Identity Crisis

[clumzgirl]

Ok, I'm going to stick my neck out here, so please be gentle!

As a Christian, I'm confused about incorporating politics into the "lifestyle."
As a conservative, I believe there have to be limits on people's behavior. Right?
I mean, taking a liberal, anything-goes attitude is immoral and displeasing to God, right?
Ok, so how does that jive with turning the other cheek, not judging people, etc.?

For example, I have colleagues who are gay atheists. Do I avoid/condemn them because their lifestyle violates Christian laws? (That, and they piss me off with their hippie crap.) Or do I accept them because they, too, are God's children, whether they like it or not?

Does this make any sense? I'm so confuuuuused!

 

[freeandfun1]

Ok, I'm going to stick my neck out here, so please be gentle!

As a Christian, I'm confused about incorporating politics into the "lifestyle."
As a conservative, I believe there have to be limits on people's behavior. Right?
I mean, taking a liberal, anything-goes attitude is immoral and displeasing to God, right?
Ok, so how does that jive with turning the other cheek, not judging people, etc.?

For example, I have colleagues who are gay atheists. Do I avoid/condemn them because their lifestyle violates Christian laws? (That, and they piss me off with their hippie crap.) Or do I accept them because they, too, are God's children, whether they like it or not?

Does this make any sense? I'm so confuuuuused!

You hate the sin, but love the sinner. I believe in live and let live, but only because I know that I cannot change the minds/attitudes of many. So I live my life knowing that I can ask Christ to forgive me of my own sins and I pray for others. I will talk to those that are approachable, but if they don't want to hear it, I don't push it. Perhaps I should, but I figure they have had plenty of opportunity to know Christ and if they reject him, that is their choice. So I will be their friends, but I will also be praying for them hoping they find the right path.

 

[5stringJeff]

Ok, I'm going to stick my neck out here, so please be gentle!

As a Christian, I'm confused about incorporating politics into the "lifestyle."
As a conservative, I believe there have to be limits on people's behavior. Right?
I mean, taking a liberal, anything-goes attitude is immoral and displeasing to God, right?
Ok, so how does that jive with turning the other cheek, not judging people, etc.?

For example, I have colleagues who are gay atheists. Do I avoid/condemn them because their lifestyle violates Christian laws? (That, and they piss me off with their hippie crap.) Or do I accept them because they, too, are God's children, whether they like it or not?

Does this make any sense? I'm so confuuuuused!

Here's how I see it:

I know people who are gay (i.e. unrepenting sinners). I know people who sware all the time (i.e. unrepenting sinners). I know people who sleep around (i.e. unrepenting sinners). Yet I also see myself in the mirror every morning, knowing that, apart from Christ's forgiveness, I am just as guilty as those other people. That does two things for me: first, it makes me very thankful for God's forgiveness. Second, it gives me a passion (and compassion) for those who do not have that forgiveness, or who may not even understand their need for it.
So as Christians, we should be accepting of other people, always, not thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought to, yet not compromising our own behavior or ethics.

 

[shadrack]

Ok, I'm going to stick my neck out here, so please be gentle!

As a Christian, I'm confused about incorporating politics into the "lifestyle."
As a conservative, I believe there have to be limits on people's behavior. Right?
I mean, taking a liberal, anything-goes attitude is immoral and displeasing to God, right?
Ok, so how does that jive with turning the other cheek, not judging people, etc.?

For example, I have colleagues who are gay atheists. Do I avoid/condemn them because their lifestyle violates Christian laws? (That, and they piss me off with their hippie crap.) Or do I accept them because they, too, are God's children, whether they like it or not?

Does this make any sense? I'm so confuuuuused!

The corrupt leadership of the political church want you to fret about sins, real or imaginery, and agonize about the uncertainty of your salvation. That's what gets their politicians elected. They want you to call evil as it is. They say, rebuke the sin of the sinner! Condemn the gays and their lifestyle! Write your politician to create civil law in an effort to alter their behavior! I say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Leave the gays alone. Love is what persuades, not condemnation. Jesus understood this, so love God with all your soul and love your neighbor as yourself. There are no greater commandments than these. Love is the fulfilling of the law.

If you fell icky about gays or they "piss" you off, it's your own personal problem.

