Religion, Secularism and Homosexuality

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 04:48 PM)radind Wrote: 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"

---

That's good. But it's a bit like hedging your bets. If you are going to call something "Christian" that SOME Christians believe in, and say it's Bible-based, but then call for a "holistic approach," aren't you begging the question? What is "easy Christianity" that "lacks true faith," and what isn't? What is really LEGIT Christianity, and WHO SAYS SO? 

Don't you have to, in a "holistic" approach, be more open to other interpretations made by other Christian philosophers? Like Paul Tillich, for example. Or existentialists. Or New Thought? Or Christian mystics? How can your approach be the "true faith" and "Bible based," but not "engineered" from the Bible itself?

A "Biblical worldview" must be based on The Bible, by definition. You must depend on the source. If you say a Biblical worldview must support specific state policies, then I would suggest it must be stated chapter and verse exactly. Otherwise, there is difference of opinion on what the Bible says about them.

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 04:58 PM)radind Wrote:

(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?

Because you consider things like gay marriage an attempt to change or defy human nature. You quoted writers who assert this specifically. But it's really, as I said, your unwillingness to accept that people are different. You can deny this, but that's what it is. Gay sex and marriage offends your sensibilities, because it's not what you are used to or what you were taught to consider normal and moral.

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 04:55 PM)radind Wrote: 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.

I don't think Trump himself is very religious at all. He is appealing to that group for his political purposes. But you would have a hard time proving your assertion that the evangelicals who support him in droves don't have a Biblical worldview.

But here is one analysis:
But the larger question with Trump, as Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig wondered aloud in The New Republic, is why any evangelical supports him.
The answer, according to several lengthy analyses of Trump’s campaign, lies in two oft-ignored truths. The first is that some evangelicals don’t simply vote for someone just because they share the same faith, a trend likely to accelerate as Republicans scramble to nominate someone they think will win the general election — or at least break the status quo. As longtime religion reporter Amy Sullivan notes over at Yahoo, “While evangelical Republicans sometimes have different priorities and values than their non-evangelical peers, this could be an election cycle in which they vote as Republicans first and evangelicals second.”
The second reality is that while Trump struggles with scripture, his ideas aren’t alien to evangelical pulpits. Thousands of Christian churchgoers have spent years listening to a religious leader who echoes much of Trump’s vitriol, if not his bombastic style — namely, famous televangelist Pat Robertson. Robertson is known for calmly articulating radical positions justified by thin theology: He claimed that the Hurricane Katrina resulted because God was angered by LGBT acceptance, made blanket statements condemning Islam and while expressing fear for Arab Christians, and warned that if the immigration reform passes, America’s politics will be dictated by Mexico.
All of these ideas harmonize with Trump’s symphony of reactionary positions, which — when combined with evangelical voters swayed more by Trump’s anti-establishment charisma than his policies — is enough to cobble together a sizable evangelical primary voting bloc.
“…These appeals might draw the stray evangelical vote here or there,” Bruenig writes. “But if I had to surmise which subset of the evangelical category Trump has struck a chord with, I would guess it would be that intransigent Robertson crowd, the evangelicals who are perpetually dismayed with the Republican establishment Trump is now confounding.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/0...ngelicals/

Well, let's see, here's more references:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/dr.../88126.htm

And this one:
Amedia noted that Trump has promised to be an "ardent supporter" of Christianity and to uphold the tenets of the First Amendment.

"I think, as Christians, we need to look at that, because the church is under attack. It is under attack from the Left, it's under attack from politics, it's under attack at our Supreme Court level," he said.

"We need Supreme Court justices who are going to uphold the First Amendment, they're not going to legislate law. We need a Congress that is going to work with the president to legislate law, and we need Supreme Court justices who are going to have a heart and a fear for God."

Amedia said he believes that Trump is "the man" who will do all those things, adding that "every Christian needs to look at it that way."
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/te.../88080.htm

And this:
The support that Donald Trump has received from legions of evangelicals has puzzled and “surprised” many people. After all, the presumptive Republican nominee is exceptionally vulgar and, despite claiming to be a devout Christian whose favorite book is the Bible, knows little about scripture and has emphasized, “I don’t like to have to ask for forgiveness” from God. One common explanation for this apparent contradiction is that numerous evangelicals embrace Trump’s agenda, from eviscerating Obamacare to cracking down on undocumented immigrants and barring Muslims from entering America. But Trump and his evangelical supporters think alike in more ways than people realize. Fundamentalist approaches to evangelicalism have long fostered anti-intellectual, anti-rational, black-and-white, and authoritarian mindsets—the very traits that define Trump.

https://newrepublic.com/article/133488/e...like-trump

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 04:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:48 PM)radind Wrote: 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"

---

That's good. But it's a bit like hedging your bets. If you are going to call something "Christian" that SOME Christians believe in, and say it's Bible-based, but then call for a "holistic approach," aren't you begging the question? What is "easy Christianity" that "lacks true faith," and what isn't? What is really LEGIT Christianity, and WHO SAYS SO? 

