Is it appropriate to read the Bible out loud in public?

[Szdfan]

h
But being a homosexual is a choice. I don’t see why I should be forced to accept other people’s sexual choices. I don’t want to have to accept fornication, pedophilia, homosexuality, cohabitation, transsexuality, or various strange sexual perversions / fetishes such as the one’s Biden’s new nuclear waste czar engages in.

The existence of people with different sexual behaviors and preferences and their ability to live their own lives is not the same thing as forcing you to accept them. I mean, how do you know whether your coworkers and neighbors are fornicators, pedophiles, cohabitating, transexuals or kinky? Do you ask them? Do you quiz strangers at the grocery store about what kind of sex they're into? Do you hand your clients a questionnaire about their sex lives before you do business with them? Why is this any of your business?

You've written elsewhere that you've had queer clients, so I guess when you take their money, you're not being forced to accept their sexual perversion. However, the mere existence of non-binary Sam Brighton (who I assume you've never met or interacted with) as deputy assistant secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition means that you're being forced to accept their sexuality.

Unless you only work with and for people whose sex lives you've carefully vetted, aren't you just being hypocritical and a bit dramatic?

Honestly, I find this obsession with other people's sex lives creepy.

[Bootstrap]

But being a homosexual is a choice. I don’t see why I should be forced to accept other people’s sexual choices.

Being a Christian is also a choice. In a free society, people make different life choices.

I don't know what "accept" means in your second sentence. I don't agree with gay marriage, but I don't feel the need to shout that as loudly as possible day after day with the strongest possible language. I don't think Christianity is mostly about denouncing other people so that other Christians can applaud.

As Christians, what is our best witness? How can we best live out our lives a salt and light in a dark world? That's what we have control over. We can't control everyone else.

[Josh]

The existence of people with different sexual behaviors and preferences and their ability to live their own lives is not the same thing as forcing you to accept them. I mean, how do you know whether your coworkers and neighbors are fornicators, pedophiles, cohabitating, transexuals or kinky? Do you ask them? Do you quiz strangers at the grocery store about what kind of sex they're into? Do you hand your clients a questionnaire about their sex lives before you do business with them? Why is this any of your business?

If they don’t tell me about it. Then I don’t need to care or know.

You've written elsewhere that you've had queer clients, so I guess when you take their money, you're not being forced to accept their sexual perversion.

I don’t screen customers based on these things since I’m not running a bed and breakfast (I used to host AirBNB, but ceased once AirBNB required hosts to enthusiastically affirm queer lifestyles, which is not a terms of service I can agree to). If a customer asked me to make a wedding website for them, I would probably decline from a variety of moral viewpoints, including things like immodesty, photography, and so on. If a homosexual couple asked, it seems there are others who would be a better fit.

However, the mere existence of non-binary Sam Brighton (who I assume you've never met or interacted with)

I’m familiar with his criminal record which is a matter of public record now along with his recent very public statements as a guest speaker at a “conference” in L.A. endorsing all manner of sick perversion.

as deputy assistant secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition means that you're being forced to accept their sexuality.

Well, yes, we are. These people are being installed as rulers over us.

Unless you only work with and for people whose sex lives you've carefully vetted, aren't you just being hypocritical and a bit dramatic?

Again, I only concern myself when someone very publicly announces the exact details of their sexuality.

Honestly, I find this obsession with other people's sex lives creepy.

Then keep it private and I’ll never need to know about it.

The Bible says any kind of sexual activity outside of a man and woman inside marriage is both wrong, and is a sin leading to eternal death. I think that’s serious because I believe and follow the Bible.

[Josh]

But being a homosexual is a choice. I don’t see why I should be forced to accept other people’s sexual choices.

Being a Christian is also a choice. In a free society, people make different life choices.

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and is the only way to eternal life. There is no such thing as a “free society” with “different life choices”.

There is a narrow way and a broad way. There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end that way leads to death.

I don't know what "accept" means in your second sentence. I don't agree with gay marriage, but I don't feel the need to shout that as loudly as possible day after day with the strongest possible language. I don't think Christianity is mostly about denouncing other people so that other Christians can applaud.

About 30% - 50% of society demands enthusiastic acceptance of gay marriage, LGBT lifestyles, transsexuality, polyamory, “kink” such as sadism, and considers it “hate” to not enthusiastic acceptance.

I do not shout my lack of acceptance of this from the rooftops. However, it is appropriate to discuss in a thread in MennoNet about a federal law being passed by this half of society, with the law aimed at forcing acceptance of these things.

As Christians, what is our best witness? How can we best live out our lives a salt and light in a dark world? That's what we have control over. We can't control everyone else.

