Did you have to give up any moral principle or belief when you find Christ?

[Josheb]

Well, if I'm understanding some of the responses I've had then, yes.

If telling someone that their consenting, loving relationship is an abomination isn't bigotry then I don't know what is.

Then I respectfully submit to you that you do not understand what is bigotry and are ironically and hypocritically displaying an appalling practice of that which you report to disdain.

It appears you've based your position on a red herring: it is not love that the dissent considers the abomination; it is the homosexual sex. It is not the person; it is the behavior and I will add the enormous and unjust influence such a small percentage of the population has in political and social discourse in what is supposed to be a pluralistic democratic society.

I will concede some of the posts I read do reflect an inappropriate contempt for people, not sinful behavior, but I see that mainly as poor wording, not actual functions of God's moral code.

I know a gentleman that is Gay. He is...

Immaterial.

Sound thought, discourse, politics, and social policy is not based on personal anecdotal experience. For every wonderful, beautiful, warm, fuzzy, and nice smelling homosexual you cite I can cite one that is ugly, cold, prickly, and smelly and we'll get nowhere. Can you reason through your own positon, forming a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent case for what you believe? If so then I'm all eyes but so far this looks like Christian-bashing and that makes you much like those you wish to judge. You've already asserted one red herring and one appeal to personal experience. Certainly you can see, now those erros have been noted, you've got to have a better argument than the one presented so far. Yes?

I cannot in good conscience imagine...

Sound morality, sound politics, nor sound social policy is based on your personal appeals to conscience or imagination. What you're implicitly arguing is everyone must have a conscience like yours, everyone must imagine like you do. The despotism, Brutus.

Yes, it is said in Leviticus and other places that man must not lay with man yadda yadda yadda...

Don't be yadda yaddaing people's beliefs, Brutus. That is rude and disrespectful bigotry and hatred.

Breath.

If you cannot contribute your half of this conversation without mockery then I suggest you don't. At least not until you can have the conversation without such fallacious arguments.

The fact of the matter is the OT code did prohibit same-sex sex but it also required all capital cases to be witnessed by two or more people. The necessary implication of these two laws is that 1) God knew homosexual sex existed, 2) He prohibited, and 3) restricted it to the privacy of the individuals and did not allow it in public where two or more would or could observe it.

But persecutorial, bigoted, and hateful people don't consider the whole of God's law; they selectively copy and paste the parts they like to use to justify their misbegotten views.

...I can't see a way around that not being hideously wrong.

Well, you can but either you won't or you haven't been presented a case that would rationally persuade you to reconsider your position.

So, if my spiritual journey brings me to Christ then, where do I go? What do I do? The thread was asking how others have grappled with this.

You eternal disposition is not dependent upon politics or social policy. That's where you go with this. Here you've got a false cause fallacy going.


If you sincerely believe in God and His resurrected Son Jesus then that's where you start. Everyone who has ever become a Christian has had to deal with the fact their prior views and prior ways of living warranted change, sometimes severe change. Augustine wrote of this eloquently. Paul the apostle himself wrote of this experience and declared to all he'd struggled long and hard knowing that which he wanted to do he did not do and that which he did not want to do he did.


So....


1) Let's normalize this. Your question about change is valid. It is also not just common but probably inextricable with conversion to Christianity.

2) Fallacy should be avoided.

3) You have the wonderful opportunity to experience the very concern about which you are inquiring! You're going to have to change your thinking... whether you remain agnostic or not .

4) Figure out whether you actually truly sincerely want an answer to your inquiry. Is there any genuine desire to discuss the matter? Can you do so within the limits of a text-based internet because most here post small and that's probably not going to be very effective for this topic.

5) If you can in good conscience authentically do the above then I'll do what I can to provide a reasonable and rational basis for a Bible-based Christian position.

But if you're just angry, or you're just trolling, or you're not really interested in discussion then do please let me know now and I'll move on.

