Classical Concert in Florida Cancelled

[Secret Chief]

How about linking to those posts so I can read it in context.

Posts 8 and 10. (Sorry don't know how to link to posts).

 

[Quagmire]

Posts 8 and 10. (Sorry don't know how to link to posts).

Thanks.

 

[Secret Chief]

Thanks.

There's back and forth on it thereafter.

 

[vulcanlogician]

All I'm saying is that everyone has a point where they believe their morals are important enough to say "no" at their appropriate time. Someone may disagree with your point and someone will disagree with their point.

It's discrimination though.

I bet they don't hold the same policy concerning women who have remarried, even though (according to the Bible) such women commit adultery on a regular basis. But no Christian community anywhere is going to start discriminating against remarried women because much of their congregation consists of remarried couples.

They prefer to discriminate against gay people instead because they're an easier target. That sort of bigotry is acceptable in Christian circles, so just go for it. Even though remarriage technically is a lifestyle of adultery according to the Bible.

It looks to me like they are being prejudiced against gays, not because they "have a sinful lifestyle." But because they are a group of outliers... an easy target. I think it's cowardly. At the very least, it's utter hypocrisy.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is nothing 'wrong' with it other than we have chosen, as a culture, to not allow it.

Sort of like how the US chooses to drive on the right side of the road. There is nothing *wrong* with driving on the left. We have simply chosen to not do it that way.

And there are subcultures where it is perfectly acceptable to be naked in public. No harm done as long as the horses aren't spooked.

My point is that gorillas and lions etc have no such cultures.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is it about the inability of children to give consent that eludes you?

You are distorting the point which is that Adults who are pedophiles are said to have an uncontrollable desire.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. I was trying to get that concept across. I keep seeing posts from those that have strong homophobia that indicate that they are likely to be at least bi themselves. They tend to make statements of people "choosing the gay lifestyle". And this continues even after being informed that for most it is not a choice. It is what are. That indicates that it was likely to have been a choice for them.

Well, since you don't believe in the Bible or have faith in God pertaining to the Bible and have had a hard time with fundamentalist beliefs, then obviously it's your choice as to what activities you incline to. Many die of drug overdoses. I guess someone introduced them to drugs and they could not get off it. Going nude in a gym where men and women mingle together nude in the same room, or on a beach, is not something everyone would engage in -- but the choice is up to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, since you don't believe in the Bible or have faith in God pertaining to the Bible and have had a hard time with fundamentalist beliefs, then obviously it's your choice as to what activities you incline to. Many die of drug overdoses. I guess someone introduced them to drugs and they could not get off it. Going nude in a gym where men and women mingle together nude in the same room, or on a beach, is not something everyone would engage in -- but the choice is up to them.

I do not "have a problem" with fundamentalism. I simply know when they are advocating for evil. And since they are supposedly Christians that is rather disturbing. You should be concerned too.

And what the heck is the rest of that nonsense that you posted? Have I been advocating for that? What does that have to do with the topic here?

 

[Kenny]

I bet they don't hold the same policy concerning women who have remarried, even though (according to the Bible) such women commit adultery on a regular basis. But no Christian community anywhere is going to start discriminating against remarried women because much of their congregation consists of remarried couples.

Don't know but what I do know is that you are quoting the Jewish Law of which the New Testament doesn't support that position.

Jesus came to the woman at the well who had 5 husbands and the man who she was living with wasn't her husband.

Grace is for all as well as being able to remarry.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's discrimination though.

I bet they don't hold the same policy concerning women who have remarried, even though (according to the Bible) such women commit adultery on a regular basis. But no Christian community anywhere is going to start discriminating against remarried women because much of their congregation consists of remarried couples.

They prefer to discriminate against gay people instead because they're an easier target. That sort of bigotry is acceptable in Christian circles, so just go for it. Even though remarriage technically is a lifestyle of adultery according to the Bible.

It looks to me like they are being prejudiced against gays, not because they "have a sinful lifestyle." But because they are a group of outliers... an easy target. I think it's cowardly. At the very least, it's utter hypocrisy.

