Demark is what liberals have in store for America in the next 25 years

[bybee]

Here's the thing. It's a great question. The problem is, if you follow that very logic, what business do I have with a church at all? Why, for instance, should there be any link between my elected officials and a church by virtue merely of their office? And why should my taxes be going to support a religion I don't agree with? If you want an official church, that has state ties, you're going to have to give everyone a say in its operations, and I really don't think you're going to like the kind of church that I would support.

...and if you don't have children why pay for the education of other peoples children?

 

[rexlunae]

...and if you don't have children why pay for the education of other peoples children?

That example misses the point, but even if you don't have children, you get a say in how the schools are run.

 

[bybee]

That example misses the point, but even if you don't have children, you get a say in how the schools are run.

It's a stretch. Still, we are called to respect rights of gathering for religious practice according to individual conscience unmolested by the state according to the Constitution. This right was and is considered of importance in a pluralistic society. It was considered important to grant tax exempt status because, traditionally, religious institutions are involved in charitable outreach to the benefit of the community.

 

[Selaphiel]

Any church that changes itself to allow this abomination within it, is fake. Hopefully the true faithful will come out them.

Another post filled to the brim with serious theological reflection as usual. It might not be a bad thing that the type of Christianity that has left all intellectual reflection in the ditch is slowly being marginalized. Declaring churches to be "fake" based on a single issue and lacking all insight into their theological reasoning and theological history in general is not very convincing to a thinking person. Historically speaking, there are few things within Christianity that is more fake than American evangelicalism.

The example of the OP is ridiculous as well. It is because it is a state church, if it is to remain a state church, then obviously it cannot discriminate between citizens that is not allowed for the state. Did you read anything about the Catholic, Orthodox or the non-state Protestant churches in Denmark being forced to do this? No, you didn't, because it never happened.

The OP is clearly desperately googling around for cases that seems to support his unsubstantiated paranoia.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Here's the thing. It's a great question. The problem is, if you follow that very logic, what business do I have with a church at all? Why, for instance, should there be any link between my elected officials and a church by virtue merely of their office? And why should my taxes be going to support a religion I don't agree with? If you want an official church, that has state ties, you're going to have to give everyone a say in its operations, and I really don't think you're going to like the kind of church that I would support.

Which is the very reason for the separation of church and state, it was intended as a protection for the CHURCH, not the state.

 

[rexlunae]

Which is the very reason for the separation of church and state, it was intended as a protection for the CHURCH, not the state.

It protects both, and it was a direct response to a then-(fairly-)recent history of one unduly influencing the other.

 

[rexlunae]

It's a stretch. Still, we are called to respect rights of gathering for religious practice according to individual conscience unmolested by the state according to the Constitution. This right was and is considered of importance in a pluralistic society. It was considered important to grant tax exempt status because, traditionally, religious institutions are involved in charitable outreach to the benefit of the community.

Right. That's a significant part of why we don't allow a state religion. If there were a state religion, it would be regulated by the government.

 

[bybee]

Right. That's a significant part of why we don't allow a state religion. If there were a state religion, it would be regulated by the government.

I am a strong advocate to maintain our Constitutional separation of Church and State and also our freedom of choice.
Sometimes, in the zeal to make necessary corrections, things get shifted and become lopsided.
Sometimes more of the Mugwump's mug is over the fence and sometimes more of his wump is over the fence. So long as he maintains his balance we are okay.

 

[The Berean]

Another post filled to the brim with serious theological reflection as usual. It might not be a bad thing that the type of Christianity that has left all intellectual reflection in the ditch is slowly being marginalized. Declaring churches to be "fake" based on a single issue and lacking all insight into their theological reasoning and theological history in general is not very convincing to a thinking person. Historically speaking, there are few things within Christianity that is more fake than American evangelicalism.

The example of the OP is ridiculous as well. It is because it is a state church, if it is to remain a state church, then obviously it cannot discriminate between citizens that is not allowed for the state. Did you read anything about the Catholic, Orthodox or the non-state Protestant churches in Denmark being forced to do this? No, you didn't, because it never happened.

The OP is clearly desperately googling around for cases that seems to support his unsubstantiated paranoia.

Selaphiel, in your view what are the "essentials" of the Christian faith? I'm curious because I know you are highly educated and a European and I'm very curious how European Christians view their Christian faith.

 

[Selaphiel]

Selaphiel, in your view what are the "essentials" of the Christian faith? I'm curious because I know you are highly educated and a European and I'm very curious how European Christians view their Christian faith.

The absolute essential would be "Jesus is risen". Which entails that God is definitely revealed in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ. From there I would go with the creeds (Apostolic, Nicene and Athanasian) and the scriptures. I stand within the Lutheran church, which used to be a state church like the one in Denmark. I consider myself to be neither liberal or conservative, I would say that I am a theological moderate.

The Danish church was made to do that due to being a state church. I'm glad my church is no longer a state church, for many reasons. It is up to the church itself here whether they want to wed same sex couples or not.

I simply think, regardless of ones position on that issue, that it is a relatively minor issue that has been blown way out of proportion. I accept believers who are against same sex marraige, and respect that they have that view. I just think that compared to a lot of other issues, it is way overblown, especially when we are talking about what the secular state affirms. I just do not understand why. Even if I was actively against it, I would still prioritize many other societal issues, issues that I think are far more heavily criticized by the biblical witnesses than homosexuality.

Hope that answered your question. It was a fair question rather than an attack, I respect your level headedness.

:e4e:

 

[The Berean]

The absolute essential would be "Jesus is risen". Which entails that God is definitely revealed in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Christ. From there I would go with the creeds (Apostolic, Nicene and Athanasian) and the scriptures. I stand within the Lutheran church, which used to be a state church like the one in Denmark. I consider myself to be neither liberal or conservative, I would say that I am a theological moderate.

The Danish church was made to do that due to being a state church. I'm glad my church is no longer a state church, for many reasons. It is up to the church itself here whether they want to wed same sex couples or not.

I simply think, regardless of ones position on that issue, that it is a relatively minor issue that has been blown way out of proportion. I accept believers who are against same sex marraige, and respect that they have that view. I just think that compared to a lot of other issues, it is way overblown, especially when we are talking about what the secular state affirms. I just do not understand why. Even if I was actively against it, I would still prioritize many other societal issues, issues that I think are far more heavily criticized by the biblical witnesses than homosexuality.

Hope that answered your question. It was a fair question rather than an attack, I respect your level headedness.

:e4e:

Thank you for the prompt response, Selaphiel. At my age (46) I prefer fruitful discussion as opposed to heated arguments that often lead nowhere. TOL has plenty of that already. Too often this is the mentality I see here.