Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

My Fear With Houston

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
    Not really, that's more or less an appeal to popularity. If cultural mores became that most people wanted to kill all atheists, that wouldn't make it the correct position would it.
    Your example is extreme. Outside of fringe 'hate groups' such as the KKK such a dramatic scenario is unlikely. Most people have an innate sense of fairness, as has been established by many experiments, and the so-called "golden rule" is the backbone of virtually every widespread moral system in history.

    Thus in a secular society like the US, where equal rights for all citizens are guaranteed by the Constitution, agitation for such rights have become became recognised as fair and become popular over time - even though they may not have started off that way.

    Without violence, the only way anyone can win is to have a better rational argument, and that's what Christians usually lack since they most often rely on an appeals to emotion: fear of punishment by God, shame that it's not natural, etc. Even Nick's article kind of does it to Christians: stand up and fight you cowards! Well how, unless you go out and beat up gays? What persuasive arguments can the Right use, other than yammering on like a hillbilly that it ain't natural and God don't like it? Nobody cares about all that.
    What Nick and others do is claim that their Christian views are entitled to override the constitutional rights of those they disagree with. They believe that their personal beliefs are godly and true and thereby take precedence over their opponent’s views which, in their eyes, are not. In short they claim to have God’s mandate. ISIS does the same.

    I'm personally neutral, but if Christians want to change what others are doing they need to learn how to be smarter, not more self-righteous, when interacting with the opposition.
    ...and recognise that the rights of others have equal validity as their own rights in a secular society such as the US.
    Last edited by Tassman; 10-29-2014, 04:43 AM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Your example is extreme. ...

      What Nick and others do is claim that their Christian views are entitled to override the constitutional rights of those they disagree with. They believe that their personal beliefs are godly and true and thereby take precedence over their opponent’s views which, in their eyes, are not. In short they claim to have God’s mandate. ISIS does the same.
      But comparing Nick to ISIS is not just a wee bit extreme?
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
        Not really, that's more or less an appeal to popularity. If cultural mores became that most people wanted to kill all atheists, that wouldn't make it the correct position would it.
        The phrase "losing the culture war" inherently implies the popularity of an issue. "Culture" is determined by the general attitudes and behaviors of a populace. The "culture war" isn't about what is objectively right or wrong (and that very concept would require its own separate discussion), but rather it is about what a particular culture views as being right or wrong.

        To say that "conservative Christians are losing the culture war in America" simply means that the conservative Christian viewpoint is not as popular amongst Americans as its opposition.
        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          No. The Evangelical Right is losing the “culture war” because it is out of step with changing cultural values, namely the increasing demand for equal civil rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin. It is no longer acceptable to discriminate against particular segments of society based upon the personal beliefs of some. Consequently, “Evangelicalism as we knew it in the 20th century is disintegrating”… “Evangelicals must accept that our beliefs are now in conflict with the mainstream culture”.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/op...ted%3Dall&_r=0
          No, my correction was entirely accurate.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
            The phrase "losing the culture war" inherently implies the popularity of an issue. "Culture" is determined by the general attitudes and behaviors of a populace. The "culture war" isn't about what is objectively right or wrong (and that very concept would require its own separate discussion), but rather it is about what a particular culture views as being right or wrong.

            To say that "conservative Christians are losing the culture war in America" simply means that the conservative Christian viewpoint is not as popular amongst Americans as its opposition.
            Meaning, the reason of "because you are out of step with changing cultural mores" is either redundant, or saying, because the general attitude favors something, it's more correct and that's why you're losing. Where I'm saying, a minority may have a better argument and cause change. Or it may not and it's all a lot of foot stomping until the minority goes along with it. I'm seeing conservatives as the latter at this point, it's not come out with any substantial arguments that amount to much more than, "Ewww that's gross!"

            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Your example is extreme. Outside of fringe 'hate groups' such as the KKK such a dramatic scenario is unlikely. Most people have an innate sense of fairness, as has been established by many experiments, and the so-called "golden rule" is the backbone of virtually every widespread moral system in history.
            You mention ISIS so that's one example.

