Compelled to change?

Originally posted by whodey
So what other Christian beliefs that are offensive are on the choping block I wonder? How about:

1) The teaching that Christ is the only way to the Father
2) Some will experience damnation.
3) Not all religions point to the same God.

I figure that so long as I continue to offend people as did Christ I am doing my job.

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, YOUR beliefs and the message that Jesus brought to the world don't seem to coincide very well. Perhaps you should read and meditate on what Jesus had to say. Hopefully you'll come to understand what He came to share with us.

1 John 2:15-17
Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Unfortunately, from what I can tell, YOUR beliefs and the message that Jesus brought to the world don't seem to coincide very well. Perhaps you should read and meditate on what Jesus had to say. Hopefully you'll come to understand what He came to share with us.

1 John 2:15-17
Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the wor ...[text shortened]... world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

So your interpretation of what I believe scripture saying is nothing more than pride? Judge me if you will, however, I am not in agreement. I think the thing to do that is least loving of all is to believe that a brother or sister is in error and refuse to correct them because you are afraid of offending them. Sometimes the most loving thing to do is an intervention. No one likes to be told they are wrong, including myself. However, some welcome correction and others are enraged by it. As for your attempted correction, I am not enraged by it, rather, I simply disagree. Not all correction is accurate correction. After all, both of us can't be right.

Originally posted by whodey
So your interpretation of what I believe scripture saying is nothing more than pride? Judge me if you will, however, I am not in agreement. I think the thing to do that is least loving of all is to believe that a brother or sister is in error and refuse to correct them because you are afraid of offending them. Sometimes the most loving thing to do is an in ...[text shortened]... ly disagree. Not all correction is accurate correction. After all, both of us can't be right.

If you truly believed that the loving thing to do is correct those in error then tell us how you've done an intervention with those who are overweight or are wealthy. How you've judged them to be unfit for membership or leadership in your church and have asked them to step down. Living in the US as you do, I imagine that you've done this hundreds of times.

Originally posted by whodey
Speaking of intolerance, what of my position? Are you intolerant of it? What behavoir qualifies as intolerant? Is it disagreeing with someone intolerant? If so, I am intolerant and so are you. Perhaps you say I am intolerant for suggesting that members within a church are asked to step down because of behavoir that counters the behavoir they agreed to up ...[text shortened]... ctives on the matter. Hopefully I have presented my perspective so that you may understand it.

Perhaps you say I am intolerant for suggesting that members within a church are asked to step down because of behavoir that counters the behavoir they agreed to uphold when they joined.

No, failure to comply with contractual obligations, or something resembling that, is different. I was directing my attention toward your blanket view against homosexuality, and I was asking about my example -- the one you keep ignoring.

Anyway, reread my last post. I didn't charge you simply with intolerance. I charged you with unfounded intolerance. Yes, you're intolerant even where you have no rational basis for being intolerant. If there were any shred of intellectual merit to your blanket view against homosexuality; well, then, I should think you would have already answered my question that I keep posing regarding my example. You would have given an answer like, you know, here's what I think is wrong with it and here are my reasons for thinking this way. But no, you stick to what your book says even where you don't understand it, even where you acknowledge the lack of reasons available to you. I think your behavior is irresponsible and shameful.

Thus, I find that arguing does not lend itself to exposing the truth about the matter, rather, it is simply a means of defending what you believe.

Gee, I'm sorry that you find it so ball-busting to have to present underlying support for your beliefs. I'm sorry that you find it such a burden to defend rationally your own view of the world. I'm sorry that you find intellectual ownership to be so cumbersome. Yes, it's so much easier for us all to just blindly follow some accounts handed down to us and to disregard as unreliable any dissenting thoughts of our own.

Having said that, I post here not to convert you to my way of thinking so much as I am giving you different perspectives on the matter. Hopefully I have presented my perspective so that you may understand it.

Believe me, you run no risk of converting me, or I should think anyone else, to your way of thinking because you give us no reasons to convert and because your way is highly unimpressive.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you truly believed that the loving thing to do is correct those in error then tell us how you've done an intervention with those who are overweight or are wealthy. How you've judged them to be unfit for membership or leadership in your church and have asked them to step down. Living in the US as you do, I imagine that you've done this hundreds of times.

