Quote (InsaneBobb @ Mar 4 2019 06:56pm)
The Bible sets out a moral framework for it's believers. It sets roles for the genders. It lays out how to live one's life. And none of what it lays out is tolerant of alternative lifestyle. Don't forget, LGBTQ is the alternative lifestyle, not the other way around. It should be no surprise that the overwhelming majority of the church is NOT going to bow to the progressive stack, when they feel doing so would be immoral. Keeping in mind that they have both the right to practice their religion as they see fit, and the right to freedom of association, it's their choice. And it's NOT unique.
Not a single Abrahamic religion allows for alternative lifestyle. Not Christianity, not Islam, not Judaism. With Christianity, alternative lifestyles are to be left alone. AKA not participated in, but not judged or denounced or outlawed. You are free to do whatever you want. And, given the church's main goal is to save souls (in theory at least), they will not actively prevent alternative lifestyle folks from participating. They want to convince them to join them, and cast away their "sinful life". But allowing those who actively and openly practice an alternative lifestyle into the clergy/priesthood? How can you have the people who're preaching how to live a moral life be actively and openly living what your holy books dictate is an immoral and sinful life?
Judaism in this age takes a relatively similar approach. Though in orthodox Jewish communities, if you practice an alternative lifestyle, you may be considered no longer a Jew. There's no penalty other than being outcast from the othodoxy, and there are other Jewish communities that will accept you. But essentially, the split is pretty specific in it's agreement with Christianity.
Islam is openly hostile to alternative lifestyles. They're considered criminal in 10 of the 18 Islamic nations, and those who lead an alternative lifestyle have fewer rights, and often suffer mob violence in the other 8. Indeed, a lot of their limited rights status is intended to restrict their movement and ability to interact in the community, so that they WON'T be attacked by enraged mobs. Based on comments and teachings of many leading figures within the US Muslim population indicate that they have an equal intolerance for alternative lifestyles, though not, to date, the same willingness to attempt to murder those who practice that lifestyle.
Keeping in mind, that between Christianity and Islam, you're looking at between 3 and 3.5 billion people on the planet, and Christianity is only slowly shrinking, and Islam is growing like a wildfire...
I support people's right to live however the fuck they want. I ALSO support the church's right to prevent their leadership positions to be occupied by those they consider to be living in open and active sin. I can disagree with their viewpoint, but it's their religion, their choice.
There is open slavery being practiced in multiple Islamic nations. Today. The Quran and Hadiths outline how a slave can be taken, and how a slave is to be treated. In over 1400 years, Islam has not managed to reform enough to come to the conclusion wholesale that slavery is immoral. Yet you somehow believe that in 50-100 years, Christianity is going to accept alternative lifestyles?
We are talking about Christianity not Islam.
This post was edited by Skinned on Mar 5 2019 05:43am