Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Charles Austin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 1022
I await equal and continued denouncing of the hyper-politicized evangelicals Who claim Jesus as their campaign manager and that the Bible should replace the constitution

Pastor Garrison writes:
Doesn’t have anything to do with Jesus as Savior. Or scripture.
I muse:
Unless you think that Jesus has something to say about how we are to treat each other and that his words are reported to us in scripture.

No, that is not the kind of sermon I hear. But that is not the only kind of dumb ass sermon, some of which I suspect you might hear too.

A lot of fuss over a dumb-ass sermon.
If I worked myself into tears or anger or some other strong emotion every time I heard I a dumbass sermon, I would have too many unpleasant Sundays.

Your Turn / Re: Christian Nationalism? No
« on: Today at 03:56:38 PM »
Pastor Fienen:
People are not personally responsible for rioting, looting, vandalism, etc. they have been driven to it

You are intentionally twisting my words. Stop doing that. Of course they remain personally responsible, my concern is what led them to the action not excusing the action. I made that clear. You refuse to hear it.

Pastor Fienen:
The vandalism and arson against crisis pregnancy clinics, the threats, the disruption of the ministries, should those also be ignored? How about the billions of dollars of damage in the riots of 2020, the often minority owned businesses destroyed, the lives lost, they don't matter? What matters is the perceived hurts of those causing the destruction?
See above. You are intentionally misreading my words. Yes, we should also be concerned about what causes you conservatives to do destructive things. And right now I think you are ahead of the rest of us on destructive things.

Pastor Fienen:
You overwhelming sympathy for others is remarkable.
Thank you. And where does your sympathy lie? Obviously not with the people who are suffering.

Your Turn / Re: Christian Nationalism? No
« on: Today at 03:51:38 AM »
Yes, but I am not the point.
   Why is it that, when the troubles came following the George Floyd murder, and now again when there is unlawful activity in Colorado Springs, the absolute first and usually only response is “condemn the violence! arrest the lawbreakers!”?
  Why no consideration for the usually “normal” people who are not violent or career criminals, whose suffering from oppression, discrimination and mistreatment because of their skin color, gender or sexuality have brought them to do this unlawful thing?
  The current usually relatively minor “violence” against property is not the problem. What brings people, our sisters and brothers, to these acts is.

Your Turn / Re: Christian Nationalism? No
« on: Today at 12:21:09 AM »
Pastor Fienen:
Empathy and understanding. Is that a one way street?
Can’t make anybody else feel or learn. Shouldn’t stop me from trying to Understand  someone else’s frustrations or learning from them. Should I wait until they become worthy of my care? And respond “properly”?

Your Turn / Re: Christian Nationalism? No
« on: Yesterday at 10:12:38 PM »
No, i asked for some empathy and understanding, not for approval of their actions. Condemnation is not the only response to violence against you.

Your Turn / Re: Christian Nationalism? No
« on: Yesterday at 09:49:34 PM »
But I would tell those “progressives” using illegal violence to stop,

Your Turn / Re: Christian Nationalism? No
« on: Yesterday at 01:01:02 PM »
Pastor Fienen writes:
So, who is responsible for the vandalism at the Focus on the Family facility, or do you consider that vandalism a justifiable expression of dissent to their positions? What about the arson and other vandalism at pro-life clinics and churches? Do you consider that vandalism acceptable pro-choice actions. Are those who have bitterly denounced pro-life positions and such clinics perhaps responsible for inciting those on the pro-choice side who have not rejected the use of violence.
I comment:
How many times do I have to say I oppose violence? I do not consider it acceptable, whether directed at gay clubs, or pro-life offices.
   But – and we went down this well-rutted road following the murder of George Foreman and the subsequent unrest in some cities – people like us need to think about the frustration, the fear, and the attitudes of gay people who hear (whether or not it is said specifically) that they are a threat, that they are dangerous, that they are Satanic, that they are an abomination, that they can never form a true “family”, that they do not deserve the benefits of a conjugal union, that they should be denied the right to adopt a child, etc. etc. etc.
   We should think whether the frustration and fear runs so strongly in some that they turn to violence; and even if Focus on the Family had not said the most hateful things, it is a well-known organization that opposes gay marriage.

