PDA

View Full Version : “it’s Okay To Be Gay! Bash Back!”



megimoo
11-11-2008, 03:08 PM
GAY FASCISTS STORM CHURCH

On Sunday, November 9, a band of about 30 gays stormed a church in Lansing, Michigan. Some were well dressed and were stationed inside Mount Hope Church; others were outside dressed in pink and black. The group of self-described homosexual anarchists, Bash Back!, claims the evangelical church is guilty of “transphobia and homophobia.”

The protesters outside the church were beating on buckets, shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. Fire alarms went off inside the church, protesters stormed the pulpit and a huge rainbow-colored flag was unfurled with the inscription, “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!” The church was vandalized, obscenities were shouted and worshippers were confronted. There were no arrests.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:

“The real story here is the refusal of the mainstream media to cover what is surely one of the most disturbing events of 2008. If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn’t know about it.

“This is urban fascism come to America’s heartland. It must be quickly stopped before it gets out of control. We are contacting Mike Cox, the Attorney General of Michigan, calling for an investigation.”

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1512

wiegenlied
11-11-2008, 03:30 PM
Ok. I always, always, always disagree with same-sex marriage whatsoever. The reason is simple, how would you form a healthy family with that? I always wonder how same-sex couple could born children. It is just not healthy. Plus, how could children be proud and normally grown by having gay or lesbian parents?

FlaGator
11-11-2008, 03:32 PM
GAY FASCISTS STORM CHURCH

On Sunday, November 9, a band of about 30 gays stormed a church in Lansing, Michigan. Some were well dressed and were stationed inside Mount Hope Church; others were outside dressed in pink and black. The group of self-described homosexual anarchists, Bash Back!, claims the evangelical church is guilty of “transphobia and homophobia.”

The protesters outside the church were beating on buckets, shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. Fire alarms went off inside the church, protesters stormed the pulpit and a huge rainbow-colored flag was unfurled with the inscription, “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!” The church was vandalized, obscenities were shouted and worshippers were confronted. There were no arrests.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:

“The real story here is the refusal of the mainstream media to cover what is surely one of the most disturbing events of 2008. If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn’t know about it.

“This is urban fascism come to America’s heartland. It must be quickly stopped before it gets out of control. We are contacting Mike Cox, the Attorney General of Michigan, calling for an investigation.”

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1512

All this was very forseeable and I fear it will get worse before it gets better.

zBoots
11-11-2008, 03:33 PM
Society is so pussified, they allow homos to storm their church.

M21
11-11-2008, 03:36 PM
I'd say these people were terrorized in their own homeland. The government has an agency to protect against that don't they? Of course they do.

BSR
11-11-2008, 03:39 PM
Society is so pussified, they allow homos to storm their church.

They couldn't do this at my church. My pastor is pretty high profile and we had a dude charge the stage with a machete years ago. Now we have a full security team (which I was on) with two security officers on either ends of the stage, 3 in the back and police officer to the side. We also have 2 security guards in the front lobby and two in the back, with one rover.


Our church isn't popular with liberals in Seattle, but we already have 6 branches and are opening new ones all the time.

wilbur
11-11-2008, 03:43 PM
Terrorized? Cmon... Many churches are more political organization, less religious these days... I'm surprised there really arent more of these kinds of happenings.

FlaGator
11-11-2008, 03:46 PM
Ok. I always, always, always disagree with same-sex marriage whatsoever. The reason is simple, how would you form a healthy family with that? I always wonder how same-sex couple could born children. It is just not healthy. Plus, how could children be proud and normally grown by having gay or lesbian parents?

It's not even about rights. In most states with civil unions that have almost the same rights as married couples. They are not satisfied. They claim they want to call the relationship that they have marriage, but I believe the agenda goes deeper than that. Once they win the right to call their relationships marriage then they will want to get married in a church. When the Church refused to do so on the principle that it run contrary to their moral beliefs the church will be sue for discrimination. The church will either have to authorize same-sex marriages or quit performing all marriages. To stay true to their convictions churches would cease conducting marriage ceremonies. This is exactly what they are striving for, an end to marriage as it currently stands. As in Massachusetts, once the initial scramble for marriages was over, not that may gay and lesbians choose to get married. They don't really want to get married; they want to take away what heterosexuals have.

M21
11-11-2008, 03:48 PM
This is a concealed carry municipality and folks bum rushing the stage here just might get you shot dead. That would be a tragedy but a very real possibility. People here still remember when the guy tried to take out a bunch of the congregation, after killing two in the parking lot, near here and was shot dead before he got 50 meters through the doors.

Many in our congregation are LEOs, and Military

FlaGator
11-11-2008, 03:49 PM
Terrorized? Cmon... Many churches are more political organization, less religious these days... I'm surprised there really arent more of these kinds of happenings.

Once again you demostrate how little you know about churches. "Most Churches are poticial organizations? What do you know about most churches? I assume that to make such a broad statement that you you've attended most churches in order to detemine that the majority are political.

M21
11-11-2008, 03:51 PM
Terrorized? Cmon... Many churches are more political organization, less religious these days... I'm surprised there really arent more of these kinds of happenings.

So do you condone it?

FlaGator
11-11-2008, 03:52 PM
So do you condone it?

We'll he's been to most churches so I'm sure he can tell us how evil and political they are and how they deserve someone disrupting a solumn occassion for gay street cred.

M21
11-11-2008, 03:55 PM
We'll he's been to most churches so I'm sure he can tell us how evil and political they are and how they deserve someone disrupting a solumn occassion for gay street cred.

Two things my Pastor never talks about are politics and how God needs my five bucks to get His work done. ;) Two fantasies popularized by the left in this country.

wilbur
11-11-2008, 03:56 PM
So do you condone it?

Not the vandalism or property destruction... I would be happy to see more protests against churches in the same vein as the anonymous group protests Scientology.

I am wondering how the protesters can be liberal, fascist, AND anarchist though ;) Not all of those go together.

wilbur
11-11-2008, 03:58 PM
Once again you demostrate how little you know about churches. "Most Churches are poticial organizations? What do you know about most churches? I assume that to make such a broad statement that you you've attended most churches in order to detemine that the majority are political.

I said "many churches", not most. Assemblies of God denominations in particular (as this church in Lansing is), recently brought to the limelight because of Palin, seem to be particularly focused on wielding political power.

FlaGator
11-11-2008, 03:59 PM
Two things my Pastor never talks about are politics and how God needs my five bucks to get His work done. ;) Two fantasies popularized by the left in this country.


Same here. The closest my Priest has ever come to a political statement was a couple Wednesdays ago he told the congregation to vote. It was their civic duty to vote and that he didn't care who they voted for as long as they made the effort. We rarely talk money in my parish. That is one of the reason's I am so happy with my place of worshiip. God's word and nothing else.

FlaGator
11-11-2008, 04:02 PM
I said "many churches", not most. Assemblies of God denominations in particular (as this church in Lansing is), recently brought to the limelight because of Palin, seem to be particularly focused on wielding political power.

It's not even many. A couple of handfuls of a few denominations. Do you realize how many churches there are? In my home town there is probabaly more than 1000. Of these 1000 only a few have a reputation for being political. Not so coincidentally they are the biggest churches.

BSR
11-11-2008, 04:06 PM
It's not even many. A couple of handfuls of a few denominations. Do you realize how many churches there are? In my home town there is probabaly more than 1000. Of these 1000 only a few have a reputation for being political. Not so coincidentally they are the biggest churches.

I attend one of the biggest churches in Seattle and I've never had my pastor mention politics. He mentions the "liberal bloggers" who attack him, but he doesn't push anyone to vote one way or another. In fact our church is pretty split down the middle between conservatives and liberals. We are a mesh of people who love God and strive to be more like Jesus. Even though we fail everyday.

biccat
11-11-2008, 04:29 PM
I said "many churches", not most. Assemblies of God denominations in particular (as this church in Lansing is), recently brought to the limelight because of Palin, seem to be particularly focused on wielding political power.
What the hell does Sarah Palin have to do with this?

If anything, these activities are a direct result of Barack Obama winning the White House and the Democrat control over the White House.

These homosexual "activists" (terrorists) are emboldened by a government which is increasingly apathetic (at best) or openly hostile towards religious institutions in this country.

These acts of vandalism didn't occur because Sarah Palin was nominated to be VP, they occurred because Barack Obama was elected President. This type of domestic terrorism would be investigated and the instigators punished in a political climate dominated by conservatives, or even Republicans. Under Democrats, the anti-Religion left is emboldened to terrorize ordinary Churches.

PoliCon
11-11-2008, 04:45 PM
Society is so pussified, they allow homos to storm their church.I'm afraid that if they tried to disrupt the services at my church they would find themselves flat on their backs in the street. They would be asked to leave and then forcibly ejected if they refused. We have three black belts, a kick boxer, a jujitsu fighter, and a retired cop as members of the ushers ministry.

PoliCon
11-11-2008, 04:46 PM
Not the vandalism or property destruction... I would be happy to see more protests against churches in the same vein as the anonymous group protests Scientology.

I am wondering how the protesters can be liberal, fascist, AND anarchist though ;) Not all of those go together.you're quite right. We should take back the term liberal and start calling your side what you are - socialist/progressive fascists and anarchists.

PoliCon
11-11-2008, 04:50 PM
Terrorized? Cmon... Many churches are more political organization, less religious these days... I'm surprised there really arent more of these kinds of happenings.I think you are confusing leftist churches with real churches.

