Pastor of Georgia Mega-church comes out

[micatala]

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/1 ... =allsearch


Questions for debate.

Will this have a measurable effect in changing attitudes within his church, or in the wider evangelical community?

[Guest]

The first sentence is true, but only part of the story. Bible-believing Christians were on both sides of all these issues. Arguably, most of those who were pro-slavery, anti-women voting, anti-civil rights, and anti-gay were or are bible-believing Christians.

On gay marriage, I don't expect those who are most opposed to gay marriage or gay sex on religious grounds to discard their views of what God's ideal is. However, I do think they have no grounds for expecting the rest of society to live by their views.

So you're saying that if Christians don't agree with your position on these issues, then they are not on the right side of history? I'd say that's pretty much what liberal mentality is: if you don't agree with me on gay marriage, then you're on the wrong side of the issue.

Thats putting it nicely. Usually libs say "you dont understand" or claim "you're ignorant."

[flitzerbiest]

The first sentence is true, but only part of the story. Bible-believing Christians were on both sides of all these issues. Arguably, most of those who were pro-slavery, anti-women voting, anti-civil rights, and anti-gay were or are bible-believing Christians.

On gay marriage, I don't expect those who are most opposed to gay marriage or gay sex on religious grounds to discard their views of what God's ideal is. However, I do think they have no grounds for expecting the rest of society to live by their views.

So you're saying that if Christians don't agree with your position on these issues, then they are not on the right side of history? I'd say that's pretty much what liberal mentality is: if you don't agree with me on gay marriage, then you're on the wrong side of the issue.

The fundamental problem is that certain Christian sects wish to impose their sexual mores on other people. There is no defense for trying to limit the free and legal behavior of other people.

[cnorman18]

I haven't been in much direct contact with any segment of the Christian community for a decade or so, for obvious reasons.

Not obvious to me, but then again I'm a noob.

Oh, sorry. I'm a former Methodist minister who converted to Judaism about 10 years ago. It's in the title under my screenname.

[flitzerbiest]

I haven't been in much direct contact with any segment of the Christian community for a decade or so, for obvious reasons.

Not obvious to me, but then again I'm a noob.

Oh, sorry. I'm a former Methodist minister who converted to Judaism about 10 years ago. It's in the title under my screenname.

I saw that, but I wasn't sure why that would have you be out of contact with Christians/Christianity.

[cnorman18]

I haven't been in much direct contact with any segment of the Christian community for a decade or so, for obvious reasons.

Not obvious to me, but then again I'm a noob.

Oh, sorry. I'm a former Methodist minister who converted to Judaism about 10 years ago. It's in the title under my screenname.

I saw that, but I wasn't sure why that would have you be out of contact with Christians/Christianity.

Direct contact. I haven't been to church since my conversion or kept up with church stuff other than what I read in the papers, and I've learned to take that with a couple of cupfuls of salt. The media-visible Christians weren't characteristic of the folks in the pews then, and I doubt that they are now.

[micatala]

The first sentence is true, but only part of the story. Bible-believing Christians were on both sides of all these issues. Arguably, most of those who were pro-slavery, anti-women voting, anti-civil rights, and anti-gay were or are bible-believing Christians.

On gay marriage, I don't expect those who are most opposed to gay marriage or gay sex on religious grounds to discard their views of what God's ideal is. However, I do think they have no grounds for expecting the rest of society to live by their views.

So you're saying that if Christians don't agree with your position on these issues, then they are not on the right side of history? I'd say that's pretty much what liberal mentality is: if you don't agree with me on gay marriage, then you're on the wrong side of the issue.

Yes, my prediction is, 20 years from now or so, those who opposed gay marriage on religious grounds will largely be deemed to have been on the wrong side of history.

I think Americans, like they did already years ago on DADT, will come to see that freedom of religion in particular, and the freedom to pursue happiness in general, trumps religious doctrines that would teach that gay marriage, as a civil right or practice, should be prohibited.

I reject the ad hominem use of "liberal mentality" here. I am a registered independent and feel my views are largely moderate. On this particular issue, I think my position is a moderate position, consistent with mainstream views of the constitution.

If you are willing to concede that abolition, civil rights, women's rights including voting, etc. are liberal positions, then I'll drop the point. At one time these were largely considered liberal, even radical. Now they are mainstream. Same with gay marriage, except we are not quite all the way to mainstream yet, although we are getting closer every day.

[East of Eden]

This would be a semantic error along the same lines as one who states (as we commonly hear), "I believe in the fundamentals", but fails to recognize that Christian fundamentalism is a distinct and recognizable movement, the tenets of which the speaker may or may not accept. Evangelicalism is a recent Christian movement. Evangelism, as a Christian activity, is not.

I'm not aware of anything Evangelical Christians today believe that was not believed by the early church.

[East of Eden]

The first sentence is true, but only part of the story. Bible-believing Christians were on both sides of all these issues. Arguably, most of those who were pro-slavery, anti-women voting, anti-civil rights, and anti-gay were or are bible-believing Christians.

On gay marriage, I don't expect those who are most opposed to gay marriage or gay sex on religious grounds to discard their views of what God's ideal is. However, I do think they have no grounds for expecting the rest of society to live by their views.

So you're saying that if Christians don't agree with your position on these issues, then they are not on the right side of history? I'd say that's pretty much what liberal mentality is: if you don't agree with me on gay marriage, then you're on the wrong side of the issue.

The fundamental problem is that certain Christian sects wish to impose their sexual mores on other people. There is no defense for trying to limit the free and legal behavior of other people.

All laws are an imposition of morality. Are you saying only non-Christians can participate in our democracy?

[East of Eden]

Yes, my prediction is, 20 years from now or so, those who opposed gay marriage on religious grounds will largely be deemed to have been on the wrong side of history.

And I'm sure that the Evangelical Christians who stopped the slave trade were once considered to be on the wrong side of history. Complaining about Wilberforce imposing his Christian values about the slave trade, Lord Melbourne said, "Things have come to a pretty pass, when one should permit one's religion to invade public life."

Let God be true and every man a liar.

[Wyvern]

Yes, my prediction is, 20 years from now or so, those who opposed gay marriage on religious grounds will largely be deemed to have been on the wrong side of history.

And I'm sure that the Evangelical Christians who stopped the slave trade were once considered to be on the wrong side of history. Complaining about Wilberforce imposing his Christian values about the slave trade, Lord Melbourne said, "Things have come to a pretty pass, when one should permit one's religion to invade public life."

Let God be true and every man a liar.

What's even more interesting is that the bible was used on both sides of the slavery argument. What determined which side was correct was public opinion.