|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eugene Peterson
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
I'm glad he eventually saw sense and took a stand against Gay Marriage, it's time somebody did.
Why?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
[QB] Story here in case you have missed it.
Basically, in an interview, he indicated that he was broadly in support of same-sex marriage. Then, the evangelical right started to complain. Bookshops said that they would stop stocking his work. And then he changed his mind again to say that he didn't support SSM.
I am not calling Peterson here, I am calling the evangelical right to burn in the deepest pit of hell, for bullying, for being shitty, vile unpleasant, people. For using their political and financial clout to force people to change their views.
I also think this is a vile attitude. But come on, bullyng and being vile for people who have different opinions is the standard attitude of the "progressives" concerning anyone who dares not to agree with their opinions. For example, Tim Keller had an award revoked by Princeton Seminary just because some "progressive" group disagrees with his beliefs on sexuality, and they are convinced that people who don´t agree with them should not be allowed to be awarded (even if the award in question has nothing to do with the issue they disagree with). Also, any conservative christian in mainline "progressive" churches knows how hard the pressure to silence conservative minorities is, to the point of even barring ordination of persons who do not agree with the liberal gender ideologies. "Using their political and financial clout to force people to change their views" is the exact definition of what liberals in mainline churches do. Think of the state churches in many european countries, for example, which have much more political and financial clout then small independent evangelical churches.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
cliffdweller: quote:
Perhaps it's nature's way of clearing the field to make room for new growth.
Don't blame Nature for this. She may be a bitch, but she's not that kind of bitch.
...on the other hand you might have a point. The wannabe leaders moving in on the ageing alpha male, smelling blood...
Well, yes, that does rather speak to the "red of tooth and claw" aspect of nature.
But I was thinking more of the up-and-coming young evangelicals (or "post-evangelicals")-- Rachel Held Evans, Shane Clairborne, etc.-- who are bringing us back to our progressive social justice roots and a deeper, more thoughtful spirituality.
Perhaps it is both. But I know who I'm rooting for.
Rachel Held Evans is not an evangelical, she is a progressive christian who comes from an evangelical background. Just like a converted protestant who was raised in a roman catholic home is not "post-roman catholic", as if protestantism was a natural progression for roman catholics. She just markets herself as "evangelical" or "post-evangelical" because that gives her the status of a rebel, and makes her sell, while "just another progressive christian talking about gender issues" wouldn´t make her sell or seem rebel.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
...bullyng and being vile for people who have different opinions is the standard attitude of the "progressives" concerning anyone who dares not to agree with their opinions.
So, just to be clear: you consider not discriminating against people to be an opinion?
Or is the classification of individuals as "people" where the opinion comes in?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Rachel Held Evans is not an evangelical, she is a progressive christian who comes from an evangelical background.
I must admit that I don't know much about Rachel Held Evans. But, there's certainly no reason why an evangelical couldn't be progressive. Evangelicalism is demarked by views on Scripture, on the central role of Christ on the Cross, of the need for personal conversion and commitment, on faith being active. Which can all lead to progressive views on areas where Scripture isn't clear. Active engagement in issues of social justice, environmental activism, promoting peace etc have long been part of evangelicalism and not limited to progressives from other faith traditions and none.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Gorpo,
As a progressive, I don't give a flying monkeys' what your views on sexuality are. You are free to believe that gays are all on a highway to Hell, that God is the ultimate queer-basher, that he also loathes transexuals.
Where I have a problem is where you think your beliefs entitle you to prevent LGBTQ+ people from exercising their rights. When you think you're entitled to vote against them being allowed to marry. To live their lives according to their chosen gender identity. To access goods and services like everyone else.
To summarise - if you don't believe in equal marriage, fine, don't marry someone you don't think you should. But stop agitating to have my gay friends subject to the same restriction. Stop opposing equal marriage in law. That is all.
Because whilst you still campaign against equal marriage (and this "you" is aimed at everyone doing so, not specifically you) and for stopping trans-women from using women's toilet facilities, then you are hurting and oppressing my friends, and I will stand up for them. If that's vile, then colour me vile and proud.
It's funny. The oppressors talk about "live and let live", but they're not willing to let the people they despise do so.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's funny. The oppressors talk about "live and let live", but they're not willing to let the people they despise do so.
Typical projection of the right in the US.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think Karl said it better than I can.
I even go so far as to say that the evangelicals can say that this is Christianity, and disagreeing with them makes you not a CHristian. I think that is remarkeably arrogant, but so be it. If that is Christianity, I am happy to define myself as an atheist.
But they cannot then expect me to worship this God, be interested in him or follow him. They cannot then impose their faith on me. They cannot then say that I am subject to their in and out.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think Karl said it better than I can.
I even go so far as to say that the evangelicals can say that this is Christianity, and disagreeing with them makes you not a CHristian. I think that is remarkeably arrogant, but so be it. If that is Christianity, I am happy to define myself as an atheist.
But they cannot then expect me to worship this God, be interested in him or follow him. They cannot then impose their faith on me. They cannot then say that I am subject to their in and out.
If evangelicals define Christianity in that way -- how would you define it?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