You already know something of what the Bible states. So let's start with the simple premise it is God, not Christians, Who considers same-sex sex sinful (unrighteous, lawless, disobedience, etc.). Since you're not sure God exists you're probably not going to take up the matter with Him so you've got the diversity of Christians with which to have this conversation. You're not going to get a monolithic response but all you need is one single reasonable and rational case. You up for that?

 

[Silmarien]

To be more specific were you challenged by god's moral code in any way...i.e - having to let go of a cherished belief in something like homosexuality not being a sin, abortion being the justified choice of a woman exercising body autonomy etc.?
Did you struggle with that? If so how did you overcome that discomfort?

Thanks.

I converted as an adult, as a secular progressive with ties to both the LGBT movement and reproductive rights advocacy. I've become much more traditional in my outlook, though I still have many issues with conservative Christianity and its relationship with power. I've been experiencing a slow slide towards communitarianism due to both Christian philosophy and certain aspects of the biblical witness, though, which means I'm increasingly skeptical of all strands of extreme individualism--this includes both such a strong focus on bodily autonomy that one overlooks that two people are involved in a pregancy, as well as economic individualism and the stress on the free market.

Homosexuality is a difficult issue. I think it's entirely possible for sexual desire to be disordered (this is my take on the BDSM community, for example), but I'm not sure whether or not homosexuality fits under that category. I think care for the marginalized and oppressed is far more important than obsessing about sexual orientation, and I find it deeply problematic the way that Christianity has historically treated sexual sin differently than other types of sin (except for heterosexual men), so I don't have any trouble still being in favor of LGBT advocacy.

There has been some struggle involved, in that certain parts of the Christian world will try to coerce intellectual consent to everything they say, but I have a background in philosophy and gravitated towards the Catholic world, where they will at least offer significant philosophical justification before trying to coerce intellectual consent. My strategy has been to stick with the liberal churches, while cautiously engaging with more traditional perspectives.

 

[Doubting Brutus]

Then I respectfully submit to you that you do not understand what is bigotry and are ironically and hypocritically displaying an appalling practice of that which you report to disdain.

Bigotry is holding a particular group of people to be inferior, defective or otherwise undesirable based on an arbitrary or highly prejudicial set of criteria. One can't wriggle out of the problem by claiming it is the behaviour that is condemned when the behaviour is an essential characteristic of the individual and something that they are not able to change. How am I guilty of the aforementioned?

It appears you've based your position on a red herring: it is not love that the dissent considers the abomination; it is the homosexual sex. It is not the person; it is the behavior and I will add the enormous and unjust influence such a small percentage of the population has in political and social discourse in what is supposed to be a pluralistic democratic society.

Enormous and unjust influence? traditionally persecuted minorities should not campaign for fair and equal treatment under the law? Think about what you're saying.

I will concede some of the posts I read do reflect an inappropriate contempt for people, not sinful behavior, but I see that mainly as poor wording, not actual functions of God's moral code.

That's up to you.

Sound thought, discourse, politics, and social policy is not based on personal anecdotal experience. For every wonderful, beautiful, warm, fuzzy, and nice smelling homosexual you cite I can cite one that is ugly, cold, prickly, and smelly and we'll get nowhere. Can you reason through your own positon, forming a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent case for what you believe? If so then I'm all eyes but so far this looks like Christian-bashing and that makes you much like those you wish to judge. You've already asserted one red herring and one appeal to personal experience. Certainly you can see, now those erros have been noted, you've got to have a better argument than the one presented so far. Yes?

You're accusing me of not following debate etiquette when we have not been engaged in debate. I raised a point for conversation. I feel more than confident that I can reason through a defence of gay legitimacy whilst being polite, respectful, reasonable and giving a rational, cogent and coherent case for what I believe, yes.

If you want to see what I'm saying as Christian bashing then I fear there's nothing I can do to stop you. I'm on a spiritual journey as I try to navigate between my instinctive seeking and my rational agnosticism. The red-herring you spoke of was actually a red-herring in of itself which if nothing else makes this conversation more convoluted than it needed to be. I have made no appeal to personal experience because we're not engaged in a formal, or even informal, debate. We're having a conversation.

