Tristen

I would first ask: 1 - Who is making this estimation? 2 - How are they defining "denominations"? My suspicion is that this figure is part of an attempt to make the church seem more divided than it really is. I've seen this figure used for decades to give the impression - "How can Christianity be true if they can't even agree amongst themselves?". This impression is usually accompanied by the false insinuation that each denomination is claiming to be the 'only true church' (which is a very, very rare claim made by some fringe Christian groups). That doesn't mean we have to all be identical. God has always valued variety (as is testified in nature). Likewise, individuals in the church have a variety of needs. Churches can therefore have differing styles of ministry, worship etc., or different ministry or doctrinal focusses. Christ's church is a body - with different parts performing different functions. Ideally, we would be united and connected. And in many instances, we are. I've experienced several instances were all Christian denominations in our region (inc. Catholic) work together on projects in a spirit of unity. Ultimately, all legitimately Christian "denominations" agree on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: i.e. The Eternal Deity of Christ, The Divine Authority of the Bible, The Virgin Birth of Christ, The Vicarious Sacrifice of Christ, The Bodily Resurrection of Christ. This is sometimes true - but not always. Many churches that we would call separate "denominations" have identical (or near identical) beliefs - they were simply started by different organizations (or maybe independently of an overseeing organization). A good church will encourage the congregation to seek God and truth for themselves. It is therefore common to find more doctrinal difference within a "denomination", than between "denominations". I would even speculate that God sometimes uses differences within "denominations" to instigate the expansion of His church. I think you have been sold the false impression that the majority of denominational differences are based in conflict. Maybe it's a localized impression (i.e. maybe that has been your personal experience/observation). Whilst conflicts obviously do exist within the church (which have always existed in the church), my experience is that the majority of denominational differences are simply varied ministries serving different parts of the body of Christ. Even the differences tend to be minor - and can be respectfully debated amongst mature Christians. The impression your statement gives is that this is a major source of contention among Christians. Having been a Christian for over three decades, I have only ever heard of one denomination that claims, "baptism a requirement for salvation" (plus a handful of individuals outside of that particular "denomination"). Overwhelmingly, Christians consider water baptism to be important, but ultimately "symbolic". Since most Christians undergo water baptism regardless, the debate is a non-issue - except for those few who are determined to make it an issue. This again, is a matter of impression. From my perspective, this specific contention is very rarely discussed between Christians. There are possibly a few groups who consider this to be a significant doctrine, but it's certainly not a major source of contention between Christian "denominations". I think this conclusion is based on an exclusively negative impression of what "denominations" represent. I can only speak anecdotally, but your impression does not reflect the reality of my experience. For the most part, denominational labels simply differentiate one group of Christians performing one particular function, from other groups of Christians performing different functions. We are all one Church, one body. Yes - contentions exist within the Body of Christ. However, "denominations" themselves are not typically defined by contentions. A hand can be joined to an arm and still be called a "hand" (and the arm still called an "arm") and continue to perform the function of a hand (and the arm perform the function of an arm). The true danger is when the arm compels the hand to perform the function of an arm - claiming arms to be the "One Body of believers". I consider this tolerance to be typical. No-one is denying that disagreements exist, but with relative few exceptions, we get along despite our disagreements - or at least get-on with what God has assigned to us. Fighting between churches is the rare exception. This is an unfortunate Generalization. I have encountered varied degrees of education in every "denomination". I think Christian education depends on the commitment of each individual, rather than the group they belong to (though leadership certainly has an influence). Any ministry that discourages Bible study is closer to a cult, than a Christian denomination. This is how you label your "church". Denominations are simply one way to label (i.e. distinguish between) different types of churches. Though you use the phrase "non-denominational", many would consider this description to be a distinction from other Christians (i.e. describing a "denominational" distinction). This would therefore probably be numbered among the "45,000 denominations". Have you ever held a sincere doctrinal position - only to have the Holy Spirit subsequently correct you. Is it possible (assuming your doctrine is correct) that these other "Churches" sincerely hold Jesus as their Lord, but are simply in error about some doctrines (as you once were)? Maybe your iron can sharpen their iron - such that they can come to the truth. Or maybe it is your iron that needs sharpening. Are you permitted to have "fellowship" with unbelievers? If not, how will they hear the Gospel? Yet it seems inconsistent to be forbidden to have "fellowship" with those who say they are Christians, but who also still need a witness to the truth. Is it possible that this impression is based on your own Pastor's reluctance to engage with those outside of his bubble of Christianity. My impression is nearly the opposite of yours. It is easy for mature-minded Christians to set aside minor disagreements for the sake of unity and the Gospel. Wow. It seems to me that you are letting confirmation bias influence your perspective. That is, you are taking historical occasions when Christians have behaved the poorest against each other - and allowing those instances to unduly influence your impression of current Christianity. You are throwing out the proverbial 'baby with the bathwater'. Again - no-one is denying that people calling themselves Christians have behaved atrociously towards each other (nor that some still do). But that is not (in my experience) a fair representation of the state of the Christian church as a whole.