Don't you have to, in a "holistic" approach, be more open to other interpretations made by other Christian philosophers? Like Paul Tillich, for example. Or existentialists. Or New Thought? Or Christian mystics? How can your approach be the "true faith" and "Bible based," but not "engineered" from the Bible itself?

I have read fairly widely over the past decades and I do feel strongly that a Biblical worldview is key. My objection ( pet peeve)  is the constant demand for 'book, chapter, verse' from my associates when I think that an overall picture( meta-narrative) is important. I have evolved to my current worldview, but open discussion is still good.
I like the concept of Popper of 'Conjectures and Refutations'.

You seem to have dismissed my references. Just curious to see if you have read any works of N. T Wright, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias & William Lane Craig

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 05:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:58 PM)radind Wrote:

(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?

Because you consider things like gay marriage an attempt to change or defy human nature. You quoted writers who assert this specifically. But it's really, as I said, your unwillingness to accept that people are different. You can deny this, but that's what it is. Gay sex and marriage offends your sensibilities, because it's not what you are used to or what you were taught to consider normal and moral.

I do realize that people are different, but I still have my Biblical worldview and base my opinions on my understanding of the Bible. If someone does not have a Biblical worldview, then I would expect a different set of opinions.
Each one of us is responsible  for their own thoughts and actions, regardless of ' what they were taught'.

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 05:32 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 05:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:58 PM)radind Wrote:

(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?

Because you consider things like gay marriage an attempt to change or defy human nature. You quoted writers who assert this specifically. But it's really, as I said, your unwillingness to accept that people are different. You can deny this, but that's what it is. Gay sex and marriage offends your sensibilities, because it's not what you are used to or what you were taught to consider normal and moral.

I do realize that people are different, but I still have my Biblical worldview and base my opinions on my understanding of the Bible. If someone does not have a Biblical worldview, then I would expect a different set of opinions.
Each one of us is responsible  for their own thoughts and actions, regardless of ' what they were taught'.

Yes, but that does not mean you can say that YOUR Biblical worldview is THE Biblical worldview, as I read what you are doing. You cannot say that someone who has different opinions to yours, doesn't have a Biblical worldview.

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 05:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:55 PM)radind Wrote: 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.

I don't think Trump himself is very religious at all. He is appealing to that group for his political purposes. But you would have a hard time proving your assertion that the evangelicals who support him in droves don't have a Biblical worldview.

But here is one analysis:
But the larger question with Trump, as Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig wondered aloud in The New Republic, is why any evangelical supports him.
The answer, according to several lengthy analyses of Trump’s campaign, lies in two oft-ignored truths. The first is that some evangelicals don’t simply vote for someone just because they share the same faith, a trend likely to accelerate as Republicans scramble to nominate someone they think will win the general election — or at least break the status quo. As longtime religion reporter Amy Sullivan notes over at Yahoo, “While evangelical Republicans sometimes have different priorities and values than their non-evangelical peers, this could be an election cycle in which they vote as Republicans first and evangelicals second.”
The second reality is that while Trump struggles with scripture, his ideas aren’t alien to evangelical pulpits. Thousands of Christian churchgoers have spent years listening to a religious leader who echoes much of Trump’s vitriol, if not his bombastic style — namely, famous televangelist Pat Robertson. Robertson is known for calmly articulating radical positions justified by thin theology: He claimed that the Hurricane Katrina resulted because God was angered by LGBT acceptance, made blanket statements condemning Islam and while expressing fear for Arab Christians, and warned that if the immigration reform passes, America’s politics will be dictated by Mexico.
All of these ideas harmonize with Trump’s symphony of reactionary positions, which — when combined with evangelical voters swayed more by Trump’s anti-establishment charisma than his policies — is enough to cobble together a sizable evangelical primary voting bloc.
“…These appeals might draw the stray evangelical vote here or there,” Bruenig writes. “But if I had to surmise which subset of the evangelical category Trump has struck a chord with, I would guess it would be that intransigent Robertson crowd, the evangelicals who are perpetually dismayed with the Republican establishment Trump is now confounding.”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/0...ngelicals/

Well, let's see, here's more references:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/dr.../88126.htm

And this one:
Amedia noted that Trump has promised to be an "ardent supporter" of Christianity and to uphold the tenets of the First Amendment.

