I shouldnt be suprised at this point...

[Miss Jasmine]

Ouch, divorce, that should be a fun one. I'll steer away from that one...

But, to be sure, I NEVER said, nor do I believe, that God doesn't love everybody. I absolutely believe He does. He doesn't hate, and neither do I, anybody individually. He just doesnt' like sin. I would say I don't either, but I sin each and every day, so it really gives me no room to say I don't like it either.

So then why crack down on one particular "sin"? Why is this your pet cause? I don't understand. You won't touch divorce, but THIS subject is okay?

 

[goofygirl]

Say it with me....typicla liberal tactic

Because conservatives NEVER take shots at anybody, right? *cough*Ann Coulter *cough* Bill O'Reilly *cough*

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Not everyone would say "good job" though. There have been cases of people like me being pressured to go to therapy by those who think lack of desiring children is "abnormal". The religious "right" is very big on being "fruitful and multiplying", therefore they see both childless by choice AND homosexuality as "abnormal".


If someone is gay and their desire is to be with someone of the same gender rather than live a lie which drags a wife and children into the lie, then I say "good job" to them for being honest.

I personally see a difference between the 2 (that is, between being childless by choice and homosexual). However, that isn't something I expect to necessarily convince anyone of, though I do enjoy discussing it, hopefully in a civil manner.

I did mean what I said, however, about your decision to be childless by choice. If that's what you wanted, and you took steps to prevent it, good for you, b/c I don't see that as a sin, even according to the Bible. If it were a sin to not have children, what about those Christian couples who can't, medically? Are they sinning, when it's not even their fault? No, so I don't think that argument hides water. I love my kids, and can't imagine life without them, but having kids isn't for everyone. Again, and I mean this, if that's your choice, and you worked to achieve it, good for you.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

NCdisneyfan sounds a lot like Hokie Pokie with telling Christians they aren't real Christians.

Where did I do that? I don't recall it. But if something I said sounded that way, I will definitely apologize, b/c that was not my intent. However, if you can reference me to where it appears I said it, I would appreciate it. I can't say if someone is a Christian, definitively, or not; I don't have that kind of knowledge, only God does, that I know of, right?

 

[ncdisneyfan]

So then why crack down on one particular "sin"? Why is this your pet cause? I don't understand. You won't touch divorce, but THIS subject is okay?

Hey, I'm not "cracking down" on one particular sin, I don't think. I thought I had stated pretty clearly that ALL sin is equal in the sight of God, at least I thought I had said that here. And I believe that. It's not my pet cause - I didn't start the thread, I just posted on it. Hopefully, everyone who posts actively on a thread isn't labeled with what's on that thread being their pet cause!

It's not that I see one subject as "OK" and others as not, like divorce, it's just that in personal discussions with some people, I have personally found that the divorce issue can be even more of a hotbed than the gay issue, so I like to avoid it altogether.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Hey, I'm not "cracking down" on one particular sin, I don't think. I thought I had stated pretty clearly that ALL sin is equal in the sight of God, at least I thought I had said that here. And I believe that. It's not my pet cause - I didn't start the thread, I just posted on it. Hopefully, everyone who posts actively on a thread isn't labeled with what's on that thread being their pet cause!

It's not that I see one subject as "OK" and others as not, like divorce, it's just that in personal discussions with some people, I have personally found that the divorce issue can be even more of a hotbed than the gay issue, so I like to avoid it altogether.

So it's okay to potentially hurt some people, but not others.

If you truly believed that all sin was equal in the eyes of God, you would be taking care of your own plank first. And you would be willing to discuss all types of "sin".

 

[ncdisneyfan]

And with all of that being said, I will probably bow out from further discussions on this particular matter. As Eclectics previously stated, it's a non-winnable debate, and I agree with him/her. I know I won't be convinced, and I doubt I'll convince others. My point is not to offend, so to anyone whom I may have offended, I do apologize if you take offense. I do believe whole-heartedly in what I believe, and won't waver from it, but in the end, what others choose to do, right or wrong as they see it, is entirely up to them. And if it contrary to what I believe, I can say it's contrary all I want, but truth be told, can probably do little else to change their minds. I will say that I love God, and God loves me, and God loves every person who ever lived on Earth, sinful or not. Heck, if he didn't love sinners, He wouldn't love me!

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Where did I do that? I don't recall it. But if something I said sounded that way, I will definitely apologize, b/c that was not my intent. However, if you can reference me to where it appears I said it, I would appreciate it. I can't say if someone is a Christian, definitively, or not; I don't have that kind of knowledge, only God does, that I know of, right?