They have their place, but the problem is people often treat generalizations as a "rule" and that's where the issue comes in. Sorry - I was trying to be funny - and obviously failing miserably.

Yes - when Jesus' physical body was forming, Jesus remained "eternal". The term "eternal" is absolutist - which, by definition, means Jesus' existence cannot be restricted by any physical boundary. The existence and formation of Jesus' human body does not logically compromise His "eternal" status. PS. Apologies if I'm repeating the arguments of others. I haven't had a chance to read through the thread yet.

Yep - that's what I figured. And they don't necessarily contradict. Therefore, both can be true at the same time.

Generalizations are always unwise. ;)

As has already been mentioned, there are several possible motives behind suicidal ideation. Generalizations (like labelling them all "cowards") are therefore lacking in both thoughtfulness and rational consideration. Nevertheless, it's an interesting question doctrinally. Is Jesus really the Lord of someone who decides to take their own life? Does not confessing Jesus as Lord mean that we have given our life to Him? The time of our demise is therefore His decision, not ours. By contrast, if a person can enter into God's eternity having had a sick/broken body, it stands to reason that one can enter into God's eternity having had a sick/broken mind. On this latter point, I consider most suicidal ideation to be an expression of mental illness - i.e. a lack of rational perspective and a deprivation of hope. Ultimately, only God knows our heart. And God is fair and just and merciful. I would suggest, on balance of potential outcomes, that suicide is not worth the risk. Physical death comes to us all in short-enough order. But as for judging others - I will leave them in God's just and merciful hands.

I "think" the question would better reflect scripture if rephrased as a statement; "Begotten Son" and "Eternal Son".

