As I read this; I was reminded of a video I watched.
Tom
Tom, thanks for the link; I did watch that 41 minute video. I do not identify with that. They seemed to claim the name "Baptist", but they are not the historic Baptists who believe in separation of Church and State. When Ted Haggard, who was actually the President of the National Association of Evangelicals was exposed, I checked the list of denominations making up that organization. Knowing that group actually elected Ted Haggard I knew I was NOT an evangelical, especially after seeing the member denominations. I had in earlier years rejected the label "fundamentalist" to describe myself and then I later rejected the label "evangelical" for myself. Neither word is in the Bible and I must go by the common understanding of the words and I am NOT either of those. It depends on definition, but I surely would not attend a church where people raise their hands in some idea of physical worship, or have rock bands on the stage, and I do not condemn homosexuals for having a loving relationship nor the woman who has an abortion in the first trimester.
That 41 minute video seems to indicate that the only biblical understanding is, that a human being, a person, exists from conception and they want to put that into civil law. That viewpoint is not THE Christian viewpoint alone. I find that the typical fundamentalist/evangelical views on homosexual males and abortion are man-made theological constructions not based on clear statements of scripture. They are read into the scriptures.
There is a book you can read online, "Baptist Principles Reset", a 1902 Edition book. In one chapter they address the question of the "Blue Laws" in the State of Virginia and they get into the question of religious liberty. The chapter on that starts on page 298. I agree with this earlier Baptist view.
Page 298, I cannot do a copy-paste on this so I can't text out a copy so you must read it online. I hold to the older Particular Baptist 1646 Confession and the Baptist instance on separation of Church and State, so I don't use the name Baptist for myself in this day.
On the matter of homosexual males, I find the Britannica article on Lawrence v. Texas revealing as it gave the arguments and the last two sentences sum it up well. If you can read the entire article, the link is: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lawrence-v-Texas
"A vice president of Focus on the Family, a conservative organization, attacked the court for continuing to pillage “its way through the moral norms of our country.” What both sides agreed upon, but reacted to far differently, was the belief that Lawrence would be the opening wedge in a campaign to constitutionalize same-sex marriage."
I disagree with both and find each extreme. The simple fact, after a false police complaint caused police to enter the house, of two males merely having sex is not in the Bible, so I find no basis for the moral condemnation; but, I see nothing in that ruling to justify redefining marriage to suit an anomaly of sexual nature found in such a small minority.