            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Thus in a secular society like the US, where equal rights for all citizens are guaranteed by the Constitution, agitation for such rights have become became recognised as fair and become popular over time - even though they may not have started off that way.

            What Nick and others do is claim that their Christian views are entitled to override the constitutional rights of those they disagree with. They believe that their personal beliefs are godly and true and thereby take precedence over their opponent’s views which, in their eyes, are not. In short they claim to have God’s mandate. ISIS does the same.

            ...and recognise that the rights of others have equal validity as their own rights in a secular society such as the US.
            I don't think the equal rights argument as a general rule is particularly good either, unless it's qualified which gay rights supporters have done pretty well. Since Duck Dynasty was mentioned, those preferring bestiality don't have the same rights as others wanting "normal" sex between men and women, but we're reminded that homosexuals are only asking for rights in a consensual human adult relationship, so that's an example of successfully qualifying to receive those rights under the Constitution.

            Like I said I'm neutral, for one I suspect the Bible isn't even talking about gay monogamous relationships, but things like attempts to have sex magic with spirits in Sodom, straight people having gay sex just for thrills/money/drugs, escaping pressures of your own gender/rape memories/abusive relationships...things that can actually cause guilt and more problems for anyone, gay or straight. I think it's going to have to be a thing between each person and God, same as many other things. Even with straight marriages, a lot of them end in sadness, but ultimately the decision made to enter into them rests with each person and God.

            Since I mentioned sex magic, a form of sorcery and idolatry, where's all the protest against Santa Claus, where Christian parents often lie to and indoctrinate their children to believe in a supernatural Father judging who's naughty and nice? Then at a certain age the rug is pulled out from under them when they learn the truth about it, which sets them up to wonder if the same thing will happen regarding belief in God.

            Even if Christians had good arguments, many wouldn't take them seriously since they aren't fighting even as much to clean their own houses of all the Santa Clauses, Benny Hinns, Westboro Baptists, and things that make the secular world go "Ewww!" Anyway...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              But comparing Nick to ISIS is not just a wee bit extreme?
              Unfair on ISIS you mean? Perhaps you’re right.

              Actually no! Both proclaim their beliefs to be from God which therefore entitles them, they believe, to override the rights of those acting, in their view, contrary to God’s will. Fundamentalists of all stripes tend to have this in common, although some are more extreme that others in enforcing their beliefs upon the infidel heathen.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              No, my correction was entirely accurate.
              Oh well then…….
              Last edited by Tassman; 10-30-2014, 12:37 AM.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Unfair on ISIS you mean? Perhaps you’re right.
                Wow, you almost told a whole entire joke!

                Comment


                • #23
                  I was hoping Nick would respond to this:
                  http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post112423
                  Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                  I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post

                    You mention ISIS so that's one example.
                    ISIS has reverted to a tribal mentality whereby those within the group are treated with fairness and equity (or their version of it) whereas their neighbours are fair game. The ancient Israelites were the same – rigid morality enforced within the tribe whereas those outside the tribe, e.g. The Amalekites were fair game for slaughter. The developed world has moved well beyond tribalism; sadly many fundamentalists haven’t.

                    I don't think the equal rights argument as a general rule is particularly good either, unless it's qualified which gay rights supporters have done pretty well. Since Duck Dynasty was mentioned, those preferring bestiality don't have the same rights as others wanting "normal" sex between men and women, but we're reminded that homosexuals are only asking for rights in a consensual human adult relationship, so that's an example of successfully qualifying to receive those rights under the Constitution.
                    The “equal rights argument” is the only one being made. The rest, e.g. Duck Dynasty, bestiality etc is diversionary palaver. Homosexuals are simply demanding their constitutional rights for “consensual human adult relationships.”