Based on this, are YOU even sure of what you believe? You don't even talk with absolute certainty about it, and the Bible says we can be sure of our salvation, and sure of many other things. Are you sure of what you believe, and why? Just curious...

When it comes to religion and eternity, it pays to be right. And if people aren't convinced enough about the truth of their own beliefs to say they're right, how convinced are they themselves?

Have you NEVER questioned your own beliefs? I know I have and I don't think that made me any less of a believer.

Edited to add: you are a LITTLE bit friendlier and not as mean as Hokie, so maybe you aren't. You ARE one of the usuals reincarnated though.

 

[hamlet35_2000]

Methinks someone really DOES have an agenda, eh little buddy? Well, your agenda is truly bigger than my agenda.

So, you lost your argument on the other post, using the guise that you felt attacked on the gay/lesbian thread, yet you continue to post here on the Community Board, on the very same topic? Is that because the majority are heterosexual over here? Safety in numbers?

Discernment does not get a whole lot of support over here either.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

So it's okay to potentially hurt some people, but not others.

If you truly believed that all sin was equal in the eyes of God, you would be taking care of your own plank first. And you would be willing to discuss all types of "sin".

Since this was posted before I bowed out, I will respond, briefly.

Miss Jasmine, my goal is not to hurt anybody. Often times differing opinions can cause hurt, b/c people take them personally, rather than as simply a differing opinion. Think about it this way - it hurts me to be labeled "hateful" or "intolerant", when I know that is not my intent or my mindset, but arises from an opinion different than theirs. But I live with it, b/c I know that they are entitled to their opinion, and can express it freely to me, just as I am entitled to mine, and to express it freely to them.

I do truly believe that all sin is equal in the eyes of God. And as to the plank in my eye first, you are right; I should be focused on that (numerous as they are), and not on this. And that is my fault. I sin every day, I have said that on here. It guilts me, though, as I know it is an incorrect way to act. I don't get excited talking about sin; it's actually kind of depressing, another good reason for me to stop!

So, I'm not trying to avoid "divorce" b/c I think it's any more or less a sin, just b/c I should probably stop talking about it altogether. I hope that makes sense.

 

[oelpa]

hopefully discernment doesn't get support anywhere he goes

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Have you NEVER questioned your own beliefs? I know I have and I don't think that made me any less of a believer.

Edited to add: you are a LITTLE bit friendlier and not as mean as Hokie, so maybe you aren't. You ARE one of the usuals reincarnated though.

Granted, it came off sounding like that, so to you, Goofy4tink and anyone else who might have been offended, I do apologize. I didn't intend it as a slam, I actually genuinely wanted to know why she believed what she believed, I'm just curious like that!

Have I EVER questioned my beliefs? Yes, early on, or in periods of growth, I did, but not lately. And I more questioned WHY I believed what I believed, not really WHAT I believed, if that makes sense. And although I DID believe it with my heart, I did become more and more comfortable with it the more I studied. I agree with you, questioning it doesn't make you less of a believer. I believe that sometimes God may use it to make us find out more for ourselves.

As to who I am, I suppose everyone will make their judgments about me. I'm not sure why my beliefs are connected to someone else's. I probably happen to believe as a lot of others do, and I'm sure there are many others who believe as I do. Not coincidence, just common beliefs, I guess.

 

[eclectics]

It does wash, but if you choose to see it otherwise, that is of course your right. I never said that passages don't need to be interpreted - they do. There is also a correct interpretation, and numerous incorrect ones, and it IS possible to find the correct one, if you study enough. Most people don't, or don't care to.

I do agree it is a non-winnable debate. If it were possible to argue and convince someone of Christianity, then it is also possible for someone else to come along and argue them out of it. It has to be more than just being convinced in the mind, you have to be convinced also in the heart.

So if I understand you correctly, if you study long and hard enough, you will find the right one. Hmm. So, since I'm assuming you believe you are one of the chosen few with the right interpretation, one wonders what vast theological graduate training you have. At least your masters, right? I mean, since you have more study time than the Episcopal BP, you should be quite the elder statesman in your church, right? And I'm sorry, when a newbie runs over to the Community Board after their second post, they have traveled these hallowed halls before.

 

[eclectics]

That quote you posted was part of an ongoing discussion between me & eclectics. I was showing eclectics where they make judgements as well
Of course you pulled it out of context to somehow support some warped point of view.

To call it a discussion is a bit of a stretch. For all that came out of it, I would have been better off talking to my file cabinet. You, and others have insinuated that I, and others, are not true Christains because we interpret the word of God incorrectly. Well, so be it. My God loves me just as I am, and that's all that's important to me. And, btw, I'll say to you what I said to another in this so called discussion: If a newbie runs to the community board after one or two posts, they have already been a frequent flyer here. Sad they have to pretend they haven't. And Rick, you can use my posts anytime you want to.

 

[salmoneous]

A better plan would be to align your beliefs with the Bible's, then find a church that has done the same.

It SHOULD matter to any Christian, what the Bible has to say. In fact, that should be the basis for ANY Christian's beliefs, Episcopalian or otherwise.

Just curious - how do you feel about non-virgin brides? The bible makes it crystal clear - they should be stoned to death.

Now, in my experience, most churches - even those who "claim" to be Christian - don't believe in stoning non-virgin brides. Should I seek out a church that believe in stoning non-virgin brides? Should I be upset with, and chastise any church that doesn't follow Biblical teaching on non-virgin brides?

 

[Doctor Pedantic]

I really don't understand why we are trying to debate this here. No one is going to change anyone's mind. Discernment, I'll bet you that the new presiding bishop has more theological training than you do.

Did you see the latest evidence of the biological origins of homosexuality? It is just getting clearer and clearer all the time. I don't believe that God would create someone like me just so He can send me to Hell.

Discernment, I dare you to return to the "Gay-Nutz" thread that you ran away from when you were out-argued and check out my story. From personal experience, I was more of a threat to marriage when I was married to a woman and trying to live straight than I am in my current relationship with a man.

The "incremenatalism" argument is preposterous. Jon Stewart actually had an excellent point about the "slippery slope": can't you make the argument the opposite way? If we amend the Constitution to say that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, then what's to stop us from amending it to require that they be of the same religion, or economic status, or hair color, or ethnicity, or anything else?

We are talking about one issue here: civil rights for lesbians and gays. Not pedophilia, not polygamy (which is the epitome of Biblical, traditional marriage, BTW, having been the norm for centuries), not anything else.

And whether or not you believe it's a sin or abnormal isn't really relevant. Want another incrementalism argument? Why don't we outlaw "abnormal" or "deviant" sex practices within the context of heterosexual marriage? No S&M, no watersports, no fetishes, no anal sex, just Missionary Position all the way, baby. Would you have a problem with that, Discernment? And perhaps we need a Presidential Commission to determine just what "abnormal" or "deviant" is to help us legislate private acts between consenting adults.

Finally, if you do want to talk about a Christian perspective, let's just remember that Jesus isn't reported as having said even one word about homosexuality, much less gay marriage. He did, however, say that just lusting after a woman constituted adultery, and that there is no acceptable basis for divorce other than adultery. So where is the Constitutional amendment outlawing Playboy and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition, or the one forbidding divorce except for adultery?

So Discernment, you see how silly and hypocritical all of this is? I'll make you a deal: we'll live our lives, and you live yours. Okay?

 

[RickinNYC]

Ouch, divorce, that should be a fun one. I'll steer away from that one...

But, to be sure, I NEVER said, nor do I believe, that God doesn't love everybody. I absolutely believe He does. He doesn't hate, and neither do I, anybody individually. He just doesnt' like sin. I would say I don't either, but I sin each and every day, so it really gives me no room to say I don't like it either.

Ah, and there's the crux of your argument. You claim not to hate individually, but you certainly do an entire population.

 

[RickinNYC]

Just so I can keep track. I am numbersman, hokie, and 2funny2c. Am i anyone else? Sybil?

Give it a rest. I see when you run out of any reasonable thing to add you go for the personal attack.

Say it with me....typicla liberal tactic

Evasion, typical hardcore conservative homophobic fear mongering ultra Christian tactic.

I thank God every day that real Christians don't spend their lives using the Bible as a weapon used for judgement (as you have already stated you did) against others.

 

[RickinNYC]

Discernment does not get a whole lot of support over here either.

Yep, I noticed!

 

[AnaheimGirl]

And a repeat of a previous post so that GoofyGirl and any one who agrees with her will see it, why should you care if they are happy with a wife and children. What is your right to say it is lie. If they were born with it doesn't make it uncurable.

If someone asks me, I have a right to answer as I believe, and my belief is that many of these "ex-gays" are living a lie. However, I have never seen or heard of anyone trying to convert these people back to homosexuality.

That's the difference.

Discernment and others come to internet bulletin boards and who knows where else to complain and preach about homosexuality. They tell stories about "ex-gays" to prove their point, and imply or even proclaim that all homosexuals can and should turn straight through a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Conversely, I see no one telling ex-gays they need to follow their true desires and turn back to homosexuality. If they are happy doing what they're doing, I'm happy for them. I would never presume to know what is best for someone else. Likewise, I don't think anyone else ought to presume to know what's best for the many gays and lesbians who don't want to turn straight, or who have tried and found that they couldn't.