respect, vs. something that makes it a clear joke or something not to be taken seriously? 

No you cannot, which is why we instead regulate the objects or substances people can use to harm themselves or others (weapons, drugs, alcohol, etc.). 

Comparing a gun to a spoon is not rational or productive. 

Solely because that is the easiest legislation to pass, and they believe it is a reasonable place to start. 

The concept of inalienable rights should be discussed in the philosophy or religion forum. I do not see it as very relevant to most constitutional debate. Even if rights do come from God, our interpretation of how those rights should apply in society is not necessarily clear from a legal perspective. For instance, should children or the mentally ill have access to the same resources (guns and otherwise) that other adults have access to? Where in the Bible does it give us clear guidance to these questions on rights? Most of our interpretation is made up in accordance to what we think is best for society, not religious dogma. A Mormon might think God gave him the right to have multiple wives, but we don't honor that religious view under the law. 

I believe I would have a moral obligation to stop the rapist. I do not believe the rapist's "free will" is more important than the victim's will. What I meant before is that if GOD did not give humans free will (the freedom to sin in big or small ways) it would change the entire scope of what it means to be human. 

For God to intervene and prevent humans from catastrophic mistakes and tragedies, He would have to take away their free will. This would undercut the most significant thing about being human. It is not that God "chose the free will of the Nazis" over anyone else; it's that He chose to provide humans with free will in general. Allowing humans freedom comes with the potential for many horrific negatives, but the alternative would be no freedom and no free will which is worse. Nobody wants to be a slave, mental or otherwise.   

Do you feel that someone is no longer pure ("contaminated") if they have sexual relations outside of marriage in ways that could not lead to pregnancy, i.e. oral sex or other kinds of stimulation? 

God’s creation of human persons with  free will is something of tremendous value. It might be the most significant thing about life itself. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships, and who are able to love one another and do good deeds. Suffering is therefore an inextricable part of humanity, but one that ultimately proves God's grace. 

"Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good." — Romans 12:9

So it seems your biggest reason to avoid sex outside of marriage is the possibility of pregnancy, which makes sense on a practical level. You also said, "I respected the purity of the girls/women I dated [I married at 23] too much to take from them that which was not mine to take, as if she were a cupcake. Even when offered - and I had those experiences - I declined because I respected them even if they did not." I can see how disregarding a potential pregnancy could signal lack of self-respect, but you were also talking about purity which seems more relevant to spiritual matters than practical matters. Do you think once a person has sex outside of marriage, they are less pure?

The only commandments that should be laws are those against theft, murder and bearing false witness in the form of libel or slander. The other commandments are religious or spiritual in nature. 

That is an interesting word to use ("faithful") in relation to marriage or sexual relationships. One usually relates faith to God or religion. You seem to be saying you have been worthy of your partner's faith and trust in you. 

Thank you for the welcome and response. Is a woman's body not her own to offer? It seems you are saying a woman's body belongs to her eventual husband, and not herself, as you do not think she respects herself if she offers her body to someone that is not her husband. Do you think this belief of yours is shaped by scripture? 

Theists, how important is "sexual purity" to you? By purity I am referring to abstinence outside of marriage. 

Are your beliefs on this shaped by scripture, culture, or your personal experience? 

What is your favorite piece of scripture and why?