RSS

Tag Archives: www.scientiamedia.com

Chick-Fil-A, the Bible & LGBT Bullying by Walter Myers III

Chick-Fil-A, the Bible & LGBT Bullying by Walter Myers III

As many already know, the LGBT movement has now set its sights on the Chick-fil-A company ever since President Dan Cathy made recent comments in a (quite beautiful) interview  with the Baptist Press about his company advocating for family values rooted in the Bible.  Specifically, what raised their ire was his company’s support of the traditional family led by a man and a woman, a position on which he said the company was “guilty as charged,” with no plans to change course despite opposition from various groups. Now we see a constant barrage from the liberal media, gay advocacy groups, and even public figures charging that Chick-fil-A and Christian organizations that it donates are “anti-gay.” Well, I don’t see being pro-traditional marriage as necessarily being anti-gay, but it is clearly opposed to gay marriage. And this is a critical distinction that the gay advocacy groups refuse to make or allow because it doesn’t fit into their narrative. While Cathy may be against gay marriage, Chick-fil-A welcomes customers of all types without reservation, and has not exhibited any discriminatory hiring practices, treating both gay employees and customers with the same “honor, dignity, and respect” as everyone else. So Chick-fil-A is hardly being “intolerant,” or lacking in “diversity” or “inclusiveness” — words now used as verbal cudgels.

In reading various articles about this issue, what surprised me was just how much moralizing was going on by those who abhor morals specifically when advanced by Christians. One article  in BusinessWeek correctly stated that while it is not surprising that a company that holds to biblical values would disapprove of gay marriage, the problem is that Cathy “crossed the line” by openly condemning the beliefs of a big chunk of Chick-fil-A’s audience. Yet I don’t recall them saying that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, or Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, crossed a line by their donations to a campaign  to defend the same-sex marriage law in the state of Washington. So should Christians now boycott Amazon and Microsoft for their CEO’s actions, as LGBT advocacy groups are encouraging gay marriage supporters to do against Chick-fil-A? Cathy has a specific moral position that is opposed by Ballmer and Bezos, but Cathy is the one who is supposed to give up his moral code in favor of the moral code of Ballmer, Bezos, and gay advocacy groups? It appears to me they feel this is a requirement, and thus Cathy does not have the right to have a view that is discordant with theirs. Now where is the tolerance in that?

As gay marriage advocates would have it, Christians are supposed to sit idly by and watch them actively advance a social agenda that is anti-biblical, as if Christians have no say so even as citizens of the United States. Gay advocacy groups, indeed, are making a moral argument as are Christians. Yet they seem to think their moral arguments are superior, and if Christians don’t agree with theirs then we are necessarily hateful and homophobic for opposing same-sex marriage. But what other position would they expect a Christian to have? The Bible is explicit about God’s view on homosexuality as a sin, so gay marriage isn’t even a consideration. If a person is a Bible-believing Christian, then that person will necessarily look on homosexual sin in the same way that they look on the sins of idolatry, premarital sex, and adultery. To see this, let’s take a look at 1 Corinthians 6:8-10:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, noridolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, norrevilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

To continue reading this great article click HERE!

Walter Myers III

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 29, 2012 in Featured Guest blogs, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Update: Recent & Upcoming Radio Appearances!

Here are some updates to some recent media appearances – previous and upcoming!

Kenneth McClenton

Tomorrow, Wednesday 7-18-12 join Conservative BFF’s Walter Myers III and myself, Mike Munzing and host Ken McClenton – The Conservative Fab Four! Tomorrow we will be discussing The Newly Released Zimmerman Tapes, Faith & the 2012 Elections, Obama care post-ruling & a number of other HOT political topics! Please join us at 9pmEDT/6pmPDT by clicking  here!

Also…

Talitha McEachin

This past Sunday 7-15-2012, as per my last post to you all, I held a webinar/conference call with Christian Conservative friends Walter Myers III and Hassan Nurullah to discuss “Should Christians Vote for Romney?”. Well, it was a heated yet very respectful “calmversation”. In cased you missed it, here is the recording:

Should Christians Vote for Mitt Romney?

And lastly…

Gina Covell Maddox

Tonight, Tuesday 7-17-2012,  I had the pleasure of being a guest on the “Southern Sass“show on Romney Radio.US with Host Gina Covell-Maddox & Co-host Joan Whittaker! I had a WONDERFUL time discussing the Romney campaign and the black Conservative movement.I wanted to share the audio with you all in case you missed it! I’m on approximately 20 minutes in to the show, Enjoy!

Listen to internet radio with Romney Radio on Blog Talk Radio
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 18, 2012 in Politics, Radio Appearances

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Walter Myers III: Closer To Truth?

Walter Myers III: Closer To Truth?

