Aaron Edwards, a theologian at Cliff College in England, has been reportedly fired after he declared homosexuality a sin on Twitter. He was also threatened with being reported to authorities as a “terrorist” for his views. It is the latest attack on religious and political speech in Great Britain.
Edwards maintains that he never had a prior complaint or disciplinary action at the college. However, he tweeted the following in February:
“Homosexuality is invading the church. Evangelicals no longer see the severity of this [because] they’re busy apologizing for their apparently barbaric homophobia, whether or not it’s true. If sin is no longer sin, we no longer need a Saviour.”
That tweet brought a swift response and termination by the college. Edwards was asked to take down the tweet, which he refused.
He is planning an appeal.
The threat to report him as a terrorist is a real concern in Great Britain where even “toxic ideologies” are now considered a crime. Recently a woman was arrested for praying to herself near an abortion clinic.
Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target in Ireland with the recently proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It would criminalize the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare. The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”
What is so striking about the law is that it allows for the prosecution of citizens for “preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics.” That could sweep deeply into not just political but literary expression.
The expansion of such prosecutions to thought crimes is a natural extension of the anti-free speech movement that took hold of much of Europe decades ago. The decline of free speech in the United Kingdom has long been a concern for free speech advocates. A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police teeshirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
Once you start as a government to criminalize speech, you end up on a slippery slope of censorship. What constitutes hate speech or “malicious communications” remains a highly subjective matter and we have seen a steady expansion of prohibited terms and words and gestures.
In the meantime, a theologian has been fired by a college for expressing his views on sin on social media. Yet, most faculty are silent. Imagine if a professor were fired for arguing that homosexuality was permitted under the Holy Scripture. The college would be fortunate to survive the likely backlash. The different treatment based on the content of these statements makes a mockery of free speech and academic freedom. Yet, the intolerance for dissenting views is now a common reality in higher education on both sides of “the pond.”
115 thoughts on “Sins of the Father: Theologian Fired by Bible College for Calling Homosexuality a Sin”
The promise of a better security of rights was the contract that was agreed to when our government was instituted. That is the only legitimate purpose for any government. What we are experiencing today is an erosion of that security from the state, while at the same time our culture is under attack by those that would return us to the state of nature. This two-front war will be lost to that 30% hypnotized in a mass formation psychosis, if the other 70% continue to concede the battle space. Those that believe remaining silent will protect them from attack have only to look at history to know that is the surest way to lose everything they thought that silence would protect.
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_homosexuality” Anyone posing as a Christian or Jew and proferring the acceptance of homosexuality is considered apostate and should be ignored as far as Christian or Jewish teachings as it clearly goes against plainly stated prohibitions and is the product or prog/left ideologies aimed at destroying cultures based on Judeo=Christian values. Enough said, there it is in black and white. Let the progs argue their way out of that.
Most people don’t get their religious doctrine from Wikipedia. Our current Pope said, in regard to homosexuality: “who am I to judge”?
The pope did NOT claim that homosexuality was not a sin.
He reiterated the core christian principle that “we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of god”.
I personally do not find either homosexuality or trans-sexuality a “sin”.
But they are abnormal behavior – i.e. outside the norm. Homosexuality is approximately 2std dev away from the norm, and transexuality is almost 4.
abnormal does not inherently mean Wrong, Red hair is abnormal.
Of course red hair has a known cause – genetics. We do not know what the causes of homosexuality and trans sexuality are.
John Say: Yes, the Pope did say that the mere status of being a homosexual is NOT a sin in and of itself. Engaging in homosexual activitiy was sinful, in his opinion. American bishops got their shorts in a twist over the comment that same-sex orientation is not, of itself, sinful.
Why do you have your panties in a bunch over Catholic bishops ?
I am sure it is of great comfort to the LGBTQ+ community that being homosexual – or whatever is OK with the Pope,
So long as you do not act on it.
I Personally do not care what consenting adults do in private.
I also do not care what the Pope says about it, or what Catholic Bishops say.
Why do you care so much about what people who are Not seeking to impose there will on you by force say ?
STOP THE PRESSES!!!!
COMRADE POLITICAL OFFICER AND PARTY CENSOR NUTCHACHACHA is now a Christian.
“Son, how did you get in this condition?”