"I think, as Christians, we need to look at that, because the church is under attack. It is under attack from the Left, it's under attack from politics, it's under attack at our Supreme Court level," he said.

"We need Supreme Court justices who are going to uphold the First Amendment, they're not going to legislate law. We need a Congress that is going to work with the president to legislate law, and we need Supreme Court justices who are going to have a heart and a fear for God."

Amedia said he believes that Trump is "the man" who will do all those things, adding that "every Christian needs to look at it that way."
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/te.../88080.htm

And this:
The support that Donald Trump has received from legions of evangelicals has puzzled and “surprised” many people. After all, the presumptive Republican nominee is exceptionally vulgar and, despite claiming to be a devout Christian whose favorite book is the Bible, knows little about scripture and has emphasized, “I don’t like to have to ask for forgiveness” from God. One common explanation for this apparent contradiction is that numerous evangelicals embrace Trump’s agenda, from eviscerating Obamacare to cracking down on undocumented immigrants and barring Muslims from entering America. But Trump and his evangelical supporters think alike in more ways than people realize. Fundamentalist approaches to evangelicalism have long fostered anti-intellectual, anti-rational, black-and-white, and authoritarian mindsets—the very traits that define Trump.

https://newrepublic.com/article/133488/e...like-trump

 Proof is  rare  and difficult to find.
I have my personal observations of current events, which has meaning only to me. And I have the barna.org polls that you reject.
I still maintain that the barna results are more consistent with observed behavior than other popular polls.
I would include many of your comments , including the televangelists , as support for my theory.
Actions and behavior are much more accurate than verbal claims.

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 05:20 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:48 PM)radind Wrote: 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"

---

That's good. But it's a bit like hedging your bets. If you are going to call something "Christian" that SOME Christians believe in, and say it's Bible-based, but then call for a "holistic approach," aren't you begging the question? What is "easy Christianity" that "lacks true faith," and what isn't? What is really LEGIT Christianity, and WHO SAYS SO? 

Don't you have to, in a "holistic" approach, be more open to other interpretations made by other Christian philosophers? Like Paul Tillich, for example. Or existentialists. Or New Thought? Or Christian mystics? How can your approach be the "true faith" and "Bible based," but not "engineered" from the Bible itself?

I have read fairly widely over the past decades and I do feel strongly that a Biblical worldview is key. My objection ( pet peeve)  is the constant demand for 'book, chapter, verse' from my associates when I think that an overall picture( meta-narrative) is important. I have evolved to my current worldview, but open discussion is still good.
I like the concept of Popper of 'Conjectures and Refutations'.

You seem to have dismissed my references. Just curious to see if you have read any works of N. T Wright, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias & William Lane Craig

No. Why should I read them, rather than the works I like by the groups I mentioned?

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 06:20 PM)radind Wrote: I still maintain that the barna results are more consistent with observed behavior than other popular polls.

I would think that proof for this would be rare and difficult to find.

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 10:57 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(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.

What  I choose to do is to try be be a Christian to the best of my understanding. Of course , those who do not have a Biblical worldview will reach their own conclusions.

Quote:Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.  Romans 14:10-12 ESV

[Eric the Green]

Quote:Radind

What I choose to do is to try be be a Christian to the best of my understanding. Of course , those who do not have a Biblical worldview will reach their own conclusions.

As will those who DO have a Biblical worldview.

[pbrower2a]

(06-14-2016, 06:47 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 10:57 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(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.

What  I choose to do is to try be be a Christian to the best of my understanding. Of course , those who do not have a Biblical worldview will reach their own conclusions.

Fine. I have no problem with devout Christianity. i can imagine far, far worse \\ like having no principles whatsoever.

Quote:Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.  Romans 14:10-12 ESV

[/quote]

I think that we can all pass judgment on someone so horrible as Charles Manson or Ted Bundy.

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 06:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 05:20 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 04:48 PM)radind Wrote: 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"

---

That's good. But it's a bit like hedging your bets. If you are going to call something "Christian" that SOME Christians believe in, and say it's Bible-based, but then call for a "holistic approach," aren't you begging the question? What is "easy Christianity" that "lacks true faith," and what isn't? What is really LEGIT Christianity, and WHO SAYS SO? 

Don't you have to, in a "holistic" approach, be more open to other interpretations made by other Christian philosophers? Like Paul Tillich, for example. Or existentialists. Or New Thought? Or Christian mystics? How can your approach be the "true faith" and "Bible based," but not "engineered" from the Bible itself?

