Texas Pastor Protection Bill

[Mountain Man]

The tipping point really came when I realized the extent to which Christians around the world were anti-gay - that it wasn't just a few quacks with terrible exegesis but it was in fact the majority of "Christians" world-wide...

What's that? The majority of today's Christian actually believe the Bible when it calls homosexuality a sin? How shocking. No, really.

A hundred years ago there was a huge contingent of liberal Christians and nominal Christians, who balanced out the fundamentalists and made "Christianity" palatable to everyone, because everyone could find something to like.

Because that's what Jesus was all about, giving everybody something they could like.

[Sparko]

Whether I am willing to be associated with "Christianity" or call myself a "Christian" depends on what I perceive "Christianity" and "Christians" to be. When my perception of Christians was of those who have a loving, kind, caring and thoughtful attitude toward others and who are passionately concerned with the plight of the poor and helping those in need in our society (as Sam seems an able ambassador of), then I was quite happy to call myself a "Christian" and be associated with "Christianity".

For a long time I overlooked those so-called Christians who were less-than-loving, less-than-kind, less-than-caring, who showed little compassion for the poor, and who thought the bible told them to be anti-gay, and considered those people not real Christians. The tipping point really came when I realized the extent to which Christians around the world were anti-gay - that it wasn't just a few quacks with terrible exegesis but it was in fact the majority of "Christians" world-wide who were really and for-real against giving rights to the oppressed or helping the persecuted and that in fact they were the ones oppressing the weak in the name of Christ. For me that was the tipping point where I said to myself "well, I can't really justify defining 'true Christianity' based on my own understanding of the bible and putting the majority of Christians in the 'not-true-Christians' basket. I've just got to accept that the majority of Christians do in fact get to define what 'Christianity' really is. That means that I've got to accept that all those 'Christians' that I've been writing-off as 'not-true-Christians' due to them being unloving, uncharitable, self-righteous, anti-gay, hypocritical, ignorant, bible-betraying, Christ-unlike, jerks, who I didn't want to be associated with, are actually 'Christians'. Hmm, well I don't want to be associated with them, so I don't want to call myself a 'Christian'."

I get the impression that this general trend is happening to quite a lot of people. A hundred years ago there was a huge contingent of liberal Christians and nominal Christians, who balanced out the fundamentalists and made "Christianity" palatable to everyone, because everyone could find something to like. Over the decades, increasingly the nominal and liberal Christians have dropped out of churches and out of participation in Christian groups. This has meant that those within Christian groups have become increasingly only-fundamentalists with very little balance. The result is that a lot of moderate Christians are getting increasingly scared-off from Christian groups as the fundamentalists make it a matter of "it's my way or the highway", with various litmus tests of faith - eg opposition to gay marriage, opposition to evolution, opposition to abortion - that serve to alienate moderate Christians.

Christianity's job is not be "palatable"

Jesus tells us we will be hated for being his followers.

Also I am reminded Teallaura talked about once at a tweb convention. (feel free to give more details teal)

Our job isn't to save people. That is God's job, through the holy spirit. Our job is to be light, and shine the way to the gospel. We share the gospel and answer questions, and try to live a life according to what Jesus and the Apostles taught us. The rest is up to God.

There were a few such Christians in my life before I became one. I didn't really even pay attention to them, other than to admire their honesty and how they treated people. Years later I was shared the gospel and a while later it all clicked for me. It wasn't one person "saving" me, it was God saving me through several persons over several years.

If you left Christianity, it was because the values it taught probably made you uncomfortable. Instead of changing your values to meet Christianity, you wanted a place that would already have or change to meet your values.

[Cerebrum123]

As Cow Poke said, I just assumed you've been playing devil's advocate. I never realized that you actually reject scripture. It's not that I can't retain information. Rather, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since you call yourself a Christian.

His posts stating that Jesus explicitly taught extreme pacifism ring rather hollow right about now.

[Mountain Man]

You have been an active participant in discussions where I outlined my position on monogamous same-sex relationships as compatible with Christian orthodoxy at least twice, as has Cow Poke, including at least one extensive discussion of the verses above.

If this is a genuine surprise for either of you, it's only because you aren't retaining the information from multiple debates on the subject.

As Cow Poke said, I just assumed you've been playing devil's advocate. I never realized that you actually reject scripture. It's not that I can't retain information. Rather, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since you call yourself a Christian.

[Cow Poke]

You have been an active participant in discussions where I outlined my position on monogamous same-sex relationships as compatible with Christian orthodoxy at least twice, as has Cow Poke, including at least one extensive discussion of the verses above.

If this is a genuine surprise for either of you, it's only because you aren't retaining the information from multiple debates on the subject.

Sam,

We interact with a LOT of people in a lot of areas. I don't remember everything everybody says.

I honestly didn't remember, so I asked rather than assume. I think that's the honorable thing to do.

And, yes, I was surprised. I knew you were a liberal Christian, but I didn't know you were that liberal.

Now I know. That doesn't mean that six months from now I'll remember.