This past week I had a married couple as guests at my home, and as usual when they come to visit we invariably get around to discussing religion since Philosophy of Religion & Ethics is my current course of study. I’m not sure if they are agnostics or simply skeptics, though my guess is that it is more the latter. Both are highly intelligent and moral folks who are concerned with living good lives, being kind to others, donating to good causes, and being loving, attentive parents to their young children. But they tend to look strongly askance at anything of a religious nature, though they admit there are some good things that come out of religion that are beneficial to society. Fundamentally, John and Sharon (not their real names), are skeptical that any of my efforts in studying religion necessarily allow me to get any closer to truth than anyone else, no matter how much I may study. Why do they conclude this, and am I simply wasting precious time and energy studying philosophy? Since they both feel there are other people who study as much as I do yet come to different conclusions, their logic is that we cannot get to truth since everyone doesn’t necessarily come to the same conclusions concerning the existence of God, or further that Christ is indeed the Son of God who died on a cross and resurrected on the third day.

At core, John and Sharon have the view that what may be true for me, and others that accept Christ, may not be true for others who accept some other religion such as Islam or Hinduism, or who simply conclude that all religions are false. But it’s okay if it’s true for me and provides some benefit, and I shouldn’t be naive in believing that my truth might actually apply to them or others. I didn’t explain that this view is the typical postmodern thinking that Americans have gradually accepted over the past 40-50 years, which posits that there are no overarching, universal truths. Truth, according to postmodern thought is simply a social construct and a creation of the human mind. Yet John and Sharon admit that in their everyday lives, they behave as if there are universal truths. They feel that stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, and that it is not okay to abuse children. But if there is no such thing as objective truth, then why would they live their lives as if it is so, even asserting there are indeed some moral imperatives as just described? It is wholly inconsistent to on the one hand believe that everything is relative and evolving, while at the same time making statements as to how a certain state of affairs ought or should be when things are constantly undergoing change. If everything is relative and truth is what you make it, then the words oughtor should are in effect meaningless when used in communication.

While John and Sharon are skeptical there is objective truth, and that Christianity could even accord with truth, it is an interesting thing we all agreed that the moral sense of right and wrong is fairly universal within the human race. Even those who choose to do wrong (presuming they are normally functioning) know implicitly what is the good or right thing to do, but simply choose not to do the good or right thing because they have the free will to reject it. This sense of moral order in the universe is, in theological terms, called common grace, since it may be apprehended by all and is common to all humankind. So herein we may reasonably conclude that even though there is nothing we can know exhaustively, common grace can be reasonably construed (in an epistemic sense) as an objective truth, and is true wholly independent of whether we give it cognitive assent or not. In essence, I’m arguing that on this basis, John and Sharon would be wise to conclude that there are indeed some objective moral truths that are not just true for some, but true for all, including them. In other words, truth is truth, and truth has no dependency on them, yet it is there for them to ascertain should they choose to accept it. I feel they sense this, but are somehow afraid of the consequences of accepting this view.

To continue reading click here

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 15, 2012 in Philosophy, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Walter Myers’ Brilliant 5 Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

Image

Christan Conservative blogger Walter Myers III of http://www.scientiamedia.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once in a while another conservative blogger writes something so brilliant and thought provoking on a topic that I just have to feature it on my blog. My great friend and fellow Christian Conservative Walter Myers III is such an exceptional writer. We are both Christians who are classically trained philosophers who also feature political & social commentary on each of our own personal blogs as well as our joint Facebook fanpage Conservative BFF’s. In his recently released blog he explains five cogent, valid arguments against same sex marriage which are very difficult to refute effectively.

My first argument is that the traditional definition of marriage is not discriminatory. Marriage, as defined traditionally between a man and a woman, is simply a description (and no more) of the natural union between a man and a woman who are in love and want to commit to a lifetime together. This is the only union that can naturally produce the fundamental unit of all societies since the dawn of civilization: the family. This is in accord with natural law in that it is a readily and naturally apprehensible concept, as it is marriage and the family that provides the underpinnings of any society. Families build communities. Communities build cities. Cities make up states. States make up a nation. Regardless of whether one accepts the traditional definition of marriage, they must acknowledge the historical role of the family and the fact that this has always been the natural order and always will be the natural order until such a time that homosexual sex can produce children naturally. From my understanding of the design of the human body, I don’t see that happening any time in the near or far-flung future.

Second, advocates of same-sex marriage desire this definition change in a discriminatory manner, which I think is the most powerful argument against as currently proposed. I believe same-sex marriage advocates have a low view of marriage and the family, because they see it as some type of exclusive club that allows a specific group to join while rejecting those who don’t fittheir definition. Specifically, same-sex marriage advocates believe that marriage is just about coupling. In other words, it is about two people coming together in a loving, committed relationship. Yet they don’t seem to feel that these same relational attributes should also apply when the committed parties are greater than two in number. If they are willing to redefine the definition of marriage beyond its natural description, then shouldn’t any arrangement be acceptable as long as the arrangement is declared to be a loving, committed relationship, regardless of the number of parties involved? To willfully exclude three or more people of any gender combination from participating in the marriage bond is inherently discriminatory, and should not be accepted if traditional marriage is deemed discriminatory itself…

To continue reading the other three reasons (remainder of his blog) please click HERE.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 7, 2012 in Featured Guest blogs, Politics, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: