When two worldviews collide.

[Hans Blaster]

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

I can't say that I disagree with those questions, but that isn't really the issue here, now is it?

What our friction comes down to is that you keep insisting that the actions of the government (recognition of SSM) violates *your* religious freedom. You give examples that turn out to by hypotheticals, though you portray them for so long like they are actual events from you life, e.g., you've been denied promotion/fired for your actions/attitude/beliefs. And the examples (real or imagined) wouldn't even be religious discrimination.

Frankly I don't care if you want to sit in the pews ruminating about how two men don't make a couple. It matters not to me. (What do I care what happens in churches? It's all meaningless to me anyway.) What I do care about is your claim that government actions violate your religious rights and any remedy you'd like to protect yourself.

 

[ralliann]

I can't say that I disagree with those questions, but that isn't really the issue here, now is it?

What our friction comes down to is that you keep insisting that the actions of the government (recognition of SSM) violates *your* religious freedom. You give examples that turn out to by hypotheticals, though you portray them for so long like they are actual events from you life, e.g., you've been denied promotion/fired for your actions/attitude/beliefs. And the examples (real or imagined) wouldn't even be religious discrimination.

Frankly I don't care if you want to sit in the pews ruminating about how two men don't make a couple. It matters not to me. (What do I care what happens in churches? It's all meaningless to me anyway.) What I do care about is your claim that government actions violate your religious rights and any remedy you'd like to protect yourself.

These things have happened. We hear about it through the news media. That I speak as "I" as hypthetical, makes no difference here. It is petty. I have also used "you" , and spoke of hypotheticals to those things. Since someone assumed I was literally talking about them. We are hearing all the time in the news these things really happening. Parents and lawyers for parents (and students). It is called "putting oneself in their shoes". There are those which have done that since the beginning of this thread. Talking about things that have not happened to them personally. It is a petty way, to criticize me myself as an individual person (bigot) as well as my comments (invalid, and dishonest). There are non homosexual individuals in here speaking concerning these issues. None of it applies to them personally. These same do not have any conviction of conscience, or even what they teach small children, and then having that overturned. They have not apparently had that conviction/ or problem of teaching their kids happen to them. Never the less, they go on and on. So, I am done here, say what you all will, as I am sure you will. Good day to you.

 

[ralliann]

I can't say that I disagree with those questions, but that isn't really the issue here, now is it?

What our friction comes down to is that you keep insisting that the actions of the government (recognition of SSM) violates *your* religious freedom. You give examples that turn out to by hypotheticals, though you portray them for so long like they are actual events from you life, e.g., you've been denied promotion/fired for your actions/attitude/beliefs. And the examples (real or imagined) wouldn't even be religious discrimination.

Frankly I don't care if you want to sit in the pews ruminating about how two men don't make a couple. It matters not to me. (What do I care what happens in churches? It's all meaningless to me anyway.) What I do care about is your claim that government actions violate your religious rights and any remedy you'd like to protect yourself.

These things have happened. We hear about it through the news media. That I speak as I as hypthetical, makes no difference here. It is petty. We are hearing all the time in the news. Parents and lawyers for parents (and students). It is called "putting oneself in their shoes". There are those which have done that since the beginning of this thread. Talking about things that have not happened to them personally. It is a petty way, to criticize me myself as an individual person (bigot) as well as my comments (invalid, and dishonest). There are non homosexual individuals in here speaking concerning these issues. None of it applies to them personally. These same do not have any conviction of conscience, or even what they teach small children, and then having that overturned. They have not apparently had that conviction/ or problem of teaching their kids happen to them. Never the less, they go on and on. So, I am done here, say what you all will. Good day to you.

I can't say that I disagree with those questions, but that isn't really the issue here, now is it?

Thank you Hans. I do appreciate your sincere honesty here. This is really what it all boils down to.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thank you Hans. I do appreciate your sincere honesty here. This is really what it all boils down to.

I just told you that's not what this argument is about, but you are very stubborn aren't you.

It doesn't matter to our conversation how bigoted I think or don't think your religion, god, or scriptures are or are not. What matters, and what is at issue, is the claim that the civil rights of others (in this case for same-sex couples to marry) infringe on your religious freedom. Your examples do not illustrate this, but rather the example persons demonstrate ill behavior towards others and sanctions related to them.

 

[ralliann]

I just told you that's not what this argument is about, but you are very stubborn aren't you.

And I am telling you it is. One standard for yourself, and another for me. It is exactly about this. Who's stubborn here?

It doesn't matter to our conversation how bigoted I think or don't think your religion, god, or scriptures are or are not.

How dictatorial of you. What scripture and God says to me is all about this.
Why are you dictating what it si about "for me"
Here is a parents commandment........ This is what we are to do........

Pr 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Col 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Eph 6:1 ¶ Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

What matters, and what is at issue, is the claim that the civil rights of others (in this case for same-sex couples to marry) infringe on your religious freedom. Your examples do not illustrate this, but rather the example persons demonstrate ill behavior towards others and sanctions related to them.

What matters is what my religion says to me. But you say that is not the/an issue? WOW! Now I am a stubborn bigot. I am just plain bad aren't I?
I teach my kids and train them up in the Lord, as I am commanded. They are commanded to obey.
But I send them to school and What have we seen happening? No gender other than that what you feel, all kinds of genders. Shower with whomever wants to shower there, gender does not really exist other than the mind. Gay marriage and relations are not sin, that's bigotry. On and on. Does not matter what my religion dictates. I am cancelled because you say so, and You will form my childrens mind and ethics.
That is all i am seeing here. that is the issue here, thats the bottom line.
How we are to respond in civil society. You don't have a clue what religious rights you desire to deny me. You have already said, you don't care what my scripture says. Who is the bigot?

 

[Bradskii]

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

So if someone doesn't look like your idea of what a woman or a man looks like, then you'll use whatever pronouns you think are applicable.

Sounds like a risky business to me. But that's your call. You'll be judged on it.

 

[ralliann]

So if someone doesn't look like your idea of what a woman or a man looks like, then you'll use whatever pronouns you think are applicable.

Sounds like a risky business to me. But that's your call. You'll be judged on it.

No that is not the point of my post, but go ahead judge it anyway.

 

[Paidiske]

How would you know? You are speaking of something that did not or does not happen to you.

But by your own admission, it doesn't happen to you, either.

I will be the first to stand up and defend religious freedom, even when that's seen as unreasonable by those who don't share that religion. But I honestly do not see that you are losing any religious freedom here. You are free to believe as you do, you are free to act in accordance with that belief. On occasion you may need to be sensitive in how you do that, so as to avoid discourtesy to others.

There's no loss of religious freedom here.

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.

I have preached on both of those texts. But that seems rather beside the point.

There are non homosexual individuals in here speaking concerning these issues. None of it applies to them personally.

The question of colliding worldivews certainly applies, as I have to minister across the breadth of worldviews. And all of us have to live with that breadth as part of our social landscape.

I am cancelled because you say so, and You will form my childrens mind and ethics.
That is all i am seeing here. that is the issue here, thats the bottom line.

If that's the issue, then you have options. You don't have to send your children to any particular school, or any school at all, if it means that much to you. That said, our children's exposure to ideas other than our own is, again, not a loss of religious freedom. Part of our responsibility as parents is to teach our children to navigate a world of complex and competing ideas. Trying to shelter them from that, usually ends badly.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So I think this is a fight for Truth and there can only be one Truth. But today truth has lost all meaning and personal truth has become the only truth. But I think the Truth as in the one Truth we all know is real will shine through in the end, but its going to be a fight in the meantime where many false ideas will seem to win out and may fool many.

But what makes your truth truthier than anyone else's truth? I am a believer and yet I can sympathize with others who have rejected "Churchism's religion" because of any number of abuses.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"I don't like that I have to be careful in how I relate to people respectfully."

I think you nailed it. Some people see that care as a limitation of their freedom.

 

[timothyu]

I think you nailed it. Some people see that care as a limitation of their freedom.

Water used to seek it's own level. Today we are expected to believe it runs uphill.

 

[Bradskii]

No that is not the point of my post...

I'm afraid I can't interpret it any other way. If someone looks like a woman in your opinion then you'll use female pronouns. If someone doesn't, in your opinion (who else could decide except you), then you won't.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Water used to seek it's own level. Today we are expected to believe it runs uphill.

That is where you are wrong. We are not expected to believe anything. Rather, we are expected to respect the beliefs of others.

 

[timothyu]

Or like with Dame Edna, Barry Humphries would insist you see him as playing a female character.

 

[Bradskii]

Or like with Dame Edna, Barry Humphries would insist you see him as playing a female character.

An obvious parody, for the purpose of entertainment.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Before entering the main body of my response, I again remind the respondent that my interest has only been in the question of how any person's religious liberty is impinged by the civil liberties of a different person. That is "how does the civil rights of Person B infringe the religious freedom of Person A?" It is not clear that the question is understood.

And I am telling you it is. One standard for yourself, and another for me. It is exactly about this. Who's stubborn here?

It's not about different standards for different persons in this conversation, it is about the topic of the interaction.

How dictatorial of you.