Is being wealthy or overweight necessarily a sin? Are there not examples of wealthy men like Abrhaham and Job who were wealthy and righteous? Also, medically being overweight does not necessarily indicate poor eating habits, rather, it can be a reflection of other medical problems. Therefore, gluttonly is singled out as being problematic and unhealthy.

Scripturally if you have a position from which to expose your beliefs you may have a case, hwoever, you have given none in terms of homosexuality being accepted in any form or fashion, thus, fundamentalists who base their beliefs on the word of God have no choice but to speak against it as the holy scriptures do. Therefore, your complaint should not rest with the likes of me, rather, it should rest with those of Moses and Paul and Christ.

Originally posted by whodey
Is being wealthy or overweight necessarily a sin? Are there not examples of wealthy men like Abrhaham and Job who were wealthy and righteous? Also, medically being overweight does not necessarily indicate poor eating habits, rather, it can be a reflection of other medical problems. Therefore, gluttonly is singled out as being problematic and unhealthy.

...[text shortened]... d not rest with the likes of me, rather, it should rest with those of Moses and Paul and Christ.

Jesus was very clear on his position on wealth. Being overweight is a symptom of gluttony in all but a very small percentage of cases. With this in mind, wouldn't it be prudent to confront them all and remove the ones that aren't?

If you truly based your beliefs on the word of God, you'd heed them. But you don't. You single out homosexuality only because of your bigotry. You don't do this out of love. You're a hypocrite, plain and simple. The fact that you use the scripture as a weapon in your self-righteousness is all the more contemptible.


"Blessed are you poor, For yours is the kingdom of God…Woe to you who are rich, For you have received your consolation"; and,"Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."; and, "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys." (Luke 6:20, 24; Matt. 19:23-24; Luke 12:33)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus was very clear on his position on wealth. Being overweight is a symptom of gluttony in all but a very small percentage of cases. With this in mind, wouldn't it be prudent to confront them all and remove the ones that aren't?

If you truly based your beliefs on the word of God, you'd heed them. But you don't. You single out homosexuality only beca no thief comes near nor moth destroys." (Luke 6:20, 24; Matt. 19:23-24; Luke 12:33)

Name calling and judging and gluttons and wealthy people aside, show me a scripture that supports homosexual unions. I can show you scriptures that condemn it but none that support it. what say you?

Originally posted by whodey
Name calling and judging and gluttons and wealthy people aside, show me a scripture that supports homosexual unions. I can show you scriptures that condemn it but none that support it. what say you?

Show me where the scriptures support your position of judging homosexuals unfit for membership or leadership in the church while allowing sins such as greed and gluttony to go uncontested.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Perhaps you say I am intolerant for suggesting that members within a church are asked to step down because of behavoir that counters the behavoir they agreed to uphold when they joined.

No, failure to comply with contractual obligations, or something resembling that, is different. I was directing my attention toward your blanket view against ho g because you give us no reasons to convert and because your way is highly unimpressive.[/b]

I see, so you want me to tell you why I think homosexuality is a bad idea instead of the Bible simply saying it is a bad idea. From a Christian perspective, sin does three things which is to kill, steal and destroy. So how does homosexuality do any of these? I say that it robs people of the joy of bringing their own flesh and blood into the world. Either one or both parents of a homosexual union will not be the biological parents of their offspring. So why is being a biological parent such a big deal? Just ask adopted children the same question when they grow up and attempt to find and connect with their biological parents.

