• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religion, Judgment, and Political Correctness

:) We definitely do need a qualifier or sarcasm emoticon don't we.
I'd find it easier to have one for when I'm not being sarcastic to be honest.

Again, I define sin as that which harms ourselves and/or others whether or not we understand what we are doing or whether the harm is intentional.
That bit's fairly easy (though there could be argument over the intent element). The really difficult bit is agreeing what is or is not harmful. There are some things on that list I'd hope everyone could agree on (has society ever accepted shooting abortionists as justifiable?!) but there are plenty on which there would be complete disagreement.

In such context--consider the message of Amos for example--that sin which we condone or do not speak out against becomes our sin too.
That's why I'm speaking out against this "prayer". [partial sarcasm ;) ]
 
What does this have to do with anything I said?

I wasn't claiming to be providing a synopsis of the core message of The Book of Jonah. I was giving one example of a strong, non-gentle message that resulted in good fruit.



Right, I never said it was for just the 12 in his inner circle. More likely it included at least the 70. The point was that Jesus saw the crowds and went away from the crowds toward the mountaintop, taking his disciples with him. His goal wasn't to preach to the multitude, but to his disciples.



Not really. There's maybe one reference to the hypocrites that hypocrites would certainly find offensive, and what he says about divorce would of course have been a direct challenge to the followers of Hillel (though putting him in the side of Shammai pretty much makes this a wash). On the whole it's not a rough message at all. Do you want to point out some parts you think are critical, politically incorrect, etc.?

Crabcake, I enjoy discussing all this with you, but I HATE chopped up posts like this that too often destroy the full context of my remarks.

As for Jonah, you brought him up, I didn't. I was simply disagreeing with your interpretation of what Jonah was all about. The Bible speaks of a 'multitude' or 'large crowd' depending on what translation you use that made up the crowd at the Sermon on the Mount. Start with Matthew 5:17 to the end of that passage known as the Sermon on the Mount, and there is little there that the Pharisees would not have seen as politically incorrect, especially when he specifically took them to task,
 
I would have looked at some of those prayers, disagreed with the wording/framing, and decided that we are better off as a society for many of those things having happened. 1,2,3,5,6,11,12 are all things we are better off for, even if the wording of the prayer itself frame them negatively.

Yes. Many believe they do good when in fact the unintended negative consequences are often severe and damaging. People throughout the ages have believed they were taking the high road the morally right or righteous position, when in fact they were dead wrong. And perhaps Pastor Wright was also wrong in some of those points, but I'm pretty sure he could argue for why he sees sin needing repentance and forgiveness in each enumerated point.
 
I'd find it easier to have one for when I'm not being sarcastic to be honest.

That bit's fairly easy (though there could be argument over the intent element). The really difficult bit is agreeing what is or is not harmful. There are some things on that list I'd hope everyone could agree on (has society ever accepted shooting abortionists as justifiable?!) but there are plenty on which there would be complete disagreement.

That's why I'm speaking out against this "prayer". [partial sarcasm ;) ]

And I am pretty sure that Pastor Joe is seeing 'sin' as he enumerates in that prayer in the same way I do. He is not saying that the intent of anybody in particular is to be sinful or to harm anybody or anything. But whether or not we believe we are doing harm, it is still sin because it is harmful to ourselves and/or others. And those who sincerely intended to do good and refuse to see that the good they intend is having harmful and hurtful results are probably the ones he is most directing those remarks to. I am only guessing about that because I don't wish to put words in his mouth or intent in his heart.
 
I was simply disagreeing with your interpretation of what Jonah was all about.

I never gave my interpretation of what Jonah was about.

I simply used his message to Nineveh as an example of a strong message that bore good fruits.

The Bible speaks of a 'multitude' or 'large crowd' depending on what translation you use that made up the crowd at the Sermon on the Mount.

It uses that term to describe the crowd he escaped from by ascending the mountain, not the group he taught. It describes the group he taught as "his disciples". Here it is in the two most popular English language bible translations:

NIV said:
Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them.
KJV said:
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

What is described here is Jesus going away from the multitudes to be by himself in the mountain and the disciples going up there to meet him and THEN he begins to teach them. The image is of Jesus leaving the multitudes behind and saving this teaching for his disciples.

Start with Matthew 5:17 to the end of that passage known as the Sermon on the Mount, and there is little there that the Pharisees would not have seen as politically incorrect, especially when he specifically took them to task,

Yet you can't name any examples?
 
I never gave my interpretation of what Jonah was about.

I simply used his message to Nineveh as an example of a strong message that bore good fruits.



