• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by Zoii, Apr 14, 2019.

  1. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +12,576
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    If you're celibate, then I don't see why your sexuality should be incompatible with Christian life. There are many faithful celibate gay people.
     
  2. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,972
    Christian
    Married
    You did not quote evangelism. You quoted Paul talking to a Christian congregation.

    Jesus is not evangelizing in the Sermon on the Mount, He is talking to people who are already in the Old Covenant and teaching them the a New Covenant. But they are already believers in God--they are already part of His congregation. There is a difference between evangelizing and teaching, just as the officers of evangelist and teacher are different offices.

    No, you're totally wrong. Your reading is terribly faulty. You seem to have missed some verses:

    7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

    9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)

    10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

    11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

    13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

    15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”


    If you'll notice, all these verses come before the verses you quoted. Jesus offered the woman the good news of His "living water" and she had already accepted before He gave her the "bad news."

    I'm not sure what you think that proves of your point, but it does support my point. Jesus did not come to condemn, but to save--as He did in this case, saving not condemning. His Body is to be about the same business of saving, not condemning: "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing..."

    And that is also my point. When the Holy Spirit has done His work to discomfit a person with his current life, then all the person needs is the Good News:

    Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
     
  3. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,972
    Christian
    Married
    I didn't say anything about celibacy.
     
  4. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +12,576
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    You said:

    My point is that promiscuous homosexuality might not be compatible with a Christian life, but not everyone - straight or not - is promiscuous. A celibate homosexual person is still homosexual, but might also be a faithful Christian.
     
  5. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,972
    Christian
    Married
    As implied by my direct comparison with "promiscuous heterosexuality," I was not talking about celibacy in either regard.
     
  6. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +12,576
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    I don't understand. Are you arguing that a person who experiences attraction to people of the same sex, but does not act on it, can't be Christian?

    Really?

    On what basis?
     
  7. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +2,006
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    I don't want to interrupt but I'm getting a bit confused.

    Like a heterosexual, a homosexual can be in any one of three sexual 'states';
    • Celibate - no sex
    • Married - sex within marriage
    • Promiscuous - sex outside of marriage
    In which state is he or she acceptable to your version of Christianity?
    Are there any of these states which would not be considered as sinful?
    OB
     
  8. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +12,576
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    By my understanding, a celibate state is the only one considered acceptable on CF.
     
  9. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +2,006
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    and if I were to ask you about what might be acceptable to … ummm…. a theoretical Anglican church in Melbourne :rolleyes: - what might your answer be?
    OB
     
  10. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +12,576
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Melbourne is a diverse diocese. Its clergy are bound to uphold a standard of faithfulness in marriage and chastity in singleness. The national church is wrestling with whether and how same-sex marriages might be acknowledged, now that they are legal by secular law. I would not wish to pre-empt the outcome of that process.
     
  11. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +6,491
    Atheist
    Private
    Just without any real evidence that the thing you're hoping to change has any actual negative consequences. Attempts like that aren't going to have the intended outcome. Instead of forcing the change you want to see, it just makes the religion backing up that intent look disconnected from reality.
     
  12. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,162
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    In regards to the OP - Overwhelmingly in Australia,
    a) Same Sex attraction is not regarded adversely
    b) Those who choose to imbibe alcohol, with the exception of being drunk and disorderly, are not being adverse
    c) Living in an unmarried relationship is not regarded adversely
    d) those having sex outside of marriage is not seen adversely - indeed the focus is on safe sex and safe relationships.

    Given the above, Christianity is not in keeping with most of the Australian public and CERTAINLY NOT in keeping with the ethos of Rugby Australia's whos ambition is inclusiveness not ridicule, divisiveness, or finger-pointing that they are in some way bad. And that goes double when its the children of those who Christians are pointing at.

    Many in Australia think that those with a same-sex attraction have no desire to be patted on the head, and nor do they believe that those with Same-Sex Attraction have a need to change and nor do they believe that having single or multiple partners is any crime warranting condemnation.

