Christians: Worry About Love First, not Gay

[KevinWestern]

So laws would be necessary to curb some people?

I don't know, did I say that?

You will.....

As for the fence, I would imagine the two neighbors would have to submit to the town's overall property guidelines. If the guidelines don't satisfy the neighbor who thinks the fence is too tall, he/she will either have to convince the town to change the guidelines, deal with it peacefully, or move (all three of which will restore relative harmony).

Some one ends up unhappy. Your idea of harmony??

Not necessarily, if the man does draw any value from being considerate and compromising, he will leave upon his own accord.

However, if he stays and willfully decides to compromise, harmony will be restored.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Challenging their belief is not the answer, challenging the law they make is.

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I'm not out to challenge that Jesus is the Son of God, etc - I can care less what people think. What I'm challenging are some of the nuances of the faith, especially when it comes to the gay marriage issue, etc.

The Bible is a document that is to be interpreted, after all, and the interpreter can always be persuaded.

You will never get anywhere by challenging people's faith. That will only make their belief that much stronger.

If it doesn't scare you then what is it about it that offends you.

Again, you're using such strong words like "scare" and "offends". How about "disagree"? If I know some gay people, and believe they should be able to marry in the public sphere (notice I'm not pushing for "private"), it's in my best interest to convince Christians to stop focusing so hard on the "gay thing" when it comes to - the public sphere - and just let it go. Will I force them to believe this? Of course not. But what's wrong with trying to persuade Lonestar?

What about the word persuade doesn't fit well with you?

I challenge you to research what Christ teaches and then specify what part of his message you disagree with.

Lonestar, there are thousands of disagreements among Christians alone of what exactly Christ taught and meant. There were no videotapes, no recorders, so everything that was written down came from the head of someone listening to Christ many, many years later. Memory obviously fades with time, and individuals - no matter how pure they try to be - generally will have their own personal agendas.

The New Testament is always going to be up for debate/interpretation. Why can't I get in on that action if a great majority of the country are Christians, and will have beliefs that are affected by those interpretations (that may affect me via law)?

You did say that you should challenge their beliefs. Now we can scroll back and see your exact words so don't try to crawfish.

The Bible should not be interpreted by anyone, it is a living Bible and it speaks to each of us differently.

Why do you care what Christians focus on?

Why must everyone be in agreement and why is your point of view better than theirs?

It's known by all Christians that homosexuality is a sin, some Christians choose to disregard that fact or simply accept it as another sin that they will have to sit in judgment for.

Homosexuals have the exact same rights that heterosexuals do and to say different is dishonest.

Homosexuals want to bring up this marriage thing. Tell me where did the notion of marriage come about? Did it all start with homosexuals pairing up and making babi....er.. no..that couldn't have happened.

Homosexuals want to be "married" to justify and try to normalize an act that is unnatural and sinful.

If homosexuals want to be homosexual then be homosexual and shut the hell up about it. No one wants to know your business and no one cares.

 

[R.D.]

I don't know, did I say that?

You will.....

As for the fence, I would imagine the two neighbors would have to submit to the town's overall property guidelines. If the guidelines don't satisfy the neighbor who thinks the fence is too tall, he/she will either have to convince the town to change the guidelines, deal with it peacefully, or move (all three of which will restore relative harmony).

Some one ends up unhappy. Your idea of harmony??

Not necessarily, if the man does draw any value from being considerate and compromising, he will leave upon his own accord.

However, if he stays and willfully decides to compromise, harmony will be restored.

Wrong. Your own post said relative harmony.

Words have meanings. The constant attempts to change them to fit your idea of what they should or could mean shows weakness.

 

[KevinWestern]

You did say that you should challenge their beliefs. Now we can scroll back and see your exact words so don't try to crawfish.

I did say that, Lonestar, but then went onto clarify that there were some beliefs I was out to challenge and others I didn’t care about. The fact that someone thinks Jesus is the Son of God, or that there was a Garden of Eden has little to no effect on me. I can care less.

But when it comes to nuanced interpretations that might influence lawmaking; why shouldn’t I jump in and try to persuade?

