When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

Ah, I think this shows where we are operating from some very different assumptions. I hold the following assumptions (among others):

- Christians are a minority in our society. (I gather that practicing Christians are somewhere less than 10% of the population in Australia).
- By definition, God does not reign over society. Short of a theocracy, that's not going to change. Even if we manage to legislate some "Christian" social norms, it still won't be the case. You can't order society to express the reign of God, without the people in that society actually becoming part of the Kingdom.
- Not only do we have no right to impose our values or morals on the rest of society, it actually is detrimental if we do. Why? Because it doesn't save them. A non-Christian whom we happen to shame and control into avoiding a particular sinful behaviour, is still a person with no relationship with Christ. All we have done is taught them that the church is about shame and control.

Actually I am not talking about a theocracy but rather Western culture freely choosing to follow Christain values throughout history up until around 60 years ago. Now like you say Christainity is deminishing but that has left a void. I am saying that the void is being filled with a New religion that has its own ideological beliefs about the world and morals. I agree that no belief should be forced on society and that its detrimental. That's why people are objecting to this New religion and Christains especially should as it actively destroys Christainity.

Its true that we cannot and should not force people to believe but part of coming to belief is Gods Law. Its there to show how we are sinners and seperated from God. Its what convicts us and establishes the need for salvation. if Gods laws and Truths are undermind then there is no sin. That's why its important to point out Gods Truth as opposed to the New ideology being pushed. In fact if there is any Theocracy at the moment its the New ideology being pushed by the State and its agents because its being enforced and not freely chosen.

- All of the above means that when it comes to social norms, the Church should have three aims; build a healthy community in the church; draw more people into participating in the life of the church and that healthy community; respond to the needs of our neighbours in loving service (which may include working to transform injustice, pursue peace and reconciliation etc). We are not called to try to impose social norms or morals on unwilling non-Christians.

But surely as Christains we should promote Gods Truth for society when it comes to achieving justice and also point out when certain beliefs and ideas being promoted are harmful. Thats part of looking after your neighbours. Like I said there are deifferent views on how we can order society to achieve healthy communities and respond to needs of others which have very different outcomes based on beliefs aned assumptions about the world.

Basically, "we" dont'set the norms and morals for society. And that's okay. That's not what we're called to do.

We don't set them but there is a public battle of belief about what norms and morals are best for society and always has been. As Christains we have a say on this and would be irresponsible not to. We can't force people to follow Christain values but we can certainly put forward Gods Word and stand behind it. The problem is the Christain voice is being silenced and as a natural consequence people are standing up because they believe that its too important a Truth to be cancelled.

I think that's an over-simplification (on both sides). Be that as it may, I find that an ethic of human flourishing is one which resonates more broadly than just within the church. Then we can work together on what building a flourishing society looks like.

But what is human flourishing. I think this even has some differences in what Christainity believes is flourishing and what the secular world and the New ideology believes. Is not the destinction important to note.

I think you're looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses, there. Patterns of violence might have shifted, but there have always been people who lived under significant threat of violence.

Yes thats true. But I was thinking more about how the public square has become violent. Not just violence associated with domestic violence or with men behaving badly but generally as a tactic to shut people down in public discourse. We use to at least be civil and courteous and agreed to disagree. Now it seems holding certain views aed expressing them is itself regarded as violence. So society has become more divided to the extremes and there is little middle ground.

People have realized their power through social media and can destroy peoples lives. People want to physically assault people not because they have physically attacked them or deone something so horrific but for personal views. Not because they are hateful but because they are different and opposing and threaten their sense of identity.

Hmm. I personally would say I've encountered far more violence, hatred, intimidation, and so on, from Christians/conservatives, than from the other direction.

I am surprised you say Christains are more violent. I find that a little counter intuitive. I know some can go to the extreme and be dogmatic in belief but I am not sure that is violence. I would hope that the majority of Christains are trying to follow Christs example or at least be aiming for that.

I think the majority of Christains today are pretty silent when it comes to certain issues. They don't want to get involved in the politics. They have learnt that expressing your belief can get you in trouble so its not worth it. Most I've encountereed are actually quietly working in the background helping others as religion has edeone for millenia. people forget that.

Well, that's because that's what Christians have shown them.

Not just Christains but also other religions around the worled. I think 9/11 changed the worlds attitude to religion in general. But I think Christainity has also shown a great amount of good which needs to be balanced against that bad. But what I am talking about is edifferent. Its more a reaction to the Truth of Goeds Wor. The Bible tells us that non christains will hate Gods Truth because it exposes sin.

