NC Preacher Tells Parents to Crack Wrists, Punch Effeminate Children

[JohnOfSheffield]

Thanks for the kind words.

The Bible is a book that can teach you morality and the other things you've said.

The Bible doesn't teach that we just "popped" into existence. Evolution does (please, NOT talk about that here). We were created, with the ability to procreate. I surely wouldn't call that popping into existence. For instance, we could easily acknowledge that someone created the computers we're typing on right now, don't you agree? It's organized to fulfill a certain, intentional purpose, right? So.. why is it so hard for you to believe that someone created us since we are highly organized, highly sophisticated, AND completely unique?

.. that just doesn't happen unless someone intended to have it that way.

The flood didn't happen? Oh, I really would love to hear you explain how we know it's false.

I have yet to read where the Bible give us Earth's age. I may have missed that.

You are using the texas sharpshooter fallacy, look it up if you don't know what that means. And evolution teaches that a gradual change led to us, like gradual changes has led E.Coli bacteria to change into a whole different species in a laboratory directly obseved setting. That's macro evolution in practice but not for Biblical Theists, they use "kinds" cuz that is what their book tells them to use and if there is no crocoduck then evolution is WRONG! In reality a crocoduck would disprove evolution in a heartbeat. You are just one of the uneducated ignorant people who couldn't pass middleschool biology.

No, there was no worldwide flood, there were local floods and a LOT of religious flood myths though, pretty much every culture had one.

The Bible is as interesting as a brick in that you can interpret it in any way you like and it's man made.

 

[Retro Rob]

You don't support discrimination? Your past posts on the subject of homosexuality would seem to indicate that you don't like it around you and you don't want your children, and presumably other children exposed to it. It would seem to be safe to think that you would actively work against any mention of it in school, at any grade level. My apologies if I deduced that incorrectly.

No, I would not want it around me, my kids and such. How is that discriminating?

You seem to not want the Bible around you. Could I rightfully say that you're discriminating against religious people or people who use it? After all, you did just say:

And I, as well as many millions of others, would be quite comfortable in a world without the Bible, or any other religious text.

.

I'm just calling you out because it seems ok to rip me for not wanting to endorse/accept homosexuality, yet... you reject the Bible (as I reject homosexuality), and no one's calling you prejudice, but you call me prejudice for, in essence, doing the same thing you're doing?

I could be "quite comfortable" as well without homosexuality in this world... but here comes the stone hurlers.. "you monster", "bigot". You could be comfortable without the Bible.... and people are agreeing with you.

What's the real difference between how you feel about the Bible and religious people, and how I feel about homosexuality?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

why is it so hard for you to believe that someone created us since we are highly organized, highly sophisticated, AND completely unique?

I don't have time to address all of your post, so forgive me for cutting it out, but I'll address this one small bit. What makes us "completely unique?" Other animals on Earth have brains. Other animals have hearts, lungs, livers, skin, eyes, bones, arms, legs, fingers, hair... In fact, there's not a single physiological piece of a human being that can't be found anywhere else in the animal kingdom. Yes, we're unique in our ability to use our brains for complex thought, but saying that we are "completely unique" is a bit of artistic license. Our DNA is over 99% similar to that of a chimpanzee; that's not completely unique, it's virtually identical.

It's not hard for me to believe that a creator started everything in motion; the universe, the formation of galaxies and star systems, planets and moons, life at the basic level. It's not hard for me to believe that a creator designed a system where species could adapt and evolve over time; it keeps things from getting boring in the universe. I don't have a hard time conceiving that this creator saw that humans were the first animals to come out of this evolutionary process that had the ability to think and reason on a deeper level than anything that had come before and imbued us with a soul so that we could join him in the afterlife to share in the glory of his creation. I don't personally believe that this is the case, but I could certainly accept it as such.

Why is it hard for you to believe that evolution exists? Why couldn't evolution be part of God's design? It's a pretty excellent system when you think about it, one that takes a lot more intelligence to come up with than just snapping your fingers and having everything spring forth, eternal and unchanging. A God that thinks in evolutionary terms is a God I can get behind; set the wheels in motion, sit back and see what comes of this miraculous idea. Is that so improbable?