It uses that term to describe the crowd he escaped from by ascending the mountain, not the group he taught. It describes the group he taught as "his disciples". Here it is in the two most popular English language bible translations:




What is described here is Jesus going away from the multitudes to be by himself in the mountain and the disciples going up there to meet him and THEN he begins to teach them. The image is of Jesus leaving the multitudes behind and saving this teaching for his disciples.



Yet you can't name any examples?

As I said, I strongly dislike chopped up posts like that. And you did it again. I am willing to discuss any reasonable topic with you, but not like that. Thanks for understanding.
 
I suspect a whole bunch of folks would not have appreciated this prayer,


sorry if i missed it but whats your stance on it?
 
And I am pretty sure that Pastor Joe is seeing 'sin' as he enumerates in that prayer in the same way I do. He is not saying that the intent of anybody in particular is to be sinful or to harm anybody or anything. But whether or not we believe we are doing harm, it is still sin because it is harmful to ourselves and/or others. And those who sincerely intended to do good and refuse to see that the good they intend is having harmful and hurtful results are probably the ones he is most directing those remarks to. I am only guessing about that because I don't wish to put words in his mouth or intent in his heart.

o guess that answers that :3oops:
 
But whether or not we believe we are doing harm, it is still sin because it is harmful to ourselves and/or others.
That only applies if the “sin” is actually harmful. The possibility that the pastor (or whoever originally wrote the list) is simply wrong isn’t being considered.

I suggest that at least a couple of the things promoted by this prayer are actually harmful in themselves (or at least no better than the things they’re opposing). I’m basing that on a practical assessment of reality, not the declaration of a single man on the back of his interpretation of a single faith. I’m also not presenting my opinion as a fait accompli or something that an entire nation should take as definitive guidance for no reason other than I say so. This is the real reason religion in politics can be a problem. It’s not that religious-based policy is automatically bad or wrong, it’s that it’s so often not up for debate, even in the face of contradictory evidence.
 
Many believe that Christians are commanded to love the sinners but speak out against sin. Pastor Joe Wright of Central Christian Church in Wichita delivered the following prayer for the Kansas House of Representatives in 1996. It is again circulating via e-mail and seems to be as pertinent as ever. Does anybody have a problem with this? (I chose Snopes as the credible link just to save time.)

"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask Your forgiveness and to seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We confess that.

We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it Pluralism.
We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism.
We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle.
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent to direct us to the center of Your will, to open ask it in the name of Your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen"
Billy Graham's Prayer for Our Nation : snopes.com

Would you have appreciated this prayer if you had been in attendance? Or bristled a bit at some of the 'sins' included?

I would have been broadly fine with this prayer due to the bit at the end. God knows our hearts better than Pastor Wright. I would say that I partially disagree with two items - that multiculturalism is worship of other Gods (Christianity is multicultural), and that shooting abortionists is inherently unjustifiable (under Just War Theory, the main portion violated is not the justification aspects, but the likelihood-of-winning aspects).
 
I would have been broadly fine with this prayer due to the bit at the end. God knows our hearts better than Pastor Wright. I would say that I partially disagree with two items - that multiculturalism is worship of other Gods (Christianity is multicultural), and that shooting abortionists is inherently unjustifiable (under Just War Theory, the main portion violated is not the justification aspects, but the likelihood-of-winning aspects).

You.. Disagree that shooting abortionists is unjustifiable? Interesting.
 
That only applies if the “sin” is actually harmful. The possibility that the pastor (or whoever originally wrote the list) is simply wrong isn’t being considered.

I suggest that at least a couple of the things promoted by this prayer are actually harmful in themselves (or at least no better than the things they’re opposing). I’m basing that on a practical assessment of reality, not the declaration of a single man on the back of his interpretation of a single faith. I’m also not presenting my opinion as a fait accompli or something that an entire nation should take as definitive guidance for no reason other than I say so. This is the real reason religion in politics can be a problem. It’s not that religious-based policy is automatically bad or wrong, it’s that it’s so often not up for debate, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

IMO if what we do is not harmful to ourselves and/or others, it is not sin. If it is harmful, then it is sin whether or not we personally recognize it as such. I happen to agree with Pastor Wright, if I am interpreting his list as he interprets it, that he is reciting the sins of a nation, not necessarily any one of us personally but as a society who have reaped or will reap the harvest of its 'sin'. The pastor is not in politics. He was invited to provide the customary opening prayer for the legislature and his prayer presumably contained what was on his heart, hopefully what God put on his heart to say. It was not intended to be debated. I would think if the prayer was from God, it might touch the conscience of some who might be encouraged to consider the sin when doing the work of the people.
 
