"Non-Believers" View of Bible-Believing Christians

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, if the ACLU litigates to make money, why did the San Diego ACLU repeatedly warn the city not to renew the BSA's lease because of the legal issues involved by the city subsidizing a discriminatory organization? If the city hadn't renewed the lease, the ACLU wouldn't have anything to litigate, and there would be no award of legal fees. If the ACLU was trying to make money via litigation, they wouldn't first try to warn off potential litigation -- they would say nothing until the city's deal was done, and then file a lawsuit.

[Kahuna]

Merlin writes: You have a really strange worldview if you think the ACLU wants to "do away with any standards of decency whatever"; why would e.g. Bob Barr work with them? Why would they defend Oliver North and Rush Limbaugh? Why would they fight removal of religious symbols from a Florida cemetery? Why would they fight for a student's right to include a bible quote in the school yearbook?

 

Okay, I think I got this one: It's the same reason Santa Claus doesn't leave lumps of coal in every little boy's and girl's stocking at Christmas when they've been bad. Right?

[Trevorum]

I suppose I have a limited exposure to "the media" (I don't read the NY Times, for example, or watch much TV). However, here in Texas the radio spectrum is strongly biased towards Christianity. There are many, many stations which are openly pro-Christian. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the radio is biased against non Christian religions; I've heard some pretty horrific diatribes against Islam, Wicca, paganism, and other non-Christian faiths.

[evmori]

San Diego did nothing illegal by renewing the BSA lease. And the ACLU has no business telling San Diego (or anyone else) who to lease to.

 

This will be overturned. No civil right violated! No laws broken! But will the ACLU return the $$$ it made on this case? Nah! That would be the honorable thing to do.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

San Diego did nothing illegal by renewing the BSA lease.

 

Judge Jones disagreed with that defense.

 

And the ACLU has no business telling San Diego (or anyone else) who to lease to.

 

They do if they see government officials violating civil rights to give preferential leases to religious organizations.

[evmori]

Judge Jones was wrong!

 

The ACLU has a bone to pick with the BSA. The ACLU didn't go after any other group who has the same type of lease obtained in the same manner as the BSA lease. This is nothing but a vendetta by the ACLU. They have no interest other than to destroy the BSA & line their pockets with cash. The only losers are the people of San Diego. But that will change when the ruling is overturned.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[stlscouter]

I always find it perplexing when people who disavow any existence of God find time to find fault with idea that self-evident rights granted by the creator. And while the 1st amendent is very clear when it says CONGRESS shall make no law...or interfere with the free exercise thereof. I realize JUDGES have seen fit to ignor and bastardize what that amendment says. However, if WE have the right to that free speech, I am allowed to speak in the town square, the national park or the houses of congress and those things WE speak about can be about religion or anything else. When government builds a town square, a national park or the houses of congress they are merely providing that forum where WE can speak. I am not a royal we but am a WE the people.... When Judges in colusion with the ACLU side with folks to deny access to a WE owned space based on a percieved slight or indignation of a limited group because they don't wish to apply a WE's standards to themselves in the name of others civil rights while denying WE's they go too far. The idea some don't seem to like is the idea of tax money goes to something they know nothing about because for them it does not exist remains perplexing.

 

And the further idea that a person in and of himself can possibly know more than the sum total of the human race from it's beginnings and throw the concept of immorality because "I don't accept your definition" is ludicrous.

 

I kow this will get a response for at least one-so to him I'll go straight to the playground-"I know you are but what am I?"

[Bob White]

I would like to address the original question.

 

Why is it, whenever Bible-believing Christians share their beliefs about homosexuality or other contentious issues of the day, inevitably said Christians are portrayed as ignorant, arrogant, hateful, bigoted, or combination of the all of these?

 

Why care? By that I mean, why even trouble yourself with the question of why do people dislike you for your Christian beliefs? We are not the first generation of Christians to be insulted for our faith, and we will surely not be the last.

 

Do you choose to be Christian because of what others will think of you, or do you choose to be Christian because of what you as an individual think of Christ?

 

See Peter 4:14-16

 

 

 

 

[stlscouter]

Bob as usual you're on target and your statement rings true.

 

thanks

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

stlscouter writes:

...When Judges in colusion with the ACLU side with folks to deny access to a WE owned space based on a percieved slight or indignation of a limited group...

 

What "access" has been denied? In the San Diego case, the judge struck down a lease to a BSA council, but everyone still has ACCESS to the property. And when the BSA no longer controls it, atheists and gays will ALSO have access to that public parkland in the summer, instead of the local BSA council booking it 100% with the members of their private, exclusionary club.