                    Like I said I'm neutral, for one I suspect the Bible isn't even talking about gay monogamous relationships, but things like attempts to have sex magic with spirits in Sodom, straight people having gay sex just for thrills/money/drugs, escaping pressures of your own gender/rape memories/abusive relationships...things that can actually cause guilt and more problems for anyone, gay or straight. I think it's going to have to be a thing between each person and God, same as many other things. Even with straight marriages, a lot of them end in sadness, but ultimately the decision made to enter into them rests with each person and God.
                    You’re NOT “neutral”. You seem unaware of the difference between The Constitution and the Bible. The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all regardless of what ANY religious group may argue.

                    Since I mentioned sex magic, a form of sorcery and idolatry, where's all the protest against Santa Claus, where Christian parents often lie to and indoctrinate their children to believe in a supernatural Father judging who's naughty and nice? Then at a certain age the rug is pulled out from under them when they learn the truth about it, which sets them up to wonder if the same thing will happen regarding belief in God.
                    The same thing will happen regarding belief in God if they are well educated and understand the importance of critical thinking. You seem to think that tossing God out along with Santa Claus is a bad thing.

                    Even if Christians had good arguments, many wouldn't take them seriously since they aren't fighting even as much to clean their own houses of all the Santa Clauses, Benny Hinns, Westboro Baptists, and things that make the secular world go "Ewww!" Anyway...
                    Perhaps! But I think the “secular world” is more concerned with the lack of substantive evidence regarding the Christian story, rather than pseudo-religious clutter like “Santa Clause, Benny Hinns or Westboro Baptists”.
                    Last edited by Tassman; 10-30-2014, 01:42 AM.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      ISIS has reverted to a tribal mentality whereby those within the group are treated with fairness and equity (or their version of it) whereas their neighbours are fair game. The ancient Israelites were the same – rigid morality enforced within the tribe whereas those outside the tribe, e.g. The Amalekites were fair game for slaughter. The developed world has moved well beyond tribalism; sadly many fundamentalists haven’t.
                      Both have slaughtered those within their own tribes too, Moses ordered 3000 men killed over the Golden Calf. It wasn't just about neighbors, it was within the culture. I didn't want to play the Hitler card but it gets right to the point: Jews prospered for a time in Germany until cultural mores shifted in the 1930s and persecutions started up again and we know the rest. Thus, if cultural mores became that most people wanted to kill all atheists/gays/Jews/etc, that wouldn't make it the correct position would it.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      The “equal rights argument” is the only one being made. The rest, e.g. Duck Dynasty, bestiality etc is diversionary palaver. Homosexuals are simply demanding their constitutional rights for “consensual human adult relationships.”
                      Well, some others are on par with Christian bestiality arguments, like "many animals are gay and humans are just evolved animals so being gay is natural" -- silly because many animals eat feces, are vicious, etc. -- but, yeah.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      You’re NOT “neutral”. You seem unaware of the difference between The Constitution and the Bible. The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all regardless of what ANY religious group may argue.
                      Sure I'm neutral about the gay issue, like I said it's between each person and God, I'm not gonna say being gay is right or wrong for anyone. The Bible isn't clear enough for me to form that conclusion.

                      As for Constitutional rights, the government shouldn't be licensing any marriages, gay or straight, in the first place. If you want a spiritual partnership get a minister, if you want a legal partnership get a lawyer.

                      If you are talking specifically about the Houston situation, the city withdrew subpoenas now, but the problem there is more complicated than protecting gay rights or religious free speech. Sermons were subpoenaed to see if they had political material which isn't protected. The lawsuit is still on to see if the city wrongly blocked a vote to repeal the equal rights ordinance. If it goes to vote and gets repealed then that's the system, they'll have to keep trying.

                      My problem isn't with Christians expressing their views, it's expecting that businesses licensed by the government shouldn't have to follow its laws. And if non-Christians blocked an ordinance protecting Christians from economic discrimination, we'd be hearing cries of 666 about it. It's one thing for a church to refuse marrying gay people, it's another to place gays in a subhuman category by denying them basic needs. I don't think that's very Christian, maybe we agree on that much.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      The same thing will happen regarding belief in God if they are well educated and understand the importance of critical thinking.
                      Sure, here's an example of well-educated people trying to prove just that:
                      ...Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God.

