Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dancer67

Can you be a Christian and still

Recommended Posts

If it's is a covenant, why don't so many keep to it? I know many, many, many Christians who are divorced and remarried, yet attend church regularly and feel free to judge gays and lesbians. My own parents are examples of this.
One of my husband's uncles has been married and divorced so often we joke that it would be more efficient if marriage certificates came with a declaration of divorce on the back. But you'd be hard pressed to find someone more against gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must we point out once again that hypocrites are also judged in the Bible?

I have had gay friends, but they know that I can not condone their lifestyle and that is where they have the problem. I will continue to love them through their sin...but they want me to accept/condone/or even promote their lifestyle...I serve my God not the desires of man. I would do the same for a friend who is committing adultery or other sin. It is our responsibility to help our fallen brothers/sisters in Christ see their sin and pray for them to be seeking Him not the sin.

 

I have never ended a friendship with a gay person, but they choose not to pursue a deeper one with me

IMO, these points are very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:iagree:

 

I've said it before in similar threads. I see the "homosexuality is a sin" or "acting on homosexual orientation is a sin" as on the same continuum of active, violent hate.

 

It is hate if homosexuals are told (or thought of) as willfully continuing in sin, and therefore are going to hell. It is *hate* to tell anyone they are going to hell. Particularly so when you are condemning them to hell for the way they love.

 

It *is* hate to tell an entire group of people that God considers them an "abomination". It *is* hate to say "Hate the sin, love the sinner" when the "sin" you hate is part of their core, their being, their intimacy, their connection, their love, their affection.

 

It *is* hate to speak of "homosexual lifestyle" as if that communicates anything about their behavior, character, or values. It *is* hate to say "it's between them and God" when homosexuals aren't given the same protection by the laws of the land for property rights, medical access, financial benefits, insurance coverage. It *is* hate when you say "I don't mind homosexuals but I want them to keep their PDA private" and you aren't comfortable with the same level of affection as you would be with a heterosexual couple.

 

It *is* hate when believing homosexuals can't serve in Christian settings as Leaders, Pastors, volunteers. It *is* hate when people don't proclaim loud and clear that homosexual is not synonymous with promiscuity, or perversion of sexuality.

 

It *is* hate when marriage is defined as "man and woman". Or when the Christian Bible has ideas superimposed onto it such as because God's biology creates children out of heterosexual engagement, *homosexual physical engagement* is not God's design (also).

 

It *is* hate when sexual minorites have a higher rate of suicide, addiction, and other mental health issues. Research shows this is not because of their orientation (or gender related issues) but because of the culture's and their family's reaction to it.

 

I have been following this thread and have kept my mouth shut because I don't want to stir the pot. Some comments I agree with and some I don't. Most have been very civilized and respectful in their tone and for that I am grateful. Joanne, your post is one I can't comprehend. I don't understand how to relate so many of these beliefs with hatred! If I disagree with someone I can still love them and have a good relationship with them. I don't equate difference of opinion with hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this article on another forum and thought it would be good to add to the topic for the OP and others to see:

 

Rev. Mohler is the president of the Southern baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

 

from the wall street journal printed july 1, 2011

 

The Christian church has faced no shortage of challenges in its 2,000-year history. But now it's facing a challenge that is shaking its foundations: h*m*s*xuality.

 

To many onlookers, this seems strange or even tragic. Why can't Christians just join the revolution?

 

And make no mistake, it is a moral revolution. As philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah of Princeton University demonstrated in his recent book, "The Honor Code," moral revolutions generally happen over a long period of time. But this is hardly the case with the shift we've witnessed on the question of h*m*s*xuality.

 

In less than a single generation, h*m*s*xuality has gone from something almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be the moral equivalent of heterosexuality—and deserving of both legal protection and public encouragement. Theo Hobson, a British theologian, has argued that this is not just the waning of a taboo. Instead, it is a moral inversion that has left those holding the old morality now accused of nothing less than "moral deficiency."

 

The liberal churches and denominations have an easy way out of this predicament. They simply accommodate themselves to the new moral reality. By now the pattern is clear: These churches debate the issue, with conservatives arguing to retain the older morality and liberals arguing that the church must adapt to the new one. Eventually, the liberals win and the conservatives lose. Next, the denomination ordains openly g*y candidates or decides to bless same-s@x unions.

 

This is a route that evangelical Christians committed to the full authority of the Bible cannot take. Since we believe that the Bible is God's revealed word, we cannot accommodate ourselves to this new morality. We cannot pretend as if we do not know that the Bible clearly teaches that all H*mos*xual acts are sinful, as is all human S@xual behavior outside the covenant of marriage. We believe that God has revealed a pattern for human sexuality that not only points the way to holiness, but to true happiness.

 

 

 

Getty Images/Comstock Images.

 

Thus we cannot accept the seductive arguments that the liberal churches so readily adopt. The fact that same-s@x marriage is a now a legal reality in several states means that we must further stipulate that we are bound by scripture to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman—and nothing else.

 

We do so knowing that most Americans once shared the same moral assumptions, but that a new world is coming fast. We do not have to read the polls and surveys; all we need to do is to talk to our neighbors or listen to the cultural chatter.

 

In this most awkward cultural predicament, evangelicals must be excruciatingly clear that we do not speak about the sinfulness of h*m*s*xuality as if we have no sin. As a matter of fact, it is precisely because we have come to know ourselves as sinners and of our need for a savior that we have come to faith in Jesus Christ. Our greatest fear is not that h*m*s*xuality will be normalized and accepted, but that h*m*sexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins.

 

This is not a concern that is easily expressed in sound bites. But it is what we truly believe.