FlaGator
11-11-2008, 05:04 PM
I attend one of the biggest churches in Seattle and I've never had my pastor mention politics. He mentions the "liberal bloggers" who attack him, but he doesn't push anyone to vote one way or another. In fact our church is pretty split down the middle between conservatives and liberals. We are a mesh of people who love God and strive to be more like Jesus. Even though we fail everyday.

The biggest church in my town has a lot of member who are in the city government. In fact it has been suggested that it's hard to win an elected position or a government appointment with out attending this church. It has way to many connections and powere than is necessarily good for a church to have.

wilbur
11-12-2008, 01:42 PM
What the hell does Sarah Palin have to do with this?

Nothing, other than her affiliation with Assemblies of God churches brought the AoG into the limelight somewhat... and they tend to be very political in nature. The church in Lansing was an AoG church.



These homosexual "activists" (terrorists) are emboldened by a government which is increasingly apathetic (at best) or openly hostile towards religious institutions in this country.


Or... just maybe they are pushing back against increasing marginalization (or at least attempted) at the hand of many Christian groups.

Just look at all the posts around here by Megimoo and others.... practically jumping with glee every time a homosexual misbehaves... I wonder how many of you have the greater part of your perceptions of homosexuals shaped by the demonizing anecdotes that permeate christian news outlets?

biccat
11-12-2008, 01:59 PM
Nothing, other than her affiliation with Assemblies of God churches brought the AoG into the limelight somewhat... and they tend to be very political in nature. The church in Lansing was an AoG church.
So there's no connection.

Mount Hope Church is not very political, I have friends who have attended that church while I was living there. Like many churches, they preach the truth of the Gospel that homosexuality is a sin. Also like many churches, they preach Christ's teaching that we are to hate the sin and love the sinner.


Or... just maybe they are pushing back against increasing marginalization (or at least attempted) at the hand of many Christian groups.
Even if this is true, where were the protesters in '04 when the Michigan gay marriage amendment passed? This isn't a protest against policies, either of the Church or of the State, it's a protest against religion having the audacity to preach that sins are sins.


Just look at all the posts around here by Megimoo and others.... practically jumping with glee every time a homosexual misbehaves... I wonder how many of you have the greater part of your perceptions of homosexuals shaped by the demonizing anecdotes that permeate christian news outlets?
I wonder how much of your perception of religion and churches is shaped by the demonizing anecdotes that populate the pages of mainstream newspapers?

PoliCon
11-12-2008, 02:02 PM
Just look at all the posts around here by Cold Warrior and others.... practically jumping with glee every time a Christian misbehaves... I wonder how many of you have the greater part of your perceptions of Christians shaped by the demonizing anecdotes that permeate MSM news outlets?Funny how well that reads when the tables are turned . . . .

Gingersnap
11-12-2008, 02:02 PM
Nothing, other than her affiliation with Assemblies of God churches brought the AoG into the limelight somewhat... and they tend to be very political in nature. The church in Lansing was an AoG church.

The AoG believe a lot of weird crap (in my opinion) but they are a lot less political than the Friends, the Episcopalians, the Metropolitan churches, most Methodist churches, Catholic parishes in areas heavily impacted by illegal immigration, the black churches, and all those crazy UU people.

In fact, most of the overtly political activity in Christian churches come out of the so-called progressive churches.

PoliCon
11-12-2008, 02:16 PM
most of the overtly political activity in Christian churches come out of the so-called progressive churches.RIGHT and since the type of people who pull this crap are almost always on the left - and thus in agreement with these people - it's okay. Just like when politicians are endorsed or speak from the pulpit and they're on the left - it's okay but when they are on the right - they need to have their tax exempt status revoked.

jinxmchue
11-12-2008, 02:23 PM
Terrorized? Cmon... Many LIBERAL churches are more political organization, less religious these days... I'm surprised there really arent more of these kinds of happenings.

f1x0r3d f0r u.

Right-On
11-12-2008, 03:04 PM
GAY FASCISTS STORM CHURCH

On Sunday, November 9, a band of about 30 gays stormed a church in Lansing, Michigan. Some were well dressed and were stationed inside Mount Hope Church; others were outside dressed in pink and black. The group of self-described homosexual anarchists, Bash Back!, claims the evangelical church is guilty of “transphobia and homophobia.”

The protesters outside the church were beating on buckets, shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. Fire alarms went off inside the church, protesters stormed the pulpit and a huge rainbow-colored flag was unfurled with the inscription, “IT’S OKAY TO BE GAY! BASH BACK!” The church was vandalized, obscenities were shouted and worshippers were confronted. There were no arrests.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today:

“The real story here is the refusal of the mainstream media to cover what is surely one of the most disturbing events of 2008. If an organized group of gay bashers stormed a gay church, there is not a single sentient person in the United States who wouldn’t know about it.

“This is urban fascism come to America’s heartland. It must be quickly stopped before it gets out of control. We are contacting Mike Cox, the Attorney General of Michigan, calling for an investigation.”

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1512

All in the name of "LOVE" right?

PoliKat
11-12-2008, 03:16 PM
It's not even about rights. In most states with civil unions that have almost the same rights as married couples. They are not satisfied. They claim they want to call the relationship that they have marriage, but I believe the agenda goes deeper than that. Once they win the right to call their relationships marriage then they will want to get married in a church. When the Church refused to do so on the principle that it run contrary to their moral beliefs the church will be sue for discrimination. The church will either have to authorize same-sex marriages or quit performing all marriages. To stay true to their convictions churches would cease conducting marriage ceremonies. This is exactly what they are striving for, an end to marriage as it currently stands. As in Massachusetts, once the initial scramble for marriages was over, not that may gay and lesbians choose to get married. They don't really want to get married; they want to take away what heterosexuals have.
And by calling evil good and good evil, the homosexual agenda and its participants will be left to propogate in their own filth. If everybody around them is doing it, then it must be the right thing to do, hence the cutting off of the traditional form of man/woman relationship and marriage. They are being given over to their own reprobate minds...indeed. How sad for them. One day the flames they carry for their partners are going to get extremely HOT on themselves.

PoliCon
11-12-2008, 03:27 PM
no more hot than the flames for those who stand in Gods place judging everyone.

PoliKat
11-12-2008, 04:15 PM
no more hot than the flames for those who stand in Gods place judging everyone.
However, calling sin what it is, is not judging. Just a statement of fact. The debate lies in what one sees as sin, not that sin even exists. But believing it is or isn't is not what makes it so or not so, certainly. And sin does not always lead to an immediate physical death. Spiritual, yes. But then again, there are also physical consequences of sin, which could definitely lead to death.

I cannot judge whether or not somebody is going to hell. It depends upon what they profess before they die, and in some cases, while they are dying. I witnessed a man cursing God on the gurney after he had been shot on the street for attempting to shoot others after a bank robbery in Los Angeles a number of years ago. These cursing words to God he spoke as he was dying on the stretcher. However, in that split second before he succumbed to the ever after, he could have had a change of heart...who knows? Chances are he didn't, but that's just chances...not everything is obvious due to circumstantial evidence. I am not a reader of the heart or soul, but I think it's plausible to say that a person's actions speak louder than their words.

PoliCon
11-12-2008, 04:24 PM
However, calling sin what it is, is not judging. Just a statement of fact. The debate lies in what one sees as sin, not that sin even exists. But believing it is or isn't is not what makes it so or not so, certainly. And sin does not always lead to an immediate physical death. Spiritual, yes. But then again, there are also physical consequences of sin, which could definitely lead to death. Calling one sin a greater sin than any other - that's judging. Unless you are equally willing to castigate all men and all sinful behaviors equally - you are judging.



I cannot judge whether or not somebody is going to hell. And yet we have people in the church every day telling people who have same sex attractions that for no other reason than they feel attracted to someone of the same sex they will burn in hell.



It depends upon what they profess before they die, and in some cases, while they are dying. And unless we share the love of God with them and the rest of the sinners out there - share the good news IN LOVE and with compassion - then we are a stumbling block.



I witnessed a man cursing God on the gurney after he had been shot on the street for attempting to shoot others after a bank robbery in Los Angeles a number of years ago. These cursing words to God he spoke as he was dying on the stretcher. However, in that split second before he succumbed to the ever after, he could have had a change of heart...who knows? Chances are he didn't, but that's just chances...not everything is obvious due to circumstantial evidence. I am not a reader of the heart or soul, but I think it's plausible to say that a person's actions speak louder than their words. And even then - actions are not what counts. It's what is internal that counts - what is in the heart.

noonwitch
11-12-2008, 04:33 PM
The groups doing the protesting don't speak for all gays. They are wrong to target churches with their protests, as wrong as the anti-abortion protestors who picket doctors' houses. It's taking the argument to an inappropriate venue, and it does nothing to help their cause.

They are also about 4 years too late. Michigan passed a law against gay marriage and against even civil unions, on the ballot in 2004. The margin of victory was so high, the protestors might as well picket in front of Meijer, WalMart or the malls, to target the voters that voted for the ban.


I think Cox's response was a bit much, too. To refer to a protest, however inappropriate, as an example of "urban facism" is to use loaded language. But, then again, "urban" is one of his favorite words. When he investigated the original allegations of Kwame Kilpatrick paying off-duty cops to provide security during his stripper party at the mayor's mansion, Cox referred to the widely-spread stories about the party as an "urban legend". He white-washed it, until the city settled with the cops and the Free Press blew the lid off the whole thing. If he runs for Governor in 2010, it's all going to come out.

