When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

It's both. I mean, I was on the ABC the other night. (That was fun).

Darn it, I missed that! Whatever it was, is it still available somewhere?

 

[Paidiske]

Darn it, I missed that! Whatever it was, is it still available somewhere?

Will PM you.

 

[ximmix]

Really, when you consider how the New Woke Religion virtue signals and condemns certain behaviour and hearsay ande then tries to conform everyone to its creed through shaming I think it has the hallmarks of religious belief.

If you think it is a religion, do you also think it should have the same protections that other religions have?

 

[stevevw]

If you think it is a religion, do you also think it should have the same protections that other religions have?

Yes everyone should have the Right to express their belief. But forcing others to also follow that belief is wrong and attacking others who express their opposing beliefs is wrong.

 

[stevevw]

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion. But you must know that more than one “Christian worldview” exists. The Episcopal Church in the US supports same-sex marriage, and performs such weddings in their chapels. They also fully accept transgender persons as parishioners, and have no problem with medical/surgical gender affirmation treatment. The United Church of Christ, since the late 60s, supports reproductive rights for women, including terminating a pregnancy. You shouldn’t overlook that Christianity has a much broader range of doctrines and beliefs than just yours.

I agree there are outliner views within the Christain Church but that doesn't mean they are represent Gods Truth. The point is they are the exception and not the rule. We don't measure what represents Truth or reality by exceptions. We have 2 or maybe more opinions on what is the Truth. Are we to say they are all truth or that there is no truth. TheTruth should cohere with reality.

For example by supporting Affirmation and Transition model of care for Gender Dysphoria the Episcopal Church is supporting an idea that has no basis in fact or reality and is harmful to young people. At the very least we have little to no data in this area so the risks are unknown. So even by evidenced based model its a bad idea. So why claim its Gods Truth to represent Christains when its a risky propostion and deoesn't cohere with reality. The Truth should hold up across all domains.

As Christ said there will be many false prophets claiming to represent me. A sign I think of representing Christ in todays world is that the True church should not be liked by the world but rather be in conflict with it morally. Remembering that humans are naturally sinful and rebellious to God so a society without God will not follow Gods will but rather human will and beliefs.

The point I was trying to make is that if there is a God then surely there is only one Way, Truth and Life. The Bible says there will be many who claim to come in my name (in the name of Truth) but there will be many false prophets, counter claims to Gods Truth in how we should live in the world.

So at this point in our history we have a situation where there is Gods Truth and Will on earth and the anti Christ truth. I am trying to determine what is Gods Truth and what is not. There has to be a destinction between Christains and the World. What is it, whats the ideas aned beliefs thats involved ande how edoes this differ.

I am asking or posing that the anti Christain sentiment and growth of anti Christain ideologies is a sign of this growing destinction. It has to be because it seems to oppose many of Gods Truths which we have lived by in our History. If not who are the Christains and what does the World represent. Or is the anti Christain growth really the Christains and the Christains really the anti God.

 

[Paidiske]

So at this point in our history we have a situation where there is Gods Truth and Will on earth and the anti Christ truth. I am trying to determine what is Gods Truth and what is not. There has to be a destinction between Christains and the World. What is it, whats the ideas aned beliefs thats involved ande how edoes this differ.

I am asking or posing that the anti Christain sentiment and growth of anti Christain ideologies is a sign of this growing destinction. It has to be because it seems to oppose many of Gods Truths which we have lived by in our History. If not who are the Christains and what does the World represent. Or is the anti Christain growth really the Christains and the Christains really the anti God.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not as neat and clear cut as that. After all, the weeds and the wheat grow together until the harvest.

 

[jayem]

I agree there are outliner views within the Christain Church but that doesn't mean they are represent Gods Truth. The point is they are the exception and not the rule. We don't measure what represents Truth or reality by exceptions.

Didn’t Christianity begin as an exception—or outlier—within Old Testament Judaism? It’s divided over the centuries into many different denominations with varying doctrines. (Obviously, the big split was the Protestant Reformation. Which led to decades of on-and-off religious wars and millions of deaths.) All religions believe their version is correct and everyone else is in error.

BTW, that’s one of the reasons I don’t believe in any religion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you think it is a religion, do you also think it should have the same protections that other religions have?

Of course they won't because referring to non-religions (political movements, social movements, cultural movements, atheism, sporting teams, actual science(!), etc.) as "religion" is only done to drag down the "other" that they wish to attack. (A sort of "I know I'm dogmatic, but so are you" argument.) I suspect it is also comes from a very poor understanding of the rights to worship and practice religion and in some cases a desire to be nasty to other people that don't conform to their religious view (or have the state do it for them).

 

[ralliann]

Didn’t Christianity begin as an exception—or outlier—within Old Testament Judaism?

No, Judaism always looked to the anointed one that ruled all.
They just thought it was through Judaism and circumcision is all.

For example by supporting Affirmation and Transition model of care for Gender Dysphoria the Episcopal Church is supporting an idea that has no basis in fact or reality and is harmful to young people.

It is deeper than this. They are standing with those that would legally punish those not complying.

 

[Bradskii]

For example by supporting Affirmation and Transition model of care for Gender Dysphoria the Episcopal Church is supporting an idea that has no basis in fact or reality and is harmful to young people. At the very least we have little to no data in this area so the risks are unknown.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Whoever told you that is lying to you.

 

[Bradskii]

The point I was trying to make is that if there is a God then surely there is only one Way, Truth and Life.

And hey, you have determined it. So if there's any moral problem then we can defer to you. Are you cool with that?

And can you please spell Christian correctly? I don't want to be a grammar Nazi but it's driving me nuts...

