Social Media Posts for Pride Month? (For Christians)

[ralliann]

And what is your present understanding of my position??

The responsibility for past harm done to homosexuals is the Church's fault, and still bears responsibility today.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The responsibility for past harm done to homosexuals is the Church's fault, and still bears responsibility today.

Nope. I've nowhere said that.

I don't blame it on "the Church."

Although, now that you bring it up, there are certain segments and mindsets within our Christian Faith, or more specifically, within certain denominations who probably do contribute to a political view that is less than conducive to engaging LGBTQ+ individuals as fellow human beings and seeking to lead them toward Christ in a compassionate, understanding way.

 

[ralliann]

Nope. I've nowhere said that.

I don't blame it on "the Church."

Although, now that you bring it up, there are certain segments and mindsets within our Christian Faith, or more specifically, within certain denominations who probably do contribute to a political view that is less than conducive to engaging LGBTQ+ individuals as fellow human beings and seeking to lead them toward Christ in a compassionate, understanding way.

You say nope, but then....now that you bring it up...

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Perhaps some of the difference between us here isn't only in personal dispositions toward other people, but also in that we each have differing views on Eschatology.

You, in your Orthodox view, seem to operate with the idea that "we can do something significant about the world's sin, legally and politically."

Well we can and are called to do something about the world's sin. I wouldn't go as far as to say this is based on my Orthodoxy alone, but a reading of history which sees how the Church did shape societies and how this was ultimately for the better. I cannot buy into this progressive narrative that the history of Christianity is one of evil and oppression and thus we need now a liberal secular society free from religions which have no power. To believe that is to believe my own religion is culpable in immorality and ultimately a force for evil. This sadly seems to be what most Christians believe, that the history of Christianity until the USA and the enlightenment came about was largely bad. I reject this understanding.

I, on the other hand, sadly to say, have a more.....................................fatalist view of Eschatology, one that neither panders to political agendas of any sort, Left or Right, nor sees any clear answers or divine direction in hitching the Church up to the Empire. The Byzantine Empire worked for a while, and that may have been due to some level of Divine Providence, but those days are seemingly over and have been for several hundred years already.

You operate on a passive model which surrenders political power to the current dominant authorities. Do you advocate we as Christians should surrender our political power to the current authorities despite the fact they work against us and our interests? Do you think this is what the early Christians in Rome did? Just meekly surrender to Caesar and his interests?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You say nope, but then....now that you bring it up...

Right. Exactly. In my view, there's no room at the table for Theonomist / Dominion Theology. And if no one here is advocating for that position or a derivative of it (like Kingdom Now Theology), then we can have a meaningful Christian discussion among brethren.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well we can and are called to do something about the world's sin. I wouldn't go as far as to say this is based on my Orthodoxy alone, but a reading of history which sees how the Church did shape societies and how this was ultimately for the better. I cannot buy into this progressive narrative that the history of Christianity is one of evil and oppression and thus we need now a liberal secular society free from religions which have no power. To believe that is to believe my own religion is culpable in immorality and ultimately a force for evil. This sadly seems to be what most Christians believe, that the history of Christianity until the USA and the enlightenment came about was largely bad. I reject this understanding.

I don't know why you're bringing anything related to "Progressivism" up here. I don't fall into that category. In fact, I don't fall into the contours of any of the interpretive motifs you've just mentioned.

Also, I've never said that we who are Christian should never advocate politically.

You operate on a passive model which surrenders political power to the current dominant authorities. Do you advocate we as Christians should surrender our political power to the current authorities despite the fact they work against us and our interests?

No, I don't advocate that we should surrender political power or influence. I think you're misinterpreting what I mean by using the term, "fatalistic eschatology." Of course, being that you come from another tradition of thought, you probably would think I mean something other than what I do mean. My view is that when the Devil takes over, there won't be much we can do no matter how hard we try, until the Lord decides to intervene.

Do you think this is what the early Christians in Rome did? Just meekly surrender to Caesar and his interests?

No. .... I don't recall saying anything about being merely passive. I've always been more of a person who advocates for uninvited scrutiny, wherever its needed. I don't think that counts as 'being passive' in the least.

As for the early Christians in Rome, which Christian and in which year are you specifically referring to? Personally, I'd start with Paul and look at his experiences, and then we could look at the outcomes of various known martyrs from the 1st and 2nd centuries and see how they fared in the face of Rome.

