I don’t disagree. I wasn’t trying to trace the origins of the belief, I was trying to explain why that belief could be rationally held by a reasonable and compassionate person.
Anybody own a plane? Let’s fly one over their church with a banner that says “The power of homosexuality can free you from Jesus Christ.”
So explain it! – that’s what I was encouraging you to do, a month or two ago. 
Dewey’s given it a pretty good shot, but he’s not conveying the flavor the way you can (and I’m serious there; I do respect your ability to witness when you’re witnessing for and not sounding judgmental – as we’ve discussed in the past).
Tell them about God’s justice and mercy as you see it. I would, but I’m not an evangelical, as you know – and while I believe that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, I believe that He works in a much broader way than you do, so I won’t have the impact you would.
And, BTW, we’ve gone round and round on the sinfulness of homosexuality before – but what do you see as the hope for folks like gobear and Esprix? If one of them asked you, “What must I do to be saved?” what would be your answer?
It’s not my intent to put you on the spot in the sense of setting you up for flaming – but it is my intent to put you on the spot in the sense of asking you to witness for our Lord, to speak from your perspective on God’s love for his gay children, and not of their sin but of His salvation.
1.) I corrected my mistake. What is your hangup on it?
2.) Your (and my) opinion on the niceties of homosexuality does not define what society as a whole, or a specific religion thinks about the issue. So what is your point?
3.)Like I said, insisiting it aint so doesn’t change the facts about the views of those we are discussing.
[quote]
Again, homosexuality has as much relation to child molestation as heterosexuality does.
[quote]
To goebear’s link about church members leaving because their leader was gay, I submitted my view on their views as, homosexuality has as much relation to heterosexuality as pedophelia does to homosexuality to him.
Homosexuality can be related to and analogous to pedophelia, but I never said that it was a rule. And my comparison was the analogy of when it can be.
4.)What?? What does slavery have to do with it? The comparison of sexual behaviors and societies views of such has nothing to do with slavery. And your strawman is not appreciated.
MrVisible
It is a sexual aberration to many, just as homosexuality is such to many, esp. Christian fundies. I am sure a pedophile would disagree with your distinction as much as you do the fundies.
As for the rest of your post, and mhendo’s, I think you just repeated each other, and DtC.
I never said homosexuality was like pedophelia. I made the comparison on how they where viewed. Your opinion may be that it is not your “choice”. A heterosexual who has had homosexual relations, or ever even contemplated such may disagree with you. Just as you may disagree with a pedophile that he can be “cured”, if you know what I mean. The comarison is there. I never said, or meant that they where the same. I hpe I have killed that strawman.
Okay, Spite. How about explaining what your point is, maybe? We’ve got a really good sense of your attitude, but so far it seems pretty content-free.
The only ones with an attitude seem to be you and a few others who want to ridicule grammer instead of debating the topic at hand. If you can’t put read words together that form a cognative sentence, that’s your issue not mine. I have better things t do than play these childish games. Go troll someone else. mmkay?
Yeah, if I can’t understand your made-up words, it’s obviously my problem. How connipituous.
There is a pit we can take this to. Otherwise, unless you have something pertinant to the discussion to say, go away.
Please, please, take your own advice.
You have stated your opinion; most people here seem to disagree with you. Whether you believe that to be an honest reflection of the world at large is of course up to you to decide. But I see no reason to continue arguing a point which seems to exist solely to cause others distress.
You have stated your case; now leave it alone.
I believe I invited you to clarify your position earlier. Any chance you’ll do so?
I feel that I need to apologize to the rest of the posters in this thread. I’m sorry that my conversation with Spite, if it can be called such, has dominated this page. I feel that the ideas that Spite is trying to defend need to be challenged whenever they’re brought up. Additionally, I like to try and ascertain if the indivuduals espousing these ideas can actually reconsider their position once they’ve been shown just how weak the bases for their reasoning are.
And if they can’t seem to reconsider them, I like to keep them talking, so the whole world can see what kind of people hold these opinions. It’s usually a fascinating display.
Once again, I apologize.
Umm, no, people have misrepresented what they think my opinion is, and I explained it. They seem to think I equate pedophilia with homosexuality. When what I said was that many people differentiate homosexuality and heterosexuality the way homosexuals, and others, discriminate between homosexuality and pedophelia.
The only ‘difference of opinion’ I have gotten is that pedophelia and homosexuality are not the same. That is not my arguemnt. And is a strawman.
I appologize if what I said causes you (or anyone) distress. But saying shut up will not change anything. If you disagree then say so. Don’t do as others and use a strawman to refute an argument you do not agree with.
This is not IMHO or the like. This is great debates. Where you state your case and others debate it. Even if it hurts your sensibilities.
I have grown to seriously detest these debates; the two sides as represented are fundamentally incompatible, and as such are inherently incapable of consensus. Truth in advertising would demand we rename them shouting matches.
And why do we continue this hateful dialogue, incurring ever more resentment, bitterness and hostility which can only lead to more of the same. This is wasted effort. Worse than wasted, as it’s ultimately counter-productive. If I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, but you do not, what have we achieved but a standoff? Neither of us will budge, if each view is sincerely held. How, then, do I achieve anything by yelling at you? The answer, I don’t. So, I no longer do.
Let me tell you what I see when I scan the thread titles of this board. I see anger, jealousy, resentment, hatred and more. Guess what? Most Christians will undoubtedly identify these also as sins. All sin is sin. It matters not whether your sin is one of these, or something left out of this conversation. Sin is what separates man from God. All sin. I don’t look around and single any out as the be-all and end-all of sin personified. It matters not a whit to me. I’m more than thankful I don’t have to judge either the issue or the person.
You cannot hound a single person into heaven.
Has any one ever been hounded into heaven?
NaSultainne, the reason I participate in these threads is that my life depends on it. If the kind of ignorant bigotry that is espoused by the straight supremacists is allowed to stand uncontested, more people might believe it has any basis in fact. More hatred towards homosexuals may be expressed in society. And from there it’s only a matter of time until we’re rounded up and killed again.
Nobody deserves to be treated the way gay people are in this society right now. I’m working to make things better, here and in the real world.
What are you doing?
Well you could ask Francis Thompson.
My family always brought me up to believe that something like homosexuality is that person’s and that person’s alone business.
Seriously-even if it WAS a sin-it isn’t affecting me. It’s only affecting those who have gay sex or whatever. And so it’s for THEM to worry about-not the rest of us.
So, even if you DO think it’s a sin, hey-why do you care so much? So is taking the Lord’s name in vain, and a HELL of a lot more people do that-so why not do flyovers about people who yell, Jesus Christ! all the time?
I understand the distinction, and I understand that some people see this as lamentable and feel a sincere sense of urgency in trying to “save souls.” I even think that H4E has a good heart down there somewhere. You don’t have to look far, though, for others who are simply driven by hostility and contempt (and that is not unique to Christianity).
I don’t think we have much beef that a narrow salvationist doctrine which categorically excludes most of humanity regardless of individual virtue is a doctrine which requires examination, clarification, expansion or even revision. I think most Christians do this. Polycarp is just one example of many on this board who quite vehemently disagree with the view that any particular group is automatically disqualified from salvation, and no one would say that he isn’t a Christian to the core. There are ways to do this without surrendering a belief in Christ as a world Savior, many of these avenues are quite ingenious in maintaining theological consistency. Libertarian, for instance, simply defines Christ as Love, and whoever accepts love accepts Christ. This at once Christologically consistent and all inclusive. Christ is the only way, but “Christ” is more than just image or a belief.
Going way back to my original remark to Snoopyfan, the remark which set this whole sub-discussion off, it was a flippant, facetious remark made out of annoyance to a poster who I felt was espousing a gratuitously noxious viewpoint. I never intended it to be applicable to anyone but the poster I aimed it at. I certainly meant no slur on Christianity as a whole, and I think that, as vituperative and gratuitous as I may be on some subjects (especially politics), I have always tried to be respectful of religion. That is my academic background and that is my favorite topic of discussion on this board. I apologize for leaving the door open to any impression that I was characterizing Christianity, as a religion or Christians in toto as hateful. I know damn well that most of them aren’t.
NaSultainne,
if all anyone did was believe it was a sin, there wouldn’t be much of an issue. The problem is when some people want to codify that belief into law, or legalize discrimination based solely on religious opinion. It’s a problem if two people are not allowed the same benefits of a civil union as two other people because of religious opinion
There are people in this world who still think that interracial marriage is a sin, and who are offended at seeing interracial couples in public. Are they allowed to have this opinion? Yes. Do we care? No. Are we going to prohibit interracial marriage so as not to upset them? Of course not.
Religious beliefs are fine as long as they are not enforced as law.
I should add that I’m not implying that you, personally hold any beliefs in religious discrimination, NaSultainne…actually, I have no idea what you support legally, I was just using your post for a springboard about belief vs. legal policy. I’m not trying to suggest anything about your own character.
MrVisible, I have tremendous empathy for you. And you speak rightly; no one, for any reason at all, should be in fear of harm to one’s self. I have two sons, one teen, one pre-teen. I have raised them to be both kind and considerate to all around them. And I’m tough on my kids. This isn’t some simple, placid, mild point I make in their hearing, but, this is where it must start. I would no more tolerate abuse of my kids than I would tolerate abuse of others in my presence, and this has no specific application to any position on any subject. People are all due a basic level of courtesy and respect.
Gobear, lovely poem. I particularly loved these lines:
For, though I knew His Love Who followed,
Yet was I sore adread
Lest, having Him, I must have naught beside.
I hear the echo of truth in this.