Honestly, I mean looking at - for example - the Christians campaigning now to keep conversion therapy legal, you bet that's a threat to society (or some of the most vulnerable in society).

I think they are not campaigning for Conversion Therapy as in the old Gay Conversion Therapy. They are actually saying that when it comes to issues like GD we should be able to investigate all possible methods of helping people and not just be forced to use the Affirming and Transition model. But some have twisted this to mean Gay Conversion Therapy which is completely different. For one the alternative methods for GD are scientific and not belief based.

If there is any Conversion Therapy happening today in society which uses belief to force people to be converted its the Affirming and Transition model because it forces everyone including families, professionals and the GD person even if they are not Trans down the Trans care model making non Trans kids who may be Gay into Trans. Thats Gay Conversion Therapy and yet its not just advocated for but put into law.

This is a good example of the different positions on this in society and the contested way in which as you said helps people thrive based on two different approaches which have completely different outcomes. This same opposite moral position can be applied to a number of important issues in society as to what is the Truth of the matter.

stevevw said:

What would hate speech be, if not "words and language"?

Obviously its the meaning and belief about what those words represent that makes it hate speech or not. What I am saying is that this New Woke religion takes ownership of words and language and changes them according to what they believe is Truth and reality. Which happens to be different to what Conservative Traditional Christains think is Truth and reality and which has stood for millennia.

Like the word 'Women' or 'Sex' or the meaning of 'Human Life' which has been hijacked and made into something new so not to offend. So now when people say the word Women for example it is seen as hate speech or that Human Life begins at conception its denying womens rights.

And if you can't have a conversation with getting into hate speech, that would be a problem, no?

Of course its a problem and this shows that society has a big problem with even talking to each other. We are divided along ideological lines about how humans and society should be ordered. As I mentioned this division has only happened to this extent in the last 20 or 30 years and I think will get worse.

 

[Paidiske]

Actually I am not talking about a theocracy but rather Western culture freely choosing to follow Christain values throughout history up until around 60 years ago.

Only kind of, though. We've never really had a thoroughly Christian society. I remember a lecturer of mine pointing out, for example, that medieval kings routinely avoided having their armies fast (the prescribed penance for engaging in warfare) because it would have weakened their fighting capacity.

I am saying that the void is being filled with a New religion that has its own ideological beliefs about the world and morals.

I agree that there is, broadly, a set of emerging social norms. I think it's going far too far to describe that as a "new religion."

That's why people are objecting to this New religion and Christains especially should as it actively destroys Christainity.

No, it doesn't. Christianity is not being destroyed. It is changing, but then it's always been changing since Christ ascended.

Its true that we cannot and should not force people to believe but part of coming to belief is Gods Law. Its there to show how we are sinners and seperated from God. Its what convicts us and establishes the need for salvation.

I think it's the other way around. Once we appreciate our separation from God, and come seeking reconciliation, we can begin to see the wisdom in the law (whether that's the two great commandments or the whole OT shebang). Telling people they're sinners, on its own, never got anyone one micron closer to God. Why would they want to be closer to a God who rejects them?

if Gods laws and Truths are undermind then there is no sin.

So let me get this straight; you want a society which orders its laws and social norms on religious laws and social norms, in order to create mass consciousness of sinfulness, and thus drive people into God's arms?

As an evangelistic strategy, I think it's terrible and more likely to backfire than bear much fruit. As a contribution to the common good, I think it's suspect.

But surely as Christains we should promote Gods Truth for society when it comes to achieving justice and also point out when certain beliefs and ideas being promoted are harmful.

If, say, you're talking about the truth of the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, sure. We can build a humanist ethic that can be appreciated by people of faith, and people of no faith, alike (remembering that western humanism has deeply Christian roots). If you're talking about "my religion says that thing you like to do is bad, so you shouldn't be allowed to do it," then no, I don't think we should be pushing for that in society. The measure of "harm" has to be objective and not merely that something transgresses a religious taboo.

The problem is the Christain voice is being silenced

I really don't buy this. Christian pulpits are occupied, often several times a week. Christians engage in various forms of publishing, from the very sophisticated to the very informal. We use all kinds of media. When we want to make our views known, there are plenty of Christians who have shown they're more than willing to put themselves out there.

