- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,493
- Reaction score
- 39,818
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat
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.
That is everybody. We are all sinners. Christians are expected to (among other things) not celebrate that.
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.
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.