PoliKat
11-12-2008, 04:34 PM
Calling one sin a greater sin than any other - that's judging. Unless you are equally willing to castigate all men and all sinful behaviors equally - you are judging. And yet we have people in the church every day telling people who have same sex attractions that for no other reason than they feel attracted to someone of the same sex they will burn in hell.


And unless we share the love of God with them and the rest of the sinners out there - share the good news IN LOVE and with compassion - then we are a stumbling block.

And even then - actions are not what counts. It's what is internal that counts - what is in the heart.
Indeed, you are right. And yes, the intention of the heart is what God sees, not the action in the end. Hence my use of the word 'plausible', not necessarily so, just plausible. That's human nature, unfortunately. We have such a propensity to debate with the usual harshness, when, as you have stated, it must be done in love, or not done at all.

Everybody has sinned...and fallen short. Nobody, including myself, is immune from the fallen nature of humanity. However, what we do with ourselves as a result of learning as much is where we make the biggest impact for good, and not evil.

YupItsMe
11-12-2008, 04:39 PM
Not the vandalism or property destruction... I would be happy to see more protests against churches in the same vein as the anonymous group protests Scientology.

I am wondering how the protesters can be liberal, fascist, AND anarchist though ;) Not all of those go together.


Every bunch of wacko losers cling together. VT except for one annual pro-life rally it's the same losers at every protest. The war, gay rights, abortion, pot legalization, my favorite the "Save Our Legdes (sic) campaign to stop the transportation dept from cutting back the ledges that cars were slamming into on our interstates. It's the same bunch of misfits at every protest.

movie buff
11-12-2008, 04:40 PM
Not the vandalism or property destruction... I would be happy to see more protests against churches in the same vein as the anonymous group protests Scientology.

I am wondering how the protesters can be liberal, fascist, AND anarchist though ;) Not all of those go together.

That is disgusting that you are supporting such repulsive acts. That church was very active in promoting numerous social causes worldwide, and leading people to Christ.
The freakish perverts who crashed the church and defiled it with their depraved acts (i.e. throwing condoms at the churchgoers during the service, having a lesbian couple run up to the pulpit and make out, shrieking all kinds of obscenities through a megaphone) did so for the specific purpose of attempting to provoke the churchgoers to get violent. They had a reporter there and numerous video cameras running, in the hopes that their perversions would anger one of the decent churchgoers enough to make him lose his cool and start throwing punches, so they could then put the footage on Youtube or whatever and use it to howl like scalded cats about how all Christians are horrible, violent monsters. Fortunately, the churchgoers refused to take the perverts' bait, and remained calm and civil. For that, I salute them, for showing what it means to love their enemies and bless those who curse them.
Mount Hope was a white church, wasn't it? There's no way the perverts would have the balls to pull something like that at a black church (Even though in places like California, the vast majority of black Christians voted in favor of the ban on gay marriage).
As for liberal, fascist, and anarchist, let me lay it out for you:
1. They are liberal in terms of their positions on the issue of same- sex marriage.
2. They are fascist in that they have very little tolerance for opposing views, and will do anything to silence them (Admittedly, the meaning of that term has over the last few decades been hijacked from the days when it was used simply to define the political party of Benito Mussolini).
3. They are anarchists by their own admission, by the mode of dress of some of them (i.e. photos I've seen of the ones outside the church had them wearing mostly black and covering their faces with stupid bandanas, both fashion trademarks of American anarchist protestors; The ones inside the church were wearing nice clothes merely to blend in among the real churchgoers until they got the signal to start raising Hell), and their tactics (Anarchist protestors LOVE promoting violence and chaos; At their protests they usually rely on "Direct Actions," a euphemistic term meaning "Try and start a riot by provoking people and engaging in as much vandalism and violence as possible").

My own church normally does not talk about politics in the sermons. Occasionally in some of the adult Sunday School classes if the conversation drifts that way, but never in the actual services. The closest thing to a political endorsement they've made was in 2004, when the church bulletins included a small flier urging members to vote against a proposal to install a bunch of slot machines at a local greyhound track.
As for asking for money, they admittedly have done that on quite a few occasions, but for two reasons:
1. The church is a very large one, and growing progressively larger as time goes on. Thus, it would require more money to keep going.
2. The church runs literally dozens of charities, missions, and community outreach projects, which all of course require funding from donors.

YupItsMe
11-12-2008, 04:41 PM
I attend one of the biggest churches in Seattle and I've never had my pastor mention politics. He mentions the "liberal bloggers" who attack him, but he doesn't push anyone to vote one way or another. In fact our church is pretty split down the middle between conservatives and liberals. We are a mesh of people who love God and strive to be more like Jesus. Even though we fail everyday.


Oh noes! Haven't you heard, the anti-religion folks think we think we're perfect! :mad:

PoliCon
11-12-2008, 05:10 PM
So now polikat I ask you - Do you chose what foods will gross you out and which foods you would find irresistible? Did you chose what your sexual attractions would be? If so - you're a better man than I - because no matter how hard I try - I cannot help but find Jessica Alba - HOT HOT HOT!

PoliCon
11-12-2008, 05:11 PM
Every bunch of wacko losers cling together. VT except for one annual pro-life rally it's the same losers at every protest. The war, gay rights, abortion, pot legalization, my favorite the "Save Our Legdes (sic) campaign to stop the transportation dept from cutting back the ledges that cars were slamming into on our interstates. It's the same bunch of misfits at every protest. that's protest culture.

PoliKat
11-12-2008, 05:33 PM
PoliCon, I believe there is a natural order to sexuality that does not include the affection of the same sex. However, I also believe that the individual who has a strong attraction to the same sex is struggling with just what the devil wants them to, sin, because we live in a fallen world. Period. I do not believe that it is [I]necessarily[I] a matter of who/what we are attracted to as much as it is how the attraction makes us think or feel at a specific point. Perhaps the touch of pleasureable sensation results in repulsion when coming from an unnatural source, which I believe homosexuality is. But then again, there have been times that I chose wrong over what my conscience/soul knew to be right and paid the consequences for it, regardless of how wonderful it seemed at the time.

Additionally, there is nothing irresistible, for wherever there is there is also a [I]means[I]of resisting it if we choose to take it and use it for that purpose. We are drawn away by our own desires, not the desires of others...;)

PoliCon
11-12-2008, 06:31 PM
PoliCon, I believe there is a natural order to sexuality that does not include the affection of the same sex. However, I also believe that the individual who has a strong attraction to the same sex is struggling with just what the devil wants them to, sin, because we live in a fallen world. Period. I do not believe that it is [I]necessarily[I] a matter of who/what we are attracted to as much as it is how the attraction makes us think or feel at a specific point. Perhaps the touch of pleasureable sensation results in repulsion when coming from an unnatural source, which I believe homosexuality is. But then again, there have been times that I chose wrong over what my conscience/soul knew to be right and paid the consequences for it, regardless of how wonderful it seemed at the time.

Additionally, there is nothing irresistible, for wherever there is there is also a [I]means[I]of resisting it if we choose to take it and use it for that purpose. We are drawn away by our own desires, not the desires of others...;)As I said before in this thread or in the other thread(s) on this issue - do not confuse the behavior with the attraction. I'm speaking specifically of the attraction which is involuntary.

PoliKat
11-12-2008, 06:53 PM
As I said before in this thread or in the other thread(s) on this issue - do not confuse the behavior with the attraction. I'm speaking specifically of the attraction which is involuntary.
That is an interesting point. Just how would you define "attraction" though?

M21
11-12-2008, 10:56 PM
I'm speaking specifically of the attraction which is involuntary.Do you have any proof of that?

PoliCon
11-12-2008, 11:21 PM
That is an interesting point. Just how would you define "attraction" though? The involuntary physical reaction we have towards someone we find sexually appealing. It's a bit more evident and easy to provoke for guys that it is for girls . . . .

PoliCon
11-12-2008, 11:21 PM
Do you have any proof of that?Do you have control over who you find attractive? Or do you find your body responding without your conscious minds permission?

And if anecdotal evidence is insufficient for you - http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:OuUWXezMbF8J:www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf+

M21
11-12-2008, 11:30 PM
Do you have control over who you find attractive? Or do you find your body responding without your conscious minds permission?

And if anecdotal evidence is insufficient for you - http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:OuUWXezMbF8J:www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf+

I have control over what I do when I find something attractive and I don't have any same sex attractions. I do have opposite sex attractions that were God given for the purpose of procreation. My body doesn't' respond without my permission. My body is under my submission and not the other way around.

I'll read what you posted but a link with "homophobia" in the title is already stepping off on the left foot. BTW - when I take the link apart it's not a very unbiased source.

PoliCon
11-12-2008, 11:45 PM
I have control over what I do when I find something attractive and I don't have any same sex attractions. I do have opposite sex attractions that were God given for the purpose of procreation. My body doesn't' respond without my permission. My body is under my submission and not the other way around.

I'll read what you posted but a link with "homophobia" in the title is already stepping off on the left foot. BTW - when I take the link apart it's not a very unbiased source.AGAIN - separating the attraction from the behavior. How we deal with our urges is quite different from having urges and there are far too many people who push the idea that gay people both chose their urges - their attractions and are damnable just on the basis of having them.

As for the homophobia study - I agree it's not a very unbiased source - but that does not make the facts of the study any less real.

marinejcksn
11-13-2008, 01:48 AM
Terrorized? Cmon... Many churches are more political organization, less religious these days... I'm surprised there really arent more of these kinds of happenings.