 

[Retro Rob]

You are just one of the uneducated ignorant people who couldn't pass middleschool biology.

See, you already formed a similar negative opinion about me much earlier in this thread, hence, why I'm ignoring your posts. If you WANT decent discussion (which I'm highly doubtful that you do) you wouldn't say stuff like this.

Enjoy quoting me but talking to a brick wall. Happy trails!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No, I would not want it around me, my kids and such. How is that discriminating?

You seem to not want the Bible around you. Could I rightfully say that you're discriminating against religious people or people who use it? After all, you did just say:

.

I'm just calling you out because it seems ok to rip me for not wanting to endorse/accept homosexuality, yet... you reject the Bible (as I reject homosexuality), and no one's calling you prejudice, but you call me prejudice for, in essence, doing the same thing you're doing?

I could be "quite comfortable" as well without homosexuality in this world... but here comes the stone hurlers.. "you monster", "bigot". You could be comfortable without the Bible.... and people are agreeing with you.

What's the real difference between how you feel about the Bible and religious people, and how I feel about homosexuality?

No, see you are living in a secular society that gives you the right to believe as you please, what it DOESN'T give you the right to do is to institute your beliefs as law.

You are free here in this society but you have to allow everyone else to be as free as you are, if you think that YOUR belief system should influence laws then whey shouldn't MY belief system influence laws? No religion allowed is a law i would never want to make, but i think that all religions are crutches for the highly unethical people to use as justification of their psychopathy. Indeed many seem to think that if there was nothing stopping them, religion wise, they would go on a killing/raping/pedo spree.

I'm just asking you to remember that you are only free to your beliefs in this secular society because it's a secular society and that also means that you have to accept that it's not based on your religious doctrine and thus not up to you to decide upon.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, see you are living in a secular society that gives you the right to believe as you please, what it DOESN'T give you the right to do is to institute your beliefs as law.

You are free here in this society but you have to allow everyone else to be as free as you are, if you think that YOUR belief system should influence laws then whey shouldn't MY belief system influence laws? No religion allowed is a law i would never want to make, but i think that all religions are crutches for the highly unethical people to use as justification of their psychopathy. Indeed many seem to think that if there was nothing stopping them, religion wise, they would go on a killing/raping/pedo spree.

I'm just asking you to remember that you are only free to your beliefs in this secular society because it's a secular society and that also means that you have to accept that it's not based on your religious doctrine and thus not up to you to decide upon.

Again... how I'm I "discriminating" against homosexuality by not accepting it, while people who don't accept the Bible aren't discriminating against religious persons who do accept it?

You didn't answer that...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Again... how I'm I "discriminating" against homosexuality by not accepting it, while people who don't accept the Bible aren't discriminating against religious persons who do accept it?

You didn't answer that...

And how am i discriminating against Christians by not accepting them? By not wanting them to spread, by not wanting them to be seen, by not wanting them to marry, have children or be some kind of strange thing i have to explain to my kids.

Is it wrong for me to not accept Christians?

You tell me.

IS IT PERHAPS SO that while Christians are NOT discriminated against AT ALL they think THEY should have the right to discriminate?

Or are you ok with secular law as it should be, non discriminatory and all rights (marriage is a right according to loving vs virginia) awarded to all of mankind?

If so this discussion is irrelevant but if you believe that you per your religion should have the right to discriminate in LAW, then you are going to be sorely dissapointed.

 

[Retro Rob]

And how am i discriminating against Christians by not accepting them? By not wanting them to spread, by not wanting them to be seen, by not wanting them to marry, have children or be some kind of strange thing i have to explain to my kids.

Is it wrong for me to not accept Christians?

You tell me.

IS IT PERHAPS SO that while Christians are NOT discriminated against AT ALL they think THEY should have the right to discriminate?

