CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[BehindBlueI's]

Simply pointing out that if a person believes two things are both wrong, why are they so willing to respond to them completely differently. Perhaps robbery wasn't the best example, but I was trying to find something that is still pretty universally considered unacceptable as compared to the things that seem to have become gray areas for many people.

Because we're capable of assessing the various level of harm and don't treat all infractions against our moral code the same? Because we weigh the good we can do in different situations? Because being an active participant in a crime is completely different then what we're discussing? Because I can decide if I'm likely to affect the outcome based on my actions? Stopping a robbery by arresting someone stops the crime. Not going to a wedding isn't going to stop the marriage unless you're one of the people exchanging vows, it just harms your relationship.

Honestly, this is the sort of logic that gets kids expelled for gun shaped pop-tarts. Zero tolerance and treating all infractions the same are a substitute for thinking.

 

[Ziggidy]

Honestly, this is the sort of logic that gets kids expelled for gun shaped pop-tarts. Zero tolerance and treating all infractions the same are a substitute for thinking.

Interesting, I find your position the same as you described above.....enjoy the open bar.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Interesting, I find your position the same as you described above.....enjoy the open bar.

Can you flesh that out a bit?

 

[epeery]

Honestly, this is the sort of logic that gets kids expelled for gun shaped pop-tarts. Zero tolerance and treating all infractions the same are a substitute for thinking.

I think this is a completely different discussion and at least a little baiting, so I'm going to just set this aside.

Because we're capable of assessing the various level of harm and don't treat all infractions against our moral code the same? Because we weigh the good we can do in different situations?

Although books have been written on this topic too, for the sake of this discussion let's assume (as I believe you are expressing above) that there is a continuum from bad to good that actions, events, and decisions can fall on. In the center is some "break point" that separates things you shouldn't do from things you should do.

Because being an active participant in a crime is completely different then what we're discussing? Because I can decide if I'm likely to affect the outcome based on my actions? Stopping a robbery by arresting someone stops the crime. Not going to a wedding isn't going to stop the marriage unless you're one of the people exchanging vows, it just harms your relationship.

Please set aside my previous attempt at reductio ad absurdum and forget about the crime aspect. If homosexuality and therefore homosexual marriage are on the "things you shouldn't do" portion of the spectrum, how can joining in the ceremony be on the "things you should do" part? Relationships are maintained and even grown, not by doing wrong, but by HOW we do right.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Please set aside my previous attempt at reductio ad absurdum and forget about the crime aspect. If homosexuality and therefore homosexual marriage are on the "things you shouldn't do" portion of the spectrum, how can joining in the ceremony be on the "things you should do" part? Relationships are maintained and even grown, not by doing wrong, but by HOW we do right.

For you, maybe you shouldn't. For me, my thought process can really be boiled down to this, and I can flesh it out a bit more if you like, but the take-away is the same. The fact we are all sinners is generally accepted as true, so I will assume you buy into that concept.

The marriage will happen with or without my attendance. I really have no leverage to influence that, some "him or me" ultimatum is going to go against me. By attending I maintain the relationship and gain credibility with the person that I really do love them. Hopefully, that credible and loving relationship is a good influence on the person and maybe nudges them toward a better moral standing. Their whole life isn't reduced to "gay" any more than we should reduce someone's life to "drunk" or "liar" because they habitual sin in that manner. I do not see attendance as enabling due to my lack of leverage. Some may equate it to driving the alcoholic to the liquor store, but that vastly overstates their role in the other person's life.

So, in short, I think the potential harm done by not attending is greater than any harm from attending. I think the potential for greater good is higher from attending than from not.

 

[BugI02]

BBI, I could be wrong (and quite likely am); but I think some posters herein are genuinely worried that in striving to do incremental good such as you advocate, they may actually instead do incremental harm to the sinners and themselves.

It is a thorny question, indeed; we are most often led away from the path of righteousness by many small turnings and you know what they say is the paving material for the road to hell. I'm less certain of the correct path than I was. I think I'll reread James today

 

[Ziggidy]

I will not attend a gay marriage just as I will not meet an alcoholic friend in a bar. Whether or not my activity (or lack of it) will positively influence anyone's outcome, I certainly do not want to encourage it or show support for it. Hypocrite? We all fall short? No, I'm not a hypocrite but I do fall short. I do not need to show support for another persons sin to make up for my own shortcomings - sin. To think otherwise is ridiculous. What my gay friends do in there own privacy is their.....well, privacy - that does not need my approval.