Peter writes:
Do you think the conservative people who regularly post here and who reject same-sex marriage and uphold traditional sexual morality are partly to blame for violence against homosexuals?
I comment:
As said before, a lot depends upon the language used and what actions against gay people are addressed. Before my Lutheran denomination came to where it is now, we opposed gay marriage, but we also opposed civil discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Do you think your anti-Trump rhetoric in this site is partly to blame for the riot at the Capitol?
Say what? The rioters were opposed to things that I favor, responding to their leader, a guy I oppose politically.

And people upholding traditional morality are to blame for some non-binary person shooting up a gay nightclub. The whole “rhetoric inciting violence” thing only ever goes one way, which was my point. Focus on the Family was, in Charles’s estimation, partly the cause of the violence because of what they proclaim, which is largely in line with what Christianity has always proclaimed on the topic of family.
See above: That organization may have been a target of opportunity, perhaps for those responding to the more vicious language of the Texas “evangelical” pastors and some others.

Hence my question— if they are to blame, are we conservatives in this forum culpable in the same way (allowing, of course, for the more limited exposure)?
Not in the same way. But we do know that some people will hear anti-gay or anti-Black or anti-immigrant words spoken at a “Level one” of discussion; and respond with more discussion. Then there are those who voice their anti-gay or anti-Black or anti-immigrant position in “Level 10” words, which sends a signal to those who want to respond with “Level 50” violence that they ought to do so.

And if so, would it go the other way? Is Charles’s rhetoric then partly to blame for the actions of progressives who have not rejected violence or the actions of conservatives enraged by what he says?
I suppose that is a risk, although one so slight it’s hardly worth discussion. I think we could chart language from some of our top political leaders that is – without suggesting violence – designed to incite it. The “dog whistle” term is used. Most people don’t even hear the tweet, but those for whom it is intended leap up, snarl, bare the teeth and go into attack mode.

Your Turn / Re: Christian Nationalism? No
« on: Yesterday at 09:58:38 AM »
All violence against another person is regrettable. So are threats of violence, such as carrying weapons outside polling places, Or firing guns in television ads at effigies of your political opponent.
While we will reject the use of violence, we must understand how the anti-gay rhetoric of organizations like some of those headquartered in Colorado Springs might incite those who have not rejected the use of violence

« on: November 25, 2022, 10:52:00 PM »
Again, no one is suggesting we completely abandon The use of oil.

« on: November 25, 2022, 05:23:49 PM »
Fr. Hummel:
But no- this is about the underclasses being told what they need to do by their enlightened betters.

You allow that in your part of the Church. Why is it bad in the civil realm? 😉

« on: November 25, 2022, 03:00:21 PM »
Again, Pastor Fienen, we are not seeking to eliminate all air travel for everyone. You missed the point. I am not surprised. You remain more interested in taking shots at those of us concerned about climate change than you are in considering, even considering whether it is a serious problem. For you it’s not. Or you think that since there are some good things and some bad things about any suggested solution, we should just worry about the bad things and not do anything.

« on: November 25, 2022, 02:29:48 PM »
How stupid it is to think that everyone must give up all air travel, that everyone give up all air conditioning just to “prove” their commitment to solving the problems caused by climate change.
How stupid it is avoid the real problems caused by how we dispose of our waste, the use of plastics, The dumping of sewage, And the belching of toxins into the air.
But isn’t it cute, not to mention satisfying, to snipe at how a relatively small number of people choose to meet. If such meetings could possibly reach some cooperative conclusions on the many many aspects of the problem, a carbon footprint would be a small price to pay.
Personally, I have little hope that we will deal with the situation seriously. Personally, I can’t predict precisely the impact of this will be on the future of our species or for the world in general, but I don’t think it’s going to be good.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 1022