Page 23 of 31 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 310

Thread: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discrimination?

  1. #221
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No, because then catering the event does not cause me to enable/participate/celebrate/take-part-in/whathaveyou the actual sinful activity going on. It's not a matter of "don't be around sinful people".
    If you cater to an event where you know people are engaging in sinful activity but you do not yourself engage in that activity, you are no more enabling the sinful activity than if you cater to the event and don't engage in the activity if they are celebrating it. If the sinful activity is of concern to you, you are in both cases feeding people in which you know are engaging in sinful activity. If you think you are enabling sinful activity by feeding a group of people who are celebrating or encouraging homosexual activity, then you are also enabling sinful activity if you feed people who are engaged in homosexual activity if they are at an event which is not celebrating or encouraging it. The same can be said of lying. If you feel you are enabling lying by feeding liars at an event which encourages lying, you are also enabling it by feeding them at an event at which they know they will be lying.

    The point is this, you want to say its the activity because of its sinful nature, but really that is not the issue. Because if that was the case, there would be many things that one would have to stop engaging in. In fact, there are people who realizing the all encompassing nature of deceit who take a vow of silence and don't say anything at all. The real issue in this regard is that people have an aversion to one type of sinful activity, but they don't share that aversion when it comes to something that they themselves are victimized by. And that is not a sign of transcendence of mundane affairs, but is merely another manifestation of the arrogance that accompanies mundane activity. Therefore people who support this type of law or not doing so out of their love of righteousness, rather they are doing so as a result of the arrogance that is a symptom of their entanglement in mundane things.

  2. #222
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    An interesting note on vows of silence

    Pythagoras imposed a strict rule of silence on his disciples; the Vestal virgins also were bound to severe silence for long years.

    Religious orders such as the Benedictines have insisted on this as one of the essential rules of their institutes.

    In monasteries of many orders there are specific places and times (usually at night) where speaking was more strictly prohibited. These places were termed "Regular Places" (church, refectory, dormitory etc.) and while the times were termed the "Great Silence". Outside of these places and times were accorded "recreations" allowing some conversation moderated by charity and moderation. Useless and idle words were universally forbidden. In active orders the members speak according to the needs of their various duties.

    The Cistercian Order alone that admitted no relaxation from the strict rule of silence,[dubious – discuss] and the Reformed Cistercians maintain its severity (Trappists) though other contemplative Orders (Carthusians, Carmelites, Camaldolese etc.) are much more strict on this point than those engaged in active works. [citation needed] In order to avoid speaking, many orders (Cistercians, Dominicans, Discalced Carmelites etc.) have a certain number of signs, by means of which the religious may have a limited communication with each other for the necessities that are unavoidable.[citation needed]

    In the Indian religions religious silence is called Mauna and the name for a sage muni (see, for example Sakyamuni) literally means 'silent one'.
    Vow of silence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  3. #223
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    41,917

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    If you cater to an event where you know people are engaging in sinful activity but you do not yourself engage in that activity, you are no more enabling the sinful activity than if you cater to the event and don't engage in the activity if they are celebrating it. If the sinful activity is of concern to you, you are in both cases feeding people in which you know are engaging in sinful activity. If you think you are enabling sinful activity by feeding a group of people who are celebrating or encouraging homosexual activity, then you are also enabling sinful activity if you feed people who are engaged in homosexual activity if they are at an event which is not celebrating or encouraging it. The same can be said of lying. If you feel you are enabling lying by feeding liars at an event which encourages lying, you are also enabling it by feeding them at an event at which they know they will be lying.

    The point is this, you want to say its the activity because of its sinful nature, but really that is not the issue. Because if that was the case, there would be many things that one would have to stop engaging in. In fact, there are people who realizing the all encompassing nature of deceit who take a vow of silence and don't say anything at all. The real issue in this regard is that people have an aversion to one type of sinful activity, but they don't share that aversion when it comes to something that they themselves are victimized by. And that is not a sign of transcendence of mundane affairs, but is merely another manifestation of the arrogance that accompanies mundane activity. Therefore people who support this type of law or not doing so out of their love of righteousness, rather they are doing so as a result of the arrogance that is a symptom of their entanglement in mundane things.


    Yessir, that's one way of looking at it. Thing is, not everyone sees it that way.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  4. #224
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Yessir, that's one way of looking at it. Thing is, not everyone sees it that way.
    I understand that. I am just saying.

  5. #225
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    03-20-17 @ 05:36 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    In any religion, any ideology or even any legal system, the justification of "but I really really always want to _______" is not a justification or defense - other than potentially an insanity defense.

