I'm genuinely curious about what specific things you're saying in these conversations. Can we get a sample?Quote:
You have no idea how many conversations I've been it where I have tried to delicately and politely explain my views. It is never harsh. Never criticizing. And it is always met with anger and disdain. I was trying to relate to you that this can wear on a persons nerves.
Happy June Christians!!
9,252 Views |
157 Replies |
Last: 5 mo ago by Serviam
If it's going to be met with disdain, then fine. It makes me frustrated that Christians are asked to be held to a high standard ("can't you have any compassion on these people!?!?") but my views against it should be expected to be met with disdain and judgement. Do you not see that is exactly the crux of my argument and why posts like Serviam's tend to become more frequent?
The Christian's call is to love our enemy. Thanks to good ole Saul Alinsky, our command is often used against us. Our good will is used against us, but good will is rarely given in return. So the frustrations will continue to spike across the aisle and both sides can expect more of the same. What a wonderful future we can look forward to.
As to the Muslim example, I don't care what sort of dress codes are enforced, male and female. As long as it's done justly and lovingly, cultural differences are just that: differences. But honor killings and the like, as you acknowledged, are on a different level than what we're dealing with here.
The Christian's call is to love our enemy. Thanks to good ole Saul Alinsky, our command is often used against us. Our good will is used against us, but good will is rarely given in return. So the frustrations will continue to spike across the aisle and both sides can expect more of the same. What a wonderful future we can look forward to.
As to the Muslim example, I don't care what sort of dress codes are enforced, male and female. As long as it's done justly and lovingly, cultural differences are just that: differences. But honor killings and the like, as you acknowledged, are on a different level than what we're dealing with here.
The gist: love the sinner, hate the sin. Obviously I flesh it out, but no matter how much I can say I personally have nothing against gay people, I believe the action to be wrong and shouldn't be sanctioned it's met with "disdain". Obviously I just hate gay people despite how many times I say I don't. Or look at Aggrad08's post. He grants that I can calmly and rationally approach a situation but should still be expected to be looked down upon. He agrees because that is the ultimate end of the two different world views, and history suggests that will continue.
That's all fine and good. Just figure it's best for non-Christians to not get in a tizzy and start posts calling out a Christians for not checking their own, when there is no checking on their own side of the fence.
I'll continue to do my best to follow the call of my faith, but, just as I try to put myself in the shoes of people who disagree with me, I'll do the same for the Christian who pops off. We're all human so mistakes should be expected.
That's all fine and good. Just figure it's best for non-Christians to not get in a tizzy and start posts calling out a Christians for not checking their own, when there is no checking on their own side of the fence.
I'll continue to do my best to follow the call of my faith, but, just as I try to put myself in the shoes of people who disagree with me, I'll do the same for the Christian who pops off. We're all human so mistakes should be expected.
Ok, but how do you flesh it out? It seems like you're avoiding the question here. You say you think the action is wrong and shouldn't be sanctioned, but what do you mean by that? How do you as an individual show that you don't sanction the gay couple living in the house next to yours? And more importantly, what steps do you support people in society or our government taking to make sure it isn't sanctioned?Quote:
The gist: love the sinner, hate the sin. Obviously I flesh it out,
Beer Baron said:Ok, but how do you flesh it out? It seems like you're avoiding the question here. You say you think the action is wrong and shouldn't be sanctioned, but what do you mean by that? How do you as an individual show that you don't sanction the gay couple living in the house next to yours? And more importantly, what steps do you support people in society or our government taking to make sure it isn't sanctioned?Quote:
The gist: love the sinner, hate the sin. Obviously I flesh it out,
I'm not avoiding anything other than typing another novel. Here is the best synopsis I can give:
Sex is for making babies. Yes, there are wonderful benefits that come from it, but ultimately the act is meant for babies. Kind of like eating is meant for nutrition. Sure, it's fun to experience food and it tastes great, but ultimately the act is designed for nourishing ourselves. We can misuse both faculties. Eat good food, but obesity is not a virtue. Similarly, have as much fun sex in marriage as you want, as long as there's at least some sort of chance a pregnancy could occur. We should use bodily functions as they are meant to be used. And no, this doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex and all the other objections that would come that would make this post a million times longer.
Because of that, there are types of sexual acts that straight people can do that are sinful. I do not think they should be promoted. I am also tempted toward them, so I'm not trying to tell you that you are bad and I am good. Just that we all need to strive to be the best we can be and we are designed with a purpose.
So I don't believe gay people should be prosecuted. But I do not believe two people of the same gender can be married. I'm not saying you can't live together, but it needs to be left at that. I have never tried to prevent, or would I vote to prevent, gay people from living together or keep them out of my neighborhood. But because I don't believe in gay marriage, I'm hateful.
I do not believe that a gay couple provide the best home for a child to be raised in. I realize that there are worse situations for children to be in so I don't support an all out ban, but even voicing that a child should be raised by a mother and a father makes me hateful. I was raised with a very distant father. That has had impacts on me. My wife was raised without a mother. She has residual impacts from that. Doesn't matter. I'm a bigot.
