OP brings a cite, you bring an unverifiable anecdote that paints the gay Christians as violent reactionaries to illustrate your point.
Wow, I don’t know what to believe here. I think I’m gonna go with the OP’s cite.
spooje, even more than that is that the violent person in question turns out not even to be Christian (“I never said the guy was a Christian”, which while not explicitly stating so, does lend extreme validity to the idea that he is/was not). The entire fucking point is moot at that relevation.
There is nothing in this thread to suggest that anyone even threatened Svt4Him. All we know is that some random gay guy said he would like to punch him. There’s no suggestion he threatened to hit him or made an effort to do so, only that he felt like it. That’s not the same.
And you believe that loving someone of the same gender, sharing their joys and griefs, making a life together, somehow merits an eternity of agonizing torture? Dude, you have a seriously fucked-up value system.
Acxtually,. you should look it up–use the Search function and read the threads that this issue has already been discussed to death. As the LDS Dopers will tell you, their belief that Lucifer --“bearer of light”–was once a servant of God, created by Him at the same time He created the rest of the Heavenly Host, is not too dissimilar from the doctrines of the rest of Christianity.
Since I’m a notorious homophobe and bigot I probably don’t have any business butting in at this point, but could I just pick up on a couple of points?
Does the value system look less fucked-up if we say: “You can do all of that extremely good stuff, but if you fuck them when God says you shouldn’t (*) that’s a big no-no”?
(*) Not wanting to be accused of question-begging, I’ll admit that this argument hangs on the vexed question of whether or not homosexual activity actually is forbidden - and I’ve seen arguments on this question go round and round with no conclusion reached, and I’m not vain enough to think I can trot out a clincher right here or now.
No, but the belief that Jesus Christ was just such a creation is. The Nicaean Creed has “God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made” - I can quote it in Latin, but that’s just showing off. The Athanasian Creed is much the same. This rather precludes any notion that the Son is a created being on a par with Lucifer. I don’t see how you can sling out such a basic article of belief and still be a Christian.
Touching on one or two other points: Christ summarised the Law and the Prophets as: “Love God with everything you have, and love your neighbour as yourself”. Polycarp correctly states that loving your neighbour is one of the best ways of demonstrating a love of God. However, this does not prove that this is the sum total of loving God.
The Ten Commandments themselves include one or two that pertain only to loving God without reference to your fellow man: having no God but Him, and eschewing blasphemy. If I profane God’s name in private, with no fellow man present to hear and be tempted into sin, am I still guilty of blasphemy and therefore a lessened love of God?
The question the gay/queer/designation-of-choice Christian has to address is: Is my behaviour proscribed? If so (**), am I going to insist on my right to it, or love God by doing as He says? Meanwhile, in defiance of Priam’s statement, it is not you who decide whether or not you are a Christian. It is most assuredly not me, either.
(**) Okay, that’s two questions, so sue me.
Of course, they can. The followers of Arius (who the Athanasian creed was aimed at) believed that the Son was created by and thus subordinate to the Father, but they were still called Christians, albeit heretical ones.
Any value system that decrees eternal agony as the punishment for loving someone is fucked-up, IMO. Any being that enjoys torturing those who cross His arbitrary rules is a vicious monster unworthy of worship.
The Romans had the right idea when they called the early Christians the enmies of mankind. Fundamentalists worship a being that delights in torture, pain, and hatred; IMO Fundamentalist Christianity is indistinguishable from the vilest devil worship.
Perhaps you should learn more about the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Nicene Creed and the Arian beliefs before you’re so quick to dismiss the idea that Jesus is a created being. The Nicene Creek may be important to you, but has not always been a central tenet of Christianity nor is it universally accepted.
That’s pretty much the reason that Christianity is no longer considered a Jewish sect because it elevated Jesus to being equal with God.
I Love Me, Vol. I -thank you for the Deep Ellum point - Deep Elm, in reference to the topic, was killing me.
Svt4Him - what church/group were you with at the time of your visit? Just curious.