I said, “Hey, Sawbones
I’m just carrying on an ole family tradition”
William Tyndale was put to death by strangulation and burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English and daring to have it printed. Three years later, Henry VIII declared that more copies should be printed. The years (Henry VIII and Mary I) that ensued were filled with hundreds of great and learned men who were martyred, burned at the stake for their beliefs. When the tables turned, there were yet many more clergy put to death for their beliefs.
This professor dared to state the obvious. He said this was a matter of scripture. If the institution choses to ignore some sins and embrace others then what is the point of having a Savior? The Old Testament and the New Testament deal extensively with the topic of sin (every human is a sinner) and redemption (the need for a Savior).
If they, as an institution, have chosen to ignore the whole counsel of the Holy Scriptures, I suppose it is their prerogative to keep only professors who tow the line. The disturbing part of this discussion is that he will be referred to authorities as a terrorist?
A number of mainline Protestant institutions in the United States—such as the Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian USA, and United Methodist churches—seem to have whittled down the list of things they consider to be a sin. Try to revert to the former lists at your own peril.
Socrates took his poison, and now Woke English Law forces thinking persons to take their poison also.
Death to all philosophers is this century’s British mantra.
England is swirling at the bottom of the loo
Those who celebrate these anti-free speech decisions need only to remember that not too long ago the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution swept China, resulting in the deaths and imprisonment of millions. Its goal? Eliminate the “four olds”: old ideas, old customs, old culture and old habits. Sound familiar? Ordinary citizens as well as intellectuals, artists, and so many others were eliminated because they did not subscribe to Mao’s edicts. Mao sought to bring China’s economy into the modern era. I am not sure what the goal of the current crop of criminally selfish “progressives” is other than to destroy the foundations of the country that was built to give them the freedom they have to protest. I have no doubt that in Mao’s China and today in many parts of the world, most of them would be snuffed out just as quickly and mercilessly as the cowardly delusional trans killer ended the lives of six innocent people. We did learn something about this particular trans progressive. She lacked the spine to do to herself what she did to children, so she ended it all with suicide-by-cop. How fitting.
Mao, Stalin, Hitler & the rest of the Marxist, Commie/Fascist types, Go look up & glance at the US Senate Bill 686.
Sen Lindsey Graham, Sen Mark Waren & every other American Hating Trash Rep looks to cement into place a complete Police State!
You seem to laud “suicide-by-cop” instead of calling for better mental health treatment and keeping guns out of the hands of those who are violent.
“for better mental health treatment “
Many of us wish for better mental health treatment, but the ones that need it most, like you, don’t avail themselves of the treatment available.
What they need is for both parents to take a bunch of Merck/Pfizer/Bill Gates type MMR/mRNA/Polio type Vaccines then as soon as they are born start shooting them up with 70-100 plus more Vaccines & then when Mom & Dad take them to the doc the doc can put the poor dumb b@astard on a SSRI type Rat Poison drug because the kid is so ph’d up It doesn’t understand if It has a Penis or a Virgina. (Sarc Off)
These are at least 4th-5th generations now since people like Rockefellers & other have flooded the world with all kinds of Chem & big pharma Crap. Any Idiot can tell that’s why the Frogs are turning Gay because of all the hormone mimickers/chems from the water runoff etc.
Those alive today are basically ruined, not much anyone can do for them, pray Jesus/cleanse, but what are we going to do to help any future generations coming into this screwed up lunatic billionaire world?
1st thing to do is to stop listening so much to those that have lead us here & find others with differing opinions. And like tell those rotten Azzholes shove their so called Vazzes up their own Azzes!!
The brilliant, communist, dictatorial one-child policy killed China.
In America, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Americans are provided maximal freedom while government is severely limited and restricted.
Oh, did I say government is severely limited and restricted by the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Communists just hate that; communists just hate freedom – communists love Obamacare.
Obama was not eligible and had no constitutional power to engage in “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” into the Chinese communist, dictatorial empire.
Obama is a direct and mortal enemy of America as the son of a foreign citizen father, which is why the Framers and Founders precluded any and all eligibility, even a modicum of eligibility, to Obama by requiring that the president be a “natural born citizen.”
When will actual Americans awaken, filled with a terribly resolve?