Or are you ok with secular law as it should be, non discriminatory and all rights (marriage is a right according to loving vs virginia) awarded to all of mankind?

You say the Bible is man-made. Well, so is secular law. If both are man-made, what makes the Bible less valid than secular law? Why do you accept one set of man-made laws over another?

You say the Bible is man-made? Well, so is secular law. If both are man-made, what makes the Bible less valid?

If so this discussion is irrelevant but if you believe that you per your religion should have the right to discriminate in LAW, then you are going to be sorely dissapointed.

Ok, you may think I can't rebut your statements, but I can. You defend your beliefs using the secular laws around you and I don't deny you that.

I defend my beliefs using the Bible, but you (and the vast majority of others here) either 1)think its highly fictional, 2) believe God doesn't exist, or 3) it's a man-written book... and as a result, invalidate it as a defense mechanism.

So, you're not giving me a leg to stand on. How can I defend myself? I can't, so that could be the reason why you've.....

found Christians to be inherently dishonest though, they will enter any debate but leave as soon as they are called on things they have no answer for

My guess is that you ask Christians to answer your questions without allowing them the use of the Bible, and instead of them arguing with you, they just dismiss themselves from the discussion. Based on how you just said a few posts ago, you use "harsh words and really goes one on one with people on their opinions", you're not very conversational, and that's why I have been ignoring you, fyi.

Learn to talk to me without the hard-hitting criticism:

The Bible is as interesting as a brick in that you can interpret it in any way you like and it's man made.

You are just one of the uneducated ignorant people who couldn't pass middleschool biology

 

[Retro Rob]

You are using the texas sharpshooter fallacy, look it up if you don't know what that means. And evolution teaches that a gradual change led to us, like gradual changes has led E.Coli bacteria to change into a whole different species in a laboratory directly obseved setting. That's macro evolution in practice but not for Biblical Theists, they use "kinds" cuz that is what their book tells them to use and if there is no crocoduck then evolution is WRONG! In reality a crocoduck would disprove evolution in a heartbeat. You are just one of the uneducated ignorant people who couldn't pass middleschool biology.

No, there was no worldwide flood, there were local floods and a LOT of religious flood myths though, pretty much every culture had one.

The Bible is as interesting as a brick in that you can interpret it in any way you like and it's man made.

Ok, you say the Bible is man-made. Well, so is secular law. If both are man-made, then how is the Bible less valid than secular law? Why you easily accept one set of man-made law over another?

If I understand you, you say the Bible's false, BECAUSE it's man-made. Well, why can't secular be equally as false? It too, is man-made.

 

[Modelworks]

The only thing I want to point out is the fallacy that society is able to determine its own morals without the need of a higher power. Time and again it has been shown that if man becomes the ultimate authority on morals , the morals will be those who hold the most power, the people with the power will pressure those around them to accept their views regardless of how moral a decision may be. One good thing about things like the 10 commandments is that the authority of the rules was placed outside the realm of man where the rules are set in stone, literally. No matter how much power you have, how much wealth, or how much influence you cannot change those rules. Throughout history all the kings, royalty, even the catholic church, was forced to follow the rules because they could not be changed.

I would like to believe that man has evolved to the point that man can govern itself, decide what is best morally and make rules that benefit man, but I can't believe that . Man has shown over and over that man is not capable of remaining moral and will eventually degrade into a society where those with the power make the rules. Studies have shown that man based rules always results in the animal world of alpha males where the strongest rule. I don't claim religion to be perfect, but it does give some basic guidelines that are very hard to change by even the strongest.

As CS Lewis said"
The judge cannot be one of the parties judged; or, if he is, the decision is worthless and there is no ground for placing the preservation of the species above self-preservation or sexual appetite."

 

[alzan]

As one who commonly uses harsh words and really goes one on one with people on their opinions i wish you'd stay.

See, you are really going to have to do something extraordinary before i call you on it in a way that could be considered flaming you.

To be honest, i've found Christians to be inherently dishonest though, they will enter any debate but leave as soon as they are called on things they have no answer for.