The rest of my arguement is derived from personal expereinces. Men and women are different in general. For example, men bring to the table differnet roles in parenting than their female counterparts. Women tend to be nurturers and men tend to be authority figures, however, children need both. For example, I know of a couple of lesbian unions in which children were involved. The children had no real male role model in their lives and for the most part they seemed out of control and when I say out of control I am understating the problem. For me it is evidence of a lack of a male authority figure in their respective lives. Does this mean that all children of lesbian couples are out of control, no, however, it has been what I have personally exposed to. Unfortunatly, I have next to no dealings with men who have chosen to raise children together in order to compare and contrast. Most male homosexuals I know say that having sex free of reproductive consequences is liberating rather than punitive. Most abhorr the thought of even having a child. However, I feel sorry for many of them that will never know the joy of bringing a life into this world. Also, many of them openly admitt that they think the life of a male homosexual is much more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterpart. I think there are several reasons for this. First of all male homosexuals are free to pursue sexual unions that are free of having to worry about its reproductive consequences. In addition, the elevated sex drives of males is far greater in comparison to females in general. Although it may not always be the case, in general I have found that women are more relational in their sexual pursuits than men who are more driven toward sex as a physical act. As a result, I think that men and women tend to balance each other out in terms of their differences. One is the pursuer and the other the pursued instead of two pursuing each other with equal veracity. So if I am right in that homosexual lifestyles favor promiscuity more than those hetereosexual lifestyles, what is wrong with promiscuity you may ask? What about STD's? What if it costs you your life? Make no mistake, the more people you have sex with the greater risk you have of contracing an STD that might prove fatal. The only question is, does the homosexual lifestyle favor greater promiscuity compared to the heterosexual lifestyle?

And laslty, most homosexuals I know confide in me that they are not really happy. In fact, many say that they wish they could be heterosexual. Perhaps one could blame societal pressures to be heterosexual as the root cause, however, what if there is more to it than that?

As for the rest of my position, it lies within the confines of my faith in scripture that I deem to be the inspired word of God even though others may mock me for it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Show me where the scriptures support your position of judging homosexuals unfit for membership or leadership in the church while allowing sins such as greed and gluttony to go uncontested.

I say pick a church that best mirrors your beliefs about God and his holy scriputures. For example, from my interactions with you it is apparent to me that you do not view Christ as the only route to the Father. Therefore pick a church that espouses such beliefs. Likewise, if you want to embrace homosexual unions then pick a church that embraces them as well. However, for those who do think that Christ is the only way to the Father and for those who think that God abhorrs homosexual unions based upon their beliefs and their interpretations of scripture, they too should be able to pick a church that mirrors those beliefs as you do.

As for scriptures that support the position of judging homosexuals unfit for members of a church none come to mind right off hand. In fact, they were stoned once proven guilty of homosexual acts in Mosaic times. Was the Mosaic law evil as a result? Was he really a man of God?

Originally posted by whodey
I say pick a church that best mirrors your beliefs about God and his holy scriputures. For example, from my interactions with you it is apparent to me that you do not view Christ as the only route to the Father. Therefore pick a church that espouses such beliefs. Likewise, if you want to embrace homosexual unions then pick a church that embraces them as we ...[text shortened]... osexual acts in Mosaic times. Was the Mosaic law evil as a result? Was he really a man of God?

So your position of judging homosexuals unfit for membership or leadership of a church is completely unsupported by the scriptures. So your insistence that your position is borne of "following God's will" is a complete and utter fabrication. What's that make you?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So your position of judging homosexuals unfit for membership or leadership of a church is completely unsupported by the scriptures. So your insistence that your position is borne of "following God's will" is a complete and utter fabrication. What's that make you?

You are a piece of work. Why not answer the question about Moses? Was Moses a man of God? Was Moses as big of a hypocrite as I for condemning homosexual acts?

Originally posted by whodey
You are a piece of work. Why not answer the question about Moses? Was Moses a man of God? Was Moses as big of a hypocrite as I for condemning homosexual acts?

You call yourself a Christian. Presumably that means that you follow Jesus. Show me where Jesus spoke out against homosexuality as strongly as he spoke out against the wealthy.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You call yourself a Christian. Presumably that means that you follow Jesus. Show me where Jesus spoke out against homosexuality as strongly as he spoke out against the wealthy.

But Chirst said that had you believed Moses you would have believed me for he spoke of me.

Originally posted by whodey
But Chirst said that had you believed Moses you would have believed me for he spoke of me.

That's side-stepping the point. As a matter of fact, it has little to do with anything.