Sound morality, sound politics, nor sound social policy is based on your personal appeals to conscience or imagination. What you're implicitly arguing is everyone must have a conscience like yours, everyone must imagine like you do. The despotism, Brutus.

Morality, politics and social policy isn't based on appeals to ones conscience? Are you sure about that? If we're not morally motivated to take action in the aforementioned realms then what is it that's motivating us? Our point of view isn't demonstrated by our feelings, no, but we start with our moral beliefs and if they agree then we examine our methods for achieving our moral aims and decide which is more conducive to a positive outcome.

I am arguing that my current moral paradigm is preferable to one in which homosexuals are labelled as transgressors because of their sexual orientation. That is how moral discussion works. We state our aims and then discuss our methods for getting there and decide which of us

Don't be yadda yaddaing people's beliefs, Brutus. That is rude and disrespectful bigotry and hatred.

If I offended anyone then I apologise. That was not my intention.

If you cannot contribute your half of this conversation without mockery then I suggest you don't. At least not until you can have the conversation without such fallacious arguments.

I do not accept that I used mockery and as I already pointed out I have not used any fallacious arguments because we're discussing not debating. I have not, up until this point, been laying out a structured argument or even making an argument. I have raised a point and then sought to unpick the responses, informally.

The fact of the matter is the OT code did prohibit same-sex sex but it also required all capital cases to be witnessed by two or more people. The necessary implication of these two laws is that 1) God knew homosexual sex existed, 2) He prohibited, and 3) restricted it to the privacy of the individuals and did not allow it in public where two or more would or could observe it.

But persecutorial, bigoted, and hateful people don't consider the whole of God's law; they selectively copy and paste the parts they like to use to justify their misbegotten views.

Well, you can but either you won't or you haven't been presented a case that would rationally persuade you to reconsider your position.

Okay you're just venting now and not making a whole lot of sense. I'm persecutorial, bigoted and hateful? For defending love? For being uneasy with sanctions to ostracise gay people?

You eternal disposition is not dependent upon politics or social policy. That's where you go with this. Here you've got a false cause fallacy going.

Again, with the fallacy thing. Integrity matters to me. I have a conscience. It matters to me that I do good. Do no harm is one of my dearest held beliefs. Be fair to people is another. Obviously if God exists and Jesus is my saviour and if my salvation rests upon fidelity to the troubling bits of the OT then I have to weigh my eternal soul against my integrity and conscience. I find that unnerving to say the least.

If you sincerely believe in God and His resurrected Son Jesus then that's where you start. Everyone who has ever become a Christian has had to deal with the fact their prior views and prior ways of living warranted change, sometimes severe change. Augustine wrote of this eloquently. Paul the apostle himself wrote of this experience and declared to all he'd struggled long and hard knowing that which he wanted to do he did not do and that which he did not want to do he did.


So....

Surrender ones integrity? Is that the price? What's left of me to be saved if I've surrendered the very things that make me me? If I were to condemn people for love (and yes, physical love is as legitimate as emotional love) then I'm no longer me. Someone called me got saved but it wasn't me.

2) Fallacy should be avoided.

Dealt with.

4) Figure out whether you actually truly sincerely want an answer to your inquiry. Is there any genuine desire to discuss the matter? Can you do so within the limits of a text-based internet because most here post small and that's probably not going to be very effective for this topic.

As I've mentioned elsewhere this is the first real opportunity I've ever had to actually talk to Christians. I'll get things wrong and put my foot in it at times and for that I apologise. I'm enthusiastic to learn and engage but I am me and I can't help but bring that to the discussion. I'll ask questions and carefully consider the responses but I should not be expected to accept everything, or even anything, that is offered in response. I am entitled, even compelled, to ask questions and unpack things. If something doesn't make sense to me, like the question at hand here then it feels beholden on me to drill down as far as it will go. If God exists and if God is gracious enough to want me then I need to prepare myself but some things seem absurd to surrender. Such as my integrity and my compassion.

