Should Christians interact with Gays at all?

[cheese007]

Oh, didn't you get the memo? You don't exist at all. You just pretend to. Like virtual particles.

The funny thing is, I have no reason to pretend to be attracted to both sexes. I live in Texas of all places, so there's clearly no benefit to having a non-straight orientation.

 

[Mling]

The funny thing is, I have no reason to pretend to be attracted to both sexes. I live in Texas of all places, so there's clearly no benefit to having a non-straight orientation.

Given the climates of both the straight and gay cultures, I can't imagine any reason at all for a man to pretend to be bi.

 

[Polycarp1]

Again Polycarp1, you are not concerned that so many anti Christians applaud your brand of Christianity?

I'd like an answer.

Many sincere Christians and quite a few non-Christians of good will tend to agree with me. Anti-Christians, few as they are outside your perception of the world, do not appreciate my standing for the Gospel.

And my "brand" of Christianity had been around several hundred years before yours was thought of, thank you. It's only been in the last 30 years or so that "Christian" has become a pejorative, because it's only been in that period that the loudest, most newsworthy people claiming to be Christians have been people preaching an exclusivist, legalistic, graceless doctrine seemingly more concerned with condemning sinners than in leading anyone to Christ and His lvoe.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

Sounds very Jerry Falwell. To me. What an accurate perspective he had.

You ASSUME too much PC_F. I live in Australia ...have for the past 28 years. While I know who Jerry Falwell is/was I otherwise have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't assume anything in dealings with you. I've interacted with you many, many times. Your views are homogenized leftist. As we will see below. And I'll let Mr. Falwell rest in peace since you don't know that much about him.

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan You believe what you write? The standard atheist, liberal, progressive, gay, lesbian or common anti-Christian, denigrate Christians as easily as you have just done, all of the time. These people are not here seeking reasons to convert. They are seeking a pound of flesh in the time honored way.

Gobble-de-[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].

I have no idea what you're talking about or where you're coming from.

Christian-bashing. Going after the little quiet ones. Since Nero. Yeah, yeah, I know, not me. I'm a big boy and haven't run away from the big bad lefties.

I DO feel, however, that you (your posts) display the symptoms of OC (obsessive/compulsive) and also exhibit a great deal of paranoia.

Wow, that's quite a step up from the usual self-loathing gay guy routine you guys usually hit me with. You're quite the stretch. I oppose anti-Christians and you get to play psychiatrist. How very modern. You run out of the gay debate tactics playbook techniques?

Maybe there's a tad of persecution complex in there as well, not too sure about that one.

I'm on record here saying that you leftists won't persecute Christians physically because it would damage your ego's and self-image. You belittle, denigrate, bash and oh yeah, diagnose us. It's typical rote, even your stretch.

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan It's my thread and it would instantly do away with ALL of the strife between Christians and GLBT's, IF Christians would do as Jesus says and leave people alone that refuse the Gospel. Jesus wasn't a universalist. No matter how hard you try to repaint Him.

I have a friend from Lebanon. He's a Muslim. He sees no reason to convert to Christianity although he does believe that Jesus was a good man.

Yes that would be the definition of a Muslim. Jesus was really not on the Cross and it was Judas instead. Your point?

He refuses the Gospel because he sees no need for it.

Jesus said that would happen. How'd he know I wonder?

As I say, he's a Muslim. He, like the homosexual, is condemned to your version of hell, isn't he, PC_F?

My version of hell?

No beer at tailgate parties?

I didn't know Muslims in Lebanon watched NFL games, or even wanted to go to one. See I can learn something from you. And you're an Australian no less.

You know, God gave you a HUGE burden of attempting to steer people away from the VERY cruel and insane punisment that He set up for them in the very beginning, PC_F.

Oooo looky, more pop psychology. How standard of the liberal.

You hear that? God set up (your version of) hell SPECIFICALLY to punish people!

Why blame me for what God did? You're kinda funny in a very serious kinda way.

Even before He created the first person He knew that MANY would be destined for this place! And yet He still created them.

