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.
The point is this, you want to say its the activity because of its sinful nature, but really that is not the issue.
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.
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.
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.
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
1.) you are free to disagree but you havent given one solution that is better, ANd the word were is still accurate because even though some still do it, its 1000X better. ANd it wasnt MY word it was YOURS. If it wasnt better you wouldnt have used it yourself. Its never going away.
2.) this is not an answer. You call it mundane im asking what is better and you havent provided anything?
3.) what does this mean, were people not spiritual in you grandparents day? they were so what does this mean
4.) same as #3 this is meaningless with out further explanation.
tell me the answer how would you do it so it isnt shakey since the Constitution, laws and rights arent good enough for you.
5.) see 3 and 4, you keep calling it shakey but cant provide how to improve it.
I think you are confusing the most public point of contention with "first place in the minds of many Christians". This is known as the Availability Heuristic, and is a common logical fallacy.
It's not. 99% of homosexuals just want to be left alone without being discriminated against.
No, many Christians openly oppose homosexuals and seek to sabotage their acceptance within society. They try to elect people who support an anti-gay agenda, so that life can be made miserable for them where possible.
So you would feel right at home with Hitler and Pol Pot and Gayce running loose in heaven for eternity?
Love does not rejoice in iniquity (1 Corinthians 13).
If gays (and heterosexual sinners) want eternal love and peace then they need to repent of their sins and receive Christ for salvation.
Jesus is God. As God, Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Levitical law against gay sexual relations to begin with; and he’s the one who inspires all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), including prohibitions against gay sexual relations in Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9-10, etc. So Jesus is on record as identifying gay sex as a sin, and he's on record telling people to repent of their sins (Luke 13:3). And if they don't, they will perish.
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.
Huckabee: Gay-Rights Movement 'Won't Stop Until There Are No Churches'
Edit: Why aren't polls auto-selected on this forum so that people don't accidentally post threads without polls?
Huckabee: Gay-Rights Movement 'Won't Stop Until There Are No Churches'
Edit: Why aren't polls auto-selected on this forum so that people don't accidentally post threads without polls?
Then riddle me these points.
God created man in his image. Yes-
Why would God create untold millions to suffer?
No love, no family, no rights, just pure suffering from being hanged to beat to death, to dragged behind a truck till they died.
Did God create them to suffer? If so why?
Being gay is not a chosen lifestyle, you are or you are not.
You cannot be converted from gay to heterosexual. No you cannot.
I like other Christians also believe in evolution. Do you?
It's not. 99% of homosexuals just want to be left alone without being discriminated against.
Do you believe the Bible is the literal word of God?
No errors, completely accurate word of God?
I've been watching and listening to and reading Huckabee for a number of years now, and I am pretty sure he doesn't link the survival of Christianity to gay discrimination. I am quite certain he himself does not discriminate against gays in any way.
But he is passionately angry and outspoken about gay activists and others dictating to the rest of us how we are supposed to think, how we are supposed to believe, how we are supposed to conduct our businesses, and demanding that we deep six our own convictions and feelings and moral center and embrace theirs. And he does see Christians as being specifically targeted to be disciplined when they don't toe the line on that mandate.
And frankly, while I don't share all his views on how gay people are to be regarded--he sees homosexuality as a choice for instance and I do not--I don't think he is being unreasonable or melodramatic about the current assault on our individual liberties.
I think maybe more than 1% of gay people are activists or join in activist activities or support or applaud the activists. But consider two scenarios:
The Westboro Baptist Church, under a banner of religious freedom, harasses and interrupts funerals and weddings of gay people. Just about everybody outside that particular group whether Christian, Atheist, or any other label deplores that activity and unequivocably condemns the Westboro Baptists for engaging in that kind of activity.
So gay activists harass and interrupt the business of and demand retaliation against a Christian who speaks out in favor of traditional marriage or who chooses not to participate in a gay marriage ceremony.
And that's okay? The same people who condemn the Westboro Baptists will often applaud the persecution of the Christian who wants nothing more than just to be able to be who and what he is in peace just as most gay people want that. In my sense of justice I see both being equally unjustified and reprehensible in trying to force somebody else to stop being who and what they are.
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 that 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.
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.
