The Death of Evangelical Christianity?

[Atreus21]

Not just physical harm. Psychological harm is inflicted when someone cannot escape a situation they do not like. When escape is possible, the individual has the choice of either remaining in or leaving that situation. When escape is as possible as remaining in place, no infringement has occurred.

Psychological harm is inflicted irrespective of one's ability to escape. Your example might hold water if perhaps the witnesses had advance warning that "there's a crazy guy having an animal orgy in the street." But merely having the capability to escape the situation doesn't mean you can escape the psychological damage already inflicted by what you've witnessed.

I digress, because even if neither I nor anyone else can provide logical reasoning why having sex with animals in public in front of children should be disallowed, then I think that's a failure of logic and reason. And that's no surprise. Logic and reason tend to provide little foundation for moral behavior in the first place.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well, speaking specifically about evangelicals, they campaign against "profanity" and "obscenity", think Christmas is under attack and must be protected via laws, and believe that gay people are in every circumstance unfit to adopt children. Those are the ones that first come to mind.

I still don't see how their beliefs conflict with the Constitution & Bill of Rights. Don't get me wrong, I lean towards your belief system...however, my point is that they are entitled to their beliefs just as much as you or I are entitled to ours.

 

[soulcougher73]

I still don't see how their beliefs conflict with the Constitution & Bill of Rights. Don't get me wrong, I lean towards your belief system...however, my point is that they are entitled to their beliefs just as much as you or I are entitled to ours.

Entitled to and having the backing of the governement are two seperate things. They can hate gays getting married all they want to, but the government should still allow it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Entitled to and having the backing of the governement are two seperate things. Then can hate gays getting married all they want to, but the government should still allow it.

Under our Constitution and Bill of Rights, people are entitled to fight against the government backing of gay marriage just as people are entitled to fight for government backing of gay marriage. They are not 2 different things....they are the same thing, just different belief systems.

 

[alzan]

Entitled to and having the backing of the governement are two seperate things. Then can hate gays getting married all they want to, but the government should still allow it.

Exactly. The governments attitude towards SSM in particular needs to be: "Here are two people who wish to enter into the social contract of marriage. They are both above the age of Informed Consent, they are not currently in a marriage with someone else and they are not related. We therefore grant the license."

 

[soulcougher73]

Under our Constitution and Bill of Rights, people are entitled to fight against the government backing of gay marriage just as people are entitled to fight for government backing of gay marriage.

You are right. But when one side of that equation is going against "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of another human, they are in the wrong and the Gov should be backing the inevitable winning side 🙂

 

[WHAMPOM]

Don't you want your beliefs backed by the full force of law and government? Is that somehow different?

Do you really think "don't push your beliefs on me" and "believe the same as me or die" are the same?

 

[Retro Rob]

You are right. But when one side of that equation is going against "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of another human, they are in the wrong and the Gov should be backing the inevitable winning side 🙂

I agree, that's why "Christians" should have stayed out of it to begin with.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Under our Constitution and Bill of Rights, people are entitled to fight against the government backing of gay marriage just as people are entitled to fight for government backing of gay marriage. They are not 2 different things....they are the same thing, just different belief systems.

Only in your mind!

 

[Retro Rob]

.

I digress, because even if neither I nor anyone else can provide logical reasoning why having sex with animals in public in front of children should be disallowed, then I think that's a failure of logic and reason. And that's no surprise. Logic and reason tend to provide little foundation for moral behavior in the first place.

Liberal like him simply don't care about what's "right" or "wrong" (heck, he probably thinks they're all relative anyway) so anything goes. Screw your conscience, your feelings -- the whole nine.

People who beat their spouses and molest childern have no moral absolutes either. Welcome to the 21st century...🙄

 

[zsdersw]

Psychological harm is inflicted irrespective of one's ability to escape. Your example might hold water if perhaps the witnesses had advance warning that "there's a crazy guy having an animal orgy in the street." But merely having the capability to escape the situation doesn't mean you can escape the psychological damage already inflicted by what you've witnessed.

The "advance warning" is freedom... and the possibility that such things may occur.

I digress, because even if neither I nor anyone else can provide logical reasoning why having sex with animals in public in front of children should be disallowed, then I think that's a failure of logic and reason. And that's no surprise. Logic and reason tend to provide little foundation for moral behavior in the first place.

Then you have a poor grasp of logic and reason.

 

[zsdersw]

Liberal like him simply don't care about what's "right" or "wrong" (heck, he probably thinks they're all relative anyway) so anything goes. Screw your conscience, your feelings -- the whole nine.