 

It is now abundantly clear that evangelicals have failed in so many ways to meet this challenge. We have often spoken about h*m*s*xuality in ways that are crude and simplistic. We have failed to take account of how tenaciously sexuality comes to define us as human beings. We have failed to see the challenge of h*m*s*xuality as a Gospel issue. We are the ones, after all, who are supposed to know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only remedy for sin, starting with our own.

 

We have demonstrated our own form of homophobia—not in the way that activists have used that word, but in the sense that we have been afraid to face this issue where it is most difficult . . . face to face.

 

My hope is that evangelicals are ready now to take on this challenge in a new and more faithful way. We really have no choice, for we are talking about our own brothers and sisters, our own friends and neighbors, or maybe the young person in the next pew.

 

There is no escaping the fact that we are living in the midst of a moral revolution. And yet, it is not the world around us that is being tested, so much as the believing church. We are about to find out just how much we believe the Gospel we so eagerly preach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been following this thread and have kept my mouth shut because I don't want to stir the pot. Some comments I agree with and some I don't. Most have been very civilized and respectful in their tone and for that I am grateful. Joanne, your post is one I can't comprehend. I don't understand how to relate so many of these beliefs with hatred! If I disagree with someone I can still love them and have a good relationship with them. I don't equate difference of opinion with hatred.

 

Because people aren't trying to legislate issues surrounding gluttony.

 

Because people don't hold rallies about being "anti-glutton".

 

Because ALL "sin" is NOT treated the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been following this thread and have kept my mouth shut because I don't want to stir the pot. Some comments I agree with and some I don't. Most have been very civilized and respectful in their tone and for that I am grateful. Joanne, your post is one I can't comprehend. I don't understand how to relate so many of these beliefs with hatred! If I disagree with someone I can still love them and have a good relationship with them. I don't equate difference of opinion with hatred.

 

It's not just a difference of opinion, though.

 

I mean this gently. . .

 

If you are a Christian, and it is one of the most important part of your life and your being, and you can't see yourself as separate from your Christian faith. . .and someone says that they hate your Christianity--doesn't that hurt you too? No matter how much they say they love you?

 

I don't know you, but when I was a Christian, that would have been accurate for me.

 

I would have said, "How can you hate the very reason I live, my life, my soul, an innate part of me. . . yet love me?"

 

How can you hate an innate part of a gay person, their identity, their truth, their loves, hate an inextricable part of them. . . but love them?

 

I realize that most people who say these things don't hate gay people, but I don't think they really understand that homosexuality is a vital part of people, much like faith. . . except faith is a matter of choice and homosexuality isn't.

 

I think homosexuals feel hated because no one goes to the ballot box to try to limit the amount of food gluttons can eat, or how many times a Christian can be divorced and remarried, or any number of other sins. But when it comes to two people, committing their lives to taking care of one another, and having the same protections that heterosexual couples do, some Christians can't wait for the chance to run to the box.

 

I think this can certainly be construed as hateful behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think homosexuals feel hated because no one goes to the ballot box to try to limit the amount of food gluttons can eat, or how many times a Christian can be divorced and remarried, or any number of other sins.

I'm having some trouble understanding this analogy.

 

For one thing, I tend to think that parents would object if someone:

 

wanted to come into a kindergarten class and use picture books to teach children that gluttony was just another, equally lovely way of eating,

 

or showed children movies encouraging them to experiment with gluttony and see whether or not they liked it (cf. Scotland in the 1990's),

 

or legislated that teachers have to point out the special contributions of gluttonous people during history (cf. California, right now).

 

If a doctor told a gluttonous person that his or her eating habits were unhealthy, would you consider that hateful? After all, perhaps the person has a genetic inclination to overeat. It could be a deep-seated, lifelong tendency that the person considers fundamental to his or her emotional well-being.

 

What if the government were being pressured to create new nutritional guidelines offering gluttony as an alternative eating plan, to reorganize social and educational programs to accommodate this, and to require WIC counselors to teach this or lose their jobs? Would people who voted against this plan be presumed to be "hateful?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm having some trouble understanding this analogy.

 

For one thing, I tend to think that parents would object if someone:

 

wanted to come into a kindergarten class and use picture books to teach children that gluttony was just another, equally lovely way of eating,

 

or showed children movies encouraging them to experiment with gluttony and see whether or not they liked it (cf. Scotland in the 1990's),

 

or legislated that teachers have to point out the special contributions of gluttonous people during history (cf. California, right now).

 

If a doctor told a gluttonous person that his or her eating habits were unhealthy, would you consider that hateful? After all, perhaps the person has a genetic inclination to overeat. It could be a deep-seated, lifelong tendency that the person considers fundamental to his or her emotional well-being.

 

What if the government were being pressured to create new nutritional guidelines offering gluttony as an alternative eating plan, to reorganize social and educational programs to accommodate this, and to require WIC counselors to teach this or lose their jobs? Would people who voted against this plan be presumed to be "hateful?"

 

 

The way this is worded is straight from places like the AFA and completely misrepresents why schools are now requiring teachers to handle LGBTQ topics. Sources like the AFA completely disregard the fact that gay kids are more likely to deal with substance abuse and attempt suicide due to the homophobia.

 

When they couch it in terms like "gay agenda" (a term that I realize you did not use in your reply, but is germaine to this discussion nonetheless) they ignore the reason behind this. When faced with this type of outspoken opposition some kids cave and just want to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Mammaduck (i understood your post fine) and Eleanor.

 

I tend to believe the government should stay out of the bedrooms and relationships of consenting adults no matter what their orientation.

 

I'm not Christian and you will never convince that being gay is a choice. I have a friend from high school who struggled with his sexual orientation for several years before finally admitting to himself that yes he was gay. I saw the hurt in him after being rejected by his foster parents (the people who claimed to love and accept him as one of their own). Why would anyone choose to put themselves through that kind of pain?

