Article: Real vs Fake Persecution CC

[Guest]

Just wanted to add, again, that most of my replies are short and to the point because I have a little one around.  I hope it isn't coming across as rude.  I just wanted to make sure I can respond to everyone while LO is playing.

[fraidycat]

True, but there are many who just look to the Bible only to see what God wants us to do. They take it just as worded and that is it. I've done this and that is how I have found that many teachings aren't really correct. I believe this is the only way to unite all the different denominations. Throw out personal opinions and do the best we can to look only at what the Bible says.

 

Why not?

Because then the debate would be which bible to use...

[Firefly]

Respectfully... if my religion required me to vote against allowing others basic rights that I enjoy-- rights that do not harm others in any way-- I would be shopping around for a different religion.

[Χά�ων]

RE voting for for others to have the right to do something that you may disagree with or feel is against your religion. I would vote yes. Why you ask?

 

Because they have the right to do something they feel strongly about. It does not hurt another person. It is between them and their maker. 

 

Now, if there was a law that proposed forcing someone to marry against their will. I would fight against it. The reason? It is not consensual. 

 

[Χά�ων]

But opponents to interracial marrriage DID make religious arguments against it using the Bible as their basis. 

 

So should your second marriage not been allowed under the law if groups with a different interpetation than yours were opposed to it?  Don't they have to adjust to the fact that your marriage is legal under the laws that protect us all, in the same way you should accept gay marriages that go against your beliefs? 

 

Relevant to your comment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u4Z3n2Fnyc

[HRAAB]

Jinnah - So your defense of legally curtailing the personal rights (marriage) of other people, who do not share your belief, is based on your subjective belief that your understanding of the Bible is the correct one?  Also, how are you personally being forced to support gays if the law allows for them to marry?

 

There was a time in my life when I was feeling convicted to believe that homosexuality was sinful.  However, I could never have voted to limit someone else's personal rights.  Honestly, I'm not sure how I would have handled it at that time if it had been up for a vote.  I might not have voted on the issue at all, but there is no way I would have voted to limit others' rights based on my personal religious beliefs.  And I belonged to a church that taught that gays had no right to marriage.  Still, I could never believe I should legally force other people to live by my religious beliefs even if I believed it was God's law.  That was something that I needed to leave to God.

[KarenNC]

Because then the debate would be which bible to use...

 

...and which verses.

[albeto.]

Should we vote for a law that is AGAINST our beliefs?

 

Arguably, there is biblical mandate to do such a thing. Jesus is portrayed as telling his followers to give to the reigning government that which it demands (Matthew 22:20-22). Christian texts encourage believers to obey local governments and rulers (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17, etc). Many Christians argue that contributing to public policy (voting for laws) should be done independently from Christian policy. The United States is not a Christian nation, the government is secular by design, so actions within the Christian community shouldn't inspire the greater population except in the same way the believing wife should inspire the non believing husband (submissiveness, humility, righteous action rather than demands or expectations; 1 Peter 3:1-2; 1 Corinthians 7:14). That is to say, if a Christian wants to inspire a non Christian to adopt Christian morals,it should be done by creating a desire to join the community, not through fear but love (1 Corinthians 13:4). 

 

Please understand, I am not trying to persuade you to adopt a belief that is not your own. I do not mean to convince you to change your mind. I'm only trying to share with you some examples of the argument to make my point. I understand you may not agree with my summary or interpretations of the verses I've linked. My point is not to convince you to agree. 

[Catwoman]

Just wanted to add, again, that most of my replies are short and to the point because I have a little one around.  I hope it isn't coming across as rude.  I just wanted to make sure I can respond to everyone while LO is playing.

I don't think you're coming across as rude at all.

[Χά�ων]

Hey, can I ask you something?  If you are uncomfortable answering here, can you send me a PM?  Do you, as a Christian, just not believe the parts of the Bible that say homosexuality is a sin?  Or is it just that you don't agree with the above (quote)?

I am not CR but I would like to address this. 

 

I have read the Bible. I attended Seminary school to try and understand. I could not figure out why people cherry picked parts and why they picked only certain parts. My conclusion? Much of the Bible was written in a different time and a different place. The cultural norms were much much different. Many of the specific commandments in the Bible are not relevant to our society today. However, the underlying message of love and compassion is just as relevant today as it was then. That is my religion.

 

So I ask myself about everything. Does this inspire love or compassion or does this breed contempt? 

 

I ask myself when I am looking at both sides

If this passes will it really harm those who are against it? 

If this fails will it really harm those who are for it?

 

For gay marriage laws the answer is and has always been clear to me.

[mirth]

If someone does not believe, why would they listen to the source from which this perceived errant belief comes? 

 

“There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.† (Mahatma Gandhi)

 

A non-believer may exist as so because he has never heard of Jesus, heard but never really thought very carefully about Christianity, thought carefully about it but feel instinctively there are holes in his theory, and numerous other reasons.  There is no uniform characterization of the non-believer either.  

 

For most people, their highest goal each day is not to rebuke possible proselytizers who cross their path.  Many people are walking around each day in mental, emotional, or physical pain or anguish over something.  An encouraging word, a helping hand, an invitation, or bread in the case of hunger, would be a blessing and a reason to believe that someone cares about them beyond their rather unremarkable presence in the collective consciousness.  Many a gentle and wise witness for Christ, particularly ones that have been waylaid or diverted, are pretty much always wondering, "Are you the reason I am here today?"

 

The early martyrs were brave and calm in the face of certain death.  It is this bravery and peace, and not a complaining against persecution, that led many to wonder, What does he know that I don't?  The desert saints imposed struggle and physical hardships upon themselves when they felt Christianity had become too easy, too indulgent, and almost fashionable after it was legalized -- instead of a religion of the faithful.  They did not do a lot of evangelizing but people came to seek them out in the their caves of seclusion in Syria and Egypt.

 

To the subject of this thread, persecution is frightful word to describe unspeakable cruelties and really ought not be thrown about carelessly.  The Apostle Paul remarked "In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." (Hebrews 12:4) to the misshaped attitude of perceived persecution.

 

[Guest]

RE voting for for others to have the right to do something that you may disagree with or feel is against your religion. I would vote yes. Why you ask?

 

Because they have the right to do something they feel strongly about. It does not hurt another person. It is between them and their maker. 

 

Now, if there was a law that proposed forcing someone to marry against their will. I would fight against it. The reason? It is not consensual. 

 

I could understand (more) if you were saying you would just not vote, but to actually vote for something you disagree with?  That doesn't make sense.  Everyone voting is actually voting opposite?  Like opposite day?   :p

 

Jinnah - So your defense of legally curtailing the personal rights (marriage) of other people, who do not share your belief, is based on your subjective belief that your understanding of the Bible is the correct one?  Also, how are you personally being forced to support gays if the law allows for them to marry?