So now I know what making man after His image and after His likeness means. Thanks. I know lot's of people that have children knowing full well what horrors may and indeed does await them. And you know some gay people that have children too. Hmm, maybe we're onto something more profound then your pathetic attempts at therapy and labeling me.

Do you ever ask God why He felt it necessary to torment (torture?) people for all eternity and then give YOU the responsibility of trying to prevent this from happening to people by quoting a few ambiguous texts from the Bible?

I rarely quote the Bible at people I see destined for hell. I tell them to get far away from liberal and progressive lifestyles that have harmed them and those that celebrate this lifestyle and worldview. It's far easier than pawing through pages of the Bible, and they can see the effects of sin far easier with just using life all around them and choices that have hurt them.

Do you ever feel utterly stupid for believing as you do?

I see many things as utterly stupid (as you know) and seeing some internet debater using amateur psycholgy to prop up his positions is definately one of them.

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan Well, we know what He taught about marriage being a man and a woman now don't "we?"

Hmmm . . .obsessive/compulsive.

Just start a psyche 101 class did ya? I won't laugh so you won't tear pages of your DSM IV tring to label me psychotic too. So, let me get this straight, being honest about scripture is now a DSM classification? I had heard rumors but . . .

Yet again you refer to something that has already been disputed many times previously. Why do you keep doing this? Jesus didn't teach any such thing. He simply directed the Pharisees to words from the Torah.

Yes, it's called using scripture. I learned that lesson well and from God no less. You do know that we Christians believe that Jesus is God don't you? Don't tell your Muslim friend that, as that really torques those guys.

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

You think? How judgmental is that?

Gobble-de-[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. Ditto. (Gobble-de-[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], that is).

In your psyche class, look and see if someone can refer you to an anger management class.

PC_F ...please answer this question once and for all. What PRECISELY is it that bothers you so much about two people of the same gender wanting to couple up?

Again, I am on record here as writing that I care nothing about what pagans do. Adult pagans. It is this incessant attack on the Church, coupled with the infiltration of gay activists claiming that gay culture is compatible with Christian truth that has me involved in this Gays versus Christians issue. This is a Christian debate site right???? As even you can see, I am concerned with my brothers and sisters in Christ, with the Apostolic testimony as my guide and what is happeing in the public schools has me invloved on a national level as well. I'm concerned that many youth are harming themselves while dabbling with homosexuality. In fact, I know they are. I've been working with troubled youth for over twenty years. Adults? I do not care. I am for civil unions of ANY two adults for helping each other through life. Marriage though, is a man and a woman. No discussion. No retreat. You'll have to win that battle by force.

I am not guilty of the accusations you sling at me. And none of them phase me in the slightest whether from you are your fellow liberal-progressive/atheist/humanist/GLBT clubmembers. You've proven how vapid you positions are in this venue.

I just don't understand why such a trivial thing would bother you so much to the extent that you feel that such a thing will be responsible for destroying life as we know it. [/quite]

In your morality it is a trivial thing. It's not surprising that the Christian perspective holds no value to you.

THIS has become a crusade to you ...'crusader' complex, perhaps.

More pop psychology? This is JUST a debate pal.

So, what's the problem?

Shattered lives are a problem to me and the shattered person. Also, honesty is important to me. There is not one shred of scripture promoting gay culture or same-gender sex acts to be engaged in by believers. Also, I want GLBT's, if they claim to be Christians, to stop harrassing and labeling Bible-affirming Christians as wrong about homosexuality. They can find their own liberal/progressive Churches to peddle their brand of theology. No need for schism to come into our Churches.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Honestly, I doubt that. No matter what tactic or technique you employ, I will never support the licentiousness you have no problem with.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Many sincere Christians and quite a few non-Christians of good will tend to agree with me.

All liberal/progressives.

Anti-Christians, few as they are outside your perception of the world, do not appreciate my standing for the Gospel.

There are mostly anti Christians posting here it seems.

And my "brand" of Christianity had been around several hundred years before yours was thought of, thank you.

That is patently false. This liberal 60's era anything goes brand of yours has only been around since the sixties. You can't tell your Christianity from the worldview of liberal secularists from that era til now. Same goals.