We as a society is seeing the fall out from such compromising standards that you appear to reflect. Live and let live - even if wrong, after all - it's their sin; not mine. Little by little, the enemy infiltrates and this is how the enemy gains momentum. You ridicule my stance rather than applaud it; all while proving your stance of compromise.

When has compromise become part of God's word? Do we compromise our relationship with Christ so we do not have to compromise our worldly friends?

Love the sinner (all of us) but hate the sin. What does that look like when you are asked to attend a open sinful act? Where does the line become crossed?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

BBI, I could be wrong (and quite likely am); but I think some posters herein are genuinely worried that in striving to do incremental good such as you advocate, they may actually instead do incremental harm to the sinners and themselves.

It is a thorny question, indeed; we are most often led away from the path of righteousness by many small turnings and you know what they say is the paving material for the road to hell. I'm less certain of the correct path than I was. I think I'll reread James today

It's certainly a difficult question. Others may legitimately arrive at a different conclusion then I have. There is just as much a debate among Muslims as it is Christians, with answers much the same as you see here. From "it's an abomination" to "support them before and after but do not attend" to "attend and support them as people without condoning the sin". The argument I've found most compelling is the one I've laid out as well. I don't think gay people choose to be gay, and I don't expect anyone to lead a life sin-free. I think shunning and ostracizing (which may not necessarily be what you do if you don't attend) leads to a worse life overall if people get socially isolated, turn to drugs/alcohol, and go down that road.

I don't thing GFGT is wrong for him and his relations, for example. I just can't square it with my beliefs and my relations. I could be wrong either way, but this way my conscience is clear. I think God will understand the love behind the decision I (hypothetically) made regardless, and the same for GFGT.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I will not attend a gay marriage just as I will not meet an alcoholic friend in a bar.

Really? I think the second one is much less thorny than the first. Speaking as a former alcoholic, if you wouldn't meet me in a bar your chances of reaching me plummeted. I've went to casinos with gamblers, bars with alcoholics, etc. Being there might help you nudge them and mitigate their damages. Just being there as an example of someone not engaged in gambling or excessive drinking might spark something.

 

[Ziggidy]

Really? I think the second one is much less thorny than the first. Speaking as a former alcoholic, if you wouldn't meet me in a bar your chances of reaching me plummeted. I've went to casinos with gamblers, bars with alcoholics, etc. Being there might help you nudge them and mitigate their damages. Just being there as an example of someone not engaged in gambling or excessive drinking might spark something.

We will just have to leave it as it is; we disagree. You work what is best for you and I'll do the same. As I walk away from this discussion, I would like to point out that my position on the topic seemly does not sit well with you. My perception is molded by your comments that suggest one who thinks the way I do exhibits hypocrisy or better than thou attitude; again, that is my perception.

Peace...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's certainly a difficult question. Others may legitimately arrive at a different conclusion then I have. There is just as much a debate among Muslims as it is Christians, with answers much the same as you see here. From "it's an abomination" to "support them before and after but do not attend" to "attend and support them as people without condoning the sin". The argument I've found most compelling is the one I've laid out as well. I don't think gay people choose to be gay, and I don't expect anyone to lead a life sin-free. I think shunning and ostracizing (which may not necessarily be what you do if you don't attend) leads to a worse life overall if people get socially isolated, turn to drugs/alcohol, and go down that road.

I don't thing GFGT is wrong for him and his relations, for example. I just can't square it with my beliefs and my relations. I could be wrong either way, but this way my conscience is clear. I think God will understand the love behind the decision I (hypothetically) made regardless, and the same for GFGT.

I've learned that when it's your friend, child, sister, or brother rather than some unknown, hypothetical person, it makes the decision tougher. It's one thing to tell a person you'll never meet 'no'. It's another to tell your favorite cousin 'sorry...I'm cannot attend your "marriage" because (whatever)'. Personal relationships and the pressures and tensions they can place on interactions can definitely make them difficult. I think the correct answers are still correct, if you're acting in a way that will glorify God and advance his kingdom though...but it can be tough.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I will not attend a gay marriage just as I will not meet an alcoholic friend in a bar. Whether or not my activity (or lack of it) will positively influence anyone's outcome, I certainly do not want to encourage it or show support for it. Hypocrite? We all fall short? No, I'm not a hypocrite but I do fall short. I do not need to show support for another persons sin to make up for my own shortcomings - sin. To think otherwise is ridiculous. What my gay friends do in there own privacy is their.....well, privacy - that does not need my approval.

We as a society is seeing the fall out from such compromising standards that you appear to reflect. Live and let live - even if wrong, after all - it's their sin; not mine. Little by little, the enemy infiltrates and this is how the enemy gains momentum. You ridicule my stance rather than applaud it; all while proving your stance of compromise.

When has compromise become part of God's word? Do we compromise our relationship with Christ so we do not have to compromise our worldly friends?

Love the sinner (all of us) but hate the sin. What does that look like when you are asked to attend a open sinful act? Where does the line become crossed?

Really? I think the second one is much less thorny than the first. Speaking as a former alcoholic, if you wouldn't meet me in a bar your chances of reaching me plummeted. I've went to casinos with gamblers, bars with alcoholics, etc. Being there might help you nudge them and mitigate their damages. Just being there as an example of someone not engaged in gambling or excessive drinking might spark something.

The better example would be something like to take an alcoholic buddy on a drinking binge or taking him to a party where his temptations might get the best of them. It's about you not causing or enabling the person act towards sin. Some opinions will vary but for me, drinking a beer or two (or wine or most any other alcoholic drink) is not in and of itself sinful. Being drunk is. Acting in such a way in tempting an alcoholic is a sin. Simply meeting them in a bar is not. As BBI points out, you cannot lead them out if you're not there to lead them. If they're already going to be there, you could help them by finding a reason to leave before they fall to temptation.

 

[Ziggidy]

OK, meeting someone in a bar was a very poor analogy on my part; did not mean it the way it is being taken.

 

[Ziggidy]

I've learned that when it's your friend, child, sister, or brother rather than some unknown, hypothetical person, it makes the decision tougher. It's one thing to tell a person you'll never meet 'no'. It's another to tell your favorite cousin 'sorry...I'm cannot attend your "marriage" because (whatever)'. Personal relationships and the pressures and tensions they can place on interactions can definitely make them difficult. I think the correct answers are still correct, if you're acting in a way that will glorify God and advance his kingdom though...but it can be tough.

Amen.

And I do not suggest that anyone who did go would be sinning.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

As I walk away from this discussion, I would like to point out that my position on the topic seemly does not sit well with you. My perception is molded by your comments that suggest one who thinks the way I do exhibits hypocrisy or better than thou attitude; again, that is my perception.

It's certainly a difficult question. Others may legitimately arrive at a different conclusion then I have....I don't thing GFGT is wrong for him and his relations, for example. I just can't square it with my beliefs and my relations. I could be wrong either way, but this way my conscience is clear. I think God will understand the love behind the decision I (hypothetically) made regardless, and the same for GFGT.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

OK, meeting someone in a bar was a very poor analogy on my part; did not mean it the way it is being taken.

That's the thing about debating/discussing issues on the internet. Precision and accuracy is important. Sometimes what you meant gets lost in how people read your posts. I figured you meant what I suggested but I can see how folks could read it the other way.

 

[JettaKnight]

 

[Dead Duck]

It's all good.
God's pipe hitter will figure it all out in the end.

 

[Dead Duck]

Oh - sorry.
That's "Michael" for the slow ones.

 

[Ziggidy]

---

I'm not too savvy when it comes to multiple quotes, so I will just quote what you posted earlier and ask how I may have interpreted that statement wrong. How does that not suggest that your opinion looks down upon one who shares my opinion? What am I missing? What exactly did you mean?

"Honestly, this is the sort of logic that gets kids expelled for gun shaped pop-tarts. Zero tolerance and treating all infractions the same are a substitute for thinking."