Religion, Secularism and Homosexuality

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 06:00 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Exodus 21:16 ESV

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

I can live with that.

Slavery is clearly wrong. However, Christians do live under the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

Christians also live under the US Constitution and its laws.

Quote:My understanding is that Christians live under the New Testament( not OT law). A good summary is in the following.

Quote:
37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” ( MT 22:37-40 ESV)

How does this prohibit gay marriage, then? It would seem that if two people love each other, that is in accord with the commandment.

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 05:39 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 12:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 12:36 PM)radind Wrote: Beware of preparing to fight the last war. 

Armageddon? Are you saying that secularism's rise, and the defense of human rights against Christian claims that discrimination against gays should be allowed, will bring it on?

I don't know what you mean by 'Armageddon?'.
By the last war , I mean that you write  about concern for the Christian majority when there is no longer a Christian majority. There is a Christian minority with a secularist majority. 
My concern is that the secularist majority will not tolerate Christians values.
I am for religious liberty and respect for all.

I don't see that secularists would require you to marry a gay person or have an abortion.

I don't see any connection between secularism and a "last war." Vietnam was a war. Secularism does not provide for another war; only for the right of the people to be non-religious if they choose. War is up to the governments to decide and declare. Armageddon is the only "last war" I have ever heard of, and that's a Christian concept.

The poll I posted makes clear that Christians are still a solid majority.

[radind]

(06-13-2016, 11:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 08:16 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 07:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 07:29 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 01:22 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Secularism = the constitution. Freedom of religion. Equal rights to all regardless of religion or lack thereof.

"Biblical" Christian world view = misinterpretation of the Bible. Put downs of people of other religions, saying Christ is "the way." Restrictions on people who violate the norms of the Bible, AS interpreted only by the mis-labelled "Biblical" Christians. Support for worldviews that foster hate and murder.

In spite of your assertions, the USA is now primarily secular. What I claim as my worldview, you put down to misinterpretation of the Bible. I clearly disagree with you , but have the right ( so far) to my interpretation. My worldview does not foster hate and murder.
It take a few more years to see which of us is proved to be correct, based on actual outcomes.
We remain at stalemate

I have already proved the falsehood of your world view. You are unable to defend it.

Do you support full rights for gays/LGBT people, or not?

Do you deny that the shooter did not?

You can make all the assertions you want. I will stand behind my worldview and I expect you to stand behind yours. 

Your worldview may work fine for you, but for the less stable, it conditions hate and murder. You stand behind your worldview, but you have no valid or rational defense for it.

Quote:I do not think that the behavior of gays/LGBT is condoned by the Bible. I also don't agree with killing unborn babies.

You don't support gay rights. That attitude conditions homophobia and assaults on gays among some people. The Bible is not the constitution. Fetuses are not necessarily babies. Christians don't get to repeal the constitution, or to interpret it. That's up to the congress and the courts.

Quote:So, on the political front I will try to vote for those who are more in line with Christian views. In the future, I may not have anyone to vote for. 

Liberals also vote for those who are more in line with Christian views. Just not your version of Christian.

Quote:The shooter had no respect for people and committed an evil act. It does appear that this may have been an Islamic terrorists attack. 

Not, it does NOT so appear. At most the shooter was influenced by what he read and how he was brought up.

Respect gay people. 

Quote:It is one thing to not approve of certain behavior, and it is quite another to hate or murder other people. In my view of Christianity , there is no room for hate, much less for murder.

Quote:Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. ( 1 John 3:15, ESV)

You say you don't hate gay people, but you don't want them to have the same rights as others. You are repelled by their behavior simply because it's different from yours. The shooter was also repelled by their behavior. As if kissing someone is wrong.
[/quote]

I don't have homophobia. You do like labels and you make too many assumptions about others. My concern  for people is based on a Biblical worldview and I have never said anything about 'repelled'.  The shooter was absolutely wrong and committed an evil act. 

We do have a different worldview and it is my contention that a Biblical  worldview is  needed for a Christian worldview. I don't have any silver bullets to convince you and there are already millions of articles and thousands of books on this subject. No amount of information is likely to cause any change( and I never expected you to change).

It is quite clear to me  that the secularists are in the majority and the courts will pass whatever laws they want. I fully realize that I cannot change this. I just don't have to agree with what the secularist majority imposes. I am still convinced based on barna.org and my observations that the per-centage in US with a Biblical worldview is ~ 10%. 
In my opinion the US is in a similar situation as 1930's Germany as described by Bonhoeffer.