They conveniently cherry pick. The only "sins" of concern are those of others, not one's own. Scripture is used as a basis to judge others by rather than as a guide for one's own life. It's hypocritical, vindictive, self-gratifying sanctimony.

 

[pearl]

That's terrible. It shouldn't be allowed. How can a moral, decent, upright society allow such a thing?

Because there is nothing immoral about the human body.

Where exactly in Nantucket?

Its an island of the coast of Massachusetts, and a famous tourist attraction.

 

[Kenny]

No, that's not what he was doing.

He was trying to demonstrate that different people think different things are harmful, different people than different things are healthy.

The people who canceled the show probably do , to some extent, put homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia, since from the viewpoint of Orthodox Christianity anything other than heterosexual sex is a perversion.

That's the point.

Whether they're right or wrong about the comparison is a completely different discussion. And whether or not anyone in this thread agrees with that perspective is neither here nor there.

The topic isn't all that clear since the only question in the OP was, "Where will it end?" but assuming there's supposed to be a topic, I would guess it would have to be something along the lines of, "Did the college have the right to do what they did? Or are they just being ****s?"

Does a religious institution have a right to bar entry based on what they would see as violations of their religious precepts?



And you've been here long enough to know that just because somebody is trying to explain a particular position or viewpoint doesn't automatically mean that that they share that position or viewpoint.

(And actually I think you do know that. I think you're just engaging in an over-extended cheap shot here).

And even if someone does, privately, buy into a particular viewpoint, no one has a right to call them on it based on an assumption.



Probably for the same reasons that most people's morality is, in practice at least, arbitrary and superficial.

thank you!

 

[vulcanlogician]

Don't know but what I do know is that you are quoting the Jewish Law of which the New Testament doesn't support that position.

Jesus came to the woman at the well who had 5 husbands and the man who she was living with wasn't her husband.

Grace is for all as well as being able to remarry.

It seems we get very different things from Matthew 5:31-32.

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

***

To me, this means the old law of just divorcing a woman on a whim is gone. What Jesus says is: only in cases of sexual immorality is divorce justified and a remarried woman commits adultery.

If this is correct, a Christian woman singer who remarried because of "irreconcilable differences" or anything else participates in a lifestyle of adultery. But I seriously doubt any churches cancel the shows of Christian singers because of that. That's why I'm claiming hypocrisy.

Where did you get the idea that Jesus was only talking about OT law? As he does countless other times, he first mentions OT law and then uses that to set the stage for his own pronouncement on the issue. In this case his pronouncement seems to be that remarried women commit adultery.

Also, Jesus came to many people, including prostitutes. In many accounts he did not turn his nose up at anyone, regardless of their sin. Does this mean he endorsed their activities? Probably not. So we should be careful about reading anything into the fact that Jesus came to anyone. Are we talking about the Samaritan woman at the well here? Because I've found some wildly different interpretations going on with that particular passage. Some readers think Jesus expresses low key disdain for the woman, other readers perceive no such thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They conveniently cherry pick. The only "sins" of concern are those of others, not one's own. Scripture is used as a basis to judge others by rather than as a guide for one's own life. It's hypocritical, vindictive, self-gratifying sanctimony.

That is not a bug, that's a feature! You can use Christianity to turn up your nose at you neighbors wrong doings while ignoring the fact that you are guilty of the same thing. Properly used Christianity can be a guilt free religion. Once saved always saved baby! I can't sin when I do that because I am saved. It must be for some greater purpose.

 

[metis]

Once saved always saved baby! I can't sin when I do that because I am saved.

And this is one thing Gandhi lamented as he said all too many who took that position acted like what they say or what they do really doesn't matter in terms of their salvation.

 

[Kenny]

It seems we get very different things from Matthew 5:31-32.

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

***

To me, this means the old law of just divorcing a woman on a whim is gone. What Jesus says is: only in cases of sexual immorality is divorce justified and a remarried woman commits adultery.

If this is correct, a Christian woman singer who remarried because of "irreconcilable differences" or anything else participates in a lifestyle of adultery. But I seriously doubt any churches cancel the shows of Christian singers because of that. That's why I'm claiming hypocrisy.

