Dostoevsky on Tolerance, does this describe our milieu?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And you were the one reacting emotionally to it.

There is no emotional reaction here. Only your avoiding of my actual point about homosexuality. The tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality has not lead to a decrease in homosexuality.

Just as the decrease of Christianity in law has not lead to an increase of Christianity. Just the opposite.

Depends on the lie. The point is, once you start on "my sin is nicer than your sin", that's the way of the pharisee.

All Christians are sinners, this does not mean certain sins do not have consequences. Especially in how we are to operate as a community. Paul had a clear standard for the man who slept with his Mother in law. He was to be handed over to Satan, so that he might repent. I suspect Paul might not have been as harsh had the man simply slept with a virgin he was pledged to marry to but even that would require some measure of repentance.

If we must treat everyone equally regardless of their sins, we open the Church up for complete self-destruction.

You seem to confuse recognizing that all sinners have rights which must be respected, with toleration of their sins.

What rights within Christianity does the LGBT person have? To be part of the community? To be married? To have their relationships affirmed? Part of the problem with the way you see things is that we are to regard the homosexual primarily as a homosexual, instead of as a sinner in need of God as the rest of us. Thus in order to respect him, we have to respect his sexual desires to some degree.

This can only lead to acceptance and the further eradication of Christian sexual ethics.

Individual Catholics can and do. But the Catholic Bishops, after considering direction they got from the Vatican, seem to have acted more in line with the Church's standards.

Individual Catholics do, but they are routinely bagged on by the Church which drags its heels In order to defend a man who deliberately undermines this aspect of the faith and receives no consequences for his position. Even now, you don’t have the temerity to criticize Biden on this point. He wants you to pay for abortion, yet you defend him unflinchingly.

Even I have criticism for Trump.

There have been such communities in the United States. Most of them eventually opted for being part of the American society.

There have been many such communities I have no doubt. The strongest communities are the ones with high in group preference, their own institutions of education and an unwillingness to integrate into regular American life. Those are the Churches that will survive and be able to pass the faith on to their children.

The people that embrace America as it stands today will only find their descendants becoming less and less Christian. Doesn’t matter if you’re part of the American left or the American right because both sides are part of the same coin of the enlightenment philosophy.

Which is much, much more dangerous if linked to the power of the state. Hence, Madison's observation that state establishment of Christianity has always corrupted churches taking part it it.

A premise I grant but one that doesn’t mean the whole or the entire religion is corrupt or that secularism is automatically better. The best saints and Christians came out of the institutional Churches and despite the flaws of those Christians their societies were better off under Christian standards than under Pagan standards. Just as people today are better off living according to Christian principles and virtue rather than secularism.

The Church could have done what you advocated. Told Constantine to leave them alone and not interact with him on any level. They could have surrendered themselves to forces around them but then as a result Christendom wouldn’t exist. The world would be largely Pagan in character, largely Islamic in character (assuming Islam exists in such a world) and that is not a hypothetical world I would enjoy living in.

If you are, one of us is. You'd be a lot more effective here, if you argued with things I actually said. Or maybe you wouldn't. Is that the problem?

What are you arguing then? Is there any sphere in life wherein Christians can legitimately wield political power for the benefit of Christians? Given everything you’ve said thus far I think you would reject such a notion out of hand.

Or is that Christians can wield political power but they must not wield it according to Christian standards? Christian standards which you believe are true and speak to the nature of humanity, but are nevertheless unfit for political consideration?

Yes, maybe that's the problem. It's kind of a tip-off as to the vulnerability of your case, when you start making up positions for me, and demand that I believe them.

We started this discussion with my question of what needs to be done to reverse de-Christianisation. You are of the opinion that if the religious right gives up all of its influence in law that this will reverse it. You have offered no program for how this would happen, no mechanism for determining success. You’ve been completely silent on my comments about in-group preference as being an essential factor in the growth of early Christendom, so what am I left to conclude?

You think the world will become more Christian if, what? We bow down to everyone? If this were a good method of evangelization Muslims should have ceased to exist centuries ago by the presence of submissive Christians in their midst. They didn’t cease to exist and instead Christianity continues to disappear from the Middle East.

Perhaps one of us is. Try to do better.

I don’t know how to try better at this point. You are committed, absolutely steadfast as loyal to a narrative of American Secularism as being the crowning achievement of humanity. You think that if the Christian influence in law is removed people will become more Christian. You think that toleration and acceptance of LG won’t lead to its acceptance within your own Church eventually.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no emotional reaction here.

I see your denial, but your behavior is more persuasive.

All Christians are sinners, this does not mean certain sins do not have consequences.