 

[Bradskii]

There are outer boundaries to what can legitimately be called Christianity. Almost across the spectrum, progressive/liberal theologies, denominations and churches are counterfeits of Christianity.

So you know what these boundaries are? And who can and cannot legitimately be called a Christian?

 

[Paidiske]

So you know what these boundaries are? And who can and cannot legitimately be called a Christian?

Historically, there has been a broad consensus about what the doctrinal essentials are. This is illustrated in the way CF handles who is considered Christian; if you adhere to the Nicene Creed, you're in. If you don't, you're not. And it's why, for example, most mainstream churches will re-baptise Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses but not people baptised in another mainstream church; we don't see Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses as really Christian, because they don't share that doctrinal core.

However, one of the tensions that has crept in in recent times (and which we see reflected in this thread), is that in response to contemporary social complexity, there's a movement to insist on a set of moral essentials as well. This is a relatively new approach (and a contested one). So we start to see claims that people who think differently about sexuality in particular, or a small group of other issues, are "not really Christian." I view this as deeply dangerous and unhelpful, but as it seems to be driven by deep underlying anxiety, it's very difficult to deal with at the level of the presenting issues.

 

[ralliann]

Historically, there has been a broad consensus about what the doctrinal essentials are. This is illustrated in the way CF handles who is considered Christian; if you adhere to the Nicene Creed, you're in. If you don't, you're not. And it's why, for example, most mainstream churches will re-baptise Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses but not people baptised in another mainstream church; we don't see Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses as really Christian, because they don't share that doctrinal core.

However, one of the tensions that has crept in in recent times (and which we see reflected in this thread), is that in response to contemporary social complexity, there's a movement to insist on a set of moral essentials as well. This is a relatively new approach (and a contested one).

Not true. being Homosexual is not sin. But to engage in homosexual acts is sin.

So we start to see claims that people who think differently about sexuality in particular, or a small group of other issues, are "not really Christian." I view this as deeply dangerous and unhelpful, but as it seems to be driven by deep underlying anxiety, it's very difficult to deal with at the level of the presenting issues.

It is not this either really. It is first, thinking it not a sin to engage in the activity, how can one repent if it is not sin. And then going even further to support the forcing the support of that sin, and punishments for believing it is sin.

 

[Paidiske]

being Homosexual is not sin. But to engage in homosexual acts is sin.

A distinction lost on many people.

It is not this either really.

We see exactly this, for example, in post #232. The claim that progressives or liberals are "counterfeit" Christians, and Satanic.

 

[stevevw]

And hey, you have determined it. So if there's any moral problem then we can defer to you. Are you cool with that?

And can you please spell Christian correctly? I don't want to be a grammar Nazi but it's driving me nuts...

lol sorry I will try to remember but I didn't think I was spelling it wrong, don't have spell checker. Its not referring it to me but to Gods Truth through Christ.

 

[ralliann]

A distinction lost on many people.

We see exactly this, for example, in post #232. The claim that progressives or liberals are "counterfeit" Christians, and Satanic.

What you are seeing is the result of what is happening now. But morals of sexuality, have been at least preached, and taught since the time of those councils that set the essentials of our faith. But also known long before, LONG before. Nochide l;aw, for Gentiles, taught among Jew's for righteous Gentiles. Unto which Gentiles righteousness in keeping with the covenant made with ALL MAN, have a share in (the world to come (heaven). Which world is the focus is to the Church. We are strangers and sojourners in this world and this life.

 

[Paidiske]

"Think differently about sexuality" - is that all it is?

I was illustrating a point with that example, but for what it's worth, yes, I think at its roots it is a matter of thinking differently about sexuality. And in particular, how we understand the intersecting biological, psychological, relational and spiritual aspects of sexuality, and how each relates to ethics.

I believe there ARE moral essentials.

I'm not saying there aren't. What I'm saying is that making agreement on moral issues a litmus test for Christian identity is a relatively new approach.

 

[Paidiske]

Nice try, but you have badly misstated what I said. I said, "Almost across the spectrum, progressive/liberal theologies, denominations and churches are counterfeits of Christianity." I made - and make - no judgment as to whether individuals are or aren't Christians. I do believe there is a satanic influence, but I did not and do not suggest that individuals are "Satanic."

I appreciate the distinction, and thank you for making it. However, I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that someone is giving effect to a satanic influence, but say that doesn't amount to being "satanic."

You also cited my post, entirely without basis, as suggesting that I fail to grasp the distinction between a homosexual orientation and engaging in homosexual practices.

No, I was speaking more generally on that point. It is very common, both on this forum and in real life, for people to fail to grasp the difference between orientation and behaviour.

 

[Bradskii]

I believe there are genuine Christian essentials that the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived, be they Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, would agree upon. Those essentials are the outer boundaries.

And I would agree with Paidiske that it's essentially an adherence to the Nicene Creed (which I can still recite verbatim after all many these years). If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, was sacrificed for our sins and was resurrected then...you're a Christian. Fundamentally, that's it. All else is open for discussion.

But the one thing I do when I I find something objectionable is ask myself: Does it cause harm? Am I annoyed, frustrated, disgusted, shocked? Possibly. But if it causes no harm, then...I have no right to object. I hold myself to that in all cases. And I expect others to do the same. Because if no harm is caused then guess how it can be described? Harmless.

So if you want to argue against anything, then simpy saying 'it is written' is a waste of your time writing it, or any variation of it, and a waste of my time reading it. You have to show me that it causes harm. And I don't want your opinion. I want some facts. And if you show me it's harmful, then I'll agree with you.