your view says that the mere fact that one is homosexual is, in and of itself, sinful.
It’s my view that the mere fact that someone is a homosexual (we’re talking about someone who desires it, not someone who acts on it) is sinful in and of itself?
Where did I say that?
It’s late here too and I’m headed to bed. Nite guys!
When asked if you endorsed the viewpoint of the group in the OP, you responded: “If homosexuality is a sin, and I believe it is, and Jesus died to break the bondage of ALL sin, it would follow that yes, I believe Jesus can set people free from homosexuality.”
So yeah, that seems a fair statement of your view.
And again, lest you try to spin this into the standard canard that being a homosexual is OK, but engaging in homosexual acts is not, please spare us. It’s a crock. When you say that Jesus can “set one free” from homosexuality, you aren’t just saying that Jesus can help one refrain from acting on his desires; you’re saying Jesus can actually take those desires away. You’re saying that Jesus, via his sin-breaking power, can convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. The logical endpoint of that position is that homosexuality itself, and not just homosexual sexual activity, is sinful.
Some people apparently disagree with you, so that makes your statement your OPINION.
You think God agrees with you?
All lies.
I used the phrase “ultimate” reward for a specific reason. Most religions don’t have the Judeo-Christian concept of heaven and hell, but they do reserve the sweetest rewards in the next life for that religion’s adherents. IOW, while they may not preach a lake of fire for nonbelievers, the nicer aspects of the hereafter are reserved for true believers – in the luxury hotel of the afterlife, nonbelievers get a standard room while believers get the penthouse suite.
At any rate, I have a hard time seeing a religious doctrine that excludes other religions from the afterlife as “hatred.” It seems fairly sensible, actually. Why bother professing a particular faith at all if one’s choice of faith ultimately doesn’t matter?
It depends on how you define “doesn’t matter.” I could say, “Believing this way and acting this way will make you happier and make the world better, but it won’t get you into heaven faster/more readily/whathaveyou.”
Now, I’m not claiming I could provide an example of such a faith, but if I could it would be an example of a faith that “matters” without the faith itself being exclusionary.
There’s another thread dealing with salvation from the Catholic perspective (which is the church of my birth). The RCC seems to have logicked itself right out of relevancy by saying that you don’t need to be Catholic, or even Christian, or even anything to be saved. It doesn’t seem to have hurt the RCC. 
Julie
The RCC seems to have logicked itself right out of relevancy by saying that you don’t need to be Catholic, or even Christian, or even anything to be saved.
IANAC but did I miss a memo?
When did they decide this?
Not true. Buddhism doesn’t teach that, neither does Hinduism or Judaism. Some parts of Islam do teach that, others qualify it. Even Catholoicism allows for the possibility of salvation for non-believers. The idea of specific belief as a criterion for “reward.” is not present in most religions.
Not all religions are based on “faith.” Faith has no role at all in Buddhism, for instance. Bakhti or devotion to a particular god, is present in some forms of Hinduism, but this is only seen as only one of many possible routes in Hinduism. Devotion to Shiva, for instance, does not preclude devotion to Shiva or even to Jesus as being equally valid. Judaism has no problem with eternal reward for righteous gentiles. Islam is the closest to Christianity in stating that salvation is contingent on faith, but Christians and Jews are recognized as being “people of the book” who worship the same God. The philosophy of Islam towards non-believers is similar to that of the RCC. Those who have not committed to Islam through ignorance will be tested by Allah on judgement day and their fate will be decided then. “Ignorance” of islam also includes those who have been exposed to its teachings but who have an incomplete understanding.
The belief that only a specific in-group can attain some ultimate reward, far from being the rule in world religions, is actually a rare exception.
Yes, it’s my opinion, and since it’s MY life, my opinion trumps yours. You and your cohorts don’t get to dictate how I live my life or who I love.
Well, setting aside the “God is a figment of the imagination” POV, why should I care? I’m not a member of His fan club.
Read the quote I supplied from the SBC chairman and review the rhetoric of folks like Franklin Graham and Jack Chick. Jews are just a prop for the “Left Behind” pageant, but as soon as God is done with them, they’re going straight to hell, according to the fundie POV, unless they convert to that ol’ time religion.
They didn’t “decide” it. They’ve never taught anything different.
Read the quote I supplied from the SBC chairman and review the rhetoric of folks like Franklin Graham and Jack Chick. Jews are just a prop for the “Left Behind” pageant, but as soon as God is done with them, they’re going straight to hell, according to the fundie POV, unless they convert to that ol’ time religion. **
[/QUOTE]
They do not speak for me. I am a christian without a denomination.
And your life IS your business.
I just wanted you to know not all christians hate Jews, I surely don’t.
They do not speak for me. I am a christian without a denomination.
And your life IS your business.
I just wanted you to know not all christians hate Jews, I surely don’t. **
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say all Christians hated Jews–I said fundie Xians did, a statement I stand by.
Dewey Cheatem Undhow wrote
What if one believes that the divine has manifested in a huge variety of ways, because there are a huge variety of people and no matter how good a single path might be it can’t possibly speak to the experiences and needs of all people, nor have an approach to life that would necessarily be useful to assisting all people to be better human beings?
Which path one walks is, as far as I’m concerned, irrelevant; what matters is the being a decent human being stuff. Getting into the afterlife isn’t a relevant question; I’m not dead now, and not planning to be for some time. The afterlife, if it exists, approaches one day at a time, and the faith that helps me get through today, and tomorrow, and the day after, as the best person I can be, is clearly the faith that I need to be following.
As to why a position that homosexuality is a sin might be construed as incompatible with Christianity, since I’m posting anyway. Homosexuality is a fact about love and the expressions thereof; to call homosexuality a sin is to say that some people should deny love, remove themselves from access to love, never express it or have it expressed to them, in order to be moral. One of the Christian sound bites I see often is that God is love; I cannot see a sensible way to reconcile “God is love” with “this love is immoral”.
I don’t think your respect is required, or your opinion of them dictates what they believe. Their belief in what is a sin, and acting on it in regard to their leaders in no way equates them with murderers, as gobear seems to want to equate.
Excuse me, a pedofile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, not always involving child molestation. You seem to be the one that is confused. The significant difference is that there is usually a victim in these desires. Other than that, pedophelia is a great comparison to homosexuality in the sense that the sexual abhorition is spurned by a majority of a group, yet defended by others as not a choice, but part of their id, if you will.
Not long ago homosexuality was treated comparative to pedophelia. There were/are laws against the act, and any showing such tendancies were/are treated as an abhorition and prosecuted as a crime or disregarded in society as a perversion.
I can dig up doccumented psychoanalytical sites out the wazoo if your blinders, or knee-jerk reasoning, will not let you see the comparison.
And as far as my reference to the communist Chinese, :rolleyes: what the hell does your trying to belittle me over your percieved semantics have to do with my understanding ot them? Your trying to prove my lack of knowledge of current Chinese decorum in no way invalidates my analogy. I see you only want to rant and ‘cast stones’, without a logical arguement. And it only proves my assertion that you don’t want to debate this.
Read above. And get over yourself too. My ideology is so far from your understandings it’s rediculous. Sarcasm is not a debate tactic, but more like a defense when you have nothing pertinant to say. And your stamping your foot and insising it’s so doesn’t change it.
:smack:
Diogenes: Well, I think you’re reading my point a bit narrowly. Most religions have some reason its adherents choose it over the others, some benefit that cannot be attained by other paths. Granted, it may not be a better place in the afterlife; it may be better communication with God in the here and now, or an express train to the afterlife (or nirvana, or whatever), or something else entirely.
Back to my original point – I just don’t see the belief that non-Christians who have reason to know the Gospels will be denied entrance to Heavan as “hatred.” That’s pretty much garden-variety Christian doctrine. The notion that Christ’s sacrifice was exclusive as a means of salvation isn’t bourne of a dislike of other faiths; it is bourne of a belief that Christ was unique.
I have no problem with that. I’m not endorsing any particular religious view, I’m just saying that notions of exclusivity do not automaticlly translate to “hatred.”
Dude. Deep breath. Spell check. Preview is your friend.
Now, slowly and carefully, explain what you meant by your last post. We’ll wait.
Whateva on the spellcheck. Unless you could not read my writing, then I will retype. Got it?
And my post was the explanation. What did you get confused about or fail to understand exactly?
It’s not just a question of a better reward (which is smug and judgemental in and of itself), it’s a doctrine that those who don’t believe what WE believe will be tortured forever, regardless of personal righteousness. I’m aware of no other religion than Christianity that teaches that, and it’s not even universal to to Christians. I would say that a belief that homosexuals and Jews are deserving of eternal torture is a hateful belief.
Why don’t you start by explaining what an “abhorition” is?
GD rules do not permit me to respond to the rest of your post in the manner that would be most appropriate.