Progress

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

Moderator: KeithE

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:56 am

Jon, I'm not concerned about the etiology of homosexuality. It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or precognitive or a response to early abuse or a conscious, uncoerced choice. The point is the discrimination or even violence directed AT persons PERCEIVED TO BE gay by those inflicting it, who come close to the Biblical sin of Sodom by their lack of hospitality. Just as discrimination or violence against those PERCEIVED as black is equally wrong whether the the one mistreated is actually dark-skinned or has undergone cosmetic darkening for the purpose of experiencing what it is like to be black, as in the old book "Black Like Me".
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 Jon Estes » Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:14 am

Haruo wrote:Jon, I'm not concerned about the etiology of homosexuality. It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or precognitive or a response to early abuse or a conscious, uncoerced choice. The point is the discrimination or even violence directed AT persons PERCEIVED TO BE gay by those inflicting it, who come close to the Biblical sin of Sodom by their lack of hospitality. Just as discrimination or violence against those PERCEIVED as black is equally wrong whether the the one mistreated is actually dark-skinned or has undergone cosmetic darkening for the purpose of experiencing what it is like to be black, as in the old book "Black Like Me".


I think it has been shown that the bakers said "no" in a very hospitable manner.Being hospitable does not mean we have to park our faith / beliefs / convictions because someone might be offended. I'm offended that you would think sich or say so. Hmmm, I guess that means you have to support my contention and position since I know you want to be hospitable.
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 Jon Estes » Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:58 am

Haruo wrote:Here's a pretty thorough treatment of what Voddie Bauchum and King James I of England and VI of Scotland misleadingly called "abomination": Does the Bible really call homosexuality an abomination.


So the article you want us to applaud and accept is willing to admit they do not know what the Hebrew word means but they know for sure what it doesn't mean. There is nothing thorough (your term) about this article.

It is interesting to change the word or meaning of the word so the Bible will not speak against our sin.

Too much Moralistic Therapeutic Deism happening here...

1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.
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 JE Pettibone » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:44 am

Jon Estes wrote:
Haruo wrote:Here's a pretty thorough treatment of what Voddie Bauchum and King James I of England and VI of Scotland misleadingly called "abomination": Does the Bible really call homosexuality an abomination.


So the article you want us to applaud and accept is willing to admit they do not know what the Hebrew word means but they know for sure what it doesn't mean. There is nothing thorough (your term) about this article.

It is interesting to change the word or meaning of the word so the Bible will not speak against our sin.

Too much Moralistic Therapeutic Deism happening here...

1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.


Ed : So Jon, is Mohler your new hero? Do you know where I might find some info on the methodology used by Christian Smith and his students in the study that led to this list.?
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:50 pm

Jon Estes wrote:
Haruo wrote:Jon, I'm not concerned about the etiology of homosexuality. It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or precognitive or a response to early abuse or a conscious, uncoerced choice. The point is the discrimination or even violence directed AT persons PERCEIVED TO BE gay by those inflicting it, who come close to the Biblical sin of Sodom by their lack of hospitality. Just as discrimination or violence against those PERCEIVED as black is equally wrong whether the the one mistreated is actually dark-skinned or has undergone cosmetic darkening for the purpose of experiencing what it is like to be black, as in the old book "Black Like Me".


I think it has been shown that the bakers said "no" in a very hospitable manner.Being hospitable does not mean we have to park our faith / beliefs / convictions because someone might be offended. I'm offended that you would think sich or say so. Hmmm, I guess that means you have to support my contention and position since I know you want to be hospitable.

I'm guessing "sich" is UAEnglish for "think". And I'm not talking about particular bakers whose level of politeness (which I don't take to be a synonym of hospitable in the halachic sense) I know nothing of. I do not know any of the people involved in these cases nor did I witness their interactions. But I do regret your taking offense, as I do Mr. Baucham or Bauchum's.
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 Sandy » Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:13 pm

In the application of the law, in the case of bakers or florists, or any other businesses where a consistent principle can be applied, no religious principle should be involved. The customers are seeking a product or a service, and approached the business owners without knowing that their sexual orientation would get them turned away. The government doesn't recognize the "establishment of religion" when applying personal liberties, but it does recognize refusal to provide service as discrimination, and so far, it has not allowed people to hide behind religious beliefs to re-define discrimination.