    Rugby Union is not signing up Christians. It's signing up those who want to play or support rugby regardless of who they or their parents are......... and thus is not open to the admonishments of Christians who may choose to throw stones.

    Again - who someone chooses to have sex with, or how frequently may well be judged adversely by Christians, but rugby AND the wider Australian public believes its no-one's business who one chooses to have sex with (with the exception of sex that breaks Australian laws e rape or paedophilia)

    I have to ask why there is such an obsession about sex within Abrahamic religions. Sex is viewed as one of the most evil things you can do. It's such a weirdly unhealthy view.

    Regardless - Israel Folau had an opportunity to role model and confirm positive inspiring messages yet he chose to betray so many of us that support him by telling us all how terrible we all are and will go to hell - Well its Rugby Australia that has told Israel Folau to go to hell.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
  13. samwise gamgee

    samwise gamgee Member Supporter

    113
    +45
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Republican
    The only states acceptable to God are celibacy and marriage to a person of the opposite sex.

    Sex is not evil; it is holy. It was created as a way a man and woman who are married can express their love for each other. This holy union that God created is defiled when people use in other ways than God intended. Christians must speak out against this defilement.
     
  14. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,162
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    I respect your view as I am fully aware that sex outside of marriage, is regarded as a 'defilement' within Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism.

    But it is not in keeping with the views of the majority of my countrymen and certainly not International Rugby Union which this thread is concerned with.

    For those who are NOT from an Abrahamic religion, we see the finger pointing of Christianity concerning sex, as Christians telling us we are all bad deserving of a pit of fire. Such a concept is received poorly.... my female friends for example, are beautiful, intelligent, kind and positive. Your views of them for having sex, is an insult to them and me. Rugby Australia thinks similarly.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2019
  15. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,972
    Christian
    Married
    I'm not talking about celibate people in either case.

    I'm talking about sexually promiscuous people in both cases. Nobody's sexual promiscuity is compatible with a Christian lifestyle.
     
  16. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +12,576
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    I agree. But you "homosexuality," not homosexual promiscuity, so your point is not entirely clear.
     
  17. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,162
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    I'd be interested what your definition of promiscuity is
     
  18. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +3,294
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    Injustice is nothing new. I agree. And yet many old things have been abandoned in recent years because they have been considered to be injustices that need to be stopped. Why keep this kind of injustice going then ? Telling me it is not new is not a reasonable rationale for allowing a company to do something to a free citizen that the government is forbidden from doing based upon the inherent rights individual's possess. Let me be absolutely clear that I am speaking of the individual's right to engage freely in political speech and not defamation of the employer so that strawman that has appeared elsewhere( not by you ) is not totted out again. A private company has no more business infringing on those rights than the government does. We still retain our inherent right to free speech and in the case you cited freedom of association when we sell our labor. We are selling our labor not our soul. Would anyone contend that an employer was within its right to tell its employees that they may not worship with a particular denomination? or that they must not travel on vacation but remain local? Yet there are people telling me that the employer has the right to insist that an employee not engage in political speech that the employer disagrees with in their own time. How does the employer acquire such control over a free citizen's ability to speak? By the lame excuse that political speech that the employer disagrees with will hurt business. Somehow, political speech that the employer approves of is immune form hurting business and somehow, people that have no idea that there has been political speech by an employee of a company that they n most likely do not recognize as a part of that company will stop patronizing that company because that employee said something political (while not being engaged in the work he/she is being paid for) that the upper management of the company did not agree with.
     
  19. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +10,972
    Christian
    Married
    A private company does not infringe on anyone's rights. People continue to have the right to be whatever public jackasses they want to be.

    But the owner of the company also has rights. The owner of the company has the right to determine what character of persons he employs.

    He especially has the right to employ people who do not publicly demonstrate themselves to be bigoted against his customers.
     
  20. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +614
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    So what? Who cares what the public finds acceptable? God's standards have never been those of the world, and this player is entitled to say so.

    Tolerance runs BOTH directions (unless one espouses intolerance, in which case all opposing views are to be shut down by whatever means possible).
     
Loading...