 

[URA]

Let me reverse the question. Let's say you encounter a National Socialist. Would you say you have to engage them politely and be nice to them?

I would still appreciate an answer before a reversal of my question...but since your reversal may be paving the way for your answer, here is my response.

Short answer: Yes. Because accepting a person in no way implies an acceptance of their beliefs. Furthermore, it paves the way for dialogue, for the possibility of them to have a change of heart.

Now, it's hard to compare political views with sexual orientation...people are frequently at a loss for why they feel attracted to those they find attractive, but people have reasons, sometimes a lot of reasons, for their political views. So the dialogue is a lot different. But either way, people are much more likely to accept Christ, if they are accepted by those who accept Christ. Behavioral & ideological change can come from dialogue, sermons about sin, promises of blessings for those who accept Christ & all His teachings...after they have reason to listen to these teachings. Be the reason someone listens to Christ. Treat others the way you want to be treated.

We must remember; Jesus never said, "I want nothing to do with loose prostitutes, corrupt politicians, greedy tax collectors, or religious extremists". He spent time with all of them.

So I ask again...which groups of sinners do you want nothing to do with? And which groups do you accept?

 

[ralliann]

Right. Exactly. In my view, there's no room at the table for Theonomist / Dominion Theology. And if no one here is advocating for that position or a derivative of it (like Kingdom Now Theology), then we can have a meaningful Christian discussion among brethren.

who is arguing that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

who is arguing that?

No one yet, I hope.

 

[Adam56]

No one yet, I hope.

People have argued those wanting abortion and IVF banned are trying to turn USA into a theocracy. Which obviously isn’t true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

People have argued those wanting abortion and IVF banned are trying to turn USA into a theocracy. Which obviously isn’t true.

I had organization's more like David Barton's "Wallbuilders" in mind. Or Greg Bahnsen's Theonomy.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I would still appreciate an answer before a reversal of my question...but since your reversal may be paving the way for your answer, here is my response.

Short answer: Yes. Because accepting a person in no way implies an acceptance of their beliefs. Furthermore, it paves the way for dialogue, for the possibility of them to have a change of heart.

Do you consider this a universal imperative every Christian must engage in for everyone regardless of time, ability and personality? You're speaking about accepting National Socialists and trying to have a dialogue in order to change hearts, but what if you can't change their heart? Most people of such positions are likely unable to change and to make it a necessary duty to engage with everyone equally will only burn out most people. Most Christians are not called to such a duty.

Now, it's hard to compare political views with sexual orientation...people are frequently at a loss for why they feel attracted to those they find attractive, but people have reasons, sometimes a lot of reasons, for their political views. So the dialogue is a lot different. But either way, people are much more likely to accept Christ, if they are accepted by those who accept Christ. Behavioral & ideological change can come from dialogue, sermons about sin, promises of blessings for those who accept Christ & all His teachings...after they have reason to listen to these teachings. Be the reason someone listens to Christ. Treat others the way you want to be treated.

So we must welcome into our congregations people with views of sex and various political ideologies without regard for the welfare of the Church community? If you have a hardcore LGBT activist and welcome them into your community, you tolerate them and are unable to convince them, what is more likely, they convert you or you convert them? The Church from it's earliest foundations had strict requirements and it was a duty to guard the community of the faithful against those who would infiltrate and seek to dismantle the Church from within. In that context it was related to theological heretic, in our context it is moral heretics who distort the Gospel and corrupt the Church.

We must remember; Jesus never said, "I want nothing to do with loose prostitutes, corrupt politicians, greedy tax collectors, or religious extremists". He spent time with all of them.

So I ask again...which groups of sinners do you want nothing to do with? And which groups do you accept?

Should a man who is addicted to sex spend his time with prostitutes? Should a man who is greedy and wants wealth spend his time with unscrupulous men who will do anything for wealth?

The problem is that you are thinking we are all called to be Jesus, but we are only called to be Christlike. We, unlike Christ, are not perfect and this places limitations on us. Who we chose to interact with, who we chose to support and be with. Treating all equally is simply not possible for the great majority of people, not without themselves becoming corrupted.

Let's put my position this way. If I chose to have nothing to do with LGBT people and prefer to spend my time building up my own spiritual life, going to my own Church, focusing on my family and their interests and benefit, is that immoral? Do I have a duty to the LGBT person to consider them on par with my family or the Church? That is I cannot show partiality and must treat a random LGBT person like I would treat my parents? Have their political and social benefit equally in mind?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't know why you're bringing anything related to "Progressivism" up here. I don't fall into that category. In fact, I don't fall into the contours of any of the interpretive motifs you've just mentioned.