Unless those sins harm others directly, we have no reason to step in and do what God says He will handle.

What are you arguing then? Is there any sphere in life wherein Christians can legitimately wield political power for the benefit of Christians?

Sure. So long as government doesn't insert itself in religion, citizens can vote for things Christians value. What government can't do without corrupting religion, is establish any religion whatever.

You are of the opinion that if the religious right gives up all of its influence in law that this will reverse it.

You're still making up ideas and insisting that I believe them...

You are committed, absolutely steadfast as loyal to a narrative of American Secularism as being the crowning achievement of humanity.

... and occasionally adding a little overwrought hyperbole.

Again, if you'd deal with what I actually say, instead of what you wish I had said, you'd be doing a lot better here.

Worth a try?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I see your denial, but your behavior is more persuasive.

What behavior? Does having an objection to a position or idea make you emotional?

Unless those sins harm others directly, we have no reason to step in and do what God says He will handle.

This is not the standard of the historic Church which did not operate on the libertarian no harm principle. If that were the case Saint Paul would not have expelled the sinful man in Corinthians since his relationship didn't visibly harm anyone.

Sure. So long as government doesn't insert itself in religion, citizens can vote for things Christians value. What government can't do without corrupting religion, is establish any religion whatever.

A government can do that and I would argue it would be beneficial for society in doing so, even if the Church gets partially corrupted. It is better that Frodo have the ring of power than Saruman get it.

You're still making up ideas and insisting that I believe them...

Then what do you believe in? How does getting rid of more and more Christian influence in society result in a net positive to Christianity?

... and occasionally adding a little overwrought hyperbole.

Again, if you'd deal with what I actually say, instead of what you wish I had said, you'd be doing a lot better here.

Then explain what you're actually saying or how what you're advocating advances morality and decency. You want the liberalization to continue, to advance and for all Christian influence in law to vanish. You have shown nowhere that this results in a more Christian oriented society and simply asserted it.

If you believe the decline of religion is the fault of the Christian Right, why does Christianity on the left decline at an even faster rate? You have no means of actually explaining this, no positive examples of liberal Churches that are thriving in the midst of the decline.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is not the standard of the historic Church which did not operate on the libertarian no harm principle.

Here's the standard...
Matthew 22:21 They say to him: Caesar's. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's.

Did Jesus say it was a Christian's duty to make non-Christians comply with our standards?

If that were the case Saint Paul would not have expelled the sinful man in Corinthians since his relationship didn't visibly harm anyone.

He expelled him from the church. Then he let him be. That's following what Jesus said.

If he was harming others, then it would be an issue for criminal law. But since he wasn't, there was no need to do anything about him except expell him from the Church at Corinth.

A government can do that and I would argue it would be beneficial for society in doing so, even if the Church gets partially corrupted. It is better that Frodo have the ring of power than Saruman get it.

Precisely because Frodo had the sense to not use it. But event then, power corrupted him in the end, and he would have been lost if not for chance saving him.

Then what do you believe in?

I just follow Jesus to the best of my ability. You should, too.

How does getting rid of more and more Christian influence in society result in a net positive to Christianity?

That is a question you should ask the religious right. It's no coincidence that the rise of the religious right was accompanied by a decrease in Christian church membership.

You want the liberalization to continue, to advance and for all Christian influence in law to vanish.

You're back to making up positions for me, again. It's not doing your argument any good. I'm merely pointing out that government involvement with religion inevitably corrupts it. And yes, that's immeasurably worse than letting something else be corrupted.

Then explain what you're actually saying or how what you're advocating advances morality and decency.

It keeps Christianity free from governmental corruption.

If you believe the decline of religion is the fault of the Christian Right, why does Christianity on the left decline at an even faster rate?

It doesn't:

This uptick is especially surprising when compared to the drop in White evangelical Protestantism. The report pointedly states: "Since 2006, white evangelical Protestants have experienced the most precipitous drop in affiliation, shrinking from 23% of Americans in 2006 to 14% in 2020."
White mainline Protestantism is growing; White evangelicalism is declining. And that is big news.
Most researchers divide White American Protestantism into two large families: Evangelical and mainline. Evangelicalism comprises a multitude of theologically conservative Protestants who typically belong to groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God or to independent, nondenominational mega-church congregations.
Opinion: America is no longer as evangelical as it was -- and here's why - CNN

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Here's the standard...
Matthew 22:21 They say to him: Caesar's. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's.

Did Jesus say it was a Christian's duty to make non-Christians comply with our standards?

It is the Christian's duty to regulate themselves and their own community. A nation is a large community and thus there is nothing which prevents the Christian from advocating law that is in the benefit of a Christian society or nation. Indeed, if you want Christianity flourish in such an environment you need Christian law.

