When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

When it comes to group dynamics those who are expelled from a group don't believe they have violated the groups rules if they are sincere. There typically isn't consent when a member is forcefully expelled from groups.

I would still argue that in joining the group in the first place, you accepted (consented to) the possibility of removal.

No there aren't.

Of course there are. That's what things like complaints procedures and professional standards bodies are for.

It's no more ethical for party B to exercise authority and power over you than it is for you to exercise authority over them.

If party B is the government, of course it's ethical for government to actually govern. I do appreciate living in a participatory democracy where citizens have some input into that governance; I think that's part of providing a healthy balance and accountability (however flawed it is in reality).

Power doesn't automatically belong to others, it only really belongs to them when we concede it to them.

I'd argue that citizenship in a country is a form of conceding power to the government.

Yet when it comes to power it is used without consent. The governments of the world don't need your consent to exercise power and take your life. They will do so regardless of how you feel.

I'm not saying that everything governments do is automatically right (and taking life would be right up there as an example of misuse of power).

Indeed we do. You're approaching power from a liberal perspective, whereas I am approaching power from a realist and elite theory perspective.

I, at least, can point to Scripture as a reference point for my position, though.

The problem is there are contradictory views about what the common good is and who it benefits. There is no such thing as a society where everyone benefits or is favored. Any appeal to a common good in a pluralist system will be the dismantling of the particular groups which are part of the pluralist system.

I'd argue that we can, at least, aim for a baseline of the common good; for example, (to be really simplistic), to ensure that nobody has to sleep rough. Or that everybody has access to food and safe drinking water. Or that everyone has access to education, or healthcare. That's not about particular groups, but about at least looking at the lowest level of a hierarchy of needs across a society.

You mean things every civilizations has done since the dawn of time? Christians aren't unique in having those things as part of our civilizational heritage.

Doesn't make them right, though.

We are apparently so unique that we ought not have power at all.

Of course that's not what I'm saying. Having power is fine, as long as we don't misuse it.

But if you only see power in the coercion of others, that's a problem. Power is much more fundamental than that, in the sense of simply being able to do things.

If you say we can have power, it can only be power within the frame of the current system which means subordination to said system.

I'm not saying we can't work to change systems; in fact I'd argue we should. But there's a right and a wrong way to do that.

The reason I asked that question specifically is because I am convinced the early Christians would have been willing to die for each other, even if the whole group died rather than deny the name of Christ.

If that were true, we'd never have seen the Donatist movement. Even back then, people were people, with a range of reactions to difficult situations.

Even now you defend the policy and say it was justified, when in retrospect it clearly wasn't and was an overreaction.

That's a matter of opinion. And forgoing gathered worship for a time, is a far cry from idolatrous sacrifice.

 

[ralliann]

Ah, so your issue is that if religious institutions are not vocally denouncing same-sex marriage as "not real marriage," you feel they are undermining your own position?

Undermining my religious freedom. People have lost their jobs etc. over stuff like this. You are helping them do that. And the leadership before you had teachings on homosexuality, which Marriage never was an issue before, at best celibacy was the rule because the relationship was sin period. You don't make it not sin by labeling it with marriage. Neither would have your spiritual leadership before you.
I have not once advocated Homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. Why do they and you insist on threatening mine? Why are they refusing to civil union and partner? Why would I be legally bound to address them as spouses in stead of partner? Why do you?

 

[jayem]

Undermining my religious freedom. People have lost their jobs etc. over stuff like this. You are helping them do that. And the leadership before you had teachings on homosexuality, which Marriage never was an issue before, at best celibacy was the rule because the relationship was sin period. You don't make it not sin by labeling it with marriage. Neither would have your spiritual leadership before you.
I have not once advocated Homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. Why do they and you insist on threatening mine? Why are they refusing to civil union and partner? Why would I be legally bound to address them as spouses in stead of partner? Why do you?

I'm curious. How does designating the legal union of a same-sex couple as a marriage undermine your religious freedom?

 

[stevevw]

I'm a 50s Baby Boomer, and a native Southerner--born and raised in Georgia. Was it a Christian value that black folks couldn't have dinner in a restaurant serving white people? In my home town, gas stations had 3 bathrooms: Men, Women, and Colored. I remember being downtown with my grandmother during a Ku Klux Klan parade. (She told me not to look at them. They were bad people.) Public buildings had a modern water cooler for whites next to an ancient ceramic water fountain marked with a "Colored" sign on the wall. Buses were strictly segregated, and interracial marriage was forbidden by law. And you think the 50s was a time of better morals and values.