 

There was a time in my life when I was feeling convicted to believe that homosexuality was sinful.  However, I could never have voted to limit someone else's personal rights.  Honestly, I'm not sure how I would have handled it at that time if it had been up for a vote.  I might not have voted on the issue at all, but there is no way I would have voted to limit others' rights based on my personal religious beliefs.  And I belonged to a church that taught that gays had no right to marriage.  Still, I could never believe I should legally force other people to live by my religious beliefs even if I believed it was God's law.  That was something that I needed to leave to God.

 

If I am correct, than not supporting it is the right thing to do.  No one has answered that so far (at least not as far as I have read)... what if the Christian belief is the correct belief?  Wouldn't it be angering God to allow it?

 

I would say we are being forced to accept it became the norm to call anyone who doesn't agree a bigot (or other names/insults) and when it was decided that it was okay to teach school children that is is a-okay in schools.  They aren't just teaching them not to mistreat anyone, they are going further than that.

 

Arguably, there is biblical mandate to do such a thing. Jesus is portrayed as telling his followers to give to the reigning government that which it demands (Matthew 22:20-22). Christian texts encourage believers to obey local governments and rulers (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17, etc). Many Christians argue that contributing to public policy (voting for laws) should be done independently from Christian policy. The United States is not a Christian nation, the government is secular by design, so actions within the Christian community shouldn't inspire the greater population except in the same way the believing wife should inspire the non believing husband (submissiveness, humility, righteous action rather than demands or expectations; 1 Peter 3:1-2; 1 Corinthians 7:14). That is to say, if a Christian wants to inspire a non Christian to adopt Christian morals,it should be done by creating a desire to join the community, not through fear but love (1 Corinthians 13:4). 

 

Please understand, I am not trying to persuade you to adopt a belief that is not your own. I do not mean to convince you to change your mind. I'm only trying to share with you some examples of the argument to make my point. I understand you may not agree with my summary or interpretations of the verses I've linked. My point is not to convince you to agree. 

 

In my understanding, that applies until the government goes against the Word of God.  We are always to submit until then.  Just like a woman is to submit to her husband (another hot topic) unless he tells her to do something that is contrary to the Word of God.

 

Don't worry, you sound like you are just discussing the topic, not trying to bully me into believing what you do.  I hope I am coming across the same way.   :)

 

I don't think you're coming across as rude at all.

 

Thank you!   :)

[albeto.]

LOL, I think that thread might be interesting, but would probably spiral out of control and many people would be "moderated" and possibly banned.   :p

 

Okay, if the Muslim religion became majority and laws passed in their favor... and they were the correct religion... than what can I say?  If they were incorrect, it would be a disaster.  I see the point that everyone thinks they are right in this way.  I cannot, however, vote for a law that is against what I feel is the correct way.  Can you at least understand that?  Can you answer the questions in my scenario?

 

I do understand your questions. I didn't answer them because I think the questions are loaded, and illogical. They're loaded because you've asked me to acknowledge whether or not right is right, but illogical in how you've defined what is right. Does that make sense? But yes, I can and will answer seriously. 

 

I think it should go without saying that if you are right, if you accurately interpret the bible to reflect the actual will and mind of your god, if the alternative to following his desire is of temporal and eternal horror, then of course it would be wise to avoid that horror. But you're implying that between "God and man," your understanding of "God" is right. When I suggest a choice between "Allah and man," I suspect you interpret that question similarly to how I interpret yours: "God/Allah" is a euphemism for one's unshared personal belief, potentially disastrously wrong. "Man" is really a matter of using logic and reason separate from another person's idea of what is divine revelation. 

[Guest]

I am not CR but I would like to address this. 

 

I have read the Bible. I attended Seminary school to try and understand. I could not figure out why people cherry picked parts and why they picked only certain parts. My conclusion? Much of the Bible was written in a different time and a different place. The cultural norms were much much different. Many of the specific commandments in the Bible are not relevant to our society today. However, the underlying message of love and compassion is just as relevant today as it was then. That is my religion.

 

So I ask myself about everything. Does this inspire love or compassion or does this breed contempt? 

 

I ask myself when I am looking at both sides

If this passes will it really harm those who are against it? 

If this fails will it really harm those who are for it?

 

For gay marriage laws the answer is and has always been clear to me.

 

I hear you about how things are very different than they were in biblical times.  For me, though, I feel that God's Word never changes.  His commandments are just as valid, today, as they were back then.  If not, it would mean that God's Word changes, and I do not believe it does.  How could something be sinful back then but not now?  Did God change His mind?  If so, wouldn't that mean He is not all-knowing?  Wouldn't that be whimsical?  Just my POV.  Sometimes, I would like things to be different... like there are somethings I don't think are such a big deal, but I choose to follow anyway because I trust God.

[Guest]

 

 

“There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.† (Mahatma Gandhi)

 

A non-believer may exist as so because he has never heard of Jesus, heard but never really thought very carefully about Christianity, thought carefully about it but feel instinctively there are holes in his theory, and numerous other reasons.  There is no uniform characterization of the non-believer either.  

 

For most people, their highest goal each day is not to rebuke possible proselytizers who cross their path.  Many people are walking around each day in mental, emotional, or physical pain or anguish over something.  An encouraging word, a helping hand, an invitation, or bread in the case of hunger, would be a blessing and a reason to believe that someone cares about them beyond their rather unremarkable presence in the collective consciousness.  Many a gentle and wise witness for Christ, particularly ones that have been waylaid or diverted, are pretty much always wondering, "Are you the reason I am here today?"

 

The early martyrs were brave and calm in the face of certain death.  It is this bravery and peace, and not a complaining against persecution, that led many to wonder, What does he know that I don't?  The desert saints imposed struggle and physical hardships upon themselves when they felt Christianity had become too easy, too indulgent, and almost fashionable after it was legalized -- instead of a religion of the faithful.  They did not do a lot of evangelizing but people came to seek them out in the their caves of seclusion in Syria and Egypt.

 

To the subject of this thread, persecution is frightful word to describe unspeakable cruelties and really ought not be thrown about carelessly.  The Apostle Paul remarked "In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." (Hebrews 12:4) to the misshaped attitude of perceived persecution.

 

 

I do agree with that.  I'm not saying that verbal persecution is any way the same as someone who is having their blood shed.  I'm just saying it isn't right and it does hurt.  I also get upset that these verbal insults don't relent until the Christian is quieted.