Wilbur, I'm seriously concerned for your mental state as of late. This issue is beyond the mere gay vs. church overtones, this radical group is merely using an excuse to push it's agenda upon people. That's called Fascism, a term you should be more then familiar with since the Left uses it as a favorite bludgeon to supress opposite viewpoints. Had this been a group of straight, churchgoing americans storming a Gay organization you would see it on every newspaper, Keith Overbite would soil his panties over reporting it and you, along with your Liberal brethren, would be outraged.

Christians are among the most tolerant people in this great country. You'd think that self labeled 'Progressives" would be accepting and toooolerant of people different from them. :rolleyes:

marinejcksn
11-13-2008, 01:59 AM
Bash Back! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash_Back)

Points of "Unity"

According to their news website, anyone can form a Bash Back! chapter as long as they adhere to the basic points of unity:

1. Fight for liberation. Nothing more, nothing less. State recognition in the form of oppressive institutions such as marriage and militarism are not steps toward liberation but rather towards heteronormative assimilation.

2. A rejection of Capitalism, Imperialism, and all forms of State power. :rolleyes:

3. Actively oppose oppression both in and out of the “movement.” All oppressive behavior is not to be tolerated.

4. Respect a diversity of tactics in the struggle for liberation. Do not solely condemn an action on the grounds that the State deems it to be illegal


Awww....isn't that cute? Seems Phelps and the whackos at the Westboro Baptist Church have some competition. :D

movie buff
11-13-2008, 07:03 AM
Bash Back! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash_Back)

Points of "Unity"

According to their news website, anyone can form a Bash Back! chapter as long as they adhere to the basic points of unity:

1. Fight for liberation. Nothing more, nothing less. State recognition in the form of oppressive institutions such as marriage and militarism are not steps toward liberation but rather towards heteronormative assimilation.

2. A rejection of Capitalism, Imperialism, and all forms of State power. :rolleyes:

3. Actively oppose oppression both in and out of the “movement.” All oppressive behavior is not to be tolerated.

4. Respect a diversity of tactics in the struggle for liberation. Do not solely condemn an action on the grounds that the State deems it to be illegal


Awww....isn't that cute? Seems Phelps and the whackos at the Westboro Baptist Church have some competition. :D


"Diversity of tactics" is another one of the idiotic euphemisms that anarchist protestor psychos rely on using to hide their clearly violent intentions, similar to their use of the term "Direct Action." "Diversity of Tactics" basically means "Do whatever you want at the protests. Anything that pops into your meth- addled heads, regardless of how violent or illegal it is, is a-ok. Just try not to let it be directly connected to us to give the police good cause to arrest us."

PoliCon
11-13-2008, 08:07 AM
Diversity of Tactics is just a fancy way of saying the ends justify the means.

wilbur
11-13-2008, 08:52 AM
Wilbur, I'm seriously concerned for your mental state as of late. This issue is beyond the mere gay vs. church overtones, this radical group is merely using an excuse to push it's agenda upon people. That's called Fascism, a term you should be more then familiar with since the Left uses it as a favorite bludgeon to supress opposite viewpoints. Had this been a group of straight, churchgoing americans storming a Gay organization you would see it on every newspaper, Keith Overbite would soil his panties over reporting it and you, along with your Liberal brethren, would be outraged.



Well let me clarify....

I agree they are radical and what they did was uncalled for. There probably is a time and place for such tactics, if there is a desperate enough situation, but this was not it. However, I don't think churches should be an off limits zone for protest.

Thats why I mentioned the Anonymous protests of Scientology as a model... they seem to be very peaceful protests... what few confrontations there are have generally been initiated by angry Scientologists.



Christians are among the most tolerant people in this great country. You'd think that self labeled 'Progressives" would be accepting and toooolerant of people different from them. :rolleyes:

Some are, some arent. I don't think there is any exceptional predisposition to more tolerance from Christians or any other group of people, in my experience. Everyone likes to think and say they are the most tolerant though.

megimoo
11-13-2008, 09:22 AM
"One Of The Many Fringe Benefits Of Being A Male On Male !"


Study: HPV vaccine prevents genital warts in males

ATLANTA – For the first time, an expensive vaccine aimed at preventing cervical cancer in women has proven successful at preventing a disease in men, according to a new study.

The disease? It's genital warts, a sexually-transmitted problem that is embarrassing and uncomfortable but not life-threatening.

Still, the results are expected to bolster a likely bid by the vaccine's manufacturer — Merck & Co. Inc. — to begin marketing the vaccine to boys, experts said. Merck plans to ask the government for that approval later this year.

"This opens the door to a wonderful opportunity to prevent illness," said Anna Giuliano, a Tampa-based researcher who worked on the Merck-funded study. She is an epidemiologist at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa.

The results of the study were to be presented Thursday at a medical conference in Europe.

The focus was Merck's vaccine, Gardasil, which is given in three doses over six months and is priced at about $375.

The vaccine targets the two types of HPV, or human papillomavirus, believed to be responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases, and two other types that cause most genital warts. HPV is spread through
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_on_he_me/med_hpv_vaccine

FlaGator
11-13-2008, 11:14 AM
Well let me clarify....

I agree they are radical and what they did was uncalled for. There probably is a time and place for such tactics, if there is a desperate enough situation, but this was not it. However, I don't think churches should be an off limits zone for protest.


Would gay bars and bath houses be acceptable locations for counter protests or would those protests be considered as overly provocative?

M21
11-13-2008, 01:16 PM
As for the homophobia study - I agree it's not a very unbiased source - but that does not make the facts of the study any less real.

Not very? There aren't any "facts" concluded in the study. Their premise of defining "homophobia" is a flawed notion.

PoliCon
11-13-2008, 01:22 PM
and how would you define homophobia?

M21
11-13-2008, 01:53 PM
and how would you define homophobia?I wouldn't since it doesn't exist except in the minds of others.

PoliCon
11-13-2008, 02:04 PM
I wouldn't since it doesn't exist except in the minds of others.And how do you conclude that? Are the people out there who are being beaten up for being gay - are they just making it all up?

Gingersnap
11-13-2008, 02:22 PM
And how do you conclude that? Are the people out there who are being beaten up for being gay - are they just making it all up?

Some people get beaten up for being gay and some people who are beaten up are coincidentally gay; a certain number just look funny and that's enough to set some people off.

I've never met a heterosexual who really had an irrational fear of gays which is what homophobia would be. Even people who do have irrational fears about snakes or clowns or whatever never actually seek them out and attack them. How could they? They have an irrational fear that makes them avoid the fear object and usually any mention of it.

There are any number of groups that people don't like or avoid but that doesn't add up to an irrational fear. It adds up to distaste or political differences or divergent views of some kind.

M21
11-13-2008, 02:36 PM
And how do you conclude that? Are the people out there who are being beaten up for being gay - are they just making it all up?

"Homophobic" is an invented word that simply means hetero-healthy and is as silly as me saying somebody is afflicted by "hetero-phobia." Searching the DSM-IV I don't find a diagnosis for Homophobia because it's not listed. Homosexuality on the other hand was listed as a mental disorder until 1972 and after watching the antics of those Prop 8 protestors perhaps the argument could be made for its reintroduction.

PoliCon
11-13-2008, 02:40 PM
Some people get beaten up for being gay and some people who are beaten up are coincidentally gay; a certain number just look funny and that's enough to set some people off.

I've never met a heterosexual who really had an irrational fear of gays which is what homophobia would be. Even people who do have irrational fears about snakes or clowns or whatever never actually seek them out and attack them. How could they? They have an irrational fear that makes them avoid the fear object and usually any mention of it.

There are any number of groups that people don't like or avoid but that doesn't add up to an irrational fear. It adds up to distaste or political differences or divergent views of some kind.Do you need to be introduced to them? I have met quite a few over the years. One happens to be my father. It KILLS him that I do ministry work with homosexuals. I can say this is so because I was there when he attacked someone for no other reason than the guy was gay and my father did not like the way that the other man was "looking at him." Further - it seems to me that you are confusing the fear of an THING with a fear of a BEHAVIOR.


That being said - I do not define homophobia as fear of other peoples homosexuality - it's the fear of their OWN homosexual feelings which causes them to lash out in order to prove through violent denial those feelings are false.

nacho
11-13-2008, 02:44 PM
So they pull shit like this and think that it will help them gain acceptance? Lol. Good thinking, fairies.

Gingersnap
11-13-2008, 02:57 PM
Do you need to be introduced to them? I have met quite a few over the years. One happens to be my father. It KILLS him that I do ministry work with homosexuals. I can say this is so because I was there when he attacked someone for no other reason than the guy was gay and my father did not like the way that the other man was "looking at him." Further - it seems to me that you are confusing the fear of an THING with a fear of a BEHAVIOR.


That being said - I do not define homophobia as fear of other peoples homosexuality - it's the fear of their OWN homosexual feelings which causes them to lash out in order to prove through violent denial those feelings are false.

Your Dad may well be some kind of wacko; you'd hardly be the first kid with a parent who had some kind of problem. Your Dad may even dislike gays for various reasons. There are innumerable people (mostly men) who fight each other over "looks". It's insane but it's common. None of that adds up to any kind of phobia. English has a huge vocabulary that capable of making extremely fine distinctions and this is one area where we should employ those distinctions.

I don't think I'm confused. Fear is a behavior and it plays out in a way that is independent of the object. Maybe fear isn't the right word to use here for that very reason. ;)

YupItsMe
11-13-2008, 03:01 PM
Would gay bars and bath houses be acceptable locations for counter protests or would those protests be considered as overly provocative?