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Acts 17:10-12 10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. Luke 4:16-22 16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” 20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” I am "suspect" of those who refuse to see that the "Old Covenant" points to Jesus. Galatians 3:21-25 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Here's my concern: You initially stated that the minister repeatedly claimed himself to love money. I posted a scripture declaring "the love of money" to be "a root of all manner of evils". Your "impression" was that I supported his love of money. I don't know how you can sensibly interpret my response that way. I am therefore starting to wonder if you have entered the conversation with a strong confirmation bias - that is causing you to exaggerate your complaints against this particular ministry. But yes - I agree that promoting a love of money is unBiblical - and therefore inappropriate for a Christian minister. The existence of God is self-evidently a core premise of the Christian faith. Anyone preaching otherwise is not Christian - by definition. They would be atheists. This is where I start to wonder if your "impression" is an exaggeration. The Bible teaches us that no one is "good" in God's eyes - and that His favor is a matter of His grace, and not our own goodness. I have seen many churches become out-of-balance with their teaching on giving, but does the ministry you are referring to really teach that the "ONLY thing you have to do is tithe"? Or is that simply your exaggerated "impression" of their teaching? You said: "Great, so money is god, I'm god, and I can think that I’m equal to Christ, and love money money money money. I love money I love money i love money, and there is no other god but me. And God doesn't care if I'm a good person or sin all the time, he only cares about how much money I tithe. I'm equal to Jesus, that is a good thing to think and preach, and believe. I can't wait to tell the kids that they are equal to Jesus because of their tithes and that they don’t have to believe in God or go to church, all they have to do is send in checks of 10% to the local church, and they are right with God. And it's okay for them to be lovers of money. Okay, I’m learning a lot of good Bible from this forum" Unless you genuinely consider these beliefs to be "great" - and sincerely "can't wait to tell the kids that they are equal to Jesus because of their tithes" etc. - and being genuine when you say you are "learning a lot of good Bible from this forum", then this whole statement is obviously, self-evidently "sarcastic". It's not about "blame" - you were obviously denigrating the beliefs through sarcasm. This is dishonest. You were clearly being "sarcastic".

None of which anyone in "this forum" has actually said.

Am I the "one guy"? I've been "genuine" about everything I've said. In your short time here, you have demonstrated a tendency to be aggressive, sarcastic and reactive - and to take perfectly sensible comments the wrong way. That will turn people off engaging with you. People choose which conversations they wish to be a part of. There is nothing suspicious about that. No - I have said nothing close to this. People can make money their god - yes. Some people might use a couple of scriptures to claim they can call themselves "a god". But that is a disputable and rare semantic implication of those particular verses (as I said clearly in my first response). No one here has said anything close to what you are claiming. Therefore, this argument is simply disingenuous on your part. Noone here has said anything remotely similar to this. Your sarcasm is therefore based on a lie. Nope. You are arguing against your own imagination. Noone here has suggested this. This question is based on a False Premise. Noone here disagreed with you that the behavior you described would be inappropriate for a Christian minister. Your comment here is a reaction to a contention that doesn't exist.

I think the contrast in verse 5 is between a gift based on generosity, rather than a matter of obligatory pressure. The Corinthian church had "promised" a gift. Paul sent people in advance of himself to make sure their gift was ready - as promised - as a matter of prepared generosity - and not a last-minute grudging obligation. At the individual level, there is no mention of how much one "should give". An individual is to give "as he has determined in his heart, not grudgingly or from compulsion". It therefore is irrelevant how much "one has", but only how generous each individual determines in their heart to be with what they have. Scripture is clear about the "LOVE" of "MONEY". 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. That is an absurd misrepresentation of my stated position; and a ridiculous escalation; and a completely unjustified reaction to what I said in the context I said it. To whom are you addressing this? I did not suggest you take anyone's "advice on what is biblically correct".

"ALL you have to do to get the "favor" of God" is sincerely surrender ownership of your life to Christ as a faith response to His Gospel. In terms of giving money to the church or charity, the Bible says to Christians: 2 Corinthians 9:7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. This is a very minor, semantic, and disputable doctrine based on a single verse from the Old Testament - which Jesus subsequently used to shut down silly religious arguments of His time. Do they typically teach it in that "church", or did one of their ministers simply say it a few times? If it is taught typically, then they have elevated the issue out-of-balance. Without any context provided, I would interpret that to be a warning against worshipping money. That is, people can make the pursuit of money the highest purpose in their life. I assume that is the context of such a claim. Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Most of the "questions" I've posed are more to help you assess your situation. That is, the answers to those questions might guide you in how you decide to move forward. It sounds to me like it hasn't yet occurred to your husband that he has a responsibility to work on his marriage. Many men think their marriages should just work (of course leaving the wives to make all the concessions - and him enjoying the benefits). The implication for you is that you may have to treat him like an unbeliever in your marriage. That is, for you to go to God and spend time working on you - and leaving your husband in God's hands. Only God can change him - and your efforts to change him are only going to get in God's way. Maybe God will involve you in His plans, or maybe God will do it all for you. Either way, you deciding to be a better Christian/woman/wife will benefit you immensely. You may need to be patient - but that is something you can work on with God. Get the mindset that you are making this effort for God, not your husband. In practice, this means you don't have to complain to your husband anymore - because you have entrusted the situation to God. You can, of course, vent your frustrations to your loving Father - Who will hear your complaints with love and mercy. But the burden for your husband's change now belongs to God. 1 Peter 5:6-7 6 Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, 7 casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you. Matthew 11:28-30 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” Then you are free to spend time with God without distraction. I know this is not necessarily fair - and not why you got married. However, this may be an opportunity for you to deepen your fellowship with God - and work to your favor in the long run.