I do, I think that would be spot on actually. I think its completely unreasonable, disingenuous and complete melodramatic to think that stuff is really going on. IMO it's nothing but a dishonest fear tactic and ONLY because it's a NEW civil rights front of this current generation or time do some people buy in to it. Are there asshole fanatics out there that do want some for the stuff you mentioned? I'm sure there is but they don't represent the majority in anyway nor is any of that really part of the fight for civil and equal rights. I know it this is just anecdotal but there's nothing that goes on in my life, I see happening around me makes me feel attacked for my religion or that my religion is under attack. I view it as a farce by those that are simply used to us already (unspokenly) getting the special treatment or being the majority and they are upset its going away. Well thats just too bad but that doesn't mean its under attack. It's the same things people went thought when minorities and women gain more equal footing in rights. There was claims it was special or an assault but the reality is it was just becoming more equal.
Also my apologizes if I misunderstood context because I do admit I just jumped in this thread.
I'd say you are blind in at lest one eye then. While I agree its not the majority of us because the majority of us support equal rights there are many Christians along with many other religions that are bothering gay people. Are you aware that gays are still fighting for their national right to marry? And many of the fights against the originated or were support by religious groups including Christians? Claiming there's no Christian doing anything to bother gays is just disingenuous. Its a flat out lie or ignorance.Well there are definitely points of view which of course we discuss and debate in these message board forums.
But I don't see any Christians, other than the Westboro Baptists whom I believe are decidedly unChristlike, who are bothering gay people anywhere about anything. There was the AFC who requested J C Penney drop Ellen DeGeneres from their advertising and they were soundly criticized by almost all the rest of us for doing so. I believe they backed off that and have not repeated the offense.
You mean in the majority of cases(not all) they broke law or they illegally discriminated . . oh the horror of that having consequencesAnd I see a lot of Christians being harassed, picketed, and their businesses attacked or destroyed, not because they were unkind to or did anything to a gay person, but simply because they exercised their convictions and/or said what they believe.
well they aren't to be judged as communities because I certainly don't agree with all Christians or the bigots in "my community" just like I certainly don't agree with the loons in the gay community.I see a whole lot more tolerance in the Christian community than I see in the gay community. I don't see Christians demanding that gays change their beliefs or behavior or else they will be harassed and their advertisers threatened and/or their businesses picketed or sued. I see a lot of gay people demanding that Christians do that.
So which is the more tolerant? Who is discriminating against who?
I'd say you are blind in at lest one eye then. While I agree its not the majority of us because the majority of us support equal rights there are many Christians along with many other religions that are bothering gay people. Are you aware that gays are still fighting for their national right to marry? And many of the fights against the originated or were support by religious groups including Christians? Claiming there's no Christian doing anything to bother gays is just disingenuous. Its a flat out lie or ignorance.
You mean in the majority of cases(not all) they broke law or they illegally discriminated . . oh the horror of that having consequences
I seen a lot of rapist goes to jail for simply exercising their convictions and giving the woman what they believed she wanted too. Good grief Im sorry but sometimes i simply just can't stomach that disingenuous language, its like a woman beater saying they beat their woman cause they love them.
well they aren't to be judged as communities because I certainly don't agree with all Christians or the bigots in "my community" just like I certainly don't agree with the loons in the gay community.
When the actually clashes are happening its not the "so called" Christian that are being tolerant because on group is typically breaking the law and infringing on rights and on is fight for theirs. Very large difference. Gays in general are not demanding that I change my views or any other Christians, in fact they have no power to do so, nobody does. So no you do not see a lot of gays doing that in the way you wrote it. Remind me what laws have gays tried to make to limit me in my religion? or stop me from practicing? ZERO that i know of. Wish I could say nobody that claims to be Christina has none the same.
That's easy, the people fighting for equal rights are easily more tolerant than those trying to oppress them. Gays are the ones being illegally discriminated against and if you have examples of ANYBODY being illegal discriminated against Id want that addressed just like any illegal discrimination.
Like I said it's a made up fear tactic, it's crap. If gays were given 100% equal rights tomorrow including equal anti-discrimination footing Christians lose ZERO religions rights and freedoms. In fact none of us lose anything. My rights as a person, as a woman, as a Christian are under zero threat because the reality is they are all the same. We all have the same rights and should but currently gays do not.
In fact that's a good topic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?