I would have been broadly fine with this prayer due to the bit at the end. God knows our hearts better than Pastor Wright. I would say that I partially disagree with two items - that multiculturalism is worship of other Gods (Christianity is multicultural), and that shooting abortionists is inherently unjustifiable (under Just War Theory, the main portion violated is not the justification aspects, but the likelihood-of-winning aspects).

A corporate prayer does not focus on every nuance or issue that is inherent in the topics Pastor Wright listed. For instance, he did not define multiculturalism as exclusively the worship of other gods but rather said as a society we are guilty of worshiping other gods and calling it multiculturalism. I don't think he was actually denouncing multiculturalism but was focused on the sin of worshipping other gods as he saw that. And he, and I, and I would hope you, was not considering a "Just War theory" but saw the shooting of abortion doctors as a sin.
 
I would have been broadly fine with this prayer due to the bit at the end. God knows our hearts better than Pastor Wright. I would say that I partially disagree with two items - that multiculturalism is worship of other Gods (Christianity is multicultural), and that shooting abortionists is inherently unjustifiable (under Just War Theory, the main portion violated is not the justification aspects, but the likelihood-of-winning aspects).

seems religion can lead to sin if sin is harming others loot at the above post
 
IMO if what we do is not harmful to ourselves and/or others, it is not sin. If it is harmful, then it is sin whether or not we personally recognize it as such. I happen to agree with Pastor Wright, if I am interpreting his list as he interprets it, that he is reciting the sins of a nation, not necessarily any one of us personally but as a society who have reaped or will reap the harvest of its 'sin'. The pastor is not in politics. He was invited to provide the customary opening prayer for the legislature and his prayer presumably contained what was on his heart, hopefully what God put on his heart to say. It was not intended to be debated. I would think if the prayer was from God, it might touch the conscience of some who might be encouraged to consider the sin when doing the work of the people.

hows homosexuality a sin?

or abortion?

or rejecting religious traditions?

or well fair?

or porn and profanity?
 
A corporate prayer does not focus on every nuance or issue that is inherent in the topics Pastor Wright listed. For instance, he did not define multiculturalism as exclusively the worship of other gods but rather said as a society we are guilty of worshiping other gods and calling it multiculturalism. I don't think he was actually denouncing multiculturalism but was focused on the sin of worshipping other gods as he saw that. And he, and I, and I would hope you, was not considering a "Just War theory" but saw the shooting of abortion doctors as a sin.

:shrug: I would say it depends on the context.

blarg said:
seems religion can lead to sin if sin is harming others loot at the above post

:) well, no. Our willful decisions lead to sin.
 
:shrug: I would say it depends on the context.



:) well, no. Our willful decisions lead to sin.

yes willful decisions to put faith above the lives of others leads to sis if sin is defined as hurting others

finding the murder of people who perform abortions justifiable when there only killing animal life seems to be a sin
 
hows homosexuality a sin?

or abortion?

or rejecting religious traditions?

or well fair?

or porn and profanity?

If what we do harms ourselves and/or others, it is sin. Homosexuality is not a sin in my opinion, nor did Pastor Wright say that it was, so that point is moot. Abortion destroys a human life. Many people believe that is a sin. I don't believe he said anything about rejecting religious traditions either, so that point is also moot. If by well fair you mean welfare, when it destroys people's initiatives, when it makes them dependent, when it makes them comfortable in dependency, that in my opinion is harmful to them and society and is therefore sin. And you'll have to decide for yourself whether porn or profanity is harmful or not. Since it is so heavily regulated, most especially when it involves children, certainly most in government must think there is harm in it.
 
:shrug: I would say it depends on the context.



:) well, no. Our willful decisions lead to sin.

The context of Pastor Wright's prayer, however, was crystal clear to me.
 
If what we do harms ourselves and/or others, it is sin. Homosexuality is not a sin in my opinion, nor did Pastor Wright say that it was, so that point is moot. Abortion destroys a human life. Many people believe that is a sin. I don't believe he said anything about rejecting religious traditions either, so that point is also moot. If by well fair you mean welfare, when it destroys people's initiatives, when it makes them dependent, when it makes them comfortable in dependency, that in my opinion is harmful to them and society and is therefore sin. And you'll have to decide for yourself whether porn or profanity is harmful or not. Since it is so heavily regulated, most especially when it involves children, certainly most in government must think there is harm in it.

