Ban bathtubs

I got into an impromptu debate on Facebook with a commented who complained about the "politicization" of the church. As the debate progressed, he showed his true colors. As I responded:

Christians can be happy that Hillary lost without being happy that Trump won. 

i) The policies of the contemporary Democrat party are decidedly un-Christian. The contemporary Democrat party is dominated by militant secular progressive who despise Christianity because they rightly view it as an obstacle to their totalitarian agenda. 

ii) The fact that many people are turned off by Christian culture warriors doesn't mean they are entitled to be. Popular perception isn't morally self-validating. 

iii) The reason so many moral issues are politicized is because Democrats insist on making gov't dictate so much social policy. Conservatives didn't ask for this. We are usually playing defense, not offense.

iv) I don't even know what you mean to say we need to accept liberal politics in our pews? Morality isn't compartmentalized.

If you have any evidence that I watch Fox News, and get my beliefs about liberals from Fox News, Franklin Graham, and Jerry Falwell, I'm waiting to hear it.

I get my views about liberals direct from the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, the DNC platform, "Progressive Christians," et al.

"Indeed these are some of the commonly quoted problems with liberals. Let's look at them one by one. Homosexuals have been one of the most mistreated groups in the history of the world."

Not to mention that homosexuals mistreat each other. For instance, they sodomize each other. Likewise, you have high rates of domestic abuse among homosexuals. 

Not to mention that homosexuals mistreat heterosexuals. Take homosexual priests who molest teenage boys.

"No one decides to be gay."

What's your evidence to back up that universal claim?

"There is no Biblical teaching or principle that states that people can't be born gay."

Assuming (ex hypothesi) that's true, it means the Bible condemns a desire or behavior that they were born with. How does that help your case?

"The Bible says we are born sinners."

And the Bible says impenitent sinners are hellbound.

"Treating homosexuals as human with equal rights is Christian."

That bundles two different claims. Compulsive gamblers are human, too. But it would be imprudent to employ them as bankers, with access to other people's money to pay their gambling debts.

Likewise, to say homosexuals are human doesn't mean they should have access to and authority over minors of the same sex. Look at what happened in the church of Rome.

"Do you know any transgender people. It is one of the most unfortunate of birth defects. At least if they were born with both sex organs they would have the sympathy of the church, but born with the wrong sex organs and you are a sinner."

i) What evidence do you have that intersex people are generally considered to be born sinners?

iii) You're confounding people born with defective genitalia with people who are physically normal, but "self-identity" as the opposite sex. The former is physical, the other is psychological. What about people who self-identify as animals?

"Euthanizing the elderly is not being actively promoted by the democrats."

You need to educate yourself. Start by reading updates at Human Exceptionalism (Wesley J. Smith).

"Also we live in a country where non-Christians have rights and a voice."

We live in a country based on majority rule. In addition, non-Christians benefit from Christian social ethics.

"We will win more for Christ if we acknowledge that, stop trying to save culture and start trying to save souls."

This isn't about "saving culture" but protecting the innocent.

"I see that you are not willing to think about what I say."

A euphemistic way of saying I don't agree with you. 

"This will likely be my last response."

What a loss. 

"First of all, pedophiles are not generally homosexual. In fact they are usually straight, if you can call it that. They don't want men, but only boys."

I was specifically referring to the priestly abuse scandal in the church of Rome, which is overwhelmingly male-on-male. 

"Secondly, what you heard some homosexual did to another (anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all)…"

You think the practice of anal sex among homosexuals is merely based on anecdotal evidence? Mouse over to the CDC.

Likewise, just Google domestic abuse among homosexuals. 

BTW, you're the one who relied on anecdotal evidence when you appealed to a single gay friend. 

"As far as no one decides to be gay, you are partly right to question this claim. I have met straight men who over time with an over exposure to sex and/or pornography (especially viewing oral sex on a man) have moved into gay sex to keep themselves stimulated. This is the homosexual the Bible talks about in it's condemnation (I know you will not accept this claim, so don't bother to focus on it)."

That's been debunked by Robert Gagnon. You need to wean yourself from gay propaganda.

"You mentioned acceptance of intersex as a sin of liberalism. I'm glad to hear that you have changed your view on that."

Your comment doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to what I wrote. 

"For instance conservatives want to protect and spread gun ownership, yet every study on the subject has found that in homes with guns someone is much more likely to be killed or injured by a gun than in homes without guns."

Well, that's circular. People with bathtubs are much more likely to slip and fall in the bathtub than people without bathtubs. By definition, you can only be hurt by something that's available to you. You can only have food poisoning if you eat food. You can only get drunk if you have alcohol. You can only get run over on a bicycle if you ride a bicycle. You can only have a child die of cancer if you have a child. You can only be divorced if you get married. You can only accidentally electrocute yourself with a space heater if you have electricity. You can only die from an accidental overdose if you use medications. So your objection amounts to a vacuous truism. 

"You can find no Biblical precedent to protecting gun rights…"

Since, by definition, the Bible antedates the invention of guns and gunpowder, your complain is ridiculous. What about knives, spears, swords, and longbows? 

"…so why then don't you support protecting the innocent here."

It's mindless for you to single out accidental gunshot injuries while completely ignoring the defensive role of guns in repelling or deterring criminals. You need to compare overall death and mayhem that results from unilateral disarmament with accidental gunshot injuries. 

"One more thing about majority rule. I am a Christian. It is the only important thing about me. It informs everything that I think about politics. I don't want a religious government. Who's religion? Yours, mine, how about the Taliban? I believe it is not in the Governments interest, but in the Churches to promote a wall of separation."

You're confusing autocracy with representative gov't. Learn the difference.

"your attempts to keep liberals out of the church only serves to keep people from considering Christ."

Liberals are welcome to attend church. Just don't assume leadership positions.

"I suggest you focus your energy on finding and eradicating the sin in your own heart…"

If you really believed that, you'd shut up, get off social media, and focus your energy on finding and eradicating the sin in your own heart.

"I wish I could call you brother and wish you well, but I see no zeal for the Gospel in you."

It's revealing how egotistical people like you presume to make yourselves the standard of comparison.

"Your words are damaging to the body of Christ. You sound just like a conservative Pharisee. You know the ones who thought Jesus was too accepting and too liberal."

It's always telling when a reader automatically casts himself on the side of the heroes while casting everyone he dislikes on the side of the villains. It doesn't occur to him that by invariably casting someone other than himself as the Pharisee, the reader is unwittingly reprising the role of the Pharisee. The reader unwittingly assumes the superior viewpoint of the Pharisee.