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
– Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
The IRS is no longer hiding their efforts to silence speech like we saw during the Obama era. They are now openly attempting to intimidate anyone, like Matt Taibbi, that dares to challenge the orthodoxy of state-sponsored censorship. The IRS does not make unannounced house calls to taxpayers for “concerns” of ID theft. They send letters to the taxpayer and to the tax preparer, like myself. The note they left behind for Taibbi was not just for Taibbi. It was a shot across the bow for anyone considering entering this war against our totalitarian regime. This is our Lexington and Concord moment.
It’s in both the Old and New Testaments.
Which were written by humans.
Europe has never had the robust defense of free speech that we have had in the US. Mostly they gave it lip service. The last time they really thought about real free speech was The Enlightenment. Since that time it has been up and down and right now it is really down, I think that is one of the reasons our ancestors rebelled against Parliament which was abusing its powers. Just like the Supreme Court of Israel abuses it’s powers now.
Nobody else really understands the separation of powers in the US and it’s separation of states in a federation. There is a reason we have a constitution which can be amended but it is hard to amend. It’s there to stand against such times as these when the whims of the people and elected branches get out of hand. Actually we have a separation of the powers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches but we have another check and that is the states check on the Federal Government. Hence a Federal Republic. What is happening in Europe, Israel and the Uk is clear evidence of one of the failures of parliamentary government without a strong and written constitution and true separation of powers. It’s also why progressives going as far back as Woodrow Wilson wanted to ditch the constitution because it restrains them and they desire no restraint.
The European Union is another example of a superstate which ignores the people and basically rules as an oligarchy.
Without unfettered free speech, you cannot have the scientific method, a sense of exploration of the physical world that does not conform to our biases or any other meaningful discussion and search for truth.
Thats why the US government has conspired with certain media and industry to suppress discussion and speech. Their plans, no matter how outrageous, would not stand up to sunlight and open discussion and seeking of the truth, no matter what it is.
Can anyone point to a time when a person holding “toxic” leftist ideology has been arrested?
As we see with the Nashville tragedy the media/left is framing it as being caused by a Republican law that was recently passed, not a deranged and amped up trans person. This is the same type of defense/cover that was given to the two lawyers that firebombed a police car in NY were afforded. Notice the J6 types are never given such leeway. DOUBLESTANDARDSTAN is our new home.
Can anyone point to a time when a person holding “toxic” leftist ideology has been arrested?
Get to know US History
“The Constitution faced a major test on this day in 1920 when raids ordered by Attorney General Mitchell Palmer saw thousands of people detained without warrants merely upon general suspicion. This occurred during the “Red Scare” of the 1920s, a period of anti-Communist fervor in the United States.
Facilitated by a young Justice Department official, J. Edgar Hoover, what became known as the Palmer Raids peaked on the night of January 2, 1920, when between 3,000 and 10,000 people in 35 cities were detained on suspicion of sympathizing with Communists or anarchists.”
“[T]he Palmer Raids [. . .] were detained on suspicion of sympathizing with Communists or anarchists.”
Anarchists — who conducted a series of *bombings*, including of the AG’s home, politicians and judges.
Communists — who openly advocated initiating *violence* and the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (cheered on by Lenin).
If you’re going to cite history, do so honestly.
They can’t cite history correctly because they only read the head notes.
He already identified them as “toxic leftist ideologies.” That’s not enough of a clue?
Anonymous when I asked for anyone to name when a leftists was in trouble for their thoughts I OBVIOUSLY meant in today’s world, hence “we now live in Doublestandardstan”. You had to go back to 1920 to make your lame point! How about arresting ANTIFA goons? How about arresting Trans Day of Vengeance goons? You are pathetic.
“Anonymous when I asked for anyone to name when a leftists was in trouble for their thoughts I OBVIOUSLY meant in today’s world, hence “we now live in Doublestandardstan”.
No, you literally asked to point to A TIME. That can mean any time. To make it obvious that you meant presently, you would obviously have stated “during OUR time”. Because that would have been…obvious.
From the linked article:
Prominent lawyers protested that the arrests were unconstitutional. A group of legal scholars including future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Ernst Freund, and Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound published a scathing critique of the raids, saying they lacked arrest warrants, directed officers to seize documents at will, and permitted unrestrained force. The newly formed American Civil Liberties Union was a sponsor of the critical report.
