Of course you know about the religious right...

[BCP1928]

You might as well ask, "What is Christian right?"

I do agree whole heartedly that I don't fix my political leaning to my faith either. My faith too guides my ideology to a point, but I have found that many political positions are not spoken of in the scriptures. Like, how much should people be taxed? Or what kind of gun laws should their be? What kind of immigration laws should we have or which kind of treatment should transgender people receive?

But I also don't think we can keep faith out of everything either. And there's the rub.

Yet you believe that there is definitive Christian teaching that requires Christians to oppose a secular government legalizing same-sex civil marriage

 

[BCP1928]

From what I've seen previously, this is code for "they don't have to hide in the closet anymore".

The implication seems to be that a homosexual is more likely to become a sexual predator if he is allowed out of the closet than if he is made to stay in it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The very small percentage of priests who have abused others aren't actually guilty of pedophilia, it's homosexual predation.

I wouldn't be so dogmatic about that.

Father Alex Crow marries teenager he met at Catholic High School, Moves to Italy, Vows Never to Return to America​

 

[KCfromNC]

The implication seems to be that a homosexual is more likely to become a sexual predator if he is allowed out of the closet than if he is made to stay in it.

I wouldn't assume there was that much consideration put into the assorted talking points being thrown around.

 

[The Barbarian]

Seems like a weird statement in a thread partially about Eastern Orthodox views of various political subjects, given what their priests wear.

That's kinda hitting below the zone, no?

 

[rjs330]

Yet you believe that there is definitive Christian teaching that requires Christians to oppose a secular government legalizing same-sex civil marriage

I do? I don't think I said anything like that.

 

[BCP1928]

I do? I don't think I said anything like that.

Did you not assert that it was against Christian teaching to allow a secular government to license same sex civil marriages for non-Christians? You castigated Greek Christians for it, but did not specify the particular Church teaching they violated.

 

[rjs330]

Did you not assert that it was against Christian teaching to allow a secular government to license same sex civil marriages for non-Christians? You castigated Greek Christians for it, but did not specify the particular Church teaching they violated.

I posted an article that states what the position of the Church is regarding SSM. If people belonged to the Church and voted FOR SSM then they indeed went against the churches teaching.

Another example would be if the the Church said it is wrong to steal and you as a member vote d for a law that made theft legal then you would be going against the Churches teaching. You are not holding faithful to it's doctrines.

And I didn't say anything about the "allowing" a government to do anything. I don't believe a particular church should have that much government control. It would be no different than proclaiming the Southern Baptist should be in control of what the government does and does not do.

As individuals we can vote how we want and for the reasons we want. But if we vote for something that our Church strictly forbids then we are not faithfully holding to it's doctrines and beliefs. You can't say otherwise.

I have no idea if the government officials who vot d for it were members of the church or not. But if they were they went against the teaching of the church when supporting it.

But there is no Bible verse that says you must oppose secular governments who support SSM.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

That's kinda hitting below the zone, no?

Nah.

 

[BCP1928]

I posted an article that states what the position of the Church is regarding SSM. If people belonged to the Church and voted FOR SSM then they indeed went against the churches teaching.

Another example would be if the the Church said it is wrong to steal and you as a member vote d for a law that made theft legal then you would be going against the Churches teaching. You are not holding faithful to it's doctrines.

And I didn't say anything about the "allowing" a government to do anything. I don't believe a particular church should have that much government control. It would be no different than proclaiming the Southern Baptist should be in control of what the government does and does not do.

As individuals we can vote how we want and for the reasons we want. But if we vote for something that our Church strictly forbids then we are not faithfully holding to it's doctrines and beliefs. You can't say otherwise.

I have no idea if the government officials who vot d for it were members of the church or not. But if they were they went against the teaching of the church when supporting it.

But there is no Bible verse that says you must oppose secular governments who support SSM.

No, they didn't support SSM, they allowed it. Most of them don't approve of it, but I guess they couldn't find the Bible verse that forbids them to allow a secular government to do something they disapprove of for solely religious reasons. Neither can you, apparently.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s not all rainbows and unicorns as some would try to make us believe

That was the point you were making? Some people are scum? Really? Did you need to link to some right wing journalist wannabe from a few years ago to do that?

 

[RileyG]

I wouldn't be so dogmatic about that.

Father Alex Crow marries teenager he met at Catholic High School, Moves to Italy, Vows Never to Return to America​

Yeah, I’m aware of him as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ideology.

Didn't know transvestites were required to be ideological. Is there an instruction manual or something?

You should go to a blackboard and write "it's not all about me" 100 times.

If you never encountered it, and I never encountered it, what makes you think it's real?
(People get in trouble for not calling people what they want to be called)

I was raised to see that as just good manners.

It's two wrongs make a right payback time for whatever happened in the Nixon years.

Why not just give everyone the same respect? How does it oppress you if someone wants a different pronoun than you think they should have? You should go to a blackboard and write "it's not all about me" 100 times.

What's happened is the whole thing has become sacred and questioning it has become taboo. Because woke liberalism has gone off the deep end.

It started when they couldn't use the "N" word any more. Where will it end? If everyone who respects others has to be respected, what will happen to society?

Nothing bad, I think.

 

[BPPLEE]

That was the point you were making? Some people are scum? Really? Did you need to link to some right wing journalist wannabe from a few years ago to do that?

I linked some other stories. Go back and look. There are some bad characters in every demographic

 

[Bradskii]

I linked some other stories. Go back and look. There are some bad characters in every demographic

And you needed a link like the one you posted to make that point?

 

[BPPLEE]

And you needed a link like the one you posted to make that point?

You see nothing wrong with someone implying that ministers are inherently pedophiles and children are not safe around them but you take offense to some links about transgender people? You should see the stuff I can’t post because it mentions child (banned word)

 

[The Barbarian]

You see nothing wrong with someone implying that ministers are inherently pedophiles and children are not safe around them but you take offense to some links about transgender people?

Like all safety issues, it's a matter of probabilities. The evidence we have, indicates that ministers are more likely to be pedophiles than transgendered people.

 

[Bradskii]

You see nothing wrong with someone implying that ministers are inherently pedophiles and children are not safe around them but you take offense to some links about transgender people? You should see the stuff I can’t post because it mentions child (banned word)

Nobody implied that ministers are inherently paedophiles. There are simply bad dudes around. Some are priests. Some are not religious. Some are straight people. Some left handed people or red headed or trans or short or Democrats or teenagers...

 

[BPPLEE]

Nobody implied that ministers are inherently paedophiles. There are simply bad dudes around. Some are priests. Some are not religious. Some are straight people. Some left handed people or red headed or trans or short or Democrats or teenagers...

Read his last post. Children are not safe around ministers according to him.

 

[BPPLEE]

Like all safety issues, it's a matter of probabilities. The evidence we have, indicates that ministers are more likely to be pedophiles than transgendered people.

Please continue to post this line of reasoning.