Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet you can't deny that same sex marriage does have external impact. It has affected her career.
Only because she let it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Or maybe I'm smart enough to realize that the consent argument is just side stepping around my point. We are talking about sexual orientation here. Your claim is that sexual orientation alone is not destructive in the realm of homosexuality. So it is hypocritical to look at someone who is sexually orientated to a practice that you don't approve of and say that's wrong. If they NEVER act out on their impulses then
the consent argument has no relevance.
But Jeff, don't you understand that orientation ALONE can not be destructive? It is ALWAYS the act that is destructive, not the orientation.
And of course we can claim the act is wrong, regardless of whether someone has committed it. It would be stupid to think otherwise. Consent plays a LARGE role in all of this, you just refuse to accept that. You can not say that it doesn't. Two consenting adult males/females having sex is certainly different than 1 adult and 1 child. Surely you can see this??? They are in no way comparable, and never will be, regardless of how many times you guys beat the drum.
It is nothing more than an argument based out of ignorance, in an attempt to make your side look less ridiculous, while actually making your side look more ridiculous.
Let's go with a little example that actually has nothing to do with sexual orientation, just to make the point. Let's say you don't agree with sodas being sold to children. Instead of simply saying, "I don't agree with sodas being sold to children," you're saying, "Well, if we allow sodas to be sold to children, what's next? Are we going to start allowing them to drink the blood of newborn babies!?" One has nothing to do with the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Spreading STDS is a concern for everyone. At the very least, it burdens our already weak healthcare system. If you knew how to stop a disease, why on earth would you encourage people to engage in practices that welcomes the disease?
Of course it is. And I really hate to break this to your delicate little heart, but straight people **GASP** have unprotected sex all the time!!! I know, it's a huge shock to find out that it isn't just gay people! Sorry to be the one to break that to you.
Also, not having gay sex would not stop the disease. That's just dumb.
But you falsely claim you “love” homosexuals while refusing them the possibilities you see for yourself—-sitting next to your spouse in church, eating social dinners at your church, holding church office, speaking from your church pulpit.
I have no problem whatsoever with a gay man or woman coming to my church and sitting next to me.
Quote:
Oh, do you get to do that because YOU are NOT a sinner? Only the homosexual is? Your sins are forgiven but his or hers are not?
How can you say you love a homosexual as yourself when you expect privilege or rights you will not extend to them? Or if you remain a part of your “church” then you are supporting their hypocrisy.
For your edification, in the years I was a Southern Baptist up until the end of the seventies, I never once heard homosexuals denigrated by the church. Then Jerry Falwell appeared and decided anti-homosexuality would be the rallying of Protestants everywhere. It was he who determined to take religion into an active political role. One of his closest advisors begged him in a board meeting not to do it. But he did.
So, despite your ignorance on the topic, it was ultra fundamentalists who determined religion should be part of politics. Conservative religious leaders met in Colorado Springs in the early nineties to determine who they were going to elect to take over Congress.
You are both biblically and politically naive. You are another one of those just duped into thinking what your church says is “good” while any reasoning that your church is just another bloody hypocritical political institution is met by you with skepticism. And you ignore voices like mine who left your cult when I saw what was happening. And I was a licensed minister for the SBC. But when Falwell convinced them to preach politics above Jesus, I left.
Why haven’t you?
I'm sorry if you think that Jerry Falwell speaks for me.
That’s one way of viewing Jesus as a substitutionary sacrifice, but it isn’t the only one and not even the earliest view among Christians.
Try reading about Christus Victor (Greg Boyd has an interesting internet essay on this) and view Brucey Cavey’s YouTube video on the gospel in two chairs.
Penal substitution is the view that began to arise long after the early church.
If you were, as you claim, an SBC pastor, I'm glad you're no longer if you deny the substitutionary atonement. There's already too many bad theologians in the SBC.
If you were, as you claim, an SBC pastor, I'm glad you're no longer if you deny the substitutionary atonement. There's already too many bad theologians in the SBC.
If that is true, why did Peter, who walked with Jesus, say this?
"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit."
And Jesus said this:
“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
The particular quote you use CAN be utilized by those believing in Christus Victor. It is also a very strong statement in solo, for universalism.
It does not support penal substitution.
God doesn’t let Jesus die because we “deserve” it. He lets Jesus go to the cross to restore us to Himself.
“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”(2 Cor. 5:21).
Paul does not say that Christ was made a “sinner” but that he was made to “be sin” itself. He did this for us, Paul writes, but to what end? Was it to satisfy the demands of retributive punishment, as penal substitution would assume? No, because, as Paul states, its purpose is so that “we might become the righteousness of God.” In other words, it is restorative not retributive. Christ was made sin itself, so we would be made righteousness itself.
We all need to be restored to God. Jesus did that for ALL, even the homosexuals your church adamantly refuses to allow full participation. Yet your church allows YOU to participate and aren’t YOU a sinner—-or are you now sin free?
In other words, your church practices “grace” through retribution, as in “ You homosexuals must halt your sin because it is so awful, but jimmie and others don’t have to stop theirs unless they choose to do so.”
That’s hypocrisy, jimmie, plain and simple. You and your church determine who the “good” sinners are, while practicing retribution and punishment toward the “bad” sinners.
The blatant hypocrisy practiced by your church makes it nothing but Laodicea to the world, and proves forcefully that you all have a hierarchy of sins that doesn’t come from God. It comes from a self-justifying heart of darkness.
Ummm, and part of that is not because they have not been accepted as they are or permitted traditionally to marry and live their lives in family units?
People I know who are gay and married don't appear to be running around having multiple sex partners. They WANTED to be a committed relationship. They found someone to love. They are busy fixing up their homes and in some cases taking care of the kids.
Brings on suicide and depression? Are you kidding me? Pretending you are not gay when you are brings on suicide and depression. Being rejected by family because you are gay brings on suicide and depression.
Ever hear of a young gay man named Tyler Clementi? He became momentarily famous by his death and the events in the days preceding it because one of his classmates thought it was funny to put a camera in his dorm room when he was having a man over for a date and then texting out what he saw on the camera, which wasn't much. Tyler jumped into the Hudson River to his death from the George Washington Bridge a few days later. Despite the sensationalism in the news, it wasn't the camera incident that sent him off the bridge. It was that he had come out to his mother just before leaving for college, and she had voiced her disappointment to him.
Jane Clementi started a foundation to speak up for acceptance in the church for LGBTQ youth and against cyberbullying. I doubt those who so desperately want to clutch onto the "sin" label will bother to take the minute and 29 seconds to listen to a Christian mother who knows far more about this than any of us do, but I'm hoping that somebody with compassion and a more godly and open mind watches it, listens, and THINKS.
No one who condemns gay people was compassionate enough to take you up on it, I guess.
Those who condemn gays have no compassion for anyone except their own little tribe of fundies. They are as twisted as the god-thing they worship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