And just a point - knowing the area, I am willing to bet that the only reason that a non-“gay” congregation would “visit” the Cedar Springs area, any part of that area, but esp. near a bar would be to witness specifically to the “gay” community. Granted, you also went to the West End (near Planet Hollywood, not in Deep Ellum, and not really very close to Deep Ellum, but relatively close to the Cedar Springs Area). However, this area has a proliferation of nightclubs which might warrant some attention. Deep Ellum, the local “underworld” that it is rumored to be (although I like Deep Ellum - it’s not as crazy as it was several years ago) would also be worthy of a “visit”, what with its tattoo parlors and nightclubs. I’m wondering, though, why you didn’t visit the Harry Hines/Stemmons area, or lower Greenville Avenue, or possibly even somewhere along Northwest Highway, as men’s clubs are full of unrepetent persons.
Just my $0.02.
STG
Bear with me, I hope this all makes sense…
I’ve been following this thread with deep interest, like I do all of those where so-called religious folk come in to “bear witness” against the evils of homosexuality, and I must admit, I have no idea how gay people do it. If I had to put up with 1/10th of the shit that you all do on a daily basis, I would go ballistic. You all must have incredibly thick skins and great heads on your shoulders to not allow this bile to get under your skin. You are truly, IMHO, the latter day heroes of this world. So, keep up the good fight and know that they’re some straight people willing to go arm-in-arm through battle with you.
Now, that said, here is my question in response to the above quote… How do we even know if this alleged attacker of Svt4Him was definitively a homosexual? If it’s been stated somewhere along the way in this thread and I missed it, I apologize. If not, did the guy actually identify himself as such? “Man, I’m gonna punch you because I’m one pissed off gay dude!”?? Or did the speaker just assume he was? Perhaps, having this kind of “witnessing” crammed down one’s throat involuntarily was just enough to make the guy angry (although, apparently despite the threat, he didn’t follow through with it) and lash out. You know, some people tire of this approach and constant condemnation for WHATEVER reason and see no need to mamby-pamby someone who obviously feels superior, otherwise they wouldn’t put themselves in that position to begin with.
In conclusion, maybe the “attacker” just had issues and this was one too many street preachers to get in his face talking about good ol’ hellfire and brimstone. And sadly, he thought the potential for violence would shut the fellow up. Wrong course of action, naturally, but God, even if this very forward-thinking board is any indication, I can certainly understand the desire to just want these types to shut the fuck up. Again, that’s no defense, but it. gets. so. old. Not to mention, I’ve noted a whole new influx of these types of late… what’s the deal? Has someone sent out a memo to convert us heathens? Is it another board invasion a la LB group?
Please, for the love of Pete, make it stop! Or do we have to wait for Pat Robertson to pray? :rolleyes:
I feel so validated right now. 
Thanks!
Esprix
Apologies for not getting back sooner, but the connection I had earlier sucked big time.
Homebrew and gobear,
Discuss the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea, giving full attention to the historical background, and establish the rights and wrongs of the issues. Hence or otherwise, ascertain the truth or falsehood of Arianism and prove or disprove the Divinity of Christ.
I know the SDMB is all about fighting ignorance, but I had no idea the entrance exam was so stiff. If you’ll pardon me, I’ll duck the above question and merely state that mainstream Christianity, including the Roman Catholic, most Protestant, and AFAIK the Orthodox Churches have accepted the doctrine of the Trinity for time out of mind, to the extent that it can reasonably be considered a basic tenet of such. It may not be “universal” but it’ll do to be going on with. So I thought it could reasonably be taken as an antecedent to the assertion that a religion claiming that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are brothers cannot be called Christian, whatever other weight it may give to Christ’s teachings and however admirable its adherents might be.
gobear,
[Deanna Troi] I sense deep unhappiness and bitterness.[/Troi] However, it won’t do to say that a God who inflicts infinite punishment for the breaking of an arbitrary rule is a monster unworthy of worship. Either a proscription against homosexual practices comes from God, or it does not. If it comes from Man, then there is no need to rail against God for it - nor is there any need, theologically speaking, to pay it any heed. If it comes from God - and if, calling ourselves Christians, we say that there is no other God - then it is unavailing to call Him a monster.