Where did you get the idea that Jesus was only talking about OT law? As he does countless other times, he first mentions OT law and then uses that to set the stage for his own pronouncement on the issue. In this case his pronouncement seems to be that remarried women commit adultery.

Also, Jesus came to many people, including prostitutes. In many accounts he did not turn his nose up at anyone, regardless of their sin. Does this mean he endorsed their activities? Probably not. So we should be careful about reading anything into the fact that Jesus came to anyone. Are we talking about the Samaritan woman at the well here? Because I've found some wildly different interpretations going on with that particular passage. Some readers think Jesus expresses low key disdain for the woman, other readers perceive no such thing.

Jesus was speaking to those "of the law".

He also said, "If you have lusted in your heart - you have committed adultery" - so who is exempt under the law?

As far as the Samaritan, I am just reading - no interpretation is necessary. Was she forever condemned? No, she drank from the rivers of salvation.

So I wouldn't read into it what isn't there such as disdain for the women. Can't find it there or anywhere.

Jesus with the woman caught in the act was very specific as he was the only one who had the right to throw a stone when he said "neither do I condemn you".

 

[Father Heathen]

That is not a bug, that's a feature! You can use Christianity to turn up your nose at you neighbors wrong doings while ignoring the fact that you are guilty of the same thing. Properly used Christianity can be a guilt free religion. Once saved always saved baby! I can't sin when I do that because I am saved. It must be for some greater purpose.

I've seen bumper stickers that say "I'm not perfect but I'm forgiven". It's not about character or conduct, but about belonging to the right club.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Going nude in a gym where men and women mingle together nude in the same room, or on a beach, is not something everyone would engage in -- but the choice is up to them.

Not if the church was making the law. Choice is a humanistic concept. Humanism promotes maximal options for the pursuit of happiness for the greatest number however the citizen understands that. The scriptures are full of commandments, and submission is the virtue, not autonomy.

Grace is for all as well as being able to remarry.

Once again, not if it were up to the church. It alone would decide who can marry and who can divorce. Many churches don't recognize civil or common law marriages, nor interracial or same-sex marriages. And if you think that Christians aren't assimilating that message, many won't even bake you a wedding cake or issue you a marriage license if they don't approve of your marriage and think that they can get away with it.

Jesus with the woman caught in the act was very specific as he was the only one who had the right to throw a stone when he said "neither do I condemn you".

Another lovely example of pick the contradictory scripture you like best. You conveniently ignored the scripture from Matthew that contradicts that: "anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." I understand that you can pick the one you like and claim that the other one doesn't mean what it says just as another Christian can pick the contradictory scripture and claim that the one you like doesn't mean what it says. The skeptic sees them both, understands the words in each, notes the contradiction (internal incoherence), and realizes that this book is not a place for him to go for life advice.

 

[Kenny]

Once again, not if it were up to the church. It alone would decide who can marry and who can divorce. Many churches don't recognize civil or common law marriages, nor interracial or same-sex marriages. And if you think that Christians aren't assimilating that message, many won't even bake you a wedding cake or issue you a marriage license if they don't approve of your marriage and think that they can get away with it.

Won't argue with that point although it seems you are talking globally. If I am not mistaken most non-denominational churches and some denominational churches do marry people who have divorced.

What I find odd is that if divorced people comes into the church that doesn't accept it, most don't even know it and act towards them like they have never been divorced

Hypocritical for sure but, hey, people are people and there religious people even in Christian churches.

Another lovely example of pick the contradictory scripture you like best. You conveniently ignored the scripture from Matthew that contradicts that: "anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." I understand that you can pick the one you like and claim that the other one doesn't mean what it says just as another Christian can pick the contradictory scripture and claim that the one you like doesn't mean what it says. The skeptic sees them both, understands the words in each, notes the contradiction (internal incoherence), and realizes that this book is not a place for him to go for life advice.

Not at all. He is talking about divorce within the context of Jewish Law - obviously you can't say "that is false". But we are of the faith of Abraham and not of the Law of Moses - You can even ask the Jewish contingency here and they will say that the Law does not apply to Gentiles (If I am not mistaken)

I think if you look at it globally (and not just one scripture) this is what we find:

Matt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’;28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 Now if your right eye is causing you to sin, tear it out and throw it away from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

So, basically everyone is in adultery. You have the law and, at least according to Jesus, this is what God really meant. And, obviously, he didn't mean actually pluck out your eye.