5) If you can in good conscience authentically do the above then I'll do what I can to provide a reasonable and rational basis for a Bible-based Christian position.

That's appreciated.

But if you're just angry, or you're just trolling, or you're not really interested in discussion then do please let me know now and I'll move on.

I can't prove I'm the latter. I think my behaviour more than proves that but ultimately you must be the judge. What irks me is the suggestion that a difficult customer (such as myself) is automatically a trouble maker. I'm not. I'm just someone who doesn't want AN answer. I want a good answer.

You already know something of what the Bible states. So let's start with the simple premise it is God, not Christians, Who considers same-sex sex sinful (unrighteous, lawless, disobedience, etc.). Since you're not sure God exists you're probably not going to take up the matter with Him so you've got the diversity of Christians with which to have this conversation. You're not going to get a monolithic response but all you need is one single reasonable and rational case. You up for that?

I wouldn't be here if I wasn't.

 

[Albion]

Bigotry is holding a particular group of people to be inferior, defective or otherwise undesirable based on an arbitrary or highly prejudicial set of criteria.

Not so. Bigotry is

• obstinate and unreasonable attachment to a particular creed, opinion, practice, ritual, or party organization; excessive zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect, or opinion; intolerance of the opinions of others.
• n.
  Synonyms Credulity, Fanaticism, etc. (see superstition), narrow-mindedness, prejudice, intolerance.

 

[Doubting Brutus]

Not so. Bigotry is

• obstinate and unreasonable attachment to a particular creed, opinion, practice, ritual, or party organization; excessive zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect, or opinion; intolerance of the opinions of others.
• n.
  Synonyms Credulity, Fanaticism, etc. (see superstition), narrow-mindedness, prejudice, intolerance.

Please cite that definition.

 

[Albion]

Please cite that definition.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Doubting Brutus]

the fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:
religious/racial bigotry

That's from The Cambridge online dictionary. The emphasis in the MW definition is on overly strong identification with a group or belief system where as the correct emphasis, I believe, (and the one used predominantly in the UK) is on one's prejudice against another. I have never encountered anyone using bigotry in the sense that MW describes it. Maybe we are dealing with a American English/UK English thing.

 

[Albion]

the fact of having and expressing strong, unreasonable beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:
religious/racial bigotry

Religious bigotry or racial bigotry are examples. Neither is the definition of bigotry nor are these the only examples.

 

[Doubting Brutus]

Religious bigotry or racial bigotry are examples. Neither is the definition of bigotry nor are these the only examples.

Indeed. Your point being?

 

[Josheb]

Bigotry is holding a particular group of people to be inferior, defective or otherwise undesirable based on an arbitrary or highly prejudicial set of criteria.

No, it is not.

The word bigotry and its uniform definition has been around for a very long time. You don't get to redefine terms as you like for the sake of negging others. I expect you to be responsible. I do not expect and am unwilling to have to show you the dictionary every time you don't get basic definitions correct.


The word "bigotry" simply means "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." Merriam-Webster defines the word as, "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices."

Look it up.

Use the term correctly.





Christians do not hold those who practice same-sex sex as to be inferior, defective or otherwise undesirable based on an arbitrary or highly prejudicial set of criteria. That is not what the Bible states, that is not what any formal Christian doctrine states, and although some (many?) Christians do behavior with intolerance so do all people in one way or another.

Now I'm adding a blatantly false factual error and a straw man to your side of the discussion. This is a test, Brutus. You should have no expectation of rational discourse for yourself if you, Doubting Brutus, 1) cannot and will not bother to take the time to a little basic fact checking and 2) do not readily concede your own errors when they are made known in in an undeniable or irrefutable manner.