My concern  : Will there be any tolerance in the future for Christian values?


A few articles for reference.

Quote:http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/...ostor.html
… "that isn't what Jesus taught. His focus was always on how to reconcile human beings to the God who loves them.”…

http://www.postmodernpreaching.net/the-b...ative.html
… "The Worldview Approach
A worldview provides an interpretive framework for understanding the world. According to the biblical scholar N. T. Wright, every worldview answers four basic questions: (1) Who are we? (2) Where are we? (3) What is wrong? and (4) What is the solution? The metanarrative of Bible can be understood in terms of these four worldview questions.”…

https://tifwe.org/resource/the-priesthoo...believers/
… "one of the top three ideas of the Protestant Reformation. The first two, Sola Scriptura—which asserts the sole authority of Scripture—and Sola Fide—which teaches justification by faith alone—have been widely taught, but the notion of the “priesthood of all believers” has been by far the most neglected. Martin Luther thought that “this word priest should become as common as the word Christian” because all Christians are priests.1 Yet for whatever reason, the priesthood of all believers has been much less understood, taught, and expounded upon in writing.
When Luther referred to the priesthood of all believers, he was maintaining that the plowboy and the milkmaid could do priestly work. In fact, their plowing and milking was priestly work. So there was no hierarchy where the priesthood was a “vocation” and milking the cow was not. Both were tasks that God called his followers to do, each according to their gifts.”…

http://evangelicalfocus.com/lifetech/169...do_tragedy
… "“IT GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING WE STAND FOR AS CHRISTIANS” “Today’s deplorable act of terrorism goes against everything we stand for as Americans and as Christians,” Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said in a statement Sunday. “We call upon all Americans to come together for the purpose of building a firewall of love, grace, truth and respect against intolerance, hatred, bigotry and violence”, he concluded.”…
See more: http://evangelicalfocus.com/lifetech/169...do_tragedy

[url=http://evangelicalfocus.com/lifetech/1695/Christian_leaders_respond_to_Orlando_tragedy][/url]

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 09:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 06:03 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 11:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 07:45 PM)radind Wrote: I respect all people who are created in the image of God.  So I reject your term of 'dislike'. There are some behaviors that I consider contrary to what I understand Christianity to be. 
I fully realize that those with a Biblical worldview are clearly now in the minority. I do have to accept the fact that the secular majority will do whatever they choose.( I do not have to approve).


The massacre should be condemned by all. 
It is the secular majority in general that I am concerned about( not the gays). It appears to me that the secularists operate with religious zeal and I do not expect religious liberty to survive for the Christian minority.

It appears that neither us is likely to change their views of the world.

How do you expect secularists to take away religious liberty from the Christian minority, (besides the strange ways you mentioned before that I blew out of the water?)

Through the courts. I do not accept your analysis.

What would the courts rule that would take away your religious liberty (again, other than what we already discussed) ?
 
Saying "through the courts" does not answer my question. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I didn't mean what institution would act; I meant what liberties would be taken away.

I understand that you "do have to accept the fact that the secular majority will do whatever they choose.( I do not have to approve)." If you don't approve, what actions would you support in order to alter what the secular majority does?

I am concerned about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There does not seem to be much tolerance for Christian values. 

Based on my conclusion that Christians are now a minority, there are no effective political actions open to alter the plans of the secularists majority. I can only pray for the country & my family and try to influence those around me. 

I joined this forum because of my interest in the Generations theory. One of the reasons I have stayed is to dialogue with others with different views. However, I doubt that many are interested in religious discussions.

[pbrower2a]

(06-14-2016, 10:29 AM)radind Wrote: I am concerned about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There does not seem to be much tolerance for Christian values. 

Based on my conclusion that Christians are now a minority, there are no effective political actions open to alter the plans of the secularists majority. I can only pray for the country & my family and try to influence those around me. 

I joined this forum because of my interest in the Generations theory. One of the reasons I have stayed is to dialogue with others with different views. However, I doubt that many are interested in religious discussions.

