Radical Clerics, Christian Morals, and Homosexuality

OK,, I give up, I'm the persecutor, I'm the evil one, nothing I say has any value, I get it. Christianity is the enemy of the world, not Catholicism, not gay marriage, none of that, no, just Christianity. I get it.

quote:

---

OK,, I give up, I'm the persecutor, I'm the evil one, nothing I say has any value, I get it. Christianity is the enemy of the world, not Catholicism, not gay marriage, none of that, no, just Christianity. I get it.

---

You think that I consider you to be a good Christian ?You think that I consider the Catholic Church to be blameless, just because I object to vicious and baseless attacks on it ? There's a lot wrong with Catholicism but it's nowhere near as bad as you say.You don't get it at all.

Right, like I said, I'm the persecutor, I'm not even a Christian, Catholicism is just what they present themselves to be, not plotting to acquire world power, that's just my vicious and baseless attacks, I've proven nothing of what I've said about that, you are SO right, objections to gay marriage are nothing but evil bigotry, trying to deprive a legitimate minority group of their rights, etc etc etc. You are all SO right.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Would you mind telling me how the Dutch society got destroyed after allowing same sex marrage in april of 2001? The destruction seems to be so far unnoticed.

You have to be patient. God is waiting for the magnitude of sodomy to reach the smiting threshold. I figure you guys have about another 390 yrs before the hammer falls but keep on eye on them dykes.

No, you don't get it. It's not Christianity that is the enemy of the world, just the version of Christianity you try to sell.I doubt anyone here thinks you are evil, but the ideas you try to market are certainly vile, not Christ like, bigoted, exclusionary, pretty much worthless.

I believe that there is essentially a spectrum
on the far left you have license and freedom...all things are permissible...we are free in Christ to live our lives as we feel. On the far right is legalism. Thou shalt do this and not do that.
There are numerous rules.I am somewhere in the middle.I can understand what you wish to convey when you say I should worry about no mans sin other than my own. That My behavior is between me and God.And I agree that society...and the church...have no c all to legislate morality. Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world and mine isnt either. I am commanded to love my neighbor. Love God and love others. Perfect love casts out all fear.So what does it mean to love? Does perfect love include boundless tolerance? If my teenager is in church and is making out with his girlfriend in the back pew, am i to giggle and turn the other way? Am I to go and rebuke them? Am I to ignore what to me is a fleshly act which would embarrass us all in the Lords presence? My point is this: What should and should not be allowed in church?Should we have our headphones on bumping rap while the BCP is being read?

That depends. Should it include boundless tolerance of other folks sins? Yup. None of your business.

The problem is that we have a lot of laws with the word "marriage" in them. Changing the name of government-sanctioned contracts to "union" would require rewording a lot of laws.Which is why I suggest that only the government-sanctioned marriages should be recognized as legal marriages. If churches want to call something "marriage", that's fine but it should have no legal standing whatsoever. The solution to that problem, in my opinion, is for the government to handle the legal and for religion to handle the religious. No religious ceremony needs to be illegal if it carries no legal weight in the first place.

What does tolerance mean, and what behavior is intolerance? You are the teenager's parent and are responsible for the teen. So for you, ignoring the making out is some kind of endorsement. Further, the behavior in church is church business, so if the usher interferes, he is not showing intolerance either.But failing to persecute random people that aren't in your house or who aren't your kids is not any kind of endorsement or tolerance of their behavior. Not yelling 'God hates gays' isn't tolerance of gays, it's simply behaving as if you had been brought up somewhere other than a cave. You might even argue that such non-actions are required by Jesus example from John 8:7. (Unless you are using the conservapedia Bible.)

Wow. That is the most true statements I've ever seen you put into one post.

It's like Poe's Law...but in reverse!

I'd like to make something clear. I usually take a wide definition of Christian including pretty much anyone who's prepared to assent to the basic doctrines. That's why I said that I don't consider Faith a good Christian. Which of course she ignored.But if we're going to talk about what makes a good Christian then adherence to doctrine is surely not the most important issue - and I'd be surprised if there were more than a few items of doctrine that had to be believed.In Christianity you don't get saved by saying that you believe in Sola Scriptura - or even really believing it. Adherence to the teachings of the Gospels - such as "Judge not, lest ye be judged" would surely seem to be more important than that or even the Trinity or the Virgin Birth.

This is nonsense. Outright homophobic retoric that you're trying to pass on as a fact.I thought you were better than that. How do you separate the two?I am attracted to women and have a biological need for sex.How is this statement wrong? In all cases it can not because there is nothing wrong that needs curing.- Oni

There is no sexual behavior that can be participated in exclusively by consenting adults which is morally wrong. Period. Anal sex is not immoral. Blowjobs are not immoral. Cunnilingus is not immoral. Analingus is not immoral. BDSM is not immoral. Male/male sex is not immoral. Female/female sex is not immoral. Male/female/male/male/male/male/female sex is not immoral. And so on, and so forth.Consenting adults can do absolutely whatever they want with each other, even if you find their acts distasteful and would not personally want to participate or indeed even think about such acts, distasteful is not and never has been a corollary to immoral.That's what you don't get, Phat.There are many people who are labelled as "sexual deviants" for doing what is absolutely nobody else's business but their own and that of any partners who participate with them. Many of them have suffered persecution through legal and other means since time immemorial. Many of them still do. Simply based on what they choose to do with other consenting adults, because their neighbors just can't stand that somebody might have an erection over something that makes them feel squicky.The extension of your personal tastes (which includes that of a religion as much as it does any individual person) into the business of others through moral condemnation is itself immoral.