 

I dont in anyway hold all Christions responsible for actions of Phelps and others like him, but I do wish there more leaders of mainstream Christianity speaking out against the hate that is being perpetuated in the name of god. I know and love many Christians and it hurts me when I see all Christians being painted with a big wide brush because of the actions of a few and I do see this happening.

 

I don't have a problem with people believing it wrong, freedom of religion and all that. I don't even have a problem with churches that don't allow homosexuals in a position of leadership if that is there belief. Not sure why someone who is gay would choose to attend a church like that when there are other churches more accepting of them.

 

What I do have a problem with is Hate for any group just because they are different from you. I do have a problem with people whose actions are completely contradictory to the scriptures they claim to hold so dear. You know those parts about hating the sin not the sinner, love thy neighbor, and pulling the log out of ones own eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's is a covenant, why don't so many keep to it? I know many, many, many Christians who are divorced and remarried, yet attend church regularly...

 

Wait. What?

 

Has it occurred to you that many divorced people tried their best to save their marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not just a difference of opinion, though.

 

I mean this gently. . .

 

If you are a Christian, and it is one of the most important part of your life and your being, and you can't see yourself as separate from your Christian faith. . .and someone says that they hate your Christianity--doesn't that hurt you too? No matter how much they say they love you?

No this does not hurt 'me'....you're assumption is wrong. It makes me hurt..but for them, not me.

 

I don't know you, but when I was a Christian, that would have been accurate for me.

I would then question how deep was your knowledge of the Word and how convicted/convinced were you of your faith.

 

I would have said, "How can you hate the very reason I live, my life, my soul, an innate part of me. . . yet love me?"

That is what you would have said, I would not...I would have said how desperate is man's condition that sin separates Him from His Father...there was a reason many of the disciples ended up being martyrs..they did not care what people thought of them...it was furthering the Kingdom that mattered..not our own sensitivities.

 

How can you hate an innate part of a gay person, their identity, their truth, their loves, hate an inextricable part of them. . . but love them?

I hate sin..as simple as that. I love the person, the precious soul that was created and has free will...but I never have to love/like the sin.

 

I realize that most people who say these things don't hate gay people, but I don't think they really understand that homosexuality is a vital part of people, much like faith. . . except faith is a matter of choice and homosexuality isn't.

Sin is never a vital part of a person...it may greatly influence their decisions but they could live without it, (addressing your term vital)..I disagree...all sin is a choice...we choose to sin or we do not. It is not thrust upon us...again, my source is biblical, yours is reasoning from man.

 

I think homosexuals feel hated because no one goes to the ballot box to try to limit the amount of food gluttons can eat, or how many times a Christian can be divorced and remarried, or any number of other sins. But when it comes to two people, committing their lives to taking care of one another, and having the same protections that heterosexual couples do, some Christians can't wait for the chance to run to the box.

For 10 years now, the pedophiles out there have urgently and aggressively tried to remove this 'behavior' from the DSMIII- the manual on deviant behaviors...they believe man/child love is natural and only unacceptable because of the social mores placed upon society. Fifty years ago, homosexuality was also in the DSMIII...as deviant...at what point do we say, well this is- but this isn't? For me, it is biblical..regardless of what the laws of the land may be forced to say (50 years ago, homosexual acts were against the law in many states, still are in some) now they aren't in areas, but the truths in the Bible have withstood 50-100-2000 years...I'll go with that over the temporary justices in this generation.

 

I think this can certainly be construed as hateful behavior.

 

And, I do not believe this can certainly be construed as hateful behavior, why must I be tolerant of those who go against my religion but they are not tolerant of mine? I am intolerant towards all sin, I give no levels of degrees to any of them....but first and foremost, I seek to be faithful...I can love those who sin, but do not love the sin, and that does not make me hateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm having some trouble understanding this analogy.

 

For one thing, I tend to think that parents would object if someone:

 

wanted to come into a kindergarten class and use picture books to teach children that gluttony was just another, equally lovely way of eating,

 

or showed children movies encouraging them to experiment with gluttony and see whether or not they liked it (cf. Scotland in the 1990's),

 

or legislated that teachers have to point out the special contributions of gluttonous people during history (cf. California, right now).

 

If a doctor told a gluttonous person that his or her eating habits were unhealthy, would you consider that hateful? After all, perhaps the person has a genetic inclination to overeat. It could be a deep-seated, lifelong tendency that the person considers fundamental to his or her emotional well-being.

 

What if the government were being pressured to create new nutritional guidelines offering gluttony as an alternative eating plan, to reorganize social and educational programs to accommodate this, and to require WIC counselors to teach this or lose their jobs? Would people who voted against this plan be presumed to be "hateful?"

 

This is a prime example of a false equivalence fallacy.

This happens when one uses a comparable example which is fine on the surface, but are not similar on the manner invoked.

 

Here are the big ones.

 

Gluttony is a choice--to varying degrees.

Homosexuality is not (no more than heterosexuality)

 

Teaching children to overeat is harmful to them.

Teaching children that Sally has two Mommies does not, and Billy has two Daddies, and Monique has a Mommy and Daddy does not. (Furthermore, children of loving, gay couples are just as happy and healthy as those of loving straight couples. Children of obese parents tend to have similar eating/health issues).

 

Gluttony is physically harmful to the body.

Homosexual sex and cohabitation between consenting adults is no more harmful than heterosexual sex between consenting adults, and can be safe, pleasurable, and healthful.

 

Telling a glutton to eat less is not hateful if the doctor is trying to preserve the glutton's life. If non-gluttons are out passing legislation that prevents the glutton from being treated as non-gluttons, I would say that's hateful.

 

I don't think you don't understand the analogy. You did a decent job of turning it on it's head. :001_smile:

 

But your argument is fallacious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way this is worded is straight from places like the AFA

Um, no. :confused: In case this wasn't clear, I didn't come up with the analogy to gluttony; Ipsey did. I was just pointing out why (IMO) it didn't make the desired point.

 

Regarding children and teens, I believe it's possible for schools to teach young people to be kind to one another -- no name-calling, bullying, teasing about family situations, etc. -- without necessarily promoting a specific set of moral views that many parents find objectionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think homosexuals feel hated because no one goes to the ballot box to try to limit the amount of food gluttons can eat, or how many times a Christian can be divorced and remarried, or any number of other sins. But when it comes to two people, committing their lives to taking care of one another, and having the same protections that heterosexual couples do, some Christians can't wait for the chance to run to the box.

 

I think this can certainly be construed as hateful behavior.

 

Because people aren't trying to legislate issues surrounding gluttony.

 

Because people don't hold rallies about being "anti-glutton".

 

Because ALL "sin" is NOT treated the same.

Interesting points. I never really thought about it before, as I have never voted. Lots to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting line to read/ponder. Leads to some equally interesting and plausible conclusions.

 

In general, -- (of course somebody is going to parse this innocent post to death) -- a person who adheres to a religion that places a deity in the position of authority, of meriting worship, and similar, has placed himself under the guidance/direction/authority of that deity. (or plural deities, depending on the religion) Typically, that deity indicates what is "right and wrong" for people.

 

If I "can't agree with a religion that thinks it's okay to decide what's right and wrong for another person", I have done one of two things.

 

I outright have rejected the concepts of "right and wrong" according to the religion, because the deity's opinions should not govern my own behaviour, either. (this conclusion because I am "another person" separate from the deity)

 

Or

 

I have positioned myself as the deity, with sole authority to define "right and wrong".

 

 

I can't agree with a religion that thinks it's okay to decide what's right and wrong for another person. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, no. :confused: In case this wasn't clear, I didn't come up with the analogy to gluttony; Ipsey did. I was just pointing out why (IMO) it didn't make the desired point.

 

Regarding children and teens, I believe it's possible for schools to teach young people to be kind to one another -- no name-calling, bullying, teasing about family situations, etc. -- without necessarily promoting a specific set of moral views that many parents find objectionable.

 

I think you've misunderstood, Eleanor.

Your response, expanding upon my gluttony metaphor with your longer analogy is what ThatCyndiGirl is objecting to.

 

The false equivalence is one of AFA's favorite fallacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a prime example of a false equivalence fallacy.

This happens when one uses a comparable example which is fine on the surface, but are not similar on the manner invoked.

I didn't think that they (ETA: homosexual acts and gluttony) were particularly comparable examples. It appeared that you did, as you were the one who suggested the comparison in the first place. I was confused about why you chose this example to make your point, as it didn't seem to hold up to closer examination (and apparently we're agreed on that).

 

Homosexual sex and cohabitation between consenting adults is no more harmful than heterosexual sex between consenting adults, and can be safe, pleasurable, and healthful.
People on this board have diverse beliefs and opinions on this subject. The question at hand was: on what grounds can it be automatically considered "hateful" for someone to disagree with the above statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About legislation: I am on a forum where a man was trying to argue the point that we should establish the Mosaic Law as our guide to US legislation and therefore homosexual acts should incur the death penalty.

 

Now THAT is hate!

 

I can tell you that myself and several other Christians argued with this man up and down and rebuked him severely, and we also called him out for hate mongering... but we believe that homosexual acts are a sin (and several of us have engaged in those acts).

 

I think that many people want Christians to condone homosexual behavior, accepting it completely, and they believe that anything less is hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way:

 

I've been fat and I've been thin. I have NEVER IN MY LIFE, while fat or thin, faced the sort of blatant, outright, in-your-face discrimination and ugliness that my dd faces. My family of origin cannot know that she is gay. My neighbor has been outspoken in his support of Sally Kern so he is not a safe person to know, either.

 

Christians will say openly IN CHURCH, "we are all going to the buffet after services!" Can you imagine if they were saying, "I'm gonna go have gay sex!" ??? :confused: Can you FEEL the outpouring of love that they might experience? :001_huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For 10 years now, the pedophiles out there have urgently and aggressively tried to remove this 'behavior' from the DSMIII- the manual on deviant behaviors...they believe man/child love is natural and only unacceptable because of the social mores placed upon society.

 

I hope I am wrong, but it seems to me you are implying an association between homosexuality and pedophilia that goes beyond a mere comparison of social acceptance.

 

That is to say, there is a connotation that men who are attracted to other men, simply by being born gay, are automatically suspected as potential predators of boys. I have encountered this attitude more than once.

 

I have to point out the obvious corollary to this: if homosexual men are more likely to prey on boys, simply because of orientation, then every heterosexual man out there is also a potential sexual predator of girls.

 

It bothers me because I don't think that any adult, who is interested in an exclusive, consensual, and loving relationship with another adult, should be categorically lumped together with people who prey on children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you imagine if they were saying, "I'm gonna go have gay sex!" ??? :confused: Can you FEEL the outpouring of love that they might experience? :001_huh:

 

Literally. ::snicker::

 

That would be such a FUN church!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

Homosexuality is not (no more than heterosexuality)

 

.

 

This is not a fact...it's like saying the moon is white...when the sun reflects upon it ...it 'looks' white..but it is not truly white...just look at the rocks...

 

I have known personally over 20 homosexuals in my life...not a good sampling, but when you base it upon the many others that I have been able to hear in their own words...I am more apt to believe it is nurture not nature. I have yet to meet one that did not either have abuse as a child or came from a disadvantaged home (you referenced one in foster care)....Many people choose a drug lifestyle because it fills a void in their life, they 'feel' good for a change, they will do anything for that feeling. Who is to say that homosexuality is not a similar reaction...they find acceptance in a culture, it feels 'good' and fills a void. Who of us would say that drug use is acceptable? If it's what they want to do and does not harm anyone else, why should we encourage them to do otherwise?

 

I am not asking you to accept my beliefs but just to open your mind to another possibility...you make several declarative statements, and for each one I feel they are your opinion not a fact...these are mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't think that they were particularly comparable examples. It appeared that you did, as you were the one who suggested the comparison in the first place. I was confused about why you chose this example to make your point, as it didn't seem to hold up to closer examination (and apparently we're agreed on that).

 

People on this board have diverse beliefs and opinions on this subject. The question at hand was: on what grounds can it be automatically considered "hateful" for someone to disagree with the above statement?

 

Ok. . .

Let me try to parse this out.

 

I said I thought homosexuals appeared hated because Christians claim there are lots of sins out there, but homosexuality is the one that gets Christians to the ballot box.

 

Here's the quote "I think homosexuals feel hated because no one goes to the ballot box to try to limit the amount of food gluttons can eat, or how many times a Christian can be divorced and remarried, or any number of other sins."

 

The point was, and still is: There are a lot of sins out there, but Christians like to vote against gay people getting human rights, while they don't get up in arms about any other sin.

 

Gluttony is far more dangerous than consenting homosexual families. And both are considered sins in the Bible. Why aren't Christians protesting something actually dangerous, like gluttony? (I mean, it would be crazy, I get that. . . but back to the point>> homosexuality not dangerous. Gluttony dangerous. Christians trying to prohibit human rights for homosexuals)

 

The only reason I brought gluttony in was to show another example of sin in the Bible. Christians aren't out protesting that. They're out protesting homosexuality.

 

Again, I think this could be one of the reasons gays feel hated by Christians.

 

I don't understand the confusion at all.

 

ThatCyndiGirl, am I making sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not a fact...it's like saying the moon is white...when the sun reflects upon it ...it 'looks' white..but it is not truly white...just look at the rocks...

 

I have known personally over 20 homosexuals in my life...not a good sampling, but when you base it upon the many others that I have been able to hear in their own words...I am more apt to believe it is nurture not nature. I have yet to meet one that did not either have abuse as a child or came from a disadvantaged home (you referenced one in foster care)....Many people choose a drug lifestyle because it fills a void in their life, they 'feel' good for a change, they will do anything for that feeling. Who is to say that homosexuality is not a similar reaction...they find acceptance in a culture, it feels 'good' and fills a void. Who of us would say that drug use is acceptable? If it's what they want to do and does not harm anyone else, why should we encourage them to do otherwise?

 

I am not asking you to accept my beliefs but just to open your mind to another possibility...you make several declarative statements, and for each one I feel they are your opinion not a fact...these are mine.

 

That's fine. I have science. You have anecdotal evidence and "apt to believe".

 

I was a Bible believing Christian for years, 23Peas. I was a missionary for 10 years. I was arguing your POV years ago. I did open my mind. And here's where I am now ;)

 

I accepted your beliefs for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope I am wrong, but it seems to me you are implying an association between homosexuality and pedophilia that goes beyond a mere comparison of social acceptance.

 

That is to say, there is a connotation that men who are attracted to other men, simply by being born gay, are automatically suspected as potential predators of boys. I have encountered this attitude more than once.

 

I have to point out the obvious corollary to this: if homosexual men are more likely to prey on boys, simply because of orientation, then every heterosexual man out there is also a potential sexual predator of girls.

 

It bothers me because I don't think that any adult, who is interested in an exclusive, consensual, and loving relationship with another adult, should be categorically lumped together with people who prey on children.

 

Yeah, This.

 

gods this makes me sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok. . .

Let me try to parse this out.

 

I said I thought homosexuals appeared hated because Christians claim there are lots of sins out there, but homosexuality is the one that gets Christians to the ballot box.

 

Here's the quote "I think homosexuals feel hated because no one goes to the ballot box to try to limit the amount of food gluttons can eat, or how many times a Christian can be divorced and remarried, or any number of other sins."

 

The point was, and still is: There are a lot of sins out there, but Christians like to vote against gay people getting human rights, while they don't get up in arms about any other sin.

 

Gluttony is far more dangerous than consenting homosexual families. And both are considered sins in the Bible. Why aren't Christians protesting something actually dangerous, like gluttony? (I mean, it would be crazy, I get that. . . but back to the point>> homosexuality not dangerous. Gluttony dangerous. Christians trying to prohibit human rights for homosexuals)

 

Again, I think this could be one of the reasons gays feel hated by Christians.

 

I don't understand the confusion at all.

 

ThatCyndiGirl, am I making sense?

 

Yeah, you are making sense. I'm just getting stuck on the posters who believe that all or even a majority of gay people have disfunction in their upbringing.

 

:001_huh: How can that not hurt? I should probably just go ahead and admit that I'm a crappy Mom right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope I am wrong, but it seems to me you are implying an association between homosexuality and pedophilia that goes beyond a mere comparison of social acceptance.

 

That is to say, there is a connotation that men who are attracted to other men, simply by being born gay, are automatically suspected as potential predators of boys. I have encountered this attitude more than once.

 

I have to point out the obvious corollary to this: if homosexual men are more likely to prey on boys, simply because of orientation, then every heterosexual man out there is also a potential sexual predator of girls.

 

It bothers me because I don't think that any adult, who is interested in an exclusive, consensual, and loving relationship with another adult, should be categorically lumped together with people who prey on children.

YES, I have also come across this attitude. THANK YOU!

This is not a fact...it's like saying the moon is white...when the sun reflects upon it ...it 'looks' white..but it is not truly white...just look at the rocks...

