Liberals attack doughnut shop's good deed -- What is wrong with them?

[grasping the after wind]

Exactly. Homosexuality does seem to be many Christians' pet sin. It makes me wonder why these Christians are so focused on this 'sin' but are flippant about other sins, like adultery, lust or lying.

I think you will find that most people find the sins they are not particularly attracted to as much more onerous than the ones they are tempted to engage in themselves.This surely includes a certain amount of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as well as our hetero brothers and sisters. It took me decades of living before I realized that I was fooling myself by thinking that my sins were less egregious than the sins of others.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

An issue I see often is that people are willing to criminalize sins that they would never themselves commit, such as homosexuality, but are loathe to criminalize things they might do. Preventing homosexuals from marrying is seen as a positive while preventing remarriage after divorce, forbidden in the New Testament, gets a big pass and is not seen as necessary to prevent.

Exactly. A perfect example of this hypocrisy is the way some evangelical Christians outright ignore the deviant and lewd behavior of the current president, as well as ignoring the fact that he's in his third marriage, his admission to being an adulterer, and his bragging about groping women.

 

[Kenny'sID]

An issue I see often is that people are willing to criminalize sins that they would never themselves commit, such as homosexuality, but are loathe to criminalize things they might do.

I didn't criminalize it, as you put it, God did, and as far as your assumption, people also tend to assume others do as they do...do you do that? I don't,l and you have no reason to believe I do. More "game", that's all.

Preventing homosexuals from marrying is seen as a positive while preventing remarriage after divorce, forbidden in the New Testament, gets a big pass and is not seen as necessary to prevent.

There you go, assuming again, you seem to have missed a very popular opinion here concerning remarriage.

So you all see what I mean by "game"... you suggest something that isn't true in order to pretend something is OK. What you suggest falls apart as assumption, or at the very best, a blanket assumption that you tout as applying to all Christians when it absolutely does not....I'm sure of it.

Game, as in tricky unfounded maneuvers in order to make the false truth.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Exactly. A perfect example of this hypocrisy is the way some evangelical Christians outright ignore the deviant and lewd behavior of the current president, as well as ignoring the fact that he's in his third marriage, his admission to being an adulterer, and his bragging about groping women.

It's not like he's gay.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why does it seem more and more conservative evangelicals are merely the religion of hating gays, pro-choice Americans, and anybody else that doesn't support their retrograde values? This stuff has has little or nothing to do with Jesus, and alot to do with personal insecurities on the part of certain groups in America.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Exactly. A perfect example of this hypocrisy is the way some evangelical Christians outright ignore the deviant and lewd behavior of the current president, as well as ignoring the fact that he's in his third marriage, his admission to being an adulterer, and his bragging about groping women.

All that's wrong with everything is on Donald Trump...we get it already.

 

[grasping the after wind]

An issue I see often is that people are willing to criminalize sins that they would never themselves commit, such as homosexuality, but are loathe to criminalize things they might do. Preventing homosexuals from marrying is seen as a positive while preventing remarriage after divorce, forbidden in the New Testament, gets a big pass and is not seen as necessary to prevent.

As civil marriage had for thousands of years been defined as one thing (i.e. the union of a male and female) Resistance to changing that meaning does not have to be based upon a religious POV.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why does it seem more and more conservative evangelicals are merely the religion of hating gays, pro-choice Americans, and anybody else that doesn't support their retrograde incivility?

So lets get this straight, who are you addressing here and now on this thread? Us or someone else. Are you referring to us as those you just mentioned, or is the underlying suggestion, we are them/like them which would be another assumption?

And did you know no matter who they/we are, what we think, or how many twists are attempted here, God still does not condone homosexuality, so why try to confuse the matter? Isn't that the subject we are discussing?

Maybe that's where we need to start in order to get back on track.

Does God condone Homosexuality?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why does it seem more and more conservative evangelicals are merely the religion of hating gays, pro-choice Americans, and anybody else that doesn't support their retrograde values? This stuff has has little or nothing to do with Jesus, and alot to do with personal insecurities on the part of certain groups in America.

What in your opinion makes a value retrograde? I think it is quite unfair to label all conservative evangelicals as hating those specific groups. Other than a few outliers, I do not see that as the case. There is quite a difference between disagreement and hate. Which stuff are you referring to that has little or nothing to do with Jesus?

 

[FireDragon76]

And did you know no matter who they/we are, what we think, or how many twists are attempted here, God still does not condone homosexuality, so why try to confuse the matter? Isn't that the subject we are discussing?

I am certain that God accepts gay people as he does all those who have trust in him. To say otherwise would undermine my church's understanding of justification by faith alone.

Does God condone Homosexuality?

Considering that can't even be debated on this forum, except in a veiled way, that's hardly a fair question and I refuse to discuss it in detail, other than to say my church's position is that it is a place that Christians can agree to disagree, based on Christian ethical commitments that cannot be resolved through our polity. What we do agree on, and oppose, is discrimination in public services against gays in any form, or the denigration of gays as persons bearing the image of God. As do several large denominations in the US.