My brand was penned by the Apostles. We could go down the list of things your brand has jettisoned of what the Apsotles preached. Like marriage as a man and a woman for start. You can be as sweet as you like Polycarp1, but false teaching is false teachings. What your brand looks like . . ., is preachers telling itching ears what they want to hear.

Sweetened poison kills far more people.

It's only been in the last 30 years or so that "Christian" has become a pejorative,

On what planet? This heresy versus orthodoxy issue has been around since BEFORE the Apostles wrote what they did. Just Jude proves that beyond the shadow of a doubt. Where is there one Apostolic or Disciple's voice that promotes liberal Christianity? And remember, the Disciples wrote the Gospels, quotes of Jesus and all. But what has happened over the last thirty years, is that liberalism has risen to attempt to stand as legitimate theology and has challenged orthodoxy by epithet and deception. Just read Spong for just one of many examples of that. And then we can go through some of the Jesus Seminar members as well.

I welcome the challenge of comparing liberal theology to Apostolic testimony.

. . . because it's only been in that period that the loudest, most newsworthy people claiming to be Christians have been people preaching an exclusivist, legalistic, graceless doctrine seemingly more concerned with condemning sinners than in leading anyone to Christ and His lvoe.

Where are the great liberal evangelists leading throngs to the Lord? Jonathan Edwards a liberal? Where is this even being done one on one? Grace does not mean "anything goes" Polycarp1, it means calling sinners to repantance. You seem to view repentance as a hate crime. Liberalism sees the Word of God like a Darwinists views a peppered moth. "What is truth," asked Pilate to our Lord.

And you know the answer. It does not change.

You may not like me or my positions, or my delivery Polycarp1, but I do not alter or discard scriptural truth for 21st century pop culture, or leftist political aspirations or a new socialism based on humanism.

You and I can go elsewhere on this site and contend for the Gospel point for point. Something tells me that you will dodge the effort by labeling me something pop culture.

You may indeed be a far finer man than I am Polycarp1, but I am not leading people into false doctrine by using false doctrine to guide them.

I have asked you and your liberal/progressive (et al) counterparts over and over again to challenge my positions using scripture, and like a typical liberal, you refer the challenge to modern social causes based on nothing more than do as thou wilt, though harm none. Funny thing though, your liberal world is one of such violence and debauchery, horror and vice, it seems all you have done is taken us on a trip backwards in time to a place destined for a severe judgment. And when this reality is pointed out, you blame others for what your wolrdviews have wrought. (This is not a game Polycarp1.)

Harsh words or provable occurences?

I'm game for the testing.


(I'm out for most of the day tomorrow.)

 

[mpok1519]

Its good that schools teach the truth; the truth is that some people are gay, theres nothing that'll change that (as there have been gay people since the beginning of people itself), and as people we must accept this as fact, and we must be sensitively aware of the issue. We also must teach our kids that it is not okay to hurt one(be that by any means of demoralization, and just as importantly, physical abuse) due to one's sexual orientation.

Its a good thing that schools (out of one day of the year, more than likely) educate kids about the issue.

Public school(+) is a form of socialism; don't like it? Educate your own kids as your own little controlled experiment. Its not like you really wanna pay for some other kid's education anyways....

 

[ragarth]

I have no issue with the religious right not interacting with gays. Keep in mind that attempting to pass legislation to curb gay rights, and attempting to keep out legislation that will bring equality to gay rights, is interaction with the gay community. So if your decision to pretend that I, being a gay male, don't exist gives me the equality I desire, then I'm happy to win your avoidance.

As it stands, the religious right is obsessed with gays. They simply cannot get enough of sticking their collective nose into my business. It's such a severe amount of interaction that I fear for my life from these supposed Christians. I'm a member of a group called Pink Pistols, I advocate gun rights along side gay rights, and I pack a handgun to protect me from Christians whose sense of helping me 'see the light' is to bash my skull in. So if the religious right chose not to interact with gays, then I'd be safer, I wouldn't have a reason to arm myself.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I have no issues with the religious right not interacting with gays. Keep in mind that attempting to pass legislation to curb gay rights, and attempting to keep out legislation that will bring equality to gay rights, is interaction with the gay community. So if your decision to pretend I, being a gay male, don't exist gives me the equality I desire, then I'm happy to win your avoidance.