There are more details that I can give based on whatever rebuttals come my way, but that's the philosophy that I put forward. It never seems to matter how calmly or respectfully I try to convey my beliefs. At the end of the day it appears tolerance is not desired. It is acceptance or I'm the bad guy.
ETA: the majority of my experience has been friends and family members of homosexual individuals. I've had a couple unpleasant conversations with homosexuals but the worst ones seem to be the ones who changed their views on a dime once someone in their family or friend group came out.
ETA2: while I have not and would not vote to bar two people of the same sex from living together, I would vote against gay marriage, which naturally is a non-starter for anyone in the other side. Not only am I a bigot, but I'm violating human rights.
ETA3: I do not believe in "born this way". The studies do not back it. The obviously implies "choice". Most folks on the other side do not like this. And they most CERTAINLY do not like when I suggest it's possible that certain life experiences may have influenced this. I'm definitely not a an expert, but I've listened to several podcasts of men and women that have left the LGBT lifestyle and their stories are enlightening. Once they chose to stop identifying with their sexual preferences, they were able to take a good look at their childhood and see where some things went wrong. No different than how severe anger issues, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc typically come from issues early on that were never dealt with correctly. This is why I detest the fact that homosexuality becomes an identity rather than an action.
First, thanks for answering.
I don't find anything in that particularly hateful, especially compared to what gets thrown our way by others, but I can also see why people wouldn't really want to hang out or associate with you for expressing those opinions. Those are all some pretty loaded statements on some very personal aspects of other peoples lives, and I think it's human nature to bristle at those kinds of comments.
For example, if I said the mythical beliefs of Christians were absurd and childish, I think it's reasonable for me to expect some level of disdain coming back at me for that. Same if I said Christians make bad parents or should be legally prohibited from things like marriage or raising children. I don't think any level of calm, respectful, and pleasant demeanor while delivering that message entitles me to no pushback when I'm making judgments about something as sensitive and personal as a person's relationships and families.
The very fact that you're saying things like "I think you should be allowed to live together in my neighborhood," just comes off as incredibly condescending no matter how you deliver that message. I don't really need your permission or allowance to do those things, just like you don't need mine, but thanks, I guess? I've said this before, but gay people are the only group that is for some reason expected to just take such comments and smile without offering any kind of resistance.
Like I said earlier, there are certainly levels, and everything you wrote is better than a lot of other things I've seen on Texags, but I think there's a certain level of entitlement that comes with making this kind of statement to someone and expecting them to say "thank you, may I have another?" Jewish people who don't eat pork do a much better job of managing this kind of thing - they don't eat it but they don't make any judgments on non-Jews who order a bacon cheeseburger at lunch. I think gay people and Christians both could learn a thing or two from that attitude.
I don't find anything in that particularly hateful, especially compared to what gets thrown our way by others, but I can also see why people wouldn't really want to hang out or associate with you for expressing those opinions. Those are all some pretty loaded statements on some very personal aspects of other peoples lives, and I think it's human nature to bristle at those kinds of comments.
For example, if I said the mythical beliefs of Christians were absurd and childish, I think it's reasonable for me to expect some level of disdain coming back at me for that. Same if I said Christians make bad parents or should be legally prohibited from things like marriage or raising children. I don't think any level of calm, respectful, and pleasant demeanor while delivering that message entitles me to no pushback when I'm making judgments about something as sensitive and personal as a person's relationships and families.
The very fact that you're saying things like "I think you should be allowed to live together in my neighborhood," just comes off as incredibly condescending no matter how you deliver that message. I don't really need your permission or allowance to do those things, just like you don't need mine, but thanks, I guess? I've said this before, but gay people are the only group that is for some reason expected to just take such comments and smile without offering any kind of resistance.
Like I said earlier, there are certainly levels, and everything you wrote is better than a lot of other things I've seen on Texags, but I think there's a certain level of entitlement that comes with making this kind of statement to someone and expecting them to say "thank you, may I have another?" Jewish people who don't eat pork do a much better job of managing this kind of thing - they don't eat it but they don't make any judgments on non-Jews who order a bacon cheeseburger at lunch. I think gay people and Christians both could learn a thing or two from that attitude.
I wasn't implying that you need permission to live in my neighborhood. It was responding to the comment about "what do you do to make sure you don't sanction them living there". That sort of statement implied an action I am taking to stop it, so I replied with an action I would not take. I could easily write that as "I don't care if gay people live next to me" if that's better. Based on the numbers, some gay people probably do live in my neighborhood. Have at it.
To bring it back to the OP, that's exactly why I think this thread was worthless. Both sides can get frustrated. Both sides can say mean things. It was best to just respond to the original thread than to create a new thread to be inflammatory. We're better off calling it out and asking for polite discourse than we are ramping up the unpleasant. Kurt has addressed that already so this isn't meant to be a secondary call out.
