Government by the people, for teh people...

[RamboPreacher]

I have recently been in discussions on other forums about the gay-marriage issue and banning gay marriage, or rather teh amendmants that specify one man and one woman marriage.

Part of the point I was trying to make is that, it seems that the "other side" (left/liberal, stereotypically speaking), complain very loudly that "we" (Christians, evangelicals, conservatives) are shoving our beliefs down their throats.

Some of them even "Christians" say that it is not our place, let alone duty/responsibility to vote our moral standard, because it is not "fair" or equal to and for everyone, becuase there is a bias against teh gay/homosexual population.

another part of what I was trying to express to them is that by allowing them to vote for their morals (murduring babies, and allowing homosexual marriages, as examples), they are then shoving their "religious beliefs" down our throats, so to speak.

In any case, here is what want to ask Jude2 participants. I kow my question is vague and open to inturpretation, but want to see what kind of responces I get?:

If you had the choice of two government systems, which would you choose:
1. Democratic-Republic, with a semi-representative government and where there is to be equality for everyone, minority or majority.
or
2. A Theocracy. Where there is one man that is leader, and he takes his direction from God, and has subordinant council and God's will is directed to the people.

[Little Sister]

If you had the choice of two government systems, which would you choose:
1. Democratic-Republic, with a semi-representative government and where there is to be equality for everyone, minority or majority.
or
2. A Theocracy. Where there is one man that is leader, and he takes his direction from God, and has subordinant council and God's will is directed to the people.

(color emphasis by me) I chose Republican/Democratic as the thought came to me that I wouldn't enjoy "one nation under Benny Hinn"!!
More scary than Kerry!!!

[Jennifer Smith]

I would.

Although, I don't think he's probably called to be a politician. He should stay in the healing ministry.

[RamboPreacher]

exactly what I thought wold happen, adn the kind of response I would get.

Personally, I would prefer a theocracy. The challenge though is the leader would have to be directed by God. Personally, I didn't make any assumptions of "who" that leader would be. On other forums, the comments were (on teh secular side) something to the efffect of, that would be a dictatorship and therefore not a good thing.

So, then back to the partial starting topic... Since we are a Democratic Republic, how can we vote for the banning of gay marriage, when most of the homsexual population does not consider it a sin, and therfore believe we are pushing our moral standards and beliefs on them, and is against their constitutional rights to be "equal". (not my argument, just trying to start/continue a topic for further postings)

[Pastor Gary]

So, then back to the partial starting topic... Since we are a Democratic Republic, how can we vote for the banning of gay marriage, when most of the homsexual population does not consider it a sin, and therfore believe we are pushing our moral standards and beliefs on them, and is against their constitutional rights to be "equal". (not my argument, just trying to start/continue a topic for further postings)

To follow that libertarian logic, we'd also have to eliminate ALL laws that legislate morality for the common good of society; totally allow any and all drugs or narcotics without restriction (who are we to tell them it is wrong or bad?), allow small children to purchase alcohol and tobacco and use them, etc. I have seen a list somewhere of all the many laws that are essentially dealing with 'victimless crimes based upon moral restriction of the rights of an individual for the good of society as a whole.'

What other minorities of less than 3% of the population have a movement as powerful as the gay-rights lobby? I say this: Wanna be gay? Go ahead. Sleep in the bed with whoever you want and do whatever it is you do with them. Don't try to force me to like it, accept it, or normalize it. It is a perversion and always will be regardless of societal change. That doesn't mean I won't treat you decently --- I'd just prefer, personally -- to not have to wrestle constantly against your need to force the rest of us, the overwhelming majority, to accept your problem as a norm.

[Poimen]

Based on the choices presented, I choose Theocracy. I would rather have a God ordained government with a divinely chosen leader than a liberal worldly government any day.

[DaJudge]

Based on the choices presented, I choose Theocracy. I would rather have a God ordained government with a divinely chosen leader than a liberal worldly government any day.

You are assuming that the person or persons chosen to govern will be "God ordained". How will these leaders be chosen? Who will chose them? How will we know if they are God ordained?

Every theocracy this world has ever seen has been a miserable failure. Every theocracy has degenerated into raging facism. Look at the main examples of theocratic governments in the world today: Islamic facists. If you don't agree with them, they chop off your head. That ain't a world I want to live in.

No, I want to live in a nation governed by law, not by men. Men are fallable. They always will be. Power will always go to men's (and women's) heads. The United States Constitution with it's checks and balances, and Bill of Rights, while not perfect, is the best system of government ever implimented on this Earth (and I believe God inspired it and ordained it).

The only theocracy I want to live in is Heaven, because I know the head man there personally, and I know that He is infallible.

[Poimen]

well Dajudge,

That is actually a different topic. I simply responded to the options given at face value.

The 2nd option simply said:

2. A Theocracy. Where there is one man that is leader, and he takes his direction from God, and has subordinant council and God's will is directed to the people.

Based on that I say Theo is the guy to run this Ocracy.

[Crystal]

I think that national government should be dem/rep. Jesus made it very clear that he was not here to reform the political structure of the day but to set up a spiritual kingdom that outlasts any earthly empire or government rule.
However, how does that exclude my morals. People who say that we have no right to "push our morals" imply that we christians should lay ours aside for them. If the gov. is for the people and by the people, then this person is against gay marriage and will continue to vote it down. I have the right to vote my Christian morals just the same way that they have a right to vote their gay rights agenda morals. Just so happens we are in the majority on this one. It is not being pushed on them by a church run government system, it is what the people of this free nation have decided.

Crystal

[DaJudge]

well Dajudge,

That is actually a different topic. I simply responded to the options given at face value.

The 2nd option simply said:

2. A Theocracy. Where there is one man that is leader, and he takes his direction from God, and has subordinant council and God's will is directed to the people.

Based on that I say Theo is the guy to run this Ocracy.

Poimen, you CAN'T take that 2nd option at face value, because in the real world, you will never get a leader who perfectly takes his direction from God, lying all self aside.

Guess our difference lies in me being a realist and you being an idealist. (There's nothing wrong with being an idealist by the way).

[RamboPreacher]

actually, the intent WAS to take them at face value, hence my reason for "voting" for the thocracy. guess now we know who the 2 are, and probably who the "idealists" are as well.

[DaJudge]

Well, the only place that I know of in the universe where idealism really works is Heaven, which is why I say that Heaven is the only place where a theocracy will work.