Stingray3906
12d ago
I'll be honest, your video didn't move me away from my decision to not vote this November. You regurgitated the same talking points that I've heard read online and I've heard from my own friends and family about why my decision to abstain is wrong. I get it. I understand that perspective completely. But I think that most people who will abstain from voting are doing so because (1) the politicians in office now, and the candidates running for office are more concerned about making personal or inflammatory or rage-bate-worthy attacks at the opposition as opposed to addressing specific matters of policy; and (2) our election system is no longer appropriate for how globalized, multicultural and nuanced Western society has become in the past century.
You offer no solution to either of these problems. You suggest nothing of platforming politicians who can actively listen, practice mutual respect, have kindness and compassion towards all people, that aren't funded by corporations or special-interest groups. What you are suggesting is just the status quo; you appear to want nothing more than the continued waging of the war between the two major parties and demanding everyone fall in line.
If I'm wrong in any of this, please tell me.
Stingray3906
13d ago
Jesus healed sinners and the demon-possessed with the instruction to sin no more. His miracles weren’t meant to be a blank check to go out to continue to sin.
I certainly agree with that. But the issue then, as with many others in the Christian ethos, is what does constitute sin? A traditionalist perspective is going to pull from orthodox teachings about sin, whereas a more liberal approach would involve understanding and analyzing the cultural context of the scripture that proports to declare something is a sin, and also through the lens that the Bible is the inspired word of God, written by people who were imperfect and may have embellished, editorialized, or understood God in a different perspective, while still viewing it in an overall authoritative light.
Stingray3906
13d ago
Im afraid i have to disagree. Partially for the reasons @ThisIsSin describes below, but more so because the entire theory and praxis of "Social Justice" revolves around tearing people down and promulgating individual injustices in the name of some greater good. I do not get the impression that Jesus would've been down with that at all.
Would you say that ending police brutality fits into this praxis? Would you say that ensuring low or no-cost healthcare for everyone fits into that praxis? Wouldn't these issues be something where Jesus would take the side of minority group?
Jesus explictly tells us that he doesn't hang out with whores, sinners, and tax-collectors (ie those who collaborate with the occupying regime) because he thinks that it is totes ok to be whorish, sinful, or a collaborator. He does it because it is the sick who need a doctor the most.
Yes, and I would consider that to be an example of intersectionality. He's bringing everyone in from all walks of life and instructing them on not only how to become better people, but to follow Him in all that they do.
Stingray3906
13d ago
Jesus accommodated every social standard of the day except for the ones he was explicitly sent to overturn [almost like trying to overturn others would be counterproductive in this regard]. You can see that by how He talks to women at fountains;
Interesting. What do you think of the times that he heals people -- people he knows to be sinners, unclean, or undesirable -- or when he calls Matthew, a tax collector, someone who at the time people viewed as an "elite" to follow him?
Stingray3906
14d ago
Coming from a Christian mindset, social justice is simply one of the many things Jesus would engage in during his time here on earth. People want to appropriate social justice to whatever philosophical ideology suits their worldview, and I just don't understand it. "Do the needful" comes to mind.
Stingray3906
14d ago
Thank you, that makes sense. It seems like the cultural Marxist in your example might be exaggerating the concerns of the parents whereas the traditionalist might be restraining the autonomy of the woman.
Stingray3906
15d ago
I apologize if this is too basic of a question, but why do any of these italicized concerns need to be associated with cultural Marxism? These all seem like legitimate issues that could be addressed without such a label. Like, each one of these probably happens at least once per day somewhere in the US.
Stingray3906
16d ago
So then, to you, what would not be an ideologically-driven narrative?
Stingray3906
16d ago
Chuck Todd wrote a fantastic op-ed about the current state of our political polarization: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/chuck-todd-unite-nation-trump-harris-election-rcna171303
It comes down to (1) Our acceptance embrace of inflammatory rhetoric to "own the [other side]", (2) our ever-present, chronically online culture, and (3) the spread of inflammatory rhetoric and disinformation propagate by big tech.
Some notable quotes:
"The problem with political discourse in America right now is that we are all stuck in a social media funhouse mirror booth. What we see isn’t what is, and how we’re seen isn’t who we are. And yet, here we are."
"But just because Trump started it doesn’t mean his opponents have the high moral ground when they single out him and some of his supporters for personal derision. I still want to live in a society where “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
"Come Jan. 21, we all are going to be living in the same country and sharing the same group of people as our elected representatives. We need leaders who accept that there are major political differences between us and that governing needs to be incremental and not radical.
"Right now, our political information ecosystem doesn’t reward incrementalism or nuance, instead punishing both and, more to the point, rewarding those who make up the best stories.
"Most Americans have an instinct of de-escalation when things get heated, and yet most elected officials in the modern era are incentivized to behave the opposite way."
Stingray3906
20d ago
MeToo platformed high-status women and gave them a voice to speak out about the corruption in the upper echelons of show business. It completely ignored the everyday people who have been victims of sexual assault, as well as the marginalized. It didn't do anything (or did the bare minimum) to help cis or trans men who were raped, prisoners who are raped, victims of human trafficking, victims who are poor and/or uneducated, or victims of child sexual abuse.
Stingray3906
20d ago
My favorite has been, "If Kamala wins, you get free healthcare," as if free healthcare for all would be a travesty of the common man.
Stingray3906
21d ago
Trump is winning among blue collar workers by nearly 20 points,
That's quite a stark contrast from the traditional Democrat playbook. IIRC Obama always polled well with blue-collar workers.
Stingray3906
22d ago
Very little, to be honest.
Stingray3906
22d ago
I mean, I don't like any of those things because I'm asexual, but even if I wasn't, I wouldn't take such a hard-line stance against such things. I don't understand the fixation that conservative Christians have with sex acts that aren't PIV. I just don't get it. If you don't like them, don't partake in them, but don't try and make someone else's life miserable just because you ascribe to those beliefs.
Stingray3906
22d ago
I understand. Perhaps my argument there wasn't well-founded.
Stingray3906
22d ago
Thank you for clarifying that. And to the rest of your comment, whatever floats your boat, I guess. I'm not going to try and change how you feel about it.
Stingray3906
22d ago
Oh yes, potency is definitely a concern now. My state actually restricts the max potency of recreational flower to 30% or less. There's some flower that goes up into the 40s or 50s. I was getting more at the fact that the safety and potency of the product is more consistent, now.
Stingray3906
22d ago
There are many good things that are happy and beneficial that do not deserve special recognition by the church or the state. There are many vices that should be discouraged by the church and state, even though some people will practice said vice and seem to be happy in practicing it.
I agree with this. The apostle Paul even said, "not everything is beneficial." Though, I suspect that you believe that non-hetero relationships fall into the "vice" category.
It's not a perfect analogy, I was just making a point about language. The "boss" relationship is inherently different than the "friend" relationship, different relationships deserve different words. It's not a perfect analogy because one can be a boss and a friend, maybe I'll think of a better analogy.
That's fair.
Everyone believes in sin, secular people just have different words for it. A vice or a personal sin, is something that feels good but is ultimately bad for the person doing it, you don't need religion to understand the concept, it's just without religion you have to reinvent and throw out all the work done on helping people effectively deal with vices.
I would put it more generally, that everyone believes that there are things we do that hurt others or hurt others and/or the larger society. How is a healthy non-hetero relationship something that fits that definition?
Apples, oranges, cheese and carburetors. These are entirely unlike phenomena and must be analyzed separately
I find it interesting you use the bolded word to describe those things, because truthfully, they are concepts that humankind has made up to describe things. Paul famously said, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." It would appear to me that the walls we use to divide each other are are not needed in God's Kingdom. Jesus even said that of marriage -- "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:30)
Stingray3906
22d ago
Firstly, the original question was how, as a Christian, someone could reconcile Jesus' teachings with being against Gay marriage. So the conversation from the start was religious.
You are correct. My apologies for diverging.
Second, I don't see the distinction in my response. If the couple is not religious and never chooses to have sex, it's the same. They are married because they can still perform the action (a conjugal relationship) that makes a marriage a marriage. (even if they never want to)
You're right. Upon a second glance, you didn't make that distinction.
Stingray3906
22d ago
So it sounds like we have two definitions of marriage here: the legal and the spiritual/religious. If two people are legally married but are neither spiritual nor religious, what does it matter if they choose to never have sex?
Stingray3906
22d ago
Marriage simply is the exclusive conjugal union of a man and a woman, open to life, vowed till death do them part. It is a vocation, one of the schools of love that only some people are called to. A vocation creates the conditions of heroic self-sacrifice, so obviously not everyone can do it.