There's nothing in Christian faith or teaching that leads to the conclusion that it's' OK to sit in judgement of someone else's sin, and refuse to serve them because of it. It's an argument from silence, because it's just not there in the scripture, in the very words of Jesus himself. I see "Love your enemies," and "do good to those who spitefully use you." I see "do not judge" because you will be judged by the same measure. But I don't see where the self-righteousness required to judge someone else's morality in order to refuse to serve them is supported anywhere. Jesus healed all the lepers, in spite of the fact that only one returned to thank him. He admonished the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, but didn't withold his protection from here based on whether or not she took his advice. Which message is more effective? "I'm refusing to serve you because I believe what you are doing is wrong and my righteousness won't allow me to be involved with you," or "I'm serving you because even though I believe what you are doing is sinful, I am demonstrating how powerful is the love of Christ my savior."
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby KeithE » Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:29 pm

Sandy wrote:Which message is more effective? "I'm refusing to serve you because I believe what you are doing is wrong and my righteousness won't allow me to be involved with you," or "I'm serving you because even though I believe what you are doing is sinful, I am demonstrating how powerful is the love of Christ my savior."


Amen!
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8404
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:38 pm

Haruo wrote:First of all, I would say that if you are a cakemaker in business as such (or a baker who advertises her or his cakes) then a wedding cake is much more akin to "a product you have on your shelf" than it is to "a product or service which one doesn't do all the time and may or may not want to do". Now there may be details that arguably make a particular cake closer to the second category (e.g. if the person ordering the cake asks that it display homoerotic imagery in its decorations, etc.).
I favor allowing discretion so that a person is not obligated to create or work on a decoration or creation that they find personally offensive. Would you favor allowing a black baker the discretion to refuse to decorate a cake that says "Congratulations on your installation as Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan of Washington"?
Haruo wrote:Secondly, with regard to the Voddie abomination issue, while certainly specific intentional acts are not in the same category as inherited genetic traits, discrimination against classes of people are in the same category whether the class is racial or orientational. There is a likeness of kind between the kinds of discrimination and violence directed against racial group members because of their race, and the kinds directed against those perceived to be homosexual.
In cases such as the cakes for a homosexual wedding, there is no perception involved, or they wouldn't be getting married (nor I am aware of any violence directed toward anyone in any of these cases). As for me, part of treating others as I would like to be treated includes not trying to force someone to do something for me that they don't want to do, and not trying to bankrupt them if they won't.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:18 am

JE Pettibone wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:
Haruo wrote:Here's a pretty thorough treatment of what Voddie Bauchum and King James I of England and VI of Scotland misleadingly called "abomination": Does the Bible really call homosexuality an abomination.


So the article you want us to applaud and accept is willing to admit they do not know what the Hebrew word means but they know for sure what it doesn't mean. There is nothing thorough (your term) about this article.

It is interesting to change the word or meaning of the word so the Bible will not speak against our sin.

Too much Moralistic Therapeutic Deism happening here...

1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.


Ed : So Jon, is Mohler your new hero? Do you know where I might find some info on the methodology used by Christian Smith and his students in the study that led to this list.?


Ed - Not really. Did he come up with this MYD? This is from one of the weeks material we teach in my THEO class for LUO. I am not sure where you can access further material you are looking for. It is introduced in a class lecture video for my students. I'll see what I can find if you are interested. SOmewhat busy and getting ready to travel for holiday soon but will do what I can with the time I have free.
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 Jon Estes » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:24 am

Haruo wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:
Haruo wrote:Jon, I'm not concerned about the etiology of homosexuality. It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or precognitive or a response to early abuse or a conscious, uncoerced choice. The point is the discrimination or even violence directed AT persons PERCEIVED TO BE gay by those inflicting it, who come close to the Biblical sin of Sodom by their lack of hospitality. Just as discrimination or violence against those PERCEIVED as black is equally wrong whether the the one mistreated is actually dark-skinned or has undergone cosmetic darkening for the purpose of experiencing what it is like to be black, as in the old book "Black Like Me".