We are all in minorities unless we want to identify ourselves as straight, white or female* above all else, neither of which is particularly admirable. Sheer numbers can protect Christian values. Maybe Christians cannot stop abortion or same-sex marriage, but they can at least create a climate in which abortion is rare, safe, and legal -- which is far better than commonplace, dangerous, and illegal with laws easily evaded or capriciously enforced. Christians have a place in the discussion of teen pregnancy, date rape, and practical availability of contraception. They also have the responsibility to recognize that homosexuality, let alone transgender identity is not a choice. So what is a good Christian response to homosexuality? I once had an exchange with a fellow who could not reconcile his Christian faith with his homosexuality. I suggested that he accept the idea that God made him gay and that he can still testify to Christian principles of charity and sexual fidelity as a gay male. If one is 'wired' to be homosexual, then one is 'wired' to be homosexual just as someone 'wired' to be a moron or a schizophrenic is a moron or a schizophrenic, and there is little that anyone can do about such. If you had to choose between being homosexual, of low intelligence, or schizophrenic, then which would you choose?

Simply being in the majority is not enough to protect one's rights. Was being Russian good for protecting one's rights in the late and unlamented Soviet Union? Was being black in South Africa under Apartheid rule? Was being a Shi'ite under Satan Hussein? Did German nationality (even if the Reich apparatus not determine one non-Aryan) prevent one from being abused for even minor dissent against the government? Support the rights of all people and you earn your own rights. Being poor and in the majority has always been a precarious situation for one's own rights, let alone for democracy itself. Elites tend to destroy democracy when it challenges the power and privilege of those elites -- think of Chile under Pinochet. The majority of Chileans under the vile military-fascist regime were poor, and they had practically the same rights in Chile as Russians did in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and early 1980s.

*Anyone "pro-white" above all else, or identifies oneself first of all as "straight" -- reasonable exception for "straight" identity, dating -- is a scoundrel. Female chauvinism is as obnoxious as male chauvinism.

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 10:29 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 09:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 06:03 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 11:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 07:45 PM)radind Wrote: I respect all people who are created in the image of God.  So I reject your term of 'dislike'. There are some behaviors that I consider contrary to what I understand Christianity to be. 
I fully realize that those with a Biblical worldview are clearly now in the minority. I do have to accept the fact that the secular majority will do whatever they choose.( I do not have to approve).


The massacre should be condemned by all. 
It is the secular majority in general that I am concerned about( not the gays). It appears to me that the secularists operate with religious zeal and I do not expect religious liberty to survive for the Christian minority.

It appears that neither us is likely to change their views of the world.

How do you expect secularists to take away religious liberty from the Christian minority, (besides the strange ways you mentioned before that I blew out of the water?)

Through the courts. I do not accept your analysis.

What would the courts rule that would take away your religious liberty (again, other than what we already discussed) ?
 
Saying "through the courts" does not answer my question. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I didn't mean what institution would act; I meant what liberties would be taken away.

I understand that you "do have to accept the fact that the secular majority will do whatever they choose.( I do not have to approve)." If you don't approve, what actions would you support in order to alter what the secular majority does?

I am concerned about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There does not seem to be much tolerance for Christian values. 

Based on my conclusion that Christians are now a minority, there are no effective political actions open to alter the plans of the secularists majority. I can only pray for the country & my family and try to influence those around me. 

I joined this forum because of my interest in the Generations theory. One of the reasons I have stayed is to dialogue with others with different views. However, I doubt that many are interested in religious discussions.

Obviously, you don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to.
(as you did not)

You don't seem too concerned about the fact that "Christian values" is a vague term. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is generally accepted as a value. The Beatitudes are respected. Jesus' statements may be hard to live up to, but they are certainly an accepted and valued part of our heritage.

Christian values as you seem to sometimes define them, have to do with opposing abortion and gay marriage. There may not be much "tolerance" for these views, in the sense that others disagree, and don't want them instituted as national policy. So far you don't seem to be getting your way on these "values." So that, as you say, means that "Christians are now a minority." But that is not true as a fact; only according to your definition that "Christian values" must include social/cultural conservatism on such issues as abortion and homosexuality.

But Jesus said nothing about those things. He said to seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness. He said to love your neighbor, and your enemies. He said don't judge; take out the moat from your own eye first. He said to forgive 70 times 7 times. He said to invest and share your talents, and don't hide your light. He said to commune with God privately, not proclaim your faith loudly like the hypocrites do. He said to believe that if he could do miracles, you can too. Those are the real Christian values.

I am interested in religious discussions, but primarily spiritual ones. Most people here are not ready to examine their experience and take the veil down from their eyes.

As I pointed out, if you are interested in generations theory, that is a "secular" pursuit.