If you are opposed to Christians ruling themselves on the level of a nation according to their own standards. Are you equally opposed to Christians ruling themselves on a local community basis? Where does the Christian begin to be allowed to have civic authority in your view?

He expelled him from the church. Then he let him be. That's following what Jesus said.

Why? He didn't harm anyone. Why should the Church discriminate against anyone?

If he was harming others, then it would be an issue for criminal law. But since he wasn't, there was no need to do anything about him except expell him from the Church at Corinth.

Why did this man need to be expelled from the Christian community? Are you not forcing your views on this man by tolerating what Saint Paul did in an effort to get this man to 'repent' of his actions? This is a type of force which you oppose Christians using on a national level, but you're fine with it on a local level?

Precisely because Frodo had the sense to not use it. But event then, power corrupted him in the end, and he would have been lost if not for chance saving him.

Frodo did use the ring, constantly. If he didn't he would have died on a few occasions. The point in using this analogy is that yes, power corrupts, it always does but if you say to yourself you will not use it at all, you allow your enemies or someone truly bad to take power.

Let's say Frodo is the Church, you are advocating the Church not pick up the ring at all.

I just follow Jesus to the best of my ability. You should, too.

I do follow him to the best of my pitiful ability. But in doing so I realize what it takes to actually make the Christian community work and the struggles Christianity will face in the future. You seem unwilling to acknowledge the reality and blame everything on your political enemies, ie the right. As if this will make things better.

It won't.

That is a question you should ask the religious right. It's no coincidence that the rise of the religious right was accompanied by a decrease in Christian church membership.

Christianity declined under each administration and each political movement. With the rise of the right we saw the rise of Antifa and an element of wokeness in the left. They certainty aren't more religious than the Right and no movement of the Left exists that I would classify as a vibrant and growing Christian element.

Christian membership is going to decline under ANY President and ANY political movement in the USA committed to the ideas of the Enlightenment going forward.

You're back to making up positions for me, again. It's not doing your argument any good. I'm merely pointing out that government involvement with religion inevitably corrupts it. And yes, that's immeasurably worse than letting something else be corrupted.

Except it has not been demonstrated that Christendom was immeasurably worse than any other outcome. This is your Enlightenment assumption and I've already addressed the corruption angle. Corruption exists, it doesn't mean we should exempt ourselves from authority or power. But do the best we can in that situation.

It keeps Christianity free from governmental corruption.

I admitted as much. But corruption will always exist and if you want to keep the Church (by this I mean all the people of God) out of such sources of such a thing then you only allow those who are either neutral or hostile to Christianity to gain power. Those who are not motivated to do what is in the interest in Christianity but some other interest, namely enlightenment liberalism. Why does the former deserve that sort of subjugation from Christians when it has proven itself just as if not more incompetent than Christendom?

This uptick is especially surprising when compared to the drop in White evangelical Protestantism. The report pointedly states: "Since 2006, white evangelical Protestants have experienced the most precipitous drop in affiliation, shrinking from 23% of Americans in 2006 to 14% in 2020."
White mainline Protestantism is growing; White evangelicalism is declining. And that is big news.
Most researchers divide White American Protestantism into two large families: Evangelical and mainline. Evangelicalism comprises a multitude of theologically conservative Protestants who typically belong to groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God or to independent, nondenominational mega-church congregations.
Opinion: America is no longer as evangelical as it was -- and here's why - CNN

And what about the precipitous fall of the mainline liberal denominations? They are faring even worse in the decline and I never suggested the religious Right is not declining. Partly because they have the same sort of philosophy that you do. They think Christianity can thrive in an environment that offers every incentive to not be Christian. Quite simply you and the religious Right in America are wrong. To different degrees, but you are both wrong.

 

[iarwain]

Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Nevertheless, homosexuals are like any other sinner; their particular predisposition to sin is no different than yours or mine.

I agree with this, but if you as a Christian claim to believe homosexuality is sinful, then you open yourself up to Cancel Culture, and to be called a bigot, and a hater. Maybe would like to deplatform you and deny you tax exemptions if that is part of your message. The problem with the LGBTQ agenda is not that LGBTQs exist, or want rights, it is that they want to promote it as being normal and healthy.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you are opposed to Christians ruling themselves on the level of a nation according to their own standards.

If they want to go to such a nation, they can. This one is free. Sorry about that.

He expelled him from the church. Then he let him be. That's following what Jesus said.

Why?

Because they had a right to expell him for not following the rules of their group. Once he left the group, they had no right as Christians to do anything at all to him.

