Progress

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

We've debated and discussed the sinfulness of homosexuality and transgendered people here to death, without making much of a difference. I believe the Biblical record contains support for the belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that following through on some sort of transgendered transition is as well. I believe that taking the posture that these things are not sinful behavior denies those individuals a legitimate change to experience spiritual conviction and repentance, and receive the gospel of Jesus. But the self-righteous judgmentalism that most of these people have experienced at the hands of the church is also just as detrimental to their spiritual health and their chances at repentance.

But we don't live in a country that restricts people's rights based on their religious beliefs. We love the selfish interpretation of religious freedom when it suits us, and when we can use it to justify bad behavior in the name of religion, but the fact that people who hold no religious belief, or who adhere to another world religion or belief have the same rights as Christians, and are entitled to the same religious freedom irritates us, somehow. Lesbians, gays, transgendered are people, and they are American citizens. Their religious beliefs, or sexual orientation should not restrict their rights, and if they manage to get elected to office, well, people have the right to vote for them.

[Jon Estes]

[Dave Roberts]

The fear tactic I find in this is the fear-mongering of "bathroom rights," fanned in VA by now defeated Delegate Bob Marshall. Frankly, I just don't buy those fears. I have read some (but certainly not all) of the medical literature on trans-gender identity. The most recent relates to how we are all reproduced with the original human zygote always beginning as female and only through cell division do some blend both X and Y chromosomes to become male. If this understanding is right, then transgender identities begin in the womb. Only later does there come a choosing of what sexual characteristics will be followed. To me, condemnation of these folks sends the wrong message and fights about bathroom rights yells, "God doesn't want you either." The process of change from birth gender is a surgically invasive process that few would undertake for the purpose of making a statement. While there is a lot here I don't understand, some of this demands that we as Christians take care not simply to pass condemnation because it's not clear in the Bible. I'm not trying to move the lines but rather trying to relate to the 0.04% of the population who are transgender in a way that will not keep them from Christ.

[Sandy]

[Jon Estes]

[Sandy]

[Jon Estes]

[Haruo]

So Jon, I take it you are not one of those who hold that Islam is not a religion and that therefore Muslims have no religious beliefs that are protected by the US Constitution as amended?

[Jon Estes]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

[Jim]

This mixing of a number of areas of “sin” regarding providing goods or services or not is a mistake. It's only when a mostly specific subject is at hand that decisions have to be made on the matter of biblical principles that are unmistakable. When a baker knows he is furnishing an element vital to a same-sex marriage ceremony/reception, he has a right not to comply if he feels the sacredness of that ceremony is being violated with his help. Sodomy and other homosexual oddities are violations of scripture and unmistakably so. However, if the baker is also a restaurant-owner, he may serve food to homosexuals because the Bible does not claim eating is a sin (except maybe for gluttony, not the restaurant's problem). Similarly, a Christian can sell gas to a known homosexual car-owner because driving is not a sin and the vendor has no responsibility for what happens in the car.

[Haruo]

Tell it to the Amish.

[Sandy]

[Sandy]

https://baptistnews.com/article/questio ... g2tzWnyvcs

[Haruo]

Since Alabama voters have been voting since October 18, before the scandal even broke let alone the reactions to it, it's highly likely that a 55% Jones vote at this point wouldn't be enough to result in 50%+1 on Election Night. So it's likely Moore will "win" even if he "drops out"; the closer we get to the election the less likely a Sessions Write-in movement could do more than swing the vote to Jones, so they're unlikely to try it. But then it will be up to the Senate to decide whether to unseat an elected Senator for the first time since the Civil War era. If the Republican Senators who have been calling on Moore to step out don't kick him out, they will lose a huge number of votes next November, mostly what's left of the women's vote in their states. So my guess is they will kick him out, and then maybe the governor will appoint Sessions pending a special election. And then we will see who else is available and willing to be kicked around by Trump as the US AG. Steve Bannon maybe?

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

According to one source that popped up, (al.com) about 5% of the ballots cast in Alabama in 2016 were absentee, and that was a presidential election year. It sounds like you have to be able to verify your reason for voting early. There will be four weeks of absentee ballots to counter the week that happened before this came out. But even prior to these revelations, Moore wasn't that far ahead, in fact, about half the polls on RCP had this race at a dead heat, or within a 5 point margin of error, before all of this broke. It was interesting that none of the MSNBC hosts really pushed the recent polling data all that hard, taking much more of a cautious approach, even though the two most historically accurate and reliable polls have Jones up by double digits. They spent more time on the state house races in deep red Oklahoma that the Democrats picked off this week in some of the reddest territory in the country.

[Jim]

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

Who were the two Corinthians? Did anybody get their names?

[Jim]

S: That kind of behavior is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and inconsistent with Christian, Biblical principles. If their religion causes them to refuse service, it's discrimination, not "religion," and it is certainly not Christianity.[/quote]

J: For Paul, try II Cor. 6:17. For Christ, try Matt. 11:20-24 or Matt. 10:14,15.[/quote]

S: Nothing applicable there. If you apply the II Corinthians (or two Corinthians, whichever you prefer) verse literally, to this situation, then no Christian ought to be engaged in a business that serves the public. The passages in Matthew are directed toward the disciples, and are about their evangelism ministry, conducted among the Jews.[/quote]

J: You completely miss the point, of course. The passages express a firm form(s) of discrimination by both Christ and Paul for those who have earned the right to be avoided and exempted from being served.

[Sandy]