I agree, and I even go so far as to advocate avoiding political involvement (although politics often decides to involve us anyway).

Let’s give an example. In the antebellum south, to do business, one would have to enthusiastically affirm slavery and strict segregation. The government also promoted it.

My ancestors who were Quakers (and their Mennonite neighbours) refused to do this. They were salt and light.

[Bootstrap]

About 30% - 50% of society demands enthusiastic acceptance of gay marriage, LGBT lifestyles, transsexuality, polyamory, “kink” such as sadism, and considers it “hate” to not enthusiastic acceptance.

I don't think that's true. I think most people believe that people can disagree without hating each other.

But a lot of people might consider it "hate" when you denounce people day after day with dripping contempt, choosing the strongest possible words, encouraging others to join you in that contempt, painting others as dangerous enemies who are out to get us. That's not now Jesus spoke to sinners. That's not how Jesus spoke about sinners.

[ken_sylvania]

My concern is the “slippery slope” that starts with the government saying it’s wrong to read a few Bible verses in public, but then expands from there.

With other areas of modernity such as “marriage”, the level of state involvement has gradually increased over time, until the state is redefining what it is. There is no reason to think the state will not do the same and eventually claim jurisdiction over the Bible, too.

I don't think Ken has ever actually admitted that the slippery slope is a very real phenomenon. In this, he's either a complete dolt, the worlds biggest troll, or a truly seditious liar.

The Bible is more readily available today than at any time in human history.

And people's abilities to speak and communicate are also greater than at any time in human history. In the not so recent past our capacity to disseminate information was physically limited by things like printing presses and paper. Or limited airwaves. With the internet it is nearly infinite. You can post a Bible verse on Twitter and nearly the entire planet can read it if they want. Anyone in the US can bring up the complete Bible in any translation or any language on their phone at will and for free. And have it read to them in nearly any language if they want.

What is this slippery slope of Biblical censorship that you think is happening? All the trends are actually in the opposite direction.

And sometimes slippery slopes really don't exist. Let's use the example of marriage. Divorce was largely illegal in the 19th century other than for Biblical grounds (infidelity). It became more common in the early 20th century but it wasn't until 1942 that the Supreme Court ruled that all states had to recognize divorces issued in another state. And it wasn't until the 1960s that no-fault divorce laws became common. But the current legal structure for divorce is now at least 50 years old.

Despite this, can you point me to a single church anywhere in the US that has been forced by law to recognize divorce and accept the civil definition of divorce against their will? There are plenty of conservative Anabaptist sects out there that have very strict divorce rules for their members. Has the government infringed on any of them ever and said that you have to accept divorced members or allow your members to divorce and remain in good standing? I expect you cannot. Which is the very same reason I dismiss the notion that Amish or other conservative Anabaptist groups will ever be forced to accept gay married members or perform gay marriages.

Society is changing, that is true. But the law mostly changes in response to changes in society, not because of it. Laws are actually almost always a trailing indicator of societal change. But none of that affects the ability of churches to practice their religion as they see fit. At worst, all it affects is their ability to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs.

Isn't that exactly the concern. That churches might be prohibited from discriminating against those who are living in sin? Or isn't it discrimination to bar someone from the communion table?

[Ken]

I don't think Ken has ever actually admitted that the slippery slope is a very real phenomenon. In this, he's either a complete dolt, the worlds biggest troll, or a truly seditious liar.

The Bible is more readily available today than at any time in human history.

And people's abilities to speak and communicate are also greater than at any time in human history. In the not so recent past our capacity to disseminate information was physically limited by things like printing presses and paper. Or limited airwaves. With the internet it is nearly infinite. You can post a Bible verse on Twitter and nearly the entire planet can read it if they want. Anyone in the US can bring up the complete Bible in any translation or any language on their phone at will and for free. And have it read to them in nearly any language if they want.

What is this slippery slope of Biblical censorship that you think is happening? All the trends are actually in the opposite direction.

And sometimes slippery slopes really don't exist. Let's use the example of marriage. Divorce was largely illegal in the 19th century other than for Biblical grounds (infidelity). It became more common in the early 20th century but it wasn't until 1942 that the Supreme Court ruled that all states had to recognize divorces issued in another state. And it wasn't until the 1960s that no-fault divorce laws became common. But the current legal structure for divorce is now at least 50 years old.

Despite this, can you point me to a single church anywhere in the US that has been forced by law to recognize divorce and accept the civil definition of divorce against their will? There are plenty of conservative Anabaptist sects out there that have very strict divorce rules for their members. Has the government infringed on any of them ever and said that you have to accept divorced members or allow your members to divorce and remain in good standing? I expect you cannot. Which is the very same reason I dismiss the notion that Amish or other conservative Anabaptist groups will ever be forced to accept gay married members or perform gay marriages.