We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle. ( wonder what he meant then )

also wonder what the abandoning the traditions of are fathers was then

why would the taking of animal life via abortion of a human fetus be a sin are we counting the killing of other animal life as a sin?

seems abusing well fair would be a sin not offering it

and none of this can simply be mater of deciding for are selves either something harms people or not
 
We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle. ( wonder what he meant then )

also wonder what the abandoning the traditions of are fathers was then

why would the taking of animal life via abortion of a human fetus be a sin are we counting the killing of other animal life as a sin?

seems abusing well fair would be a sin not offering it

and none of this can simply be mater of deciding for are selves either something harms people or not

I have no reason to believe he didn't mean exactly what he said. It is you reading homosexuality into that and not anything he said. It is you reading religious traditions into it and not anything he said. The word is welfare, not well fair, and here too I would encourage you to read carefully what he said and not what you are reading into it. You'll have to search your own conscience as to whether the life of the chicken or cow that provides your dinner is just as valuable as a human life. I don't have any problem there, but I won't presume to dictate to you what you should believe about that.
 
I have no reason to believe he didn't mean exactly what he said. It is you reading homosexuality into that and not anything he said. It is you reading religious traditions into it and not anything he said. The word is welfare, not well fair, and here too I would encourage you to read carefully what he said and not what you are reading into it. You'll have to search your own conscience as to whether the life of the chicken or cow that provides your dinner is just as valuable as a human life. I don't have any problem there, but I won't presume to dictate to you what you should believe about that.
so what did he mean?

his church is against homosexuality

Statement on Marriage and Sexuality from the Elders
We believe marriage is a gift of God and has been given to mankind as the original and foundational institution of human society (Gen. 2:18-24). Scripture speaks of marriage approvingly only when it is between one man and one woman in a single, covenanted, exclusive and life-long union (Matt. 19:1-6). It is designed to reflect the relationship between Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:21-33; 2 Corinthians 6:14).

We believe the Bible speaks clearly about God’s disapproval of all types of sexual intimacy outside of the bounds of marriage, as defined above (for example, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5; 1 Corinthians 6:9-20; Ephesians 5:3-5; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Hebrews 13:4; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8; Leviticus 18:6-23).

Humans are created in the image of God as males and females and are to be treated with respect, love, and dignity. However, we live in a fallen world, and all are sinners (Romans 3:23). Sometimes it is necessary for the maturing and building up of the saints to speak the truth of the Bible in love, regardless of how that truth is perceived at the time by those outside the Church (Ephesians 5:11-16). Such speaking of Scriptural truth is not hate-speech, but an expression of love and concern as we attempt to point out the sinful behavior in order that the sinning party might repent and return to obedience to God. We believe that sexual sin, like any other sin, can be forgiven if the sinner is redeemed through faith in Jesus Christ and made a new creature (1 Corinthians 5:17-21).


and his entire message was about condemning society for not being i line with the vales of his faith
 
so what did he mean?

his church is against homosexuality

Statement on Marriage and Sexuality from the Elders
We believe marriage is a gift of God and has been given to mankind as the original and foundational institution of human society (Gen. 2:18-24). Scripture speaks of marriage approvingly only when it is between one man and one woman in a single, covenanted, exclusive and life-long union (Matt. 19:1-6). It is designed to reflect the relationship between Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:21-33; 2 Corinthians 6:14).

We believe the Bible speaks clearly about God’s disapproval of all types of sexual intimacy outside of the bounds of marriage, as defined above (for example, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5; 1 Corinthians 6:9-20; Ephesians 5:3-5; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Hebrews 13:4; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8; Leviticus 18:6-23).

Humans are created in the image of God as males and females and are to be treated with respect, love, and dignity. However, we live in a fallen world, and all are sinners (Romans 3:23). Sometimes it is necessary for the maturing and building up of the saints to speak the truth of the Bible in love, regardless of how that truth is perceived at the time by those outside the Church (Ephesians 5:11-16). Such speaking of Scriptural truth is not hate-speech, but an expression of love and concern as we attempt to point out the sinful behavior in order that the sinning party might repent and return to obedience to God. We believe that sexual sin, like any other sin, can be forgiven if the sinner is redeemed through faith in Jesus Christ and made a new creature (1 Corinthians 5:17-21).


and his entire message was about condemning society for not being i line with the vales of his faith

You ask him what he meant. I am taking him at face value as to what he actually said, and not some politically correct agenda somebody insists on reading into it. And you are free to believe whatever you believe about anything just as I am and just as Pastor Wright is. I only wish everybody was allowed to be free to believe whatever he/she believes without the politically correct police presuming to punish him/her for being 'wrong' as they demand everybody see it.
 
You ask him what he meant. I am taking him at face value as to what he actually said, and not some politically correct agenda somebody insists on reading into it. And you are free to believe whatever you believe about anything just as I am and just as Pastor Wright is. I only wish everybody was allowed to be free to believe whatever he/she believes without the politically correct police presuming to punish him/her for being 'wrong' as they demand everybody see it.

what he said and what it means determines whether or not you agrees with what he says

what the hell dose political correctness have to do with anything?

how are not free to believe what you like?
 
Back
Top Bottom