Maokun: Ninjas or Pirates? (Vikings are not a valid answer, sorry)
EricTheFred: Vikings are always a valid answer.
Etoh*the*Greato wrote:Too many people love condemnation and judgement.
Alexander wrote:
My first one (also being the most major) is something that seems to both make sense and contradict itself. I do understand as Christians we're supposed to be tolerant and understanding towards sinners, as we ourselves are. That makes sense. But from what I'm interpreting, it seems that we should never object or say anything that we would feel being naturally wrong. I think there's a very delicate balance we need to reach of being both tolerant but also to say "you shouldn't do that" when someone is doing something harmful. But I'm still unsure where we're supposed to stand and when it's right to say no, and when it's best to not say anything.
Alexander wrote: My overall question here is, "Is there a time when protesting is needed"?
Alexander wrote:*sighs* This is such a delicate topic. The world can be incredibly difficult to live in sometimes.
Maokun: Ninjas or Pirates? (Vikings are not a valid answer, sorry)
EricTheFred: Vikings are always a valid answer.
EricTheFred wrote:[color="Black"]I'm not talking about acceptance as fellow humans, Christian or otherwise, but about actual acceptance of the condition as 'normal and okay', even to the extent of sanctifying a gay 'marriage'.[/color]
[color="Black"]It was a newspaper article about a particular preacher and his followers, who had an especially strong conviction on the subect. So strong, in fact, that he was carrying a sign in the picture that said "GOD HATES FAGS".[/color]
[color="Black"]a very key issue here is also, what is an appropriate 'protest'.[/color]
Nate wrote:The church isn't required to sanctify any marriage though, gay or otherwise. People can get married in places other than the church, and since the church reserves the right to refuse to marry people, I don't see the problem. Some churches do sanctify gay marriages though, which while I think a church shouldn't do that, it's their right.
Maokun: Ninjas or Pirates? (Vikings are not a valid answer, sorry)
EricTheFred: Vikings are always a valid answer.
EricTheFred wrote:[color="Black"]I think in the same manner, his method of protest would be to sit down and have dinner with the homosexuals, the pro-choicers and every one else that my fellow Christians keep waving placards at.[/color]
Alexander wrote:My first one (also being the most major) is something that seems to both make sense and contradict itself. I do understand as Christians we're supposed to be tolerant and understanding towards sinners, as we ourselves are. That makes sense. But from what I'm interpreting, it seems that we should never object or say anything that we would feel being naturally wrong. I think there's a very delicate balance we need to reach of being both tolerant but also to say "you shouldn't do that" when someone is doing something harmful. But I'm still unsure where we're supposed to stand and when it's right to say no, and when it's best to not say anything.
AsianBlossom wrote:As a Catholic, one of the spiritual works of mercy is to "instruct the ignorant," meaning that if someone doesn't know something they're doing is wrong, we should try to correct them in a gentle way, "gentle" being the key word here. If we care about people and want them to get to Heaven with us, we should try and help them in any way. Even if we present it to them with a logical explanation as to why it's wrong, they may not be happy at first. However, they may come to think and reflect deeply on the matter, and perhaps even ask themselves, "Is this really something I should be doing?"
BTW, I once wrote a paper on whether or not the legalization of abortion was constitutionally correct or not. Naturally, I sided with the "constitutionally incorrect" option, and included the following argument (please let me know if this is good; the reason I'm writing about it here is because we were on the subject of abortion and people protesting):
One duty of the United States (like and other country) is to protect its citizens, including children. As you know, there are laws that impose penalties on parents if they neglect, abuse, or murder their own child. From the moment that a child begins forming in his/her mother's body, they are considered to be hers, right? Just like all her other children. She is in charge of protecting and raising them because they are her children. This should include any children she has that are unborn. So if she decides to get an abortion, she is causing her child to cease existing, or, in other words, to die. If that baby is just as much her child as her other already born children, why should she decide which ones live and which ones die? And why is the government letting her kill her own children? At that rate, any parent who is fed up with their teenage daughter/son should "logically" be able to "off" them as well.
(Note that I do NOT like killing at all and do NOT want parents "offing" their kids...I'm just making a radical point.)
Anyways, just throwing that out here; want to see what you all think (I got a good grade for it, so I'm guessing it's okay...)
Return to Testimonies & Spiritual Growth
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests