Can I link to sources? No I can't. tony Campolo was certainly involved though.Can you site it?
Falwell, Robertson and others, as well ss many people, Christian and non, claimed it was God's Judgement, or they got what they deserved.
It was also the time when some churches banned glbt from their services, so I may have missed the collection plate thing.
Noticed you didn't address my comments. In fact it seems you have not read them properly.MCC and All God's Children formed after churches rejected gay people. It was well known and respected.
The protesters, yelling at people in the parade that they were going to hell, weren't doing it out of love anymore than Westboro is.
At one Pride, a handful of protesters, signs quoting Leviticus (seriously? Even theologians understand how misused this is), and implied gays should be killed. The Gay Men's Chorus, when they saw them, stopped their song, and began singing, "Jesus loves me, this I know.."
The protesters were livid, screaming,"No he doesn't."
Well if you think it is acceptable for gay people taking part in a gay pride march to tell the christians wanting to take part to go home (can't use actual words they said here as automatic censor will block them) then that is your choice. However you are only condoning behaviour with people you agree with while condemning same behaviour in those you disagree with. That is called double standards.Well, either the Bible, or the protester, is wrong.
That they were not interested in female but only male tells you something. If it was just about gang rape like you say then they would have been happy with Lots daughter.And your position is that despite what Ezekial says, because you want to believe, S and G was discovered because of homosexuality, not because the had plenty but did not care for the needy, or sexual immorality, such as gang rape, so much so, that had they gang raped Lot's daughters, they would have been spared?
Believe what want.
Apparently you like misrepresenting what people have said. You were talking as if Jesus was always sweet and gentle. Doesn't matter what he went on to say he still referred to her as a dog. That is not sweet and gentle. It is pretty tough language. I never claimed he didn't go on to say something after that.Yeah, I've read Enyart's misquoted verses lifted out of context.
When he called the woman a dog, he said the master does not take the bread from the children and give to the dogs. She replies that even the dogs get yhe crumbs, at which point he exalts her, saying that she had faith even when pushed away.
If you want to take from that that it is ok to call someone a dog as an insult to be like Jesus, then you answer for it at your own judgement.
And while the "tough love" is very popular among conservative Christians today, the kind of disciplining can often be done without love, and often is.
You may need to explain who this Enyart is. Don't remember him from the bible.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said? Or was it an accident? I said lets not make a fairytale version of God. You know in the NT after crucifiction God struck people dead for telling a lie. A lie that people would classify as a white lie! Does that sound gentle?1 Corinthians description of, what are you calling it? Fairytale? has to be discounted, the lack of fruit of the spirit discounted... Or maybe, there is no love there, which is the log growing out of one's eye.
I know there is no such thing as a white lie but talking about what society in general would call it.
Evidence of this claim please. That is evidence I said "Why should I?" Bearing false witness against your neighbour is not something God generally looks favourably on. I stated I have seen those arguments before and seen the misrepresentations.I asked you not to take my word for it, but take it to God. You said, "Why should I?" Free will. And you will answer for it.
So you feel it is godly to pass judgement on me. Interesting theology you have there!Then perhaps you could follow your own advice.
Upvote
0