Churches venture into AIDS activism at home

[hokiefan33]

Lots of responses but no denials. Interesting.

Why is it interesting? I can deny it all day, but it doesn't mean you'll believe it, does it? For the record, we're not the same person, but if you want to think we are, that's also fine.

 

[hokiefan33]

I don't mind being compared to or perhaps even being suspected of being Chuck. He's a good guy and has a good head on his shoulders. Plus, he offers respect for respect.

Not sure why you would get so upset for having been suspected of being Hokiefan? If you both have such similar belief systems, then what's the big deal?

If I were Hokie, I'd be offended that you were so upset over it.

I'm not offended by it at all, it at least shows that I'm not alone in some of my beliefs, no matter who thinks I'm the "lone ranger" out here with what I say and believe.

 

[hokiefan33]

Whenever anyone has ever quoted anything from the Bible to you in response to your own attempts, you use the exact same argument. Clearly you think everyone must use not just the Biblical view, but YOUR view. Nothing you can say can make the vast majority think otherwise.

To that end, since we're talking about your crediblity when speaking about sin and Christianity, you lost any credence when you called gay men "p-- pushers" some time ago. Don't think many of us forgot that at all.

Your strong faith in God and Jesus is nothing but admirable to me. But the manner in which you deliver your message, filled with such vitriol and judgement, turns more people away than bringing them in. If that is your intent, then job well done.

Most people THINK they are using the Biblical view, but aren't at all, b/c they misunderstand Scripture.

I'm not concerned as to the credence I lost with you or anyone else, actually. I didn't say that sin was worse than any other when I said what you like to bring up so often. I just used a different term. There are many different terms for many different sins, but no sin is worse than any other.

 

[2funny2c]

FWIW - there are scholars that believe that Paul was a self-loathing closted homosexual. Clearly no one can prove that one way or another but if you look at how is writing evolves over time, you can see a pattern where he becomes more self loving over time.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14299_1.html

jimmiej - can i ask what version of the Bible those passages are from? It doesn't read like its the King James version.

Spong is about as credible as his right wing extremist counterpart....Robertson

John Spong is on the liberal fringe. He is a universalist. Pluarist.

 

[RickinNYC]

Most people THINK they are using the Biblical view, but aren't at all, b/c they misunderstand Scripture.

I'm not concerned as to the credence I lost with you or anyone else, actually. I didn't say that sin was worse than any other when I said what you like to bring up so often. I just used a different term. There are many different terms for many different sins, but no sin is worse than any other.

So you don't think using that term in reference to gay men is offensive, it's just another term?

Beg to defer there chief. Be nice if you apologized for offending me and other gay men who thought it was a cheap shot and downright nasty.

 

[cardaway]

And 2 people could ACTUALLY share similiar viewpoint instead of 1. Is JimmieJ Hokie or I also?

Lots of responses but no denials. Interesting.

 

[2funny2c]

Lots of responses but no denials. Interesting.

It is interesting that I have told you before that we are not the same person.

It is interesting you keep putting in your little cheap shots.

Very interesting indeed.

I will just chalk it up to YABP or YASP.

 

[Chuck S]

Well, gee, the whole shellfish argument you wanted to use before - those weren't directly quoted by Christ either, yet you used them to try and make your point. Which way do you want it? Either they're valid b/c they're in the Bible, meaning Paul's are just as valid as Christ's direct quotes, or they're not, which means throw out all but the Gospels, the first couple chapters of Acts, and a few verses in Revelation. Which is it?

Umm...Shellfish is mentioned in Leviticus, they are laws more ancient than Christ. These ancient laws are also what many Christians base their arguement on regarding the sin of homosexuality. My response about it being Paul's opinion is in the New Testament, after Christ comes into the picture, which is what JimmieJ was basing her opinion upon. After Christ is born, don;t you think it is best to base your beliefs on what HE said, rather than upon the opinions of his mortal followers after his eathly death? Remember, if James, Brother of Jesus had survived the Romans instead of Peter, there would most likely not be the Christian Church we see today. James, like Jesus, observed Jewish holidays and law. In fact, Christianity may have survived only as a sect within more traditional Judaism.

There can be no arguing with you on this, b/c you are looking at it from a personal view, rather than a Biblical view. If you want to have a Biblical argument, you have to use a Biblical view, which you're not.

Again, what isn't Biblical about the words of Christ?

 

[WebmasterAlex]

Closed at the request of the original poster