Involving God through prayer is definitely the most important aspect of my previous response. That makes it a bit tricky (though it does mean there is more hope - i.e. If your husband is open to changing in some areas, then God can use that openness to extend His influence into other areas). The question for me would be - Does he get upset and emotional (e.g. throwing man tantrums) when you raise these issues, or is he simply disagreeing with you (obviously some irritation is to be expected when you are being critical of his behavior). But again, let God guide you regardless. It is outstanding that you are prepared to consider the possibility that the issue may be on your end - but even if that is true, that does not illegitimize how you are feeling. Even if "he is correct", he shouldn't ignore that something in his behavior is causing you distress. I'm not sure I'm qualified to be giving so much advice - but here it is: When he stares at his phone, you take a breath and forgive him. You walk away (not in a huff) and find a quiet place to ask, "Father help me". Then move on to something else. If your husband asks where you are going, you (without expressing negative emotions) tell him he looks busy, and you'll chat to him later. If he says he can do both, you tell him that it doesn't feel like you have his attention when he's on his phone - but it's ok, you can talk when he's finished. As a possible side issue - Does your husband talk much at work? I know some marriages where the husband talks all day at work, and when he gets home, the wife gives him an hour-or-so to decompress from all that talking before she starts trying to have a conversation with him. I am confident that God appreciates when we are prepared to do the right thing - even when we are being poorly treated by others. However, 1 - As you learn to lean on God and let Him change you, you will become less bothered by your husband's behavior. If your husband is on His phone, you can always talk to God, and He will always listen. 2 - With God there is always hope. God loves you. He will not leave you in a bad situation. As you seek Him, and honor Him by letting Him change you, He will entrench Himself in your marriage.

Firstly, I would pray that God shows you the correct timing to raise these issues with your husband. Nagging is a repetitive (and usually poorly timed) expression of frustration which leaves God out of the equation. I would then suggest two strategies - depending on the nature of your relationship (with each other and with God): Strategy 1 - When you say, "we are following Christ and should conduct in Christ like manner", does that mean he is a devout Christian who is eager to grow in Christ, and in his role as Christian husband and father. Or is he doing his minimal Christian duties - and making you take the spiritual lead? Does he want to change and seek God's will, or is he happy with the 'status quo' in your relationship? If you're not sure, you might be able to ask him, "Are you happy with things the way they are - and would you prefer me to keep my concerns to myself?". You should be very careful to emphasize the fact that you are not judging nor condemning him - you just need to know where you stand - so you can pray that God will change you; to give you what you need to be a good wife in the marriage you've been given. If he seems uninterested in change, then your only option is to entrust the situation to God. Essentially, you need to treat him like an unbelieving husband. Pray first that God will help you be the best wife you can be, and also that God will give your husband a passion to grow into his destiny as a Christian, a husband and father, and a spiritual leader. Only God can change us/him. Nagging will only lead to frustration and resentment. 1 Peter 3:1-2 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. Strategy 2 - If he is devout, and open to change, then the next time you have his ear (with God's direction), ask him if there is anything you can do for him to make you a better wife to him. [Note: steal your emotions before this conversation - because he may say things that you don't want to hear - and you have to be able to hear what he says without becoming offended. Be sincere, ask for clarification/examples if necessary. If you feel your emotions rising - smile - and say, "That's a bit hard to hear, but I did ask - and I'll take it to God and try to do better in those areas".] Hopefully he'll be prompted to ask the same question to you. But if not, now that you've established a safe communication space (by not becoming offended), you can ask him if you can share a few "minor" concerns you have about him. Emphasize that they are only minor/small/little things. Note: Even if he says there's nothing you can improve, you can still ask permission to express your concerns to him. Also remember that he hasn't emotionally prepared for the conversation - and so may react emotionally. And you might need to de-escalate the conversation if he starts to get offended. "Sorry, I didn't want to make you upset. Let's not talk about it anymore". Maybe have a plan to move on (e.g. how about I make you some lunch, or a snack, or a coffee, or how about we watch our favorite show, or go out to dinner etc.) - something to show it's not a major issue that you want to pursue to his upset (but now there is a seed in his mind for God to work on). Finally pray - as above - first for yourself to be a better wife, then for him to grow into his destiny as a Godly man.