To bring it back to the OP, that's exactly why I think this thread was worthless. Both sides can get frustrated. Both sides can say mean things. It was best to just respond to the original thread than to create a new thread to be inflammatory. We're better off calling it out and asking for polite discourse than we are ramping up the unpleasant. Kurt has addressed that already so this isn't meant to be a secondary call out.
Quote:
I wasn't implying that you need permission to live in my neighborhood. It was responding to the comment about "what do you do to make sure you don't sanction them living there". That sort of statement implied an action I am taking to stop it, so I replied with an action I would not take. I could easily write that as "I don't care if gay people live next to me" if that's better. Based on the numbers, some gay people probably do live in my neighborhood. Have at it.
I know you weren't implying any kind of actual overt permission was needed or that you think it is. "I don't care if they live near me" is much better and not condescending at all, but it's understandable someone would find that undercut by "...as long as they can't get married," right? It's one thing for you to have that belief, but they get to decide what that belief means to them in their calculation of how to interact with you, right? I'm just saying you seem to want to be able to say whatever you want and only receive positive reactions, and that's simply not expected of anyone else.
I didn't really see anyone calling it out on the other thread until Kurt made this one. Maybe it happened after I abandoned it, because surprisingly enough, starting a thread with a gleeful tale of the time the creator of the universe allegedly deemed gays evil and killed the hell out of them isn't a good entry point to a productive dialogue.Quote:
To bring it back to the OP, that's exactly why I think this thread was worthless. Both sides can get frustrated. Both sides can say mean things. It was best to just respond to the original thread than to create a new thread to be inflammatory. We're better off calling it out and asking for polite discourse than we are ramping up the unpleasant. Kurt has addressed that already so this isn't meant to be a secondary call out.
That said, this is a false "both sides" equivalency to me. In a universe where everyone's reaction to gay people existing is truly just "whatever," there really isn't a debate to be had here at all. We're not sitting here debating the rights and place in society for left-handed or green-eyed people, for example.
I don't understand this one. Who came out and who changed their view? And from what to what?Quote:
ETA: the majority of my experience has been friends and family members of homosexual individuals. I've had a couple unpleasant conversations with homosexuals but the worst ones seem to be the ones who changed their views on a dime once someone in their family or friend group came out.
Again, why do you feel entitled to any other response to this? Replace "two people of the same sex" with "christians" or "Asians" or "Aggies" or any other group and I think you'd get a similar response from someone who was a Christian or Asian or an Aggie. If I were to openly advocate for treating you in the exact same manner, I would reasonably expect similar pushback.Quote:
ETA2: while I have not and would not vote to bar two people of the same sex from living together, I would vote against gay marriage, which naturally is a non-starter for anyone in the other side. Not only am I a bigot, but I'm violating human rights.
Again, I don't understand why you expect or feel entitled to any other reaction when you're telling someone you know better about their experience and inner thoughts and feelings than they do, all while comparing them to people with anger or drug issues (I do give you credit for not going directly for pedophilia and bestiality though - baby steps!)Quote:
ETA3: I do not believe in "born this way". The studies do not back it. The obviously implies "choice". Most folks on the other side do not like this. And they most CERTAINLY do not like when I suggest it's possible that certain life experiences may have influenced this. I'm definitely not a an expert, but I've listened to several podcasts of men and women that have left the LGBT lifestyle and their stories are enlightening. Once they chose to stop identifying with their sexual preferences, they were able to take a good look at their childhood and see where some things went wrong. No different than how severe anger issues, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc typically come from issues early on that were never dealt with correctly. This is why I detest the fact that homosexuality becomes an identity rather than an action.
These are all the exact types of things I expected you to list out that were met with "disdain," and for the life of me I don't understand why you seem so surprised that it's what you get. You're free to have your opinions, but at the end of the day that's all they really are - your opinions. Some people will like them and other people won't. And I venture to say in just about any other context, you understand that and can at least recognize why someone would react in a certain way to certain ones.
Since you brought it up, we were all born in sin, so there is that. And then whether it is your upbringing that impacts your choices or not, sin from birth and the broken world we live in is the common denominator always.The Banned said:
ETA3: I do not believe in "born this way". The studies do not back it. The obviously implies "choice".
Quote:
I do not believe in "born this way". The studies do not back it.
What studies?
Also, sex has very, very clear purposes beyond procreation in humans and a multitude of other animals. While you can say procreation is the "most important," you cannot claim the social aspects of it are just incidental. That's not born out by the research.
Quote:
love the sinner, hate the sin.
Not responding to anyone in particular - I hope we get more Christians to respond to this one.
Love the sinner, hate the sin in a clever and catchy saying, but I think too simple. I suppose its simple in applications where two people agree on what is and is not a sin. If a member of your church confides to you that they were committed a sin, it does not change the fact that you love them. Together you may agree that the action is a sin, that the sin is bad, and you may hate that temptation or hate the source of that temptation.