He didn't harm anyone.

And that's why. A church can set rules for those who are in it. When they leave, the church has no hold on them.

Let's say Frodo is the Church, you are advocating the Church not pick up the ring at all.

History shows that political power inevitably corrupts the church and turns it against God.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge the reality and blame everything on your political enemies, ie the right.

And once again you're making up ideas and insisting I must believe them. Perhaps if you considered you ideas with a fraction of the effort you're making, trying to invent ideas for me, you'd be much better off.

(Evangelicals declining faster than other denominations)

This uptick is especially surprising when compared to the drop in White evangelical Protestantism. The report pointedly states: "Since 2006, white evangelical Protestants have experienced the most precipitous drop in affiliation, shrinking from 23% of Americans in 2006 to 14% in 2020."
White mainline Protestantism is growing; White evangelicalism is declining. And that is big news.
Most researchers divide White American Protestantism into two large families: Evangelical and mainline. Evangelicalism comprises a multitude of theologically conservative Protestants who typically belong to groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God or to independent, nondenominational mega-church congregations.
Opinion: America is no longer as evangelical as it was -- and here's why - CNN

And what about the precipitous fall of the mainline liberal denominations?

Not as bad as it has been for evangelicals. For reasons we've discussed.

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree with this, but if you as a Christian claim to believe homosexuality is sinful, then you open yourself up to Cancel Culture, and to be called a bigot, and a hater.

If so, then it is. But funny thing is, I've mentioned my stand to a lot of homosexuals online, and sometimes in person, and none of them have responded that way.

I'm thinking that my willingness to acknowledge that they do have rights like anyone else, is actually all most of them want from other people.

Maybe would like to deplatform you and deny you tax exemptions if that is part of your message.

Hasn't been my experience. Go figure.

The problem with the LGBTQ agenda is not that LGBTQs exist, or want rights, it is that they want to promote it as being normal and healthy.

If so, that's their lookout, not mine. So far, all the homosexuals I've encountered want the same rights as anyone else, and want anyone who doesn't like them to leave them alone.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone felt that way?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If they want to go to such a nation, they can. This one is free. Sorry about that.

He expelled him from the church. Then he let him be. That's following what Jesus said.

I agree the USA is free, free to be a non-Christian country like it already is. It will only continue to decline in faith and nothing you've said will change that outcome.

Because they had a right to expell him for not following the rules of their group. Once he left the group, they had no right as Christians to do anything at all to him.

Why shouldn't Christians accept all sinners regardless of what they've done? Why shouldn't we prefer a good principle, like the no harm principle, to a bad Christian principle which insists on standards of moral behavior of which there are consequences for?

You seem to excuse Paul for being intolerant of this man. Does a Christian have a right to be intolerant of certain things? Is this not Pharisaical on your view? If not, why not.

And that's why. A church can set rules for those who are in it. When they leave, the church has no hold on them.

Why should the Church have rules when it has better rules in the form of civil society? What is better, the rules of the Church or the rules of modernity?

History shows that political power inevitably corrupts the church and turns it against God.

History shows that the cooperation between the Church and state has lead to great successes for the Church as well. Spain would not be Christian today if not for fighting the Muslims on explicitly Christian grounds. The Turks would not have been stopped at Vienna but would have been allowed to conquer all of Europe freely.

You can bemoan such intervention if you will. I will celebrate it.

And once again you're making up ideas and insisting I must believe them. Perhaps if you considered you ideas with a fraction of the effort you're making, trying to invent ideas for me, you'd be much better off.

Once again, explain how things improve under your system. You keep advocating for a way of being that will inevitably result in less and less Christianity
(Evangelicals declining faster than other denominations)

This uptick is especially surprising when compared to the drop in White evangelical Protestantism. The report pointedly states: "Since 2006, white evangelical Protestants have experienced the most precipitous drop in affiliation, shrinking from 23% of Americans in 2006 to 14% in 2020."
White mainline Protestantism is growing; White evangelicalism is declining. And that is big news.
Most researchers divide White American Protestantism into two large families: Evangelical and mainline. Evangelicalism comprises a multitude of theologically conservative Protestants who typically belong to groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God or to independent, nondenominational mega-church congregations.

Opinion: America is no longer as evangelical as it was -- and here's why - CNN



Not as bad as it has been for evangelicals. For reasons we've discussed.

Yes Evangelicalism will decline. Why does that make your suggestion of getting rid of all Christian influence in law the solution?

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree the USA is free, free to be a non-Christian country like it already is. It will only continue to decline in faith and nothing you've said will change that outcome.

Things rise and fall. It happened before. It will happen again.

