I have a question that i am concerned about, especially because of the wording.
A poster says: Gays should live single, celebate, chaste lives.
I then point out that that is similar to Christ's chastising of the Pharisees who, with legalities, would tie burdens to the backs of their followers, suggesting that sacrifice and suffering for God makes him happy, and shows him their dedication, while giving themselves easy lives.
In the same way, if one is not ready to leave his wife, and live a life of lonliness, no romantic contacts, no sex, and companionship, to show gays how they should live, then at least the person is living by example. However, like the Pharisees, they command others to live a harder life than they are willing to do themselves, and claim it to be what God commands.
I continued to point out that because it is so similar to the false idea the Pharisees offer, that God demands our suffering, that it is not God that the person wants the gay person to obey, but themselves. In believing God would want that for another, while not wanting it for themselves, they have not loved their neighbor. By thinking that God wants us to suffer is to not understand God at all. To be unable to understand what you are asking of a gay person, unable because you refuse to put yourself in their shoes, see them as an equal, as a neighbor, again, is not loving ones neighbor.
Yeah, it's harsh.
Am I violating the rules?
In my mind, while i may be responding to the poster, it is more of that concept, one which I have heard a number of times, usually from happily married couples who are somehow threatened by the idea that gay couples can be happy, too, and even want the same things. It's a matter of realizing that straight people aren't better than, but equal to gays, and that's very humbling. Its an attitude that is common among heterosexuals, and that is what I am addressing.
I think that it is an important thing to point out, especially when the people that demand such a thing rarely actually think about what they are asking, what that would be like, mostly, because they have an easy life, and don't care. Its important to explore who is really happy with it - God, or the person making the demand.
It's a concept that is being addressed, and not a poster. The poster is irrelevant, because it isn't something that any gay poster has heard 10 times already.
Seems to me that God had a tendency to be pretty harsh at times, in love, remembering that abomination is what God calls it. So have we reached a point that quoting God here is a flame? If one person claims that sin is good and a Christian points out that God called sin an abomination, that would be a violation?If I speak in the languages of men and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal.
To put it another way, if your speak your truth but your delivery stinks i.e you offend and insult people then all you are is background noise, nobody will listen, nobody will pay attention.
Seems to me that God had a tendency to be pretty harsh at times, in love, remembering that abomination is what God calls it. So have we reached a point that quoting God here is a flame? If one person claims that sin is good and a Christian points out that God called sin an abomination, that would be a violation?
Seems to me that God had a tendency to be pretty harsh at times, in love, remembering that abomination is what God calls it. So have we reached a point that quoting God here is a flame? If one person claims that sin is good and a Christian points out that God called sin an abomination, that would be a violation?
ok, sure; I won't call anyone a bigot, however, as Christ would want it, I will be quick to point out any bigotry taking place by bigots. I won't point at them and call them a bigot, but I will point at the fact that they are bigots by pointing out their bigotry.
There is a statement of faith, one can not promote any religion/belief which is contrary to this statement of faith.Also, does promotion of Messianic Judaism count? Or howabout Mormonism? Or how about any number of millions of pseudo-Christian pseudo-nicene pseudo philosophies Christianity now encompasses world-wide? How can one even accurately describe a rule stating one cannot promote religion other than "christianity", when Christianity has been divided and schismed and split so many times certain forms of Christianity do not remotely resemble what it once stood for.
Bigot isnt a defamatory, derogatory, or slurr of anykind; its a word that accurately describes one who exhibits bigotry, something many here do. So now, is it okay to be a bigot without repercussion? oooookay. Seems a bit strange and weird and unchristianity-like.....
And now I will be awaiting a satisfactory answer I know does not exist. good day.
This is a Discussion and Debate forum. In debate you need to address ideas not personalities, points, not the people who made them, that's how it goes in civil debate. No calling other members bigots either explicitly or implicitly, it contributes nothing to the discussion and often baits people into responding with a flame.
Have a nice day.
That's just simply not true. My post addressed no person and no group but rather homosexuality as it is described by God and the post was deleted. It appears the true intent here is to protect homosexuality from any negative criticsm. Meantime, atheists can claim that Christians ignore reality and are allowed to get away with itActually, we've always took a dim view of people who use scripture to flame others, there is nothing new here. Nobody is stopping anyone from calling something a sin, if people think homosexuality is a sin they are free to say that, they can quote the Bible to support their arguments, they can use the word abomination providing they are not using it to label and condemn a group of people.
That's just simply not true. My post addressed no person and no group but rather homosexuality as it is described by God and the post was deleted. It appears the true intent here is to protect homosexuality from any negative criticsm. Meantime, atheists can claim that Christians ignore reality and are allowed to get away with it
I paraphrased Scripture. there's nothing I've seen in the rules that states Scripture must be quoted verbatim. As I said, my post addressed no person and no group, but rather a behavior. The best I can tell, that violates no ruleMach, you didn't post Scripture. You spammed the thread to push the limits of the new FSGs all the while ignoring the questions people were asking you.