Christian values

[IronFist]

Don't you think that our liberal way we are following now is a way to nowhere? More and more people turn into gays because it's cool and trendy now, our birth rates are lowering day and the morals are almost no existent. Maybe we should turn back to the past and remember about Christianity? I don't mean that we need to become religious, Christianity just makes us better people. Everything just went too far. Now we have transgenders and tomorrow we will have transanimal people. It's not a society I want to live in.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do so many so-called Christians harp on homosexuality to the exclusion of the primary sin that the prophets called people to repent of, the ill-treatment and oppression of the poor? Even if one thinks homosexuality is a sin, one has to be a stiff-necked fool to not realize far more in our society have the sin of covetousness and fail to repent of it.

[afleitch]

Don't you think that our liberal way we are following now is a way to nowhere? More and more people turn into gays because it's cool and trendy now, our birth rates are lowering day and the morals are almost no existent. Maybe we should turn back to the past and remember about Christianity? I don't mean that we need to become religious, Christianity just makes us better people. Everything just went too far. Now we have transgenders and tomorrow we will have transanimal people. It's not a society I want to live in.

Gay couples show more 'family values' and 'Christian values' than most Christians do because they know real suffering. They know what it means to actually have to try against adversity.

Oh and if Christian values are those old values which devalued women and children then f-ck them. I don't want them back.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This forum is close to being overloaded with stupid. We need to do something.

[DavidB.]

Another troll/sock.

[SNJ1985]

Gay couples show more 'family values' and 'Christian values' than most Christians do

Christian values entail obedience to God and His standards. Homosexual couples (and, for that matter, fornicating heterosexual couples and adulterous heterosexual couples) are engaged in an act of rebellion against God. Homosexuality, fornication and adultery are completely incompatible with Christian values. A couple that truly believes in Christian values will be heterosexual, stay married for life, will only have sexual relations in the marriage bed, and will not use birth control.

because they know real suffering. They know what it means to actually have to try against adversity.

What ''adversity''? All Western countries now legally allow sodomy. Many now legally allow civil unions or even ''same-sex marriage'', including your country. The media and entertainment industry, at least in America, are mostly on your side; and constantly attempt to portray your lifestyle in a positive light despite the many destructive effects it has on both its practitioners and society as a whole (click this link to learn about them.). In your country, the UK, people can actually get prosecuted for publicly criticizing homosexuality. See what happened to Harry Hammond.

As for your last comment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with traditional gender roles. They were, after all, ordained by God Himself. Feminism teaches that being a housewife and mother and doing the extremely important job of raising children right is somehow more ''demeaning'' than being a prostitute or porn star. That is pure insanity.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm not going to bother fleshing this out completely, because the OP is obviously trolling but...

Given the high economic cost of children and the relative ease of preventing pregnancy,  people having huge families are disproportionately ultra-conservative folks of one sect or another. If this pattern continues for a few generations, we may see a situation similar to that of ultra-orthodox Jews in NYC, where the traditionalists grow fast enough to throw their weight around and gain radical concessions from the liberal majority. This would be different from social conservative successes of the 70's-90's with their appeals to a "silent majority".

Of course this may not happen, and even if it did, it would be a political divide, not a collapse of liberal society. Who knows when or how that will happen. It could be millennia for all I know

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

As for your last comment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with traditional gender roles. They were, after all, ordained by God Himself.

This statement honestly confuses me because they have changed so many times, including within the history of Christendom (is brewing beer still 'women's work'? Does 'home economics' still cover every aspect of a family’s business and labor profile? There are a lot of historical Christian figures--St Francis and St Joan are the most obvious examples--who would manifestly not meet current conservative Christian litmus tests for gender role conformity). For a religion like Judaism or Islam this makes some degree of sense because the historically congtingent nature of a lot of divine mandates is already hard-baked into the basic premises of the theology, but in Christianity it’s a lot harder to make it coherent.

[politicus]

As for your last comment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with traditional gender roles. They were, after all, ordained by God Himself.

This statement honestly confuses me because they have changed so many times, including within the history of Christendom (is brewing beer still 'women's work'? Does 'home economics' still cover every aspect of a family’s business and labor profile? There are a lot of historical Christian figures--St Francis and St Joan are the most obvious examples--who would manifestly not meet current conservative Christian litmus tests for gender role conformity). For a religion like Judaism or Islam this makes some degree of sense because the historically congtingent nature of a lot of divine mandates is already hard-baked into the basic premises of the theology, but in Christianity it’s a lot harder to make it coherent.

Yeah, its a weird statement. Hard to see any basis for this in scripture, but perhaps Thomas got a revelation of his own?

[RFayette]

As for your last comment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with traditional gender roles. They were, after all, ordained by God Himself.

This statement honestly confuses me because they have changed so many times, including within the history of Christendom (is brewing beer still 'women's work'? Does 'home economics' still cover every aspect of a family’s business and labor profile? There are a lot of historical Christian figures--St Francis and St Joan are the most obvious examples--who would manifestly not meet current conservative Christian litmus tests for gender role conformity). For a religion like Judaism or Islam this makes some degree of sense because the historically congtingent nature of a lot of divine mandates is already hard-baked into the basic premises of the theology, but in Christianity it’s a lot harder to make it coherent.

Yeah, its a weird statement. Hard to see any basis for this in scripture, but perhaps Thomas got a revelation of his own?

The idea of a married woman fulfilling a primarily domestic role is hardly without basis in a Christian worldview.

Titus 2:1-5:
"But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled."

Ephesians 5:22-23
You can make arguments that Titus 2 isn't canonical, but it's hard to argue that what we conceive of as "traditional gender roles" have no bearing in scripture.  Plus, Proverbs 31's descriptions of what an industrious wife does - including house upkeep, sewing and buying food from the market - certainly bears some resemblance to what may be considered "wifely duties" today.  I do agree there are more ambiguous cases - for instance, yard work and maintenance are considered masculine, gardening feminine.  Those may be different cases, but I think in general, it's not hard to make a Biblical case for what Thomas conceives of as traditional gender roles.

[Murica!]

As for your last comment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with traditional gender roles. They were, after all, ordained by God Himself.

This statement honestly confuses me because they have changed so many times, including within the history of Christendom (is brewing beer still 'women's work'? Does 'home economics' still cover every aspect of a family’s business and labor profile? There are a lot of historical Christian figures--St Francis and St Joan are the most obvious examples--who would manifestly not meet current conservative Christian litmus tests for gender role conformity). For a religion like Judaism or Islam this makes some degree of sense because the historically congtingent nature of a lot of divine mandates is already hard-baked into the basic premises of the theology, but in Christianity it’s a lot harder to make it coherent.

Yeah, its a weird statement. Hard to see any basis for this in scripture, but perhaps Thomas got a revelation of his own?

The idea of a married woman fulfilling a primarily domestic role is hardly without basis in a Christian worldview.

Titus 2:1-5:
"But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled."

Ephesians 5:22-23
You can make arguments that Titus 2 isn't canonical, but it's hard to argue that what we conceive of as "traditional gender roles" have no bearing in scripture.  Plus, Proverbs 31's descriptions of what an industrious wife does - including house upkeep, sewing and buying food from the market - certainly bears some resemblance to what may be considered "wifely duties" today.  I do agree there are more ambiguous cases - for instance, yard work and maintenance are considered masculine, gardening feminine.  Those may be different cases, but I think in general, it's not hard to make a Biblical case for what Thomas conceives of as traditional gender roles.

Now your defending Thomas from NJ? Stop watching those sermons, their obviously poisoning your brain.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

'Traditional' gender roles date from no earlier than the 18th century (this is also true of sexuality, incidentally).

[°Leprechaun]

What does this Supreme Being think about equal pay for equal work? Should so called "housewives" at least get minimum wage for all the work that they do?
Just curious.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What does this Supreme Being think about equal pay for equal work? Should so called "housewives" at least get minimum wage for all the work that they do?
Just curious.

Malachi 3:5 is probably most on point concerning that topic as well as the topic of immigration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[afleitch]

What does this Supreme Being think about equal pay for equal work? Should so called "housewives" at least get minimum wage for all the work that they do?
Just curious.

Malachi 3:5 is probably most on point concerning that topic as well as the topic of immigration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Despite the fact it says 'wage earner in his wages'.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hebrew is like English and many other languages in using the masculine gender for the general case. To infer a passage applies to males only because of the use of masculine pronouns when nothing in the context requires it is silly.