It's hard to argue against the entire world of scientific knowledge (and yes, most of the scientific knowledge does disprove the claims of YEC's) and i get that, but deflection and rejection of information just to restate your claims in another thread isn't useful in the least.

Perhaps it's just because i'm one of the chosen people and i can do anything i want and still get a pass into heaven (kinda like Hitler who's mother was Jewish) but i don't much understand the infatuation with religion.

I have no intention of leaving. I find this thread particularly interesting and as I said before pretty well-mannered. My "fear" of being flamed is probably just my own emotional blockade of having my lack of knowledge on a particular subject pointed out to me.

Having beliefs (Christian or otherwise) questioned; or in my case lack of knowledge, is never easy or pleasant for anyone to experience. I try to keep most of my posts relegated to an opinion as opposed to factual statements; well, maybe not in the Martin/Zimmerman thread. I just can't resist splashing spideys with water occasionally .

As far as religion-related threads; I try to go with "scientific" posts to present to the religious that examining/understanding our world and ourselves can only come from what we can test, prove/disprove, etc. Not to belittle people of faith or destroy faith, but to gain knowledge that can be used to better ourselves and how we interact with our planet/the universe.

 

[zsdersw]

Ok, you say the Bible is man-made. Well, so is secular law. If both are man-made, then how is the Bible less valid than secular law? Why you easily accept one set of man-made law over another?

If I understand you, you say the Bible's false, BECAUSE it's man-made. Well, why can't secular be equally as false? It too, is man-made.

Secular law is man-made, yes, but it doesn't make extraordinary claims about divinity and other impossible-to-prove things and is not written as a story of events that supposedly happened and will happen in the future.

Secular law, by design, provides for how to change it; an acknowledgement that it is imperfect and may require amending.

 

[alzan]

No, I would not want it around me, my kids and such. How is that discriminating?

You seem to not want the Bible around you. Could I rightfully say that you're discriminating against religious people or people who use it? After all, you did just say:

.

I'm just calling you out because it seems ok to rip me for not wanting to endorse/accept homosexuality, yet... you reject the Bible (as I reject homosexuality), and no one's calling you prejudice, but you call me prejudice for, in essence, doing the same thing you're doing?

I could be "quite comfortable" as well without homosexuality in this world... but here comes the stone hurlers.. "you monster", "bigot". You could be comfortable without the Bible.... and people are agreeing with you.

What's the real difference between how you feel about the Bible and religious people, and how I feel about homosexuality?

I express myself poorly sometimes; my apologies.

Let's try it a different way. You don't want homosexuality around or having your children exposed to it. Are you against allowing the government granting marriage licenses to same sex couples? If so I would call that bigoted and discriminatory. If you're not against it I stand corrected. Also, are you for or against the mere mention of homosexuality in schools; such as the Tennessee "Don't Say Gay" bill: (HB229/SB049) that was recently allowed to die without being voted upon; or the similar Missouri law that's been proposed: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills121/billpdf/intro/HB2051I.PDF

I actually could care less if the Bible is around me or not: it doesn't frighten me. What concerns me is people/legislators who propose new/interpret existing law through the narrow lens of the Bible or any religious text.

Being comfortable without the Bible or other religious texts around is not discriminatory or bigoted; as I previously posted I and others don't want them used to create/interpret laws which discriminate against other people.

I reject the Bible because for me it holds nothing of value; I can live as a good person without the Bible's teachings and without organized religions' "carrot on a stick" or Sword of Damocles" principles. The Bible, Torah or Quran are a nice set of stories, but that's all they are.

People can be hurtful with words and phrases and I'm just as guilty as others on occasion. But you may be letting words have a little too much power over you. I don't use words to put you down or insult you, just to get you to try to examine your inner intentions; see my questions above.

The difference is that I will not support and will work against legislation that would take away someone elses' right to use religious texts or faith, or their right to live their lives by the teachings. Nor would I allow legislation that would abridge the expression or actions of love by two consenting heterosexuals, married or not, within their residence(s). Or to keep them from obtaining a license to marry.