Sam would not know Felix Frankfurter, nor does he employ logic considering 3,000 and 10,000 people in 35 cities does not mean 3,000 and 10,000 people in 35 cities were “bombing”. Note, the word “bombing” is never mentioned in the linked article, though Sam has never been accused of employing intellectual rigor, though he is fond of lodging bombs at others. Yet Maj229 has told us he is an older attorney who decries the current trend in the legal profession in how it ignores the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. So there is this gem:
Undeterred, Attorney General Palmer justified the actions on several grounds, including a planned insurrection in the United States on May 1, 1920.
Where have we heard this recently? and what has the response been by those accused of orchestrating an insurrection? “It was just a riot!” they thunder.
By January 1921, Palmer has asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the lawyers who wrote the report. Freund told the Senate that for the first time in the United States history, “aliens lawfully in this country are proceeded against without violating any law, but solely on belief of opinion.” Another scholar, Edwin Borchard, demanded that the Senate investigate Palmer since he believed the Attorney General didn’t believe equal protection applied to aliens on American soil.
And in a February 1921 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, a statement from Columbia Law Dean Harlan Stone called Palmer’s acts “lawless and subversive of constitutional liberty for citizens and aliens alike.”
Yes, hullbobby, the Feds have imprisoned the Left for nary a reason. Free speech means free speech even when denouncing the Feds just like Trump supporters are doing today. Logic escapes ideologues be they left wing, ring wing, or in Sam’s case, chicken wing
ATS, government, because it can “legally” use force, is a cause of such abuse. While you recognize history about a century old, you are blind to present history and how Wokensess and government have combined to create something worse than what happened in the 1920s. Then there were justified safety concerns where the government went overboard.
You support that type of anarchic violence even if you are a couch supporter. If we start naming the most prominent people arrested in the earlier time frame, we will find that most were performing illegal acts and intent on violence. You are the bomber’s modern-day equivalent.
It’s always interesting to see the range of people you call “ATS.” But Allan the Stupid is the true ATS.
Are you again blaming another for your stupidity ATS? That is the reason you have an anonymous name and icon.
ATS, if you wish to make such comparisons, let’s compare the “most heinous” of all J6 protestors Jacob Chansley to those from the 1920s who you find were mistreated. I don’t say some weren’t but when we make the comparisons, you sound like a fool.
Where did ATS run away to when I posted this question?
I agree with parts of what you say. In the past Quite often the Left was the target of speech supression – most often by Democrats.
Eugene Debbs was targeted by Democrat Woodrow Wilson – who was almost as progressive as todays far left. But also brought the KKKinto the whitehouse and purged blacks from the civil service.
Some of the past vile history of supression of rights was by the right, but there are lots of prominent examples from the left.
Ultimately this is not a left/right issue.
I can find Wilson’s censorship vile, while concurrently condemning Sen. MacCarthy (and the other republicans and democrats that were part of the same rights violations).
If you wish to raise past issues of misconduct by those in power – infringing on our rights – Go For it.
Though I would hope for something better presented.
Regardless the examples exist, and you deserve credit for noting them – even ambiguously.
Wrong is wrong – past, present and future.
I will be happy to join you in condemning all infringements on individual rights – whether by democrats or republicans.
Whether in the past or the present.
So where are you ?
Are you condemning past censorship AND current censorship ?
Or are you badly trying to score political points against one side ?
Which is it – Left Good, right bad ? Or censorshop bad, freedom good ?
“From the linked article:”
You keep pasting other people’s evaluations (which is blind following), while evading the facts: The anarchist *bombings* (which are violent *actions*, not ideas or opinions expressed). And the communist violence (which is *action*, not ideas or opinions).
Context moron, context. If you need to go back to 1920 to show when the leftists were being attacked you are just making my point. Put the shovel down.
In many instances in the past leftists were being persecuted by leftists.
Debbs by Wilson. The Knennedy’s were up to their neck in Maccarthyism.
One of he Kennedy’s sisters even dating Joe Maccarthy.
John, you are familiar with Pennsylvania and the lack of ability to ensure correct voting. It is a divided state. I am not looking for what is right or wrong. Instead I am looking for something that would influence a politician from that state. If you have some input, let me know. Pa acted abominably.
The US House this week reviewed local news reporting from Central PA of 2022 Election problems that resembled those in Maricopa county.