[Eric the Green]

Quote: (Radind) I don't have homophobia. You do like labels and you make too many assumptions about others. My concern  for people is based on a Biblical worldview and I have never said anything about 'repelled'.  The shooter was absolutely wrong and committed an evil act. 

You are repelled by the idea of gays getting married. According to your post, you consider this an attempt to change or defy the nature of humans.

Quote:We do have a different worldview and it is my contention that a Biblical  worldview is needed for a Christian worldview. I don't have any silver bullets to convince you and there are already millions of articles and thousands of books on this subject. No amount of information is likely to cause any change( and I never expected you to change).

Not likely, because it is incorrect. A Biblical worldview differs depending on how the Bible is interpreted. You don't have any right to claim that your intepretation is "the Biblical worldview."

Quote:It is quite clear to me  that the secularists are in the majority and the courts will pass whatever laws they want. I fully realize that I cannot change this. I just don't have to agree with what the secularist majority imposes. I am still convinced based on barna.org and my observations that the per-centage in US with a Biblical worldview is ~ 10%. 
In my opinion the US is in a similar situation as 1930's Germany as described by Bonhoeffer.

Barna is not valid.

If the US is in a similar situation as Germany in 1930, it is because of the fundamentalist (barna-like) Christians and the economic libertarians. They want to impose their worldviews on everyone, and have kidnapped the Republican Party and the Congress through gerrymandering and money-based politics, in order to accomplish this aim. Now they want to make the xenophobic Mussolini-reincarnate our president.

Quote:My concern  : Will there be any tolerance in the future for Christian values?

Will there be any tolerance in the future for socialist, greenpeace, or hippie/new age/counter-cultural values?

You have shown me zero evidence of any desire by "secularists" to not tolerate Christian values. You are free to oppose abortion and gay marriage, and that's as it should be.

Can you quote me anyone who says people like you should NOT be allowed to oppose abortion and gay marriage?

You can't.

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 12:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 10:29 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 09:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 06:03 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 11:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: How do you expect secularists to take away religious liberty from the Christian minority, (besides the strange ways you mentioned before that I blew out of the water?)

Through the courts. I do not accept your analysis.

What would the courts rule that would take away your religious liberty (again, other than what we already discussed) ?
 
Saying "through the courts" does not answer my question. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I didn't mean what institution would act; I meant what liberties would be taken away.

I understand that you "do have to accept the fact that the secular majority will do whatever they choose.( I do not have to approve)." If you don't approve, what actions would you support in order to alter what the secular majority does?

I am concerned about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There does not seem to be much tolerance for Christian values. 

Based on my conclusion that Christians are now a minority, there are no effective political actions open to alter the plans of the secularists majority. I can only pray for the country & my family and try to influence those around me. 

I joined this forum because of my interest in the Generations theory. One of the reasons I have stayed is to dialogue with others with different views. However, I doubt that many are interested in religious discussions.

Obviously, you don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to.
(as you did not)

You don't seem too concerned about the fact that "Christian values" is a vague term. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is generally accepted as a value. The Beatitudes are respected. Jesus' statements may be hard to live up to, but they are certainly an accepted and valued part of our heritage.

Christian values as you seem to sometimes define them, have to do with opposing abortion and gay marriage. There may not be much "tolerance" for these views, in the sense that others disagree, and don't want them instituted as national policy. So far you don't seem to be getting your way on these "values." So that, as you say, means that "Christians are now a minority." But that is not true as a fact; only according to your definition that "Christian values" must include social/cultural conservatism on such issues as abortion and homosexuality.

But Jesus said nothing about those things. He said to seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness. He said to love your neighbor, and your enemies. He said don't judge; take out the moat from your own eye first. He said to forgive 70 times 7 times. He said to invest and share your talents, and don't hide your light. He said to commune with God privately, not proclaim your faith loudly like the hypocrites do. He said to believe that if he could do miracles, you can too. Those are the real Christian values.

I am interested in religious discussions, but primarily spiritual ones. Most people here are not ready to examine their experience and take the veil down from their eyes.

As I pointed out, if you are interested in generations theory, that is a "secular" pursuit.

I know that generations theory is secular. I have multiple interests.
I  tend to us Barna's( I know that you do not agree) definition for a Biblical worldview because barna.org is the only group that I am aware of that does such polling. Otherwise , I prefer other  religious writers (eg,  N. T Wright, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig)and do not follow the other barna publications.

