Question......

[Phinehas2]

Fundamentalism is one particular faction of Christianity and as such it is to Christianity as General Mills is to cereals, hence, a "brand".

I think what you call fundamentalism is actually Christian, weheras I don't think liberalism is. I dont however think Christianity is fundamentalism, but I do think it is fundamental

 

[jamielindas]

I think what you call fundamentalism is actually Christian, weheras I don't think liberalism is. I dont however think Christianity is fundamentalism, but I do think it is fundamental [/SIZE][/FONT]

I'm, once again, concerned that you don't know how these words are used in common speech...

 

[Apollo Celestio]

This is very true...
though, I have not had any personal experience with liberals or atheists being against homosexuality. (though, is liberal/atheist an appropriate antonym to fundie?)

Perhaps it would be better to spin it the other way and say that being accepting of homosexuality isn't an exclusively liberal trait.

In the sense of religiosity, perhaps. But not really. Yeah, I guess that's right.

Maybe they don't consciously mean it as something opposite, but the word "but" in the statement implies that justice is opposite to love. And it's also reflected in their other beliefs, since the Christians who use the statement "God is love, but he is also just" also tend to see God's justice as not something that's meant to correct a person, but as pointless torture.

Seems to me to be used so people don't put the "hippy" label on the Lord. To acknowledge his sovereignty and that we will be judged. Pointless torture, maybe for us if we as Christians were to go to hell, since the thought of being separated from God is just...I don't want to know. I take it you're thinking burning forever with demons tearing you apart?

 

[IamRedeemed]

Exactly.

Seems to me to be used so people don't put the "hippy" label on the Lord. To acknowledge his sovereignty and that we will be judged.

 

[IamRedeemed]

No, that won't be necessary. The blanket statement covers, as it is not about what "we" teach "our" children. I was talking about how NO ONE should be teaching your children or my children ANYTHING at 5 or 6 years old that you or I have not consented to. They are not the world's children. To do so is stepping on yours and my inalienable rights. Edit to Add* Which IS something we don't love.

Edit to add* --this statement was added to connect this post to my other post now that I had to explain it
again lest I be falsely accused of derailing the topic as this post "appears" to be standing alone:

Ooooh. if we're going to get into what we teach our children... we might need another thread for sure!

 

[Akathist]

Just a reminder about the topic of this thread:

Question......


This is a question for gays only: What do you mean in saying "You still don't love your homosexual neighbor."

This is NOT an attack nor meant to start trouble. I'm just trying to understand where ya'll are coming from about this. That's all.

So in your own words, what is love and in what way(s) do you see yourself as being loved or unloved by christians?


And for the record, this is not a debate thread. As I said before, you are free to debate against homosexuality all you like, but please do so in your own thread.

The question is how love of neighbors is defined, not whether someone is or is not a Christian or if a political view is or is not Christian.

Please try to stick to the topic.

 

[IamRedeemed]

I gave you the word that best fits my definition already. RELATIONSHIP.

I misread your question. I thought you were saying "we" as you and us being the "we" but it was the other way around.... lol Sorry about that!

It is a matter of personal perception and definition, whether it is valid perception and definition is another story. So to answer that, it is as I said before..... love itself can have very different meanings. Some people equate love with embracing everything about another individual with complete devotion. Others know there is a difference between loving people and embracing all that they contend for. In other words to some, it would be considered hating, if others vote no on the gay marriage bill. Even though it is not a valid claim.

So, I do not receive that it is an undisputed fact that love has been withheld by us from homosexuals or anyone else. And not all people are our brethren. All are our neighbors, but not everyone is children of God. As another poster pointed out, those who are IN the Church if they are proselytizing sexual immorality then they need to pay close attention to 1 Corinthians the 5th chapter.

As far as the psycho-social world of medicine goes. I have three words. They aren't GOD. And nothing anyone says can steal the personal testimonies of people who claim they have been delivered from homosexuality and are set free and their families who know it.

Take Stephen Bennett, of Stephen Bennett Ministries for instance. http://www.sbministries.org/

All of the "experts" in the world can never take away his testimony. They are not God.