Then you have Jesus interacting with the woman at the well, with Mary Magdalene, with the woman caught in the act, with the woman wiping his feet with tears. No where did he say "you must divorce the person you are with because you are in adultery".

Then you have Paul who said in 1st Cor 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one is leaving, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace

This person is not under the bondage of singleness - so, I think I have enough support for my position.

However, let me ask you this question, are you not fine that churches in general accept divorce people? Or are you just not liking that there are religious Christians who don't accept it?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Jesus was speaking to those "of the law".

He also said, "If you have lusted in your heart - you have committed adultery" - so who is exempt under the law?

Okay. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Jesus was speaking to those "of the law," but if it's important, feel free to clarify the point.

My question is this: adultery is a sin, right? Living a lifestyle of adultery (whether through remarriage or lusting after girls at the beach) is sinful, right?

Adultery is a sin (says Bible). Remarried women commit adultery (says Bible). Entering into a marriage where adultery occurs on a regular basis. That seems to qualify as a sinful lifestyle. So why aren't remarried women having their concerts cancelled? Why is it only gays?

So why aren't these criteria for people's concerts being cancelled? What makes being gay any different from those? It's a double standard when (according to the Bible) all kinds of people lead a life of sin, yet the only people who are called out on it are the political enemies of the right.

Won't argue with that point although it seems you are talking globally. If I am not mistaken most non-denominational churches and some denominational churches do marry people who have divorced.

Things weren't always that way. The Roman Catholics and most non-Anglican protestants forbade divorce (except in cases of sexual immorality) for years and years. Now, many churches see that these policies are too draconian.

As I see it, Christians could go two ways to avoid hypocrisy. They could crack down on matters of divorce and other things among their membership. Start cancelling shows of remarried women. Cancel the show of anyone who has unrepentantly looked at another lustfully. ( This is a solution I don't really endorse, but it would address the hypocrisy issue.)

Or they could lighten up about gays and others. Stop cancelling shows over this stuff. Stop pointing the finger and saying "lifestyle of sin." Instead treat them the same as they would any remarried woman. They don't have to say "divorce is good" or "homosexuality is good" if they think otherwise. But they should treat others the way they want to be treated.

If someone (metaphorically) slaps a Christian in the face they are supposed to turn the other cheek and repay evil with good. I've always admired people who make efforts to behave that way, even if they fail to pull it off perfectly (because that's hard to do, but I admire those who genuinely try). But if THAT'S how they're supposed to treat people who mean them harm, where do Christians get off wanting to disenfranchise and dismiss people for things they do in their own bedroom?

Hypocritical for sure but, hey, people are people and there religious people even in Christian churches.

I'm glad we both see that it's hypocritical. It's a relief to hear, and it shows that you're reasonable. And, for sure, people are people.

I don't expect anyone of any creed to behave perfectly in accordance with their creed, especially if it's difficult. If someone decides to go vegan... and a week later, they cave in and buy a cheeseburger, I'm not going to fault them for that. But I will have something to say if, a week later, they slap a cheeseburger out of someone's hands and shout "Meat is murder!"

I see something dreadfully close to that going on within the evangelical movement. I wouldn't say that every evangelical fits the bill there or anything, but hypocrisy seems to be the rule rather than the exception. The OP really highlights that fact. And it's one of the reasons large numbers of people no longer take evangelicals seriously.

So I wouldn't read into it what isn't there such as disdain for the women. Can't find it there or anywhere.

Jesus with the woman caught in the act was very specific as he was the only one who had the right to throw a stone when he said "neither do I condemn you".

Yeah, I was working my way through an exegesis of John like 10 years ago and the author had some weird ideas that Jesus was catching an attitude with the woman. Like you, I failed to see any of that in the original text. So maybe we can just chalk that up to one guy's weird reading of John. It puzzled me to read that, so I'm glad it isn't some sort of standard interpretation.