I don't think its simple when two people disagree on what is and is not sin. A Hindu person who rejects Christianity is committing a huge sin from the perspective of Christianity. Being exposed to your faith and your God, finding it false, and instead worshipping other deities is undeniably a sin - again from a Christian perspective. You may feel love toward this Hindu person and you may hatred toward whatever you see as the corrupting influence that caused them to sin. Together, you do not agree on whether the action is a sin or whether is good or bad. If you hold the position that Hindus who have been exposed to Christianity are sinners, that their influence is damaging to the society, that they make lesser parents, that their marriages are invalid, and describe their 'sin' as cancerous, detestable, and degenerate . . . . how do you expect your Hindu friend to understand this as love?
If the shoe is on the other foot: Lets say that I tell you all that Christianity is a cancer on our society, that raising children as Christian is damaging, that it should be banned from television and movies, and that your marriages are corrupt. . . . . but I love you. Now lets say that I hold this anti-Christian positions purely out of love and in what I consider to be your best interest. Do you feel loved? I don't mean this rhetorically. All things equal, does a person who holds these believes make you feel loved?
As others have stated, I think you need to look at this from the other side for it to make any sort of sense. When you tell someone that they are damaging to society by being who they are, unqualified to be a parent, cancerous, detestable, degenerate, or that they should reject romantic love and partnership and companionship for a religion they don't follow . . . are you really shocked that this comes off at hate instead of love?
All that said, I'm not suggesting that the solution is for Christians to change their mind and just start not having a problem with homosexuality. But, I think its absolutely critical that you understand why 'hate the sin, love the sinner' in practice feels about the same as 'hate the sin, hate the sinner' - when there are disagreements about what is a sin.
------
Last point. I hear a lot of Christians complain that the current social climate not only demands that they tolerate homosexuality, but that they also accept and approve of it. It is often said that expressions of Christianity are met with hostility and hatred.
Likewise, you get a lot of complaints from LGBTQ persons about Christians. What are expressions of homosexuality met with by Christians? Condemnation for degenerate lifestyles, complaining about parades, complaining about tv programming, calls for book bans, calls for removal of representation, calls to ban adoption to gay families, calls to ban marriage to gay couples, and on and on. Its almost as though there is a demand by Christians that their views on homosexuality not only be tolerated, but accepted and approved of by everyone. See what I did there. . . .
The above two paragraphs are overly broad and hardly apply to everyone. But, as someone who is neither calling all Christians bigots nor calling all gays degenerates, I see a certain amount of symmetry between what each side wants and what they complain about from the other side.
I'll agree it is likely too simple. Love is a bit too vague since we tend to overuse the word love and use it in so many different contexts.kurt vonnegut said:Quote:
love the sinner, hate the sin.
Not responding to anyone in particular - I hope we get more Christians to respond to this one.
Love the sinner, hate the sin in a clever and catchy saying, but I think too simple.
I would clarify my position in that we hate the sin (and our own sin for that matter) but we would truly desire that the LORD would change their hard hearts and bring them to repent. And we would enter into conversations and be used by God however He may orchestrate. That we would be obedient to bring the Gospel to anyone we cross paths with, including the LGBTQ community. The opposite of this would be to relish in the fact that the unrepentant will be condemned eternally to hell. As with anything regarding genuine Christian faith, it all boils down to the heart; it is always a heart issue. Beyond this, our genuine desire for the lost is rooted in ultimately bringing God the glory He is due, not to make my life easier or less confrontational.
Quote:
I would clarify my position in that we hate the sin (and our own sin for that matter) but we would truly desire that the LORD would change their hard hearts and bring them to repent. And we would enter into conversations and be used by God however He may orchestrate. That we would be obedient to bring the Gospel to anyone we cross paths with, including the LGBTQ community. The opposite of this would be to relish in the fact that the unrepentant will be condemned eternally to hell. As with anything regarding genuine Christian faith, it all boils down to the heart; it is always a heart issue. Beyond this, our genuine desire for the lost is rooted in ultimately bringing God the glory He is due, not to make my life easier or less confrontational.
That's fine, but I just see a lot more Christians doing this with their gay neighbors than with their Hindu ones. Like Sapper pointed out above, both are "sins," but if someone were to go in and preach hellfire and brimstone at a Diwali celebration, I think you and I would agree they're an unhinged lunatic.
Also, present company excluded, we see plenty of this.Quote:
The opposite of this would be to relish in the fact that the unrepentant will be condemned eternally to hell.
whoa, are these questions all fielded at The Banned directly, or can anyone old Christian jump in?
It's not practicable to raise children in the faith and also participate in aspects of public life anymore. If I send my children to public school, the nomenclature and parlance is anti-Christian. Marriage is understood to be an amorphous relationship between 2? people who sometimes (or never) stick their extremities into each other's (but not necessarily exclusively theirs) orifices, and who live with each other (or don't live with each other). If my children think anything contrary, it's totally fine (You just better not SAY anything). Or be ostracized. We can't really watch TV with my children because the content is out of my control. One minute you're watching something relatively wholesome, then all of a sudden we're watching a drug commercial with two guys with an STD making out with each other. And it's a scramble drill to figure out where my 2 year old hid the remote while I yell at my children not to look at the TV. So, we just can't.