 

I have known personally over 20 homosexuals in my life...not a good sampling, but when you base it upon the many others that I have been able to hear in their own words...I am more apt to believe it is nurture not nature. I have yet to meet one that did not either have abuse as a child or came from a disadvantaged home (you referenced one in foster care)....Many people choose a drug lifestyle because it fills a void in their life, they 'feel' good for a change, they will do anything for that feeling. Who is to say that homosexuality is not a similar reaction...they find acceptance in a culture, it feels 'good' and fills a void. Who of us would say that drug use is acceptable? If it's what they want to do and does not harm anyone else, why should we encourage them to do otherwise?

 

I am not asking you to accept my beliefs but just to open your mind to another possibility...you make several declarative statements, and for each one I feel they are your opinion not a fact...these are mine.

This is my experience as well.

 

This is where I do not believe this is an obvious corollary...take an alternate view, if homosexuality is a sin and in God's view a deviant behavior...would it not lend itself more to additional deviant behavior? However, in God's view, heterosexuality is not a deviant behavior and less inclined to produce deviant behavior..so therefore, your corollary based on your definition that homosexual is equal to heterosexuality would fail.
But I completely disagree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to point out the obvious corollary to this: if homosexual men are more likely to prey on boys, simply because of orientation, then every heterosexual man out there is also a potential sexual predator of girls.

 

.

 

This is where I do not believe this is an obvious corollary...take an alternate view, if homosexuality is a sin and in God's view a deviant behavior...would it not lend itself more to additional deviant behavior? However, in God's view, heterosexuality is not a deviant behavior and less inclined to produce deviant behavior..so therefore, your corollary based on your definition that homosexual is equal to heterosexuality would fail.

 

It has been studied and shows that a larger percentage of pedophiles perpetrated on boys are done by men who claim homosexuality,

 

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

 

It is hard to have a discussion when the two parties view the variables differently...each have their own conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me put it this way:

 

I've been fat and I've been thin. I have NEVER IN MY LIFE, while fat or thin, faced the sort of blatant, outright, in-your-face discrimination and ugliness that my dd faces. My family of origin cannot know that she is gay. My neighbor has been outspoken in his support of Sally Kern so he is not a safe person to know, either.

:grouphug: I am sorry that you face this challenge. I wish more people would understand and apply unconditional love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For 10 years now, the pedophiles out there have urgently and aggressively tried to remove this 'behavior' from the DSMIII- the manual on deviant behaviors...they believe man/child love is natural and only unacceptable because of the social mores placed upon society.
Who, where, when? And why would they be lobbying to remove anything from the DSM III, when DSM IV was published over 10 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has been studied and shows that a larger percentage of pedophiles perpetrated on boys are done by men who claim homosexuality,

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

 

Here's the "study." It begins: "Lately, the gay movement seems to be making large gains in its war on America’s Judeo-Christian culture"

 

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf

 

ETA: I found it be pasting the quote above into Google, which led me to World Net Daily, which then led to the "study."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where I do not believe this is an obvious corollary...take an alternate view, if homosexuality is a sin and in God's view a deviant behavior...would it not lend itself more to additional deviant behavior? However, in God's view, heterosexuality is not a deviant behavior and less inclined to produce deviant behavior..so therefore, your corollary based on your definition that homosexual is equal to heterosexuality would fail.

 

Well, then God's plan has been a massive failure on that front. Male-on-female sexual violence far outstrips male-on-male sexual predation.

 

However, I don't predicate my religious or social beliefs on the ideal that correlation equals causation. I can accept that just because some adult men would rape a 12 year old girl, that doesn't mean that all male-to-female attraction is morally deviant.

 

It has been studied and shows that a larger percentage of pedophiles perpetrated on boys are done by men who claim homosexuality,

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

[/Quote]

 

Did that study encompass all of the underdeveloped countries and societies, where it is often the norm for a 40 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl (and younger)?

 

Does this study take into account all the young Indian girls sold into sexual slavery, in much higher numbers, than boys?

 

Your view is decidedly discriminatory. You have fixated upon one study, to draw broad conclusions on sexual behavior, despite the crushing, all-encompassing evidence that is extent not only in the modern world, but throughout our own history.

 

After all, Jesus' own step-father would have been regarded as a pedophile by most legal and social standards of today. Christian tradition is almost uniform in its understanding that Joseph was most likely much older than Mary, who was likely only around 14 years of age when she gave birth to Jesus.

 

It is hard to have a discussion when the two parties view the variables differently...each have their own conclusions.[/Quote]Yes, it is difficult. However, I am not equating your position with one of a morally and criminally

repugnant act.

 

 

 

ETA: The all-important "not" in that last sentence!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where I do not believe this is an obvious corollary...take an alternate view, if homosexuality is a sin and in God's view a deviant behavior...would it not lend itself more to additional deviant behavior? However, in God's view, heterosexuality is not a deviant behavior and less inclined to produce deviant behavior..so therefore, your corollary based on your definition that homosexual is equal to heterosexuality would fail.

 

It has been studied and shows that a larger percentage of pedophiles perpetrated on boys are done by men who claim homosexuality,

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

 

It is hard to have a discussion when the two parties view the variables differently...each have their own conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

 

What you have posted here is the exact OPPOSITE of what Abel's study found.