I think it has been shown that the bakers said "no" in a very hospitable manner.Being hospitable does not mean we have to park our faith / beliefs / convictions because someone might be offended. I'm offended that you would think sich or say so. Hmmm, I guess that means you have to support my contention and position since I know you want to be hospitable.

I'm guessing "sich" is UAEnglish for "think". And I'm not talking about particular bakers whose level of politeness (which I don't take to be a synonym of hospitable in the halachic sense) I know nothing of. I do not know any of the people involved in these cases nor did I witness their interactions. But I do regret your taking offense, as I do Mr. Baucham or Bauchum's.


My apology for the typo. Everything else I stated and Voddie stated, we stand behind - you can regret it all you want. I regret you want to find common ground between the color of one's skin to the wicked behavior of another.
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 KeithE » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:05 am

rvaughn said:
As for me, part of treating others as I would like to be treated includes not trying to force someone to do something for me that they don't want to do, and not trying to bankrupt them if they won't.


As for me I see the golden rule as morally suggestive in both ways.

1) An LBGT couple should not try to make the baker/florist do something they don’t want to do, due to their moral scruples. The LBGT couple should look elsewhere for the service which is line with the underlined above. As for bankrupting them, I don’t know what you are thinking about - lawsuits? Any such lawsuit would not be warranted, insignificant harm, unless there were harsh, condemnatory, public (dog whistling) words expressed in turning down the requesting LBGT couple.

2) A religious baker/florist should not be quick to reject a request for a service - the principle of love and the golden rule supersedes religious legalism, imo. It seems to me that the religious baker/florist could ask nicely if the service could be performed elsewhere. If the answer is “not conveniently”, they they ought to perform the service w/o fear of God damning them.

The fact that this rare and minor circumstance has been brought to national attention just shows how legalistic some people have gotten in the Religious Right. I know of no lawsuits on the part of cake-rejected LBGT couples - just invention of issues to moralize on. Maybe you could point some such lawsuits out. But if either of parties would employ the golden rule, there would not be an issue.

Worldwide, we have millions (if not over a billion) of people living in poverty, millions in war situations, hunger abounds, Puerto Rico and Haiti have not recovered. In our country we have thousands of homeless, and sub livable wage situations, many undergoing abusive and/or sexual harassment behaviors, a tax code proposal that will exasperate our already extreme inequality, and we have a narcissistic/lying/hedonistic/bullying President who still has not imposed Russian sanctions and is favoring big businesses and the rich at every turn - those deserve far more attention than this trivial, made-up issue.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8404
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Progress

Postby William Thornton » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:49 am

Keith, you write as if you are unfamiliar with the prominent cases here.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11807
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:15 pm

KeithE wrote:The fact that this rare and minor circumstance has been brought to national attention just shows how legalistic some people have gotten in the Religious Right. I know of no lawsuits on the part of cake-rejected LBGT couples - just invention of issues to moralize on. Maybe you could point some such lawsuits out. But if either of parties would employ the golden rule, there would not be an issue.
I used the word lawsuits loosely, and this may not be the best legal terminology in most cases. But it is not just moralizing and it is not minor if you are the one about to lose your home, business, etc. One example would be the case of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon. Laurel Bowman, one of the homosexual couple who wanted the wedding cake, filed an anti-discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. I think the case of Baronelle Stutzman, the florist in Washington, has played in much the same way. I don't live my life keeping up with the latest status of all these cases, but in both of the them the fines have the effect of bankrupting these people. (They have fought back, and one of these kinds of cases will likely end up in the Supreme Court.)

These may or may not just be interesting discussions on the part of some folks. I had the experience of not being hired for a job because I am a preacher (I am a bi-vocational pastor). In my case I was not told directly that was the reason I was not hired, but it was talked about within the company and a friend of mine who worked there heard it. He urged me to file a complaint with the labor board, for discrimination (and he was willing to testify). My answer was a simple no. I had no interest in punishing them for the choice they made.

