Page 27 of 31 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 310

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

  1. #261
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 07:36 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. 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.
    We are talking about catering, not merely attending. The activity of catering to an event and attending an event are two different things. Also, it depends on the nature of the activity that one engages in when one attends an event that will determine how one is implicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That is everybody. We are all sinners. Christians are expected to (among other things) not celebrate that.
    Indeed we are all sinners. And as that is the case, we should give up arrogance and condescension, and in great humility ask that the Almighty God be merciful on us so that we will not be victimized by temptation, and that we be delivered from the effects of evil.


    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    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.
    No, that is not the assumption. The assumption in this case is that your activity is limited to catering. As a result of that, your participation is based on feeding people who are celebrating or encouraging sinful activity. As a result of that, strictly speaking, by feeding people engaged in such celebrating and encouraging, you are also partaking in the celebration and encouraging. But if you view that activity in such strict terms, then it is also the case that if you feed someone at any event who is engaging in sinful activity at the event, regardless of whether the event is centered on such sinful activity, you are also facilitating it as well because the energy that the person is using to engage in the activity is coming from food that you have supplied. Now that is in the very strict sense, and that is indeed a way in which we become implicated in mundane affairs. Therefore it is advised that persons who are very very serious about spiritual realization should live in a secluded place like a monastery where people are only engaged in activity centered around spiritual realization, and indeed that is why such places exist. Either that or they should go to the forest, because otherwise, at every step, when one is interacting with people who are engaging in mundane affairs, if one is not very careful, he can also become implicated in mundane activity.

    So what you termed was an assumption was actually a conclusion drawn from the observation that you want to avoid one instance based on the notion of not being implicated in sinful activity, but are perfectly fine with another instance in which you would be implicated in sinful activity. As such, one could conclude that the underlying motive is actually an aversion to an activity, which you actually have, although you may not want to admit it. I am not saying that to be derogatory, but that is simply the way it is. The only way one could not have such aversions and attachments is that one would have had to have totally transcended the influence of mundane things. Otherwise, that is the way the mundane mind works, some things it likes, some things it is repulsed by, and different people have different things that they are attracted to and repulsed by. Someone who has transcended the influence of the mundane mind does not experience this. Rather he sees everything as being the result of the various energies of the Supreme Lord and that all of these energies are ultimately under the control of the Supreme Lord. It is just that some will properly use the energy in the service and glorification of the Lord and some will misuse the energy for their own self aggrandizement.
    Last edited by MildSteel; 04-04-15 at 05:22 PM.

  2. #262
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    13,206

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus View Post
    You said that Christians should be left alone and not be forced to participate in gay activities, or be discriminated against for discriminating against gays. So if they have a business, they should be able to deny service to people that offend their Christian values. And gays are offensive to them.

    Now that I've extrapolated your sentence, you can apply the substitution of racists and blacks.
    I didn't say gays are offensive to them. That is the problem with the whole debate. Those who are prejudiced and/or bigoted against the Christians absolutely refuse to see the argument for what it is and can't seem to keep from dishonestly mischaracterizing what the issue is.

    You may like to go to nudie bars. I don't and won't but that doesn't mean you are offensive to me. You may like to go to prize fights. I don't and won't but that doesn't mean you are offensive to me.

    But I can easily say that most Christian people want to be Christian without being harassed for it or being discriminated against for it. They do not wish to have to accept or embrace values they in good conscience cannot accept or participate in. That doesn't mean they are denying anybody else the right to accept or embrace different values.

    Also I can easily say that most gay people want to be gay without being harassed for it or being discriminated against for it. They do not wish to have to accept or embrace values they in good conscience cannot accept or participate in. That doesn't mean they are denying anybody else the right to accept or embrace different values.

    And I can easily say that most black people want to be black without being harassed for it or being discriminated against for it. They do not wish to have to accept or embrace values they in good conscience cannot accept or participate in. That doesn't mean they are denying anybody else the right to accept or embrace different values.

    And I think I can say that even most racists want to be racist without being harassed for it or being discriminated against for it. They do not wish to have to accept or embrace values they in good conscience cannot accept or participate in. That doesn't mean they are denying anybody else the right to accept or embrace different values.

    Sure there are a few militant Christians who get in your face and/or engage in activities that neither you nor I condone. There are also a few gay people, blacks, and racists who do that too. But those I believe are in a distinct minority. Put the 'most' in front of the sentence and you are not talking about those few.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  3. #263
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,342

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    Then why do the books of mark, Matthew, Luke and John have different tones and biases in them?
    They're different people and they're speaking to different audiences.

    As for bias, I only see people reporting what they saw and heard.
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  4. #264
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,342

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    No I am not.
    Is that because we disagree on gays rights. Possibly? Don't know & don't care. I know my intent for the original post, you do not.
    OK, fine.

    I asked 5,000 questions myself when I first started studying it. The key is to take the knowledge learned to heart.
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  5. #265
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    12-30-16 @ 07:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,527

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    They're different people and they're speaking to different audiences.

    As for bias, I only see people reporting what they saw and heard.
    All of the accounts were written by different people at different times giving their own perspective.
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  6. #266
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,299

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
    OK, fine.