The Bible should not be interpreted by anyone, it is a living Bible and it speaks to each of us differently.

“it speaks to each of us differently” is another way of saying “we each interpret it differently”. Your sentence is contradictory.

Why do you care what Christians focus on?

Why must everyone be in agreement and why is your point of view better than theirs?

Why do I care? AGAIN – because their views translate into laws that affect me. I never said all must be in agreement or that my view is the best; I simply said it’s in my best interest to persuade people to align with the values I think are best for society. PERSUADE – Lonestar. I’m not proposing that we force people to do anything. My goal is for the Christian to WILLFULLY align with my viewpoint.

It's known by all Christians that homosexuality is a sin, some Christians choose to disregard that fact or simply accept it as another sin that they will have to sit in judgment for.

First of all, there are many Christian Churches that wouldn’t align with that view. Secondly, who said I’m trying to convince them it’s not a sin? I might just be trying to persuade them to let others make their own decisions (via freewill), allow gay marriage in the public sphere, and go from there. This is an important thing to note.

Homosexuals have the exact same rights that heterosexuals do and to say different is dishonest.

Did I say they didn’t?

Homosexuals want to bring up this marriage thing. Tell me where did the notion of marriage come about? Did it all start with homosexuals pairing up and making babi....er.. no..that couldn't have happened.

Homosexuals want to be "married" to justify and try to normalize an act that is unnatural and sinful.

If homosexuals want to be homosexual then be homosexual and shut the hell up about it. No one wants to know your business and no one cares.

Hey, I understand that’s what you believe, and I think it’s perfectly acceptable for YOUR CHURCH to forbid homosexual marriage. That’s cool with me. But when there are Christians trying to ACTIVELY BLOCK the establishment of homosexual marriage in the public sphere – which is a space for all of us – I’m going to speak up if I disagree and try to persuade Christians to back off. Are you saying persuasion is some sort of evil tool?

Again I’m not forcing people to do anything, I’m simply attempting to persuade them to not worry about it so much and let gays in the public sphere – which belongs to all – marry if they wish to do so.

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean you “condone” it, right? Why would a Christian care if two gays marry in a public setting that is separate and differentiated from the Church setting? I don’t understand.

 

[KevinWestern]

You will.....



Some one ends up unhappy. Your idea of harmony??

Not necessarily, if the man does draw any value from being considerate and compromising, he will leave upon his own accord.

However, if he stays and willfully decides to compromise, harmony will be restored.

Wrong. Your own post said relative harmony.

Words have meanings. The constant attempts to change them to fit your idea of what they should or could mean shows weakness.

I could have easily said "harmony". This is theoretical example for Pete's sake, lol.

 

[R.D.]

Not necessarily, if the man does draw any value from being considerate and compromising, he will leave upon his own accord.

However, if he stays and willfully decides to compromise, harmony will be restored.

Wrong. Your own post said relative harmony.

Words have meanings. The constant attempts to change them to fit your idea of what they should or could mean shows weakness.

I could have easily said "harmony". This is theoretical example for Pete's sake, lol.

Yes. And you proved the idealistic foolishness of it with that post. I'm sure it was an accident, but none the less it was the truth

 

[KevinWestern]

Wrong. Your own post said relative harmony.

Words have meanings. The constant attempts to change them to fit your idea of what they should or could mean shows weakness.

I could have easily said "harmony". This is theoretical example for Pete's sake, lol.

Yes. And you proved the idealistic foolishness of it with that post. I'm sure it was an accident, but none the less it was the truth

I don't really believe that's the case.

"Harmony" is a sliding scale, obviously. The point of the post was to say that the more harmony a town is experiencing the "better", and that "harmony" is ultimately good.

You seem to be arguing that harmony - in a community, and in this example - isn't universally considered as "good" and can in fact be bad. Fine, but how about give some examples.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You did say that you should challenge their beliefs. Now we can scroll back and see your exact words so don't try to crawfish.

I did say that, Lonestar, but then went onto clarify that there were some beliefs I was out to challenge and others I didn’t care about. The fact that someone thinks Jesus is the Son of God, or that there was a Garden of Eden has little to no effect on me. I can care less.