You seem to excuse Paul for being intolerant of this man.

I don't think you've given this much thought. Because they had a right to expel him for not following the rules of their group. Once he left the group, they had no right as Christians to do anything at all to him.

Why should the Church have rules when it has better rules in the form of civil society?

Why should churches be different than government? You really don't know?

History shows that the cooperation between the Church and state has lead to great successes for the Church as well. Spain would not be Christian today if not for fighting the Muslims on explicitly Christian grounds. The Turks would not have been stopped at Vienna but would have been allowed to conquer all of Europe freely.

Somehow I think that the Europeans were not fighting purely for religious reasons. Certainly, the Turks were not. Likewise, the Reconquista was as much a political process as a religious one.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why does that make your suggestion of getting rid of all Christian influence in law the solution?

And yet another projection you've decided I have to believe.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Things rise and fall. It happened before. It will happen again.

Naturally Empires fall apart. The question is why it's happening. Is it due to less secularism? Is that the reason why America is crumbling?

I don't think you've given this much thought. Because they had a right to expel him for not following the rules of their group. Once he left the group, they had no right as Christians to do anything at all to him.

Interesting, so you will allow the Christian community to expel someone who violates it's rules. What about a town with a specific Christian character. Should they have the right to expel people who violate the rules?

Why should churches be different than government? You really don't know?

Yes, why should the Church be so insistent on it's morality when it is inferior to secular enlightenment morality? I don't believe this and I do think Christianity has positive proscriptions for law and how we ought to run our lives to some degree.

I am more curious how you view Christian rules/standards in comparison to secular rules/standards. Which is superior?

Somehow I think that the Europeans were not fighting purely for religious reasons. Certainly, the Turks were not. Likewise, the Reconquista was as much a political process as a religious one.

When it comes to Spain I am willing to attribute the major motive in being Christianity, specifically the crusading spirit which motivated the Spanish to expel Muslim influence from the peninsula. Why think this wrong btw? Why feel the need to reduce the religious principles upon which the Reconquista was justified and blessed by? It was your own Church which supported the Iberian Crusades and the results have largely benefitted Christendom.

Of course there was a political dimension, but the religious dimension was real as well. As real as it was during the thirty years war or the conflicts between Catholics and Orthodox in the early centuries and the later Protestant/Catholic conflicts. Religion back then was a real concern for people, which is why they were violent over it. Just as politics was a real concern for 20th century ideologies, which is why they went to total war over it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And yet another projection you've decided I have to believe.

What room do you allow for Christians to have an influence on law then?

 

[iarwain]

If so, that's their lookout, not mine. So far, all the homosexuals I've encountered want the same rights as anyone else, and want anyone who doesn't like them to leave them alone.

That would be fine. But it doesn't square with teaching different gender definitions to three year olds on Blues Clues. Why does a three year old need to know what a pansexual is?

 

[The Barbarian]

That would be fine. But it doesn't square with teaching different gender definitions to three year olds on Blues Clues. Why does a three year old need to know what a pansexual is?

So how does that mean that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights everyone else has? Could you explain that?

 

[The Barbarian]

What room do you allow for Christians to have an influence on law then?

Vote.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So how does that mean that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights everyone else has? Could you explain that?

It depends on what you mean by rights and what you mean by the same rights. By giving homosexuals marriage you in effect are redefining the purpose of marriage within the state and the purpose it seeks to accomplish.

If for instance you want marriage to be a means of families existing and thriving as natural units. Homosexuality will weaken it, since marriage not has nothing to do with the expectation of children or legitimacy. It's about individuals entering into a contract.

Marriage mind you was weakened before Homosexuality, when no fault divorce was introduced and infidelity and sexual licentiousness became commonplace and socially acceptable.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Vote.

That would mean giving legitimacy to the system and perpetuating the self destructive cycle of democratic politics.

Better to simply pay your taxes and ignore the law and society around you to the best of your ability.

 

[The Barbarian]

It depends on what you mean by rights and what you mean by the same rights. By giving homosexuals marriage you in effect are redefining the purpose of marriage within the state and the purpose it seeks to accomplish.

Since marriage is a religious ceremony, it should never have been taken up by the state. Once that happened, it became a civil issue, and therefore open to anyone, even nonreligious people.

What purpose does the state have for marriage? And how is it the state's business at all?

 

[The Barbarian]

Vote.

That would mean giving legitimacy to the system and perpetuating the self destructive cycle of democratic politics.

Which demonstrably works better than autocracy, kings, oligarchies, etc.

Look at Russia, China, Venezuela, Hungary, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

Which of those do you think provides a better life for their people?