I don't ritually set out to "memorize verses". However, sometimes I will find a verse that I want to remember correctly - and so go over it several times to make sure I remember it right. I also like to read scripture out loud. I find that puts the pattern of the words in my brain a bit more securely - as well as the context. It's like remembering a poem, or a song after hearing it over and over - i.e. getting to know how each phrase fits into the overall structure of the narrative.

The purpose of Christian prophesy is to encourage believers. 1 Corinthians 14:3 he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men This word from your "aunt" was not a prophesy from God, but a lie from the accuser of our brethren (Revelation 12:9-10); the father of lies (John 8:44). You should refuse to allow yourself to meditate on lies. It's time you started learning how to rule over your flesh. This is part of growing up as a Christian. Maybe no-one ever taught you that you can decide to walk in peace and not anger. You can decide to forbid anger any permission to steal your time and energy. It won't be easy at the start - since your flesh is conditioned to getting its own way. Though it sounds like God has organized ample opportunity for you to practice. Assuming you make that decision: When anger comes to steal your time, you refuse it - you tell it "No - I am not going to think about that issue in that way". You remind your flesh that Jesus has given you peace (John 14:27), and you are choosing that peace. Furthermore, you have His joy to strengthen you (Nehemiah 8:10). That is, find appropriate, encouraging scriptures to quote at your anger - to put your flesh back in its place. This is how we renew our minds (Romans 12:2); to bring our thoughts into line with God (2 Corinthians 10:5). To be very clear, it won't be easy. You will do the right thing - only to find yourself thinking about it 30 seconds later. Your flesh will push against it all the way. But it's all practice - till we get stronger, and eventually overcome. Ask God for His help over and over - since we can only change by His Spirit, and not our own efforts. Zechariah 4:6 ... ‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ Says the Lord of hosts. Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? Luke 1:37 For with God nothing will be impossible.

I would respectfully suggest that, whilst claiming to be Christian, he had not actually been "enlightened", nor had he "tasted the heavenly gift", nor partaken of the Holy Spirit, nor "tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come". If he had truly experienced these, it would not have been so easy to derail his supposed "faith".

I'd suggest (admittedly going only by your description) that he was only playing Christian - but internally, looking for a reason (no matter how weak or silly) to walk away from Christianity. Mark 4:16-19 These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness; and they have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time. Afterward, when tribulation or persecution arises for the word’s sake, immediately they stumble. Now these are the ones sown among thorns; they are the ones who hear the word, and the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things entering in choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

I think there are scriptures you could use to support your argument, however Galatians is Paul's treatise about freedom from Law specifically - and a warning for Christians to not place ourselves under subjection to Law.