But when it comes to nuanced interpretations that might influence lawmaking; why shouldn’t I jump in and try to persuade?

The Bible should not be interpreted by anyone, it is a living Bible and it speaks to each of us differently.

“it speaks to each of us differently” is another way of saying “we each interpret it differently”. Your sentence is contradictory.



Why do I care? AGAIN – because their views translate into laws that affect me. I never said all must be in agreement or that my view is the best; I simply said it’s in my best interest to persuade people to align with the values I think are best for society. PERSUADE – Lonestar. I’m not proposing that we force people to do anything. My goal is for the Christian to WILLFULLY align with my viewpoint.


First of all, there are many Christian Churches that wouldn’t align with that view. Secondly, who said I’m trying to convince them it’s not a sin? I might just be trying to persuade them to let others make their own decisions (via freewill), allow gay marriage in the public sphere, and go from there. This is an important thing to note.

Homosexuals have the exact same rights that heterosexuals do and to say different is dishonest.

Did I say they didn’t?

Homosexuals want to bring up this marriage thing. Tell me where did the notion of marriage come about? Did it all start with homosexuals pairing up and making babi....er.. no..that couldn't have happened.

Homosexuals want to be "married" to justify and try to normalize an act that is unnatural and sinful.

If homosexuals want to be homosexual then be homosexual and shut the hell up about it. No one wants to know your business and no one cares.

Hey, I understand that’s what you believe, and I think it’s perfectly acceptable for YOUR CHURCH to forbid homosexual marriage. That’s cool with me. But when there are Christians trying to ACTIVELY BLOCK the establishment of homosexual marriage in the public sphere – which is a space for all of us – I’m going to speak up if I disagree and try to persuade Christians to back off. Are you saying persuasion is some sort of evil tool?

Again I’m not forcing people to do anything, I’m simply attempting to persuade them to not worry about it so much and let gays in the public sphere – which belongs to all – marry if they wish to do so.

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean you “condone” it, right? Why would a Christian care if two gays marry in a public setting that is separate and differentiated from the Church setting? I don’t understand.

When you read a book are you interpreting what the book says or understanding what the book says?

You are serious in need of a higher education because the word interpret means to "explain the meaning of", when you're reading a book your not interpreting it.

It's your right to try to persuade lawmakers in making the correct decisions regarding the laws they make but not on the grounds of their belief system but on the merits of the law itself.

Christians will never willfully align with your views as long as those views goes against their faith.

Marriage isn't for homosexuals, never has been. Why must an entire history change because a few of you want to call yourselves "married"?

 

[KevinWestern]

When you read a book are you interpreting what the book says or understanding what the book says?

You are serious in need of a higher education because the word interpret means to "explain the meaning of", when you're reading a book your not interpreting it.

Books are words, and words mean different things to each and every person that comes across them.

The statement: "when you're reading a book you're not interpreting it" is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Incredibly silly.

It's your right to try to persuade lawmakers in making the correct decisions regarding the laws they make but not on the grounds of their belief system but on the merits of the law itself.

What?? I don't have the "right" to respectfully chat and talk to my Christian neighbors, and try to persuade them of my viewpoints? That is another incredibly silly statement. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.

Christians will never willfully align with your views as long as those views goes against their faith.

Which is why I'm trying to persuade them to view their faith in new ways.

Marriage isn't for homosexuals, never has been. Why must an entire history change because a few of you want to call yourselves "married"?

Again your opinion, and that's fine.

I don't believe you addressed my other question too; I fully respect the fact that you may not want your private Church marrying gay people, but why put out all the effort to stop the marriage of gays in the public sphere?

 

[R.D.]

I could have easily said "harmony". This is theoretical example for Pete's sake, lol.

Yes. And you proved the idealistic foolishness of it with that post. I'm sure it was an accident, but none the less it was the truth

I don't really believe that's the case.

"Harmony" is a sliding scale, obviously. The point of the post was to say that the more harmony a town is experiencing the "better", and that "harmony" is ultimately good.

