Thank you for the well-spoken response. I truly appreciate your input and furthering the discussion. I realize that I broached political subjects in the post, thus all is fair game, but I won't form a point-by-point response on the politics of it. But I would like to make some points and ask some questions, both in regards to your reply.
First, I don't think that the term "shocking" was in any way an overstatement. Whether isolated or not, signs saying "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" are quite shocking to Christians, and I would imagine such shock was their intent in painting them. In discussing this incident with a coworker today and describing the signs, he responded that he had seen them before; this would also indicate that the isolation of such is in question. (Not such a scientific pool of data, I admit.)
Secondly, I agree that you cannot force someone to agree with you, nor can you force salvation. It is the power of God and the gospel. I gather that the Christian group was assembled to peacefully bring about a change of morality in the American culture. It seems as though part of the intent was to peacefully gather and speak out against homosexual marriage, which in their mind is a threat to the family structure. Are you saying that they shouldn't speak out when they believe there is a danger? Now, I'm not saying they are right. I believe they are, but that is irrelevant to my point at the moment. They believe that it is a danger.
Would these same people be wrong to protest abortion? Those protesting abortion truly feel that it is the murder of defenseless babies. Would they be right in just remaining quiet with that conscience?
I realize that you never said the BattleCry group was wrong to assemble, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I am trying to make the distinction that the "you can't mandate morality" argument only goes so far. You can't mandate morality, but you must mandate right and wrong. And if you do not raise your voice for what you feel is right, then the only voices come from those who are "wrong".
The above video showed two groups raising their voices. One group did it right, the other...
Although it may not have come across as well in my blog post, the main intent was that of an apologetic point. Christianity is attacked as narrow-minded and intolerant, and that's fine I guess. Christianity teaches the existence of "absolute truth", and that is narrow by definition. My point was that the "liberal left" can be as unaccepting of others' beliefs as "we" are, and they're the ones flying the flag of tolerance. But what are they tolerating?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the fact that the above was as isolated as you suggest. From PETA throwing blood on people wearing fur to the "Earth-firsters" vandalizing SUVs with bumper-stickers, etc, etc... I see tolerance for those who think similarly.
Christianity is narrow-minded-- again, it preaches absolute truth with absolute right and wrong. But Christianity is also all-inclusive. It preaches a Savior-God that died for the sins of the world, that whosoever believes shall not perish but have everlasting life. And it should be a message of love-- to the saved, the sinner, the neighbor and the enemy.
So, I guess I just typed all of that to tell you I love you. :)
Thank you for the
Thank you for the well-spoken response. I truly appreciate your input and furthering the discussion. I realize that I broached political subjects in the post, thus all is fair game, but I won't form a point-by-point response on the politics of it. But I would like to make some points and ask some questions, both in regards to your reply.
First, I don't think that the term "shocking" was in any way an overstatement. Whether isolated or not, signs saying "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" are quite shocking to Christians, and I would imagine such shock was their intent in painting them. In discussing this incident with a coworker today and describing the signs, he responded that he had seen them before; this would also indicate that the isolation of such is in question. (Not such a scientific pool of data, I admit.)
Secondly, I agree that you cannot force someone to agree with you, nor can you force salvation. It is the power of God and the gospel. I gather that the Christian group was assembled to peacefully bring about a change of morality in the American culture. It seems as though part of the intent was to peacefully gather and speak out against homosexual marriage, which in their mind is a threat to the family structure. Are you saying that they shouldn't speak out when they believe there is a danger? Now, I'm not saying they are right. I believe they are, but that is irrelevant to my point at the moment. They believe that it is a danger.
Would these same people be wrong to protest abortion? Those protesting abortion truly feel that it is the murder of defenseless babies. Would they be right in just remaining quiet with that conscience?
I realize that you never said the BattleCry group was wrong to assemble, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I am trying to make the distinction that the "you can't mandate morality" argument only goes so far. You can't mandate morality, but you must mandate right and wrong. And if you do not raise your voice for what you feel is right, then the only voices come from those who are "wrong".
The above video showed two groups raising their voices. One group did it right, the other...
Although it may not have come across as well in my blog post, the main intent was that of an apologetic point. Christianity is attacked as narrow-minded and intolerant, and that's fine I guess. Christianity teaches the existence of "absolute truth", and that is narrow by definition. My point was that the "liberal left" can be as unaccepting of others' beliefs as "we" are, and they're the ones flying the flag of tolerance. But what are they tolerating?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy the fact that the above was as isolated as you suggest. From PETA throwing blood on people wearing fur to the "Earth-firsters" vandalizing SUVs with bumper-stickers, etc, etc... I see tolerance for those who think similarly.
Christianity is narrow-minded-- again, it preaches absolute truth with absolute right and wrong. But Christianity is also all-inclusive. It preaches a Savior-God that died for the sins of the world, that whosoever believes shall not perish but have everlasting life. And it should be a message of love-- to the saved, the sinner, the neighbor and the enemy.
So, I guess I just typed all of that to tell you I love you. :)
Be blessed