So a person is beating their wife and kids and you don't feel able to tell them that Christ wouldn't be happy with them beating their wife and kids? That if they continue to beat their wife/children even though they know it is wrong, pointing out to them the Scripture where Jesus said woe to those who would harm a hair on a child's head (so it becomes Jesus telling them rather than RM telling them), you wouldn't feel capable of doing that.

 

My role isn't to tell the person who's beating his wife and kids, that Christ wouldn't be happyIMO. My role is to help help him see by my intervention, that beating his wife and kids isn't right. If necessary, it's my job to help his wife and kids find help. It's my job to steer him in the direction of help, and to support him in changing his ways. As to the state of his soul, that's for his preacher/Priest to address.

Are we really ready to crucify a man for stating an opinion that IMO is not on the same order as racial or gender discrimination?

 

Let's face it. If you don't embrace the Gay community, you better keep your mouth shut or the PC police will have their bloodhounds out tracking you down to obtain your apology.

I realize you're being flippant, but since we're in the P&"Religion" forum, let me remind you that I'm not suggesting we put him to death.

 

I think there is a lot of room between hating and embracing. I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle and that is probably fine.

 

Spewing ignorance and bigotry towards other races, genders (I understand that in your opinion that isn't analogous to sexual orientation), sexual orientations, or religions shouldn't be tolerated. Frankly, I hope we never revert back to a society where that is either accepted or worse, promoted.

And, isn't the reverse true as well, then?

If you mean people giving their opinion of him, yes. I have no problem with that. But I don't think he has to be labeled as having a phobia, he doesn't have to like anyone and should be free to voice his opinion without a media circus.

I've always said those that preach tolerance of others are the most intolerant people there are.

RTS, no one is saying he had no rights to say what he said. But, to carry your comments about the Dixie Chicks along, those who seem to be so firmly in the "Hardaway is just speaking the truth" camp are the very one's who slammed the Chicks for excercising their right to free speech.

 

Is it a case that a person only has the right to free speech when that person's opinion mirrors one's own?

 

The fact of the matter is that everyone is afforded the right to free speech, within limits.

 

Now, why is it not OK to say "I'm embarrassed to say that the President of the United States is from Texas", but it is OK to say "I hate homosexuals"?

 

To me, there's a marked difference between expressing displeasure and expressing hatred. But, maybe that's just me. I think "hate" is one of the greatest crimes of all, and it's so often justified by quoting the Bible.

I have to get back to work, I'll reply to this post when I get home .

You imply that Christians use the Bible to hate people. Some who claim to be Christians and hate people do that. But for every Fred Phelps, I know thousands of Christians who are different than Mr. Phelps. Your post does not qualify but implies that us Christians hide behind the Bible to justify our hatred. A hatred of people THAT DOES NOT EXIST in the hearts of true Christians.

 

No, I didn't imply that. You just read into my statement what you chose to see.

 

Here it is again:

 

Hey, at least he's being honest. Most folks who hate gay people just hide behind the Bible.

 

I no more implied that all Christians — of which I am one — hate gays than I would that all Christians are racists simply because some racists used the Bible to justify their hatred of blacks, etc.

I realize you're being flippant, but since we're in the P&"Religion" forum, let me remind you that I'm not suggesting we put him to death.

 

I think there is a lot of room between hating and embracing. I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle and that is probably fine.

 

Spewing ignorance and bigotry towards other races, genders (I understand that in your opinion that isn't analogous to sexual orientation), sexual orientations, or religions shouldn't be tolerated. Frankly, I hope we never revert back to a society where that is either accepted or worse, promoted.

I wasn't being flippant. I was using "crucify" as defined "to treat with gross injustice; persecute; torment; torture".

 

I agree with your 2nd paragraph. I try not to judge gays based on their orientation, but I probably fail at that too often. Hate is a word that should rarely be used and never in passing.

 

I for one believe that discrimination should not be criminal or illegal. But, as you said, I also don't want it accepted or promoted. I would rather see it allowed and persecuted by us joes (see Dixie Chicks) until we outgrow it rather than to keep hiding it under a blanket of politcial correctness where it grows like mold behind the wall, never seen but just as insidious.

Surely I wasn't the guilty party who sent this thread careening off the road and into the P&R ditch, was I? :lol:

Surely I wasn't the guilty party who sent this thread careening off the road and into the P&R ditch, was I? :lol:

I've skipped most of the posts that mention the word "Christian". What does it have to do with anything?

No, I didn't imply that. You just read into my statement what you chose to see.

 

Here it is again:

 

 

 

I no more implied that all Christians — of which I am one — hate gays than I would that all Christians are racists simply because some racists used the Bible to justify their hatred of blacks, etc.

Your statement implied that most people who hate gays are Christians who use the Bible to justify that. I find that inaccurate.

 

Three questions for you JS.

One is sexual activities outside of marriage a sin?

Does God hate sin?

Does the Bible indicate that homosexual behavior is ONE OF MANY sexual sins that God does not like?

My role isn't to tell the person who's beating his wife and kids, that Christ wouldn't be happyIMO. My role is to help help him see by my intervention, that beating his wife and kids isn't right. If necessary, it's my job to help his wife and kids find help. It's my job to steer him in the direction of help, and to support him in changing his ways. As to the state of his soul, that's for his preacher/Priest to address.

So how do you do that without telling or judging his actions?

 

Let's say hypothetically, that we were neighbors and every night you viewed me in the backyard beating my children. Slapping them across the face, etc. Do you call the cops and then testify against me? Is that judging me?

