Religion
Related: About this forumAfter Losing On Same-Sex Marriage, Conservative Christians Find A New Enemy
For decades, conservative Christians who oppose LGBT equality have singled out the federal government or secular atheists as their preferred enemy in public settings, blasting both groups for supposedly attacking traditional marriage or infringing on their religious liberty. Yet in the months surrounding the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage across the country, right-wing Christians have become increasingly willing to cast blame seemingly hypocritically on a group they have often dismissed or outright ignored: Progressive Christians, especially those who support marriage equality.
The first hints of a growing front against liberal Christians came in May, when a coalition of conservative churches in Fountain Hills, Arizona publicly ganged up on a local progressive Methodist community. Unhappy with the churchs teachings, eight congregations launched a campaign entitled Progressive Christianity: Fact or Fiction?, a coordinated teaching and preaching series that included op-eds, a half-page advertisement in a local newspaper, and a massive banner with progressive written in jagged red letters and hemmed in quotation marks.
The progressives are at it again, and for a small fee you can join the primary proponent of this apostate religious movement to get answers, Tony Pierce, a pastor of First Baptist Church of Fountain Hills and one of the participants in the effort, wrote in a letter to the editor. The good thing about the progressive movement is it gives people a clear choice. The ironic thing about progressive Christianity is that it is neither!
The source of their outrage? Rev. David Felten, the left-leaning pastor of Fountains United Methodist Church. He reportedly stoked ire by preaching a variety of progressive concepts to his parishioners, such as theological support for interfaith dialogue, scientific discovery, and, of course, LGBT equality.
more
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/07/21/3682661/christians-attack-liberal-christians/?
tanyev
(42,642 posts)then they will turn on each other, fighting for control.
d_r
(6,907 posts)Now they are out in the open saying who is and who is not really Christian.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Around here, at least.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Jesus was a Rabbi and adhered to a strict form of Judaism by today's standards.
Christian theology and dogma was developed well after the death of Jesus.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Or was that the extent of the response?
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)were multiple definitions of Jesus Christ
cbayer
(146,218 posts)would include followers of the individual named Jesus Christ?
Honestly?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)From the facepalm that induced.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)and I am fully aware that there are 14 billion definitions of christian
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Redefining words happens here all the time.
It's one of the only places to go when one has no argument with merit.
d_r
(6,907 posts)sort of like "he's not a true Scottsman"
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)d_r
(6,907 posts)I thought it was a good insight and it made me think
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)... and I knew people who objected to same-sex marriage back in the day due to their religious beliefs. They felt that same-sex unions were not Biblically-sanctioned, and therefore not acceptable.
However, those who objected on those grounds never saw same-sex unions (common law partnerships, or openly living as a "couple" as being a "threat" to their own marriages, or to the state of marriage as a whole.
This whole concept of "traditional marriage" being somehow "threatened" by same-sex unions has been systematically ginned-up by Republicans over the past two decades, in order to keep their Christian base voting for them.
By insisting that someone else's same-sex marriage would be a threat to heterosexual marriages, the GOP were able to step up and say, "We are the party who will 'protect' your marriage from this 'threat'."
It proved to be the perfect strawman - insist there is a "threat" which never existed, and then claim to be the hero who will keep that threat at bay.
As I've said, back when I was young, I knew people who didn't want to accept gay marriage. But they never, ever saw it as a threat to their own. It was always a matter of "those people can do what they want to do - it's no skin off my back."
I suspect that now that same-sex marriage is law and there will be more and more of them, a lot of people are gradually going to realize that there was never any threat to their own "traditional" marriage in the first place - which means the GOP, and their "Christian" pulpit-pounding enablers, are going to have to come up with new boogeymen with which to scare the populace into fearful submission.
Must suck to have yet another persistent "threat" exposed as having been non-existent all along. But they'll come up with new ones, and they're working on it even as we speak.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)More heterosexual couples interfere with other heterosexual couples but some of the hard nosed ones are looking for excuses.
NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)My point was that the whole "same-sex marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriages" was never issue among people who did not want to accept gay marriage - until the RW started "marketing" that idea.
When I was young, people who were against same-sex marriages never saw it as affecting their own relationships. THAT idea was raised by the RW, along with terms like "it will diminish the meaning of marriage", or it will "destroy society's view of marriage".
As I said, I knew lots of people back then who didn't want to see gay marriage legalized - but I never heard one of them cite an impact on their own marriage, or anyone else's, as being a factor.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Encounter until the HIV era. This is when I learned the family of one could prevent the other from visiting in hospitals, etc. I thought, how cruel, two people who care about the other and a family could keep them apart in illness. I have a network of female friends and we are close enough to be sisters and they also could prevent contact with my friends. I am glad this issue is changing and I am glad two people can marry whom they want.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)THEN.... lose miserably.
NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)... yeah!
I wonder if those who bought into the "it will destroy heterosexual marriages" are now wondering how that's going to come about as predicted.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)All they have to do is look at the total destruction of society in countries and the states that have had same sex marriage for a while now and...
.....oops!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If would be wonderful to see the liberal/progressive communities come together to support all the religious groups who share their goals and to push back against the conservative christians. They religious right is terrified of losing control and nothing pleases them more than to see divisions among the progressives with it comes to religion.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Ironic, unintended consequences...
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, duh!
In the first place, aren't the reasons why there are so many (so very many) sects in Christianity.... and any religion.... because they disagree on who's the "real Christian"?
Indeed. I've started lumping Judaism, Christianity, and Islam under just the major sects of the Abrahamic Religion.... which can't agree on anything apparently. So much fighting.... over fairy tales....