You seem to be arguing that harmony - in a community, and in this example - isn't universally considered as "good" and can in fact be bad. Fine, but how about give some examples.

You're all over the place. First you question if a town, and are their towns that can live in relative (or not) harmony and get fed. Kumbia. You go far enough to try to deny the need for laws only to circle back and use the fact it's laws creating your relative harmony.

The very same circular thinking goes to your gay marriage views as well as your trying to position Christians as being the ones standing in the way if universal harmony.

 

[KevinWestern]

You're all over the place. First you question if a town, and are their towns that can live in relative (or not) harmony and get fed. Kumbia. You go far enough to try to deny the need for laws only to circle back and use the fact it's laws creating your relative harmony.

The very same circular thinking goes to your gay marriage views as well as your trying to position Christians as being the ones standing in the way if universal harmony.

I'm all over the place?

RD, in virtually every response to you (there's been way too many, btw) I've stated one consistent thing - a town living in harmony is a "good" thing. That was my position.

You guys - being incredibly nitpicky - said in real life this is unattainable so I modified my position (to suit your demands) to say that "more harmony" is better than "less harmony". That's it.

And in absolutely no way or stretch of the imagination did I say that "Christians" were standing in the way of universal harmony. I have no idea how to achieve universal harmony, or what that would look like. I only have my views that I'm trying to persuade others to align to.

My goodness.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When you read a book are you interpreting what the book says or understanding what the book says?

You are serious in need of a higher education because the word interpret means to "explain the meaning of", when you're reading a book your not interpreting it.

Books are words, and words mean different things to each and every person that comes across them.

The statement: "when you're reading a book you're not interpreting it" is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Incredibly silly.

It's your right to try to persuade lawmakers in making the correct decisions regarding the laws they make but not on the grounds of their belief system but on the merits of the law itself.

What?? I don't have the "right" to respectfully chat and talk to my Christian neighbors, and try to persuade them of my viewpoints? That is another incredibly silly statement. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.

Christians will never willfully align with your views as long as those views goes against their faith.

Which is why I'm trying to persuade them to view their faith in new ways.

Marriage isn't for homosexuals, never has been. Why must an entire history change because a few of you want to call yourselves "married"?

Again your opinion, and that's fine.

I don't believe you addressed my other question too; I fully respect the fact that you may not want your private Church marrying gay people, but why put out all the effort to stop the marriage of gays in the public sphere?

Interpreting is the act of explaining the meaning of something. Understanding is the act of comprehending something. When you read a book which of these do you do?

Christians should never accept a perverted homosexual lifestyle no more than they should accept the act of murder.

Homosexuals need to keep their perversions in the closet and the rest of us sane, rational people needs to make sure they stay there.

I don't belong to a church. I have never had a need for a church and it's not a requirement of my faith.

 

[R.D.]

You're all over the place. First you question if a town, and are their towns that can live in relative (or not) harmony and get fed. Kumbia. You go far enough to try to deny the need for laws only to circle back and use the fact it's laws creating your relative harmony.

The very same circular thinking goes to your gay marriage views as well as your trying to position Christians as being the ones standing in the way if universal harmony.

I'm all over the place?

RD, in virtually every response to you (there's been way too many, btw) I've stated one consistent thing - a town living in harmony is a "good" thing. That was my position.

You guys - being incredibly nitpicky - said in real life this is unattainable so I modified my position (to suit your demands) to say that "more harmony" is better than "less harmony". That's it.

And in absolutely no way or stretch of the imagination did I say that "Christians" were standing in the way of universal harmony. I have no idea how to achieve universal harmony, or what that would look like. I only have my views that I'm trying to persuade others to align to.

My goodness.

Right. And you failed.

Time to move on

 

[KevinWestern]

You're all over the place. First you question if a town, and are their towns that can live in relative (or not) harmony and get fed. Kumbia. You go far enough to try to deny the need for laws only to circle back and use the fact it's laws creating your relative harmony.

The very same circular thinking goes to your gay marriage views as well as your trying to position Christians as being the ones standing in the way if universal harmony.

I'm all over the place?

RD, in virtually every response to you (there's been way too many, btw) I've stated one consistent thing - a town living in harmony is a "good" thing. That was my position.