I do have some concern that this may not be a good forum for religious discussions.

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 03:23 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 12:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 10:29 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 09:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 06:03 AM)radind Wrote: Through the courts. I do not accept your analysis.

What would the courts rule that would take away your religious liberty (again, other than what we already discussed) ?
 
Saying "through the courts" does not answer my question. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I didn't mean what institution would act; I meant what liberties would be taken away.

I understand that you "do have to accept the fact that the secular majority will do whatever they choose.( I do not have to approve)." If you don't approve, what actions would you support in order to alter what the secular majority does?

I am concerned about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There does not seem to be much tolerance for Christian values. 

Based on my conclusion that Christians are now a minority, there are no effective political actions open to alter the plans of the secularists majority. I can only pray for the country & my family and try to influence those around me. 

I joined this forum because of my interest in the Generations theory. One of the reasons I have stayed is to dialogue with others with different views. However, I doubt that many are interested in religious discussions.

Obviously, you don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to.
(as you did not)

You don't seem too concerned about the fact that "Christian values" is a vague term. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is generally accepted as a value. The Beatitudes are respected. Jesus' statements may be hard to live up to, but they are certainly an accepted and valued part of our heritage.

Christian values as you seem to sometimes define them, have to do with opposing abortion and gay marriage. There may not be much "tolerance" for these views, in the sense that others disagree, and don't want them instituted as national policy. So far you don't seem to be getting your way on these "values." So that, as you say, means that "Christians are now a minority." But that is not true as a fact; only according to your definition that "Christian values" must include social/cultural conservatism on such issues as abortion and homosexuality.

But Jesus said nothing about those things. He said to seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness. He said to love your neighbor, and your enemies. He said don't judge; take out the moat from your own eye first. He said to forgive 70 times 7 times. He said to invest and share your talents, and don't hide your light. He said to commune with God privately, not proclaim your faith loudly like the hypocrites do. He said to believe that if he could do miracles, you can too. Those are the real Christian values.

I am interested in religious discussions, but primarily spiritual ones. Most people here are not ready to examine their experience and take the veil down from their eyes.

As I pointed out, if you are interested in generations theory, that is a "secular" pursuit.

I know that generations theory is secular. I have multiple interests.
I  tend to us Barna's( I know that you do not agree) definition for a Biblical worldview because barna.org is the only group that I am aware of that does such polling. Otherwise , I prefer other  religious writers (eg,  N. T Wright, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig)and do not follow the other barna publications.

I do have some concern that this may not be a good forum for religious discussions.

The gallup poll found that 75% of Americans are Christians. That is relevant "polling." Barna does polling about how many agree with their specific ideas about Christianity.

This forum is good for discussions on many topics, because they are all relevant to the social mood of particular turnings and the ideals and attitudes of generations. But it is certainly not a specifically religious forum.

The meaning of the word secular being derived from its original meaning related to time (temporal, an age, a century), from which the authors derived their theory, is certainly an interesting rejoinder to your apparent fear of the "secular."

You fail to meet this challenge so far: quote me any "secular" person who says people like you should NOT be allowed to have and voice views opposing abortion and gay marriage.

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 09:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 06:00 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Exodus 21:16 ESV

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

I can live with that.

Slavery is clearly wrong. However, Christians do live under the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

Christians also live under the US Constitution and its laws.

Quote:My understanding is that Christians live under the New Testament( not OT law). A good summary is in the following.

Quote:
37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” ( MT 22:37-40 ESV)

How does this prohibit gay marriage, then? It would seem that if two people love each other, that is in accord with the commandment.

We all live under the US constitution and its laws. There are some that I don't like , but  I have the right to object.

The quoted verses were not intended to address gay marriage at all. They are just a good brief summary of how Christians should function.

This is one article that I read recently.

Quote:http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/04/22/g...hew-vines/
… “ Biblical Christianity cannot endorse same-sex marriage nor accept the claim that a believer can be obedient to Christ and remain or persist in same-sex behaviors. The church is the assembly of the redeemed, saved from our sins and learning obedience in the School of Christ. Every single one of us is a sexual sinner in need of redemption, but we are called to holiness, to obedience, and to honoring marriage as one of God’s most precious gifts and as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church.”…

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 09:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 05:39 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 12:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 12:36 PM)radind Wrote: Beware of preparing to fight the last war. 