Are God’s commandments arbitrary? Should we expect to understand them all? Are we in a position to call Him to account for any that seem to disadvantage us unfairly, or to consider our judgement as superior to His?
If Hell is, in the last analysis, merely a description for the state of being eternally separated from God, then it seems to me that there are two ways we can wind up there. One is to be consigned there by an irate God; the other is to separate ourselves from Him. And the surest way to accomplish the latter, surely, is to place something above Him in the scale of importance. Have we not reached this point when we angrily reject Him rather than give up something which we consider our “right”? And isn’t the essence of temptation to cause us to attach such importance to something that we have that, rather than give it up, we will take the advice of Job’s wife: “Curse God, and die”?
Of course God approves of love. I hardly need to hold up the Incarnation as illustration, do I? But love != sex, and if homosexual practices are forbidden by God’s law (see my previous post for the qualifier) then love is no more an excuse for defiance than it would be an excuse for theft or adultery or murder. This is not to draw an equivalence between various forms of sin; except that all sin separates Man from God, and must be dealt with and not denied.
Please don’t think that I’m in the business of finding motes in my brother’s eye. I have too many beams in my own, and am much too preoccupied worrying about coveting my neighbour’s ass (coveting a piece of my neighbour’s wife’s ass would be closer to it :rolleyes: ). However, I don’t think this necessarily debars me from a little theological discussion.
Oh, and the Romans? I’m quite a fan of them myself, but you ought to bear in mind that the Empire was a big fan of slavery, orgies, and watching people die horribly by way of public entertainment. People who live in glass houses, and all that.
Urendi Maleldil
Footnote: I admit to a great lack of experience of gay-bashing churches, and I apologise if I come over as insensitive to those who have had all too much.
Catholics have certain beliefs and practices that are markedly different from other faiths. That doesn’t invalidate their beliefs nor their status as Christians. And you, Malacandra, don’t HAVE to see how someone can “sling out such a basic article of belief” and still be a Christian unless you’re the one doing the slinging.
Did anyone say this was, or were you arguing with a spectre here?
Erm, no. Upon reflection, bloody hell no. They do not put stock in Leviticus et al. re: condemnation of their “homosexual activities” etc (by and large … there are some who do). As such they have no blodoy reason to address a question that doesn’t exist. The ones who have to address it are the ones who firstly are assuming that they have any business condeming the private lives (in the human consentual adult acts forum) of others, less even knowing about them. Unfortunately, they are almost invariably not knowledgeable enough on the relevant subjects to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Here on Earth, the best person to say whether or not Priam is Christian is Priam. If he thinks he is, then he is, regardless of what problems with that you may have and therefore try to superimpose on him (“I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, so you must therefore reconcile your love with my beliefs”. Um, no).
AGH! I don’t know why that did that. Stupid hamsters! Anyway, here’s what I tried to post…
::: hangs head looking like a dork :::
Bolding and underlining mine.
See, this is the stickler for me… so many Christians seem to place the bible above all else, in scale of importance. IMHO, instead of looking to Jesus as an example of how to behave (HE who eschewed the Pharisee approach to living out one’s life), they look to the exact letter of the law. One written by men, with prejudices and biases. Not that I don’t believe it was divinely inspired, but I’d rather follow someone’s teachings than one old testament mention and Paul’s take on things. I want to be the one to rescue the lost animal on the Sabbath instead of keeping it holy and letting the poor thing die.
But again, that’s how I see it. The temptation is beyond great to idolize the bible in as much as the ancient Hebrews did their golden calf. That’s where I’m seeing the above quote come in from Job’s wife, but unfortunately, it’s a lot more subtle than many adherents realize.
Had I made the point you did it’d be demanded equally of me. Read about something before you set yourself forward as someone who is able to discuss it (as you do if you bring it up. See Polycarp’s polite objection to my point previous page for an example).