Well I can tell you in VT protesting at a gay bar would be deemed a hate crime and some ACLU lawyer would tryto bring up RICO charges. :mad:

FlaGator
11-13-2008, 03:56 PM
Your Dad may well be some kind of wacko; you'd hardly be the first kid with a parent who had some kind of problem. Your Dad may even dislike gays for various reasons. There are innumerable people (mostly men) who fight each other over "looks". It's insane but it's common. None of that adds up to any kind of phobia. English has a huge vocabulary that capable of making extremely fine distinctions and this is one area where we should employ those distinctions.

I don't think I'm confused. Fear is a behavior and it plays out in a way that is independent of the object. Maybe fear isn't the right word to use here for that very reason. ;)

i have known a few people in my life that had an absolute hatred for homosexuals. They would go from mild to ranting just at the mention of homosexuals. I have never understood this. These people claim that they weren't abused or mistreated by homosexuals but hate them because of what they do. Admittedly, I am not overly fond of homosexual behavior, but it doesn't drive me in to a rage either. I mostly have a 'to each his own as long as you don't attempt to make it my business' attitude about the subject. I don't hate them and in fact I have several friends who are homosexual. They're decent people for the most part and what they see happening now is embarrassing for them. They also fear a potential negetive backlash because of these antics. I can't say I blame them.

PoliCon
11-13-2008, 04:07 PM
I don't think I'm confused. Fear is a behavior and it plays out in a way that is independent of the object. Maybe fear isn't the right word to use here for that very reason. ;)Yes you are! :p The fear is of a behavior. Homosexuality is not like a spider. When you see a spider you cannot mistake it for anything but a spider. The Eight legs and other physical characteristics give the spider away. A homosexual can only be spotted by their behavior. Some are visible by how they walk or talk. Some are apparent in how they dress - but there are so many MANY more who - unless they told you - you would not know. When one of my very close friends came out to me - there were absolutely no hints or overt signs that gave his attractions away. He played on the football and baseball teams in high school - always had girlfriends - etc . . . .So - As I said - homophobia is not a fear of a person - it's a fear of a behavior.

I'd also like to point out that there are different ways that fear can manifest in people. Some freeze. Some panic. Some lash out. I have a serious problem with crowds - not large groups - crowds. When I find myself in a situation when a crowd is developing I have a very short period of time to get myself out of that situation before my natural instincts give in and I start flailing. I know this - because it's happened before. I react sililarly with my other phobia - needles. My medical care givers always get the same lecture from me when it comes to needles. I have to have time to psyche myself up before they come at me with a needle. The one nurse when I was a teen who did not let me do just that ended up with teethmarks. I did give her fair warning though!!

PoliCon
11-13-2008, 04:10 PM
I have several friends who are homosexual. They're decent people for the most part and what they see happening now is embarrassing for them. They also fear a potential negetive backlash because of these antics. I can't say I blame them.Right. And no one is defending the actions of this group here. At least I'm not. What they did was wrong. My only intent is to get people to think about why these people might feel justified the way they do.

M21
11-13-2008, 06:25 PM
Right. And no one is defending the actions of this group here. At least I'm not. What they did was wrong. My only intent is to get people to think about why these people might feel justified the way they do.

You work in the ministry? Why do you suspect they feel "justified", an interesting word choice by the way, acting out the way they do?

Sinners are always trying to justify themselves. We do it all the time.

Molon Labe
11-13-2008, 08:24 PM
They couldn't do this at my church. My pastor is pretty high profile and we had a dude charge the stage with a machete years ago. Now we have a full security team (which I was on) with two security officers on either ends of the stage, 3 in the back and police officer to the side. We also have 2 security guards in the front lobby and two in the back, with one rover.


Our church isn't popular with liberals in Seattle, but we already have 6 branches and are opening new ones all the time.

What kind of friggin' church is that!!? :eek: :p

BSR
11-13-2008, 08:50 PM
What kind of friggin' church is that!!? :eek: :p

Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Our Pastor ,Mark Driscoll, isn't very well likedin the community because he's a threat to the liberal lifestyle in the heart of Seattle. We have almost 5 thousand people come to the Ballard campus alone every Sunday for service and it scares the liberals.

BSR
11-13-2008, 09:00 PM
So they pull shit like this and think that it will help them gain acceptance? Lol. Good thinking, fairies.

I wonder if they realize that by definition they are performing a hate crime when they assault people and harass them.


A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.


Kind of Ironic. since they detest hate crimes and all. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
11-13-2008, 09:43 PM
You work in the ministry? Why do you suspect they feel "justified", an interesting word choice by the way, acting out the way they do?

Sinners are always trying to justify themselves. We do it all the time.My telling you would benefit you not at all. The benefit is in putting yourself in their place.

M21
11-13-2008, 10:15 PM
My telling you would benefit you not at all. The benefit is in putting yourself in their place.

I am in their place I'm a sinner. Should I sin more so that the grace of God may abound?

PoliCon
11-14-2008, 11:19 AM
I am in their place I'm a sinner. Should I sin more so that the grace of God may abound?Are you purposefully being a schmuck about this - or is it quite by accident? Who said anything about you sinning? Who said that you have to do what they do??? Stop being such a *&%$ and try - just try - for one paltry second to see things from someone else's point of view. This is a group segment of the population that is being demonized and attacked constantly for something they have no control over - by people who INSIST that 1) they are going to hell. 2) are evil. 3) CHOOSE to be gay 4) can control what they find attractive/appealing and unattractive/unappealing. 5) most of these same people hate themselves and are encouraged to do so by the very same people who should be leading them to CHRIST.

GAH. If I wanted to talk to an idiot I'd chase CW around.

M21
11-14-2008, 11:58 AM
Are you purposefully being a schmuck about this - or is it quite by accident? Who said anything about you sinning? Who said that you have to do what they do??? Stop being such a *&%$ and try - just try - for one paltry second to see things from someone else's point of view. This is a group segment of the population that is being demonized and attacked constantly for something they have no control over - by people who INSIST that 1) they are going to hell. 2) are evil. 3) CHOOSE to be gay 4) can control what they find attractive/appealing and unattractive/unappealing. 5) most of these same people hate themselves and are encouraged to do so by the very same people who should be leading them to CHRIST.

GAH. If I wanted to talk to an idiot I'd chase CW around.

You hollering and stamping your feet that they have no control over themselves doesn't make it so. There is no gay gene and you don't have to like it. No one here encourages sinners to hate themselves, they encourage sinners to hate the sin in their lives as much as God does and repent from it.

Why don't you stop being purposefully evasive. Sin is sin PERIOD. I'm a sinner saved by grace and so are you. The difference is that I'm not attempting to stand before a Holy God and justify myself.

When you get tired of eating handfuls of shifting sand and washing it down with milk get back with me.

PoliCon
11-14-2008, 12:25 PM
You hollering and stamping your feet that they have no control over themselves doesn't make it so. There is no gay gene and you don't have to like it. No one here encourages sinners to hate themselves, they encourage sinners to hate the sin in their lives as much as God does and repent from it.

Why don't you stop being purposefully evasive. Sin is sin PERIOD. I'm a sinner saved by grace and so are you. The difference is that I'm not attempting to stand before a Holy God and justify myself.

When you get tired of eating handfuls of shifting sand and washing it down with milk get back with me.DAMN IT READ WHAT I POST. They have no control over how they feel - what they find attractive any more than you or I do. I have said time and again - separate the behavior from the attraction. if you can't be bothered to read what is posted - do everyone a favor and shut the hell up. I have not ONCE defended behavior. There is no need to. But you are right - your truculence and refusal to deal with the issue as presented - as opposed to the issue as you want to see it - is just as much a sin as any other - INCLUDING according to you - homosexuality. So does that mean that you're going to burn as well??

M21
11-14-2008, 12:35 PM
DAMN IT READ WHAT I POST. They have no control over how they feel - what they find attractive any more than you or I do. I have said time and again - separate the behavior from the attraction. if you can't be bothered to read what is posted - do everyone a favor and shut the hell up. I have not ONCE defended behavior. There is no need to. But you are right - your truculence and refusal to deal with the issue as presented - as opposed to the issue as you want to see it - is just as much a sin as any other - INCLUDING according to you - homosexuality. So does that mean that you're going to burn as well??

Your posts are incoherent. Are you trying to make a point? Get to it will you? Are you trying to make the case for a gay gene that causes a natural attraction to the same sex?

PoliKat
11-14-2008, 12:40 PM
And the adulterer can't help him/herself, either, right? Sexual sin is still sexual sin. Call it adultery, fornication, lesbinism, homosexuality, whatever one desires. I suppose that because I feel sexually attracted to somebody that I can't help it? Perhaps. It is true that one can be aroused without a human being anywhere NEAR them. However, there is a way to handle the attraction, right OR wrong, and certainly when it is wrong scripture tells us that there is ALWAYS a way out IF WE TAKE IT!!! There is a way to change behavior. The choice is made BEFORE the attraction takes hold. Whether or not one can help it is not the bottom line issue.

Living in a fallen world creates the 'can't help it' attitude stay stuck when an individual is not given another means with which to deal. Hopefully, within your work in this ministry you are in, you are able to teach people this. I would hope what you are doing is trying, in love, to help others see not only the love of Christ for them, but the means to leave a sinful life behind, regardless.

It is what one does with the behavior and the resposne to it that becomes the issue. And to tell me that I should just 'accept' the fact that I might want to go hit the sack with others because I can't help my sexual feelings being there IS an excuse to continue in the behavior, if I have succumbed to it. Perhaps one cannot help the feeling, but they CAN do something about it, and 'being renewed by the transforming of their minds' is the key.