For a "silenced" group, we have a very great deal to say. (Says me, who preaches at least four times a week, puts my sermons and other content on FB, participates in informal discussions and online forums, as well as having a voice in other ways).

And you know the grand irony of that? The only group who consistently want to silence me are Christians who take issue with a Christian woman's voice. So I'm inclined to say, don't talk to me about Christians being silenced!

But what is human flourishing. I think this even has some differences in what Christainity believes is flourishing and what the secular world and the New ideology believes. Is not the destinction important to note.

I think we can get to that, once we get past trying to impose Christian morals on everyone. Because coercion does not promote flourishing.

Yes thats true. But I was thinking more about how the public square has become violent. Not just violence associated with domestic violence or with men behaving badly but generally as a tactic to shut people down in public discourse. We use to at least be civil and courteous and agreed to disagree.

Oh please. Just yesterday, a colleague of mine was telling me about the death threats, bomb threats, and violent protest at her ordination some years ago. Again, all of this from supposed Christians! So don't try to tell me the public square didn't used to be violent, or that it's only non-Christians who are violent.

Now it seems holding certain views aed expressing them is itself regarded as violence.

There's a time and place. I've talked to protestors outside abortion clinics, for example, who truly believed they were being loving to the women they harassed. They could not see the intimidation and genuine fear they were causing to already incredibly suffering women (and from my perspective as a neutral observer sympathetic to the pro-life position, their behaviour was atrocious). It's not their views, on their own, that were the problem, but the way they were expressing them was a problem for sure.

I am surprised you say Christains are more violent. I find that a little counter intuitive. I know some can go to the extreme and be dogmatic in belief but I am not sure that is violence. I would hope that the majority of Christains are trying to follow Christs example or at least be aiming for that.

I've given you a couple of examples in this post, and I have more. I am quite comfortable to repeat, I have known far more violence, intimidation and hatred from Christians, than from non-Christians.

I think they are not campaigning for Conversion Therapy as in the old Gay Conversion Therapy.

Please, just don't even. Conversion therapy is real, it continues to happen, and it needs to stop. I see far too many people in my pastoral care who have been deeply wounded and scarred by it. Christians who campaign against outlawing it, seemingly put "religious freedom" above the safety of vulnerable children, and then we wonder why wider society takes issue with our hypocrisy!

What I am saying is that this New Woke religion takes ownership of words and language and changes them according to what they believe is Truth and reality. Which happens to be different to what Conservative Traditional Christains think is Truth and reality and which has stood for millennia.

Well, the semantic range of words has always been something which changes and develops. We'll work that out over time without needing to turn it into a massive culture war.

But we also need to keep some perspective. Conservative/traditional Christians have not held unchanging views for millennia, on almost any matter. It's okay to acknowledge that our thinking, too, has undergone significant development and change.

So now when people say the word Women for example it is seen as hate speech

You're seriously misrepresenting some very complex issues, there.

or that Human Life begins at conception its denying womens rights.

No, it's not denying women's rights to say that human life begins at conception. However, certain actions you take on the basis of that belief may well deny women's rights. There's a nuanced conversation to have there, too.

Of course its a problem and this shows that society has a big problem with even talking to each other.

I was making a different point, about taking personal responsibility for our communication style, and shaping our words to avoid even the perception of hate speech. Our speech should be always respectful, compassionate, and peaceful.

 

[Whyayeman]

No it is not. Not to me and many others. That's the same issue with attending a gay wedding. It doesn't bother you, ok. It does bother others. Who is making someone's beliefs to conform?

I think you just don't want gay people to have the same rights as you. In the unlikely event of you being invited to a gay wedding - just don't go! The happy couple will still get married without you.

(Or you could attend and scowl your way through the day, protesting that your human right to worship has been somehow abridged by everybody there.)

 

[Whyayeman]

Actually I am not talking about a theocracy but rather Western culture freely choosing to follow Christain values throughout history up until around 60 years ago.

You are wrong there. Humanist ideas were challenging the Christian orthodoxy from the Renaissance. The Enlightenment has been advancing ever since, with orthodox Christians resisting every new idea and challenging every scientific and rational dialogue since Galileo.

It may be that by the second half of the Twentieth Century something of a tipping point occurred as numbers of people in many countries, including my own, distanced themselves from religious institutions. It seems that many Christians seem to regard themselves as outnumbered these days.

 

[ralliann]

I don't understand. Unless someone is forcing you to attend a gay wedding (in which case there are other issues going on), nobody is forcing you to conform to their views. Your conscience is not being violated.