I’m not placing any bets on pardon they’ll give you. Fair warning:)
Lucifer, inasmuch as he is a child of God (as I believe all Christian religions attest), is Christ’s brother just as Poly is Christ’s brother. The difference lays in the notion that Christ is also one’s father, which stems from the belief that on one level Christ and God are one (and, tangentially, the phrase “Mary, Mother of God” comes from the aspect of Jesus that is him as God’s son. Mary, as the one who gave birth to Christ, is in that sense the mother of God).
gobear,
If it comes from Man, then there is no need to rail against God for it - nor is there any need, theologically speaking, to pay it any heed.
[/quote]
If I produce people who kick you in the head every day, and I fail to get them to stop (assuming they are in communication with me, as well as a host of other things), it is my fault. I deserve the railing, not them. This is similar to the legal practice in the US of punishing the parent for the child’s misdeeds.
Incorrect. If I, as God, decide to make people who can love with the best of 'em, and I make some whose love I say they aren’t allowed to act on (for reasons of gender, not age or something like that), I’m the bad guy, not them for telling me my rules make no fucking (ha) sense. It is perfectly reasonable to call God a monster if it can be determined that He is deliberately punishing a being He made that way. It’s like me telling a child to bring me a beer and then smacking him hard for bringing me the beer. I told him to.
Er, yes. That’s what prayer is. It’s saying “I want this to happen for me. I don’t know what you want, but I want something you haven’t given me.” I don’t think that belief is opposed by any branch of Christianity;)
…
Since He has told us that He likes talking to us (ie prayer), it seems rather ludicrous to say that that very same thing is the cause for separation from God unless you’re doing the Pat Robertson “God, please stack the deck in my favor” thing. The very reason someone prays to God is the recognition (for them) that He is THE scale of importance. You go to the man upstairs because he’s the end of the line. And Hell, if “Dude, you got this wrong” separates us from God, then “God, please give me a sign that you exist in some way” separates us equally, because it indicates a disconnect between what we want and what God has in store for us at that particular time.
You have. I haven’t. Polycarp hasn’t. The list goes on. I don’t see the sin in refusing to be held to the idea that your natural tendency to love another person (ignoring for now the whole infidelity issue of “well what if the man is married to a woman” … let’s keep this relevant) is not God’s design, assuming you believe in Him.
Tell you what. You give up your ability to love other humans for a day. Let me know how close to God you feel.
The ability to love is one of humanity’s greatest abilities. To ignore that gift, or to refrain from using it, is an absolute crime.
Yes, and sex !=love, and apples !=giraffes. So fucking what?
Tell me the logic in this:
We are able to love
Some of us love men. Some of us love women. Some of us love both.
But acting on that love for men, for me, is forbidden because of something about that man that will never change and is perfectly natural and acceptable (his gender)? I don’t follow.
Oh, you’re not making it equivalent at all. You’re equating the natural passion for humans to murder. That’s totally acceptable.
Oops. Too late:mad:
Hey, just so long as you don’t covet her husband, right?
Doesn’t debar, per se, but renders your entire argument even weaker than it was from the get-go (I think it might be gaseous by now, but it’s so thin that it’s hard to quantify).
Yes, and those who hold that homosexuality/acts are a sin also often believe that all forms of entertainment save Revivals are evil. They believe that one’s gender indicates righteousness or subservience, depending on what one happens to be born as. They believe that religious belief should be law and believe that whatever their preacher happened to tell them last week supercedes any and all of the DoI (Declaration of Independence), SCotUS (Supreme Court of the US), BoR (Bill of Rights), and any and all state or local laws that might impede them from declaring this The United States of God. Or, to continue hopefool’s point, The United States of the Bible.
Look! A relevant argument!
There is much to be missed and lacking in the way of understanding all of this is one is unfamiliar (if not personally, at least generally) with the, ah, actions of those who believe God has sent them down as personal Smiters of Bad Shit.