The more debased a person is, the more inclusive and accepting they are. You don't have to defend indefensible behavior in public if inclusivity is the highest moral virtue. Because then you can just berate anyone who doesn't want you to be able to promulgate the thing. This is how you exclude and discriminate against Christians. By destroying any semblance of decency, and calling them hateful if they admonish people for bad behavior and teaching our children anti-Christian ideas about healthy human sexuality. Because we want our children to have a fighting chance at not being a mal adjusted, over medicated ball of stress and anxiety.
The more debased a person is, the more inclusive and accepting they are. You don't have to defend indefensible behavior in public if inclusivity is the highest moral virtue. Because then you can just berate anyone who doesn't want you to be able to promulgate the thing. This is how you exclude and discriminate against Christians. By destroying any semblance of decency, and calling them hateful if they admonish people for bad behavior and teaching our children anti-Christian ideas about healthy human sexuality. Because we want our children to have a fighting chance at not being a mal adjusted, over medicated ball of stress and anxiety.
All I can say is that Christians are susceptible to being judgmental hypocrites, just like everyone else is. It is unfortunate, and it ruins the Christian witness many times.
This thread was made to complain about a Christian deriding a world view. Now I've had several non-Christians say it's perfectly acceptable to look down upon our world view. Fine. I'm ok with that. Just don't start a thread doing the exact thing you're complaining about. It makes no sense. And no, you were not the one who did it, so it's not directed at you.
I can talk through the merits of my arguments if you really want, but I'm mostly here to call out the hypocrisy. For example, you say it's a false equivalency. I feel differently. You are readily willing to just waive that all away because you disagree all while most pro-LGBT deride us for waiving them away. Different sides of the same coin, so we either all try to do a little better or we just give up on decorum. As long as it isn't supposed to different rules for each side.
I can talk through the merits of my arguments if you really want, but I'm mostly here to call out the hypocrisy. For example, you say it's a false equivalency. I feel differently. You are readily willing to just waive that all away because you disagree all while most pro-LGBT deride us for waiving them away. Different sides of the same coin, so we either all try to do a little better or we just give up on decorum. As long as it isn't supposed to different rules for each side.
10andBOUNCE said:Since you brought it up, we were all born in sin, so there is that. And then whether it is your upbringing that impacts your choices or not, sin from birth and the broken world we live in is the common denominator always.The Banned said:
ETA3: I do not believe in "born this way". The studies do not back it. The obviously implies "choice".
Agreed. I have never and will never say my sexual sins are A OK while deriding someone else's.
Not sure who you're addressing here then, because all I've said is that the comments you say you make to gay people get the exact response one would expect any group to have when such comments are aimed at them. As for this thread, it's pretty clear he started it as a parody to make a point about the other thread.Quote:
This thread was made to complain about a Christian deriding a world view. Now I've had several non-Christians say it's perfectly acceptable to look down upon our world view. Fine. I'm ok with that. Just don't start a thread doing the exact thing you're complaining about. It makes no sense. And no, you were not the one who did it, so it's not directed at you.
That said, you never really addressed my overall question, which is why you feel entitled to say these things to people and have them just smile, say thank you, and not offer any kind of resistance to it. That's not how it works with just about anything else, so why is this different?
It's a false equivalency because for the debate to end one of two things has to happen: either gay people have to stop being gay, or Christians have to stop caring so much about us coexisting in the world alongside you.Quote:
I can talk through the merits of my arguments if you really want, but I'm mostly here to call out the hypocrisy. For example, you say it's a false equivalency. I feel differently. You are readily willing to just waive that all away because you disagree all while most pro-LGBT deride us for waiving them away. Different sides of the same coin, so we either all try to do a little better or we just give up on decorum. As long as it isn't supposed to different rules for each side.
Wasn't there a long period of time where gay people still existed and weren't constantly being celebrated in the public eye? The current timeline is the most tolerant of gay people practically everywhere in the west, and yet its still a constant bombardment; and if you don't believe it's a constant bombardment you're not paying attention.Beer Baron said:Not sure who you're addressing here then, because all I've said is that the comments you say you make to gay people get the exact response one would expect any group to have when such comments are aimed at them. As for this thread, it's pretty clear he started it as a parody to make a point about the other thread.Quote:
This thread was made to complain about a Christian deriding a world view. Now I've had several non-Christians say it's perfectly acceptable to look down upon our world view. Fine. I'm ok with that. Just don't start a thread doing the exact thing you're complaining about. It makes no sense. And no, you were not the one who did it, so it's not directed at you.It's a false equivalency because for the debate to end one of two things has to happen: either gay people have to stop being gay, or Christians have to stop caring so much about them coexisting in the world alongside them.Quote:
I can talk through the merits of my arguments if you really want, but I'm mostly here to call out the hypocrisy. For example, you say it's a false equivalency. I feel differently. You are readily willing to just waive that all away because you disagree all while most pro-LGBT deride us for waiving them away. Different sides of the same coin, so we either all try to do a little better or we just give up on decorum. As long as it isn't supposed to different rules for each side.