[Guest]

I do understand your questions. I didn't answer them because I think the questions are loaded, and illogical. They're loaded because you've asked me to acknowledge whether or not right is right, but illogical in how you've defined what is right. Does that make sense? But yes, I can and will answer seriously. 

 

I think it should go without saying that if you are right, if you accurately interpret the bible to reflect the actual will and mind of your god, if the alternative to following his desire is of temporal and eternal horror, then of course it would be wise to avoid that horror. But you're implying that between "God and man," your understanding of "God" is right. When I suggest a choice between "Allah and man," I suspect you interpret that question similarly to how I interpret yours: "God/Allah" is a euphemism for one's unshared personal belief, potentially disastrously wrong. "Man" is really a matter of using logic and reason separate from another person's idea of what is divine revelation. 

 

I'm glad you addressed this because I did not mean it to be a loaded question like that.  I just meant that if Christianity is true, than I would hope that others can see why it's not something a Christian is just willing to give up so they will be popular among men.  People seriously dislike me for not thinking certain things are okay.  That's difficult for me because I try to be kind to everyone and I get upset if I have done something to someone to make them not like me.  If I am at fault in a situation, I make amends.  I will not go against God's Word, though, to be liked.  People dislike me for following what I believe is the right thing, and that is why I asked those questions.  I thought it might help others to see it from my POV.

[albeto.]

True, but there are many who just look to the Bible only to see what God wants us to do.  They take it just as worded and that is it.  I've done this and that is how I have found that many teachings aren't really correct.  I believe this is the only way to unite all the different denominations.  Throw out personal opinions and do the best we can to look only at what the Bible says.

 

Why not?  

 

Short answer: Because it's impossible.

 

Long answer: Reading religious texts, like reading any texts, includes the application of one's personal experiences, one's understanding of what the texts really mean to say. With regard to homosexuality as an example, if you interpret the texts as speaking out against romantic and physical relationships between two or more people of the same sex, then your responses are logical. If you instead interpret the texts as speaking out against temple prostitution, your responses would not only be unnecessarily detrimental to homosexuals, it would be offensive to your god. You'd be portraying him as hating people and behavior he does not hate. You'd be portraying his character as the opposite of what it is. You'd be guilty of slander, offending the very god you wish to honor and serve. 

 

Because there is no objective source for knowing what this god really does mean when the scriptures can be reflected in opposing ways, one must then defer to faith. Christians assume the holy ghost personally guides them with regard to interpreting the texts, but the problem is that either people misunderstand the holy ghost, or the holy ghost cannot be reliable for accurately interpreting God the Father's intent. The fact is there is no objective source for knowing which component of one's faith is genuine and which component of the faith is unduly motivated by personal opinion. 

 

If your solution were actually possible, it would have solved this problem thousands of years ago. You're not the first to promote this idea. I'd guess the development of every denomination that has sprung from a previous denomination is motivated by this exact idea, or one very similar to it. 

[Χά�ων]

I could understand (more) if you were saying you would just not vote, but to actually vote for something you disagree with?  That doesn't make sense.  Everyone voting is actually voting opposite?  Like opposite day?   :p

 

I do not feel it is contrary at all. If the base is love then love does not change. As to not risk bring politics in I am only speak of the gay marriage topic. I

 

do not want the thread shut down or locked by straying into politics, KWIM?

 

I hear you about how things are very different than they were in biblical times.  For me, though, I feel that God's Word never changes.  His commandments are just as valid, today, as they were back then.  If not, it would mean that God's Word changes, and I do not believe it does.  How could something be sinful back then but not now?  Did God change His mind?  If so, wouldn't that mean He is not all-knowing?  Wouldn't that be whimsical?  Just my POV.  Sometimes, I would like things to be different... like there are somethings I don't think are such a big deal, but I choose to follow anyway because I trust God.

There is a much in the Bible that is no longer supported. Just wondering, would you like me to compile a list? Not being snarky, I just do not want to spend the time if you do not care about it. :)

[*Lulu*]

Should we vote for a law that is AGAINST our beliefs?

I just wanted to speak to this.

 

10 years ago I firmly believed that homosexuality was a sin.*

 

I still believed that the law of the land should allow same sex marriage, and voted that way.

 

Our nation was founded with the idea everyone is equal. If the only thing that tells me that homosexuality is wrong is my religious view I have NO RIGHT to impose that upon another citizen. Just as someone who believes that God's word says women should not wear pants, or pursue leadership in the church, or work outside the home has NO RIGHT to impose their belief upon me through legislative measures.

 

That is part of what makes America's framework good, we are not country of mob rule. We protect the rights of the minority group as well as the majority. And, as the majority, we should thank God for that because one day we may not be the majority and we will want our rights protected.

 

*For those that think these discussions never change anyone's position- it was through Internet discussions like those here that I began to look at the scripture in a new way. I have read and studied and than read some more. I have moved from a position of absolute certainty of the sin, to a live and let live, (ie until we go after gluttony we better back off the gay talk), to the belief that the church's position on homosexuality is not Biblical at all. That last shift happened in the last 3 years. Thank you all for helping make it possible. I have learned and grown so much from my interactions here.

[Guest]

Short answer: Because it's impossible.

 

Long answer: Reading religious texts, like reading any texts, includes the application of one's personal experiences, one's understanding of what the texts really mean to say. With regard to homosexuality as an example, if you interpret the texts as speaking out against romantic and physical relationships between two or more people of the same sex, then your responses are logical. If you instead interpret the texts as speaking out against temple prostitution, your responses would not only be unnecessarily detrimental to homosexuals, it would be offensive to your god. You'd be portraying him as hating people and behavior he does not hate. You'd be portraying his character as the opposite of what it is. You'd be guilty of slander, offending the very god you wish to honor and serve. 

 

Because there is no objective source for knowing what this god really does mean when the scriptures can be reflected in opposing ways, one must then defer to faith. Christians assume the holy ghost personally guides them with regard to interpreting the texts, but the problem is that either people misunderstand the holy ghost, or the holy ghost cannot be reliable for accurately interpreting God the Father's intent. The fact is there is no objective source for knowing which component of one's faith is genuine and which component of the faith is unduly motivated by personal opinion. 

 

If your solution were actually possible, it would have solved this problem thousands of years ago. You're not the first to promote this idea. I'd guess the development of every denomination that has sprung from a previous denomination is motivated by this exact idea, or one very similar to it. 

 

 

I've heard this argument before and the problem with it is that there are other verses that clarify that it's not just temple prostitution that God was speaking against.  That is made by some people who haven't read the entire Bible AND by those who have but, either reject it because they disagree or because they are (for whatever reason) twisting the words to suit their purpose.

 

Yes, I agree that it is difficult, but I also believe there really are people who say they are Christian (but really are not - for various reasons) and others who have bought into what they teach.  I am not saying this about anyone in particular... this is a general statement.  That, though, is an entirely separate thread!

[albeto.]

oops, double post.

 

Here, to pass the time (since I cannot delete the post), I offer this:

 

 

[albeto.]

“There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.† (Mahatma Gandhi)

 

A non-believer may exist as so because he has never heard of Jesus, heard but never really thought very carefully about Christianity, thought carefully about it but feel instinctively there are holes in his theory, and numerous other reasons.  There is no uniform characterization of the non-believer either.

I agree there is no uniform characterization of the non believer.

 

 

For most people, their highest goal each day is not to rebuke possible proselytizers who cross their path.  Many people are walking around each day in mental, emotional, or physical pain or anguish over something.  An encouraging word, a helping hand, an invitation, or bread in the case of hunger, would be a blessing and a reason to believe that someone cares about them beyond their rather unremarkable presence in the collective consciousness.  Many a gentle and wise witness for Christ, particularly ones that have been waylaid or diverted, are pretty much always wondering, "Are you the reason I am here today?"

I'm sorry, I don't know what this means.

 

The early martyrs were brave and calm in the face of certain death.  It is this bravery and peace, and not a complaining against persecution, that led many to wonder, What does he know that I don't?  The desert saints imposed struggle and physical hardships upon themselves when they felt Christianity had become too easy, too indulgent, and almost fashionable after it was legalized -- instead of a religion of the faithful.  They did not do a lot of evangelizing but people came to seek them out in the their caves of seclusion in Syria and Egypt.

Bravery and peace is not unique to religion, nor is humility or mortification (physical or mental). Martyrdom does not mean one's beliefs are credible. Every religion that has converts has appealed to people for one reason or another, and these reasons are not limited to intentional evangelization. In other words, the intensity of one's belief should not be mistaken for the validity of their belief.

 

To the subject of this thread, persecution is frightful word to describe unspeakable cruelties and really ought not be thrown about carelessly.  The Apostle Paul remarked "In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood." (Hebrews 12:4) to the misshaped attitude of perceived persecution.

I agree with you that the charge of persecution should not be thrown about carelessly. I believe that's the point the OP is making by bringing this conversation to the board.

[Guest]

I do not feel it is contrary at all. If the base is love then love does not change. As to not risk bring politics in I am only speak of the gay marriage topic. I

 

do not want the thread shut down or locked by straying into politics, KWIM?

 

There is a much in the Bible that is no longer supported. Just wondering, would you like me to compile a list? Not being snarky, I just do not want to spend the time if you do not care about it. :)

 

Yes, I think we need to be careful here.  I'm worried about how off-topic we already are!

 

Love is also in the mind of the beholder.  A parent disciplines a child because they love them.  See where I am going?  A Christian is not supporting sin out of love.  

 

I'll read what you have to say, but I'm guessing I would only refute it (as in if it really is no longer supported, why it never should have been supported in the first place, or if it should have been supported, why it should still be supported)... is that okay?  Is it something you want to PM me?  Will it make a controversial topic more controversial?

[marbel]

Never mind - I thought I had something new to add but  someone has already said it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kiana]

There's a big difference, imo, between encouraging someone to overcome what you perceive as a sin and attempting to pass a law against it.

 

For the specific example of gluttony, there is a huge difference between gently encouraging a friend to cease their gluttonous behavior and attempting to pass a law banning eating competitions, which I can't see as anything other than a rather repulsive celebration of gluttony. I still think they should be legal and would vote against any attempt to ban them.

[Guest]

I just wanted to speak to this.

 

10 years ago I firmly believed that homosexuality was a sin.*

 

I still believed that the law of the land should allow same sex marriage, and voted that way.

 

Our nation was founded with the idea everyone is equal. If the only thing that tells me that homosexuality is wrong is my religious view I have NO RIGHT to impose that upon another citizen. Just as someone who believes that God's word says women should not wear pants, or pursue leadership in the church, or work outside the home has NO RIGHT to impose their belief upon me through legislative measures.

 

That is part of what makes America's framework good, we are not country of mob rule. We protect the rights of the minority group as well as the majority. And, as the majority, we should thank God for that because one day we may not be the majority and we will want our rights protected.

 

*For those that think these discussions never change anyone's position- it was through Internet discussions like those here that I began to look at the scripture in a new way. I have read and studied and than read some more. I have moved from a position of absolute certainty of the sin, to a live and let live, (ie until we go after gluttony we better back of the gay talk), to the belief that the church's position on homosexuality is not Biblical at all. That last shift happened in the last 3 years. Thank you all for helping make it possible. I have learned and grown so much from my interactions here.

 

 

Do you no longer think it is a sin, or just that you should live and let live?

 

I feel that we have the duty, as Christians, to not support anything that is against God's Word.  We should not allow our children to be taught in school that sin is okay... isn't the fact that it is not required to be taught in schools the same thing?  Imposing a belief on other's through legislative measures?  

[Guest]

Never mind - I thought I had something new to add but  someone has already said it.

 

You might be able to say whatever it is in a different way, though!  :P  

 

I'm going to have to run for a bit.  Nice talking to all of you!  I enjoy discussions (even when we disagree) when they remain friendly.  :)

[albeto.]

I've heard this argument before and the problem with it is that there are other verses that clarify that it's not just temple prostitution that God was speaking against.  That is made by some people who haven't read the entire Bible AND by those who have but, either reject it because they disagree or because they are (for whatever reason) twisting the words to suit their purpose.

 

Yes, I agree that it is difficult, but I also believe there really are people who say they are Christian (but really are not - for various reasons) and others who have bought into what they teach.  I am not saying this about anyone in particular... this is a general statement.  That, though, is an entirely separate thread!

This is precisely why I'd be interested in an Ask A Real Christian thread. If someone can explain what the Real Christian Faith is, if someone can explain what the bible really means to say, if someone can correct the misrepresentations and misunderstandings, I think a lot of time would be saved in the long run. Until then, I can only conclude that your answers support your opinion, but again without an objective source with which we can confirm or correct your opinion, we can never know. We cannot assume with any confidence you are right. Or that you are wrong.