More corrections… Damn preview doesn’t apparently work for those of us that are thick headed. ::: sigh :::
Let me reiterate, I DO think the bible is divinely inspired. And, I refuse to be hung up on one admonishment against homosexuality in Leviticus. And Paul, IMHO, was a misogynistic homophobe.
Next, there was supposed to be a comma between Sabbath and instead. The way it reads now makes it sound like I had no desire to sanctify that poor little lamb.
Lastly, I’d like to underline that I see the problems as with those who are literalists. Those adherents.
BTW, you are most welcome Esprix. I’m honored to ‘know’ you through this MB. And thanks to punha for saying better what I meant, than I could. You guys rock!
Well, after peeking into this thread yesterday… I had decided not to venture further in here. But then I felt I had to clarify.
I admit my first post was poorly worded, and that I posted in the heat of the moment (so to speak). If I shouldn’t let anything external affect me whilst posting, that would be a very tall order to fill indeed. (I carefuly stay out of most gay-related threads on this forum, like the “same-sex wedding bells in Canada” one)
Usually, if I find that what I have to say wouldn’t be helpful to the purposes of the thread (ONLY for example, “Same-sex marriages here in Vancouver are besmirching the definition of marriage as it should be”)… then I think better than of posting it. I don’t know why I deviated from my normal self-guidance in this case, or at least didn’t contain it to “Hmm… interesting story.”
I am NOT a homophobe, or a fundie who believes all GBLT folk should burn in hell. I can deal with people being gay / lesbian / bisexual. (maybe even transgendered, but after last week… I’m not so sure anymore) Admittedly, I haven’t known many of them IRL (probably only three gay people)… but I’m not going to run screaming in fear from them. (or try to proselytize to them)
The talk by the former homosexual was heartwarming NOT in that he was able to “turn straight” througg God’s help, but in that he admitted that he still had those urges… and actively sought God’s help in overcoming them. Not that being homosexual is necessarily a bad thing, and I admit I was dubious myself when I heard of this speaker coming to talk in previous Sunday School classes. (“How can you just turn straight after being gay?”) But the presentation was certainly thought-provoking.
“Gay Chrstians” is and was in quotes simply because there’s something a tinge contradictory about it to me. Not because I think I have a say in who’s truly Christian and who’s not… of course I don’t think that way. I haven’t met any examples of such people, is all. Of course, from that you could argue that since I haven’t met any examples of Congolese people… that “Congolese people” should be in quotes too. But I digress… I simply don’t understand how one can be Christian and gay at the same time, is all. I’m not going to get into witnessing or anything here, and it’s not that I necessarily believe that all Christians should be straight. Again, I don’t have a say in that. However, I do admit I’m largely ignorant of that kind of thing.
Is it somehow incumbent (or an obligation) upon EVERYONE to be tolerant / totally accepting of homosexuality, especially these days? I’m not a member of the United Church, so maybe I’m not as tolerant as you people seem to think everyone should be. I do not deal well with people telling me that I SHOULD do certain things or adopt certain attitudes.
I’m not going to be totally accepting of the lifestyle in general, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t be loving and friendly toward the specific GBLT folk that I know. (again, not many IRL… and some online) No matter how accepting society in general becomes of homosexuality, there will always be some people who won’t accept it at all. (I am trying my best to at least understand it a little more, but probably not succeeding very well) Someone referenced some dude named Phelpsy to me last night… no idea who that is.
Go ahead and excoriate me for my nascent opinions… I expect this in the Pit. But I do admit to not understanding this whole homosexualty thing, and I do apologize if my remarks came across as anti-gay. That wasn’t my intention.
F_X
Ah shoot, I lost all my typing, so this one’s going to be a lot shorter. Just getting use to this forum.
Yes. The term Christian comes from the Bible, and was first used of the disciples. So then I’d say go to the Bible and see what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. You can apply the same to any disciple of even painters and musicians.
I think you said God wouldn’t send someone to hell if they didn’t want to go. Are you implying there are people who would say they did want to go?