You guys - being incredibly nitpicky - said in real life this is unattainable so I modified my position (to suit your demands) to say that "more harmony" is better than "less harmony". That's it.

And in absolutely no way or stretch of the imagination did I say that "Christians" were standing in the way of universal harmony. I have no idea how to achieve universal harmony, or what that would look like. I only have my views that I'm trying to persuade others to align to.

My goodness.

Right. And you failed.

Time to move on

You never even attempted to dispute the fact that harmony in that scenario is "good" in a non-subjective way. All you did was nit-pick everything and we ended up with a completely useless conversation. You can't just say "you failed" and assume that to be the truth - it's incredibly arrogant, especially in the absence of any real attempt to dispute the core of what I was getting at.

Pretty bogus, RD.

 

[R.D.]

I'm all over the place?

RD, in virtually every response to you (there's been way too many, btw) I've stated one consistent thing - a town living in harmony is a "good" thing. That was my position.

You guys - being incredibly nitpicky - said in real life this is unattainable so I modified my position (to suit your demands) to say that "more harmony" is better than "less harmony". That's it.

And in absolutely no way or stretch of the imagination did I say that "Christians" were standing in the way of universal harmony. I have no idea how to achieve universal harmony, or what that would look like. I only have my views that I'm trying to persuade others to align to.

My goodness.

Right. And you failed.

Time to move on

You never even attempted to dispute the fact that harmony in that scenario is "good" in a non-subjective way. All you did was nit-pick everything and we ended up with a completely useless conversation. You can't just say "you failed" and assume that to be the truth - it's incredibly arrogant, especially in the absence of any real attempt to dispute the core of what I was getting at.

Pretty bogus, RD.

I did address what you were "getting at", you didn't get it

No offense, but I would suggest your very childlike idealist views were given more than a fair amount of time trying to relate how I disagree.

You see, my thinking you are wrong is not arrogant. You trying to convince yourself I'm coming from a place of ignorance is.

 

[KevinWestern]

I did address what you were "getting at", you didn't get it

You did not, RD. I asked you this question over and over again - is a town that operates in a harmonious way a good thing or bad thing. I've yet to hear an attempt at an answer.

No offense, but I would suggest your very childlike idealist views were given more than a fair amount of time trying to relate how I disagree.

How is one not to take offense at an offensive statement? Your answers were short, vague, and nondescript.

You see, my thinking you are wrong is not arrogant. You trying to convince yourself I'm coming from a place of ignorance is.

No, it's the not elaborating and then telling me - absolutely - that "I failed" that was arrogant.

I don't feel we're going to make much progress, so how about we mutually disengage?

 

[The Irish Ram]

*I completely realize this doesn't apply to all Christians so please take note!

To love one another unselfishly was Jesus's only commandment.

With that as a given, if you aren't actively working to become a completely loving person in every way ("working", because no one's perfect), I’m going to go ahead and say that you (based on Christian teachings) are bound for the same hell as all of the so called “sexual sinners”, etc.

If you’re a Christian, I feel like you should focus on mastering his one commandment first before worrying about all of the other sins.

Just my two cents.

In what passage in the Scriptures do you find this specific commandment?

I can tell you the passage in which Jesus informs us of his several commandments (John 14:15). One of these commandments exhorts us to honor the institute of marriage, to not put asunder this cleaving of male to female that God created (Matthew 19:4–6).

Funny thing Kevin, you seem more understanding than a lot of Christians I know. You may want to consider getting to know Christ personally. You have a lot in common. He has an offer for you.

Norwegen, you are absolutely right. Sexual purity was tantamount to preserving the Jewish line, curbing the spread of disease, bonding as a family and more. It was important enough to be included in the Big 10 list of Commandants Moses presented to the Jews during the Exodus. And as Matthew points out, it applies to us to this day.

But because of Christ's actions, I wonder what is the more appropriate behavior for a Christian then and now. Keeping the Law required judging a person's action, passing sentence and then killing the person found guilty.
But, when Christ was confronted with sexual immorality, the tenderhearted action He took is right up Kevin's alley:

VERSES 10-11: Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."