                      For example, they had participants view images of artwork that are associated with reflective thinking (Rodin’s The Thinker) or more neutral images (Discobulus of Myron). Participants who viewed The Thinker reported weaker religious beliefs on a subsequent survey. -Scientific American

                      The punchline is that The Thinker is a man at The Gates of Hell, inspired by Dante's Inferno. So these "critical thinkers" at UBC used a religious-themed sculpture to show how looking at it results in weaker religious beliefs, go figure.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      You seem to think that tossing God out along with Santa Claus is a bad thing.
                      For Christians it probably would be, I'd say that.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Perhaps! But I think the “secular world” is more concerned with the lack of substantive evidence regarding the Christian story, rather than pseudo-religious clutter like “Santa Clause, Benny Hinns or Westboro Baptists”.
                      I think you missed the point: if Christians had better arguments and ideas, the secular world, being such critical thinkers, ought to accept them no matter what the source. The problem is that arguments and ideas are less likely to be considered in the first place if they aren't first applied internally to be an example of how they work. In other words, you can't try to show others how to clean house if your own place is a mess. You can but they will often just tell you to mind your own business.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I had thought everyone else was answering, but since you asked....

                        Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                        An issue I have, if I may:

                        Technically, I don't think Christians are supposed to be engaged in a war to win over the culture--rather, they should be engaged in a war to win over people's souls. It ought to be a war of love, motivated by deep care for our fellow human beings, a love that equals the love we have for ourselves. And frankly, the church has fallen well short of this.
                        I agree we should be aiming for souls, but what happens if culture is a barrier to that? It's not an either/or thing. It will be far more easier to present people to the Christian worldview if they see Christianity in their culture. We are to be salt and light. Redeeming people will involve redeeming the culture. We can be thankful Christians did that with widow-burning, abortion, and the slave-trade. Christ wants to redeem souls, but he also wants to redeem culture.

                        A common sentiment I've seen from people who happen to be gay is that what they ultimately resent about the traditional Christian side is being treated more as issues than as people. They report being made to feel neglected, marginalized, dehumanized, sensing that Christians are more concerned with fighting for the correctness of traditional Bible interpretations than with fighting for their souls. Clearly, this is not the impression that the church should want people to receive.
                        It is not, but that sword also cuts both ways. Many a Christian business has been used as an object lesson by the left where if they don't get the service they want, then that person gets sued. The defense of marriage is not about a religious doctrine really, but about what constitutes a family.

                        So with that in mind, I don't think the church's biggest issue is related to people not doing anything, but rather with doing things the wrong way, with the wrong approach and tone. That, I believe, is what people who oppose the traditional Christian movements are ultimately opposing--not Christianity itself. You mentioned the backlash over Phil Robertson's comments, but I'm sure you're also aware that Pope Francis, despite holding a position that isn't much different from Robertson's, has not been condemned by the rest of the world. In fact, he's been widely appreciated and celebrated. I believe the reason for this is what his approach indicated about him. When Robertson was asked about gay people, his answer was:
                        I really don't think the Pope will be celebrated when people become convinced he has no chance of changing his mind. Phil is quite blunt, but the problem is people hear something they don't like and go after the person. Isn't that just what you said the gay community was condemning? They wanted to talk about the issue and not the person?
                        "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical."


                        On the other hand, Pope Francis said the following:
                        "If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency (to homosexuality) is not the problem ... they're our brothers."
                        This needs to be clarified more. Are they being celibate or not? Scripture is quite clear on this matter. Without context, I cannot speak to this statement.

                        When Phil Robertson hears the phrase "gay people," he apparently focuses primarily on the first part--"gay." When Pope Francis hears that phrase, he apparently focuses primarily on the second part--"people." Pope Francis gives the impression that he cares about people's souls, precisely what he's commanded to do. Phil Robertson gives the impression that he cares primarily about the issue of homosexuality and is reducing people to that. It's not the church's battle that's an issue so much as its strategy.
                        I really don't think you can get that from Phil's answer alone. To say he spoke about the question of homosexuality does not mean he does not see homosexuals as people.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          Many a Christian business has been used as an object lesson by the left where if they don't get the service they want, then that person gets sued.
                          There's no such thing as a Christian business for profit, unless it is fake Christianity:
                          Matthew 22:21 ...Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

                          Matthew 10:8 ...freely ye have received, freely give.