It literally took me all of 11 seconds to look up the definition. I timed it. There is no excuse for the op - the one bearing the onus of his own inquiry and commentary - not to check his facts. The definition of bigotry is not what was stated. Correct the matter in your own thinking and do so in a manner observable in the posts.

Otherwise, you just let everyone know it is you who holding a group of people as undesirable based on and arbitrary and prejudicial criteria. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because I suspect that is not the guy you intend to be or how you intended this conversation to go.

Fix the problem.

I'll address your other concerns when I see some statement of self-correction.

 

[Doubting Brutus]

No, it is not.

The word bigotry and its uniform definition has been around for a very long time. You don't get to redefine terms as you like for the sake of negging others. I expect you to be responsible. I do not expect and am unwilling to have to show you the dictionary every time you don't get basic definitions correct.


The word "bigotry" simply means "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." Merriam-Webster defines the word as, "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices."

Look it up.

Use the term correctly.





Christians do not hold those who practice same-sex sax as to be inferior, defective or otherwise undesirable based on an arbitrary or highly prejudicial set of criteria. That is not what the Bible states, that is not what any formal Christian doctrine states, and although some (many?) Christians do behavior with intolerance so do all people in one way or another.

Now I'm adding a blatantly false factual error and a straw man to your side of the discussion. This is a test, Brutus. You should have no expectation of rational discourse for yourself if you, Doubting Brutus, 1) cannot and will not bother to take the time to a little basic fact checking and 2) do not readily concede your own errors when they are made known in in an undeniable or irrefutable manner.

It literally took me all of 11 seconds to look up the definition. I timed it. There is no excuse for the op - the one bearing the onus of his own inquiry and commentary - not to check his facts. The definition of bigotry is not what was stated. Correct the matter in your own thinking and do so in a manner observable in the posts.

Otherwise, you just let everyone know it is you who holding a group of people as undesirable based on and arbitrary and prejudicial criteria. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because I suspect that is not the guy you intend to be or how you intended this conversation to go.

Fix the problem.

I'll address your other concerns when I see some statement of self-correction.

Now I'm negging? This is turning bizarre. You're buzzing around trying to find a fight and I'm not sure why. To try to back up amidst all this hyperbole we agree on the dictionary definition what we disagree about is emphasis. Bigotry has always and forever (at least where I'm from) been the stress on the view of the other. Now, while I hold my hands up as a definitions geek and someone who insists on the agreement of terms before engaging in a debate I would like to remind you, once again, that we are not involved in a debate, or at least I'm not. Constantly throwing spurious accusations of my committing logical fallacies is a diversionary tactic from the subject at hand. In a conversation you're more than entitled to employ intuitions and half-formed thoughts. Its one of the ways in which we develop our thoughts and ideas. If you want to have a polite and respectful conversation then the onus is on you to stop spoiling for an argument.

 

[Josheb]

"Yes, Josh, the definition of bigotry I posted is not correct. I will agree to use the correct definition and not insinuate blatantly incorrect definitions falsely on Christians. I will in fact agree not to make any baseless claims about Christians as a whole; I will instead evidence my claims."

Is that not the guy you wanna be?

Then be that guy.

Now I'm negging?

Yes, you are; at least through the insinuation Christians are holding homosexuals to be inferior, defective or otherwise undesirable based on an arbitrary or highly prejudicial set of criteria. It is simply untrue. It is factually untrue, doctrinally untrue, practically untrue, and observably untrue. And you'll either acknowledge the error(s) or not.

This is turning bizarre.

Yes, like Christians who are held accountable for real examples of arbitrary prejudice the appeal to ridicule (labels) is common. Whether bizarre or not you posted an incorrect definition of bigotry and tried to incorrectly insinuate it upon Christians and the only proper response to that malfeasance is to correct the errors before proceeding.

You're buzzing...

I am irrelevant. Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.

Constantly throwing spurious accusations of my committing logical fallacies is a diversionary tactic from the subject at hand.

No one is constantly doing anything. Red herring

No one is posting spurious anything. Appeal to ridicule.