We're currently living through Pride month, then next month we have Omnisexual Visibility Day on July 6, then Non-Binary Awareness Week 13-19, The Non-Binary People's Day July 14, then International Drag Day July 16. The White House is commemorating no less than 7 days celebrating some facet of the LGBTQ.. We Christians get the major holidays and possibly National Sanctity of Life Day.
What i just read is "love the Christian, hate the Christianity". We believe we have the true faith. You think that true faith leads us to being intolerant of others. Therefore our faith is the problem, even if we're nice people that you'd otherwise love. I have several atheists friends and family members that think Christianity is a terrible religion, but I'm a nice guy. Is that not love the Christian but hate the Christianity? And I don't get butthurt about. When people with large families (like mine) are derided for destroying the environment
on't care. When people tell me my faith is keeping me from truly enjoying lifeon't care. When they say my faith makes me intolerant: don't care. That is my "sin" that they hate but I don't take it to mean they hate meIm not going to do the rest of the tit for tat here because it's exhausting. You can believe my "lived experience" or not. You don't know what I have and haven't been called. You don't know who has and hasn't rejected me. It's not my job to convince you that there is an equivalent, so you can believe what you choose.
The rest of your post isn't saying anything I haven't agreed with. Christianity makes truth claims. A secular worldview makes a truth claim. They are incompatible. Some people disagree like jerks. Some are kinder. They will never agree, so we either need to work towards more civilized discourse or just lob proverbial grenades.
Serviam said:Wasn't there a long period of time where gay people still existed and weren't constantly being celebrated in the public eye? The current timeline is the most tolerant of gay people practically everywhere in the west, and yet its still a constant bombardment; and if you don't believe it's a constant bombardment you're not paying attention.Beer Baron said:Not sure who you're addressing here then, because all I've said is that the comments you say you make to gay people get the exact response one would expect any group to have when such comments are aimed at them. As for this thread, it's pretty clear he started it as a parody to make a point about the other thread.Quote:
This thread was made to complain about a Christian deriding a world view. Now I've had several non-Christians say it's perfectly acceptable to look down upon our world view. Fine. I'm ok with that. Just don't start a thread doing the exact thing you're complaining about. It makes no sense. And no, you were not the one who did it, so it's not directed at you.It's a false equivalency because for the debate to end one of two things has to happen: either gay people have to stop being gay, or Christians have to stop caring so much about them coexisting in the world alongside them.Quote:
I can talk through the merits of my arguments if you really want, but I'm mostly here to call out the hypocrisy. For example, you say it's a false equivalency. I feel differently. You are readily willing to just waive that all away because you disagree all while most pro-LGBT deride us for waiving them away. Different sides of the same coin, so we either all try to do a little better or we just give up on decorum. As long as it isn't supposed to different rules for each side.
We're currently living through Pride month, then next month we have Omnisexual Visibility Day on July 6, then Non-Binary Awareness Week 13-19, The Non-Binary People's Day July 14, then International Drag Day July 16. The White House is commemorating no less than 7 days celebrating some facet of the LGBTQ.. We Christians get the major holidays and possibly National Sanctity of Life Day.
Except major Christian holidays were renamed on school calendars. And AD and BC were changed to CE and BCE, but I'm unsure of how we got from BCE to CE. What do they teach is the thing that separates or distinguishes the Common Era from Before the Common Era?
These are the lengths we go to exclude Christianity. We pretend like all of its contributions to Western society appeared from nothing and no where, or that they never existed.
Don't forget even the symbol of the rainbow was repurposed...
10andBOUNCE said:
I'll agree it is likely too simple. Love is a bit too vague since we tend to overuse the word love and use it in so many different contexts.
I would clarify my position in that we hate the sin (and our own sin for that matter) but we would truly desire that the LORD would change their hard hearts and bring them to repent. And we would enter into conversations and be used by God however He may orchestrate. That we would be obedient to bring the Gospel to anyone we cross paths with, including the LGBTQ community. The opposite of this would be to relish in the fact that the unrepentant will be condemned eternally to hell. As with anything regarding genuine Christian faith, it all boils down to the heart; it is always a heart issue. Beyond this, our genuine desire for the lost is rooted in ultimately bringing God the glory He is due, not to make my life easier or less confrontational.
I would not deny your sincerity or that your intentions are good. But, through what means are you willing to achieve the bolded goal above? And at what point do you allow me to make my own decisions and to accept responsibility for those decisions?
Myself, and many others, have been provided with many opportunities for conversion to the faith or back to the faith. I don't believe Christianity to be true. Not because I'm angry or bitter or wish to be my own God. I ask you . . . I beg you. . . .extend to me (and others) the same courtesy and do not question my sincerity or my own good intentions. Because, if you are ultimately never able to live and let live, then you and I will always be in confrontation or violence or worse. And it will not be my choice. I'm tired of the confrontation.
I respect you enough to respect you making decisions for you. Extend me the same.
The Banned said:
What i just read is "love the Christian, hate the Christianity". We believe we have the true faith. You think that true faith leads us to being intolerant of others. Therefore our faith is the problem, even if we're nice people that you'd otherwise love.