 

[clumzgirl]

Ok, maybe using gays as an example was a bad idea.
I'm not meaning to sound self-righteous-- I'm well aware that I'm not perfect.
But I guess I'm having trouble reconciling the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The first seems to say "Do no wrong and don't associate with those who do or you're going to hell in a handbasket" :dev1: while the second is more "Love thy neighbor and be more understanding."

What gives? :huh:

(And by the way, yes, some gay people make me feel icky. The flaming clerk at Barnes & Noble looks at women with disdain. On the other hand, I have a friend who is a lesbian and we have a great platonic relationship. The pissing off part was aimed at hippies, not gays in particular.)

 

[Merlin1047]

Ok, I'm going to stick my neck out here, so please be gentle!

As a Christian, I'm confused about incorporating politics into the "lifestyle."
As a conservative, I believe there have to be limits on people's behavior. Right?

We have a right as a society to set boundaries for acceptable behavior. That has nothing to do with religion of any kind. As Christians we should not condemn, persecute or judge homosexuals, but we are not required to accept their conduct as "normal" . That is the aspect of this question which most people who have a pro-homosexual view fail to appreciate. The homosexual lobby has chosen to take their cause into the public domain. Having done that, they have made themselves fair game for public criticism.

Homosexuals are campaigning for "rights" in regard to marriage or civil unions but I believe that they are barking up the wrong tree. Homosexuality is a behavior. It is not a human condition on the same order as being white, black, asian, male, or female. Unlike religion, which is also a behavior, homosexuality is not protected by the constitution and that is a fact which homosexual "rights" advocates refuse to acknowledge.

My philosophy is to treat everyone courteously and respectfully unless they show that they do not merit such consideration. I have no problem with homosexuals as people and I have no problem with private homosexual conduct although I disagree with it. However when homosexuals take the discussion public, then we have as much right as anyone to express our views. The infuriating aspect of the discussion usually crops up when homosexuals paint anyone who dares to dispute the righteousness of their conduct as being intolerant, bigoted and "homophobic".

Bottom line - I get along just fine with homosexuals who keep their behavior private. But when they go public and try to convince me that they have a "rights" which attach to homosexual conduct, then I am no longer obliged to play nice.

So as a christian, I don't judge homosexuals, I don't condemn them, I don't declare they're going to hell. I don't chase down homosexuals and try to convince them of the error of their ways. But when they try to convince me that I am wrong, then I no longer feel a need to remain silent.

 

[dmp]

Jesus showed contempt for sin - People were mis-using the church; based out of greed. He got pissed, and kicked their asses. He loved those whose asses he was kicking, yet he absolutely did not tolerate their sin.

 

[shadrack]

We have a right as a society to set boundaries for acceptable behavior. That has nothing to do with religion of any kind.

That is a completely false statement. No one has a right to set a boundary for anyone's behavior unless that behavior infringes on another's rights. How does anyone's private behavior infringe on your rights? How does a homosexual's public behavior infringe on your rights? How does a civil union between two commited and consenting adults infringe on your rights?

Bottom line - I get along just fine with homosexuals who keep their behavior private. But when they go public and try to convince me that they have a "rights" which attach to homosexual conduct, then I am no longer obliged to play nice.

Because you are a closet bigot, like they are a closet homo.

So as a christian, I don't judge homosexuals, I don't condemn them, I don't declare they're going to hell. I don't chase down homosexuals and try to convince them of the error of their ways. But when they try to convince me that I am wrong, then I no longer feel a need to remain silent.

In a Christian sense, homosexuals are wrong. In a civil sense.......how are they wrong again?

 

[Merlin1047]

That is a completely false statement. No one has a right to set a boundary for anyone's behavior unless that behavior infringes on another's rights. How does anyone's private behavior infringe on your rights? How does a homosexual's public behavior infringe on your rights? How does a civil union between two commited and consenting adults infringe on your rights?

Because you are a closet bigot, like they are a closet homo.

In a Christian sense, homosexuals are wrong. In a civil sense.......how are they wrong again?

I make it a personal policy not to get into discussions with obnoxious, opinionated, arrogant and ignorant individuals such as yourself. Your responses indicate that you are not seeking a discussion, merely an argument.

Pick another victim, junior. I'm not in the mood.

 

[Eightball]

Throughout the New Testament, you never find Christ forcing his beliefs on others, yet many came to Him, seeking what made him so different from all other human beings.