Well, in most Western democracies its the exclusive conjugal union of two adults, but I get what you're saying. The second sentence I completely agree with. Some people are either not fit for marriage or not called to it.
Even from a non-Christian sociological perspective, there is no reason to have a codified sexual-partnership without the potential to generate children. This used to be widely acknowledged and uncontroversial.
How would you feel if two asexual people got married and didn't have a kid through intercourse or adopt?
Stingray3906
22d ago
Awesome, thanks! Some things you said that I'd like to explore further:
"Love your neighbor" does not extend to "normalize your neighbor's erotic proclivities at the cost of broader society" or "you must erase the distinction between things."
So, you believe that normalizing non-hetero relationships is a detriment to society? How do you reconcile that with non-hetero people who are in happy, healthy relationships?
Christians have traditionally believed that marriage is permanent bond between a man and woman for the purpose of forming a household and raising children, where the duties of the man and woman are asymmetrical. For a man to "marry" another man is a contradiction in terms, the same as when your boss tells you, "I want you to think of me as your friend, not your boss."
I understand what you mean. I try to keep my private life separate from my work life, too. Although, I have a second job at the church I attend, and my pastor is of course, my boss, but he's also my friend. I play in a DnD campaign with a bunch of other church friends, and he's the DM. Would your suggestion to me be that I break the friendship off because he's technically also my boss?
Furthermore, the male-female union is a core building block of civilization and therefore deserves special recognition by the state and by the church. It deserves to be considered normative.
It certainly has been that way throughout the course of history. However, along with that, we've historically treated women separately from men and for along time, women had fewer rights than men. We have also marginalized people of different races, religions, and sexual orientations. Sexuality aside, we've also oriented our social policies to strongly benefit married people over single people. All of this has been "normal" for thousands of years. How does this fit into your definition of loving your neighbor? Also, would you agree that what is "normative", even within the context of Christianity, is fluid and varies over time?
There is furthermore the argument that homoerotic behavior is a vice, a sin. And if we love our neighbor, we want to save them from sin. Sin ultimately makes us less happy.
I agree, there's an argument to be made. But that's just it -- an argument, a position, an opinion, a perspective. You believe non-hetero relationships are sinful, I do not. We both think our own opinions are the truth. There are many people who agree with either of us, and there are those who are not religious that pay no mind to the doctrine of sin. What does sin matter to them? Should we force our views onto them, or lovingly allow them to make their own informed choice on what works best, even if we don't agree?
I do think though, that forgoing sexual promiscuity and other sexual vices that a straight person has tempted by has made me more happy.
Do you think that a majority of non-hetero people are more sexually promiscuous than hetero people? I identify as asexual, so maybe I don't have the best perspective on this, either.
Stingray3906
22d ago
Aside from my partner, no. I'm the opposite of you; I had a traditionalist perspective as a teenager, but as I came back to to faith, I reunderstood for myself that accepting people who are not straight falls under the umbrella of loving your neighbor.
Stingray3906
22d ago
No, I don't think it's equivalent to that, but more people that you think use cannabis. The people I've seen in dispensaries appear to be no different than the people you see in package stores. They're average, working adults.
OK. I agree with you on Section 5, but your argument in Section 7 feels very weak to me. I'm 31M, I live in a solidly blue state, the people representing my Congressional District are all career politicians and have been so for decades. I have never had anyone come to my door canvassing for a candidate, and even if they did, I'd be as blunt about my decision to not vote as I am being with you. If a party wants to listen and understand what their constituents want, they would be holding open forums across the country where people can get together and actively listen and respond to each other's ideas. I see very little of that going on.
I'll be straight up with you too, I'm 100% politically disillusioned thanks to all the rage-baiting and bitterness and snark everyone is throwing at each other on social media. No one is critically thinking about making things better. It's all just mud-slinging and about who slings the most of it. I have ideas about how to make the issues facing our country better, but who in the hell is going to listen to me? I don't have money. I don't have power and influence. I mean nothing to the people we elect. And when we get third-party candidates who try to run, we get told "don't vote for them, you'll take votes away from my candidate hurr durr." So I ask you, what am I supposed to do with that? Because it seems like everyone wants me to keep endorsing our election system though it's clearly flawed. Well, if that's the case, then I choose not to participate in it anymore.
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm rambling, but this a very emotional topic for me.
More options
Context Copy link