Your conscience and feelings are yours, and you are perfectly free to share them. You are not, on the other hand, entitled to force those feelings on others via law/government.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your conscience and feelings are yours, and you are perfectly free to share them. You are not, on the other hand, entitled to force those feelings on others via law/government.

I agree, but to suggest that we're better off as society (if that's what you're doing) with no "right/wrong", then that's simply asinine.

I agree with your point that Christians can have their views without trying to influence law. They've screwed themselves by trying and succeeding, to some degree, by doing so.

Liberal views won't change anything because they're inheretdly selfish and don't take others in consideration.

 

[zsdersw]

Under our Constitution and Bill of Rights, people are entitled to fight against the government backing of gay marriage just as people are entitled to fight for government backing of gay marriage. They are not 2 different things....they are the same thing, just different belief systems.

Yes they are. Anarchy is the default position; no government, no rules, 100% freedom. A system of government (whatever form that may be) comes next. This government imposes rules, so freedom is reduced. People who believe that government should act to ban additional actions beyond those defined during the formation/ratification of the original government are attempting to reduce freedom further.

I do not support the further reduction in freedom. Groups like evangelical Christians do. They support reducing freedom, I do not.

 

[zsdersw]

I agree, but to suggest that we're better off as society (if that's what you're doing) with no "right/wrong", then that's simply asinine.

I'm saying we're better off as a society when government doesn't dictate what's right and wrong beyond the basics of not killing or harming each other.

Liberal views won't change anything because they're inheretdly selfish and don't take others in consideration.

This doesn't make much sense. What do you mean by "liberal views" and how, exactly, are they inherently selfish?

 

[alzan]

Liberal like him simply don't care about what's "right" or "wrong" (heck, he probably thinks they're all relative anyway) so anything goes. Screw your conscience, your feelings -- the whole nine.

People who beat their spouses and molest childern have no moral absolutes either. Welcome to the 21st century...🙄

Fascinating. You may or may not know his social/political leanings or his individual moral code and you know his thoughts as well.

That happens in some Christian/conservative homes as well; please try to leave the extra-wide brush strokes out of it.

 

[nehalem256]

Exactly. The governments attitude towards SSM in particular needs to be: "Here are two people who wish to enter into the social contract of marriage. They are both above the age of Informed Consent, they are not currently in a marriage with someone else and they are not related. We therefore grant the license."

Of course the problem here is that marriage is a social contract between a man and a woman.

And going by the second bolded statement it seems you have no issue restricting marriage to groups you approve of it.

 

[nehalem256]

You are right. But when one side of that equation is going against "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of another human, they are in the wrong and the Gov should be backing the inevitable winning side 🙂

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the bolded.

Unless you are arguing that you need the government to certified your relation to be happy. In which case I think that is your problem.

 

[Retro Rob]

Fascinating. You may or may not know his social/political leanings or his individual moral code and you know his thoughts as well.:rolleyes

That happens in some Christian/conservative homes as well; please try to leave the extra-wide brush strokes out of it.

He said in another thread that "right and wrong are matters of opinion". I think that's straight hogwash.

It's not to hard to assume, after that kind of statement, what his moral code may or may not be. Im sure he wouldn't intentionally harm anyone else, but morals go beyond just how we interact with and treat others.

I am sure not all christians are "christians", or screw up from time to time. that goes without saying.

 

[zsdersw]

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the bolded

Marriage in general has nothing to do with that, not just same-sex marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage in general has nothing to do with that, not just same-sex marriage.

No disagreement there. But no one was using it to justify hetero-sexual marriage.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm saying we're better off as a society when government doesn't dictate what's right and wrong beyond the basics of not killing or harming each other.

that depends on what's being dicated.

This doesn't make much sense. What do you mean by "liberal views" and how, exactly, are they inherently selfish?

So, liberal views aren't about doing what one wants? Is it about being free to do what you want, regardless of how others may feel (outside of hurting others, of course...)

If I misunderstand that, then my bad....

 

[nehalem256]

So, liberal views aren't about doing what one wants? Is it about being free to do what you want, regardless of how others may feel (outside of hurting others, of course...)

If I misunderstand that, then my bad....

Liberals believe they should be able to do what they want EVEN if it hurts others.

See their support of government funded abortion as an obvious example.

 

[zsdersw]

that depends on what's being dicated.

Not in a free society it doesn't.

So, liberal views aren't about doing what one wants? Is it about being free to do what you want, regardless of how others may feel (outside of hurting others, of course...)

If I misunderstand that, then my bad....

It's not selfish when it applies to everyone.

 

[zsdersw]

Liberals believe they should be able to do what they want EVEN if it hurts others.

No, that's what criminals believe.