    The stance of traditional Christian is that it isn't a sin to want to have same gender sex, just a sin to do it. I do not agree, but that is basically the stance on what is considered sinful behavior. Maybe you want to do adultery really, really badly. Maybe you really want to lie, really want to steal. But that a person should not act upon the temptation.

    It's not a difficult concept to grasp. The "gay issue" poises no danger to Christianity any more than adultery, divorce, drug use or any other "sinful" action does. Just because it is common don't really change anything. In a sense, it would be like saying isn't Christianity's opposition to atheism endangering Christianity? The answer is no.

  6. #226
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    03-21-17 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    55,223

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    If you cater to an event where you know people are engaging in sinful activity but you do not yourself engage in that activity, you are no more enabling the sinful activity than if you cater to the event and don't engage in the activity if they are celebrating it.
    No. There is a definite difference between (for example) attending a Union meeting in which one of the other members is also a member of NAMBLA, and attending a NAMBLA meeting. In the latter, the sin (pedophilia) defines the event. In the first, it does not.

    If the sinful activity is of concern to you, you are in both cases feeding people in which you know are engaging in sinful activity.
    That is everybody. We are all sinners. Christians are expected to (among other things) not celebrate that.

    The point is this, you want to say its the activity because of its sinful nature, but really that is not the issue.
    It is, although in this discussion we have drawn a distinction between "event" and "activity" that was not originally present. The activity would be the event in the original usage - the celebration of homosexuality (or, if you will, the celebration of lying, or adultery, etc). I wouldn't cater any event for AshleyMadison.Com because they are organizationally built around adultery. That doesn't mean I can't feed an adulterer in my restaurant.


    I get what you are saying - and it's a very good argument. But it is built around a flawed assumption. It isn't "I don't want to be around sinners" or, "I don't want to feed people who are engaged in sin". It's "I can't participate in it, by partaking, encouraging, enabling, what-have-you". When the event is about it or fundamentally characterized by it, then participation in the event becomes participation in it.
    Worth noting, Democrats: President Trump will have a Pen and a Phone. #Precedent.

  7. #227
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,846

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    Yes, if I don't like you or for that matter anything you do I have a right to insulate myself from you. Period

    That we agree on.
    If you want to do that, stay in your room or move into the amazon, not open a freaking business to the public...oops i mean the public except for those homos

  8. #228
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,846

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    You either didn't read what I wrote, or chose to ignore all but the part you replied to.


    As I said, there is a difference between someone who has sinned and repented, and someone in an ongoing state of sin who expresses no intent to alter that.

    The first case is practically the very essence of Christianity... ALL Christians are repentant sinners. To repent means to have a change of heart and mind, a realization of sinfulness, and typically means the repentant person will endeavor to avoid their sin henceforward.

    A couple seeking SSM in a church that believes homosexual activity is Biblically a sin, is outright saying they will continue in sin and is furthermore asking the church to conduct a Christian wedding for, and thus put the church's blessings upon, a union the church believes is sinful and a state of being of the couple the church believes is an ongoing state of sin.


    Nor is this strictly limited to SSM. I know of many churches that, if they are AWARE that the prospective couple is a product of adultery (ie Mr left his wife for Miz New Bride) will not conduct a wedding for them in church. Those churches that have a strict interpretation of Biblical scriptures about marriage and divorce would hold that the couple began in adultery and continues in adultery, and that the church cannot bless such a union because the union itself is sinful!

    Now if the disappointed adulterous couple shops around, yeah they will find a theologically-liberal church somewhere that will marry them in the sanctum... but such a church is typically not going to be one that takes the Bible too seriously. Theologically fluffy, some of us call them.


    Are you getting why there is a difference at all now? I've tried several different ways to explain it. Seems obvious enough to me:

    Couple1 acknowledges their sin, repents and vows to do right from now on = ok it's good.
    Couple2 refuses to admit sin and vows to continue sinning, just wants church's blessing on their sin = not ok.
    Except you're telling the gay couple to not even be a couple, which is nothing compared to adultery

  9. #229
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    26,435

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The Bible includes Jesus' words - the history of the scripture does not support a narrative wherein items like this get made up and later included.



    Well, (though it's a odd qualification; I'm not sure why you brought it up), my father is a Pastor in the United Methodist Church, and he understands enough to know that, yes, indeed, the Gospels are accurate. He also knows broader Christianity enough to know that you do not love people by enabling them. Having also grown up in the United Methodist Church, attending a United Methodist college, and studying under United Methodists bishops, I also understand UMC doctrine enough to know that your Sunday-school-teaching-father should have taught you that it is their belief that Scripture is not only driven and shaped by the Holy Spirit, but the primary source for proper doctrine.

