Rod Dreher begins his argument opposing the view stating that the Christian solidarity means nothing unless they change their views. He goes on to state that Christians should not condemn violence as it is against the Bible. He also states that an advance of L.G.B.T. rights would be a utter loss of religious expression. He finishes with calling the absurdity of the Orlando attack being pinned on Christians as it was not the intention.
Julie Rogers makes the strong claim that Christians must bridge the gap between saying that everyone is welcome, and actually making them welcome. She says she was told she was valued but didn’t actually feel that she was being valued. She is calling for Christians to not just feel sorry for the Orlando attack, but …show more content…
Homosexuality is a sin according to the bible, but he is a sinner too. So the solution is not to kill someone else because of their sin. It is rather, to love the person and work with them. He is saying that they are not trying to control culture out of hate but out of offering a Christ like example.
David Gushee brings to light an interesting argument that Christianity is becoming more and more tolerant of L.G.B.T. people in society. Especially the fact that the gay rights movement is 50 years old compared to the long standing religious teachings. He also holds that there are people for gay rights, people tolerant but not happy, and intolerant people for gay rights.
I find Jim Daly’s argument the most compelling. I really like how he pulls the biblical ideology and approaches it from a tolerant and understanding mentality. He wants to truly keep his values but do the best thing for everyone involved. I think the content of David Gushee’s argument may have been a little bit better, but Daly’s feels more supported and better written to me. I also think that it is better because it helps propose a sort of solution which the other three don’t as
Julie Rogers makes the strong claim that Christians must bridge the gap between saying that everyone is welcome, and actually making them welcome. She says she was told she was valued but didn’t actually feel that she was being valued. She is calling for Christians to not just feel sorry for the Orlando attack, but …show more content…
Homosexuality is a sin according to the bible, but he is a sinner too. So the solution is not to kill someone else because of their sin. It is rather, to love the person and work with them. He is saying that they are not trying to control culture out of hate but out of offering a Christ like example.
David Gushee brings to light an interesting argument that Christianity is becoming more and more tolerant of L.G.B.T. people in society. Especially the fact that the gay rights movement is 50 years old compared to the long standing religious teachings. He also holds that there are people for gay rights, people tolerant but not happy, and intolerant people for gay rights.
I find Jim Daly’s argument the most compelling. I really like how he pulls the biblical ideology and approaches it from a tolerant and understanding mentality. He wants to truly keep his values but do the best thing for everyone involved. I think the content of David Gushee’s argument may have been a little bit better, but Daly’s feels more supported and better written to me. I also think that it is better because it helps propose a sort of solution which the other three don’t as