Ok, let me redefine that. Not every religion has extra-biblical books that are elevated to the level of the Bible, or are more correct than the Bible.
Joseph Smith said: ‘I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone to our religion.’” (Introduction, Book of Mormon)
Fair enough, but one person asking me a question isn’t terribly hard to do, but when quite a few are, it becomes a bit more difficult. And the fact that these are public knowledge, it may be easier for you to visit googles than I.
I have found that when people disagree with you, they ask you to confirm every little thing that is said, while neglecting to do the same. That said, I do not mind doing so, but it does get a bit frustrating after a while. For example, the guy who was to hit me. I was there. I know about attribution error, noise, non-verbal communication, call it what you want, so again, I don’t know why I have to defend what I know to be true. You may say you know nothing is true, and I will ask if that it true. That I’ll jus throw in, cause I’m having to type this all out again…
See above. As for relevance, I think I was talking about how we were witnessing on the corner, and his comment was that we were saying all homosexuals are going to hell, and there is no such thing as a homosexual christian. That would have bearing. I could be wrong, and I’m not going to try and go back to look how it was brought up, last time I lost everything. Was he a homosexual christian? I don’t know. What we were doing was handing out tracts like these ones:
Oh, come on, that’s the perfect place to put those…
And Deep Ellum looks better. There is an Elm street there, but I couldn’t remember how to spell the other. Thanks. Now where Planet Hollywood is is also called somthing, but I forget now.
What church were we with? CFNI.
Now let me ramble on a bit. I like driving fast, and I like driving late. There are roads around here that are straight and flat, and at 4 am there is no one around, and no danger that anyone will be walking on the road. The highway is a good example. I know roads are built to drive faster than 80-100 KM, I know my car is built to go faster than 80-100 KM per hour, so I think I should go faster than that. I also don’t really need to stop at the four way intersection by my house when it’s late, because I can clearly see if there is anyone around, and at 11 PM, there isn’t. So is there anything wrong with me speeding at these times? Well, the $144 fine I received proves there was, because there is a law in effect that isn’t based on what I think or do not think is right. The punishment matches the crime. If God says someone will go to hell for whatever reason, what we do is we say that’s not fair, and your loving God shows that. I say if God says some issues are worthy of eternal punishment, then maybe our sense of the magnitude of sin, or the grossness of it to God is what’s wrong. You’d rather have a loving God, I’d rather have a just and loving God. They are not mutually exclusive.
In the interests of this site’s stated purpose (fighting ignorance), I will explain why it all fits quite neatly in my head. This will not be a debate, because I feel there’s very little which can be debated in it. Religion is mostly a matter of faith rather than fact, which makes things rather more difficult.
I believe Jesus Christ was, if not the Son of God, than a divinely inspired man who spoke great truths in his lifetime and was crucified for them. He was a rabblerouser, a prophet, and a genius at speaking to the soul. I believe in the two great commandments as laid down by him to “love God with all your heart, mind, and soul” and to “love your neighbor as yourself”.
I believe that love and kindness are the keys to Heaven, not dogmatic adherence to convoluted rules of behavior. I believe in soul competence and the ideals of holy space within one’s heart instead of rote worship according to another person’s demand. I believe that being saved starts in the heart and is expressed by actions.
I believe that love and passion are gifts from God to humanity, whether gay or straight, and meant to be used within loving and faithful relationships. I believe that, within such relationships, love expressed sexually and romantically can blossom out tenfold, healing both and spreading to those around. Such is a blessing, and should be rejoiced in.
I believe the Bible is a text full of much wisdom, but should not be applied without regard to when it was composed and who the reader is. We must all derive our own messages from the Bible and other texts, following it as our hearts tell us we should. I believe others can hold positions different than my own, and still remain sinless for doing so. Because of all this, and because my heart commands me to say it is so, I believe I am a gay Christian without conflict, sin, or neglect for Jesus’ teachings.
The Priam Creed 
Flamsterette, have you read any of the ATGG threads?
Esprix