If you want to know more about why we take these positions, it would involve potentially deconstruction of your fundamentalist and biblicist reading of the Scriptures, and that is something that is beyond the scope of a a few hundred words of a response such as this. You are welcome to visit the appropriate forum such as Whosoever Will, May Come, or Theologia Crucis's ELCA subforum, and we would be happy to discuss why we understand the Scriptures as we do.

 

[FireDragon76]

What in your opinion makes a value retrograde? I think it is quite unfair to label all conservative evangelicals as hating those specific groups. Other than a few outliers, I do not see that as the case. There is quite a difference between disagreement and hate.

Disdain for modern, liberal democratic norms, for starters. We could also mention anti-intellectualism and general disdain for the western humanist tradition in favor of premodern modes of thought, irrationality, and frank superstition.

 

[FireDragon76]

As civil marriage had for thousands of years been defined as one thing (i.e. the union of a male and female) Resistance to changing that meaning does not have to be based upon a religious POV.

But it almost always is, in reality. Let's not abstract discussion of marriage from historical contempt and prejudice among Christians against homosexuality.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am certain that God accepts gay people as he does all those who have trust in him. To say otherwise would undermine my church's understanding of justification by faith alone.

I can find a church that will allow me to do just about anything I'd like, so telling me what your religious organization allows when it is contrary to the bible, means nothing to me. The Bible and what it says, does.

If you want to know more about why we take these positions, it would involve potentially deconstruction of your fundamentalist and biblicist reading of the Scriptures, and that is something that is beyond the scope of a a few hundred words of a response such as this.

Is biblicist a bad thing? Please explain your comment on that, do you mean someone who actually uses the word of God to know what God says? and that, that is somehow a bad thing?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Disdain for modern, liberal democratic norms, for starters. We could also mention anti-intellectualism and general disdain for the western humanist tradition in favor of premodern modes of thought, irrationality, and frank superstition.

So if one is not a humanist liberal one is necessarily retrograde. May I point out that Jesus had no use for liberal democratic norms nor was he a humanist . Therefore by your standard he had retrograde values. To contend that those that follow Jesus somehow must conform to the modern values of secular America is the height of irrationality.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

It's not like he's gay.

I think it's unlikely that he's gay considering he's in his third marriage and his habitual habit of going after multiple women and then bragging about it. However, he has certainly supported LGBT rights in the past, but he's changed his political tune since he started his charade of being a Christian while pandering to right wing evangelicals during his presidential campaign last year. I think that once he's no longer the president, he'll abandon that charade and he'll allow the full spectrum of his true colors to show bright and clear again. I think his evangelical supporters are in for a rude awakening.

Donald Trump's past statements about LGBT rights

Trump’s stance on LGBT rights has always been confusing

 

[grasping the after wind]

But it almost always is, in reality. Let's not abstract discussion of marriage from historical contempt and prejudice among Christians against homosexuality.

Why do you want to ignore the history of the rest of humanity and the many secular arguments against redefining marriage . Could we not be more inclusive? Must we pretend that only Christians couls d object to redefining marriage?

 

[FireDragon76]

I can find a church that will allow me to do just about anything I'd like, so telling me what your religious organization allows when it is contrary to the bible, means nothing to me. The Bible and what it says, does.

So you practice bibliolatry, no surprise there. Might I suggest you have an erroneous view of what revelation is?

I got a blog for you to check out:

The Problem with Scripture as Revelation - Under the Sun

It might help you to understand what's so wrong with your approach to the Scriptures. Or not. But it's just a suggestion.

Is biblicist a bad thing? Please explain your comment on that,

Yes, Biblicism is a bad thing because it renders the Bible incoherent. That's why there are 30,000 Protestant denominations, some of which have some really crazy beliefs that don't have much at all to do with Jesus as an historical figure at all. We Lutherans have never been biblicist, that's not how we understand the Scriptures. Reading that blog I showed you might help you to understand that.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think it's unlikely that he's gay considering he's in his third marriage and his habitual habit of going after multiple women and then bragging about it. However, he has certainly supported LGBT rights in the past, but he's changed his political tune since he started his charade of being a Christian while pandering to right wing evangelicals during his presidential campaign last year. I think that once he's no longer the president, he'll eventually abandon that charade and he'll allow the full spectrum of his true colors to show bright and clear again. I think his evangelical supporters are in for a rude awakening.

Donald Trump's past statements about LGBT rights

Trump’s stance on LGBT rights has always been confusing

View attachment 216005

If a man with children from hetero marriage can suddenly decide that he is a woman, I suppose Trump could decide at some point that he was gay. Then he could claim that anyone that opposed whatever he wanted to do was homophobic. If he ever wants to get any his or his party's campaign promises delivered on he's would be wise to do that.

 

[FireDragon76]

So if one is not a humanist liberal one is necessarily retrograde. May I point out that Jesus had no use for liberal democratic norms nor was he a humanist . Therefore by your standard he had retrograde values. To contend that those that follow Jesus somehow must conform to the modern values of secular America is the height of irrationality.

How do you know Jesus was opposed to humanist values?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes, Biblicism is a bad thing because it renders the Bible incoherent.

I looked it up, and it means taking the bible literally. Do you take any of the Bible literally? And if so, does that not render you the same?