[Sam]

Then you stand in direct opposition to the Bible, and this is one issue where scripture is entirely without ambiguity.

Leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Of course now I finally understand why I can't make sense of your posts in a Christian context, because apparently they aren't written in a Christian context. I always suspected you were too liberal for your own good. Now I'm certain.

You have been an active participant in discussions where I outlined my position on monogamous same-sex relationships as compatible with Christian orthodoxy at least twice, as has Cow Poke, including at least one extensive discussion of the verses above.

If this is a genuine surprise for either of you, it's only because you aren't retaining the information from multiple debates on the subject.

[Mountain Man]

No, I don't believe that monogamous same-sex relationships are sinful.

Then you stand in direct opposition to the Bible, and this is one issue where scripture is entirely without ambiguity.

Leviticus 18:22, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Of course now I finally understand why I can't make sense of your posts in a Christian context, because apparently they aren't written in a Christian context. I always suspected you were too liberal for your own good. Now I'm certain.

[Jedidiah]

Any one wishing to post on the abortion derail there is now a thread for that at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...on-Bill-derail

[Jedidiah]

I have made that request to the Mods.

Working on it.

[lilpixieofterror]

The legendary(common actually)topic change found in every thread on tweb.

So what happened to the bill?

It's still there somewhere. When somebody tries to make justifications for murdering infants though; it kind of quickly buries that topic...

[Cerealman]

The legendary(common actually)topic change found in every thread on tweb.

So what happened to the bill?

[Cow Poke]

Hesitantly dipping my toe into these fraught waters, here are my damned liberal but far from settled views about abortion. (although I don't understand what this has to do with the OP and perhaps should have its own derail thread).

I have made that request to the Mods.

[Leonhard]

Starlight, a gay couple walks into a Christian bakery, asks for a cake that obviously goes against the beliefs of the owner, owner refuses, they sue a ridiculous amount and win... do you consider this bullying?

A christian asks for a cake to be ordered from a baker who is known to be publically gay, with a message on it affirming that marriage is between one man and one woman, is told to decorate it himself. Tries to sue, but is ignored. While this is counter-bullying, do you agree that a shift in the power balance is happening here which is unfair?

I know what bullying is like, I had my share of it in my life. I'm with these bakers, and every pastor or person who wants to stand up for their beliefs. I don't think a teenager should be sent home from school, because he mentioned in conversation with his gay class mates that he thought homosexuality was a sin, I don't think Christian pastors lobbying against a bill should have thousands of votes collected dismissed for poor reasons (LGBT doesn't care about the injustice of course, the bill was in favor of them), and then to just blindly accept having Annice Parker go in a witchhunt with a universally recognised ridiculuosly wide demand for basically everything they've ever written.

But times might be changing. But do you understand the concern Starlight?

[Cow Poke]

Looking at my notes from last week, I regret that I failed to write down WHICH attorney it was - ACLU or one from the GLBT group - who offered to help finesse the bill.

I'm pretty sure it was the ACLU guy, but he never seemed to indicate that the bill was redundant or unnecessary, but that it "went too far". Now, the fact that he thinks it went too far shows quite obviously that he didn't think it was "exactly the same" as federal protections. And his concern that it "went too far" dealt with the notion that others have brought up dealing with hospitals and "religiously affiliated institutions"*.

He was offering to confer with the author of the bill to finesse (his word) the bill to make it do what the author intended it to do.

(In fact, several of the attorneys who spoke against the bill were concerned that it "went too far", so the notion that this bill duplicates law that already exists is just silly)


ETA:
*I can see the concern over the "affiliated institutions", and wouldn't mind that being clarified, especially if that was the main objection of the ACLU. I know what is intended by that section, but I can also see why people would be concerned.

[Cow Poke]

I agree 100%.

From an outside perspective I'm seeing lawsuits take place in a way in the US I don't experience in my own country. In Denmark, where we do have discrimination laws, the bakers wouldn't have been charged the ridiculous (and I hope you agree that it is ridiculous) fine of 150000$ based on personal injuries. In Denmark, I know people who have been fined for public racist statements, and that's in the neighborhood of 1000$, and that was not handed to them via lawsuit.



The idea, I guess, is to bind courts to a particular reading of the law. At least make the law clear, before an incident happens where a precedent would then need to be set.

Can you ensure us that courts will forever understand this law in the same way, and won't suddenly reinterpret it in the future? We've had previous laws with intentions that kinda slid over the decades. Even when the law, in principle, should be interpreted in our favor, making it known that it should, is good. I've heard enough ridiculous stories from the US, about honor students who wanted to share their Christian faith at a graduation speech, only to be ordered to write a secular speech (you can try to explain away how this is not against freedom of worship and freedom of speech).

Stuff like that happens. And it shouldn't. Can you explain to me why it happens? And why we Christians shouldn't start to worry about our rights and freedoms in a society that's progressively going to be dominated by forces completely unsympathetic and unfriendly towards us?

Yeah!