 

[sandorski]

Ok, you may think I can't rebut your statements, but I can. You defend your beliefs using the secular laws around you and I don't deny you that.

I defend my beliefs using the Bible, but you (and the vast majority of others here) either 1)think its highly fictional, 2) believe God doesn't exist, or 3) it's a man-written book... and as a result, invalidate it as a defense mechanism.

So, you're not giving me a leg to stand on. How can I defend myself? I can't, so that could be the reason why you've.....

My guess is that you ask Christians to answer your questions without allowing them the use of the Bible, and instead of them arguing with you, they just dismiss themselves from the discussion. Based on how you just said a few posts ago, you use "harsh words and really goes one on one with people on their opinions", you're not very conversational, and that's why I have been ignoring you, fyi.

Learn to talk to me without the hard-hitting criticism:

You are correct in one thing, if the Bible is all you have to base your arguments on, you have nothing. It is a simple Circular Argument you'll end up making:

God exists because the Bible says so-the Bible has authority because God says so

That isn't evidence. Those are Assertions that must be taken on Faith alone. People looking for Reasoned arguments will not accept that anymore than they'll accept Santa Claus, Leprechauns, or a myriad of other fairy tell being and/or gods.

 

[sandorski]

The only thing I want to point out is the fallacy that society is able to determine its own morals without the need of a higher power. Time and again it has been shown that if man becomes the ultimate authority on morals , the morals will be those who hold the most power, the people with the power will pressure those around them to accept their views regardless of how moral a decision may be. One good thing about things like the 10 commandments is that the authority of the rules was placed outside the realm of man where the rules are set in stone, literally. No matter how much power you have, how much wealth, or how much influence you cannot change those rules. Throughout history all the kings, royalty, even the catholic church, was forced to follow the rules because they could not be changed.

I would like to believe that man has evolved to the point that man can govern itself, decide what is best morally and make rules that benefit man, but I can't believe that . Man has shown over and over that man is not capable of remaining moral and will eventually degrade into a society where those with the power make the rules. Studies have shown that man based rules always results in the animal world of alpha males where the strongest rule. I don't claim religion to be perfect, but it does give some basic guidelines that are very hard to change by even the strongest.

As CS Lewis said"
The judge cannot be one of the parties judged; or, if he is, the decision is worthless and there is no ground for placing the preservation of the species above self-preservation or sexual appetite."

You state(correctly I add) that Man is imperfect, then state that Religion is imperfect(correctly as well). Upon what do you make the claim then that only a Higher Power is capable of being Moral?

 

[Jhhnn]

The preacher just wants to toughen them up, so that as adult gays, they'll be butch rather than fem...

He's an idiot, one with deep seated anxieties about his own sexuality.

 

[LunarRay]

You are correct in one thing, if the Bible is all you have to base your arguments on, you have nothing. It is a simple Circular Argument you'll end up making:

God exists because the Bible says so-the Bible has authority because God says so

That isn't evidence. Those are Assertions that must be taken on Faith alone. People looking for Reasoned arguments will not accept that anymore than they'll accept Santa Claus, Leprechauns, or a myriad of other fairy tell being and/or gods.

Faith is belief without proof... No one can argue that God exists to anyone who is without the same belief. You are right. That a bible indicates God is God or that forever almost folks have pointed to the sky proclaiming 'He said' as everyone else squinted at the brightness of the Sun but, followed because of fear or some other emotion... does not mean God exists.

BUT!.... To the person who believes that God is God there are some guidelines that ought to followed in order to be in sync with that notion. AND it is for the person so oriented that this is crucial while it ought to benefit the rest of humanity in the process. One would think, anyhow.

For those who are of the Christian fold there are some easy rules... Love God and Love People... more or less like that..

What I don't get is how some can love some and hate some... How some can judge all manner of things and condemn them. I can see the Muslim having that attitude cuz Mohammad said... but Jesus said differently... and if that is true then the Christian ought to simply look at what the Muslim says and practice the opposite...