So, because your conscience is not bothered, nobody else should be bothered by it either?

 

[Paidiske]

So, because your conscience is not bothered, nobody else should be bothered by it either?

Being bothered by it, and having your conscience violated, are two different things. What, precisely, are you being forced to do, that you believe is wrong for you to do? If you can outline a specific scenario, rather than speaking in vague generalities, that would help us understand. Because I doubt anyone is forcing you to attend a same-sex wedding.

 

[ralliann]

I think you just don't want gay people to have the same rights as you. In the unlikely event of you being invited to a gay wedding - just don't go! The happy couple will still get married without you.

(Or you could attend and scowl your way through the day, protesting that your human right to worship has been somehow abridged by everybody there.)

You see you are judging me as a liar? Look at how I am being accused of all kinds of stuff in here ( a christian forum). Either I speak with respect to what Scripture calls sin, or I am bad, hateful Got it.

 

[ralliann]

Being bothered by it, and having your conscience violated, are two different things. What, precisely, are you being forced to do, that you believe is wrong for you to do? If you can outline a specific scenario, rather than speaking in vague generalities, that would help us understand. Because I doubt anyone is forcing you to attend a same-sex wedding.

I gave you one.

 

[ralliann]

This is about your apparent desire to be bigoted. From the post above this response (#108) your whole thing is just a hypothetical. In that case is just a manufactured scenario to make an empty claim of religious discrimination. How am I wrong? (or am I not?)

What it is about what you think, about my beliefs. Is the Christian God a bigot? His teachings and judgments bigotted?

 

[Bradskii]

I gave you one.

You said it was hypothetical. Do you have an actual example?

 

[ralliann]

Actually I am not talking about a theocracy but rather Western culture freely choosing to follow Christain values throughout history up until around 60 years ago. Now like you say Christainity is deminishing but that has left a void. I am saying that the void is being filled with a New religion that has its own ideological beliefs about the world and morals. I agree that no belief should be forced on society and that its detrimental. That's why people are objecting to this New religion and Christains especially should as it actively destroys Christainity.

Its true that we cannot and should not force people to believe but part of coming to belief is Gods Law. Its there to show how we are sinners and seperated from God. Its what convicts us and establishes the need for salvation. if Gods laws and Truths are undermind then there is no sin. That's why its important to point out Gods Truth as opposed to the New ideology being pushed. In fact if there is any Theocracy at the moment its the New ideology being pushed by the State and its agents because its being enforced and not freely chosen.

But surely as Christains we should promote Gods Truth for society when it comes to achieving justice and also point out when certain beliefs and ideas being promoted are harmful. Thats part of looking after your neighbours. Like I said there are deifferent views on how we can order society to achieve healthy communities and respond to needs of others which have very different outcomes based on beliefs aned assumptions about the world.

We don't set them but there is a public battle of belief about what norms and morals are best for society and always has been. As Christains we have a say on this and would be irresponsible not to. We can't force people to follow Christain values but we can certainly put forward Gods Word and stand behind it. The problem is the Christain voice is being silenced and as a natural consequence people are standing up because they believe that its too important a Truth to be cancelled.

But what is human flourishing. I think this even has some differences in what Christainity believes is flourishing and what the secular world and the New ideology believes. Is not the destinction important to note.

Yes thats true. But I was thinking more about how the public square has become violent. Not just violence associated with domestic violence or with men behaving badly but generally as a tactic to shut people down in public discourse. We use to at least be civil and courteous and agreed to disagree. Now it seems holding certain views aed expressing them is itself regarded as violence. So society has become more divided to the extremes and there is little middle ground.

People have realized their power through social media and can destroy peoples lives. People want to physically assault people not because they have physically attacked them or deone something so horrific but for personal views. Not because they are hateful but because they are different and opposing and threaten their sense of identity.

I am surprised you say Christains are more violent. I find that a little counter intuitive. I know some can go to the extreme and be dogmatic in belief but I am not sure that is violence. I would hope that the majority of Christains are trying to follow Christs example or at least be aiming for that.

I think the majority of Christains today are pretty silent when it comes to certain issues. They don't want to get involved in the politics. They have learnt that expressing your belief can get you in trouble so its not worth it. Most I've encountereed are actually quietly working in the background helping others as religion has edeone for millenia. people forget that.

Not just Christains but also other religions around the worled. I think 9/11 changed the worlds attitude to religion in general. But I think Christainity has also shown a great amount of good which needs to be balanced against that bad. But what I am talking about is edifferent. Its more a reaction to the Truth of Goeds Wor. The Bible tells us that non christains will hate Gods Truth because it exposes sin.

I think they are not campaigning for Conversion Therapy as in the old Gay Conversion Therapy. They are actually saying that when it comes to issues like GD we should be able to investigate all possible methods of helping people and not just be forced to use the Affirming and Transition model. But some have twisted this to mean Gay Conversion Therapy which is completely different. For one the alternative methods for GD are scientific and not belief based.

If there is any Conversion Therapy happening today in society which uses belief to force people to be converted its the Affirming and Transition model because it forces everyone including families, professionals and the GD person even if they are not Trans down the Trans care model making non Trans kids who may be Gay into Trans. Thats Gay Conversion Therapy and yet its not just advocated for but put into law.

This is a good example of the different positions on this in society and the contested way in which as you said helps people thrive based on two different approaches which have completely different outcomes. This same opposite moral position can be applied to a number of important issues in society as to what is the Truth of the matter.


Obviously its the meaning and belief about what those words represent that makes it hate speech or not. What I am saying is that this New Woke religion takes ownership of words and language and changes them according to what they believe is Truth and reality. Which happens to be different to what Conservative Traditional Christains think is Truth and reality and which has stood for millennia.

Like the word 'Women' or 'Sex' or the meaning of 'Human Life' which has been hijacked and made into something new so not to offend. So now when people say the word Women for example it is seen as hate speech or that Human Life begins at conception its denying womens rights.

Of course its a problem and this shows that society has a big problem with even talking to each other. We are divided along ideological lines about how humans and society should be ordered. As I mentioned this division has only happened to this extent in the last 20 or 30 years and I think will get worse.

Yes, that is my concern. Speech now is considered violence, and hate. Being legislated against.

 

[ralliann]

You said it was hypothetical. Do you have an actual example?

I work with a same sex couple. They introduce me to their "spouse". They of course are going to refer to them as the same as a heterosexual spouse. I a do not want to speak of that as equal as a Christian. So I either avoid that by calling each by their name, etc. Bobs husband, becomes Bob and mike instead. Or if it is an unavoidable to use "married", Legal partner etc can be used.

 

[Bradskii]

I work with a same sex couple. They introduce me to their "spouse". They of course are going to refer to them as the same as a heterosexual spouse. I a do not want to speak of that as equal as a Christian. So I either avoid that by calling each by their name, etc. Bobs husband, becomes Bob and mike instead. Or if it is an unavoidable to use "married", Legal partner etc can be used.

You avoid using terms which you feel would compromise your position as regards same sex marriage but you are polite to the couple. You are respectful. And I trust that they are equally respectful to you.

No-one is forcing you to do anything that would contradict your personal beliefs. I'm not seeing a problem here...

 

[ralliann]

You avoid using terms which you feel would compromise your position as regards same sex marriage but you are polite to the couple. You are respectful. And I trust that they are equally respectful to you.

No-one is forcing you to do anything that would contradict your personal beliefs. I'm not seeing a problem here...

I am not in that situation, it is hypothetical. If I could get fired, or some other punishment legally, it is force. People have lost their jobs over stuff similar. It is the way our culture has gone the last few years.
I see similar in this thread. No matter what I have said concerning civil union and rights being the same, I am still accused of some hidden desire to be a bigot and all kinds of hateful. It does not really matter what I think or why, nor that I do not want them to have rights. They just know I desire "bad". This is a problem.

 

[Bradskii]

I am not in that situation, it is hypothetical. If I could get fired, or some other punishment legally, it is force. People have lost their jobs over stuff similar. It is the way our culture has gone the last few years.
I see similar in this thread. No matter what I have said concerning civil union and rights being the same, I am still accused of some hidden desire to be a bigot and all kinds of hateful. It does not really mateer what I think or why, nor that I do not want them to have rights. They just know I desire "bad". this is a problem.

I asked for an actual example because you implied that you had been forced to do something. I guess that hasn't actually happened. But if your hypothetical is a good example of what concerns you (and why propose it if it didn't) then again I don't see a problem. You wouldn't be forced to describe them as married. You could, as you say, simply refer to Bob's partner as...Bob's partner.

If you are respectful and polite to them then they will be the same in return to you. Where is the problem as you see it?