My point was though that there are people in these forums who have opened up that part of themselves and told their testimonies of their past and were met with hostility and persecution, name calling and rejection by Homosexuals in these forums that were both professed believers and unbelievers. I witnessed it with my own two eyes.
What happened to "love for the brethren" TM???
See what I am saying?

There is a really good website I stumbled upon that might be of interest to you, and if not to you, maybe others might be interested. You should check it out though anyway just so you won't have any erroneous ideas of what the content is and see if anyone there says anything you can relate to.
It is http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]People Can Change is a founding member of PATH – a non-profit coalition of organizations
that help people with unwanted same-sex attractions (SSA) realize their personal goals for change.[/FONT]

Have you ever heard of it?

I was speaking of the definitions as well, that's why I asked you to choose a word that you felt fit your definition. I believe we were talking about the same thing, but the words used to describe it were throwing us off.

You misunderstood. I was not trying to possess christian love, I was talking about feeling loved by christians. Which I believe was the topic of the post. Those who follow the teachings of Christ profess to be very loving, but many time this love does not extend to the gay brethren.

The psychological and mental health community is pretty united on the fact that changing your sexuality is fairly futile. Most people who change revert at some time or develop other psychological problems. Coming out is a difficult process and coming to peace with your sexuality is a relief. Seeing someone revert is alarming and disheartening and I'm not surprised some people react to it poorly.


<snipped part I already responded to earlier>

 

[IamRedeemed]

We were. But we were trying to show some of the things we don't "love" which happen to be "political" and our standpoints regarding them, which some may misconstrue as hate, when in actuality all we are doing is defending our own inalienable rights.
We did on our own make efforts to keep it to a minimum, as not to derail the thread.

Just a reminder about the topic of this thread:



The question is how love of neighbors is defined, not whether someone is or is not a Christian or if a political view is or is not Christian.

Please try to stick to the topic.

 

[Texas Lynn]

So, I do not receive that it is an undisputed fact that love has been withheld by us from homosexuals

It is not an act of love to seek to deny people health insurance.

I have three words. They aren't GOD.

Neither is anyone posting here.

 

[IamRedeemed]

It is not an act of love to seek to deny people health insurance.

Heterosexuals couples who "live-together" (sinfully as well of course) were not
and as far as I know are still not afforded health insurance under their so's
insurance plan. But that isn't the only thing on the lists is it?
Nope. (I don't think health insurance companies "love" any of us anyway!)

Neither is anyone posting here.

That statement has nothing to do with what was said
or why it was said. That is a non-sequitur.

 

[Texas Lynn]

[Heterosexuals couples who "live-together" (sinfully as well of course) were not and as far as I know are still not afforded health insurance under their so's
insurance plan.

Actually most corporate plans which provide coverage for LGBT employees' significant others provide the same for heterosexual employees' significant others. More and more companies are doing this to attract qualified staff. The morality of relationship patterns is not an appropriate concern for ethical business entities.

But that isn't the only thing on the lists is it?

Right wing policy initiatives seek to harm LGBTs in a myriad of other ways as well.

Nope. (I don't think health insurance companies "love" any of us anyway!)

And so your faction votes against themselves in their passion to harm LGBTs.

That statement has nothing to do with what was said or why it was said. That is a non-sequitur.

Translation: Owie!

 

[IamRedeemed]

No one yet to refute the documentation............
Not surprising actually, as the information is valid regardless
of who likes or dislikes the website source.

 

[Texas Lynn]

No one yet to refute the documentation............
Not surprising actually, as the information is valid regardless
of who likes or dislikes the website source.

All the goals discussed therein were noble so what's to refute? The lack of ethics of the labeling and fearmongering however are typical of immoral practices of the religious right.

 

[IamRedeemed]

That is absolutely a matter of opinion.
The items might be "cloaked" in nobility, but
under the surface when you peel back the crust, the true intentions are evident.

Did you know that Nambla is one of the major financial contributors of gay task forces?

Yes indeed!