As it stands, the religious right is obsessed with gays. They simply cannot get enough of sticking their noses into my business. It's such a severe amount of interaction that I fear from my life from these supposed Christians. I'm a member of a group called Pink Pistols, I advocate gun rights along side gay rights, and I pack a 9mm to protect me from Christians whose sense of helping me 'see the light' is to bash my skull in. So if the religious right chooses not to interact with gays, then I'll be safer, I wouldn't have a reason to arm myself.

As long as our tax dollars are spent in schools to allow for agendas against christianity and saying if we dont like it send our kids somewhere else - but refusing to allow our tax dollars to follow us - then we will speak out.

Youve seen in this thread they want our money but not our voices and it wont be both ways. Now agree and fight for our right to send out kids to the schools of our choice using our money then hey do what you want in your own schools.

 

[Pliny the Elder]

As long as our tax dollars are spent in schools to allow for agendas against christianity and saying if we dont like it send our kids somewhere else - but refusing to allow our tax dollars to follow us - then we will speak out.

There is no agenda against Christianity, school is there to teach math, English, history, science, health and physical education and only valid peer accepted data from each of the above. If you do not teach your kids true science they will never go to college or make it in the world.

Teach religion in comparative religion where ALL religions are taught since they are all hypothesis and all are equally valid.

Youve seen in this thread they want our money but not our voices and it wont be both ways.

You already failed to show how creationism is in any way a valid theory and deserves to be taught in science class over a comparative religion class you just completely glossed over that.

 

[ragarth]

As long as our tax dollars are spent in schools to allow for agendas against christianity and saying if we don't like it send our kids somewhere else - but refusing to allow our tax dollars to follow us - then we will speak out.

You've seen in this thread they want our money but not our voices and it wont be both ways. Now agree and fight for our right to send out kids to the schools of our choice using our money then hey do what you want in your own schools.

I'm sorry, I don't see the correlation between a school voucher program and my rights. I was replying to the original topic of this thread about whether the religious right should ignore gays. My response was that yes, they should, and give us our equal rights.

Now, equal rights has nothing to do with school vouchers. I have no opinion on school vouchers because there are pros and cons both ways. On the one hand school vouchers gives the possibility of taking children out of failing schools, but at the same time it deprives those schools of valuable funds they could use to improve themselves. At the same time, it also turns school choice into a politics decision and can potentially force the government, by way of the voucher program, to advance a religion via religious schools, unless there's a way of limiting which schools can benefit from the voucher program.

So I don't really have an opinion formed on this because I don't know all the facts. But, as it stands, if you're not referring to a voucher program, you have the right to send your kids wherever you want, you just gotta pay the price of those schools who think like you do.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I'm sorry, I don't see the correlation between a school voucher program and my rights. I was replying to the original topic of this thread about whether the religious right should ignore gays. My response was that yes, they should, and give us our equal rights.

Now, equal rights has nothing to do with school vouchers. I have no opinion on school vouchers because there are pros and cons both ways. On the one hand school vouchers gives the possibility of taking children out of failing schools, but at the same time it deprives those schools of valuable funds they could use to improve themselves. At the same time, it also turns school choice into a politics decision and can potentially force the government, by way of the voucher program, to advance a religion via religious schools, unless there's a way of limiting which schools can benefit from the voucher program.

So I don't really have an opinion formed on this because I don't know all the facts. But, as it stands, if you're not referring to a voucher program, you have the right to send your kids wherever you want, you just gotta pay the price of those schools who think like you do.

Fact if one wants your rights in schools because of your taxes the one cannot also take mine and tell me to shut up and that its not my business.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

I do not have the time to read all pages of this thread and somebody may have said - should have said - what I will say.

Every time you open a KJV Bible you are "interacting" with a gay person. Were it not for that gay person the world would have been denied what is aguably the best-loved version.

 

[mpok1519]

As long as our tax dollars are spent in schools to allow for agendas against christianity and saying if we dont like it send our kids somewhere else - but refusing to allow our tax dollars to follow us - then we will speak out.