I hold a more liberal view that many conservatives/fundamentalists on how tight to draw the line on avoiding business transactions and saying they involve us in the sin itself (and a more conservative view than most liberals). A lot of the way I look at it derives from Paul's lesson on eating meat offered to idols. You could buy the meat without being considered involved in the idolatry. On the other hand, he would not push others to violate their consciences on the matter. So it doesn't have to just be a consideration of whether their views are right. Do we want to force someone to violate his or her conscience to satisfy our desires?
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:51 pm

Rvaughn wrote:I hold a more liberal view that many conservatives/fundamentalists on how tight to draw the line on avoiding business transactions and saying they involve us in the sin itself (and a more conservative view than most liberals). A lot of the way I look at it derives from Paul's lesson on eating meat offered to idols. You could buy the meat without being considered involved in the idolatry. On the other hand, he would not push others to violate their consciences on the matter. So it doesn't have to just be a consideration of whether their views are right. Do we want to force someone to violate his or her conscience to satisfy our desires?


Here's the passage you reference:
I Corinthians 8:9-13 wrote:Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.


I look at it this way. If you're the Christian who is also the vendor, i.e. the baker or the florist, then you're the one with the strong conscience, and the person who comes to you for your services is the one with the weak conscience. You know where you stand, you know, as Paul said earier in this passage, "that an idol is nothing". It's not your conscience that is in question here. Is refusing to serve a gay or lesbian couple going to help them see their sin, and feel the need to repent from it or is it going to extend the judgement and rejection they already feel from Christians? I think you've got a much better shot at showing them Christ in you by serving them with the same quality and enthusiasm that your other customers get, and I think you'll have much more opportunity to be a Christ-like example than you would by rejecting them, and refusing to serve them. You will certainly open up more opportunities to let them hear your testimony than they'd have if you walk away. And you're not any worse off for it, nor are you endorsing their sin, as Paul points out.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby JE Pettibone » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:38 pm

Sandy wrote:
Rvaughn wrote:I hold a more liberal view that many conservatives/fundamentalists on how tight to draw the line on avoiding business transactions and saying they involve us in the sin itself (and a more conservative view than most liberals). A lot of the way I look at it derives from Paul's lesson on eating meat offered to idols. You could buy the meat without being considered involved in the idolatry. On the other hand, he would not push others to violate their consciences on the matter. So it doesn't have to just be a consideration of whether their views are right. Do we want to force someone to violate his or her conscience to satisfy our desires?


Here's the passage you reference:
I Corinthians 8:9-13 wrote:Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.


I look at it this way. If you're the Christian who is also the vendor, i.e. the baker or the florist, then you're the one with the strong conscience, and the person who comes to you for your services is the one with the weak conscience. You know where you stand, you know, as Paul said earier in this passage, "that an idol is nothing". It's not your conscience that is in question here. Is refusing to serve a gay or lesbian couple going to help them see their sin, and feel the need to repent from it or is it going to extend the judgement and rejection they already feel from Christians? I think you've got a much better shot at showing them Christ in you by serving them with the same quality and enthusiasm that your other customers get, and I think you'll have much more opportunity to be a Christ-like example than you would by rejecting them, and refusing to serve them. You will certainly open up more opportunities to let them hear your testimony than they'd have if you walk away. And you're not any worse off for it, nor are you endorsing their sin, as Paul points out.


Ed: Sandy, you seem to be ignoring the position of the christian artisans here. They believe that by being required to enhance the wedding experience of same sex couples they would be supporting and encouraging the practice of such marriages. I have seen no suggestion that any of the bakeries. florist shops and lets add photography studios, have refused any other service to the couples in question.