I have no power here. I can only choose to respond or not respond to a post, even one directed at me. It is the same power you have in this conversation -- stay or leave. Read, or ignore.

Now on to some tenants of your beliefs. (The ones that don't interest me, because they don't impact the topic of the original inquiry about rights.) Let's see what you wrote...

What scripture and God says to me is all about this.
Why are you dictating what it si about "for me"
Here is a parents commandment........ This is what we are to do........

Pr 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Col 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.

Eph 6:1 ¶ Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

And I've never that you aren't free to believe any of this or raise children in that fashion.

What matters is what my religion says to me.

To the extent that it motivates you, but the line you are responding to is about the alleged conflict of rights, not the details of belief.

But you say that is not the/an issue? WOW! Now I am a stubborn bigot. I am just plain bad aren't I?

Are you trying to give the most unfavorable reading of my statements? As I said in my previous message (to which this line is a reply) bigotry is not the issue, either way. Again it is the alleged conflict of rights.

I teach my kids and train them up in the Lord, as I am commanded. They are commanded to obey.
But I send them to school and What have we seen happening? No gender other than that what you feel, all kinds of genders. Shower with whomever wants to shower there, gender does not really exist other than the mind. Gay marriage and relations are not sin, that's bigotry. On and on. Does not matter what my religion dictates. I am cancelled because you say so, and You will form my childrens mind and ethics.

I have no interest in, nor could I, "cancel you". Or telling you how to practice your faith. You have your opinions, other have theirs and you each have opinions of the other from their opinions. No ones freedoms are impinged (religious or otherwise) by having those opinions.

That is all i am seeing here. that is the issue here, thats the bottom line.
How we are to respond in civil society.

That's a good question. How should we respond in civil society. How can we deal with the civil rights of others even if we disagree with them?

You don't have a clue what religious rights you desire to deny me.

You fail to document religious rights that are being denied or would be denied.

You have already said, you don't care what my scripture says. Who is the bigot?

I don't care what anyone's scripture says. That's not about bigotry, I just find religion and religious texts exceedingly boring. Never have been interested in such things. I'm not interested in the writings of the Bronte sisters or rodeos either.

 

[ralliann]

But by your own admission, it doesn't happen to you, either.

I will be the first to stand up and defend religious freedom, even when that's seen as unreasonable by those who don't share that religion. But I honestly do not see that you are losing any religious freedom here. You are free to believe as you do, you are free to act in accordance with that belief. On occasion you may need to be sensitive in how you do that, so as to avoid discourtesy to others.

There's no loss of religious freedom here.

I have preached on both of those texts. But that seems rather beside the point.


The question of colliding worldivews certainly applies, as I have to minister across the breadth of worldviews. And all of us have to live with that breadth as part of our social landscape.


If that's the issue, then you have options. You don't have to send your children to any particular school, or any school at all, if it means that much to you. That said, our children's exposure to ideas other than our own is, again, not a loss of religious freedom. Part of our responsibility as parents is to teach our children to navigate a world of complex and competing ideas. Trying to shelter them from that, usually ends badly.

These are your opinions........ Just today, go over to the Orthodox forum and read. an Orthodox in New York has just been suspended for two days over signing a training document for his employer concerning Gender training. Go look at it then tell me his religious freedom is not being threatened. As for being more sensative? How sensative are you to tell me what I should be convicted of? And who spoke to me about not having it happen to me personally? Yet you could do the same, along with certain others in here. So I called you on it. Go over to the Orthodox forum and peddle this stuff to the person ready to sacrifice his job right now! It is happening to him personally.

 

[ralliann]

I'm afraid I can't interpret it any other way. If someone looks like a woman in your opinion then you'll use female pronouns. If someone doesn't, in your opinion (who else could decide except you), then you won't.

Because I don't have to that's why. They have altered themselves and their body to look like a woman. Why would I even know? How many women I have met that way I haven't a clue. I don't need to explain anything to a child or anything else. So why would I care what they have privately done to themselves?
That's why. It is not obviously a man in womans clothing, demanding to be addressed as to what they obviously are not.

 

[timothyu]

An obvious parody, for the purpose of entertainment.

That parody line is increasingly difficult to discern, including for those doing it

 

[Bradskii]

Because I don't have to that's why. They have altered themselves and their body to look like a woman. Why would I even know? How many women I have met that way I haven't a clue. I don't need to explain anything to a child or anything else. So why would I care what they have privately done to themselves?
That's why. It is not obviously a man in womans clothing, demanding to be addressed as to what they obviously are not.

You are now saying that there's no problem. As you say, why should you care? It doesn't affect you at all.