I have read fairly widely over the past decades and I do feel strongly that a Biblical worldview is key. My objection ( pet peeve)  is the constant demand for 'book, chapter, verse' from my associates when I think that an overall picture( meta-narrative) is important. I have evolved to my current worldview, but open discussion is still good.
I like the concept of Popper of 'Conjectures and Refutations'.

You seem to have dismissed my references. Just curious to see if you have read any works of N. T Wright, John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias & William Lane Craig

No. Why should I read them, rather than the works I like by the groups I mentioned?

Just as open investigation.

[Dan '82]

(06-15-2016, 10:00 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In one of our Red enclaves here in Blue California there is a pastor who stated that he wished more gays were killed in Orlando this weekend.

Sick stuff!!!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts...didnt-die/


He's actually the pastor of racially diverse church in the blue city of Sacramento.  Here's the church's webiste:

http://www.veritybaptist.com

[Eric the Green]

It's a clear demonstration of how these mistaken, phony Christian (and Muslim) dogmas against gays can instill hate and lead to violence. That pastor should be jailed for inciting it. And he should get a long sentence. It's not a long step from barna, to Verity Baptist Church, to Pulse nightclub June 5 2016.

[radind]

(06-15-2016, 01:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's a clear demonstration of how these mistaken, phony Christian (and Muslim) dogmas against gays can instill hate and lead to violence. That pastor should be jailed for inciting it. And he should get a long sentence. It's not a long step from barna, to Verity Baptist Church, to Pulse nightclub June 5 2016.

I agree that the so called 'pastor' is fundamentally flawed and his comments are evil.
These comments are in no way supported by mainstream Christians or by anyone with a Biblical worldview.

However, your comment about Barna is absolutely wrong and not founded on any facts.

[radind]

Another comment.

Quote:http://www.waaytv.com/appnews/baptists-r...4407a.html

… "I have a theological description for someone like that pastor. He’s a nut,” Travis Collins, Senior Pastor at First Baptist Church in Huntsville, said.”…

… ""Someone's place in God's heart and their value in his eyes is not determined by their sexual behavior or any other behavior for that matter. And if that's okay with God, then it ought to be okay with me," he said....
...The Southern Baptist Convention is currently at its annual meeting in St.Louis. The denomination passed a resolution for the victims of the shooting that says in part: “We regard those affected by this tragedy as fellow image-bearers of God and our neighbors.””…

[Eric the Green]

(06-15-2016, 01:44 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-15-2016, 01:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's a clear demonstration of how these mistaken, phony Christian (and Muslim) dogmas against gays can instill hate and lead to violence. That pastor should be jailed for inciting it. And he should get a long sentence. It's not a long step from barna, to Verity Baptist Church, to Pulse nightclub June 5 2016.

I agree that the so called 'pastor' is fundamentally flawed and his comments are evil.
These comments are in no way supported by mainstream Christians or by anyone with a Biblical worldview.

However, your comment about Barna is absolutely wrong and not founded on any facts.

Barna is not against homosexuality?

That pastor is worse than a nut. He's a criminal.

[radind]

(06-15-2016, 01:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-15-2016, 01:44 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-15-2016, 01:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's a clear demonstration of how these mistaken, phony Christian (and Muslim) dogmas against gays can instill hate and lead to violence. That pastor should be jailed for inciting it. And he should get a long sentence. It's not a long step from barna, to Verity Baptist Church, to Pulse nightclub June 5 2016.

I agree that the so called 'pastor' is fundamentally flawed and his comments are evil.
These comments are in no way supported by mainstream Christians or by anyone with a Biblical worldview.

However, your comment about Barna is absolutely wrong and not founded on any facts.

Barna is not against homosexuality?

The issue is your statement "It's not a long step from barna, to Verity Baptist Church, to Pulse nightclub June 5 2016.".
The statements from the phony 'pastor' are outrageous and EVIL.
No Christian with a Biblical worldview would make such a claim.
To associate anyone else with the Verity Baptist Church without any basis is terribly flawed.

[radind]

(06-15-2016, 01:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(06-15-2016, 01:44 PM)radind Wrote:

(06-15-2016, 01:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's a clear demonstration of how these mistaken, phony Christian (and Muslim) dogmas against gays can instill hate and lead to violence. That pastor should be jailed for inciting it. And he should get a long sentence. It's not a long step from barna, to Verity Baptist Church, to Pulse nightclub June 5 2016.

I agree that the so called 'pastor' is fundamentally flawed and his comments are evil.
These comments are in no way supported by mainstream Christians or by anyone with a Biblical worldview.

However, your comment about Barna is absolutely wrong and not founded on any facts.

Barna is not against homosexuality?

That pastor is worse than a nut. He's a criminal.

The statement was criminal. If he broke any laws, he should be prosecuted.