He supped with prostitutes and I can't find Him condemning one of them. Not the whores, not the thieves.... He took a completely different approach of separating sin from sinner.

The Law condemns, but Christ forgave without condemnation. He taught us that mercy toward sinners is more acceptable to our Father than judging the sinner's actions.
And if there is any question as to what our role in all of this is, it is so much easier to just have a heart for people whatever their circumstance and end our participation there, and turn the rest over to God to work out their behavior and salvation.

Love them because we really are brothers and sisters, related to each other by blood. Christ's blood. Pray for mercy on their behalf, and then just let Christ handle all the rest. He is so good at it and it sure does lighten our load.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think you may be misunderstanding me. I'm not out to challenge that Jesus is the Son of God, etc - I can care less what people think. What I'm challenging are some of the nuances of the faith, especially when it comes to the gay marriage issue, etc.

The Bible is a document that is to be interpreted, after all, and the interpreter can always be persuaded.

But if you don't care what they think or believe, why is there a need to persuade them? The only reason you would need to persuade someone is if you did care what they think.

Again, you're using such strong words like "scare" and "offends". How about "disagree"? If I know some gay people, and believe they should be able to marry in the public sphere (notice I'm not pushing for "private"), it's in my best interest to convince Christians to stop focusing so hard on the "gay thing" when it comes to - the public sphere - and just let it go. Will I force them to believe this? Of course not. But what's wrong with trying to persuade Lonestar?

More Christians don't care about the "gay thing". It wouldn't be an issue if they didn't keep bringing it up and forcing the laws to be changed rather than trying to legitimately make an argument.

What about the word persuade doesn't fit well with you?

Again, why does anyone need persuading if you don't care?

Lonestar, there are thousands of disagreements among Christians alone of what exactly Christ taught and meant. There were no videotapes, no recorders, so everything that was written down came from the head of someone listening to Christ many, many years later. Memory obviously fades with time, and individuals - no matter how pure they try to be - generally will have their own personal agendas.

The New Testament is always going to be up for debate/interpretation. Why can't I get in on that action if a great majority of the country are Christians, and will have beliefs that are affected by those interpretations (that may affect me via law)?

No one is saying you can't form your own views or even argue your point. The problem is your arguments are failing to acknowledge what the scriptures actually say. Those who believe don't have the luxary to pick and choose.

 

[KevinWestern]

But if you don't care what they think or believe, why is there a need to persuade them? The only reason you would need to persuade someone is if you did care what they think.

I said that I DO care about some of the beliefs, such as how Christians view gay marriage in the public sector, and therefore it’s advantageous for me to try and persuade them to align with some of my views.

The beliefs I don’t really care about are people thinking there was a Flood, or Garden of Eden, etc.

No one is saying you can't form your own views or even argue your point. The problem is your arguments are failing to acknowledge what the scriptures actually say. Those who believe don't have the luxary to pick and choose.

I think I made the point earlier that I’m not necessarily taking the angle of convincing Christians that it’s not a sin; I’m more or less taking the angle to convince Christians to quit caring so much about what the public sector law says regarding marriage and focus on some larger issues in the world (such as getting people to love each other).

 

[Lonestar_logic]

But if you don't care what they think or believe, why is there a need to persuade them? The only reason you would need to persuade someone is if you did care what they think.

I said that I DO care about some of the beliefs, such as how Christians view gay marriage in the public sector, and therefore it’s advantageous for me to try and persuade them to align with some of my views.

The beliefs I don’t really care about are people thinking there was a Flood, or Garden of Eden, etc.

No one is saying you can't form your own views or even argue your point. The problem is your arguments are failing to acknowledge what the scriptures actually say. Those who believe don't have the luxary to pick and choose.

I think I made the point earlier that I’m not necessarily taking the angle of convincing Christians that it’s not a sin; I’m more or less taking the angle to convince Christians to quit caring so much about what the public sector law says regarding marriage and focus on some larger issues in the world (such as getting people to love each other).

Christians have been too tolerant for too long. It's time we drive the perverts back into the closet.