Noe one is accusing you of anything spuriously. I have stated the factual errors that are objectively visible by all and you are avoiding the very real, plain, and simple solutions and thereby sabotaging your own effort, which I will use to demonstrate to all your lack of authenticity. It's not personal, Brutus; you'll either do the right thing or you won't. This isn't just about content; it's aso about method. You demonstrate reason when you avoid fallacy. You demonstrate authenticity by correcting your own errors in good faith while others lovingly, patiently, kindly await you doing so. I understand this is probably not what you're used to but I'm not trading posts with posters who post factual errors and won't self-correct, post hypocritical bigotry and won't self-correct, and won't look at themselves as they discuss their own views and self-correct where warranted.

In a conversation you're more than entitled to employ intuitions and half-formed thoughts. Its one of the ways in which we develop our thoughts and ideas. If you want to have a polite and respectful conversation then the onus is on you to stop spoiling for an argument.

More red herrings.

The problem is simple: you posted a factually incorrect definition of bigotry, attempted to insinuate the straw man as relevant to conversion to Christianity or Christians without evidence to that effect and are now refusing to acknowledge those two errors despite the opportunity to do so.

It's a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational cogent and coherent conversation about the moraal dilemmas of conversion to Christ that I'm spoiling for but the evidence - so far - shows you're not capable. If you trade posts with me I will commend that which I read that meets the criteria I set out for both of us (polite, respectful, reasonable.... etc.), I will bluntly correct the factually incorrect and logically fallacious, and I will inquire further about that which I either do not adequately understand or that which is not stated clearly.

That is how a discussion, debate, (logical) argument is supposed to go. If that's not you're experience then decide if you're up for a trial run and make me practice what I preach.

But first, please, first post a plain and simple acknowledgement stating you agree with the definition of bigotry posted and Christians are not yet evidenced to hold homosexuals inferior and they do not use arbitrary criteria.

Because there's no sense in any of us trading posts with you if that won't happen. Remember: Everyone here is reading these posts. You do yourself benevolently when you don't make the kind of errors made so far. We're a kind and patient bunch, despite your views to the contrary, and you'll do yourself even more benevolence when you self-correct obvious and evidenced errors.



"Yes, Josh, the definition of bigotry I posted is not correct. I will agree to use the correct definition and not insinuate blatantly incorrect definitions falsely on Christians. I will in fact agree not to make any baseless claims about Christians as a whole; I will instead evidence my claims."

Is that not the guy you wanna be?

Then be that guy.

Or don't.

You choose.

No buzzing around required.

 

[Paidiske]

"Yes, you are; at least through the insinuation Christians are holding homosexuals to be inferior, defective or otherwise undesirable based on an arbitrary or highly prejudicial set of criteria. It is simply untrue. It is factually untrue, doctrinally untrue, practically untrue, and observably untrue. And you'll either acknowledge the error(s) or not.

Oh good grief. Let's be intellectually honest enough to admit that many Christians do indeed hold these ideas and - perhaps even more importantly - do speak about and act towards LGBTIQA+ folks in ways which are profoundly harmful.

 

[zippy2006]

Getting back to my original post, that creates this enormous stumbling block for seekers like me. The moral code I'm supposed to adopt seems worse than the one I have. The one I have is based on love, compassion and understanding. The one being offered is based on. . . definitely not those qualities.

If I manage to connect with Jesus (and I am searching) how am I supposed to live with myself if I buy my salvation by throwing others that I love and have compassion for under the bus?

Love and compassion are not equivalent to acceptance. Christians believe that sin exists and should be avoided. They also believe that we should love our neighbor. Consequentially, one way that you love your neighbor is by trying to help them avoid sin. Loving someone does not mean uncritically accepting everything they do. This applies even to things done in good faith.

My general advice is: take your time. Work through the issues. Keep an open ear.

 

[Sketcher]

To be more specific were you challenged by god's moral code in any way...i.e - having to let go of a cherished belief in something like homosexuality not being a sin, abortion being the justified choice of a woman exercising body autonomy etc.?
Did you struggle with that? If so how did you overcome that discomfort?