Youve seen in this thread they want our money but not our voices and it wont be both ways. Now agree and fight for our right to send out kids to the schools of our choice using our money then hey do what you want in your own schools.

Good thing our voice includes those of us that want equal rights for the gay community...so really, "they" can have it both ways. =)

There is not an agenda AGAINST christianity. there is an agenda FOR equal rights, however.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Good thing our voice includes those of us that want equal rights for the gay community...so really, "they" can have it both ways. =)

There is not an agenda AGAINST christianity. there is an agenda FOR equal rights, however.

Why do you believe that your rights need to extend into my church or be forced on my kids? Thats not equal.

We understand what will happen ultimately and we arent going to allow it.

 

[ragarth]

Fact if one wants your rights in schools because of your taxes the one cannot also take mine and tell me to shut up and that its not my business.

That's an opinion, not a fact, and an opinion purporting a lie. Rights are also not a 'if you give me this, maaaybe I'll letcha not get gay bashed' game. Human rights are not a card game, they are basic decency and respect.

Now, given the previous post to yours, I imagine this is about teaching Christianity in school. I would also like you to know that the classrooms are not a place for debate unless the basis of the lesson is about debate. If every possible theory in science were taught kids would never learn, and therefore the curricula is narrowed down to the most pertinent and widly accepted theories. I'm sorry to say, that pseudoscience doesn't fit that bill, and therefore Creationism is not a valid topic for science class. If you want your children to be ill prepared for college, put them in private school.

You might take offense at my calling Creationism pseudoscience. I give you the first sentence of wikipedia for pseudoscience:

"Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method"

It's a good definition, but wikipedia is hardly a great source, therefore I give you a more official, but less descriptive definition from the princeton wordnet:

"an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions"

Now, part of the scientific method is the requirement that any hypothesis must be falsifiable. This means that if I give a hypothesis, such as creationism, then this hypothesis must a)make a prediction and b)be capable of being proven false.

Creationism makes the claim that a god, gods, or other intelligent entity put life upon this planet. It has made many claims, but all have been shot down quite thoroughly. It's failed to produce anything of scientific value, and has failed to have any papers that I know of published about it from reputable peer-reviewed journals. Further, a claim of an intelligent, potentially omnipotent creator cannot be falsified, it cannot be proven wrong, for the same reason that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. By attempting to teach creationism in class you are attempting to claim that God can be falsified, because to falsify creationism you must be able to falsify God. This is patently untrue, and therefore creationism is pseudoscience and not real science. Pseudoscience doesn't belong in the class room, if it did, we'd still be giving people mercury enemas.

Nota Bene: Notice I used the term hypothesis, it's important to draw a distinction between a scientific theory and a hypothesis. The laymen definition of theory is the definition of a hypothesis, and the laymen definition of a fact is the scientific definition of a theory. Scientific facts are rare indeed. Evolution is a theory, it has a supporting body of proof, Creationism is at best a hypothesis, it has little or no supporting body of proof. We don't teach our kids unproven hypothesis' in school. So Creationism is doubly failed either by being defined pseudoscience or by being no more than 'just a hypothesis'.

 

[mpok1519]

Why do you believe that your rights need to extend into my church or be forced on my kids? Thats not equal.

We understand what will happen ultimately and we arent going to allow it.

Forced? What do you mean, 'forced'? How is treating a homosexual with the same HUMAN rights as any other forcing one to do anything?

Explain to me how educating children about the truth is forcing beliefs on anyone?

Oh, let me guess; I bet you also believe teaching about evolution, plate techtonics, ancient Sumerian history, and drug awareness are also forcing immorality on you, right? Evolution isnt supposed to exist according to the Bible. Plate techtonics and the supercontinet of pangea don't exist according to the Bible. ancient sumerian history pre 8000 BC doesn't exist according to the Bible. So you're pretty much saying our school system shouldnt teach ANYTHING in opposition to the literal interpretation of religious doctrine?

Thats asanine.