Do you believe pastors and other ordained ministers should be required by law to perform same sex marriages?
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

Re: Progress

Postby Rvaughn » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:52 pm

Sandy wrote:And you're not any worse off for it, nor are you endorsing their sin, as Paul points out.
Sandy, the problem with your application of the passage is that it does not agree with the facts in the cases. Folks like Baronelle Stutzman (flowers in Washington), Aaron and Melissa Klein (cakes in Oregon) do believe they would be endorsing the sin by their actions. You are making an argument from your conscience and not theirs.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:49 am

Then there was a case involving an acquaintance and her (male) fiancé who had been planning on being married by their pastor but who made the mistake of making public statements in favor of gay marriage and were told by their pastor shortly before their planned wedding that he could not marry them because of their views on marriage.
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 Jon Estes » Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:32 am

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:And you're not any worse off for it, nor are you endorsing their sin, as Paul points out.
Sandy, the problem with your application of the passage is that it does not agree with the facts in the cases. Folks like Baronelle Stutzman (flowers in Washington), Aaron and Melissa Klein (cakes in Oregon) do believe they would be endorsing the sin by their actions. You are making an argument from your conscience and not theirs.


Well said.
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 Jon Estes » Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:37 am

Haruo wrote:Then there was a case involving an acquaintance and her (male) fiancé who had been planning on being married by their pastor but who made the mistake of making public statements in favor of gay marriage and were told by their pastor shortly before their planned wedding that he could not marry them because of their views on marriage.


Is a Pastor required to marry people? Would you support a Pastor walking up to a family planning a wedding and demanding they use him as the officiant because he pastors the church they attend or are members of?

Let each individual in the discussion make their own decision. Give people the freedom to say NO, for whatever reason... In a business decision or outside that realm.
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 Haruo » Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:49 pm

Jon Estes wrote:
Haruo wrote:Then there was a case involving an acquaintance and her (male) fiancé who had been planning on being married by their pastor but who made the mistake of making public statements in favor of gay marriage and were told by their pastor shortly before their planned wedding that he could not marry them because of their views on marriage.


Is a Pastor required to marry people? Would you support a Pastor walking up to a family planning a wedding and demanding they use him as the officiant because he pastors the church they attend or are members of?

Let each individual in the discussion make their own decision. Give people the freedom to say NO, for whatever reason... In a business decision or outside that realm.

No, but this pastor had been planning the wedding with them (and was their pastor) and then out of the blue, as I understand it, told them he wouldn't do it (unless they repented of their theological/political views) based on something they'd posted on Facebook. Felt kind of bait-and-switchy to them (and to me hearing about it).
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 William Thornton » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:24 pm

May have been shabby by the pastor but not anything that should involve gummit.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11807
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Holly Holman does a great job on Baker

Postby Stephen Fox » Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:06 pm

In current issue of bjconline.org on this matter.

another distinguishing mark of the BJC vs ADF. One is authentic Baptist. The ADF is a child of the Reagan administration operatives and Baptist Peace Committee and Mississippi past President Chuck Pickering.

ADF buttresss the likes of Roy Moore though Collinsville staffer on their DC board was a never Trumper. Still the ADF's abortion politics may make the diference for Moore in Bama
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 8998
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:02 pm

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.
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 Sandy » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:21 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:And you're not any worse off for it, nor are you endorsing their sin, as Paul points out.
Sandy, the problem with your application of the passage is that it does not agree with the facts in the cases. Folks like Baronelle Stutzman (flowers in Washington), Aaron and Melissa Klein (cakes in Oregon) do believe they would be endorsing the sin by their actions. You are making an argument from your conscience and not theirs.


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.

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.

Whoever loves his brother is in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. I John 2:10
Last edited by Sandy on Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8179
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby JE Pettibone » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:28 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.


Ed: As of about the fourth reading of this thread and five or six readings of Hauros posts regarding his acquaintances who's pastor backed out of doing their wedding, I would like to hear the pastors side of the story . As reported here the timeline of events is quite unclear.

And I wonder if when the couple made their positive public statements regarding gay unions the door was opened to new revelations about other views on marriage, held by the couple, that the pastor finds objectionable. The other views may have had more weight than the couples views on same sex marriage.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jon Estes and 1 guest