YES!!!! Thats exactly what I said. And I said it for effect, not because I actually hate Christianity. I think that I clearly posted it as hypothetical.
And how does it feel when atheist friends and family members say that Christianity is terrible? I know you said you don't get butthurt about it. . . . but its surely not preferrable. Wouldn't you rather your atheist friends and family members say "I don't accept or agree with Christianity, but I'm glad it provides meaning and purpose for you. We respect your decision, you belief, and we love you"?
Like you said, they hate, but they don't mean to hate!
NOW - this is exactly what I'm saying about Christianity. There is hate, but you don't mean for it to be hate.
Yeah, that is fair. If someone were to tell me this very thing, I would likely back off and keep them in my prayers. Salvation is ultimately God's work anyways, I am just an instrument. In addition to hypocrites, Christians can also be quite prideful, thinking they can convert others like its another notch on their belt.
Beer Baron said:Not sure who you're addressing here then, because all I've said is that the comments you say you make to gay people get the exact response one would expect any group to have when such comments are aimed at them. As for this thread, it's pretty clear he started it as a parody to make a point about the other thread.Quote:
This thread was made to complain about a Christian deriding a world view. Now I've had several non-Christians say it's perfectly acceptable to look down upon our world view. Fine. I'm ok with that. Just don't start a thread doing the exact thing you're complaining about. It makes no sense. And no, you were not the one who did it, so it's not directed at you.
That said, you never really addressed my overall question, which is why you feel entitled to say these things to people and have them just smile, say thank you, and not offer any kind of resistance to it. That's not how it works with just about anything else, so why is this different?It's a false equivalency because for the debate to end one of two things has to happen: either gay people have to stop being gay, or Christians have to stop caring so much about us coexisting in the world alongside you.Quote:
I can talk through the merits of my arguments if you really want, but I'm mostly here to call out the hypocrisy. For example, you say it's a false equivalency. I feel differently. You are readily willing to just waive that all away because you disagree all while most pro-LGBT deride us for waiving them away. Different sides of the same coin, so we either all try to do a little better or we just give up on decorum. As long as it isn't supposed to different rules for each side.
When did I say you should like what I have to say? I said that if me speaking my mind as respectfully as I can is going to be met with hostility, then it shouldn't be a surprise when the respectful discourse is left at the door and ruder memes take its place. And OP's response to that was to generate more rude discourse complaining about the rude discourse. If that's what we want to do, then fine. I would hope that all could hear a disagreeing worldview without taking massive offense. Sounds like your solution to the problem is everyone should just be quiet and not speak their mind.
In fact, autocorrection.cancel explicitly said no one has to love what I have to say. I don't love everything that's said to me. I just don't take it near as personally. For example: Christians just have to stop caring about sin and helping people out of their sin is tantamount to saying Christians need to give up their faith. I can see that you would hold that aspect of my faith in contempt and still go on about my day. I can see all the sacrilegious Jesus memes and move on. I can hear all the bigot talk and move on. I can also feel for Christian's who've had enough and lose their cool.
The Banned said:
For example: Christians just have to stop caring about sin and helping people out of their sin is tantamount to saying Christians need to give up their faith.
Some people do not want help out of what you consider to be 'sin'. Unless 'helping people out of their sin' includes violence or harassment, at some point, you have to let it go, right? Like I told 10andbounce - at what point do you let people make their own choices and accept their own consequences?
Again, I still think there are similarities between the language above and what is complained about from the left. There is a recurring complaint (maybe not from you) about the left's requirements that Christians accept homosexuality as normal. Its as those they have a worldview and not prostelytizing that worldview to you is to abandon that worldview. . . . samsies.
I have lost all respect for you now that I see you talk to text
And how were we treated for most of that time? What you call "celebration" is generally mostly just existing in the world and being treated with basic human dignity and respect.Quote:
Wasn't there a long period of time where gay people still existed and weren't constantly being celebrated in the public eye?
This "constant" bombardment is just you having to live in a world where gay people are openly and visibly so and not completely shunned and behind closed doors like back in the good ole days. We're on TV shows and commercials just like everyone else. We get married and divorced just like everyone else. We go to work and spend our money so companies advertise to us just like they do to everyone else.Quote:
The current timeline is the most tolerant of gay people practically everywhere in the west, and yet its still a constant bombardment; and if you don't believe it's a constant bombardment you're not paying attention.
Just about all of those things are made-up things that certain interest groups come up with on their own. We went over all this back when people were Very Upset over one such day that happened to fall on Easter this year. If you think "non-binary awareness week" is anything close to on par with the roughly 10 weeks of Christmas every year you're delusional. Y'all are free to come up with whatever days you want, just like non-binary people, margarita enthusiasts, or people with cerebral palsy. In fact, you have. There's a National Day of Prayer, a National Bible Day, See you at the Pole. None of them are a "bombardment," they're just basically hashtags.Quote:
We're currently living through Pride month, then next month we have Omnisexual Visibility Day on July 6, then Non-Binary Awareness Week 13-19, The Non-Binary People's Day July 14, then International Drag Day July 16. The White House is commemorating no less than 7 days celebrating some facet of the LGBTQ.. We Christians get the major holidays and possibly National Sanctity of Life Day.