Society is changing, that is true. But the law mostly changes in response to changes in society, not because of it. Laws are actually almost always a trailing indicator of societal change. But none of that affects the ability of churches to practice their religion as they see fit. At worst, all it affects is their ability to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs.

Isn't that exactly the concern. That churches might be prohibited from discriminating against those who are living in sin? Or isn't it discrimination to bar someone from the communion table?

The conflicts and concerns from the outside are generally not about discrimination within the church itself. Churches have absolute freedom to define their own religious rules for their own members within some extreme constraints like no human sacrifice, child abuse, etc. That is how the Catholic church can discriminate against women and married men when it comes to the priesthood and how the Mormons could discriminate against blacks until (as legend has it) they needed more black players on the BYU football team to keep winning. And how all churches are perfectly free to discriminate against gays by refusing gay weddings, refusing to ordain gay ministers, firing gay teachers at religious schools, etc. So, for example, the recent fights about gay marriage within MCUSA have been entirely internal affairs within the Mennonite church and not any sort of thing imposed by the government from without. Now non-Catholics might be concerned about the lack of women in the priesthood, or the fact that the Catholic church doesn't conduct gay marriages. But they don't have any legal or Constitutional grounds to challenge such practices if they are within the church itself.

All the legal controversies on this subject are generally about people claiming religious reasons to discriminate against others in public arenas outside of church settings and outside of church membership. So, for example a restaurant or store owner refusing to serve gay/black/inter-racial/Muslim customers on religious grounds. That sort of thing. It was not that long ago that people used religious justifications to discriminate against Blacks, inter-racial couples, single women, Muslims, Jews and even Catholics, etc.

You may or may not agree with that, and and you may or may not agree whether such types of discrimination are religiously justified. But the conflicts and controversy are mostly about religious people interacting with non-religious people or people from other religions in a business setting. They aren't about churches setting their own standards and rules for their own members within their church.

[Josh]

About 30% - 50% of society demands enthusiastic acceptance of gay marriage, LGBT lifestyles, transsexuality, polyamory, “kink” such as sadism, and considers it “hate” to not enthusiastic acceptance.

I don't think that's true. I think most people believe that people can disagree without hating each other.

But a lot of people might consider it "hate" when you denounce people day after day with dripping contempt, choosing the strongest possible words, encouraging others to join you in that contempt, painting others as dangerous enemies who are out to get us. That's not now Jesus spoke to sinners. That's not how Jesus spoke about sinners.

That hasn’t been happening in MennoNet.

However, the Bible speaks about sins like homosexuality in the strongest possible words. (It also does about fornication, which is also very serious.) The problem we face is the left (including leftists here on MennoNet) demand enthusiastic affirmation of these sins.

And yes, the homosexual political lobby IS out to get us. A prime example is how they treated Lisa Miller and Ken Miller. Tried to take her child away, and threw him in prison.

[Ken]

About 30% - 50% of society demands enthusiastic acceptance of gay marriage, LGBT lifestyles, transsexuality, polyamory, “kink” such as sadism, and considers it “hate” to not enthusiastic acceptance.

I don't think that's true. I think most people believe that people can disagree without hating each other.

But a lot of people might consider it "hate" when you denounce people day after day with dripping contempt, choosing the strongest possible words, encouraging others to join you in that contempt, painting others as dangerous enemies who are out to get us. That's not now Jesus spoke to sinners. That's not how Jesus spoke about sinners.

That hasn’t been happening in MennoNet.

However, the Bible speaks about sins like homosexuality in the strongest possible words. (It also does about fornication, which is also very serious.) The problem we face is the left (including leftists here on MennoNet) demand enthusiastic affirmation of these sins.

And yes, the homosexual political lobby IS out to get us. A prime example is how they treated Lisa Miller and Ken Miller. Tried to take her child away, and threw him in prison.

Why on earth are you dragging Lisa Miller into this conversation?

In any event, she isn't an example that supports your point anyway. What happened to her had nothing to do with any "homosexual lobby". She was an adult and made her own choices. She broke a custody agreement that she herself signed. And she did so with respect to a child for which she was not the sole parent. And the courts simply did their job and enforced it. Answer one question. What names were listed as parents on the child's birth certificate? The birth certificate that she signed? We do recognize the rights of non-biological parents in this country. Otherwise no adoption would every be valid.

[Josh]

It is impossible for a child to have two mothers.

No idea where the father was. He never got involved with the legal proceedings and never asked for custody.