Armageddon? Are you saying that secularism's rise, and the defense of human rights against Christian claims that discrimination against gays should be allowed, will bring it on?

I don't know what you mean by 'Armageddon?'.
By the last war , I mean that you write  about concern for the Christian majority when there is no longer a Christian majority. There is a Christian minority with a secularist majority. 
My concern is that the secularist majority will not tolerate Christians values.
I am for religious liberty and respect for all.

I don't see any connection between secularism and a "last war." Vietnam was a war. Secularism does not provide for another war; only for the right of the people to be non-religious if they choose. War is up to the governments to decide and declare. Armageddon is the only "last war" I have ever heard of, and that's a Christian concept.

I will try to clarify. When the France was preparing for WWII , they tried to create a defense against the previous war with Germany( the last war). France lost focus on the next war. By focusing on the threat of Christians, who are no longer the real majority, my contention is that you are focused on a 'war' that has been already won by the secularists. It is time to move to the present and future issues. 

I don't get much into speculation about Armageddon

[Eric the Green]

If you didn't know, radind, there is a reasonably good, generally-conservative but open forum on religion, generally oriented toward conservative Christianity. I am a member and have participated.
http://theologyonline.com/

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 03:23 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 12:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 10:29 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 09:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: What would the courts rule that would take away your religious liberty (again, other than what we already discussed) ?
 
Saying "through the courts" does not answer my question. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I didn't mean what institution would act; I meant what liberties would be taken away.

I understand that you "do have to accept the fact that the secular majority will do whatever they choose.( I do not have to approve)." If you don't approve, what actions would you support in order to alter what the secular majority does?

I am concerned about freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There does not seem to be much tolerance for Christian values. 

Based on my conclusion that Christians are now a minority, there are no effective political actions open to alter the plans of the secularists majority. I can only pray for the country & my family and try to influence those around me. 

I joined this forum because of my interest in the Generations theory. One of the reasons I have stayed is to dialogue with others with different views. However, I doubt that many are interested in religious discussions.

Obviously, you don't have to answer my questions if you don't want to.
(as you did not)

You don't seem too concerned about the fact that "Christian values" is a vague term. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is generally accepted as a value. The Beatitudes are respected. Jesus' statements may be hard to live up to, but they are certainly an accepted and valued part of our heritage.

Christian values as you seem to sometimes define them, have to do with opposing abortion and gay marriage. There may not be much "tolerance" for these views, in the sense that others disagree, and don't want them instituted as national policy. So far you don't seem to be getting your way on these "values." So that, as you say, means that "Christians are now a minority." But that is not true as a fact; only according to your definition that "Christian values" must include social/cultural conservatism on such issues as abortion and homosexuality.

But Jesus said nothing about those things. He said to seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness. He said to love your neighbor, and your enemies. He said don't judge; take out the moat from your own eye first. He said to forgive 70 times 7 times. He said to invest and share your talents, and don't hide your light. He said to commune with God privately, not proclaim your faith loudly like the hypocrites do. He said to believe that if he could do miracles, you can too. Those are the real Christian values.

I am interested in religious discussions, but primarily spiritual ones. Most people here are not ready to examine their experience and take the veil down from their eyes.

As I pointed out, if you are interested in generations theory, that is a "secular" pursuit.

I know that generations theory is secular. I have multiple interests.
I  tend to us Barna's( I know that you do not agree) definition for a Biblical worldview because barna.org is the only group that I am aware of that does such polling. Otherwise , I prefer other  religious writers (eg,  N. T Wright, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig)and do not follow the other barna publications.

I do have some concern that this may not be a good forum for religious discussions.

The gallup poll found that 75% of Americans are Christians. That is relevant "polling." Barna does polling about how many agree with their specific ideas about Christianity.

In my opinion the Barna poll is a more accurate representation of reality.( This is one reason that so many can approve of  such things as abortion and pornography).  I think that most popular opinion polls ignore what is actually happening. This was the situation described by Bonhoeffer as 'cheap grace' where the majority were professing Christians , but lacked true faith. In my opinion, the US is in much the same state. John MacArthur describes this in the US as 'easy believeism'.

[Eric the Green]

No, it's just what SOME "Christians" like Barna, MacArthur or Bonhoeffer deem to be "true Christian belief," but in REALITY has nothing to do with Christianity, which is what Jesus taught; NOT what religious authorities and preachers (whether local or organizational) have taught.