 

However, Gene Abel explicitly states that most cases of boy molestation cannot be attributed to homosexuals:

[M]ost men who molest little boys are not gay. Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively homosexual. Nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys were heterosexual or bisexual, and most of these men were married and had children of their own.27

Based on Abel’s statistics, if approximately 33 percent of all molestations are male-on-male, and 21 percent of these cases are committed by homosexuals, the actual percentage of molesters who are homosexual is 21% x 33% = 6.9%. Keeping in mind that even the best surveys have a margin of error of a few percentage points, this figure is pretty close to the figures usually given for the total percentage of homosexuals in the overall population, which is about five percent.28 In other words, homosexual males are not a significantly greater threat to children proportionately than straight males. (In fact, one could argue that since the number of molestations committed by females is relatively rare, it is clear that lesbians pose less of a threat to children than straight males.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, you are making sense. I'm just getting stuck on the posters who believe that all or even a majority of gay people have disfunction in their upbringing.

 

:001_huh: How can that not hurt? I should probably just go ahead and admit that I'm a crappy Mom right now.

 

:grouphug:

 

Not fun. I'm sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm having some trouble understanding this analogy.

 

For one thing, I tend to think that parents would object if someone:

 

wanted to come into a kindergarten class and use picture books to teach children that gluttony was just another, equally lovely way of eating,

 

or showed children movies encouraging them to experiment with gluttony and see whether or not they liked it (cf. Scotland in the 1990's),

 

or legislated that teachers have to point out the special contributions of gluttonous people during history (cf. California, right now).

 

If a doctor told a gluttonous person that his or her eating habits were unhealthy, would you consider that hateful? After all, perhaps the person has a genetic inclination to overeat. It could be a deep-seated, lifelong tendency that the person considers fundamental to his or her emotional well-being.

 

What if the government were being pressured to create new nutritional guidelines offering gluttony as an alternative eating plan, to reorganize social and educational programs to accommodate this, and to require WIC counselors to teach this or lose their jobs? Would people who voted against this plan be presumed to be "hateful?"

 

I've seen examples like this before, and they just don't hold.

 

Have you seen the commercials for Red Lobster's "Endless Shrimp" meals that have been on lately? If those aren't celebrations of gluttony, I don't know what would be. (I can tell you that, if I had a Red Lobster near me, I'd be participating in that gluttony.) So, where is the AFA now? Why aren't they asking people to boycott Red Lobster, since it's obviously (and literally) promoting gluttony, the same way they ask people to boycott a car company that dares use a gay couple in an ad or Disney World because they have one day for gay families?

 

I see people say things like, "Well, we don't have Drink Pride Parades." Okay, sure. But, we don't need them. We have bars and frat parties and beer commercials and they are so normalized that we don't need to have separate parades to celebrate or normalize getting drunk.

 

We don't need a Greed Pride Parade because our entire culture functions as one. Turn on your TV for 10 minutes and you'll get your greed pride parade.

 

If we think beyond food with gluttony (and, I think that's a bad example, simply because the cult of thinness has become our new secular religion, and so we have the government acting in very unique ways around issues of food consumption and body size right now), how many teachers read kids picture books where families have far, far more than they need? Do we object because that's promoting gluttony with possessions, greed, and covetousness? Our entire curriculum is basically designed to teach students that success = lots of money and material possessions, and yet I don't see Christians objecting to that.

 

But, maybe there is a parallel with gluttony. The cult of thinness is our new secular religion. As such, we vilify larger bodies. I would have no problem at all with--and in fact would completely support--a curriculum initiative that validated all body sizes, pointed out positive contributes by people of all sizes, and attempted to normalize whatever body size a student might have. When we have, as a culture, taken a group of people and made them the scary, dangerous "other" (whether it be Christians who do that with gays, or a secular culture that does that with larger people), I do think it's not only wise but often necessary to take proactive steps to rectify those wrongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those who believe that it is the s*x outside marriage that is the sin in homosexual relationships what do you believe is required to be married in the eyes of God?

 

Personally, I think that sex should be reserved for a relationship of lifelong, monogamous commitment. If marriage is a legal option for a couple, I do think they should marry (but I don't think, if they are in a relationship of lifelong, monogamous commitment, it's a sin if they don't). But, if marriage isn't legally available to them, then obviously they can't. I don't think that a gay couple that isn't married is sinning by having sex, assuming that they are in a relationship of lifelong, monogamous commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point was, and still is: There are a lot of sins out there, but Christians like to vote against gay people getting human rights, while they don't get up in arms about any other sin.

Setting aside the question of what constitutes "human rights," this is a pretty huge generalization. Many Christians did protest against divorce (which was your other example, IIRC) back in the days when those laws were being debated. Others -- in some cases, the same ones -- got up in arms about racism and took part in the civil rights movement. In our own time, there are many Christian churches and denominations around the world who are concerned with a wide range of issues.

 

Even within the context of contemporary US evangelicalism, I'm not sure I'd agree with the assertion. Not wanting to add to the controversy level around here, but there's an issue beginning with "a" that, as far as I can tell, would be likely to get even more people (on both sides) to the ballot box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know several gay people and none of them come from anything but solid happy families. I know a girl whose father is a minister and she had a terrible time of fear and doubt before she finally admitted who she was. Her best friend is my SIL raised very old-school Catholic. SIL had to do a lot of soul searching on how to handle the situation and though I don't know how that went for her I do know they are still friends.

 

I've loved the bravery and sense of self I find in my friends that are gay.

 

I can't think of a reason why it would be a sin and I can't fathom a God that I would worship that would renounce a person for it.

 

ETA I'm not a Christian though I feel drawn toward the church, I'm more spiritual...I love a lot of things about church but these are the things that I can't align in my heart. If I continue my interest in the church I would study the issue wanting to find support for gays in the Bible, not prosecution for them. I just can't see how being gay hurts another... to me, if it were that important, it would have been in the Ten Commandments, not in the Bible... my being very simplistic about it. This isn't in-depth discussion from me but maybe it counts for something because it stops me at the front door of many churches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here in the bible belt nothing gets the evangelicals all worked up like gay rights issues. Not abortion, not evolution, not prayer in schools. Sally Kern will likely go down in flames (metaphorically speaking, not a threat!) whilst defending her stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't put my stamp of approval on Homose. any more than I do any of the other things listed. I also can not say that I have been innocent in all those areas.