I believe human rights need to be enforced; what you say reflects the SAME thing folks said when schols were being desegregated. "Why do I have to send my kids to school with black kids?", "Why does my kid have to learn about equal rights?", "(insert ignorant statement #3)", etc, etc, etc.

So, when sex ed class mentions something about homosexuality, you're going to withdrawl your kid from the class?

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I've always wondered the same; I think they're only allowed to marry if they marry one of the opposite of the gender behavior they exhibit; but then again, there might not be any laws or rules pertaining to it.

I didn't address the issue of gender from a legal standpoint. Legally, you are considered to be whatever they decide to put on your birth certificate when you're born, no matter what parts you actually have or with what gender you actually identify. That completely sucks for a lot of intersex people who have no choice in the matter early on in life, myself included.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

Bunk. I'm as conservative a Christian that has ever stood up against the bullies here, and a transexual is thought of by every Christian I have ever interacted with (which is many hundreds) as a very disturbed person that is handled with the utmost respect and compassion.

Gays, Lesbians and of course "Bi-Sexuals" are a very different kind of issue.

Bunk back at you. I have my own personal experiences and I know literally DOZENS of transgender and intersex people who have experienced the same thing. You can try to negate them if you want to, but the fact is that it happens ALL THE TIME. My own fundy father swore he would kill me. My fundy sister disowned me. My fundy church threw me out. It happens, in every case I know where a transgender person comes out to their church or Christian family. I know of a girl who just came out this week and was thrown out of her church.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

While it is good that you have "compassion" for "disturbed" transsexuals, your post does not answer geekgirlkelli's question about the intersex. Unless it is the same answer that she has gotten from other Conservative Christians -- a refusal to accept that the intersexed exist.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry:trans·sex·u·al Variant(s):also tran·sex·u·al \(&#716tran(t)s-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -shəl\ Function:noun Date:1957 : a person who strongly identifies with the opposite sex and may seek to live as a member of this sex especially by undergoing surgery and hormone therapy to obtain the necessary physical appearance (as by changing the external sex organs)
— transsexual adjective
— trans·sex·u·al·ism also tran·sex·u·al·ism \-sh(ə-)wə-ˌli-zəm, -shə-ˌli-\ noun
— trans·sex·u·al·i·ty also tran·sex·u·al·i·ty \-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\ noun


Main Entry:in·ter·sex Pronunciation: \ˈin-tər-ˌseks\ Function:noun Etymology:International Scientific VocabularyDate:1910 : an intersexual individual


Main Entry:in·ter·sex·u·al Pronunciation: \&#716;in-t&#601;r-&#712;sek-sh&#601;-w&#601;l, -shw&#601;l, -sh&#601;l\ Function:adjective Etymology:International Scientific VocabularyDate:circa 1866 1 : existing between sexes <intersexual hostility> 2 : intermediate in sexual characters between a typical male and a typical female
— in·ter·sex·u·al·i·ty \-&#716;sek-sh&#601;-&#712;wa-l&#601;-t&#275;\ noun
— in·ter·sex·u·al·ly \-&#712;sek-sh&#601;-w&#601;-l&#275;, -shw&#601;-l&#275;, -sh&#601;-l&#275;\ adverb



The most common form of intersexual person is the classic hermaphrodite, born with some sexual organs of both sexes, but there are also those whose external organs appear to be normal but they have internal organs for both sexes or for the opposite sex, and there are genetically intersexed individuals, such as XXY's whose bodies look like girls, despite having a Y chromosome and X's who develop as boys despite the lack of a Y chromosome. In both cases, their further development during puberty are different from the devlopment of "normal" boys and girls.

Exactly. Hermaphrodite is kind of an outdated term and considered a but derogatory, but other than that, spot on. I have some genetic abnormality which not only gave me a screwed up heart and spine but also some degree of intersex. But mostly I am a classic transsexual. Research has shown that the brains of true transsexuals are nearly, if not identical to the brains of the sex they identify with. It is believed the condition is caused by abnormal levels of hormones at some point of fetal development.

 

[Garyzenuf]

After reading a few hundred posts in this thread...whew...I've come to the conclusion that Pcf has his original OP question backwards.