Did Jesus teach anything about abortion? pornography? Give me specific chapter and verse now, about those specific topics. I'm waiting............

I would admit (at least according to the Bible we have) that he was against "adultery" and "fornication," without being too specific about those things.

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 04:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If you didn't know, radind, there is a reasonably good, generally-conservative but open forum on religion, generally oriented toward conservative Christianity. I am a member and have participated.
http://theologyonline.com/

Thanks. I will check this out( not sure I have time for another forum).

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 04:08 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 09:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 05:39 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 12:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 12:36 PM)radind Wrote: Beware of preparing to fight the last war. 

Armageddon? Are you saying that secularism's rise, and the defense of human rights against Christian claims that discrimination against gays should be allowed, will bring it on?

I don't know what you mean by 'Armageddon?'.
By the last war , I mean that you write  about concern for the Christian majority when there is no longer a Christian majority. There is a Christian minority with a secularist majority. 
My concern is that the secularist majority will not tolerate Christians values.
I am for religious liberty and respect for all.

I don't see any connection between secularism and a "last war." Vietnam was a war. Secularism does not provide for another war; only for the right of the people to be non-religious if they choose. War is up to the governments to decide and declare. Armageddon is the only "last war" I have ever heard of, and that's a Christian concept.

I will try to clarify. When the France was preparing for WWII , they tried to create a defense against the previous war with Germany( the last war). France lost focus on the next war. By focusing on the threat of Christians, who are no longer the real majority, my contention is that you are focused on a 'war' that has been already won by the secularists. It is time to move to the present and future issues. 

I don't get much into speculation about Armageddon

OK, I get your clarification.

It may be that the religious right is no longer a direct threat. But it has only been 12 years since they took over our government, thanks to Karl Rove. So although we have moved into a more secular-trending turning, the threat from Christian religious extremism, which gave the recent 3T its name ("culture wars"), could not have vanished in just 12 years. It is still very influential, and Donald Trump has to pay homage to it. And extreme right-wing Christians tend to favor his attacks on a rival religion. So this kind of prejudice is still quite popular. Right-wing Christians flock to him and vote for him because he promises to "make America great again" by clamping down on diversity.

The religious right is still a major part of the Republican coalition which has strangled our politics and government and hampered progress on real issues like climate change and economic stagnation/middle class decline. So, while my focus and the focus of the Left is on these issues, the religious right is still in the background as setting the cultural landscape that dominates politics, and divides our country into red and blue states.

I was going to mention this too: the religious conservatives have had their victories too. A young woman in a red state has to move to a blue state in order to have an abortion. I myself am not inclined to fight the abortion battle. But it does distract some people from more important issues.

You meanwhile seem to want to keep on with the culture war fights, despite your statement that it's time to move to the present and future issues. You are concerned about "threats to your religious liberty" and "tolerance of Christians." Yes, it's time to move on from that to real issues, not to those that exist only in your imagination; yes indeed

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 04:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, it's just what SOME "Christians" like Barna, MacArthur or Bonhoeffer deem to be "true Christian belief," but in REALITY has nothing to do with Christianity, which is what Jesus taught; NOT what religious authorities and preachers (whether local or organizational) have taught.

Did Jesus teach anything about abortion? pornography? Give me specific chapter and verse now, about those specific topics. I'm waiting............

I would admit (at least according to the Bible we have) that he was against "adultery" and "fornication," without being too specific about those things.

I mentioned earlier that I have many friends who like the book, chapter , verse approach( I call this the engineering approach). For my personal study , I prefer a more holistic approach. So, I will hold off for now on this approach. If I think of something something relevant, I will post it.
I do like a dialogue, but there needs to be an exchange as Bohm defined it.

Quote:https://www2.clarku.edu/difficultdialogu.../index.cfm

..."The object of a dialogue is not to analyze things, or to win an argument, or to exchange opinions. Rather, it is to suspend your opinions and to look at the opinions—to listen to everybody's opinions, to suspend them, and to see what all that means.... We can just simply share the appreciation of the meanings, and out of this whole thing, truth emerges unannounced—not that we have chosen it.
Everything can move between us. Each person is participating, is partaking of the whole meaning of the group and also taking part in it. We can call that a true dialogue.
Dialogue is the collective way of opening up judgments and assumptions"

---

Perhaps that is one thing I find appealing about Ravi Zacharias.

Quote:http://whatiwannaknow.com/2012/03/ravi-zacharias/

… "In “Why Jesus?” you write that Jesus is an Eastern man, and that the Bible is an Eastern text. Do you think that reality is often ignored in cross-cultural debates?
RZ: I think it’s a huge gap. I think it’s the biggest gap in hermeneutics* today. I think about it so often. You see this misunderstanding so often in the New Testament criticism’s. For example, if I read in the New Testament that “all Jerusalem went out to hear him.” I’m from India, and if I read that in the newspaper I know that doesn’t mean that every man, woman, child, dog, and elephant came out to hear him – it means a large crowd turned up for him. The way the Western critics scrutinize the parables, and Eastern texts, reveals a total lack of understanding of how Eastern wisdom and metaphor is used. This is not to take away from the authority of the scriptures, it’s just to help people understand that when generic terms are used we take them that way. Nothing demeans or takes away the person of Jesus Christ. Kenneth Bailey, who is probably one of the finest scholars of our time, has written this massive volume called Jesus through Middle Eastern eyes. It’s a powerful book and so well sustains the argument I’m making here.”…

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 04:33 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If you didn't know, radind, there is a reasonably good, generally-conservative but open forum on religion, generally oriented toward conservative Christianity. I am a member and have participated.
http://theologyonline.com/

Thanks. I will check this out( not sure I have time for another forum).

Yes, and I should point out also that it is a wide-ranging forum with a lot of political discussion.

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 04:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:08 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 09:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 05:39 AM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 12:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Armageddon? Are you saying that secularism's rise, and the defense of human rights against Christian claims that discrimination against gays should be allowed, will bring it on?

I don't know what you mean by 'Armageddon?'.
By the last war , I mean that you write  about concern for the Christian majority when there is no longer a Christian majority. There is a Christian minority with a secularist majority. 
My concern is that the secularist majority will not tolerate Christians values.
I am for religious liberty and respect for all.

I don't see any connection between secularism and a "last war." Vietnam was a war. Secularism does not provide for another war; only for the right of the people to be non-religious if they choose. War is up to the governments to decide and declare. Armageddon is the only "last war" I have ever heard of, and that's a Christian concept.

I will try to clarify. When the France was preparing for WWII , they tried to create a defense against the previous war with Germany( the last war). France lost focus on the next war. By focusing on the threat of Christians, who are no longer the real majority, my contention is that you are focused on a 'war' that has been already won by the secularists. It is time to move to the present and future issues. 

I don't get much into speculation about Armageddon

OK, I get your clarification.

It may be that the religious right is no longer a direct threat. But it has only been 12 years since they took over our government, thanks to Karl Rove. So although we have moved into a more secular-trending turning, the threat from Christian religious extremism, which gave the recent 3T its name ("culture wars"), could not have vanished in just 12 years. It is still very influential, and Donald Trump has to pay homage to it. And extreme right-wing Christians tend to favor his attacks on a rival religion. So this kind of prejudice is still quite popular. Right-wing Christians flock to him and vote for him because he promises to "make America great again" by clamping down on diversity.

The religious right is still a major part of the Republican coalition which has strangled our politics and government and hampered progress on real issues like climate change and economic stagnation/middle class decline. So, while my focus and the focus of the Left is on these issues, the religious right is still in the background as setting the cultural landscape that dominates politics, and divides our country into red and blue states.

I was going to mention this too: the religious conservatives have had their victories too. A young woman in a red state has to move to a blue state in order to have an abortion. I myself am not inclined to fight the abortion battle. But it does distract some people from more important issues.

You meanwhile seem to want to keep on with the culture war fights, despite your statement that it's time to move to the present and future issues. You are concerned about "threats to your religious liberty" and "tolerance of Christians." Yes, it's time to move on from that; yes indeed

I see Trump as totally non-religious. It is my opinion that one of the factors in the support of Trump  from the nominal
'Christian' community is that most do not have a Biblical worldview.

We remain, hopefully, in dialogue with two very different worldviews.

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 12:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Quote: (Radind) I don't have homophobia. You do like labels and you make too many assumptions about others. My concern  for people is based on a Biblical worldview and I have never said anything about 'repelled'.  The shooter was absolutely wrong and committed an evil act. 

You are repelled by the idea of gays getting married. According to your post, you consider this an attempt to change or defy the nature of humans.

I need help on this one. What did I post that gave the impression that I was 'repelled' by anything?