Homosexuals are people and as such have as much right to be loved by the Christian as the Christian Loves himself... Playing in Caesar's game is a right we all have as citizens but it should be tempered by the greater commandment of Love...

EDIT: I should add that being Irish I'm certain that Leprechauns exist.... ugly little buggers... :+)

 

[ShawnD1]

The preacher just wants to toughen them up, so that as adult gays, they'll be butch rather than fem...

I always wondered if acting super gay was just for show. Look at a guy like Richard Simmons. He's a very flamboyant person with a lot of energy. It perfectly fits the gay stereotype. Do all of the people acting that way naturally want to act that way, or is much of it an act to show that they're gay?

I ask because I know straight people who "act straight" are often doing it for show. Have you ever met a person who is completely 100% straight, but some people think they are gay? Those people sometimes need to hold back their natural behavior and "act straight" just so there's no confusion about their sexuality. They don't want to be stuck in a situation where they take a woman on a date and the woman thinks she's just spending time with her gay friend.

 

[Steeplerot]

The preacher just wants to toughen them up, so that as adult gays, they'll be butch rather than fem...

He's an idiot, one with deep seated anxieties about his own sexuality.

Obviously he is a bottom himself looking for some more good men.

 

[Retro Rob]

Secular law is man-made, yes, but it doesn't make extraordinary claims about divinity and other impossible-to-prove things and is not written as a story of events that supposedly happened and will happen in the future.

Secular law, by design, provides for how to change it; an acknowledgement that it is imperfect and may require amending.

Ok, I can give you the first half of what you said because faith (not blind belief) is needed to believe the Bible. I'd like to address the second portion, though:

The issues with secular law is that I personally believe that it doesn't provide any real substance and stability, which humans need, as well as restraint to some degree.

For instance, premarital sex has always been restricted in the Bible for a number of reasons (such as having multiple sex partners thus decreasing the passing of STD's and other diseases) unwanted pregnancies, and so on. There was one point in time where it was generally frowned upon when people cohabited. Now, its so common and accepted that people would rather not get married before having sex. If it doesn't work out, then they move to the next person etc etc, thus, increasing the chances of sleeping with someone they eventually move on from, and/or bringing an unwanted child into this world by an unwanted person.

I'm not sure if laws restrict that, but people looked at my wife and I very strangely when we were dating and were engaged before having sex and living together.

While we need secular laws to keep order, and I do follow and abide by all secular laws, the ones that conflict with God's laws (such as, those that allow for homosexual marriage), are the ones I outright reject. Call it prejudice, I really don't care at this point. Actually, you're not calling me prejudice... you're calling God prejudice. If that's what people want to do, then so be it.

 

[Wreckem]

Again... how I'm I "discriminating" against homosexuality by not accepting it, while people who don't accept the Bible aren't discriminating against religious persons who do accept it?

You didn't answer that...

Because religion is a choice. Homosexuality is not.

 

[Retro Rob]

I express myself poorly sometimes; my apologies.

Let's try it a different way. You don't want homosexuality around or having your children exposed to it. Are you against allowing the government granting marriage licenses to same sex couples? If so I would call that bigoted and discriminatory. If you're not against it I stand corrected. Also, are you for or against the mere mention of homosexuality in schools; such as the Tennessee "Don't Say Gay" bill: (HB229/SB049) that was recently allowed to die without being voted upon; or the similar Missouri law that's been proposed: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills121/billpdf/intro/HB2051I.PDF

Eh, you're ok, I don't always express myself correctly either.

Whatever the Government decides to do is their business. I won't stop them or those who want to take advantage of such a law. I don't accept it or endorse it.. nor will I talk to people to that effect. I will always reference the Bible on that subject and let people make their own conclusions. I'm not against people saying such a thing - people can say what they want.

Being comfortable without the Bible or other religious texts around is not discriminatory or bigoted; as I previously posted I and others don't want them used to create/interpret laws which discriminate against other people.