Have I been challenged by God's moral code? Yes, though the areas were different.

How did I get over that discomfort? By realizing that I don't know everything, and what I'm tempted to believe, especially when the stress goes up, isn't necessarily right. I think through consequences. And I remember that I owe God my life.

PS: You're bringing up homosexuality specifically. One of my friends from my Christian men's group is gay, with a conservative outlook on homosexual relationships. He came out to us before he came out to his parents. He's still one of us. I hope that we are where the virtues of love, inclusion, and self-denial intersect.

 

[Tolworth John]

This goes a step too far. It's reasonable to say that, according to your best understanding of the Bible, same-sex intimacy is a sin. But it is inaccurate and discourteous to say that gay Christians do not love God. The partnered gay Christians that I've met do indeed love God; they just disagree with you on some ethical and theological questions.

No they do not disagree with me.
They disagree with what the bible teaches.
genesis 1:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

That is the biblical patern for marriage and sexual relationships.

 

[Josheb]

Oh good grief. Let's be intellectually honest enough to admit that many Christians do indeed hold these ideas and - perhaps even more importantly - do speak about and act towards LGBTIQA+ folks in ways which are profoundly harmful.

Let's be honest enough to acknowledge I stated as much and then let's be honest enough to also acknowledge you are repeating already post content.

Let's be honest enough to also acknowledge that line of discourse has nothing to do with the op's inquiry about conversion-caused moral dilemma because those people aren't experiencing any moral dilemma and their responses aren't going to aid this op in finding answers to the question asked.

Then let's be honest enough to give regard to Pr. 26:17 some sincere consideration.

Then let's be honest enough to answer this question: Are such people representative of Christianity?

And this question: Are they doing so based on something in the Bible or Christian doctrine that is arbitrary (as was insinuated earlier)?

And then let's be honest enough to acknowledge a cogent conversation is not going to be possible with anyone who posts false definitions of bigotry and refuses to correct himself.

Then let's be honest enough to acknowledge the impulse you might now be feeling to appeal to tu quoque is just as fallacious as someone asking Christians if they experienced difficulty making cognitive and behavioral moral changes upon conversion when it turns out that he really wants to do is judge Christians for being bigots because he's got moral dilemmas of his own to work through incorrectly imagining scapegoating others is a reasonable and rational way to do it.





Let's review:

1) I answered the question this op asks. I stated quite plainly all Christians have to confront moral dilemmas. And I gave examples from my own life that were broad enough for just about anyone - including non-Christians - to relate to.

2) A very diverse and lengthy response was received (commendably?), but it began with a blatant falsehood. That falsehood and everything built upon it warrants correction because (causal relationship being noted) a) cogent discourse is not possible based on falsehood, and b) anyone asking the question about moral dilemmas won't get their needs met building upon false information. Although my posts may well be deemed adversarial, I'm trying to help: correct the incorrect definition and let's move on. Some folks won't be helped.

3) I'd be delighted to discuss the rest of the concerns that were posted to me were we to have some consensus on a very plain, simple, and necessary matter: how a word is defined!



Paidiske, if I read you telling me the word "Christian" meant "those who worship Muhammad as God," and I posted a correction that was evidenced by two actually authoritative sources what would you do? How would you respond? Do you find that is what the other poster has done? Would you respond, "Thanks for that information, Josh; I'll correct my posting accordingly," or something that ignores the problem, digresses from the point, and ignores what is otherwise a very easy to fix problem? What might I know about you (as it pertains to discussions in a discussion board) if you readily self-correct and work toward consensus? What might I know about you when you refuse to self-correct and further obfuscate? Upon which of the two types of posters would you prefer to spend your time and effort?

Be honest

 

[Hazelelponi]

To be more specific were you challenged by god's moral code in any way...i.e - having to let go of a cherished belief in something like homosexuality not being a sin, abortion being the justified choice of a woman exercising body autonomy etc.?
Did you struggle with that? If so how did you overcome that discomfort?