I have been celibate for many years now, with the exception of temptation. Yes, I know, sucks to be me I suppose. However, I also know that as long as I keep myself FROM those situations that would draw me into a life of sexual promiscuity, then I'm safe. But if I start messing around with wanting to do something with the desires, (other than get married, God forbid, LOL) and yes it gets very difficult some days, THAT is when I am in trouble and have a hard time controlling it.

No wonder I'm still single. :D Kinda nice, really.

PoliCon
11-14-2008, 12:59 PM
And the adulterer can't help him/herself, either, right? AGAIN - do not confuse actions with desire/attraction. If a person is attracted to multiple people its quite different from how they act on those feelings.
Sexual sin is still sexual sin. Call it adultery, fornication, lesbinism, homosexuality, whatever one desires. Sexual sin requires ACTION to be a sin and to be quite honest - Christians in general spend way too much time hung up on these sins at the cost of sins that are far more damaging and harmful such as HATE, BITTERNESS, and JUDGMENT.


I suppose that because I feel sexually attracted to somebody that I can't help it? Perhaps. It is true that one can be aroused without a human being anywhere NEAR them. However, there is a way to handle the attraction, right OR wrong, and certainly when it is wrong scripture tells us that there is ALWAYS a way out IF WE TAKE IT!!! There is a way to change behavior. The choice is made BEFORE the attraction takes hold. Whether or not one can help it is not the bottom line issue. Perhaps? Perhaps??? Come on - be honest. It helps. :) Speaking as a man - there are certain parts of our bodies that have a mind of their own. I don't have to do more than look at someone at times to have an involuntary physical reaction - GRANTED there were many many more of them when I was younger . . . . But that does not change the facts of the matter - the attraction I feel is not something I can chose to have or not to have.


Living in a fallen world creates the 'can't help it' attitude stay stuck when an individual is not given another means with which to deal. Hopefully, within your work in this ministry you are in, you are able to teach people this. I would hope what you are doing is trying, in love, to help others see not only the love of Christ for them, but the means to leave a sinful life behind, regardless. I'm not prepared to discuss ACTIONS at this time.


It is what one does with the behavior and the resposne to it that becomes the issue.
Right. :) There is a far cry of difference between an attraction and acting in an inappropriate way on that attraction - just like there are appropriate and inappropriate was to act with regard to anger - any other emotion/feeling.


And to tell me that I should just 'accept' the fact that I might want to go hit the sack with others because I can't help my sexual feelings being there IS an excuse to continue in the behavior, if I have succumbed to it. Perhaps one cannot help the feeling, but they CAN do something about it, and 'being renewed by the transforming of their minds' is the key. Where have I made that argument? I would not make an argument along those lines. I have insisted time and again that we divide the attraction from the action.

M21
11-14-2008, 01:18 PM
Sexual sin requires ACTION to be a sin and to be quite honest - Christians in general spend way too much time hung up on these sins at the cost of sins that are far more damaging and harmful such as HATE, BITTERNESS, and JUDGMENT.

So you're not going to make your argument from God's word but rather from what you feeeeel at any given moment? That sounds like you've just put a lantern on the bow of the boat and are rowing toward the light. We know that sexual sin doesn't require a physical action to be sin. You don't make judgements? I think you just sinned.

PoliKat
11-14-2008, 02:17 PM
AGAIN - do not confuse actions with desire/attraction. If a person is attracted to multiple people its quite different from how they act on those feelings. Sexual sin requires ACTION to be a sin and to be quite honest - Christians in general spend way too much time hung up on these sins at the cost of sins that are far more damaging and harmful such as HATE, BITTERNESS, and JUDGMENT.
Perhaps? Perhaps??? Come on - be honest. It helps. :) Speaking as a man - there are certain parts of our bodies that have a mind of their own. I don't have to do more than look at someone at times to have an involuntary physical reaction - GRANTED there were many many more of them when I was younger . . . . But that does not change the facts of the matter - the attraction I feel is not something I can chose to have or not to have.
I'm not prepared to discuss ACTIONS at this time.
Right. :) There is a far cry of difference between an attraction and acting in an inappropriate way on that attraction - just like there are appropriate and inappropriate was to act with regard to anger - any other emotion/feeling. Where have I made that argument? I would not make an argument along those lines. I have insisted time and again that we divide the attraction from the action.
Well, first of all, I was not saying you made the argument. It was my impression that I was having a discussion, not a debate. Second, I would have to disagree that hate, bitterness and judgment are MORE harming than the physical consequences of sin when it is full blown, for it 'brings death', and not just spiritual. I think there are many who have sinned sexually that have and are suffering consequences via the manifestation of diseases and conditions related to the feeling they had which propelled them into the propogation of wrongdoing. Surely many suffer with and from STD's and other ailments because of the DECISION to ACT upon a FEELING they could not help. So what they cannot help it. That is NO EXCUSE, as Romans tells us, to continue in the behavioral sin in which a feeling was strong.

Thinking is an action. God's word specifically states that not to even look upon a woman and think the things a man would because that in and of itself is sin. David sinned before he sinned again just by looking upon Bathsheba. The physical arousal itself was not the sin, but the action he chose BEFOREHAND put him in that allegedly irresistable position.

However, back to your point about feelings and not being able to control them; I have only one question for you at this point: What IS your point? That us Christians are judgmental? That we dont' understand because we don't FEEL the same? Perhaps it is because I am not walking specifically in the footsteps of a lesbian that I just am too stupid to get it? Maybe I should put myself in their shoes? How do I do that? By becoming a temporary lesbian so I might understand better?

This is not meant harshly, my questions. But it is a bit disconcerting when I continually hear the mantra, "You don't know how I feel because you haven't been there?" That may be the case, but that does not mean I cannot empathize. My empathy, on the other hand, should be a catalyst for me to encourage the other to do what is right, show them not only why it should be done, but how to pursue that righteousness along the way.:D;)

PoliCon
11-14-2008, 02:37 PM
So you're not going to make your argument from God's word but rather from what you feeeeel at any given moment? That sounds like you've just put a lantern on the bow of the boat and are rowing toward the light. We know that sexual sin doesn't require a physical action to be sin. You don't make judgements? I think you just sinned. You show me where in the Word someone is condemned for what they feel - for involuntary mental or physical reactions. Show me where those are sin. Until then - shut up and let rational people discuss a theological issue.

PoliKat
11-14-2008, 02:44 PM
PoliCon, do you think it's really possible to completely disassociate the action from the feeling on a human standard? That's part of the challenge, as we humans base so much of what we DO on how we FEEL. Just another point in the conversation. As I consider what you are saying, I can see that is one of the necessities of the work you do in order to help those struggling with homosexuality to be able to learn how to rely upon the grace of God's mercy and love in order to stop condemning themselves, perhaps.

The reason I mention this is because of the statement about not being prepared to discuss actions at this time. Yet, it is the very strong desire to do something that propels us into action. And if an individual cannot help how they feel, how then, pray tell, do we encourage others to NOT do what is wrong when they say they can't help it?

In that I would say you have a very large uphill battle in working with those in the gay lifestyle, as others who are gifted in other areas may have. And for that I commend you. My gifts lie elsewhere, not that I am critical of those who struggle with this sin any more than I am of those who struggle with other sin. But being the fallible human being that I am, the wretched person I can be, and the selfish individual I oftentimes become, but for the grace of God there go I...;)

I have no room for judgment to banish another to hell whatsoever. But I do have the God given perspective of being able to discern good from evil, and THAT is not always welcomed either. Yes, I understand that feelings in and of themselves are not evil. But once again, I'm not certain what your main point in the discussion is. I think it's that I was perceived as being judmental from a statement I made in my original post about the flames one feels for another may very well end up being the flames that burn them the most (become the hottest). But that was not meant as a blanket judgment to hell. Although for many, it very well could be.

And THAT was my original point. :)

M21
11-14-2008, 03:03 PM
You show me where in the Word someone is condemned for what they feel - for involuntary mental or physical reactions. Show me where those are sin. Until then - shut up and let rational people discuss a theological issue.
Show me where I said they were condemned for what they feel? Don't ascribe positions to me I haven't taken.

When Jesus declares in the Sermon on the Mount that a man who "looks" upon a woman lustfully commits adultery, he isn't referring to the mere human feeling of sexual desire but to an intentional look. This is clear in the Greek, where the emphasis is upon the action of looking. Sin occurs when I choose to nurture the feeling of lust, not merely through the emotion itself.

You seem to be saying that sin is NOT a state of mind, but that it must be manifest in a physical act?

FlaGator
11-14-2008, 04:50 PM
Show me where I said they were condemned for what they feel? Don't ascribe positions to me I haven't taken.

When Jesus declares in the Sermon on the Mount that a man who "looks" upon a woman lustfully commits adultery, he isn't referring to the mere human feeling of sexual desire but to an intentional look. This is clear in the Greek, where the emphasis is upon the action of looking. Sin occurs when I choose to nurture the feeling of lust, not merely through the emotion itself.

You seem to be saying that sin is NOT a state of mind, but that it must be manifest in a physical act?

Christ condemned the Pharisees for their adherence to the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law and to me this is what Christ referred to in much of the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings. Just because they didn't exercise the sin didn't mean that they weren't guilty of it. What is in someone's heart is a truer measure of character and what he or she really is than what a person exhibits on the outside. If I smile and I am friendly to every black person I meet but inside I hate and them and wish them harm, which would be the true me? God knows the true person and Christ was making it clear that God judges by what is in a person’s heart and not what the person does.

As for lust, we lust for more than sex. Some lust for money, some lust for fame, sum lust for power, some lust for food, etc. Lust is lust regardless of the object of the lust. To lust for something is to put it ahead of God and is a form of idolotry. "No one can server to masters. Someone can not love both God and money."

PoliKat
11-14-2008, 05:07 PM
You show me where in the Word someone is condemned for what they feel - for involuntary mental or physical reactions. Show me where those are sin. Until then - shut up and let rational people discuss a theological issue.
Here's something we could chew on: HATE is an emotion. LUST is a feeling. JUDGMENTALISM is a mental/intellectual state. Could they not be considered uncontrollable and/or involuntary at times? I've experienced intense hatred for another human being in the past, and it is NOT a good thing for sure. And it was involuntary as when that individual walked into the room I was a different person and could not help it...or could I?;)

PoliCon
11-14-2008, 05:16 PM
Well, first of all, I was not saying you made the argument. Then why bring that train of thought into the discussion?
It was my impression that I was having a discussion, not a debate. I'm more interested in building understanding than I am of convincing you that I'm right and your wrong. Debate is not my intent.



Second, I would have to disagree that hate, bitterness and judgment are MORE harming than the physical consequences of sin when it is full blown, for it 'brings death', and not just spiritual. But Physical death is inconsequential in comparison to spiritual death. What profit is there for a man to gain the whole world and lose his eternal soul? Meaning - what good is it having the outward appearance of holiness doing all the right things when your soul is corrupted and destroyed by bitterness, unforgiveness, and hatred? Bitterness and hatred can keep you from salvation where as physical sins cannot. A man can still love the Lord and be an adulterer. But being bitter can keep that same man from experiencing the love and forgiveness of God.



I think there are many who have sinned sexually that have and are suffering consequences via the manifestation of diseases and conditions related to the feeling they had which propelled them into the propogation of wrongdoing. Surely many suffer with and from STD's and other ailments because of the DECISION to ACT upon a FEELING they could not help. So what they cannot help it. That is NO EXCUSE, as Romans tells us, to continue in the behavioral sin in which a feeling was strong. Irrelevant as this is not a point of disagreement.


Thinking is an action. God's word specifically states that not to even look upon a woman and think the things a man would because that in and of itself is sin. Actually that is not what the passage you are alluding to says if you go to the greek. It's not enough to just think that person X is hot for it to be a sin - it is the action of dwelling on that thought and entertaining it where it becomes a sin.


David sinned before he sinned again just by looking upon Bathsheba. The physical arousal itself was not the sin, but the action he chose BEFOREHAND put him in that allegedly irresistable position. Again - looking at the original laguage - there was more than a casual glance going on there. David looked - and when he should have turned away - looked some more! So it wasn't the fact that he saw her naked - it's that he LOOKED at her while she was naked.


However, back to your point about feelings and not being able to control them; I have only one question for you at this point: What IS your point? My point is that far too many homosexuals feel demonized and hated by Christians and Christianity because people don't THINK about things - they just react. They reject the sin - and HATE the sinner. Take Fred Phelps and his ilk as a prime example. Take Ted Haggard as a second example. Take Exodus and other ex gay ministries as a third example. All of these have preached condemnation on anyone who who is gay.


That us Christians are judgmental? Far too many are - forgetting that with what judgment you judge - you shall in turn be judged.


That we dont' understand because we don't FEEL the same? I think anyone who has a weakness - a propensity for some negative behavior should understand - but too often they refuse to look and see that what they hate the most when the look at other people who are sinners - is the reflection of their own weakness.


Perhaps it is because I am not walking specifically in the footsteps of a lesbian that I just am too stupid to get it? Maybe I should put myself in their shoes? How do I do that? By becoming a temporary lesbian so I might understand better?Take your self and ask yourself how you would feel if you were them. How would you feel if someone told you that you're this way because you did it to yourself. Sit back and ask yourself would you open to Christ and Christianity if all you ever heard from Christians is condemnation and damnation? You don't have to do what they DO to walk in their shoes. Christ walked with sinners but he did so without sinning himself.


This is not meant harshly, my questions. But it is a bit disconcerting when I continually hear the mantra, "You don't know how I feel because you haven't been there?" That may be the case, but that does not mean I cannot empathize. Good! please do empathize! But don't do it in a detached way - do it in an active way. Reach out to them. Love them as Christ loves them - just the way that they are. Any change is up to God to do not you. Not me. Him. He saved you - I assume - and I know he saved me while I was yet a sinner.


My empathy, on the other hand, should be a catalyst for me to encourage the other to do what is right, show them not only why it should be done, but how to pursue that righteousness along the way.:D;)You have to lead them to Love before you can lead them away from sin.

PoliCon
11-14-2008, 05:20 PM
Show me where I said they were condemned for what they feel? Don't ascribe positions to me I haven't taken.


This comment reeks of condemnation. If you did not intend it - it certainly comes across that way.
your argument from God's word but rather from what you feeeeel

M21
11-14-2008, 05:41 PM
This comment reeks of condemnation. If you did not intend it - it certainly comes across that way.Condemned must mean two different things to us. You didn't answer my question when I asked you if we should all continue willfully sinning so that the grace of God may abound or whether sin must be accompanied by a physical act? It's just a yes or no question and I'd like to know what you think about it.

Temptation isn't sin can we agree on that at least. Start there.

PoliCon
11-14-2008, 06:25 PM
Condemned must mean two different things to us. You didn't answer my question when I asked you if we should all continue willfully sinning so that the grace of God may abound or whether sin must be accompanied by a physical act? It's just a yes or no question and I'd like to know what you think about it.

Temptation isn't sin can we agree on that at least. Start there.Your sins are between you and God. They have nothing to do with me just like mine have nothing to do with you.

PoliKat
11-14-2008, 06:48 PM
I don't yet know how to do all the quote stuff, so I'll try and respond accordingly without it. My use of your quote to the other poster included your comment asking him to be quiet, but I wasn't refering to that part. Just to clarify. A couple things, the normal lay person/Christian does not have the luxury of accessing the Greek when reading the Word, nor was it ever God's intention I don't think, to have it so. I believe when it says in Peter that the Word is not left to personal interpretation that it means the Spirit will speak to the heart of the Believer, regardless of the availability of 'study helps' in addition to reading, meditating on and praying.

Additionally, there is much debate (and this is another thread, no doubt) about how 'original' some of the used Greek really is. I'm not versed well enough, but I will say that I am a die-hard King James supporter. We can leave it at that.:D

I also realize that pro-active empathy is absolutely necessary in anything we do as Christians (yes, I am saved), but it also is worth noting that I cannot pursue every cause there is in order to fulfill that edict. However, I am open, and open only inasmuch as I am surrendered to His will, to the doors He opens and the opportunities He presents when it comes to helping others. God only knows I need to do more!

I would like to add to your statement about leading them to Love. Perhaps we would be wiser to say that we need to lead others THROUGH love; a saying that came to me years ago may be especially applied here:

"THEY DON'T CARE HOW MUCH I KNOW UNTIL THEY KNOW HOW MUCH I CARE.":D

And I agree with most of what you have said. Thanks for making me think a bit deeper over the past couple of days...now, how can we apply this in a political sense?

LOL:eek:

FlaGator
11-14-2008, 10:28 PM
Here's something we could chew on: HATE is an emotion. LUST is a feeling. JUDGMENTALISM is a mental/intellectual state. Could they not be considered uncontrollable and/or involuntary at times? I've experienced intense hatred for another human being in the past, and it is NOT a good thing for sure. And it was involuntary as when that individual walked into the room I was a different person and could not help it...or could I?;)

Some emotions and responses may be involuntary but how long you choose to let them linger in your soul is entirely up to you. Which to do love more the anger or lust you feel or the peace of a quiet mind.

FlaGator
11-14-2008, 10:57 PM
<snip>
Actually that is not what the passage you are alluding to says if you go to the greek. It's not enough to just think that person X is hot for it to be a sin - it is the action of dwelling on that thought and entertaining it where it becomes a sin. Again - looking at the original laguage - there was more than a casual glance going on there. David looked - and when he should have turned away - looked some more! So it wasn't the fact that he saw her naked - it's that he LOOKED at her while she was naked.

At what point does looking at a woman change from admiration of her beauty into lust?



My point is that far too many homosexuals feel demonized and hated by Christians and Christianity because people don't THINK about things - they just react. They reject the sin - and HATE the sinner. Take Fred Phelps and his ilk as a prime example. Take Ted Haggard as a second example. Take Exodus and other ex gay ministries as a third example. All of these have preached condemnation on anyone who who is gay.
Far too many are - forgetting that with what judgment you judge - you shall in turn be judged. I think anyone who has a weakness - a propensity for some negative behavior should understand - but too often they refuse to look and see that what they hate the most when the look at other people who are sinners - is the reflection of their own weakness.
Judging another is not a bad thing. In fact it is necessary in order to determine if someone needs our help or if they are people we should be associating with. With out judging them how would you know? In reading the Sermon on the Mount Christ seems to tie His comment on Judgement
Matthew 7:1-2

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

to judging hypocritically.
Matthew 7:3-5

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.


Judging others of the sins you yourself are guilty of makes one a hypocrite. How can you help another overcome his sin when you are unable to overcome the same sin in your life. This is the guilt that those who condemn homosexuality must live with. How can I criticize homosexual lust when I struggle with hetrosexual lust. I expect the Lord to forgive me in my struggles so I must forgive them and pray that the Lord will aid them in their stuggles. However, if they don't see their behavior as a sin I can review Scripture and tell them (judge them) that they are unrepentent and not following the desires of our Lord.