I worked in health care 40+ years. During my training, one of our OB professors told us his take on the old days. In most reasonably sized cities, were gynecologists willing to help young ladies who missed a period. If she didn't wait too long, and her family had money, he'd perform a "menstrual extraction" in his office. A quick D & C just to restart her periods. No need for a pregnancy test. It was all very private and discreet. Going farther back in time, I have an antique medical textbook from 1902. Almost 100 pages are devoted to syphilis. Which was estimated to have affected 10% of the US population. A far higher percentage than was ever seen with HIV. The high prevalence of syphilis was why many states required blood tests before issuing a marriage license. And this doesn't include the countless more people with gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, HPV, and the other STIs that weren't yet recognized. For sure, these were the good old days.

Bit like today where they pump kids with chemicals and chop off good body parts to align ones body with their subjective sense of self.

 

[stevevw]

Could well be that the industial revolution changed everything,


before all things revolved around God and having Him in center, but in and with the industrial revolution man replaced God and placed himself in the center.

Something like a Copernicus observation.

Yeah it may well have done similar to how the internet and digital media have done. Maybe as society has become more tech this has given people a sense that we are capable of doing anything and solving any problem and we don't need a God to save us. Maybe it was the start of capitalism which has caused people to be more materialistic and therefore see no need for spirituality.

But I think todays generation have not known the struggles generations had in the past. Life was hard, there were world wars and there wasn't all the comforts we have today. The ironic thing is as we have become more technological and have everything we need and want people are less happy.

 

[Robban]

Yeah it may well have done similar to how the internet and digital media have done. Maybe as society has become more tech this has given people a sense that we are capable of doing anything and solving any problem and we don't need a God to save us. Maybe it was the start of capitalism which has caused people to be more materialistic and therefore see no need for spirituality.

But I think todays generation have not known the struggles generations had in the past. Life was hard, there were world wars and there wasn't all the comforts we have today. The ironic thing is as we have become more technological and have everything we need and want people are less happy.

Aye, I was reminded recently of a stunning prediction by a then 90 year old Norwegian woman, it was spot on.

She most probably passed on years ago, so I did a search on google and found a youtube vid about it.

 

[ralliann]

I'm curious. How does designating the legal union of a same-sex couple as a marriage undermine your religious freedom?

I explained that. A Homosexual couple are not spouses to each other, as husbands and wives. Why isn't partner good enough to signify civil union? Their are betrothals, espousals, Then there are concubines. Should there be legal consequences or penalties to me for not acknowledging their Spouse status?

 

[jayem]

Bit like today where they pump kids with chemicals and chop off good body parts to align ones body with their subjective sense of self.

Where do you hear that stuff? Here’s an article on adolescent gender dysphoria treatment from Stanford Univ. Medical School. A very legitimate source. Learn the real facts.

Better mental health found among transgender people who started hormones as teens

Transgender adults who started gender-affirming hormone therapy as teens had better mental health than those who waited until adulthood or wanted the treatment but never received it, a Stanford-led study found.

med.stanford.edu

 

[Paidiske]

Undermining my religious freedom. People have lost their jobs etc. over stuff like this. You are helping them do that.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. Whether I think it's right to acknowledge a civil marriage or not, does not undermine your ability to hold your own view. And it makes not one whit of difference in anyone else's workplace.

And the leadership before you had teachings on homosexuality, which Marriage never was an issue before, at best celibacy was the rule because the relationship was sin period. You don't make it not sin by labeling it with marriage. Neither would have your spiritual leadership before you.

The question isn't whether it's sinful or not. It's whether a civil same-sex marriage is a legal reality or a fiction. I don't think we do anyone any good by refusing to acknowledge the laws of the countries in which we live.

Why do they and you insist on threatening mine?

I do not accept that I am threatening your rights. We don't even live in the same country!

Why are they refusing to civil union and partner?

Well, not that I've had this conversation with anyone in that situation recently, but I would guess that it is, at least in part, because that's seen as less than marriage. And they're tired of being marginalised and stigmatised.