Like I said, the Bible isn't designed to discriminate, it's to educate. God has been around before any humans or secular laws, so how can what the Bible says be discriminatory, when it was us that made laws contrary to a God that been around much longer?

I reject the Bible because for me it holds nothing of value; I can live as a good person without the Bible's teachings and without organized religions' "carrot on a stick" or Sword of Damocles" principles.

People can be hurtful with words and phrases and I'm just as guilty as others on occasion. But you may be letting words have a little too much power over you. I don't use words to put you down or insult you, just to get you to try to examine your inner intentions; see my questions above.

The difference is that I will not support and will work against legislation that would take away someone elses' right to use religious texts or faith, or their right to live their lives by the teachings. Nor would I allow legislation that would abridge the expression or actions of love by two consenting heterosexuals, married or not, within their residence(s). Or to keep them from obtaining a license to marry.

I won't try to change how you feel, I respect your honesty, really.

 

[alzan]

Eh, you're ok, I don't always express myself correctly either.

Whatever the Government decides to do is their business. I won't stop them or those who want to take advantage of such a law. I don't accept it or endorse it.. nor will I talk to people to that effect. I will always reference the Bible on that subject and let people make their own conclusions. I'm not against people saying such a thing - people can say what they want.



Like I said, the Bible isn't designed to discriminate, it's to educate. God has been around before any humans or secular laws, so how can what the Bible says be discriminatory, when it was us that made laws contrary to a God that been around much longer?

I won't try to change how you feel, I respect your honesty, really.

That's fine. I apologize for and retract my statements to you where I said you're discriminating or bigoted. I guess I was concerned that when you say you don't accept or endorse homosexuality that you were saying that you would work against or vote to make same sex marriage illegal.

Now as far as not wanting homosexuals around you or your kids, that's a little different. You certainly have the right to choose who you associate with, I'm not saying you don't, but I think you're "shutting the door" on some potentially beneficial friendships. Before meeting my soon to be wife, I hadn't had much contact with homosexuals. Because her church accepted homosexuals and lesbians; I came to have meaningful discussions with quite a few couples and individuals. The first gay couple I met had been together for 12 years then and are still together today, 17 years later. It's been a joy getting to know them and the other same sex couples at her church; and I'm glad I left that door open.

I realize that the Bible, and other religious texts' purpose is to educate. I won't get in to the various books and verses (mostly in the Old Testament) where the Bible does imply that it's okay to discriminate. Perhaps it's easier to say that for a lot of Christian sects, they, or their leaders/ministers/priests have interpreted the teachings in such a way that it's okay to discriminate against certain races or groups. And they've been interpreted/taught that way for a long time.

As far as God being around longer: that's your belief and I won't try to change it. I'll just say that the idea of a deity or deities has been around for a long time as well. It's just barely possible that man created God vs. the other way around.

Thanks for rejoining the thread.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's fine. I apologize for and retract my statements to you where I said you're discriminating or bigoted. I guess I was concerned that when you say you don't accept or endorse homosexuality that you were saying that you would work against or vote to make same sex marriage illegal.

You're cool. I can understand how that mix-up can happen.

If I were providing a service, such as computer/car repair, I wouldn't treat a gay customer any different from a straight person.

Now as far as not wanting homosexuals around you or your kids, that's a little different. You certainly have the right to choose who you associate with, I'm not saying you don't, but I think you're "shutting the door" on some potentially beneficial friendships. Before meeting my soon to be wife, I hadn't had much contact with homosexuals. Because her church accepted homosexuals and lesbians; I came to have meaningful discussions with quite a few couples and individuals. The first gay couple I met had been together for 12 years then and are still together today, 17 years later. It's been a joy getting to know them and the other same sex couples at her church; and I'm glad I left that door open.

I agree that homosexual/lesbian persons can be decent people, and good people overall, because if we outright rejected them, how could a religious person "convert", I should say, "persuade" that person? For instance, if I were a preacher wanting to bring people over to God, I would have to at least talk to people whether they are gay, straight, dumb, smart, rich, poor etc.. I cannot refuse to talk to a person because he is gay, ya know?

I can shut the door on a person's lifestyle and not the person himself. If I had a family member, perhaps a brother, who was gay, then I would still love him and treat him accordingly. But what I will not do is allow him to bring his partner into my home for dinner, for example... nor would I allow them both to spend a night in the same bed in my home. That's indeed, shutting down homosexuality, but not people. What about the his partner, you might ask? Well, so be it. I would be willing to talk to him separately.. if he would be willing. It might seem cruel and prejudice, I can see that. But just remember that I'm not doing that out of hatred of homosexuals. It's simply because God doesn't like it, and those on his side must not either. If you would like a reference Bible text just for fyi, just look over 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Doesn't say anything about us killing homosexuals.

I realize that the Bible, and other religious texts' purpose is to educate. I won't get in to the various books and verses (mostly in the Old Testament) where the Bible does imply that it's okay to discriminate. Perhaps it's easier to say that for a lot of Christian sects, they, or their leaders/ministers/priests have interpreted the teachings in such a way that it's okay to discriminate against certain races or groups. And they've been interpreted/taught that way for a long time.

I tend to agree with and second this statement. I believe that there are more than a few that twist the Bible to fit what they want. I imagine that's part of the reason why you don't really trust them - I hear you there.

You're very observant! I also believe that the Bible, in and of itself, doesn't teach hate or discrimination. Matt 22:39, Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. I seriously doubt that a hate-filled book would tell someone love someone else as your own-self. I don't hate homosexuals personally.. I just have a strong dislike for even the idea of two persons of the same-sex (man or woman) having sex or in a romantic relationship.

As far as God being around longer: that's your belief and I won't try to change it. I'll just say that the idea of a deity or deities has been around for a long time as well. It's just barely possible that man created God vs. the other way around.

Thanks for rejoining the thread.

I see. Thanks for rejoining to. If it weren't for guys like you, I'd left some time ago.

Thanks!

 

[crashtestdummy]

I can shut the door on a person's lifestyle and not the person himself. If I had a family member, perhaps a brother, who was gay, then I would still love him and treat him accordingly. But what I will not do is allow him to bring his partner into my home for dinner, for example... nor would I allow them both to spend a night in the same bed in my home. That's indeed, shutting down homosexuality, but not people. What about the his partner, you might ask? Well, so be it. I would be willing to talk to him separately.. if he would be willing. It might seem cruel and prejudice, I can see that. But just remember that I'm not doing that out of hatred of homosexuals. It's simply because God doesn't like it, and those on his side must not either. If you would like a reference Bible text just for fyi, just look over 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Doesn't say anything about us killing homosexuals.

I do hope that some day, you're willing to change your mind on this one detail. Refusing to meet someones partner would be like a close friend refusing to meet your wife. They may be able to be genuinely good friends of yours, but there's a part of your life that they would never be able to understand. You'll likewise never be able to understand their outlook until you see how happy they are with their partner.

Many of my friends who once held similar views to yours changed only when someone close to them came out as gay. It isn't just that they don't want to hate their friend/relative (as you say, you can dislike an aspect of someone without disliking them), but it was seeing how much happier they had become no longer concealing or repressing their identity. The experience of ex-ex-gay minister Jeremy Marks is a common one:

A few years later, we had to close our live-in discipleship houses, but I kept in touch with people afterwards and was dismayed to see what happened. Once people were on their own again, their world collapsed. Family and friends would say, "So, when are we going to hear wedding bells?" It never occurred to them that maybe you are gay because that's just the way you are. I began to see more people losing hope, getting severely depressed. One made a serious suicide attempt.

By the end of the 1990s, the only ones doing well were those who'd accepted they were gay and found a partner. It was as if a great burden had been shifted, that they thought, "Now at last I know who I am. I know I'm in love with somebody and they love me." I thought, this is the kind of result we hoped they'd achieve living an upright Christian life, but they're finding that contentment just being themselves. I began to think that perhaps we'd got it really wrong.