Printers running out of the correct paper, and people then being required to vote by provisional ballot, then a tech putting normal paper in the ballot printer, and then being shutdown by the state – because you can not use normal paper,
An election official having to drive to Scranton on Election day to pick up official paper only to find they had run out too.
Was this outright fraud ?
Does it even matter ?
Some of this was local election official incompetence in republican counties – sounds like Arizona.
But a great deal of the problem was mixed messages and incompetence by the Democrat Sec. STate -= who was also responsible for botching the 2020 election.
Regardless, you can call it by any name you want – fraud, election rigging. incompetence.
What it is NOT is moral, ethical or something we can tolerate.
“in trouble for their thoughts”?!?
You want people arrested for thought crimes?
“How about arresting ANTIFA goons?”
Why don’t you know that?
“. . . framing it as being caused by a Republican law . . .”
So according to the Left:
When a right-winger kills, he’s a murderer. Blame him and his ideology. When a darling of the Left kills (children!), right-wingers made him do it. Blame them (again) and their ideology.
Do I have the formula correct?
Hullhobby, you forgot to call the right- wingers “racist,” as in I disagree with AND you are a “racist.” Oh, I almost forgot, you have to add all the “phobias” too. Otherwise, it’s not a proper Dem/lib/progressive response.
No, you don’t have it right.
Both are murderers. And until Hale’s manifesto is released, we won’t know what motivated him and shouldn’t pretend to know.
Suddenly ATS thinks we have to wait to see what happened. In this case we know. She killed those children and adults, but ATS wishes to pretend her heinous actions were more normal than they were by saying others do it as well. Accept it. This trans killed six people of which three were children.
I note ATS calls the presumed XX woman a man. Does he know what they have to do to provide male sex characteristics? Hormones. Testosterone etc. That can upset the persons emotional balance and might in part be a reason for her killing those people.
She is a child killer.
Of course what Hale did was heinous. But we do not yet know the motivation. Allan the Stupid is too stupid to distinguish between acts and motivation.
She is a child killer and will not be killing any more. We don’t need to know her motivations as much as we need to know whether her treatments helped her to pull the trigger. Such treatments are dangerous to the person and possibly those that might be around.
The Colorado Springs shooter identified as non binary.
The Denver shooter identified as trans.
The Aberdeen shooter identified as trans.
The Nashville shooter identified as trans.
One thing is VERY clear: the modern trans movement is radicalizing activists into terrorists.
Your citation is deluded.
Then tell us what you think is wrong and provide what you think is the truth.
How so ?
In which instances are these assertions false ?
The Trans community is claiming that there is a trans holocaust and that they are going to respond with Violence.
Yet, using Federal Government Crime data the murder rate for the trans community is less than 1/2 of that of the general population.
I live in a conservative county. Over more than 20 years there has only been a single murder involving a trans person -= and that person was the murderer.
And this week a Trans person murder teachers and students at a christian school – and so many in the media are trying to blame the school.
Or we have the Biden admin trying to blame the gun. A PERSON killed those students. A PERSON Who intended to do so.
Oh, and immediately before the shooting – the Trans Community was making news with Public Service announcements of a Trans day of Vengence.
And to top this all off – some kind of Trans Anti-gun crowd. Overran the Tenese state Capitol.
Making those at J6 looking tame – but oh, no, there is no parity here.
If you do not wish to be accused of political violence and hypocracy – do not engage in political violence.
If you really want to say no one is above the law – then actually apply the law uniformly not politically.
“Both are murderers.”
Not according to those on the Left trying to excuse its evil. You’re either poorly informed or deceptive.
Aren’t all people who carry out mass shootings “deranged and amped up”? Why do Republicans want “deranged and amped up” people to be able to buy guns and kill people?
For the same reason you want them to be able to vote, and to publish their manifestos, and not to be locked up without due process. Buying guns is a fundamental human right, exactly like those others. We could save a lot of lives by ignoring each of those rights, especially the right not to be locked up; if we simply arrested everyone suspected of a crime, or whom the police thought likely to commit one, a lot of murders would be prevented. Likewise if we committed everyone we thought might be crazy, the way they used to do. But we don’t do that, because our liberties are worth more than mere lives. Buying guns is exactly the same; prove that an individual is dangerous and should be locked up, in a court of law where he has the chance to defend himself before a neutral judge, and then you can deprive him of liberty and disarm him. Until you can do that, you must allow him the same liberties as everyone else.