    I asked 5,000 questions myself when I first started studying it. The key is to take the knowledge learned to heart.
    Oh I had accepted Jesus a long time ago.
    And i make mistakes, as every man/woman does.
    I also do not believe that my God, would put millions on the earth to suffer.
    And that goes to my earlier point of being created in his image.
    On that we differ.
    And I will not, nor will you be the judge of that.
    You would be aware of the most common things that Jesus spoke about.
    If my post offends you, I deeply Apple-O-Jize.

  7. #267
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,342

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    All of the accounts were written by different people at different times giving their own perspective.
    That's true, and they all verify the resurrection.
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  8. #268
    Sage
    Logicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,342

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    Oh I had accepted Jesus a long time ago.
    And i make mistakes, as every man/woman does.
    I also do not believe that my God, would put millions on the earth to suffer.
    And that goes to my earlier point of being created in his image.
    On that we differ.
    And I will not, nor will you be the judge of that.
    You would be aware of the most common things that Jesus spoke about.
    I'm glad you have Christ as your Savior.

    And I agree on a common point in the faith - that all people need to repent of their sins or perish (Luke 13:3).
    "Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown

  9. #269
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    10-15-16 @ 03:10 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Is it wise for Islam to link it's future to opposing gay rights?

    Opposition to homosexuality is a recruiting line of Islam and one of their condemnations of the West. Doesn't seem to be hurting the growth of Islam whatsoever. A counter argument could be made that yielding to equality of gays could make Christianity seem less important and less inviting to people. There is no basis to believe opposition to gay rights hurts Christian more than it helps it in terms of members and evangelizing. Religion isn't like politics.

  10. #270
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    54,844

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

    Instead of trying to break out each individual part, I'm going to try in this reply to focus on what I see as the central nuggets of your argument. If I skip over something that you would rather I have addressed, please let me know and I'll circle back around to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    if you feed someone at any event who is engaging in sinful activity at the event, regardless of whether the event is centered on such sinful activity, you are also facilitating it as well because the energy that the person is using to engage in the activity is coming from food that you have supplied.
    No. There is a distinct difference between serving sinners (which we all do) and serving sin. It's not the food (I would equally not wish to serve as a wedding photographer, or as a wedding planner), it's the event (the activity, as we called it at the beginning, though for precision of language we have chosen to more narrowly define it). It's the meaning, the purpose.


    As an example: You are a young, clever fellow; let us say that you develop websites for a living. Rob comes to you. Rob seems a decent sort, and he wants a website that he can use to sell merchandise centered around an online joke website involving funny pictures of cats that we shall call funnycat.com. You develop the site, you get paid, Rob is happy.

    A few months later, Rob comes back to you. Man, that site worked out really well, and he wants you to build another. Fantastic - repeat customers and more business. What is the site for? Well, you see, the problem is that whites in our area suffer from lack of race consciousness - they let inferior races walk all over them, pollute their schools, waste their public funds, take their jobs, etc. So we are hoping to set up a similar idea - merchandise sold around an online site dedicated to the local chapter of the KKK, of which I am the Grand Kreasurer (no idea if that is a rank, I was going for "treasurer", but with the klans' stupid little K-name-convention thingy). The focus of the site is that we want to appeal to young males the most - hopefully, if we can capture them when they are still impressionable, we can save them from the bad influences of their jew teachers and their n*****-loving parents. So, you'll have us up and running in no time, right?

    ...Rob was a hater the entire time you were working for him. He hated non-whites when you first met, he hated non-whites when you were helping him with funnycat.com, he hated non-whites when he came back to you.

    But there sure does seem to be a bit of a difference between him asking you for help on the first site, and him asking you for help on the second...

    The difference is one of meaning. For the first site, Rob's hate is irrelevant to the purpose of the site. For the second, it is central.

    So what you termed was an assumption was actually a conclusion drawn from the observation that you want to avoid one instance based on the notion of not being implicated in sinful activity, but are perfectly fine with another instance in which you would be implicated in sinful activity.
    Thus, this is incorrect - and is why I have already told you that I would equally not cater a Swingers' party, an AshleyMadison.Com event, or a convention on How To Lie To Your Spouse Without Getting Caught. At the point at which the event becomes about the activity/sin in question, I can no longer participate in the event in good conscience, because at that point, I am (to use your verbiage) implicated.

    As such, one could conclude that the underlying motive is actually an aversion to an activity, which you actually have, although you may not want to admit it. I am not saying that to be derogatory, but that is simply the way it is.
    I understand that you find that easiest to understand, but in fact you are seeking to create a universal rule from something that you find plausible.

    You are also (here, specifically) incorrect. My little sister is a lesbian. Not attending her wedding would not only be an extremely painful experience, but could deeply damage - if not cause me to lose - a relationship that I cherish deeply for life.

    I would agree there are plenty of folks on my side whose reactions are, to varying degrees, being fed by a poorly-thought out aversion. When you see Christians try to say that "well, for them" there is a difference between (say) adultery and homosexuality, you'll probably find it there.

    But there are plenty of folks on your side whose reactions are, to varying degrees, being fed by aversion to Christianity, and certainly at least to Christianity when it is practiced by Conservatives. That doesn't mean that you are taking your position because of an aversion to Christianity any more than it means that I am taking my position because of an aversion to homosexuals.
    Worth noting, Democrats: President Trump will have a Pen and a Phone. #Precedent.

Page 27 of 31 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... 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
  •