 

 

"Homose?"

You've GOT to be kidding me. Please tell me that's a typo and not the taunting slur heard on street corners. Please.

 

astrid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point was, and still is: There are a lot of sins out there, but Christians like to vote against gay people getting human rights, while they don't get up in arms about any other sin.

 

 

I know you were responding to someone else, but this line really stood out to me. There are many Christians who support Gay Marriage. I really despise the us vs them mentality, especially because it just isn't accurate (but it does make great headlines :glare:).

 

I honestly have not made up my mind on how I feel about the "sin" factor in homosexuality, I do not think I have enough wisdom to completly understand what Paul was refering to when he wrote on homosexuality.

 

I also do not feel it is the governments job to decided what is morally acceptable between two consenting adults. Therefore, I am in support of gay marriage.

 

I do get frustrated when someone wants to force me to accept that this is completely natural. I accept and support human rights, but I really wish it flowed both ways. From my perspective I see both sides behaving badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, here in the bible belt nothing gets the evangelicals all worked up like gay rights issues. Not abortion, not evolution, not prayer in schools. Sally Kern will likely go down in flames (metaphorically speaking, not a threat!) whilst defending her stance.

Thank you for explaining. We do not live in the Bible Belt, and FWIW, I have never heard of Sally Kern. :001_huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who am I to judge? I really can't imagine how someone's private life is my business. As a Christian my job is to love the Lord and love my fellow man. However, I know many Christians do not share my viewpoint.

 

:iagree:I have always wondered the view point of being Christian yet basically shunning a certain group. God loves everyone and I think some people should remember that!! I have no issue with what goes on in anothers bedroom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setting aside the question of what constitutes "human rights," this is a pretty huge generalization. Many Christians did protest against divorce (which was your other example, IIRC) back in the days when those laws were being debated. Others -- in some cases, the same ones -- got up in arms about racism and took part in the civil rights movement. In our own time, there are many Christian churches and denominations around the world who are concerned with a wide range of issues.

 

Even within the context of contemporary US evangelicalism, I'm not sure I'd agree with the assertion. Not wanting to add to the controversy level around here, but there's an issue beginning with "a" that, as far as I can tell, would be likely to get even more people (on both sides) to the ballot box.

 

Fair enough.

And after dinner, my mind did get your point about gluttony/homosexuality.

 

You were saying that Christians don't protest gluttony because they don't see it being forced upon the populace as you think homosexuality is. I get that now.

 

As to the "a" issue,--heh, yes.

 

But, I think there's still a point to be made--Do you think gays feel hated because of the voting like this? I do. I darn well do.

 

Now, I'm thinking in particularly about gay marriage here.

 

Gay marriage and the "a" issue are pretty standard "American values" platform of one segment of the voting populace.

 

If the legitimacy of your relationship was cast in such a bad light by a group of people, who typically said you were perverted and a danger to the American culture, could that make you feel hated?

 

If the legitimacy of your relationship was a focal point of a certain block of voters, would you feel singled out?

 

If enormous organizations and small bodies all over the country read out of a book every week that said people in relationships like yours could be killed, but just to be nice simply made sure they voted against you having a recognized relationship, it might make you feel hated.

 

I still think this is part of why gay people feel hated.

 

Gluttony isn't a voting issue. Gay marriage is.

 

The divorce/remarriage issue is a big one in the NT, and one you mentioned as well.

 

If Christians started staging protests around the country claiming that people who were divorced shouldn't be remarried because of potential harm to children and the country. If they claimed that these relationships were sinful and their union perverted, I think there would be room for gays to feel less hated. At least Christians would be spreading around the "all sins are equal in the sight of God" a bit.

 

Maybe the best thing to do is quickly allow gay marriage across the country so Christians can stop protesting! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for explaining. We do not live in the Bible Belt, and FWIW, I have never heard of Sally Kern. :001_huh:

 

She is a very outspoken polititician in Oklahoma. The fact that she keeps getting re-elected speaks to the sentiment in OK.

 

She recently apologized for her views on African Americans. :glare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know you were responding to someone else, but this line really stood out to me. There are many Christians who support Gay Marriage. I really despise the us vs them mentality, especially because it just isn't accurate (but it does make great headlines :glare:).

 

I honestly have not made up my mind on how I feel about the "sin" factor in homosexuality, I do not think I have enough wisdom to completly understand what Paul was refering to when he wrote on homosexuality.

 

I also do not feel it is the governments job to decided what is morally acceptable between two consenting adults. Therefore, I am in support of gay marriage.

 

I do get frustrated when someone wants to force me to accept that this is completely natural. I accept and support human rights, but I really wish it flowed both ways. From my perspective I see both sides behaving badly.

 

My apologies.

I do not mean to cast all Christians in the same boat--but the greatest opponents, in an organized fashion in this country--are Christians. Not all of them, I know that, but as a quite a large voting block.

 

When I talk about Christians being anti-gay and anti-gay marriage, I'm only referring to the anti-gay-rights Christians.

 

I'm not sure how to make that clearer in my posts without making my fingers more tired than they already are--but I'll do my best.

 

When I see gays trying to prevent heteros from marrying, I'll see both sides behaving badly :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know you were responding to someone else, but this line really stood out to me. There are many Christians who support Gay Marriage. I really despise the us vs them mentality, especially because it just isn't accurate (but it does make great headlines :glare:).

 

Not only that, but some Christians have been at the forefront of the fight for marriage equality. Long before states started recognizing same-sex marriages, there were Christian clergy who were blessing and celebrating same-sex unions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...