 

[ralliann]

I asked for an actual example because you implied that you had been forced to do something. I guess that hasn't actually happened.

Here we go. Several post's back I spoke of hypothetical. What the heck does this matter?

But if your hypothetical is a good example of what concerns you (and why propose it if it didn't) then again I don't see a problem.

It is an example yes, of similar things having occurred.

You wouldn't be forced to describe them as married.

Bakers, have been sued etc, for not making same sex wedding cakes. We have seen peoples jobs threatened over gender pronouns, kids in school etc. Similar things......

You could, as you say, simply refer to Bob's partner as...Bob's partner.

If you are respectful and polite to them then they will be the same in return to you. Where is the problem as you see it?

The above.

 

[Paidiske]

Several post's back I spoke of hypothetical. What the heck does this matter?

I think if someone is going to complain that their religious freedom is being lost, their conscience violated, they need to show an actual example in which that's happening. Not say, "Oh, but this situation could arise." It could arise, but with a bit of care, it won't. So then all the claims about religious freedom and conscience and so forth are shown to be fairly hollow.

The complaint then boils down to, "I don't like that I have to be careful in how I relate to people respectfully." Sorry, that's not a loss of religious freedom or a conscience issue. It's common decency, not to mention, loving one's neighbour.

 

[Bradskii]

Here we go. Several post's back I spoke of hypothetical. What the heck does this matter?

It's best to deal with actual examples. If you don't have any then making up hypotheticals can helpful in dealing with problems in a general sense. Which we just did. But you are in effect saying that you haven't directly experienced any.

Bakers, have been sued etc, for not making same sex wedding cakes. We have seen peoples jobs threatened over gender pronouns, kids in school etc. Similar things......

I'd guess that you're not a baker, so you don't have to worry about that. And if someone is introduced to you as Mary, the new woman in accounts, then use she and her. I don't see a problem in simply being polite. And if someone you know is having serious difficulties in regards to transgender problems then I'd like to think that you'd do your best not to exacerbate those difficulties.

My niece is transgender. Or maybe I should be calling her a him and referring to him as my nephew. In any case, you wouldn't know that she was a biological female a few years ago. You wouldn't think that he was anything but a normal looking guy. So you'd automatically use he and him. Would you refuse to do that if you somehow knew he was transgender man?

 

[ralliann]

It's best to deal with actual examples. If you don't have any then making up hypotheticals can helpful in dealing with problems in a general sense. Which we just did. But you are in effect saying that you haven't directly experienced any.

I'd guess that you're not a baker, so you don't have to worry about that. And if someone is introduced to you as Mary, the new woman in accounts, then use she and her. I don't see a problem in simply being polite. And if someone you know is having serious difficulties in regards to transgender problems then I'd like to think that you'd do your best not to exacerbate those difficulties.

My niece is transgender. Or maybe I should be calling her a him and referring to him as my nephew. In any case, you wouldn't know that she was a biological female a few years ago. You wouldn't think that he was anything but a normal looking guy. So you'd automatically use he and him. Would you refuse to do that if you somehow knew he was transgender man?

If they have had surgery, and appear as the sex they identify with, then fine. If not, no.

I take my children to Church, they are taught this.

Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Go to school, or introduced to a co-worker. That goes out the window. They are forced in schools to address males as females, females as males, in many different ways.
But since it did not happen to me personally, can't talk about it happening.
Who is supposed to listen to what has happened to your Neice? It was not you it happened to.
Done here. Good day all.

 

[ralliann]

I think if someone is going to complain that their religious freedom is being lost, their conscience violated, they need to show an actual example in which that's happening. Not say, "Oh, but this situation could arise." It could arise, but with a bit of care, it won't. So then all the claims about religious freedom and conscience and so forth are shown to be fairly hollow.

The complaint then boils down to, "I don't like that I have to be careful in how I relate to people respectfully." Sorry, that's not a loss of religious freedom or a conscience issue. It's common decency, not to mention, loving one's neighbour.

How would you know? You are speaking of something that did not or does not happen to you. There is no more left to discuss.
Do you teach this scripture of natural law ?

Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Tho in the history of nations homosexuality was not only known, but in some cultures broadly accepted (Greek), not a one I am aware of even considered "marriage" for them. The natual results of the relationship was different between the two.

But since none of us today never lived when these things happened, we just won't discuss it. Good day.
Rules for thee, not for me...... Oh yes, this has happened to me!