- Aug 8, 2012
- 6,493
- 7,692
- 77
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I thought you were supposed to be having the day off.That's an interesting point about mandatory reporting. Maybe it is something new; the idea that it is good and right to compel that action...
I am not sure about this but at one time it was expected to dress nice for Church and now you can dress any old way to go to Church.
I thought you were supposed to be having the day off.
OB
Hello TutormanI am not sure about this but at one time it was expected to dress nice for Church and now you can dress any old way to go to Church.
I was thinking of corporal punishment of kids. It's not really reasonable to consider that torture. Indeed the whole concept of punishment is beginning to be suspect, though I don’t think that’s widely enough accepted to put in your list.This probably fits under the general idea of Prohibiting Torture which is something I need to add.
See ModestyIs that part of a general decrease in formality, overall?
I recommend starting with the washing followed by vacuuming. I always start with the washing on my days off. That way the washing can wash while I'm vacuuming. It's called multi-tasking.I am. I'm sitting here in my pyjamas (you needed to know that, didn't you?) pondering in which order I'm going to do my day-off things.
Sorry Hedrick. I thought you were talking about corporal punishment for adults.I was thinking of corporal punishment of kids. It's not really reasonable to consider that torture. Indeed the whole concept of punishment is beginning to be suspect, though I don’t think that’s widely enough accepted to put in your list.
Thanks PS
There's a whole area here around the status of women which I've missed and which needs to be worked into the list. Part of the problem is identifying discrete items. Sometimes what seems to be a single issue can be like a Russian doll - open it up and there are more issues inside.
So, for instance; Does Spousal Abuse sit within the larger 'doll' of Female Equality or is it separate? Are Women's Rights the same as the Rights of a Spouse? If I open the 'doll' of Female Equality I can see smaller dolls like Equal Pay and Equal Opportunity. Any ideas would be appreciated. This is an area where society and Christianity can differ.
I think 'Children's Rights' can probably go into the list. There are some Christians here who still believe its OK (or even desirable) to hit a child although I don't see it as a view widely held within Christianity.
Note to Self: would the UN Charter of Human Rights be a good reference source??
OB
We appear to be on a similar wavelength (at least on this topic).I would argue that the big reason Christianity has lost moral authority is because visible Christians were so consistently on the wrong side. Of course this isn't true of all Christians, but the Bible was used to defend slavery, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and discrimination against gays and transgenders.
Until fairly recently, Christians tended to be associated with moral advances. That was surely that case in Roman times, and I think also in absorbing the "barbarians" after Rome. Even in more recent times, Christians took the lead in caring for sick and others who couldn't care for themselves.
Until recently, polls shows that non-Christians might think Christians were deluding themselves about God, but at least they were good people. Today for the first time, non-Christians tend to think of Christians as opposing moral standards.
We appear to be on a similar wavelength (at least on this topic).
I'm in the middle of developing a thread starter based on what I call 'Christian Privilege'. The argument is that Christianity, once the leading moral force, is now so far behind that it actually has been given, or is asking for, the right to behave badly when compared to the rest of society. This includes various forms of discrimination, mysogyny, insulting minorities and special exclusions. Basically a range of behaviours, which would not be tolerated in secular society, justified on the basis of nothing more than Biblical fiat or Christian tradition.
I'm not sure I'll publish the post but it's helped to focus my thinking.
OB
I'm surprised to see you trotting out the "No True Scotsman" argument to demonstrate that American Christians aren't really Christians (BTW - I'm not American).I'd point out that "Christianity" is a whole lot larger than what you see in America. I've spent time in fellowship with Christians in Asian countries where Christianity has never been the default religion, and discovered an entirely difference character of believer. This was nearly as significant for me as Malcolm X's pilgrimage to Mecca was to him in demonstrating "Islam" as he knew it compared to Islam as the rest of the world practiced it. Malcolm was on point about Christianity in the US--but Christianity in the US is not clearly representative of Christ, which Malcolm no more understood than he understood the difference between the Black Muslims and how Islam was practiced in the rest of the world.
What happened in the US is that a certain cultural gang has held power in the US since its inception and that gang's power is now being threatened. But Jesus has never been their way of life, Jesus has merely been one of their gang signs.
I'm surprised to see you trotting out the "No True Scotsman" argument to demonstrate that American Christians aren't really Christians (BTW - I'm not American).
You do realise that this sounds like some kind of weird conspiracy theory?What happened in the US is that a certain cultural gang has held power in the US since its inception and that gang's power is now being threatened. But Jesus has never been their way of life, Jesus has merely been one of their gang signs.
OKThat doesn't mean Christ isn't real, nor does it mean there aren't real Christians in America.
It means there is a cultural gang in America that has been using Jesus as one of their symbols.
I understand what RDKirk is saying. There are people in positions of power and privilege who claim Christianity, and even use it to wield power and influence, who have no radical personal commitment to the reign of God in Christ, but who use their power and influence - even that gained in the name of Christ - to dominate and exploit. It's not that hard to see that in American society, or even in our own, although I think it's much more muted here.
I don't know that it's meant as organised conspiracy, but think about the public face of power in America. Think about how claims to Christianity function (think of how it functions for President Trump); think about how people will vote for claimed Christian identity over and above a policy suite which would enact a Christian agenda.
I think that's the sort of thing he's talking about, and it makes sense to me.
I don't think of the list as something cast in concrete so I'm more than willing to see individual items challenged. @RDKirk has already questioned contraception and I'm not sure that he isn't right. If you see something which you believe doesn't qualify as a 'moral' issue I'm happy to listen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?