    United Methodists share with other Christians the conviction that Scripture is the primary source and criterion for Christian doctrine. Through Scripture the living Christ meets us in the experience of redeeming grace. We are convinced that Jesus Christ is the living Word of God in our midst whom we trust in life and death. The biblical authors, illumined by the Holy Spirit, bear witness that in Christ the world is reconciled to God. The Bible bears authentic testimony to God’s self-disclosure in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as in God’s work of creation, in the pilgrimage of Israel, and in the Holy Spirit’s ongoing activity in human history....

    The Bible is sacred canon for Christian people, formally acknowledged as such by historic ecumenical councils of the Church. Our doctrinal standards identify as canonical thirty-nine books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

    Our standards affirm the Bible as the source of all that is “necessary” and “sufficient” unto salvation (Articles of Religion) and “is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice” (Confession of Faith).


    The beliefs of the United Methodist Church stand solidly against a description of any Scripture as "homophobic".

    Methodism was founded by John Wesley, blah blah blah
    Nice lecture...and meaningless (to me). What is preached in many churches today is recognition of societal changes and understanding of things that could not be understood then. Some churches choose not to fade away into irrelevance and to preach the 'Message' rather than the exact words that were written by men, very human men, men of another time.

    God's messages of love and peace are overwhelmingly what, to me, are most important and the very fact that some dinosaurs choose to remain focused on irrelevant and NON-harmful sins is proof that some people are so limited and dogmatic that they cannot break free of certain structures and rigidity.

    It's hard enough to live up to God's desires that we love each other and live in peace and do good unto each other and try to be better ourselves, than to focus on ancient and repressive and bigoted crap that has no bearing on modern life. Even the Catholic Church recognized that some things were no longer relevant in today's world, like not eating meat on Fridays, that they were able to move forward. They are slooooow to change, but are managing.

    While I know I am a sinner and disappoint God alot, I also am very confident that the Christianity that I attempt to follow is what God would want today.
    "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

    "No, you'll be *a* judge of that, just like everyone else who reads it."
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #230
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    03-21-17 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    55,223

    Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Nice lecture...and meaningless (to me).
    You threw your UMC-Sunday-School-Teaching-Dad out there as a source of legitimacy. It's not my fault you chose a source that wholeheartedly disagrees with you.

    What is preached in many churches today is recognition of societal changes and understanding of things that could not be understood then. Some churches choose not to fade away into irrelevance and to preach the 'Message' rather than the exact words that were written by men, very human men, men of another time.
    sure, some churches have always conformed to the world rather than be renewed in the Word. Christians are susceptible to social pressure just as others are. And those Churches who choose to worship the Idol of their society's thought rather than the teachings of the New Testament are not the ones who fade into irrelevance. Just so with it's modern incarnation; the Churches who have confused Christianity with Western Post Modernism.

    Jesus was also pretty clear about those who used their position to preach false doctrine, and choose to enable others to sin rather than take positions that feel uncomfortable or put you at odds with the world.

    Luke 17:1-2 (But also Mark 9 and Matthew 18) Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.


    God's messages of love and peace are overwhelmingly what, to me, are most important and the very fact that some dinosaurs choose to remain focused on irrelevant and NON-harmful sins is proof that some people are so limited and dogmatic that they cannot break free of certain structures and rigidity.
    There ARE No "Non-Harmful Sins". Sin (any Sin) is Death. Jesus was explicit about this as well - explaining that even fantasizing about women other than your wife was "committing adultery in your heart". You are spiritually damaged by any sin you partake in, whether that sin involves physical or emotional harm to another or not.

    And you can't claim to know what Gods' message is under any circumstance - you have already declared that the New Testament is merely "written by men", rejected the first-generation witness authorship, rejected the Scripture as Holy Spirit guided. There is no mechanism for you to be able to look at the New Testament and say "well, this was God's real message, but not this.", other than your own personal preferences. But then you are not following Gods' Message - you are following your own. At that point, you are not worshiping God, you are worshiping The-Super-Lursa-In-The-Sky.

    It's hard enough to live up to God's desires that we love each other and live in peace and do good unto each other and try to be better ourselves, than to focus on ancient and repressive and bigoted crap that has no bearing on modern life. Even the Catholic Church recognized that some things were no longer relevant in today's world, like not eating meat on Fridays, that they were able to move forward. They are slooooow to change, but are managing.

    While I know I am a sinner and disappoint God alot, I also am very confident that the Christianity that I attempt to follow is what God would want today.
    There is no changing to God - He is outside time and completely unaffected by it. We know what God would want from us today - the same things He taught His followers in the 1st Century.
    Worth noting, Democrats: President Trump will have a Pen and a Phone. #Precedent.

Page 23 of 31 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •