Progress

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:42 pm

Haruo wrote:
William Thornton wrote:May have been shabby by the pastor but not anything that should involve gummit.

I quite agree, I'm just trying to get a handle on what passes for moral systems among some of my fellow believers.


Maybe pastors should issue doctrinal questionaiers prior to agreeing to marry people.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:25 am

Sandy wrote:No, the issue of conscience is declared by the author of the passage, when he states that since an idol is nothing, there's no sin when you buy meat in the marketplace. If you're going to apply the analogy from the scripture, then the baker and the florist have already made a decision of conscience, when they decided to participate in the marketplace by offering products and services. They can't claim ignornace of the law regarding discrimination in business practices. And given the stand that they've taken, they can't be considered to be those with the "weaker conscience" in this case.
They have the weaker conscience based on your explanation. You say that it is a fact that it is not a sin to bake cakes (etc.) for a homosexual wedding. You say their action is wrong, so their conscience is weak because they believe something is wrong that is not wrong. That is the same as in the case Paul gives in I Cor. 8. It was not wrong to buy the meat offered to idols, but some people thought it was. You miss the big picture of the text by trying to make it about the marketplace, when the main focus is on conscience. In his love for them Paul would not compel folks to do something that their consciences told them was wrong, even though his knowledge told him there was nothing wrong with them doing so. It is always a bad idea to compel someone to do something they believe is wrong. It breaks down their conscience toward going ahead and doing other things they believe are wrong (things which really may be wrong). Paul was so sensitive toward the consciences of these brothers and sisters that he would go so far as to not engage in something he knew was okay in order to not offend their consciences.
Sandy wrote:And of course, in the application of scripture, this passage isn't really a contextual example. The last half of Matthew 5 is, though. How about being salt and light? How is rejecting a potential customer you've judged to be a sinner a "good work that glorifies God?" And what about those sinful attitudes and evidences that Jesus does mention? He equates anger with murder. He uses amputation as an analogy against heterosexual lust. He links divorce to adultery. He has a lot to say about going against your word, or requiring an oath to make it good, and the passage that is particularly relevant to this situation is Matthew 5:38-42. If you put all of that together, in a proper hermeneutical context, the weight of the responsibility of an argument of conscience always falls on the believer.
Of course I Cor. 8 is an example concerning the consciences of others. To say that Matthew 5:38-42 is how I see it and therefore you and your conscience should abide by how I see it is to go directly against the principle regarding conscience provided in I Cor. 8. Anyone is free to try to teach someone their view that making cakes and flower arrangements for homosexual weddings is the way they ought to be salt and light -- but they ought not try to bind the conscience of those who haven't yet come to understand it that way.

We should not try to get someone to violate his or her conscience by submitting to our conscience. The solemn duty of the Christian is to convince, not to coerce.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:09 am

The fact that changes all of the issues of conscience is that the florist, and the baker, are voluntarily participating in a business market where you have to assume they know the laws, regulations and rules. They already made their choice to serve the public without exception the day they opened their doors, and any issues of "conscience" were resolved then. To apply this scripture in any other way is to do exactly what critics of Christians say happens, that scripture is twisted to justify discrimination.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:21 am

Sandy wrote:The fact that changes all of the issues of conscience is that the florist, and the baker, are voluntarily participating in a business market where you have to assume they know the laws, regulations and rules.

I guess you mean the law that they have a freedom of religion they can live by and exercise 24/7.

They already made their choice to serve the public without exception the day they opened their doors, and any issues of "conscience" were resolved then.

Don't think so. You are trying to make the point they are doing this to discriminate where others see they are doing this to remain faithful to God. DO you choose the law of the land over God and His teachings? Sounds like you might or at least are telling others they have too.

To apply this scripture in any other way is to do exactly what critics of Christians say happens, that scripture is twisted to justify discrimination.

You are taking that scripture and placing it at the feet of, one of, man's law.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:05 am

Sandy wrote:The fact that changes all of the issues of conscience is that the florist, and the baker, are voluntarily participating in a business market where you have to assume they know the laws, regulations and rules. They already made their choice to serve the public without exception the day they opened their doors, and any issues of "conscience" were resolved then.
So you say, and so may you argue that it should have been, but the facts of the cases show these issues of conscience were not resolved then, and have not yet been resolved. [BTW, I suspect in most if not all of these cases that the laws on homosexual marriage probably came into play after "they opened their doors," so that the law changed on them and not their consciences.]
Sandy wrote:To apply this scripture in any other way is to do exactly what critics of Christians say happens, that scripture is twisted to justify discrimination.
I have no idea what scripture these bakers and florists and so forth are using. Mostly what I've heard from them is standing on the First Amendment. But this scripture is not twisted in any way when you let it say what it says -- that we ought not coerce the consciences (and actions) of others to commit what they believe is a sin.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:51 pm

The florist and baker have freedom of religion, guaranteed, 24/7. But so do their customers. That's why there is a conflict.

The law permitting same-gender marriage did change, though the discrimination laws have been on the books for some time. Maybe these particular business owners didn't think they'd ever be in this particular position, facing this kind of choice. It would not have been good for business for them to openly advertise their position, though it might have prevented them being approached, and ultimately, that was their policy. There are probably a lot of legal intricacies involved.

But, the business owners were Christians, and mature enough to have developed convictions about same-gender marriage. I don't think you can put them in the category of those with the weaker conscience in 1 Corinthians 8. Shouldn't they know Paul's words, "We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live"? Do you put the customers whom they refused to serve in a position of having a more mature Christian conscience than they do? Because that's what your argument about their conscience is doing.

No argument that this is a tough issue. It's easy to become the angry, self-righteous judge and get upset over people who have made their own "wicked" choice causing problems for good, Bible believing Christian folks who just want to earn a living. That's certainly a human reaction, but not the reaction that is discerned from the scriptures. God loves each person in this situation equally, and that's where Matthew 5 comes in.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:36 pm

Sandy wrote:The law permitting same-gender marriage did change, though the discrimination laws have been on the books for some time. Maybe these particular business owners didn't think they'd ever be in this particular position, facing this kind of choice.
Yes, discrimination laws of various kinds have been on the books for a long time (some much longer than others). But until same-sex marriage became the recognized law of the land, providing these kinds of services would not have been contemplated.
Sandy wrote:But, the business owners were Christians, and mature enough to have developed convictions about same-gender marriage. I don't think you can put them in the category of those with the weaker conscience in 1 Corinthians 8.
It is interesting to see these business owners described as mature Christians with strong convictions while at the same time in this thread they have been described as not following the golden rule, having judgmental/Pharisaical attitudes, self-righteously sitting in judgement of someone else's sin, possessing sour attitudes towards others, and so on. Not exactly a strong case for their being mature Christians!
Sandy wrote:Shouldn't they know Paul's words, "We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live"?
Sandy, I think we're probably talking past one another because we have different views of the principle of I Cor. 8. You seem to take the position that a Christian who is also the vendor must of necessity be one with a strong conscience, and a person seeking the services of the vendor must of necessity be one with a weak conscience. I don't see the teaching that way at all. I see Paul giving a principle that will apply widely in all sorts of situations. Your position puts one in the position of pre-deciding who is right and who is wrong. The way I look at it, we don't even have to decide who is right and who is wrong. Any person who is seeking something from others should not put those persons in a position of doing something they think is wrong.
Sandy wrote:Do you put the customers whom they refused to serve in a position of having a more mature Christian conscience than they do? Because that's what your argument about their conscience is doing.
No,to reiterate, any person who is seeking something from someone else or wanting someone to do something should not put that other person in a position of having to do something he or she believes is wrong.
Sandy wrote:No argument that this is a tough issue...God loves each person in this situation equally, and that's where Matthew 5 comes in.
I would condemn no Christian who bakes a cake or arranges flowers for someone because they believe this is their way of turning to them the other cheek or going the extra mile. But I'd rather we don't have laws that coerce those who don't see it the same way.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:28 pm

Rvaughn wrote:Sandy, I think we're probably talking past one another because we have different views of the principle of I Cor. 8. You seem to take the position that a Christian who is also the vendor must of necessity be one with a strong conscience, and a person seeking the services of the vendor must of necessity be one with a weak conscience. I don't see the teaching that way at all. I see Paul giving a principle that will apply widely in all sorts of situations. Your position puts one in the position of pre-deciding who is right and who is wrong. The way I look at it, we don't even have to decide who is right and who is wrong. Any person who is seeking something from others should not put those persons in a position of doing something they think is wrong.


Initially, in Acts, the church issued instructions to gentile believers to avoid meat sacrificed to idols. So Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 8 recognizes a different context with regard to the specific issue of conscience regarding meat sacrificed to idols. I'm saying that the baker and florist are, as far as we can see through what we read and hear about their cases, making a decision based on a level of maturity of Christian faith that those asking for their services are not exhibiting, because they can't see why the baker and florist see this provision of service as wrong.

Personally, there is a difference between discrimination based on race, and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but it is based on a Biblical principle, and while our right to hold it is protected by the first amendment, so is the right of others not to hold it.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:10 am

Let's put another question of religious freedom. Can a compounding pharmacy whose owner is pro-life (which for me includes objection to capital punishment) be forced to fill prescriptions for the drugs for lethal injections? Technically, the pharmacy is not there when they are used, but is this business not being asked to act against its convictions? Seems like this may have a lot more gravity than cakes and flowers.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:51 am

Sandy wrote:Initially, in Acts, the church issued instructions to gentile believers to avoid meat sacrificed to idols. So Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 8 recognizes a different context with regard to the specific issue of conscience regarding meat sacrificed to idols. I'm saying that the baker and florist are, as far as we can see through what we read and hear about their cases, making a decision based on a level of maturity of Christian faith that those asking for their services are not exhibiting, because they can't see why the baker and florist see this provision of service as wrong.
I can agree with you that the teaching in Acts 15 and I Corinthians 8, and I personally have no problem understanding the bakers and florists have made a decision based on some level of Christian maturity and biblical understanding -- though I found it ironic that the many descriptions of these people in this thread would suggest the opposite. On the other hand, I am unconvinced that those asking for these services can't or don't comprehend why the baker or florist believe providing this service is wrong for them to do. In the end they will have their cake and eat it, too.
Sandy wrote:Personally, there is a difference between discrimination based on race, and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but it is based on a Biblical principle, and while our right to hold it is protected by the first amendment, so is the right of others not to hold it.
It’s probably just me, but you lost me here.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:57 am

Dave Roberts wrote:Let's put another question of religious freedom. Can a compounding pharmacy whose owner is pro-life (which for me includes objection to capital punishment) be forced to fill prescriptions for the drugs for lethal injections? Technically, the pharmacy is not there when they are used, but is this business not being asked to act against its convictions? Seems like this may have a lot more gravity than cakes and flowers.
I’d say, no, they should not be forced to do so. (I don’t think they can, either, but don’t know for sure.)

I understand there is a difference between compounding pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies, but several pharmaceutical companies have taken measures to block the sale of their products to prisons. I don’t know whether any of them have posited a strictly “pro-life” or anti-capital punishment position. For example, Par Pharmaceuticals prohibited the sale of one of their drugs to prisons. They said publicly, “It’s not because we take public policy positions on issues like capital punishment. We’re a pharmaceutical company, and we have a mission statement. Par’s mission is to help improve the quality of life. Indiana’s proposed use of our product is contrary to our mission.”

Just found this Newsweek article on Pfizer from May 2016.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:59 am

Rvaughn wrote:
Dave Roberts wrote:Let's put another question of religious freedom. Can a compounding pharmacy whose owner is pro-life (which for me includes objection to capital punishment) be forced to fill prescriptions for the drugs for lethal injections? Technically, the pharmacy is not there when they are used, but is this business not being asked to act against its convictions? Seems like this may have a lot more gravity than cakes and flowers.
I’d say, no, they should not be forced to do so. (I don’t think they can, either, but don’t know for sure.)

I understand there is a difference between compounding pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies, but several pharmaceutical companies have taken measures to block the sale of their products to prisons. I don’t know whether any of them have posited a strictly “pro-life” or anti-capital punishment position. For example, Par Pharmaceuticals prohibited the sale of one of their drugs to prisons. They said publicly, “It’s not because we take public policy positions on issues like capital punishment. We’re a pharmaceutical company, and we have a mission statement. Par’s mission is to help improve the quality of life. Indiana’s proposed use of our product is contrary to our mission.”

Just found this Newsweek article on Pfizer from May 2016.


Arkansas started impeachment proceedings against a judge, Wendell Griffin, because he ruled in favor of a pharmaceutical companies right to restrict the use of its product for executions under the Arkansas laws on property rights. His ruling came on Good Friday, and later that day, he was part of Good Friday services outside in which he and others lay on a gurney as a modern portrayal of the crucifixion, if enacted in our day. Arkansas calls that an impeachable offense. Griffin, by the way, is an ordained Baptist minister.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:47 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Dave Roberts wrote:Let's put another question of religious freedom. Can a compounding pharmacy whose owner is pro-life (which for me includes objection to capital punishment) be forced to fill prescriptions for the drugs for lethal injections? Technically, the pharmacy is not there when they are used, but is this business not being asked to act against its convictions? Seems like this may have a lot more gravity than cakes and flowers.
I’d say, no, they should not be forced to do so. (I don’t think they can, either, but don’t know for sure.)

I understand there is a difference between compounding pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies, but several pharmaceutical companies have taken measures to block the sale of their products to prisons. I don’t know whether any of them have posited a strictly “pro-life” or anti-capital punishment position. For example, Par Pharmaceuticals prohibited the sale of one of their drugs to prisons. They said publicly, “It’s not because we take public policy positions on issues like capital punishment. We’re a pharmaceutical company, and we have a mission statement. Par’s mission is to help improve the quality of life. Indiana’s proposed use of our product is contrary to our mission.”

Just found this Newsweek article on Pfizer from May 2016.

Very interesting stuff.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11689
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:30 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:Let's put another question of religious freedom. Can a compounding pharmacy whose owner is pro-life (which for me includes objection to capital punishment) be forced to fill prescriptions for the drugs for lethal injections? Technically, the pharmacy is not there when they are used, but is this business not being asked to act against its convictions? Seems like this may have a lot more gravity than cakes and flowers.
Dave, how would you answer this question?
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Previous

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest