4
5

Hostility toward Christianity has become a disappointing norm in my hometown's subreddit. Please pray for Atlanta. (reddit.com)

Independent Baptistchaller が 投稿

全ての 33 コメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]william_nillington 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I think the anger isn't directed at Christians in general or Christianity as a whole, but at those who support hateful viewpoints with their religion, and especially those who attempt to write that hateful viewpoint into law.

“I remember the day when a girl who got pregnant in school would be shamed."

"How can they put pressure on you when they don’t even know what gender they are?! You gays won’t stand before God—how can we let you stand before us? You say that you have a civil rights struggle—that you are denied your rights. You say you go through the same thing as blacks? You’ve got another thing coming!”

Rhetoric like that has no place in civil discourse. This is what gets people upset: not Christianity, but people who say that kind of thing and support it with their religion.

[–]Baptistamericasevil 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Very well put. People who judge and condemn others for who they are and what they can't help, regardless of belief, are jerks.

[–]william_nillington -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Honestly I'm even OK with people judging others for whatever. Yeah, it's a jerk move, but everyone has their opinions, misguided as they may be. It's when it turns from judging to anger and hate, and when it becomes public, even publicly accepted (as was the case at the state capitol from the article) that I start to take issue with it. Then it can start being directly harmful, and not just a privately held opinion.

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Paul named names publicly, though. Why is calling people out in public a problem from a biblical perspective?

[–]william_nillington 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Firstly, again I'd need context. Was Paul announcing the winners of a lottery? Calling the next contestants for a game show? Or was he calling for their death? I have no idea what you're referring to or what the context of that instance is.

Secondly, I wouldn't base an argument off of the bible because I don't believe in it. I can, however, make an argument based on what should be a shared interest in general human compassion, that inciting hate against a group of people or against one person is needlessly harmful, and therefore should be avoided. The best way I can try to put in into a Christian perspective is this: care for your fellow man, help him be happy in this life, and let God handle the judgment for the next life. Inciting hate does no good on any account.

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What about this rhetoric? Does it belong?

[–]william_nillington -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm no theologist, I don't know about the context of those quotes so I can't speak about them. Context is provided in the story being discussed though, which is why I can say what was said doesn't belong in civil discourse, especially at a state capitol.

[–]yooper80 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Same deal in r/Reno. Tried to find someone to go to a Christian concert with me after our youth pastor had to back out at the last minute, and I was met with nothing but sarcastic responses. Someone tried to ask a question about a local church the other day, and got the same thing. I think it all boils down to people not wanting to stop living for themselves.

[–]Universalistflame_in_darkness 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well you were being very confrontational.

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is reproof not by definition confronting the errors of others?

[–]ChristianSovereignPaladin 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Dang you were everywhere in that thread. I actually like how confident and uncaring you were that so many were against you. I think you were doing good showing what is right instead of trying to be politically correct and acting like these things are no big deal.

Although, I don't think I could handle so many negative responses from others, it would get to me.

Edit: Also something cool I learned from this post is that a lot of cities have their own subs. Started browsing my own now so I can get to know my place better since I've only lived here a few years.

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're winning!

[–]htiafon 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (19子コメント)

As usual, my response is "oh no, someone said mean words about Christianity!". Try having Christians ram religious law down your throat for a while, and we'll talk about who's hostile and who's oh-so-oppressed.

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (18子コメント)

To use your analogy:

Christians are often, but not always trying to legislate things to protect things from entering their throat, not ramming them down the throats of others.

[–]htiafon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Christians are often, but not always trying to legislate things to protect things from entering their throat, not ramming them down the throats of others.

Ah yes, the everpresent "having to recognize a legal document oppresses Christians" chestnut. Is state recognition of interracial marriages oppressing racists?

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (16子コメント)

This is a fallacy of equivocation.

[–]Evangelical & Reformed (ex-UCC)xRVAx 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you mean "false equivalence" ... bu yes I agree with you that racism/anti-miscegenation laws us not a good comparison.

[–]htiafon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, it isn't. It is 100% exactly the same thing. You want the state not to recognize a thing because you, personally don't want to recognize it. It has nothing to do with any state interest, you just don't like it. Well, tough, the 1st, 5th, and 14th amendments say you don't get to do that.

[–]squareandrare -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (13子コメント)

It's actually not false equivalence at all. In fact, what you're doing is called false dichotomy. During the Civil Rights Era, the filthy primitives of the South rationalized their opposition to civil rights with the bible. The filthy primitives of today are no different, and they shouldn't be treated any differently.

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (12子コメント)

You sir are a strange duck. The fallacy of equivocation applies because the law does not confer the same protection to racism that it does to religion. Forcing a religious business owner to hire someone engaged in willful, unrepentant sin when the Bible commands them to separate from those types of people violates the freedom of religion and is itself religious discrimination.

[–]squareandrare 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Which is exactly what the filthy primitives in the South said 50 years ago about serving black people.

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Congratulations: You've illustrated a non sequitur.

Just because some murderers say "I didn't do it!" doesn't mean other individuals charged with murder are lying.

Doctrinal separation is much better understood than any Old Testament verses around race.

[–]squareandrare 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Even granting the utterly laughable premise that the bible commands discrimination based on sexual orientation but it does not command racial discrimination, your argument still doesn't work. What about a religion that specifically says that black people are sinful? Would a shop owner who follows that religion be allowed to turn black people away?

We decided 50 years ago that it was in the interest of the nation to have laws against discrimination for businesses that serve the public. And we don't care how many of you dirty primitives are angered by it.

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm not angered in the least. All of this name calling and ranting isn't productive. Come back around when you want to be reasonable.

[–]htiafon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The fallacy of equivocation applies because the law does not confer the same protection to racism that it does to religion.

Your religious values have no protection at all in and of themselves. You're protected from laws that specifically target those values. If your religion says you have to snort cocaine, you do not have a 1st amendment right to snort cocaine. If your religious practice is incidentally curtained by laws that otherwise serve a compelling government interest, you have no 1st amendment recourse. See Employment Division v. Smith.

Guaranteeing fair employment is well-recognized as a compelling interest, so a non-discrimination hiring law does not infringe your 1st amendment rights, as per current U.S. legal precedent.

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Your religious values have no protection at all in and of themselves. You're protected from laws that specifically target those values. If your religion says you have to snort cocaine, you do not have a 1st amendment right to snort cocaine.

False.

While it is not true of cocaine, it is true of a more dangerous drug in the eyes of the law: marijuana.

It is also true of hallucinogenic tea.

See Employment Division v. Smith.

This is referring to denial of unemployment benefits due to a state prohibition of a drug, not the use of the drug in religious rituals themselves. Try again!

[–]htiafon -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

While it is not true of cocaine, it is true of a more dangerous drug in the eyes of the law: marijuana.

That link specifically says they've been prosecuted anyway.

[–]Independent Baptistchaller[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is correct. They have not been tried and convicted yet, however. I think the second link I included regarding hallucinogenic tea illustrates my point.

[–]Seventh-day Adventistcoyotebored83 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

My city is the same. I think most major cities tend to lean this way.