 

So I'd like to know what "access" has been denied to whom. I can only see where the old lease gave BSA members special access to public parkland, and removing that makes the playing field equal again.

[NJCubScouter]

On this I agree with Bob. (Is the Earth still orbiting the Sun? Oops, since Genesis says the Sun is merely a light God put in the sky, that might offend someone.)

 

stlscouter, on the other hand: I think you need to study the difference between individuals and government as the First Amendment applies to each. When "we" are a bunch of individuals, we can do certain things, but when "we" act through a government entity, we cannot do many of those things. That is not a result of any so-called "collusion" between the ACLU and judges, it is the basis of the First Amendment and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. In other words, when "we" are the government, yes our "freedom of speech" IS limited, because the government does not have the rights listed in the First Amendment, only the "people" do.

[Rooster7]

Why care? By that I mean, why even trouble yourself with the question of why do people dislike you for your Christian beliefs? We are not the first generation of Christians to be insulted for our faith, and we will surely not be the last.

 

From the standpoint of my personal feelings, I am not troubled that some choose to portray us as hateful or arrogant. My hope (by asking the question) was to get non-believers to think about itto produce a little introspection. Its my belief that if folks understood Christians a little better, they might be more incline to listen to the message. If non-believers are convinced that we arrogant or hateful, I doubt that they will ever listen to what we have to say.

 

Do you choose to be Christian because of what others will think of you, or do you choose to be Christian because of what you as an individual think of Christ?

 

Frankly, I've never felt as if I chose to be Christian. Ive always felt as if Christ chose me. Why? To answer that question Id have start a separate thread to discuss Calvinism and Arminianism. In short, I feel that God saves those who respond to Him.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, I think the problem here is that nobody really is portraying ALL "Bible-believing Christians" as being hateful or arrogant or anything else. There are some people (including me) who believe that SOME members of many different religions are hateful, arrogant, etc. If some people have a particular concern about those Christians who are hateful and bigoted, it is simply because they are the overwhelming majority religion in this country. I have known Orthodox Jews who are hateful and bigoted, but nobody really worries much about them because there are so few of them and they keep mostly to themselves. On the other hand, I know Bible-believing Christians (though you, Rooster, might not consider them as such) who hate nobody and do not have a bigoted bone in their bodies. (I'm not sure how my wife fits into all this, she is a Catholic who does not believe in evolution, is pro-life, believes in ghosts and psychic powers and all kinds of other things that drive me crazy, and also believes the BSA should let in gays and that the Catholic church should allow women and married men to be priests.)

 

And I just can't resist this, Rooster: You think you are a messenger of God, but you're not arrogant?

[Rooster7]

Rooster, I think the problem here is that nobody really is portraying ALL "Bible-believing Christians" as being hateful or arrogant or anything else.

 

I never said "ALL Bible-believing Christians".

 

There are some people (including me) who believe that SOME members of many different religions are hateful, arrogant, etc. If some people have a particular concern about those Christians who are hateful and bigoted, it is simply because they are the overwhelming majority religion in this country.

 

Women are the majority in this country. Should they fear them too?

 

And I just can't resist this, Rooster: You think you are a messenger of God, but you're not arrogant?

 

Im not claiming to be Moses. Although, I dont consider him arrogant perhaps you do? I simply claim to be a disciple. As such, we are taught to spread the Gospel.

 

[madkins007]

In our society, there are people who CANNOT be 'slammed' in any way without the slammer looking bad. This includes most people and belief systems.

 

There are some groups that can be bashed pretty much at will for one reason or another. Fundamentalist Christians and white guys top the list... and the BSA is full of both.

 

I think one reason it IS ok to slam these is because of a certain amount of historical arrogance they foisted off on everyone else.

 

We as Christians HAVE come across as smug, condescending, hateful, bigoted, etc. All to often, we have let our baser emotions run rampant for all to see.

 

I think this speaks poorly of our ability to actually LIVE our faith. We yell and carry signs when we should be serving people. We bulldoze over other people's beliefs to advance our own rather than seeking to understand them and showing how our beliefs can help them grow to what they want to be. We scream about so and so's sin while blithely ignoring our own worse offenses.

 

We often justify our actions with phrases like 'doing God's work', 'righteous anger', 'we know we are being persecuted for our faith', and 'answering to a higher authority'... but often these are just smokescreens to hide behind.

 

Personally, I think we believers need to take a note out of the book "In His Steps" by Charles Sheldon- the origin of the idea 'what would Jesus do?' and rethink the ways we do a lot of things- starting with blindily swallowing church doctrine as if it was Holy Writ.