Take your self and ask yourself how you would feel if you were them. How would you feel if someone told you that you're this way because you did it to yourself. Sit back and ask yourself would you open to Christ and Christianity if all you ever heard from Christians is condemnation and damnation? You don't have to do what they DO to walk in their shoes. Christ walked with sinners but he did so without sinning himself.
Good! please do empathize! But don't do it in a detached way - do it in an active way. Reach out to them. Love them as Christ loves them - just the way that they are. Any change is up to God to do not you. Not me. Him. He saved you - I assume - and I know he saved me while I was yet a sinner.
You have to lead them to Love before you can lead them away from sin.

Christ walked with sinners but he didn't tell them that their sins were not sins. He did not sugar coat the truth for fear of upsetting someone. He told them that their sins would be forgiven if they sought out the Lord, repented of their sin and then attempted to sin no more. He empathized with the lossness of their condition (and our condition) but not with the sinful nature that we are born with. Christ ask us to take a good look at what we are and then with His help we are to transend our nature.

Gingersnap
11-14-2008, 11:19 PM
FlaGator has made a profound point here and one worth discussing (perhaps in a new thread).

Christians are forbidden from genuinely speculating on another's salvation. "Go to hell, you bitch" is not a genuine speculation.

Christians are not forbidden from judging others on the basis of behavior. Christ himself told the apostles to shake the dust from their feet if they weren't received. He told the woman taken in adultery to sin no more. He cursed the fig tree. (That one I still ponder.) He made judgments about the Pharisees and encouraged his followers to do likewise - by their fruits ye shall know them.

Maybe it's time for a new thread on the Nature of Sin. ;)

FlaGator
11-15-2008, 10:09 AM
FlaGator has made a profound point here and one worth discussing (perhaps in a new thread).

Christians are forbidden from genuinely speculating on another's salvation. "Go to hell, you bitch" is not a genuine speculation.

Christians are not forbidden from judging others on the basis of behavior. Christ himself told the apostles to shake the dust from their feet if they weren't received. He told the woman taken in adultery to sin no more. He cursed the fig tree. (That one I still ponder.) He made judgments about the Pharisees and encouraged his followers to do likewise - by their fruits ye shall know them.

Maybe it's time for a new thread on the Nature of Sin. ;)

Count me in, but it should only include those who believe that sin is an issue. If some doesn't see sin as a problem or as being real should have no valid opinion as to it's nature.

Sonnabend
11-15-2008, 10:30 AM
Maybe it's time for a new thread on the Nature of Sin. ;)

Seen on a wall in Sydney

'The wages of sin are death"

under which had been written "But the hours are good and the perks are incredible..." :D:D

Celtic Rose
11-15-2008, 10:31 AM
FlaGator has made a profound point here and one worth discussing (perhaps in a new thread).

Christians are forbidden from genuinely speculating on another's salvation. "Go to hell, you bitch" is not a genuine speculation.

Christians are not forbidden from judging others on the basis of behavior. Christ himself told the apostles to shake the dust from their feet if they weren't received. He told the woman taken in adultery to sin no more. He cursed the fig tree. (That one I still ponder.) He made judgments about the Pharisees and encouraged his followers to do likewise - by their fruits ye shall know them.

Maybe it's time for a new thread on the Nature of Sin. ;)

I think that would be a very interesting thread :)

Gingersnap
11-15-2008, 11:48 AM
I think that would be a very interesting thread :)

If there's a little more interest, I'll set it up in a few hours.

Sometimes really interesting issues come up out of threads but they get sidetracked or colored by the original thread. It's worth extracting these "baby threads" once in a while and setting them free. :D

FlaGator
11-15-2008, 01:44 PM
Seen on a wall in Sydney

'The wages of sin are death"

under which had been written "But the hours are good and the perks are incredible..." :D:D

The comedian Paula Poundstone said "I believe that the wages of sin is death, but after taxes it more like a tired feeling."

PoliCon
11-16-2008, 11:30 AM
And I agree with most of what you have said. Thanks for making me think a bit deeper over the past couple of days...now, how can we apply this in a political sense?

We show this group and other minority groups that our opposition is not to people - but to ideas and behaviors. As long as we let the left frame and paint the house - they have control over the shape and the color of the arguments.

PoliCon
11-16-2008, 11:34 AM
Some emotions and responses may be involuntary but how long you choose to let them linger in your soul is entirely up to you. Which to do love more the anger or lust you feel or the peace of a quiet mind.Right. It's the entertaining of such negative thoughts that is key. Trouble is far too many Christians are soooo shallow in their understanding of the scriptures that they lack understanding.

PoliCon
11-16-2008, 10:02 PM
At what point does looking at a woman change from admiration of her beauty into lust?When you entertain it. When it goes from a look - to a leer. When the intent of the heart becomes negative.



Judging another is not a bad thing. In fact it is necessary in order to determine if someone needs our help or if they are people we should be associating with.Seems you are confusing discernment with judgment. They are not the same.


With out judging them how would you know? In reading the Sermon on the Mount Christ seems to tie His comment on Judgement
Matthew 7:1-2be careful not to downplay this part - judge not lest you be judged. Judgment brings judgment - and since none of us knows the heart - and that's the most important thing - any attempt on our part at judgment is dangerous.



to judging hypocritically.
Matthew 7:3-5Like I said - people standing in judgment condemning homosexual while they themselves are full of hate and bitterness - a mote compared to a log. One is bad - sure. It's going to cause damage and be damn uncomfortable - the other - it's going to blind you - if it does not kill you.



Judging others of the sins you yourself are guilty of makes one a hypocrite. How can you help another overcome his sin when you are unable to overcome the same sin in your life. This is the guilt that those who condemn homosexuality must live with. How can I criticize homosexual lust when I struggle with hetrosexual lust. I expect the Lord to forgive me in my struggles so I must forgive them and pray that the Lord will aid them in their stuggles. However, if they don't see their behavior as a sin I can review Scripture and tell them (judge them) that they are unrepentent and not following the desires of our Lord. True - but not quite what was being discussed in that passage.




Christ walked with sinners but he didn't tell them that their sins were not sins. nope - but neither did he condemn them. What did he say to the woman caught in adultrey? Go and sin no more.
He did not sugar coat the truth for fear of upsetting someone. Neither did he attack people with their sins or throw them in their face.
He told them that their sins would be forgiven if they sought out the Lord, repented of their sin and then attempted to sin no more. He empathized with the lossness of their condition (and our condition) but not with the sinful nature that we are born with. Christ ask us to take a good look at what we are and then with His help we are to transend our nature.very true- but that change only comes at HIS behest not ours and He never said that if you were a sinner you could not be saved.

PoliCon
11-16-2008, 10:03 PM
Maybe it's time for a new thread on the Nature of Sin. ;)
I think it might be a good idea to have a whole forum dedicated to morality, ethics, and religion.

wilbur
11-16-2008, 10:18 PM
I think it might be a good idea to have a whole forum dedicated to morality, ethics, and religion.

I would like that...

We could just call it philosophy.... allows for the deep conversations without having a full on religion section (and accompanying flame wars) that the owners have wanted to avoid (AFIAK).

Full-Auto
11-17-2008, 09:31 AM
Ok. I always, always, always disagree with same-sex marriage whatsoever. The reason is simple, how would you form a healthy family with that? I always wonder how same-sex couple could born children. It is just not healthy. Plus, how could children be proud and normally grown by having gay or lesbian parents?

The issue runs much deeper than that.

While I would agree a formal marriage is something of a mockery to my faith, a civil union that affords gays the same rights as a married couple is quite reasonable.

Example. If a gay person is in a car accident and is hospitalized, their partner can not see them in the ICU. Their partner can not make medical decisions for them.

That's just one of many examples that we often take for granted.

They should be afforded the same rights as a married couple. It's simply unjust and draconian not to grant such rights.

Full-Auto
11-17-2008, 09:39 AM
Who cares if Christ walked with sinners or not? That's not at issue here.

This country has a separation of church and state. We, as Christians, should not impose our morals on others who do not wish to share them. That's not a free society. I do not wish to live in a religious oligarchy like Afghanistan, even if it's my faith that happens to rule.

The government shouldn't dictate morals.

Live and let live. Those who choose to live in sin will have to account for that one day. It is not our right nor responsibility to force anyone to follow the morals of our faith.

BSR
11-17-2008, 10:57 AM
The issue runs much deeper than that.

While I would agree a formal marriage is something of a mockery to my faith, a civil union that affords gays the same rights as a married couple is quite reasonable.

Example. If a gay person is in a car accident and is hospitalized, their partner can not see them in the ICU. Their partner can not make medical decisions for them.

That's just one of many examples that we often take for granted.

They should be afforded the same rights as a married couple. It's simply unjust and draconian not to grant such rights.



Dude.. That sounds a little..... Gay...



How's the kid?

Full-Auto
11-17-2008, 11:01 AM
The kid is doing great. Growing like a little weed. 15lbs already. We're just getting to the stage where the little guy responds to you and looks you in the eyes. It's pretty amazing.

:D

M21
11-17-2008, 12:47 PM
Your sins are between you and God. They have nothing to do with me just like mine have nothing to do with you.
Certainly true as it relates to the the doctrine of soul competency, however not so much when two members of the same body, if in fact we are the body, are at war with each other.

My Agent Orange acts up a bit when liberal Christians attempt to redefine sin from what has been accepted Christian doctrine for a couple thousand years.