God will sometimes use disillusion to weed pretenders out of the church. The Bible speaks of Christians having an enduring faith. That means every Christian having a conversation with God where you come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if the whole world turns against me, and/or mistreats me (including respected Christians) - no matter what befalls me, it's me and You God forever. The prospective atheists in your provided narrative were mistreated by a representative of the church. If they had known Christ for themselves, this incident would not have hindered their Christian faith. They may have changed congregations - or even left the church altogether, but they would not have rejected Christ. But two of them did reject their Christian faith - demonstrating that they never knew Jesus to begin with. Those who do not know Christ and know that they don't know Christ are closer to Christ (and truth) than those who think they know Christ, but don't really know Christ. It is therefore better to be an atheist than a pretend Christian.

They are the same anti-Christ spirit. It would not make sense for the anti-Christ spirit to shine the light of truth on itself. Matthew 12:25-26 ... Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?

I'd see this as akin to the nursing situation: If you apply for a job that entails unChristian behavior, then you can't complain when they expect unChristian behaviors from you. However, if you apply for a job under one set of conditions, and then the rules change to "force" you to go against your faith, that is discriminatory against the person of faith. With regards to respect for human rights, a state should not place one in a position to have to choose between their job and their faith. Again - there is a reasonable solution. Rather than have the Christian sacrifice their right to religious freedom, they could let the Christian do their job as normal, and have someone else in the office perform the "weddings" of gay couples. That would be the solution if equality and protection of human rights was really the goal. The gradation of sin is God's purview. There is no such thing as "2 men marry" in the eyes of God, since "marry" has always meant a union between a man and a woman. People outside of Christianity are free to live in whatever manner they please. However, hijacking the term "marriage" for gay unions undermines "marriage" in general (across all of society) - which is no-doubt the goal of the-powers-that-be. Malachi 2:14 Yet you say, “For what reason?” Because the Lord has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. This "covenant" has nothing to do with state recognition. If it is a "covenant" promise between a man and a women, then yes - that is what "marriage" has always meant (until recently). Therefore, gay couples being desperate to call their unions "marriages" (and getting their way) correlates to the rest of society having a diminished respect for "marriage". Agreed. God has no respect for paperwork produced by the state.

Not "always". Marriage was the exclusive purview of the church throughout Europe until the early 1800s. Recognizing the value of marriage to societal cohesion and stability, the state gradually wrestled the power of marriage away from the church. And now, the state presumes to redefine marriage - such that "marriage", according to the original definition, is no longer widely recognized. But yes, there have long been forces in the world seeking to undermine the sanctity of marriage. First, they got control of marriage, then they went about legislating to weaken marriage (to "a piece of paper"), and now they attempt to redefine God's original intent for marriage out of existence. To accomplish this goal, they needed to specifically hijack the term "marriage". Equality under law could have been achieved through invoking a different term to exclusively describe to gay unions. But that would have failed to dilute and diminish "marriage". There is only One Who's approval matters. A state-administered "piece of paper" has no transcendent meaning or value. To "force" (or coerce) someone to act against their Christian faith is absolutely "discrimination towards christians". It is tyrannical "discrimination" against Christians - yes. OK - that's a bit different. If you apply for a job where they perform "abortions", then you can't complain that they expect you to perform "abortions". Since your "friend" had the option to apply her chosen vocation elsewhere, she was not really "forced" to act against her conscience. As with the baker example, there was a reasonable solution available to reconcile the clash of values - without anyone's rights being affected (apart from the unborn children). Yes. So religious leaders should be prohibited from being religious leaders if they refuse to compromise their own beliefs? The removal (or restriction) of religious freedom is indeed tyranny. The concept of human rights exists to protect minority groups from such persecution (e.g. compromise your beliefs or "get another job") - even from (especially from) democratic majorities. The point of human rights is that all humans have inherent dignity and value - such that the state has no authority to undermine - and is, in fact, morally and legally obligated to protect.