- Apr 20, 2005
- 2,375
- 227
- 43
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Anyone catch the last episode of 30 Days by Morgan Spurlock?
I only saw the last half hour, and while I'm sure this is going to degenerate into a homosexuality thread (since the subject was adoption by gay parents), I had some thoughts about the last bit that I saw.
First off, one of the things that I often see here at CF is the insistence of the anti-gay believers that they have a right to their views on homosexuality, and that left should accept them.
However, when put into a situation in which the majority of people disagreed with her, the displaced person (Kate was her name, I think?) felt attacked and disparaged, even though she was the one shouting. Several times she stormed away, banging doors, knocking over her chair, and then weeping.
I wish someone had pointed out that her feelings of being alone and disliked and "hated" are the same feelings that many gay people face when among Christians. That her feelings of persecution are the same feelings of persecution that gay people feel when they come to places like Ethics & Morality and encounter people like, well, you know. I don't want to call anyone out, but I think all of us can think of a few names.
The most common form of this is the "love the sinner, hate the sin" quip. In Kate's situation, she felt hated even though the gay people around her tried to make her feel welcomed and loved just because they hated her "sin" of intolerance.
At the end of the show one of the gay men admitted that he couldn't consider Kate a friend, that he was unwilling to lie to himself about loving her. Yet Kate couldn't do the same. She still considered herself in a position of "loving" the sinner and hating the sin even though she clearly wasn't.
Is that really loving one's neighbor? (Dispensationalists need not respond. We all know that you don't feel that this is necessary for you.) Could Kate be considered to be loving the gay couple even though she was willing to vote against them and their lives, and the lives of their children?
Also, and this is a slightly more minor point (although I'm sure that it will get some play in this thread too), did anyone catch Kate's statement that if her beliefs changed at all she would be rejecting God? She was so sure that her beliefs were perfect that if she even acknowledged that there were children that needed homes that didn't have them she was going to reject God/lose her faith.
Obviously I have a certain amount of interest in that specific point: I've long had a problem with people that believe that their beliefs are so perfect that they can't change. All of the "True Christians" that have ever made me question my faith are those people that are willing to question their own beliefs.
My question is, who thinks it is moral/ethical (I'm curious about both) to think that your beliefs are beyond question, even if you think that they're directly from the Bible?
I only saw the last half hour, and while I'm sure this is going to degenerate into a homosexuality thread (since the subject was adoption by gay parents), I had some thoughts about the last bit that I saw.
First off, one of the things that I often see here at CF is the insistence of the anti-gay believers that they have a right to their views on homosexuality, and that left should accept them.
However, when put into a situation in which the majority of people disagreed with her, the displaced person (Kate was her name, I think?) felt attacked and disparaged, even though she was the one shouting. Several times she stormed away, banging doors, knocking over her chair, and then weeping.
I wish someone had pointed out that her feelings of being alone and disliked and "hated" are the same feelings that many gay people face when among Christians. That her feelings of persecution are the same feelings of persecution that gay people feel when they come to places like Ethics & Morality and encounter people like, well, you know. I don't want to call anyone out, but I think all of us can think of a few names.
The most common form of this is the "love the sinner, hate the sin" quip. In Kate's situation, she felt hated even though the gay people around her tried to make her feel welcomed and loved just because they hated her "sin" of intolerance.
At the end of the show one of the gay men admitted that he couldn't consider Kate a friend, that he was unwilling to lie to himself about loving her. Yet Kate couldn't do the same. She still considered herself in a position of "loving" the sinner and hating the sin even though she clearly wasn't.
Is that really loving one's neighbor? (Dispensationalists need not respond. We all know that you don't feel that this is necessary for you.) Could Kate be considered to be loving the gay couple even though she was willing to vote against them and their lives, and the lives of their children?
Also, and this is a slightly more minor point (although I'm sure that it will get some play in this thread too), did anyone catch Kate's statement that if her beliefs changed at all she would be rejecting God? She was so sure that her beliefs were perfect that if she even acknowledged that there were children that needed homes that didn't have them she was going to reject God/lose her faith.
Obviously I have a certain amount of interest in that specific point: I've long had a problem with people that believe that their beliefs are so perfect that they can't change. All of the "True Christians" that have ever made me question my faith are those people that are willing to question their own beliefs.
My question is, who thinks it is moral/ethical (I'm curious about both) to think that your beliefs are beyond question, even if you think that they're directly from the Bible?