You will hold the approved opinion, and you will be happy.
fascism is taking over…you NO LONGER have the RIGHTS to express opinions or Truths
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Poor guy got thrown off the Cliff.
“Religion poisons everything.”
Well, well ….. The UK’s crack Counter Terrorism Policing Unit has yet another hot lead to pursue. Mr. Edwards personal view of sin will incite violence and bring down the Empire !! What an utterly ridiculous waste of time. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
This seems misleading. The theologian wasn’t fired from a bible college for calling homosexuality a sin as the heading suggests. Turley is using this mischaracterization for the purpose of pointing out these mischaracterized offenses of punishing others of “thought crime”.
The tweet made it very clear the theologian wasn’t fired because he said homosexuality is a sin. The theologian committed a much more serious offense, his suggestion that there would no longer be a need for a savior because the church is more tolerant of homosexuality which they consider a sin. His reasoning is that if it is more tolerant or accepts the sin why bother calling anything a sin? Why bother having a savior? THAT was the more offensive idea to the church and it seems he was fired because of that expression. Not because he called homosexuality is a sin.
Just like the example Turley cites about the lady being arrested for praying. She wasn’t arrested for praying, she was arrested for violating a buffer zone around an abortion provider’s property after being told to stay off the buffer zone. Nobody is allowed to be within the buffer zone. That’s the point Turley leaves out. This is nothing more than making up a narrative to portray something that isn’t true.
” his suggestion that there would no longer be a need for a savior because the church is more tolerant of homosexuality which they consider a sin.”
Svelaz, you are a dunce. The theologian was talking about sins. Homosexuality is one of many. Unfortunately, the proximate sin was a Woke hotspot, homosexuality. If leftist rioting, including death and arson, were the sin, no arrest would have been forthcoming.
“If sin is no longer sin, we no longer need a Saviour.”
“The theologian was talking about sins. Homosexuality is one of many.”
It’s one of many that are always ignored. It was as sin to marry someone outside your race. It’s still a sin to each shrimp or crab. It’s a sin to wear clothing with two types of yarn, etc, etc, etc.
Homosexuality existed long before wokeness. The theologian made the mistake of putting forth the idea that accepting homosexuality just as they accept that it’’s ok to eat shellfish or wear clothing with mixed yarn or marrying outside your race is no longer a sin. Why bother having a savior if nearly every sin is being ignored. What’s one more? The idea of not needing a savior is more offensive to them. It makes more sense that he was fired for putting forth the idea, an idea that makes it much closet to realizing there may actually be no need for a…savior.
Svelaz, you provide a lot of words saying nothing.
I will rephrase the theologian’s words into a question to make it easier for those with difficulty understanding. “If sin is no longer sin, why do we need a Saviour.”
Full quote: “If sin is no longer sin, we no longer need a Saviour.”
Do you note how thin your understanding is? That is why you resort to words and non-responsive responses.
Read the Tweet – not other peoples minds.
What is very disturbing here is the practice of making “fluid” legal decisions based on current popular trends. The notion of imprisoning individuals for exercise of their faith or for their most closely held thoughts is chilling. Would the British authorities arrest a Muslim for praying close to an abortion center?
This was a bible college firing a theologian not because he called homosexuality a sin. He was fired for bringing up the idea that if the evengelical church is being more tolerant of homosexuality why bother having a savior. It seems the bigger offense was the comment about not needing a savior because the church was less intolerant of homosexuality.
Leave it to religious organizations exercising authoritarian rule when they feel they’ve been offended somehow. That shouldn’t be surprising. Blasphemers were routinely killed because they exercised free speech. Ironically exercising free speech got you killed when the church was in power. Now you just get fired or excommunicated.
Freedom of speech is a modern, secular concept. However, whatever this theologian intended to say, the Bible is clear throughout: sexual relations with a person of the same sex, and outside of a valid marriage with a person of the opposite sex is an abomination before God.
No they wouldn’t arrest a Muslim praying close to an abortion clinic because to do so would be characterized as Islamophobia.
I admit to not knowing all of the ins and outs of British law and customs, but if this is a true indicator of the current attitude towards the expression of what have historically been basic Christian values, then I think it’s time that the charade about The Crown and Parliament and The Church of England being somehow aligned with each other for the good of the nation.