Christ was invited to have dinner at a tax collector's house. Tax collectors were the drudge of Jewish society, yet Christ dined at this man's house. Christ didn't go there to become a tax collector, or to partake in any sinful activity, but because he had compassion for this man. I'm sure that Christ enjoyed himself there to. He didn't go there thinking that he had to force himself to endure all these sinful friends, and activities that might have been part of this dinner party. He went there because of love, of His creation. This passion allowed Christ to look beyond the fallen nature of mankind, and love them with compassion.

"More flys are drawn to honey than to bitter substances."

Christ was not validating the tax collector's life style, and choices when he accepted the dinner invite. He was responding to the person.

God is a gentleman when it comes to reaching our lives. He doesn't clonk us over the head and drag us to Him, but waits for his human creation to seek Him. God is always calling, but He waits for mankind to respond to the call. He calls in so many ways.........i.e....through his marvelous creation.....ala Romans Chapter 1......through the effects that Christians have on those that aren't Christians. God also allows suffering that will cause mankind to come to realization that they are powerless to control there own life or manipulate other's. As Paul succinctly said, "When I am weak He(God) is strong".

Gay folks are biblical living in sin.......yet those that commit adultery are also sinning.........those that put things into their body that kill brain cells.......also are sinning...........

Concerning the Gay gene........it will never be found........Most that believe that they were gay from birth, don't realize that early in their maturation(early childhood), their sexual orientation was being formed through covert and overt affects through their parents, and other important peers. Doctor Dobson, in his book, Raising Boys(sons or something like that)......stated that without exception as a Pediatric psychologist, that every young man that he counseled that had gay tendencies had an early imbalance in parental coverage/influence. Those with fathers who were more passive, and lacking assertiveness to be involved as strong masculine role models to them, and had mothers who filled that vacuum with a strong dominance in the family/marriage were very likely to gravitate towards feminine roles as a positive. There's a big difference between strong mothers, and mothers who dominated as a way to fill the role of an father who was present, but basically absent as a masculine role model.

Father's seem to be the "King Pin" in this Gay revolution in human kind. Parental role balance is so important. A father's impact on the female child is just as profound. A weak father image in childhood, doesn't mean one is bound for the gay life. Many other factors come into play, such as: the child's personality in particular....... Never the less.......even as a child......a choice is gradually made......as the child attempts to form a self identity. As this child grows to adulthood, the choice becomes a fuzzy memory and usually is assumed to be an orientation that occured before birth.

Parents hold the key to sexual orientation.......in a massive way.

There are many Christian counseling ministries that consentrate on helping those who are gay, become heterosexual. These people are not changed through intimidation, or guilt, but through objective truth. Truly, many in the gay life, that trace their orientation back to childhood are truly victims...........never the less......our maker does not make the changes for us, but reveals the truth to us........guides us........yet works integrally with our wills.......to heal us.

Regards, Eightballsidepocket

 

[dilloduck]

Ok, maybe using gays as an example was a bad idea.
I'm not meaning to sound self-righteous-- I'm well aware that I'm not perfect.
But I guess I'm having trouble reconciling the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The first seems to say "Do no wrong and don't associate with those who do or you're going to hell in a handbasket" :dev1: while the second is more "Love thy neighbor and be more understanding."

What gives? :huh:

(And by the way, yes, some gay people make me feel icky. The flaming clerk at Barnes & Noble looks at women with disdain. On the other hand, I have a friend who is a lesbian and we have a great platonic relationship. The pissing off part was aimed at hippies, not gays in particular.)

For starter the Old Testament is a history of the jews,a description of how they should live and some predictions for the future. According to Christians, Jesus was the fulfillment of a prediction. Jesus suggested new spiritual guidelines. It's impossible to obey Jewish Law and Christian beliefs at the same time. If you wish to follow Christs' teaching, you are to love everyone by living a life of compassion and acceptance.

 

[dmp]

Father's seem to be the "King Pin" in this Gay revolution in human kind. Parental role balance is so important. A father's impact on the female child is just as profound. A weak father image in childhood, doesn't mean one is bound for the gay life. Many other factors come into play, such as: the child's personality in particular....... Never the less.......even as a child......a choice is gradually made......as the child attempts to form a self identity. As this child grows to adulthood, the choice becomes a fuzzy memory and usually is assumed to be an orientation that occured before birth.

I wonder if the growing reliance on divorce-as-a-way-to-solve-problems had fueled homo-populations? Generally, during a divorce, the Father is cut off from the kids. I wonder how many homos come from divorced families, as opposed to non-divorced families?