 

Let's say it is something not necessarily illegal. Let's say everyday you see my wife leave for work and I have a parade of girls in. What do you do? Quiet, never say a word and continue to let me cheat on my wife?

 

Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the lady but he also gave her a directive. "Sin no more." He called her out on it. The church was told to do Jesus' work here on Earth. Do you agree with that?

 

I think it is the church's job to say abortion is an abdomination. People living in poverty is an abdomination. Greed of the business world is an abdomination. Politically lying and abuse of power is an abdomination. Sexual sin of all types is an abdomination.

 

Do you think that Jesus' would sit quietly and let those things occur or would he treat them as he did the Pharisees?

 

Now, if the church and it's members get to the point that they think they are infallible and perfect as the Pharisees did, then they need correcting too.

So how do you do that without telling or judging his actions?

 

There are several different ways I could answer this.

 

One is, you lead by example. You don't have to tell someone in words that they are "wrong". You can make observations to them, you can engage them in dialogue, you can suggest alternatives. I actually think that in the example we're discussing, it's MORE dangerous to directly tell him he's wrong than to confront him.

 

Two, you can do all of the above and never mention anything religious whatsoever. Even if you are following your own religious beliefs, and those are the basis of your actions, you never even have to mention what Christ wants.

 

Three, judging a persons actions is not the same as judging the person. To say that you dislike a person's behavior is not the same as saying you hate the person.

 

So, in the case of the subject of this thread, his comments that he hates gays is much worse, IMO, than if he'd said he hates the idea of homosexuality. In the case of using passages from the Bible, it's not the same to say that you feel homosexuality is a sin because.....(insert passage here) and using that same passage to justify discrimination, hate or prejudicial actions.

Now see? You went and added a lot more than you originally had in that post! :lol:

 

To specifically address you question/comments about abortion:

 

One does not have to carry signs that say "You'll go to hell" or "God hates killers" in front of an abortion clinic to oppose abortion.

 

Instead of protesting in front of clinics, wouldn't that time be better used to counsel women who are in the situation of feeling the need to choose about other alternatives? Of assuring that mother that she would have support to get through the pregnancy and whatever choice she makes about keeping or giving up the child? Of working to educate young children of the perils of unplanned pregnancy? Of the virtues of celibacy?

 

Or working with young men to teach them the responsibility they assume if they choose to have unprotected sex?

 

Or teaching both young men and young women about respect for each other, themselves, and the sanctity of marriage?

Your statement implied that most people who hate gays are Christians who use the Bible to justify that. I find that inaccurate.

 

A) By saying I implied something, that means you know what was in my head when I wrote it. You subbed "Christian" in there, not me.

 

To put it another way — Those who hate homosexuals have found a convenient tool to justify their hate in their twisted interpretations of the Bible.

 

Please stop trying to say that I called all Christians gay-bashers, because that seems to be what you are implying.

 

Three questions for you JS.

One is sexual activities outside of marriage a sin?

Does God hate sin?

Does the Bible indicate that homosexual behavior is ONE OF MANY sexual sins that God does not like?

 

I'm no Biblical scholar, and I'm certainly not one who always walks the straight and narrow, so I'm really not qualified to answer these loaded questions.

There are several different ways I could answer this.

 

One is, you lead by example. You don't have to tell someone in words that they are "wrong". You can make observations to them, you can engage them in dialogue, you can suggest alternatives. I actually think that in the example we're discussing, it's MORE dangerous to directly tell him he's wrong than to confront him.

 

Two, you can do all of the above and never mention anything religious whatsoever. Even if you are following your own religious beliefs, and those are the basis of your actions, you never even have to mention what Christ wants.

 

Three, judging a persons actions is not the same as judging the person. To say that you dislike a person's behavior is not the same as saying you hate the person.

 

So, in the case of the subject of this thread, his comments that he hates gays is much worse, IMO, than if he'd said he hates the idea of homosexuality. In the case of using passages from the Bible, it's not the same to say that you feel homosexuality is a sin because.....(insert passage here) and using that same passage to justify discrimination, hate or prejudicial actions.

I totally agree with the bolded but am beginning to wonder if those who love to disect the actions of Christians believe this is possible. I wonder if they believe that we can do this or whether they immediately assume that since I don't like a person's behavior, I must not like that person. I also wonder if that is not a growing view of society. We don't accept their behavior so we must not be tolerant of them either.

 

That is a wrong view.

 

I would agree with his word choice being wrong. If he did mean the act instead of the person. Now if he meant the person, than his mindset is wrong. But can I say that? Or is me saying he shouldn't hate gay people, just me being judgemental?:sssh:

 

For some it might be more dangerous. For others it might be just what they need. That is why we pray for the Holy Spirit to guide us. Jesus didn't handle each disciple and each person the same way.

 

For Peter, he called him Satan and called him dull-witted. And yet for Judas, he treated him with kid gloves for most of the time.

A) By saying I implied something, that means you know what was in my head when I wrote it. You subbed "Christian" in there, not me.

 

To put it another way — Those who hate homosexuals have found a convenient tool to justify their hate in their twisted interpretations of the Bible.

 

Please stop trying to say that I called all Christians gay-bashers, because that seems to be what you are implying.

 

 

 

I'm no Biblical scholar, and I'm certainly not one who always walks the straight and narrow, so I'm really not qualified to answer these loaded questions.

Implying is not being inside your head but a reading of what you posted. If you meant something different than what I read, than I will take your word on that and accept it.

 

Yes, they are loaded but are they not important questions that we need to study, discuss and pray about?