Also, I've never said that we who are Christian should never advocate politically.

I mention progressivism because that's basically what I see you advocating for. My position is that we can order society to certain degree and that Christian history is evidence of this. Either this Christian history was largely good in that it spread Christian principles in culture, law and society or it was bad. We do not have to as Christians consider the political benefit of those who would harm a Christian order, LGBT for instance. We do not have to defend their 'rights' to transition or marriage because those things they advocate for are contrary to the good.

No, I don't advocate that we should surrender political power or influence. I think you're misinterpreting what I mean by using the term, "fatalistic eschatology." Of course, being that you come from another tradition of thought, you probably would think I mean something other than what I do mean. My view is that when the Devil takes over, there won't be much we can do no matter how hard we try, until the Lord decides to intervene.

How do you not surrender political power and influence when you adhere to this fatalism that nothing can be done and that the devil will win in the end? Does your political perspective allow for positive action in a direction which is counter to the current status quo of society or one which defends the status quo and doesn't challenge it?

No. .... I don't recall saying anything about being merely passive. I've always been more of a person who advocates for uninvited scrutiny, wherever its needed. I don't think that counts as 'being passive' in the least.

As for the early Christians in Rome, which Christian and in which year are you specifically referring to? Personally, I'd start with Paul and look at his experiences, and then we could look at the outcomes of various known martyrs from the 1st and 2nd centuries and see how they fared in the face of Rome.

I am referring to the first three hundred years of Christianity. How do you think the early Christians gained a cultural hegemony from the nothing they started with at the time of our Lord's ascension? It wasn't merely through being killed and persecuted but through an ordering of the Christian Church which was quite strict. The Church sought to inculcate in the average Roman a new sense of self contrary to how Romans understood themselves, it was not a universalist Egalitarianism as well but a community where each understood their place. If one violated the rules one was excommunicated, if one betrayed Christ and showed more loyalty to Rome, they were excommunicated. This built up the sense of the Christian community as they saw themselves as distinct from the society around them and I believe this is reflect in Christian attitudes towards Rome. Attitudes which were largely negative, looking at Rome with a great deal of disgust (at least if we are to believe the 2nd century apologists).

If we wanted Christianity to succeed in the modern time we ought embrace such attitudes today, one which sees Christianity as largely distinct from the current dominant society which is not Christian and does not operate in our interests. Why should we be concerned with LGBT people especially when there is far more important work to be done concerning the Church and uplifting of fellow Christians? In the order of priorities LGBT people don't matter a whole lot.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mention progressivism because that's basically what I see you advocating for. My position is that we can order society to certain degree and that Christian history is evidence of this. Either this Christian history was largely good in that it spread Christian principles in culture, law and society or it was bad. We do not have to as Christians consider the political benefit of those who would harm a Christian order, LGBT for instance. We do not have to defend their 'rights' to transition or marriage because those things they advocate for are contrary to the good.

How do you not surrender political power and influence when you adhere to this fatalism that nothing can be done and that the devil will win in the end? Does your political perspective allow for positive action in a direction which is counter to the current status quo of society or one which defends the status quo and doesn't challenge it?

I am referring to the first three hundred years of Christianity. How do you think the early Christians gained a cultural hegemony from the nothing they started with at the time of our Lord's ascension? It wasn't merely through being killed and persecuted but through an ordering of the Christian Church which was quite strict. The Church sought to inculcate in the average Roman a new sense of self contrary to how Romans understood themselves, it was not a universalist Egalitarianism as well but a community where each understood their place. If one violated the rules one was excommunicated, if one betrayed Christ and showed more loyalty to Rome, they were excommunicated. This built up the sense of the Christian community as they saw themselves as distinct from the society around them and I believe this is reflect in Christian attitudes towards Rome. Attitudes which were largely negative, looking at Rome with a great deal of disgust (at least if we are to believe the 2nd century apologists).

If we wanted Christianity to succeed in the modern time we ought embrace such attitudes today, one which sees Christianity as largely distinct from the current dominant society which is not Christian and does not operate in our interests. Why should we be concerned with LGBT people especially when there is far more important work to be done concerning the Church and uplifting of fellow Christians? In the order of priorities LGBT people don't matter a whole lot.

