theblaze.com- anti-bullying crusader attacks bible and curses christian teens

[ABQCOWBOY]

Equality for all is not a point of view. Its written in our declaration of independence.

The fact that you think its a point of view is exactly the problem.

You should take that up to the Supreme Court and see what they think of your point of view.

[Stadium-Armory]

Brown vs. Board of education. Got it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Free from the shackles of trying to justify the morality I've been sentenced to by a god, I can evaluate each situation according to what is best for all fellow humanity. We'll end up agreeing to disagree, because your initial premise is always going to be "God says this" and when you believe that God is infallible, what argument can logically counter that?

This is where we'll end up though, we can go through the psychology the biology and all of the other arguments that have been hashed and rehashed for years and in the end the Bible which is the specific scriptural authority for Christians who are disciples of Jesus Christ understands that homosexuality is a sin and outside the way of those who follow Christ, that much is clear. Just for the sake of an example, why don't the Masons invite others to join their order? Because it is against the way of their group. Don't like that rule...fine, don't join. The Bible is clear on issues such as homosexuality, but is also just as clear on adultery (consensual or not) as well as celibacy before marriage don't like it....don't join. But if you do wish to become a disciple then don't sit back and complain about the cost. Jesus himself said told his followers to consider the "cost" of discipleship.

I don't think there is a rational argument for treating fellow humans differently.

Actually I think you do understand rational arguments for doing so, you just don't think they should apply here, as I discussed with another poster yesterday.
That said, I'm pretty sure I know what you meant by this and if I'm reading you correctly you're saying that we are not to be singling any one person or group of people out for persecution etc based on behavior, gender etc.
And from that you'll get a more than hearty amen from me. As a follower of Christ I understand that all people are created in God's image and that God is looking to redeem all people to Himself, and that I am called to love all of God's children equally which I try my best to do. But because I love someone and want what I understand as best for them that does not mean that I must then accept all of their behaviors. Heck, if I were to raise my kids in that mindset I'd end up with brats who didn't understand discipline.

Here's the rub.
As a Christian I do not oppose same sex unions as authorized by the State...but I will resist any move that would force the church to perform them.
As a Christian I do not oppose health benefits to those in same sex partnerships....but I will resist any move that would force the church to provide them.
As a Christian I do not hate any homosexual...but I do believe that it is sin as described in the scriptures which order the life of our faith.
As a Christian I do not believe that any sin should be seen as more acceptable than another, or more condemned as all are symptoms of the underlying cause.
As a Christian I do oppose those who would bully, and otherwise mistreat ANYONE not just homosexuals.

---------- Post added May-1st-2012 at 12:10 PM ----------

Equality for all is not a point of view. Its written in our declaration of independence.
The fact that you think its a point of view is exactly the problem.

If you heard any ounce of "equality" from the speaker in that video then you're crazy, all he did was inflame a divide.
I pay my taxes just the same as everyone else, and if my kids were subjected that you bet your bippy the school board would be hearing from me and quite a few others.
The speaker wasn't promoting equality, he was attacking and bullying those who have a faith in Christ, and he was shameless for doing so.
Defend him if you wish, but if you think that was a proud moment for "America" then you've got a seriously warped vision of what America is.

[Jumbo]

You lost me at "plundering."

ASF, I usually don't engage you on stuff like this because I really do like you as a poster, whether we agree or disagree, but to me you have a penchant for looking silly more than occasionally, and making weak arguments in terms of both facts and logic/reason, and at times even when it comes to your faith (although that's more rare).I look silly too at times, most all of us do.

I never "dismissed" your faith. I never do that with anyone, and it's silly for you to make that claim. Nor is how far you trace back your faith either ignored or dismissed, though it's not all automatically accepted as all valid, either. And as I said per my stance, age of an institution is not some default measure of its worth.

As for me and my stance of the "possibility of a God" that you address in what I (may/may not) believe, to my logic and rational reasoning the matter it breaks down like this: "is there a 'supreme entity' of some sort, and if I decide such is so, then what's the nature of that entity?" And the latter there can get down to some very fine and voluminous detail, all/each to accept or not and to varying degrees depending on where you go with it--as in Islam, Christianity, Judaism for instance.

Now as to what informs, persuades, or shapes how I end up on either and both of those premises includes myriad matters regarding the nature of man (human behavior/development/cognitive abilities from "all angles), any/all religions' constructs, any/all philosophies and sciences, or anything else, that may play a role. So even as I consider a belief in a "supreme being", the nature of that being may not (doesn't for now) take the same form as yours. I know I do not believe many of the things many Christians do, for instance and would never label myself as such (so far .

Seriously, IMO, in your entire reply, you are hardly at your best in terms of argument, though I am sure your "heart is in it."