Why would I be legally bound to address them as spouses in stead of partner?

The only place this would be an issue is in some workplaces. And workplaces are allowed to have policies about this kind of thing. But honestly, for most people, I wouldn't imagine it's a very common situation.

Why do you?

Because they're legally married. Whatever I think of that, their marriage sits on exactly the same legal basis as my own.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I explained that. A Homosexual couple are not spouses to each other, as husbands and wives. Why isn't partner good enough to signify civil union? Their are betrothals, espousals, Then there are concubines. Should there be legal consequences or penalties to me for not acknowledging their Spouse status?

That in no way infringes on your religious freedom.

 

[Whyayeman]

A Homosexual couple are not spouses to each other, as husbands and wives. Why isn't partner good enough to signify civil union?

They are. The civil law says so. And who do you think you are that you feel entitled to deny them the same happiness as other couples?

 

[jayem]

I explained that. A Homosexual couple are not spouses to each other, as husbands and wives. Why isn't partner good enough to signify civil union? Their are betrothals, espousals, Then there are concubines. Should there be legal consequences or penalties to me for not acknowledging their Spouse status?

Do you work for the IRS, or your state or local government, or a bank, brokerage, insurance, or law firm, where part of your job is certifying that a couple is legally married and eligible for certain benefits? If that's not the case, then you have no cause whatsoever to be concerned that you will suffer any consequences for your beliefs.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Maybe as society has become more tech this has given people a sense that we are capable of doing anything and solving any problem and we don't need a God to save us.

We never did need God to save us. What in our egotistical little minds makes us think that among all of the universe's creatures we alone should be saved? As if our existence is far too important to just let it end like everything else's existence does. Well excuse me, but if we're all that important to God, and we can't do it ourselves, then I guess that it's pretty much up to Him, but don't go laying any guilt trip on us, we're just doing what He bloody well designed us to do. And we're doing a pretty good job of it too if you ask me. In fact I'm willing to take that bet... that we don't need God to save us. I can't see where He's been much help so far. So I say let humanity handle it all on its own.

The ironic thing is as we have become more technological and have everything we need and want people are less happy.

And you know this how?

 

[ralliann]

Do you work for the IRS, or your state or local government, or a bank, brokerage, insurance, or law firm, where part of your job is certifying that a couple is legally married and eligible for certain benefits? If that's not the case, then you have no cause whatsoever to be concerned that you will suffer any consequences for your beliefs.

In other words yes?

 

[ralliann]

They are. The civil law says so. And who do you think you are that you feel entitled to deny them the same happiness as other couples?

Doing no such thing. I want to keep my freedom of religion. Civil union gives them all those rights.

 

[ralliann]

That in no way infringes on your religious freedom.

Yes, it can.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, it can.

And how does it do that?

 

[Whyayeman]

Doing no such thing. I want to keep my freedom of religion. Civil union gives them all those rights.

It is not just about rights, it is also a matter of choice. Would you choose civil union over marriage? And deny others the same choice?

Your freedom of worship is a human right. Perhaps you could mount a case to defend your rights as a a Christian against the law as it stands, permitting same sex marriage. I should be interested in how you would frame your case.

The thing is - and I think you know this really - Christians are not privileged over others in a secular state. Perhaps you would be happier in a theocracy. If so you should come clean on it.

 

[ralliann]

It is not just about rights, it is also a matter of choice. Would you choose civil union over marriage?

It gives the same rights. Why do they insist on using a biblical term?

And deny others the same choice?

Your freedom of worship is a human right. Perhaps you could mount a case to defend your rights as a a Christian against the law as it stands, permitting same sex marriage. I should be interested in how you would frame your case.

The thing is - and I think you know this really - Christians are not privileged over others in a secular state. Perhaps you would be happier in a theocracy. If so you should come clean on it.

It is a threat to our religious freedom. No rights are being denied in civil partnership. Don't legally force others to give up their religious rights, nor aid in it being done.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It gives the same rights. Why do they insist on using a biblical term?

It is a threat to our religious freedom. No rights are being denied in civil partnership. Don't legally force others to give up their religious rights, nor aid in it being done.

"Marriage" is not a "biblical term". It is not exclusive to nor derived from the bible. Marriage long pre-dates the bible. Calling a union of two people a "marriage" is not an infringement of your religious rights.