While I think there may be some social overlap, I think you're confusing my essentially existential and non-militant approach to the Christian Faith with that of Progressives who actually think they might eventually secure substantive reforms in this world.

I'm guessing that there is an entire block of Christian Thought have never had the opportunity to engage, not to mention your apparently more limited view of Christian History.

But, being that you don't live in the U.S., I probably can't completely fault you for all of that.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

While I think there may be some social overlap, I think you're confusing my essentially existential and non-militant approach to the Christian Faith with that of Progressives who actually think they might eventually secure substantive reforms in this world.

I wouldn't exactly call my perspective militant, rather it's realist. You can't change a culture if you capitulate to it's moral and dejure legitimacy. You have push against it, you need to have the desire to overcome it. Perhaps we don't disagree but the issue is why is my comment about ignoring and wanting to not deal with LGBT people is so controversial?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wouldn't exactly call my perspective militant, rather it's realist.

And my perspective is that of Critical Realism, similar in some regards to that of Jens Zimmermann (the Canadian philosopher, not the German politician).

You can't change a culture if you capitulate to it's moral and dejure legitimacy. You have push against it, you need to have the desire to overcome it. Perhaps we don't disagree but the issue is why is my comment about ignoring and wanting to not deal with LGBT people is so controversial?

Again, I think you're confusing my ideological locus with that of either the Left or the Right, and I don't really focus on LGBT people. I focus on the hegemonic dysjunction and dysfunctionlization of the majority of straight people, and I think helping and encouraging each other to influence society in Christian ways won't come by being disinclined from Jesus' admonition to "not Lord it over each other" in order to make things happen.

 

[RileyG]

I wouldn't exactly call my perspective militant, rather it's realist. You can't change a culture if you capitulate to it's moral and dejure legitimacy. You have push against it, you need to have the desire to overcome it. Perhaps we don't disagree but the issue is why is my comment about ignoring and wanting to not deal with LGBT people is so controversial?

My cousin posted the meme from Morgan Freeman that if you don’t support gay “marriage” you are (insert swear word), and another cousin posted I hope homophones have a super uncomfortable month.

Why don’t adulterers make their sin public?

Why don’t extremely angry people make their sin public?

Why must we pander to LGBT and their disorder?

I have no idea.

It’s straight from Satan.

 

[Niels]

It seems to me that sharing the gospel would be more productive than attacking their LGBTIQA+ status. Why should we expect nonbelievers to embrace a Christian lifestyle when they are not believers themselves?

If they profess to be Christian then there's common ground for discussion, but if not we're talking about people who are lost in a more general sense. They stand to benefit from hearing the good news like any other nonbeliever.

 

[URA]

Do you consider this a universal imperative every Christian must engage in for everyone regardless of time, ability and personality? You're speaking about accepting National Socialists and trying to have a dialogue in order to change hearts, but what if you can't change their heart? Most people of such positions are likely unable to change and to make it a necessary duty to engage with everyone equally will only burn out most people. Most Christians are not called to such a duty.


So we must welcome into our congregations people with views of sex and various political ideologies without regard for the welfare of the Church community? If you have a hardcore LGBT activist and welcome them into your community, you tolerate them and are unable to convince them, what is more likely, they convert you or you convert them? The Church from it's earliest foundations had strict requirements and it was a duty to guard the community of the faithful against those who would infiltrate and seek to dismantle the Church from within. In that context it was related to theological heretic, in our context it is moral heretics who distort the Gospel and corrupt the Church.



Should a man who is addicted to sex spend his time with prostitutes? Should a man who is greedy and wants wealth spend his time with unscrupulous men who will do anything for wealth?

The problem is that you are thinking we are all called to be Jesus, but we are only called to be Christlike. We, unlike Christ, are not perfect and this places limitations on us. Who we chose to interact with, who we chose to support and be with. Treating all equally is simply not possible for the great majority of people, not without themselves becoming corrupted.

Let's put my position this way. If I chose to have nothing to do with LGBT people and prefer to spend my time building up my own spiritual life, going to my own Church, focusing on my family and their interests and benefit, is that immoral? Do I have a duty to the LGBT person to consider them on par with my family or the Church? That is I cannot show partiality and must treat a random LGBT person like I would treat my parents? Have their political and social benefit equally in mind?

There is still 1 question you haven't answered...which groups of sinners do you want nothing to do with, and which groups are you willing to accept?