I am glad to hear you have great respect for Jesus. Really. There are many who don't. We get those conversations often on this forum.

But what I said is not antithetical to Jesus's teachings. He believed in grace and justice (such as Mt. 5.22; 10.15; 12.36; Jn. 5.22 et al). He believed in love, but he had no qualms about denouncing sin and hypocrisy (Mt. 23). He brought salvation, but also judgment. Sometimes love has to be tough. We all know that. We also know that discipline has its rightful place (Heb. 12.4-11). To say that we don't always want to ease the sufferings of people is not anti-Jesus. He didn't just wave His hand over the country and heal everybody at once. He made them come to Him, because He is more interested in relationship than physical healing. Some people He didn't heal (in John 5.1-9, there were many ill and infirm around the pool; Jesus healed only one). We don't see Jesus giving the highest priority to easing all the sufferings of all others. There are times when He did not; there are times when He will judge instead of save.

In Matthew 10.34 Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." In Luke 12.51, he said, "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." His purpose is not always to relieve the suffering of those around Him. You can also read Luke 16.27-31. The point isn't always to relieve suffering.

> I thought we were to love and care for each other unquestioningly,

We are to love and care, but not unquestioningly. We are to use our brains and be discerning.

[list][*] Matthew 7.6: Jesus said, "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." It's not unquestioning; sometimes we deliberately withhold.
[*] Mark 6.11: Jesus said, "And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them." Sometimes we deliberately walk away.[/list]

I may be an agonistic, but Jesus is a figure I respect quite a bit and what you just wrote seems pretty much an antithesis to the entirety of his teachings.

I thought we were to love and care for each other unquestioningly, turn the other cheek when wronged, and leave ultimate justice up to god

> Do you think that god wants all of his children to do their best to ease the suffering of others?

Not necessarily. My perspective is that justice has a proper place, and when someone has committed a crime, for instance, they should be punished for that crime. Our priority and goal is not to "ease their suffering." There are other situations where suffering is the unprejudiced consequence of a person's actions, and is therefore "deserved." We do not wish to ease all such suffering. In a third case, discipline has a legitimate role to play in character formation and in society's wellbeing, and certain amounts of properly aimed and proper types of suffering are called for to achieve the proper beneficial goal.

> Do you support the idea of Universal healthcare in whatever country that you are in?

It depends what you mean by universal health care. I believe that everyone should have access to adequate and essential health care. I believe that various tests and procedures are not necessarily beneficial or expedient, and only the people who are truly in need of such things should have access to them. I also understand that research and development of pharmaceuticals is an intensely expensive process, and pharmaceutical companies should be fairly compensated for their work. But I am against the idea of big pharma cheating people by overpricing their medications.

I have two questions:

1. Do you think that god wants all of his children to do their best to ease the suffering of others?

2. Do you support the idea of Universal healthcare in whatever country that you are in?

I can't speak to "assimilation of wealth" and "universal health care" because they're just tossed-out generalities. I have no idea if it's true or not that those "most vocal in their opposition" are the same people etc.

I think you'll agree, though, that a lot of legislation is exactly that: legislating morality. Laws against theft, murder, rape, slander, false advertising, defamation of character, unfair business practices, unfair banking policies—they're all legislated morality. Laws were made against these things because they're just "wrong." They're not how a just and moral society treats each other, and so laws were made, and continue to be made.

I can only speak from a United States perspective, but the voting block in america that is the most vocal in their opposition to Gay Marriage are the same people that also believe that God's will shouldn't be legislated in other areas (accumulation of wealth, universal healthcare, etc.).

I have several thoughts in response.

First, your main premise is questionable—that marriage is inherently a union made before God. Assuming that you are getting that idea from Genesis 2.24 ("For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."), then you are mistaken. This text is neither about marriage nor sexuality, but instead is a statement of her equality with him (one flesh) in the image of God as they fulfill their God-given roles. Genesis 2.23, the previous verse, is about her being equal in dignity and worth to him. She is the same nature as he is, even though differing in sex. By naming her, Adam is indicating what category she belongs in (Walton p. 178). She is "human—just as much as he is—also by derivative nature."

"For this reason": one the foundation and basis of her being equal, the two will unite. Their relationship has a stronger claim than biological derivation. It's an ontological statement, and an archetypal one.

Therefore, marriage is a social construct, but not only that. It also has spiritual pinnings and implications. We have no objection to non-believers marrying each other. We actually prefer marriage to the practice of living together outside of marriage.

As far as gay marriage, that's a different matter. The Bible labels gay marriage as outside of God's intent, both in the sense that it's contrary to God's nature and to human nature, contrary to fulfilling God's image in the world, and contrary to fulfilling God's work in the world, at least part of which is to be fruitful and multiply.

If Marriage is inherently a union made before God, why is there so much religious backlash against gay marriage rights but no pushback at all against atheist couples getting married?

I don't believe marriage is Christian, nor am I implying that you necessarily do. I also do not wish to imply that any of you are against the right to get married for all, but would assume that you at least have acquaintances that are.

Thanks!