In this matter, among other things, you absolutely believe your morals come from your Christian framing of God. I understand that and we agree it's fine to have differing thoughts. I respect the positive aspects of the Christian religion and the positives of religious people in general who reflect those aspects as you often do, just as I respect the same in non-Christians or non-religious people (since there often is questionable correlation between behavior and claim). So I have said what I wanted to say (and we're well off topic) and will leave it to any others who may be interested.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You lost me at "plundering."
ASF, I usually don't engage you on stuff like this because I really do like you as a poster, whether we agree or disagree, but to me you have a penchant for looking silly more than occasionally, and making weak arguments in terms of both facts and logic/reason, and at times even when it comes to your faith (although that's more rare).I look silly too at times, most all of us do.
....
Seriously, IMO, in your entire reply, you are hardly at your best in terms of argument, though I am sure your "heart is in it."

I gave back what I saw was equal to what I was receiving.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Brown vs. Board of education. Got it.

If your saying that every child has a right to an education and that segregation is not allowable, then I would agree. Outside of that, no, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the part where you feel you have it.

[Stadium-Armory]

While not an exact corollary, there are insights to be gleaned from the ruling on 'separate but equal' that can be applied to this iteration of discrimination.

[ABQCOWBOY]

While not an exact corollary, there are insights to be gleaned from the ruling on 'separate but equal' that can be applied to this iteration of discrimination.

Such as?

[PF Chang]

But if you do wish to become a disciple then don't sit back and complain about the cost. Jesus himself said told his followers to consider the "cost" of discipleship.

No problem here, this makes plenty of sense. I just don't agree with the cost, but that's fair enough and a decision that is up to each of us.

Here's the rub.
As a Christian I do not oppose same sex unions as authorized by the State...but I will resist any move that would force the church to perform them.
As a Christian I do not oppose health benefits to those in same sex partnerships....but I will resist any move that would force the church to provide them.
As a Christian I do not hate any homosexual...but I do believe that it is sin as described in the scriptures which order the life of our faith.
As a Christian I do not believe that any sin should be seen as more acceptable than another, or more condemned as all are symptoms of the underlying cause.
As a Christian I do oppose those who would bully, and otherwise mistreat ANYONE not just homosexuals.

This is a good post and sounds fair to me. I certainly don't advocate you or anyone being forced to adapt beliefs. I think if all people on both sides of the debate were reasonable like you've demonstrated, there would be much less vitriol.

While I still believe deriving morality from one source is questionable, anybody is free to do so and I have no problem with that. What gets me is when I hear the baseless argument, "How can a person have morality without X religion?" which is always phrased to mean Christianity. Because it's sure as hell not Islam that these type of people are talking about.

[AsburySkinsFan]

While I still believe deriving morality from one source is questionable, anybody is free to do so and I have no problem with that. What gets me is when I hear the baseless argument, "How can a person have morality without X religion?" which is always phrased to mean Christianity. Because it's sure as hell not Islam that these type of people are talking about.

This is one of the main reasons why I'm a United Methodist (and you suddenly think WTH?) but we hold to a Wesleyan theology (again it'll make sense) whereby we understand that God has given His grace to all people even those who don't understand it, as such when we see moral behavior in the lives of those who are not disciples of Christ we call that "prevenient grace", it is how we understand that all of us have been influenced to one degree or another by God's grace. Now, there will be a loooooong line saying that this is an unprovable statement which will just leave me to say repeatedly...."so".

[Enter Apotheosis]

New Testament + Old Testament

I was under the impression that even by doing good, old-fashioned Old Testament math it came out to only 4000 years.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I was under the impression that even by doing good, old-fashioned Old Testament math it came out to only 4000 years.

Well the Fundies typically say 6,000 to 10,000, I was just splitting the difference.

[Jumbo]

I gave back what I saw was equal to what I was receiving.

Absolutely fair, amigo, and zero issues of any note on my end---ever. Which is almost always the case with any ES interaction, especially regulars with a well-proven history of positive-for-the-forum content.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Absolutely fair, amigo, and zero issues of any note on my end---ever. Which is almost always the case with any ES interaction, especially regulars with a well-proven history of positive-for-the-forum content.

Same here my friend. But when given the opportunity I'll always follow the side of me that wants to take Secular Humanism out behind the woodshed and give it the "Ol' Yeller" treatment.

[Jumbo]

Same here my friend. But when given the opportunity I'll always follow the side of me that wants to take Secular Humanism out behind the woodshed and give it the "Ol' Yeller" treatment.

I do relate. There are times and certain circumstances when my normal tolerance and even appreciation of many "religious types", and just religion in general, gets quite strained. .