 

Back to the OP, the idea that ending the traditional privilege one group has historically enjoyed is synonymous with persecution is rather problematic. It is especially problematic when real persecution is ignored, and worse, rationalized. It is for this reason the Constitution of the United States was designed to reflect no religious belief. Taking after the values of the Enlightenment, reason and logic and rational arguments alone are designed to be the foundation of any laws we have. For this reason, creating public policy defended only by religious beliefs is antithetical to the spirit of the law, in my opinion, and detrimental to all citizens. At some point, each one of us will find ourselves in a group that does not share the beliefs of others. It's only by appealing to accurate information and reasoned arguments can we ensure liberty for all. For this reason I'd encourage you to try and defend your arguments for public policy independently from your religious beliefs.

[*Lulu*]

Do you no longer think it is a sin, or just that you should live and let live?

 

I feel that we have the duty, as Christians, to not support anything that is against God's Word. We should not allow our children to be taught in school that sin is okay... isn't the fact that it is not required to be taught in schools the same thing? Imposing a belief on other's through legislative measures?

The former.

 

How is teaching children to be tolerant of those with a different sexual orientation any more an imposition of belief than teaching tolerance of those who wear skirts or head coverings because of religious conviction?

 

If you're of a religious group that believes women wearing pants is sinful, but the school affirms the validity of the girls that wear pants.......how is that any different?

[HRAAB]

 

If I am correct, than not supporting it is the right thing to do.  No one has answered that so far (at least not as far as I have read)... what if the Christian belief is the correct belief?  Wouldn't it be angering God to allow it?

 

I would say we are being forced to accept it became the norm to call anyone who doesn't agree a bigot (or other names/insults) and when it was decided that it was okay to teach school children that is is a-okay in schools.  They aren't just teaching them not to mistreat anyone, they are going further than that.

 

 

In my understanding, that applies until the government goes against the Word of God.  We are always to submit until then.  Just like a woman is to submit to her husband (another hot topic) unless he tells her to do something that is contrary to the Word of God.

 

 

 

As to your question...  I'm trying to honestly answer as to how I would have acted when I was a believing Christian, not how I believe now.  I certainly believed Christianity was correct, and I believed my church taught the Truth.  So even when I didn't understand or agree, I tried to prayerfully and humbly accept God's word and at the same time align my conscience with God's will.  So the Bible says homosexuality is sinful, my church teaches that it's sinful, then I need to accept that, because I present myself as a Christian and member of a Christian church.  So far I'm with you.  Where I start to part ways is at 'angering God'.  I always had issues with applying human emotions to God whether it be anger, jealousy, vengeance, or even sorrow.  I never could wrap my mind around God - the God - being angry.  I know it's Biblical, but although I believed the Bible was divinely inspired and true, the Bible was still written by humans who were people of their time and culture, and primarily they were susceptible to human nature.  So while I believed the Bible was true and God inspired, human emotion, thought, understanding still is in there.  So no, I don't see the angry God.  If I applied any human emotion to God, it would have been understanding, and that understanding would be so far beyond human understanding that we would be unable to being to comment on God's understanding.  God, after all, is the Creator.  So already you and I have taken different paths to our understanding of Scripture.  When you say God and I said God, I suspect our understanding of God was different.  That's why it's a loaded question and impossible for all Christians to arrive at the same answer.

 

One thing though - I believed in free will.  I believed God wanted all men to come to him through free will.  No coercion, whether through legal means or not.  So God wants gays to accept his law and live according to his will, but he wants them to do it freely, from their heart, not because the laws forces them to.  I knows laws can't absolutely force people to live according to God's laws, but they can certainly make life very, very miserable if they don't.  I did not believe that was how God wanted people to come to him.  I believed the only way people could truly live in God's will was was if they had the freedom to make that choice.  I know people are ultimately free to choose or not, regardless of the law, but I could not believe God wanted them being coerced in any way.  So passing laws enforcing Biblical teachings did not seem right to me.

 

As to the your last comment, again we have to ask the question:  Which understanding of the Word of God.  There are major Christian denominations that bless gay unions.  There are those who condemn homosexuality.  Which one is it?  Yours?

[Χά�ων]

Yes, I think we need to be careful here.  I'm worried about how off-topic we already are!

 

Love is also in the mind of the beholder.  A parent disciplines a child because they love them.  See where I am going?  A Christian is not supporting sin out of love.  

 

I'll read what you have to say, but I'm guessing I would only refute it (as in if it really is no longer supported, why it never should have been supported in the first place, or if it should have been supported, why it should still be supported)... is that okay?  Is it something you want to PM me?  Will it make a controversial topic more controversial?

On my phone, forgive the short reply. 

 

Examples:

Cutting hair 

 

Selling daughter into slavery

A woman must marry the man who rapers her

Concubines

[Ipsey]

As to your question...  I'm trying to honestly answer as to how I would have acted when I was a believing Christian, not how I believe now.  I certainly believed Christianity was correct, and I believed my church taught the Truth.  So even when I didn't understand or agree, I tried to prayerfully and humbly accept God's word and at the same time align my conscience with God's will.  

 

 

Reading this made me remember something that happened in college. During my grad work, my state was considering some initiatives to protect or ensure equality in housing and another couple of issues, I believe, particularly concerning homosexuality.

 

I was an Evangelical Christian. I knew I had one classmate who this affected directly. I really struggled with the vote. Most Christians were voting one way--against gay equality. I still can't remember how I voted. But I remembered voting one way and praying the other way. I still can't remember which was which.  I think I voted for protection but prayed that if I had made a "mistake" that God would override my vote and impose his will. Of course, it could have easily gone the other way.

 

I remember that being one of the first major issues where I had to consider my role of faith and politics and truth.  I was going to a church which forbids divorce and remarriage--and marriage to non-Christians. Remarried Christians (Christians married to one person, divorced, and married to another person) weren't even allowed to become members. 

 

At the same time, I would never have voted for divorced remarried people to be deprived of their civil rights, or to be prevented from having them, as American citizens. 

 

This was probably the beginning of the end of Christianity for me, though I didn't realize it then. That was a struggle of 14 more years, alas.

 

I'm doing my best to make up for those years by helping the people I once persecuted.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Do you no longer think it is a sin, or just that you should live and let live?

 

I feel that we have the duty, as Christians, to not support anything that is against God's Word.  We should not allow our children to be taught in school that sin is okay... isn't the fact that it is not required to be taught in schools the same thing?  Imposing a belief on other's through legislative measures?  

 

I have to ask, how do you believe homosexuality is "taught" in schools?  I know of no way it is pushed, but I do where tolerance towards other lifestyles is being taught.  Considering all schoos have gay students (whether out or not) and many ahve students with gay parents, this seems like a reasonable course of action.

[Vera]

Our children are hopefully being taught tolerance in school. I know that the schools around here are encouraging tolerance. We do not all believe that homosexuality is a sin. My son is handsome, kind, loving, brilliant and in a long term committed relationship with a man. Their love is NOT A SIN. It is beautiful like love always is.

[SadieMarie]

Should we vote for a law that is AGAINST our beliefs?

 

If the law says that you would be forced to do it, whether that is marry someone of your same sex or use birth control or whatever, you of course should vote against it. And I would join you.  But if it is a law that says that the choice belongs to the adult person making the decision, even if it is not the same one you would make?  How would that be going against your beliefs?  That is what I don't understand, really.  I do not get it.  I do not get how people use their religious beliefs, the beliefs they use to make decisions for themselves, to try to determine what someone who does not share those beliefs should be allowed to do or not do.  And if you, for example, do not oppose other people having the option to marry someone of their same sex even though you would never do it yourself because it is against your beliefs, how is that you not being true to your beliefs?  It is just you recognizing that others who do not share your beliefs should be free to follow their own.

[Guest]

This is precisely why I'd be interested in an Ask A Real Christian thread. If someone can explain what the Real Christian Faith is, if someone can explain what the bible really means to say, if someone can correct the misrepresentations and misunderstandings, I think a lot of time would be saved in the long run. Until then, I can only conclude that your answers support your opinion, but again without an objective source with which we can confirm or correct your opinion, we can never know. We cannot assume with any confidence you are right. Or that you are wrong.

 

Back to the OP, the idea that ending the traditional privilege one group has historically enjoyed is synonymous with persecution is rather problematic. It is especially problematic when real persecution is ignored, and worse, rationalized. It is for this reason the Constitution of the United States was designed to reflect no religious belief. Taking after the values of the Enlightenment, reason and logic and rational arguments alone are designed to be the foundation of any laws we have. For this reason, creating public policy defended only by religious beliefs is antithetical to the spirit of the law, in my opinion, and detrimental to all citizens. At some point, each one of us will find ourselves in a group that does not share the beliefs of others. It's only by appealing to accurate information and reasoned arguments can we ensure liberty for all. For this reason I'd encourage you to try and defend your arguments for public policy independently from your religious beliefs.

Maybe you could start that thread, and since I'm a real Christian, I'll answer questions.  LOL.  :P

 

The former.

 

How is teaching children to be tolerant of those with a different sexual orientation any more an imposition of belief than teaching tolerance of those who wear skirts or head coverings because of religious conviction?

 

If you're of a religious group that believes women wearing pants is sinful, but the school affirms the validity of the girls that wear pants.......how is that any different?

 

They do not just teach children to treat everyone nicely, it would be one thing.  If they just said there are gay people and you are not to mistreat anyone who is different than you or has different beliefs, that would be okay.  However, they go further and teach that it is okay and acceptable to be a homosexual, when that is against many religions. That is an opinion forced upon children... why aren't you up in arms over that?  Just because it's your side being taught?

 

As to your question...  I'm trying to honestly answer as to how I would have acted when I was a believing Christian, not how I believe now.  I certainly believed Christianity was correct, and I believed my church taught the Truth.  So even when I didn't understand or agree, I tried to prayerfully and humbly accept God's word and at the same time align my conscience with God's will.  So the Bible says homosexuality is sinful, my church teaches that it's sinful, then I need to accept that, because I present myself as a Christian and member of a Christian church.  So far I'm with you.  Where I start to part ways is at 'angering God'.  I always had issues with applying human emotions to God whether it be anger, jealousy, vengeance, or even sorrow.  I never could wrap my mind around God - the God - being angry.  I know it's Biblical, but although I believed the Bible was divinely inspired and true, the Bible was still written by humans who were people of their time and culture, and primarily they were susceptible to human nature.  So while I believed the Bible was true and God inspired, human emotion, thought, understanding still is in there.  So no, I don't see the angry God.  If I applied any human emotion to God, it would have been understanding, and that understanding would be so far beyond human understanding that we would be unable to being to comment on God's understanding.  God, after all, is the Creator.  So already you and I have taken different paths to our understanding of Scripture.  When you say God and I said God, I suspect our understanding of God was different.  That's why it's a loaded question and impossible for all Christians to arrive at the same answer.

 

One thing though - I believed in free will.  I believed God wanted all men to come to him through free will.  No coercion, whether through legal means or not.  So God wants gays to accept his law and live according to his will, but he wants them to do it freely, from their heart, not because the laws forces them to.  I knows laws can't absolutely force people to live according to God's laws, but they can certainly make life very, very miserable if they don't.  I did not believe that was how God wanted people to come to him.  I believed the only way people could truly live in God's will was was if they had the freedom to make that choice.  I know people are ultimately free to choose or not, regardless of the law, but I could not believe God wanted them being coerced in any way.  So passing laws enforcing Biblical teachings did not seem right to me.

 

As to the your last comment, again we have to ask the question:  Which understanding of the Word of God.  There are major Christian denominations that bless gay unions.  There are those who condemn homosexuality.  Which one is it?  Yours?

I agree with you that God wants people to follow Him freely, from their hearts, and not because they were forced.  I do not agree we should vote on things that are clearly against God's Word.  I feel those are two different things.

 

I cannot answer the last questions (certain denominations that bless gay unions) without causing an upset to those in the mentioned denominations.  Perhaps that is better in albeto's "Ask a real Christian" thread.  ;)

 

On my phone, forgive the short reply. 

 

Examples:

Cutting hair 

 

Selling daughter into slavery

A woman must marry the man who rapers her

Concubines

I'm going to go reread those passages and tell you what I think, shortly.  :)

 

I have to ask, how do you believe homosexuality is "taught" in schools?  I know of no way it is pushed, but I do where tolerance towards other lifestyles is being taught.  Considering all schoos have gay students (whether out or not) and many ahve students with gay parents, this seems like a reasonable course of action.

 

Answered above.

 

If the law says that you would be forced to do it, whether that is marry someone of your same sex or use birth control or whatever, you of course should vote against it. And I would join you.  But if it is a law that says that the choice belongs to the adult person making the decision, even if it is not the same one you would make?  How would that be going against your beliefs?  That is what I don't understand, really.  I do not get it.  I do not get how people use their religious beliefs, the beliefs they use to make decisions for themselves, to try to determine what someone who does not share those beliefs should be allowed to do or not do.  And if you, for example, do not oppose other people having the option to marry someone of their same sex even though you would never do it yourself because it is against your beliefs, how is that you not being true to your beliefs?  It is just you recognizing that others who do not share your beliefs should be free to follow their own.

 

I think that it has already affected people... think about the bakery that did not want to make the wedding cake for the homosexual wedding.  A pastor could be forced to marry said couple or have to give up his job.  A public school teacher who is forced to teach her classroom that it is okay to be gay.  Seems like it is happening quite a bit already.

[Audrey]

Of course not everything is objective.

 

I am sitting at my desktop right now --> objective truth.  You can't see me, but here I am.  :seeya:   (Of course by the time anyone sees this I might be somewhere else, but objectively, I still exist.)

 

"There was no insult." --> subjective.  How about "I didn't intend that to be insulting."

 

Of course all this brings me back around to the original post of this thread.  If truth is subjective, and our truth is whatever we believe it to be, then those who feel they are being persecuted are indeed being persecuted - because they perceive themselves to be.   How can we argue with what is true for them? 

 

 

 

Not logical.  The definable is not subjective. 

 

I can feel like I am a flower, but that does not make it true.  There is a distinct definition of what constitutes a flower.  No matter how I feel, those feelings do not mold me into the definition of a flower.

 

Persecution, I would argue, is clearly definable.  Persecution is the systematic mistreatment over a long period of time of an individual or group by another individual or group. 

 

What constitutes an insult is not so clearly definable because that varies both culturally and individually. However, people can attempt to stretch definitions, and therein lies the issue. 

[albeto.]

Maybe you could start that thread, and since I'm a real Christian, I'll answer questions.  LOL.   :p

 

I can't because I'm not a Real Christian. 

[*Lulu*]

"They do not just teach children to treat everyone nicely, it would be one thing. If they just said there are gay people and you are not to mistreat anyone who is different than you or has different beliefs, that would be okay. However, they go further and teach that it is okay and acceptable to be a homosexual, when that is against many religions. That is an opinion forced upon children... why aren't you up in arms over that? Just because it's your side being taught?"

 

-Jinnah-

 

I pulled this out of your post above to answer.

 

When I was in school they taught that it was okay to have pre-marital sex, and how to be safe. This was 100% against my parents beliefs. They just made sure we talked about it at home.

 

Maybe they should have stressed that we should be nice to people who do, but it IS NOT OKAY. Then, when the random teen pregnancy happened we could be nice to the girl's face.....but she would know we were disapproving.

 

And that would serve what purpose?

 

Shall we tell gay children or children with gay parents that we must treat them nicely.....but there is something WRONG with them?

 

How is that creating an environment of equality? Of acceptance?

 

And, still, how is it one whit different from not affirming the beliefs of the Pentecostal girls who wear skirts only or the Muslim girls who wear Hijab?

[HRAAB]

I guess I've never expected society to teach my children exactly according to my beliefs.  Living in the pluralistic society that we have, I don't know how I could expect that.  I've have always felt it was my responsibility to make sure my children know what I believe and why in our home and live it.  Especially when I was a Christian, I never expected society to entirely uphold my views.  That just went along with being Christian.  We were called to be counter cultural.  Jesus never said it would be easy.  And that is part of the problem, I think, when your religion has been the majority religion for so long.  It's easy to get used to thinking society should always side with you.  The country has grown and we've become more diverse.  The question I have is how are you going to continue to live in a society - including Christians - that increasingly no longer reflects your personal religious beliefs?  Also, that does not mean you're being persecuted.  Allowing other people the same rights you've had doesn't imply persecution.  I also believe religion and belief should be dynamic, not static; that people need to be growing in the Christian faith.  Learning how to live among people of diverse beliefs is one way to do that.

[kiana]

I think that it has already affected people... think about the bakery that did not want to make the wedding cake for the homosexual wedding.  A pastor could be forced to marry said couple or have to give up his job.  A public school teacher who is forced to teach her classroom that it is okay to be gay.  Seems like it is happening quite a bit already.

 

I would absolutely support a pastor who did not want to marry people whom he did not believe were following the laws of his religion, for whatever reason, whether it was divorce/remarriage, cohabiting, gay, or anything else. I would also support the right of his congregation to hire a different minister if they felt there was a fundamental theological difference between him and them. I would *not* support a judge who felt it was against his religious beliefs to marry someone and thus refused. As a civil official, his religion should not mix with his work.

 

With respect to the public school teacher: I do not see why a public school teacher should be able to effectively teach her religion in the classroom. I would be utterly livid if a public school teacher were teaching my children that it was not okay, for example, for an adult woman to live on her own without a man's headship, yet that is a belief held by some subgroups of Christians.

[Guest]

"They do not just teach children to treat everyone nicely, it would be one thing. If they just said there are gay people and you are not to mistreat anyone who is different than you or has different beliefs, that would be okay. However, they go further and teach that it is okay and acceptable to be a homosexual, when that is against many religions. That is an opinion forced upon children... why aren't you up in arms over that? Just because it's your side being taught?"

 

-Jinnah-

 

I pulled this out of your post above to answer.

 

When I was in school they taught that it was okay to have pre-marital sex, and how to be safe. This was 100% against my parents beliefs. They just made sure we talked about it at home.

 

Maybe they should have stressed that we should be nice to people who do, but it IS NOT OKAY. Then, when the random teen pregnancy happened we could be nice to the girl's face.....but she would know we were disapproving.

 

And that would serve what purpose?

 

Shall we tell gay children or children with gay parents that we must treat them nicely.....but there is something WRONG with them?

 

How is that creating an environment of equality? Of acceptance?

 

And, still, how is it one whit different from not affirming the beliefs of the Pentecostal girls who wear skirts only or the Muslim girls who wear Hijab?

Hi, BLA5.

 

Well, is teen pregnancy okay?  I'm sure most teens that are pregnant know that people don't think it's the best thing in the world.  Heck, I was married at 18, pregnant at 19, and people still were concerned, and yeah ,that is crazy, but should we tell unwed, teenaged girls that it is okay to be pregnant?  Is that the best advice?  Of course not.  

 

 

Honestly, does it need to be referenced specifically?  Couldn't they just say everyone is different and we should treat all persons with kindness/respect no matter what?  

 

Just wanted to add, again... hurried response... please don't mistake as rude!  I feel rude, but I am making so many responses that I have to hurry!  :P

[Guest]

I guess I've never expected society to teach my children exactly according to my beliefs.  Living in the pluralistic society that we have, I don't know how I could expect that.  I've have always felt it was my responsibility to make sure my children know what I believe and why in our home and live it.  Especially when I was a Christian, I never expected society to entirely uphold my views.  That just went along with being Christian.  We were called to be counter cultural.  Jesus never said it would be easy.  And that is part of the problem, I think, when your religion has been the majority religion for so long.  It's easy to get used to thinking society should always side with you.  The country has grown and we've become more diverse.  The question I have is how are you going to continue to live in a society - including Christians - that increasingly no longer reflects your personal religious beliefs?  Also, that does not mean you're being persecuted.  Allowing other people the same rights you've had doesn't imply persecution.  I also believe religion and belief should be dynamic, not static; that people need to be growing in the Christian faith.  Learning how to live among people of diverse beliefs is one way to do that.

 

I agree with you that not everyone is going to have the same viewpoints, and whatnot, but that is why things like this should not be taught at schools.  That should be left for the parents to teach their children.  I realize some are going to teach their children to hate, but those parents are going to teach that regardless.  I think schools should stick to teaching children to be nice to everyone, no matter how they are different.  I don't see how I am wrong there.  It should work for everyone.

[Guest]

I would absolutely support a pastor who did not want to marry people whom he did not believe were following the laws of his religion, for whatever reason, whether it was divorce/remarriage, cohabiting, gay, or anything else. I would also support the right of his congregation to hire a different minister if they felt there was a fundamental theological difference between him and them. I would *not* support a judge who felt it was against his religious beliefs to marry someone and thus refused. As a civil official, his religion should not mix with his work.

 

With respect to the public school teacher: I do not see why a public school teacher should be able to effectively teach her religion in the classroom. I would be utterly livid if a public school teacher were teaching my children that it was not okay, for example, for an adult woman to live on her own without a man's headship, yet that is a belief held by some subgroups of Christians.

 

So, we agree about the pastor.  The judge one is trickier for me.  I'm completely against it, but if it's going to happen, regardless... couldn't a colleague who didn't object to it marry them instead?  The school teacher should leave beliefs out of it, which is why she should not be forced to teach someone else's belief.  I honestly do not understand this topic being brought up in schools, beyond treating everyone kindly.

 

ETA: it's difficult because most here are homeschoolers, so many do not know how it is presented in school.  My kids went for the past year, and it was not talked about (that I know of).  I've just heard from friends in other areas what is said.

[Caroline]

Once a teenaged girl is pregnant, we absolutely tell her it is ok. We work with her to make it ok by setting her up with social services if necessary, allowing her to take some time off school to have the baby, by not making her leave school while pregnant, by not ostracizing her...

 

It's the same thing with gay students. We don't ostracize them. We make it ok for them to go to prom together. We make our classrooms safe for them. And, quite frankly, most classrooms aren't completely safe or friendly for gay students. I think it's much easier to be a pregnanu teenaged girl than gay.

 

Hi, BLA5.

 

Well, is teen pregnancy okay? I'm sure most teens that are pregnant know that people don't think it's the best thing in the world. Heck, I was married at 18, pregnant at 19, and people still were concerned, and yeah ,that is crazy, but should we tell unwed, teenaged girls that it is okay to be pregnant? Is that the best advice? Of course not.

 

 

Honestly, does it need to be referenced specifically? Couldn't they just say everyone is different and we should treat all persons with kindness/respect no matter what?

 

Just wanted to add, again... hurried response... please don't mistake as rude! I feel rude, but I am making so many responses that I have to hurry! :P

[Caroline]

So, we agree about the pastor. The judge one is trickier for me. I'm completely against it, but if it's going to happen, regardless... couldn't a colleague who didn't object to it marry them instead? The school teacher should leave beliefs out of it, which is why she should not be forced to teach someone else's belief. I honestly do not understand this topic being brought up in schools, beyond treating everyone kindly.

 

ETA: it's difficult because most here are homeschoolers, so many do not know how it is presented in school. My kids went for the past year, and it was not talked about (that I know of). I've just heard from friends in other areas what is said.

So your knowledge about this is all hearsay?

[SKL]

I will just say that traveling in other modern, non-theocratic countries is a breath of fresh air, because Christian speech is not censored.  I do not believe US Christians are persecuted, but they are censored in many contexts, and it's interesting that other modern (non theocratic) countries don't seem to feel the need to do this.  And their diverse populations seem perfectly OK with that.

[SadieMarie]

 

I think that it has already affected people... think about the bakery that did not want to make the wedding cake for the homosexual wedding.  A pastor could be forced to marry said couple or have to give up his job.  A public school teacher who is forced to teach her classroom that it is okay to be gay.  Seems like it is happening quite a bit already.

 

I can't walk into any church as a heterosexual and expect the pastor to marry me, to a man I mean lol, not to the pastor.  A church is qualitatively different than a bakery.  A church is a religious institution and I do not believe that churches are going to be forced to marry gay couples.  I think it is a scare tactic.  A bakery is a different thing, and as I have stated in a previous discussion on this topic, I don't think following nondiscrimination laws required to sell goods or services to the public means you condone gay marriage.  I know others disagree, but to me baking a cake for a paying customer is not condoning anything.  A cake is not a marriage.  The marriage happens regardless of the cake.  The cake is just dessert.

[albeto.]

I would absolutely support a pastor who did not want to marry people whom he did not believe were following the laws of his religion, for whatever reason, whether it was divorce/remarriage, cohabiting, gay, or anything else. I would also support the right of his congregation to hire a different minister if they felt there was a fundamental theological difference between him and them. I would *not* support a judge who felt it was against his religious beliefs to marry someone and thus refused. As a civil official, his religion should not mix with his work.

 

With respect to the public school teacher: I do not see why a public school teacher should be able to effectively teach her religion in the classroom. I would be utterly livid if a public school teacher were teaching my children that it was not okay, for example, for an adult woman to live on her own without a man's headship, yet that is a belief held by some subgroups of Christians.

This is the reason I do not support a pastor not willing to marry people who did not believe were following the laws of his religion if he was officiating a legally binding union. If it were a religious ceremony only, sure - offer what your religion offers. If it's a legally binding contract recognized by the secular state, religious beliefs should no more be allowed to influence an individual's experience than in schools. In other words, if one is going to offer a service to the public, religious beliefs should not be a reason to discriminate. 

 

I don't know that I would necessarily go so far as to consider this persecution. I'm not familiar with an argument to support that and I couldn't offer one myself.

[Guest]

Once a teenaged girl is pregnant, we absolutely tell her it is ok. We work with her to make it ok by setting her up with social services if necessary, allowing her to take some time off school to have the baby, by not making her leave school while pregnant, by not ostracizing her...

 

It's the same thing with gay students. We don't ostracize them. We make it ok for them to go to prom together. We make our classrooms safe for them. And, quite frankly, most classrooms aren't completely safe or friendly for gay students. I think it's much easier to be a pregnanu teenaged girl than gay.

 

 

I would not tell the teenaged girl that the act of premarital sex is okay.  I would tell her that I am going help her and be there for her.

 

So your knowledge about this is all hearsay?

 

My best friends kids go to public school and we had a long talk about what they are taught there.