Thanks.

Coming to the knowledge of the Truth of Christ was a lot for me personally, a bit of a long road, however once I understood, I had no "moral" objection to anything..

For me personally I found the amount of freedom found in Christianity more daunting than restricted - simply for fear of sinning against God - but no moral objection to any of the tenants of living a life for this God..

if that makes sense..

I'm going to say if your of a mind your own sense of morality is higher or somehow better than the God of all creation then perhaps you still have more to understand...

God forces no man, living a Christian life for God is our choice out of love for our Creator. He makes it easier through the power of the Holy Spirit, but daily prayer and study and a closeness to God is necessary for the relationship.

 

[Josheb]

Please cite that definition.

Did you cite your definition? No.

Are you holding others to standards to which you yourself do not abide? Apparently.

On the occasion where the source was provided did it have any positive effect on your posting? No.


So take a moment and re-gather yourself, Brutus. You are not acting in your own best self-interest. If you truly, really, actually, genuinely want to better understand the experience of conversion-caused moral dilemma then your own posts should reflect that authenticity...

..and they do not.


All Christians do experience moral challenges cognitively and behaviorally and have to let go of previously cherished beliefs and practices in one domain of their prior life or another. The examples of homosexuality being sinful and abortion being justified are examples (two examples among scores of others) but you are not going to be able to have that conversation as long as you are working from the belief we're all bigots, we believe homosexuals are inferior, and do so based upon a false definition of bigotry that you did not source while demanding others do so.

So start over.

We bigots allow do overs . Jesus taught us that .

 

[Hazelelponi]

You weren't clear about what you wanted clarifying but I'll try to make my point clearer.

I am not gay but I can empathise with gay people as human beings. I have always and, I hope, always will support gay people in their struggle against persecution, bigotry and hatred. The reason? human empathy. If I was to meet Jesus on this road of discovery that I'm on there are many, many things that would need to be overcome. I would have knowledge of Jesus Christ in all his divinity (I could no longer be Agnostic) but I would face the very battle for my essence because it seems to me that scripture is fairly clear on the subject that gay people are wrong just for loving someone and that is anathema to me. It would place me in an absolutely terrible position where my own salvation would cost me my soul, or at least the soul that has got me this far being kind, generous, understanding, compassionate. etc Its a heck of a hurdle to get over to suddenly start throwing condemnation around.

First - we as Christians don't condemn. Our job is to point others to God and salvation.. not condemn.

Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. Even though we were sinners.

Tell you a small story. My husband is a Christian man and the one who led me to Christ. He worked a job as a supervisor over many people.. and sometimes the personal gets into that to extents.

There was a young boy who began, at one point prior to the last election, coming to work very sad. His entire demeanor changed seemingly overnight and it was affecting his work. So my husband asked what was bothering him so much..

He told my husband that he was a homosexual person and that he had been told that if Trump was elected that they would send homosexuals to concentration camps... (a falsehood but he was terrified by it)

My husband told him that no such thing would ever happen, but if it did my husband would defend him with his life if need be, so he had nothing to fear.

The boy calmed down and went back to normal, now that he had a protector he could trust.

Again, we are Christian, we believe homosexuality is sinful behavior - but it doesn't mean it's to us to judge a homosexual - or treat them as less than human. 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (let the Church judge the Church - simplified)

My husband and I have both chosen Christ, and we have chosen our walk with Christ by our sides, but our choice is our own, and others choices are theirs...

you don't run around telling strangers off the street their lives aren't lived for God, there's no point. It's not like they don't know...Christian behavior is limited to Christians - if you don't believe in God in the first place then following God's laws is little more than silliness.

One on one conversation when and where relevant is all that is necessary. If a homosexual asks you straight out, then your obligated to tell what the Bible says on the topic. But telling someone they are a sinner? fairly pointless if your not pointing them to salvation..