Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[MaxVel]

That...really isn't what I was referring to at all. Observe seer's behavior in the "Fairness?" thread. (Or just about any thread of his in Apologetics 301, really.) He's dead-set on insisting that atheists can't make judgments on certain things because he believes their morality is totally subjective. When atheists specifically tell him that they do believe in objective morality, he refuses to accept this and continues arguing as if they're holding to a subjective framework. He apparently is incapable of interacting with people as people, and instead more as a caricature that he has in his mind.

Perhaps seer believes (erroneously??) that it is impossible to successfully construct a consistent and coherent objective morality that is not based on God. So when atheists tell him that they hold to an objective morality, he sees that as them being inconsistent with their overall worldview (atheism).

[Abigail]

if we agree that 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 is in play, God judges those outside of Christ. We judge those who claim to be in Christ. That isn't to say that we can't recognize sin outside of the body. And in the same book we are taught to avoid evil communications. What say you?

Agree.

[Tassman]

And I am free to tell those who are offended to take a flying leap too. I can not be made to serve someone. Thank you for understanding that.

Certainly! Provided that you understand that by defying the law of the land you will pay the penalty and not demand special privileges based upon your personal beliefs.

I think BtC is using 'acceptance' in terms of gay people not accepting anything less than Christians submitting to the belief that homosexual sex is not sinful.

Nothing is actually immoral in your world FM. It is all relative - correct?

[Tassman]

That appears to be the law as it exists currently, in the US. Hardly a good argument FOR that same law.

A secular nation like the USA is governed by rule of law and the - cited Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

[Bill the Cat]

I would hope that we can agree that the process itself of actually thinking about others and thinking about how your actions might impact on them, is not itself 'enabling'. Having thought through the pros and cons of possible courses of action and thought about how those actions might impact on others, it is quite possible you might come to the view that it's important not to act in a way that's 'enabling'. But that's not a reason to avoid the thought process in the first place.

But it becomes incredibly arbitrary in its application, because your thought process and someone else's may be different. Therefore, different conclusions are reached, and who determines which conclusion is actually less harmful overall?

My concern is that a lot of conservative don't seem to engage in that thought process. There's a lack of serious actual thought given to the outcomes of actions that will affect others, no actual attempt to put yourself in their shoes and think about how they are likely to respond to possible things you might say or do. I see this lack of thought about others consistently in conservative responses on moral issues, and I find it quite concerning.

And I completely disagree. your concern is for what you perceive as their "natural good" while ours is for something we perceive as much more permanent.

[Starlight]

And I completely disagree. your concern is for what you perceive as their "natural good" while ours is for something we perceive as much more permanent.

Even if it the fate of their eternal souls you are concerned with, you've got to think about whether Christians setting out to discriminate against to gay people is going to win or lose souls overall.

Taking a negative attitude towards gay people is likely to:
1. Drive a lot of gay people away from Christianity. Quite a lot of gay people used to be Christians, and now aren't due to how they've been treated by Christians.
2. Also drive away non-gay people who are upset by your stance on gay issues. I know multiple people whose primary reason for leaving Christianity was the widespread anti-gay stance. And I've seen polls where one-third of people leaving Christianity cite gay-rights as a major factor in their decision.

Whereas, such an attitude wins you zero souls. Unless you take the rather extreme view that gay sex or gay marriage is a salvation-destroying act, and that gay Christians who get married or whatever are going to hell despite being otherwise good Christians in every way...? In that case, I guess you've saved what few of them remain in the church despite the anti-gay attitudes and who persevere in celibacy or in pretending to be / have become straight. So in that case, maybe you are saving one soul or so for every two to ten souls your anti-gay attitude loses you.

[Bill the Cat]

Even if it the fate of their eternal souls you are concerned with, you've got to think about whether Christians setting out to discriminate against to gay people is going to win or lose souls overall.

Not really. Jesus left the 99 to go after the 1. Truth can not be compromised just to save someone's feelings.

Taking a negative attitude towards gay people is likely to:
1. Drive a lot of gay people away from Christianity. Quite a lot of gay people used to be Christians, and now aren't due to how they've been treated by Christians.

Then their actions are their god and not God Himself. That's idolatry. Making God conform to the image they demand.

2. Also drive away non-gay people who are upset by your stance on gay issues.

Again, they are making God conform to the image of Him that they have created.

I know multiple people whose primary reason for leaving Christianity was the widespread anti-gay stance. And I've seen polls where one-third of people leaving Christianity cite gay-rights as a major factor in their decision.

Then they were not lovers of the truth. They loved their own ideas of right and wrong over God's. And that's idolatry. And it isn't unexpected either.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires

Whereas, such an attitude wins you zero souls. Unless you take the rather extreme view that gay sex or gay marriage is a salvation-destroying act, and that gay Christians who get married or whatever are going to hell despite being otherwise good Christians in every way...? In that case, I guess you've saved what few of them remain in the church despite the anti-gay attitudes and who persevere in celibacy or in pretending to be / have become straight. So in that case, maybe you are saving one soul or so for every two to ten souls your anti-gay attitude loses you.

I'd rather have the one soul come to Christ in truth than have a bunch of false converts who are really idolaters who do not love the truth.

[Abigail]

Even if it the fate of their eternal souls you are concerned with, you've got to think about whether Christians setting out to discriminate against to gay people is going to win or lose souls overall.

Taking a negative attitude towards gay people is likely to:
1. Drive a lot of gay people away from Christianity. Quite a lot of gay people used to be Christians, and now aren't due to how they've been treated by Christians.
2. Also drive away non-gay people who are upset by your stance on gay issues. I know multiple people whose primary reason for leaving Christianity was the widespread anti-gay stance. And I've seen polls where one-third of people leaving Christianity cite gay-rights as a major factor in their decision.

Whereas, such an attitude wins you zero souls. Unless you take the rather extreme view that gay sex or gay marriage is a salvation-destroying act, and that gay Christians who get married or whatever are going to hell despite being otherwise good Christians in every way...? In that case, I guess you've saved what few of them remain in the church despite the anti-gay attitudes and who persevere in celibacy or in pretending to be / have become straight. So in that case, maybe you are saving one soul or so for every two to ten souls your anti-gay attitude loses you.

However it does just come down to the whether or not you are willing to believe actively gay lifestyle is NOT a sin, or at least pay lip service to that. If you can't, then it has been my experience you are going to be called homophobe and sidelined. Not all gay people do this but I would say many do and the ones who don't would probably come into hot water if the more 'progressive' amongst them heard of it.

[Darth Executor]

Even if it the fate of their eternal souls you are concerned with, you've got to think about whether Christians setting out to discriminate against to gay people is going to win or lose souls overall.

Christians softening up has damned millions and will damn billions.

[Tassman]

However it does just come down to the whether or not you are willing to believe actively gay lifestyle is NOT a sin, or at least pay lip service to that. If you can't, then it has been my experience you are going to be called homophobe and sidelined. Not all gay people do this but I would say many do and the ones who don't would probably come into hot water if the more 'progressive' amongst them heard of it.

Christians softening up has damned millions and will damn billions.

[Abigail]

Discrimination still encompasses religious people even if it is a secular country. So refusing to acknowledge and allow space for Christian identity is a discrimination.

[fm93]

Perhaps seer believes (erroneously??) that it is impossible to successfully construct a consistent and coherent objective morality that is not based on God. So when atheists tell him that they hold to an objective morality, he sees that as them being inconsistent with their overall worldview (atheism).

I'm sure that's his reasoning, but when people specifically tell him that they do believe in objective morality, he should address their arguments from that framework, not double down and insist that they can't believe in objective morality when they DO.

[fm93]

I don't like to insert myself into other discussions, but...

Not really. Jesus left the 99 to go after the 1. Truth can not be compromised just to save someone's feelings.

The point of that parable is that Jesus isn't willing that ANYONE should perish. You're basically using it to argue the opposite.

Then their actions are their god and not God Himself. That's idolatry. Making God conform to the image they demand.

Starlight can clarify for himself, but there is another sense here--that some Christians do such a poor job treating gay people as people (instead treating them more as issues), and then justifying such terrible treatment in the name of Christ, that they essentially end up preaching a false Christ. Consequently, some gay people turn away from Christianity because they have this wrong impression of Christianity. Perhaps they reason something along the lines of "These people claim to be following someone named Jesus. If their behavior is how this Jesus fellow behaved, I want nothing to do with him."

[Tassman]

Discrimination still encompasses religious people even if it is a secular country. So refusing to acknowledge and allow space for Christian identity is a discrimination.

[Starlight]

No it doesn't, “religious people” are still free to think that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord and preach such sentiments publicly.

Abigail lives in the UK, where their laws against hate-speech limit the part I've bolded. Religious people are certainly free to hold any beliefs they like, but in some countries there are limits to the amount that racist or homophobic speech can be expressed in the public forum. Here in NZ we have laws limiting the publication of racist speech, but not homophobic speech.