                          Acts 8:18-20 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

                          So good, I hope Caesar sues every "Christian" business out of business, Christians have no business peddling Jesus for monetary profit in the first place.

                          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                          The defense of marriage is not about a religious doctrine really, but about what constitutes a family.
                          In other words you are going to dismiss the Bible because it doesn't support the idea of a nuclear family:
                          Matthew 12:48-49 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

                          This is what I meant in the post to Tassman, too many Christians just have goofy arguments and scratch their heads wondering why nobody listens.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                            Both have slaughtered those within their own tribes too, Moses ordered 3000 men killed over the Golden Calf. It wasn't just about neighbors, it was within the culture. I didn't want to play the Hitler card but it gets right to the point: Jews prospered for a time in Germany until cultural mores shifted in the 1930s and persecutions started up again and we know the rest. Thus, if cultural mores became that most people wanted to kill all atheists/gays/Jews/etc, that wouldn't make it the correct position would it.
                            The golden calf episode was about preserving the Israelite culture intact. As for Hitler the humiliation and financial collapse heaped upon a proud nation by the Treaty of Versailles virtually guaranteed that any demagogue promising to restore national pride would succeed. And the Jews may have prospered prior to Hitler but they were always hated in Germany - as in most Western nations. In short there are understandable (if unjustifiable) reasons for these lapses in history that have plagued humanity.

                            But, despite these lapses, the overall direction of humankind has been towards tolerance and inclusiveness. See Pinker: ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined’. We are learning how to overcome the violence of war and demagoguery - as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And If Moses had commanded the murder of tens of thousands of men, women and children today, as he did re the Midianites, he would be tried before The International Court of Justice and hanged, like Saddam Hussein, instead of becoming a religious hero. So there's hope for our sspecies.

                            Well, some others are on par with Christian bestiality arguments, like "many animals are gay and humans are just evolved animals so being gay is natural" -- silly because many animals eat feces, are vicious, etc. -- but, yeah.
                            Homosexual behaviour is natural and it is found among many animals, but this is not what the argument is about. The argument is that there's no good reason to deny full civil rights to homosexual citizens.

                            Sure I'm neutral about the gay issue, like I said it's between each person and God, I'm not gonna say being gay is right or wrong for anyone. The Bible isn't clear enough for me to form that conclusion.
                            Indeed! In a secular democracy like the USA, it is irrelevant what views you hold about God vis-à-vis homosexuals – except for you personally of course. The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all regardless of what ANY religious group may argue.

                            As for Constitutional rights, the government shouldn't be licensing any marriages, gay or straight, in the first place. If you want a spiritual partnership get a minister, if you want a legal partnership get a lawyer.
                            I tend to agree but that's not the issue. The fact is that the government DOES issue marriage licenses and in so doing should not discriminate against homosexuals.

                            If you are talking specifically about the Houston situation, the city withdrew subpoenas now, but the problem there is more complicated than protecting gay rights or religious free speech. Sermons were subpoenaed to see if they had political material which isn't protected. The lawsuit is still on to see if the city wrongly blocked a vote to repeal the equal rights ordinance. If it goes to vote and gets repealed then that's the system, they'll have to keep trying.
                            "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," Chief Justice Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878) … The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances"– cited Wiki. In short, religious beliefs cannot override the laws of the land.

                            My problem isn't with Christians expressing their views, it's expecting that businesses licensed by the government shouldn't have to follow its laws. And if non-Christians blocked an ordinance protecting Christians from economic discrimination, we'd be hearing cries of 666 about it. It's one thing for a church to refuse marrying gay people, it's another to place gays in a subhuman category by denying them basic needs. I don't think that's very Christian, maybe we agree on that much.
                            I agree entirely.

                            Sure, here's an example of well-educated people trying to prove just that:

                            The punchline is that The Thinker is a man at The Gates of Hell, inspired by Dante's Inferno. So these "critical thinkers" at UBC used a religious-themed sculpture to show how looking at it results in weaker religious beliefs, go figure.
                            Ironic! Very interesting Scientific American article BTW.

                            For Christians it probably would be, I'd say that.
                            And you’d be right, but not for non-Christians.

                            I think you missed the point: if Christians had better arguments and ideas, the secular world, being such critical thinkers, ought to accept them no matter what the source. The problem is that arguments and ideas are less likely to be considered in the first place if they aren't first applied internally to be an example of how they work. In other words, you can't try to show others how to clean house if your own place is a mess. You can but they will often just tell you to mind your own business.
                            Christians need to support their “better arguments and ideas” with substantive facts. That’s what’s lacking – as I said. But you are right in that Christians who, whilst proclaiming Christian love, behave with angry bitterness don’t do their cause much good - you seem to be an exception to this regrettable trend.
                            Last edited by Tassman; 10-31-2014, 05:23 AM.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                              There's no such thing as a Christian business for profit, unless it is fake Christianity:
                              So congratulations on using a verse in a way I doubt any of the early Christians did. Good also on being a full literalist. I think it should be known that what I am saying is that a business that is ran by Christians because, and I'm sure this sounds strange, Christians have to make a living too and sometimes they will open up businesses so they can earn income. If they do and they say they abide by Christian principles, then why should they be forced to violate those principles?



                              So good, I hope Caesar sues every "Christian" business out of business, Christians have no business peddling Jesus for monetary profit in the first place.
                              Yes. Absolutely. Every Christian that has opened a business is doing it to peddle Jesus for profit.



                              In other words you are going to dismiss the Bible because it doesn't support the idea of a nuclear family:
                              Good grief. Learn some exegesis. Jesus is saying that your relationship to God comes before any other relationship and defines those relationships. Go through the rest of the Gospels and the epistles and see what is said when he talks about the family as the family.

                              Last I saw, Paul talked about relationships between husbands and wives and parents and children. That sounds like a nuclear family.



                              This is what I meant in the post to Tassman, too many Christians just have goofy arguments and scratch their heads wondering why nobody listens.
                              Oh the irony in this statement.....

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                                So congratulations on using a verse in a way I doubt any of the early Christians did. Good also on being a full literalist. I think it should be known that what I am saying is that a business that is ran by Christians because, and I'm sure this sounds strange, Christians have to make a living too and sometimes they will open up businesses so they can earn income. If they do and they say they abide by Christian principles, then why should they be forced to violate those principles?

                                Yes. Absolutely. Every Christian that has opened a business is doing it to peddle Jesus for profit.
                                I'm not referring to all Christian-owned businesses, but to Christian-owned businesses that sell religion for profit, like marriage chapels for example. Even so, to claim that doing business with sinners violates their principles, but asking for example the City of Houston led by a gay mayor to grant businesses licenses, is somewhat hypocritical.

                                To frame it in a biblical way, it's like asking a pagan Caesar for a business license, then refusing to serve pagans.

                                Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                                Good grief. Learn some exegesis. Jesus is saying that your relationship to God comes before any other relationship and defines those relationships. Go through the rest of the Gospels and the epistles and see what is said when he talks about the family as the family.

                                Last I saw, Paul talked about relationships between husbands and wives and parents and children. That sounds like a nuclear family.
                                He discussed deacons and bishops having one wife, the same command applied to kings of Israel, Deuteronomy 17:17. It's not a command to be married to one wife since Paul advised celibacy instead, neither are there general commands against polygamy applied to everyone. So opinions as to what constitute a family carry about as much weight as opinions like, you aren't a real Christian unless you believe in creation instead of evolution.

                                Like I said I'm not saying gay activity is either right or wrong for everyone, I've seen it be go very wrong for some people. I'm saying there are a lot of beliefs about it passed off as facts when they really aren't.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                75 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                62 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                7 responses
                                63 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X