An Open Letter to Homophobic Christian Parents

[ReformedChapin]

But if you are a Christian with a lesbian daughter or a gay son, and if you've allowed yourself to be spoon-fed the typical, traditional condemning rhetoric about homosexuality, I can probably speak for her or him. He or she is probably in the same pain that I'm in.

You raised us to believe that God loves us. You told us that Jesus died to provide forgiveness for all of our sins (presumably, whether you and I define "sin" in the same way or not). One of the first songs you taught us, in Sunday school, was "Yes, Jesus loves me. For the Bible tells me so." And you told us that our place in Heaven was guaranteed, as long as we just believe that.

http://www.whosoever.org/v4i4/parents.html

This is nothing but a plain disregard for scripture and it's context trying to rationalize sin. Not to mention a distortion of God's love, God loves his elect, every Christian presumes that his son or daugther is part of that elect. And God promises that he will perfect his elect according to his plan which is clearly not homosexuality. If at any point a child mine or anyones choose their sin over God they are nothing but a degenerate unbeliver.

 

[Zaac]

Well...you know the saying anyone who is not with me is against me...that is what some of the montra is from the neocons who post here.

There are a few who want an honest discussion but the majority just want to cram The Bible down people's throats.

Ain't nothing to discuss. Yall don't want to hear God's Word cause there ain't nothing you can say that disproves it. Folks been trying for hundreds of years to no avail. For the same reason, yall don't want to hear what you can't disprove.

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, as Zaac would say, "Y'all can keep on sinnin'; just don't expect us to condone it!"

And, by Jesus's own teachings, that goes for judgmental Bibliolaters at least as much as for sexual sinners -- if they are even that.

 

[Zaac]

Well, as Zaac would say, "Y'all can keep on sinnin'; just don't expect us to condone it!"

And, by Jesus's own teachings, that goes for judgmental Bibliolaters at least as much as for sexual sinners -- if they are even that.

No disagreement here. Unrighteous judgment is a sin just like homosexual sex is a sin.

 

[fated]

It's pretty disingenuous, right from the start. Look at the title. It probably make them feel better about themselves to call people homophobes, even if those people aren't.

Never mentioned how children got involved in the whole lesbian lifestyle, either. Probably a sex wasn't good enough self-centered divorce...

 

[catlover]

It's pretty disingenuous, right from the start. Look at the title. It probably make them feel better about themselves to call people homophobes, even if those people aren't.

Never mentioned how children got involved in the whole lesbian lifestyle, either. Probably a sex wasn't good enough self-centered divorce...

Neither is good sex a sin...

 

[fated]

Neither is good sex a sin...

... Are you defending as the moral the practice of destroying a family even that includes small children so that one of its member can enjoy better sex?

 

[catlover]

... Are you defending as the moral the practice of destroying a family even that includes small children so that one of its member can enjoy better sex?

Why not you think I am a trollop anyhow...seriously...I would hope most people who do divorce do so for good reason, not because of sex.

 

[KCKID]

... Are you defending as the moral the practice of destroying a family even that includes small children so that one of its member can enjoy better sex?

Oh, my goodness. What a stupid thing to say. Homosexuality doesn't destroy families. The (mis)behavior of many within heterosexual marriages, however, does.

 

[fated]

Why not you think I am a trollop anyhow...seriously...I would hope most people who do divorce do so for good reason, not because of sex.

Oh, my goodness. What a stupid thing to say. Homosexuality doesn't destroy families. The (mis)behavior of many within heterosexual marriages, however, does.

Can you be a little more specific as to what you think I indicated as wronging someone (after all, I was trying to interpret a very obscure response). I asked a simple question. I should have expected a simple "no." Which catlover gave, though being offended for some reason.

KCKID I would like to be more specific.

 

[Polycarp1]

Can you be a little more specific as to what you think I indicated as wronging someone (after all, I was trying to interpret a very obscure response). I asked a simple question. I should have expected a simple "no." Which catlover gave, though being offended for some reason.

KCKID I would like to be more specific.

There is nothing obscure about catlover's statement == she said that she believes that good sex is not a sin. (I don't always agree with this, BTW; 'good sex' may constitute adultery in some circumstances, and therefore be a violation of a supposedly-lifelong vow.)

How you jumped to the conclusion that in consequence she endorses the breaking up of a family in order that someone may have better sex is the "very obscure response." Or is it your practice to post non sequiturs simply because the rules do not prohibit it?

You are already on record that you believe my wife should live in penury so that her pension should go to support your children; that's in the E&M Archives. I presume you don't think that your rendering that opinion is sufficient grounds for me to take offense, either?

I challenge you, fated, to give one logical reason why your question in any way derives from catlover's assertion. If you can do this to the reasonable satisfaction of third parties here, I will apologize. Otherwise, I'd suggest that it was an intentionally inflammatory response without purpose other than to provoke negative reaction -- which constitutes trolling, a violation of the rules.

 

[fated]

There is nothing obscure about catlover's statement == she said that she believes that good sex is not a sin. (I don't always agree with this, BTW; 'good sex' may constitute adultery in some circumstances, and therefore be a violation of a supposedly-lifelong vow.)

How you jumped to the conclusion that in consequence she endorses the breaking up of a family in order that someone may have better sex is the "very obscure response." Or is it your practice to post non sequiturs simply because the rules do not prohibit it?

You are already on record that you believe my wife should live in penury so that her pension should go to support your children; that's in the E&M Archives. I presume you don't think that your rendering that opinion is sufficient grounds for me to take offense, either?

I challenge you, fated, to give one logical reason why your question in any way derives from catlover's assertion. If you can do this to the reasonable satisfaction of third parties here, I will apologize. Otherwise, I'd suggest that it was an intentionally inflammatory response without purpose other than to provoke negative reaction -- which constitutes trolling, a violation of the rules.

I see, making an assumption that situation in the first post might have resulted from a sex driven divorce was inflammatory? I don't think so, I think its a valid observation. I haven't received any clarification.

I'm not sure how a reply of something about good sex not being sinful directly responds to my statement, so I had to think about those statement in the context of one another. The answer I received seems to indicate that the OP was the writer of the article. My observation was still not directly discussed.

So, there you have it. Why are their children involved in this situation?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1

.

And, by Jesus's own teachings, that goes for judgmental Bibliolaters at least as much as for sexual sinners -- if they are even that.

Who is that then, us for speaking what Jesus taught from the Bible or you for calling us judgemental for doing so? We are not judging, we are just referring to what Jesus taught, the only judgement seen is by those who are convicted of what Jesus taught.

If you care to address my post #9 to you, you will see your whole approach again is to use one piece of scriptural truth against another.