« Pastor Calls Trinity “The First Throuple” | Main | Can Sin Be Defined without the Law & Justice of God? »

March 14, 2015

Comments

The days of gospel persecution in the United States no longer just hang on the distant horizon; they are already here, at least for some. It’s beginning with the bakers, florists, and photographers. Before long, the consensus may be that faithful biblical exposition is “hate speech.” ... Barring some change in trajectory, it will only be a matter of time before some of our leaders will find themselves in custody.

It's here, it's finally HERE! Glory hallelujah, the age of persecution of Christians in America has finally arrived! Long have we languished in comfortable cultural majority, long have we pined for the enemy to finally reveal itself and declare war on all things bright and beautiful. Now, we Christians can get the martyrdom we've always dreamed of!

Now, granted, the martyr's crown is rather hard to come by at the present time. You have to start a business, and then get in the habit of providing goods and services for only opposite-gender weddings. And even then, after you have gone through all that tedious "due process" nonsense, Chapter 7 bankruptcy just doesn't have the glamor of being tortured or fed to the lions, does it? (Envy our lucky, lucky brethren in the Middle East!) That kind of persecution just isn't worth the effort, in my opinion.

But don't you fear! The march of the homofascist gaystapo will continue, and the imprisonment of Christians for "hate speech" will just be a hop, a skip, and 200 years of Supreme Court precedent away!

Remember when to be gay was to be presumed a criminal?

That was persecution.

Wow great comeback---although I think it's a sin to persecute gay people---homosexuality is still a sin. Oops, please take it easy and don't bust a gut getting all excited because I call homosexuality a sin. I have news for everyone---are you ready---we are all sinners in one way or another and "if you say you have no sin you are a liar".

Les,

Call homosexuality a 'sin'. It's your right.

What I want to know is what you aim to do about it.

I think it's a sin to persecute gay people

Does that mean you think homosexuality should be legal?

Why or why not?

Phillip A,

Hard to say ... is your post pure vitriol, apocalyptic vision, or just sarcasm?

It's difficult to critique your offering since it seems to demean Amy's whole argument. If it appears that we are recreating he situations that led to Kristalnacht, wouldn't it be prudent to reexamine the roots of hostility, with a frank admission that hostility has oozed for both parties?

In the pass few months, I have been intrigued by the concept of the "narrative," the presentation of an issue framed in such a way that avoids certain events in order to create a sense of injustice ... spinning the story for desired effect (e.g. not mentioning Michael Brown's activities prior to his run-in with a rather diminutive member of the Ferguson PD.). The success of the LGBT movement has been that of the narrative, presenting the homosexual in a positive light, without exploring the meaner spirit in the movement.

If your post is apocalyptic vision, then let me offer mine. Remember that the successes of the gay movement have been judicial, not democratic. In referenda involving gay rights and gay marriage, the results had been losses. It was only through the work of activism in the justice system was law created to promote the lifestyle. As this acceptance gained, certain inconsistencies began to appear.

In advocating for the end of bullying, the LGBT seems to advocate bullying (your post is evidence of this).

In advocating tolerance, the LGBT seems to seek every method to silence the voice that would insist that homosexuality is a sin.

In short, a tone of hypocrisy is being detected in the LGBT message. And the advancement of a cause does not mean total victory. Even in the advancement of the civil rights movement , the n-word is still whispered. In such a case the derogatory terms never die.

This apocalyptic vision is despicable. Legislation often doesn't end animosity. Les makes a good point. People of conscience must often speak frankly but fairly. To detest the message should not mean retaliation against the messenger.

A pox on both our houses.

Phillip, you've had your apocalyptic vision, I had mine. The question is, who best to avoid both?

RonH,

>> Does that mean you think homosexuality should be legal?

Do you note a distinction between "legal" and "godly"?

What about the gospel compels Christian business people to withhold services from people with whom they disagree about morality?

brgulker, people aren't being punished for withholding services from people with whom they disagree. In fact, the photographers, bakers, etc. usually already have a relationship with the customers who end up requesting the business be part of their same-sex wedding. The business owners are already serving them. Being part of the wedding (an event they disagree with) is different. They shouldn't have to take part in the wedding, especially since the couple can just choose another baker or florist. I likewise think a gay activist t-shirt maker or printer shouldn't be forced to engage in advertising for a political rally for man/woman marriage. There are other printers.

If they were to refuse service to someone who merely believed in man/woman marriage—i.e., if they were to withhold services from people with whom they disagree about marriage—that would be something different. Serving someone is not participating in and promoting their beliefs. Playing a major role in an event that promotes their beliefs is. There's a relevant difference between the two.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Man this gospel thing is really confusing...

The days of gospel persecution in the United States no longer just hang on the distant horizon; they are already here, at least for some. It’s beginning with the bakers, florists, and photographers. Before long, the consensus may be that faithful biblical exposition is “hate speech.”

So the "inability to descriminate against people" == "gospel persecution". Got it.

Ron H said----Call homosexuality a 'sin'. It's your right. What I want to know is what you aim to do about it. I think it's a sin to persecute gay people Does that mean you think homosexuality should be legal? Why or why not?

Well Ron H I'm thinking you're thinking that if I think someone is a sinner that I hate them and I wouldn't care if they were harmed. This is so far from the truth and it's a point that the gay activists make all of the time in an attempt to demonize their opposition. No I don't think homosexuality should be made illegal just like I don't think fornication should be made illegal--I'm very libertarian with respect to what adults do in their own privacy. But I should not be discriminated against either from the general public or the government if I think it's a sin. I really don't care what unbelievers do outside of the Church but in the Church homosexual activity should be dealt with per the word.

And by the way anti gay rhetoric (persecution of gays should be illegal) is persecuted in many countries now as "hate speech"---how beautifully Orwellian!

@ brgulker

"What about the gospel compels Christian business people to withhold services from people with whom they disagree about morality?"

Can you show me these cases? I have seen zero.

The comments to this entry are closed.