One of the items on the list is to lift the ban on age of consent for sex. Who do you think wants that? "Teh gays" themselves? Maybe, but I personally believe it was part of the bargain in order to get Nambla's money, which imo, shows me there is nothing and nobody that the homosexual agenda isn't willing to risk or whose souls they are willing to sell to get what they want.

 

[jamielindas]

That is absolutely a matter of opinion.
The items might be "cloaked" in nobility, but
under the surface when you peel back the crust, the true intentions are evident.

Did you know that Nambla is one of the major financial contributors of gay task forces?

Yes indeed!

One of the items on the list is to lift the ban on age of consent for sex. Who do you think wants that? "Teh gays" themselves? Maybe, but I personally believe it was part of the bargain in order to get Nambla's money, which imo, shows me there is nothing and nobody that the homosexual agenda isn't willing to risk or whose souls they are willing to sell to get what they want.

I really doubt I or any of my friends would gamble with our children in this way. Yes, youth and beautiful are held up on a pedestal in the gay community, but this is fairly true of American culture in general.
I really hope you realize how offensive some of the things you've said are. You seem to think that the gay community is willing to do horrible things to get the rights we deserve. I don't agree.

I think I mentioned this before, the age of consent differs for gay acts and straight acts in some places. This is silly. I completely agree that the age of consent should be the same regardless of sexuality. I thought most people felt this way.

 

[jamielindas]

That is absolutely a matter of opinion.
The items might be "cloaked" in nobility, but
under the surface when you peel back the crust, the true intentions are evident.

Did you know that Nambla is one of the major financial contributors of gay task forces?

Yes indeed!

One of the items on the list is to lift the ban on age of consent for sex. Who do you think wants that? "Teh gays" themselves? Maybe, but I personally believe it was part of the bargain in order to get Nambla's money, which imo, shows me there is nothing and nobody that the homosexual agenda isn't willing to risk or whose souls they are willing to sell to get what they want.

Where is this information about NAMBLA and the National Gay task force? The only thing I can find relating the two is a statement in 1994 that says...

Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."

So I'd like to see where you found information regarding NAMBLA's financial backing of The Task Force?

 

[Texas Lynn]

That is absolutely a matter of opinion.
The items might be "cloaked" in nobility, but
under the surface when you peel back the crust, the true intentions are evident.

Did you know that Nambla is one of the major financial contributors of gay task forces?

Yes indeed!

One of the items on the list is to lift the ban on age of consent for sex. Who do you think wants that? "Teh gays" themselves? Maybe, but I personally believe it was part of the bargain in order to get Nambla's money, which imo, shows me there is nothing and nobody that the homosexual agenda isn't willing to risk or whose souls they are willing to sell to get what they want.

Ridiculous McCarthyism.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Where is this information about NAMBLA and the National Gay task force? The only thing I can find relating the two is a statement in 1994 that says...

Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."

So I'd like to see where you found information regarding NAMBLA's financial backing of The Task Force?

The extreme right wing has no regard for the truth.

 

[IamRedeemed]

With the amount of hours you are here, one would think you could
perform a little bit of research on your own. If you want to know, google it. I provided the source of the quotes I posted from the documents. There is enough information for you to look into it without anyone having to spoon feed you everything, only to have you regurgitate it. Besides that, you will be more likely to view more objectively information you find yourself. So, get to gettin'.

Where is this information about NAMBLA and the National Gay task force? The only thing I can find relating the two is a statement in 1994 that says...

Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."

So I'd like to see where you found information regarding NAMBLA's financial backing of The Task Force?

 

[jamielindas]

With the amount of hours you are here, one would think you could
perform a little bit of research on your own. If you want to know, google it. I provided the source of the quotes I posted from the documents. There is enough information for you to look into it without anyone having to spoon feed you everything, only to have you regurgitate it. Besides that, you will be more likely to view more objectively information you find yourself. So, get to gettin'.

There was no need to be hostile.
I didn't see a link in your post, so I looked it up myself.
That is what I did, but as I told you in my post, I couldn't find the information you were referencing. The only stuff that I could find was very much the opposite of what you had stated. I would like to know if this is true, but I can't seem to verify it with anything that I've found. I was hoping you could provide me your source.