 

[dilloduck]

I wonder if the growing reliance on divorce-as-a-way-to-solve-problems had fueled homo-populations? Generally, during a divorce, the Father is cut off from the kids. I wonder how many homos come from divorced families, as opposed to non-divorced families?

It's hard to know since the jury is still out as to the genesis of homosexuality and the variety of such. People divide along the lines of evidence that they choose to believe.

 

[Mr. P]

...........
For example, I have colleagues who are gay atheists. Do I avoid/condemn them because their lifestyle violates Christian laws? (That, and they piss me off with their hippie crap.) Or do I accept them because they, too, are God's children, whether they like it or not?

Does this make any sense? I'm so confuuuuused!

Not being what most folks would call all that religious myself, I think you answered your own
question, clumzgirl. And hey, who says you have to approve of what or who they are to accept them as Gods children, men? I bet Mother Teresa never turned away from nor condemned any human being.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[clumzgirl]

You guys have given me some good food for thought. Thanks.
But I didn't been for this to turn into a homo v hetero argument.
And I certainly didn't mean to insinuate that I am morally superior. Far from it.

But what about boundaries and morals?
As a society, are we too tolerant?
We all know William Joyce's views on diversity, but seriously, with the rate of broken homes, illegitimacy, violent crime, misguided youth, youth suicide, etc., wouldn't creating boundaries help alleviate some of these things? Tough love, so-to-speak?
I'm not a parent yet, but will be soon if we're lucky. I'm just thinking about the state of the world that they will be born into.

 

[shadrack]

I make it a personal policy not to get into discussions with obnoxious, opinionated, arrogant and ignorant individuals such as yourself. Your responses indicate that you are not seeking a discussion, merely an argument.

Pick another victim, junior. I'm not in the mood.

I thought it was your policy to "no longer remain silent" when someone tries to convince you that you're wrong.

The premise that society has a right to force it's will on adult individuals even if they are not violating any other's rights is false and I'll challenge that any time of the day.

You know that marriage is already defined......you must not be a slave, marriage must be between a free man and free woman, not a lunitic, above twelve years old, and be willing and able. So, what is the need for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage? So that states will be unable to create a new institution that allows same-sex civil unions. That's unconstitutional and shows your ignorance.

Arrogant, self-righteous people will do whatever it takes to impose their values on every individual in the nation using a federal amendment.......whatever it takes and however unconstitutional it may be.

 

[jimnyc]

Shadrack, I'll remind you to treat Merlin with a little respect. He's a moderator here and you got personal with him for giving his thoughts on the subject. I don't believe he was out of line in his original reply and was undeserving of your lame response. I suggest sticking to the topic, remaining civil and dropping it.

 

[sagegirl]

Live your own life as best you can.....let your God do the judging of others.

 

[Eightball]

Live your own life as best you can.....let your God do the judging of others.

I would assume from that statement that we all have different gods. If that's the case.......this country is heading down the toilet.....or god has a flip-flop identity problem. This reminds me of Good Old Thomas Jefferson, and His self authored Jeffersonian Bible. The Honorable Jefferson took it upon himself to sizzor out all the bible passages in the bible that didn't go along with his personal perception of the Creator........and waa laa!..You had the Jeffersonian Bible. Yes the bible speaks to all mankind, because no human being is a clone of another, and that's the miraculous feature of the scripture, but one's persons definition of the God being different from another's doesn't mean God gives different walking orders and is Schizoid. It means that man contextually skews what God says in the scripture about sin, in order to alleviate his guilt.. God says one thing to all men....He doesn't waffle on Sin...........yet his forgiveness covers all sin.........but man must quit trying to define God within his own parameters.........in order to avoid accountability for his actions.

I realize that the Libertarian mantra was just voiced in that quote.........in other words......."leave me alone as long as I'm not bothering you", but there is a weakness in that statement when it comes to defending the Gay Right's movement.......They don't keep to themselves, but are hard at work attacking the principals, and definition of marriage..........Now they are officially stepping out of their "leave me alone - I leave you alone" mantra and are stepping on my boundaries!

Getting back to the quote...........There is one God.....with a capital "G".......and there are a lot of man made gods, with a lower case, "g".

Regards, Eightballsidepocket

 

[sagegirl]

And who might that little piece of info be for?

I meant it for clumzgirl, but I guess its kind of like the golden rule...ya know do unto others....I guess that little piece of advice might be for you, or me or anyone else who gives a ****.