Serviam said:
I have lost all respect for you now that I see you talk to text
Haha, I do not. I have 5 kids trying to grab my phone out of my hands. I thought I got all that junk deleted and missed some
Basically, here:Quote:
When did I say you should like what I have to say?
How exactly is a gay person supposed to react to your comments that won't be perceived by you as hostility or disdain? We're at a neighborhood picnic, we're having a lovely time, and then you mention that my husband and I shouldn't be married and if we had kids that would be terrible for them. Also, you're not crazy that your kids have to see us in the neighborhood, but you're not going to actively do anything to keep us from doing so. My reaction should be......Quote:
I said that if me speaking my mind as respectfully as I can is going to be met with hostility, then it shouldn't be a surprise when the respectful discourse is left at the door and ruder memes take its place.
Minding one's own business would definitely be nice. Again, if Christians weren't so worked up over gay people existing openly and visibly, there would be no reason for these conversations or debates. And a disagreeing worldview is more along the lines of "is there an afterlife, and if so, what is it like," or "were were created or did we come to be in some other way," or "how should we fund certain things." It's another step into someone's personal life to say "you personally are doing something bad and I'm here to correct your behavior." Only one of us is doing that here.Quote:
And OP's response to that was to generate more rude discourse complaining about the rude discourse. If that's what we want to do, then fine. I would hope that all could hear a disagreeing worldview without taking massive offense. Sounds like your solution to the problem is everyone should just be quiet and not speak their mind.
Or, you could just worry about your own instead of going around blowing a whistle and telling people they've broken a rule to a game they're not even playing. Take the paragraph above and put Scientologists in your shoes and Christians in gay peoples' shoes and I think you'd have a very similar reaction.Quote:
In fact, autocorrection.cancel explicitly said no one has to love what I have to say. I don't love everything that's said to me. I just don't take it near as personally. For example: Christians just have to stop caring about sin and helping people out of their sin is tantamount to saying Christians need to give up their faith. I can see that you would hold that aspect of my faith in contempt and still go on about my day. I can see all the sacrilegious Jesus memes and move on. I can hear all the bigot talk and move on. I can also feel for Christian's who've had enough and lose their cool.
Beer Baron said:And how were we treated for most of that time? What you call "celebration" is generally mostly just existing in the world and being treated with basic human dignity and respect.Quote:
Wasn't there a long period of time where gay people still existed and weren't constantly being celebrated in the public eye?This "constant" bombardment is just you having to live in a world where gay people are openly and visibly so and not completely shunned and behind closed doors like back in the good ole days. We're on TV shows and commercials just like everyone else. We get married and divorced just like everyone else. We go to work and spend our money so companies advertise to us just like they do to everyone else.Quote:
The current timeline is the most tolerant of gay people practically everywhere in the west, and yet its still a constant bombardment; and if you don't believe it's a constant bombardment you're not paying attention.Just about all of those things are made-up things that certain interest groups come up with on their own. We went over all this back when people were Very Upset over one such day that happened to fall on Easter this year. If you think "non-binary awareness week" is anything close to on par with the roughly 10 weeks of Christmas every year you're delusional. Y'all are free to come up with whatever days you want, just like non-binary people, margarita enthusiasts, or people with cerebral palsy. In fact, you have. There's a National Day of Prayer, a National Bible Day, See you at the Pole. None of them are a "bombardment," there just basically hashtags.Quote:
We're currently living through Pride month, then next month we have Omnisexual Visibility Day on July 6, then Non-Binary Awareness Week 13-19, The Non-Binary People's Day July 14, then International Drag Day July 16. The White House is commemorating no less than 7 days celebrating some facet of the LGBTQ.. We Christians get the major holidays and possibly National Sanctity of Life Day.
I disagree with literally your entire post. You guys have 7 White House recognized days, we have 1 aside from the major holidays. This isn't a "we're finally allowed to exist" this is "every major institution is forced to openly trumpet their support lest they be targeted for canceling".
Everything is gay now, by design. I was watching some random streaming series about Halo and some dudes started making out. The last of us cut to a gay sex scene on the HBO series. Kung fu panda 4 did nothing but mention how the main character had 2 adoptive dads. A recent Harry Potter blockbuster game had a trans barmaid, we have a literal Halloween costume in the Biden cabinet. You are being purposefully over represented as a warding totem from Gay outrage inc. Things are so Kafkaesque McDonald's released a tweet from a transsexual black person demanding "stop executing transsexuals".
I get it, act like it's not happening, the approach over the last 20 years has been "act like people are insane for noticing the rapid expansion of gay propaganda and then spike the football after it's too late to do anything about" and it has been very successful.
What exactly does a just world look like to you? Is it one where Christians are dominant, their beliefs control the public sphere, and others are allowed by your grace to exist without being hunted and punished? Or can you accept a world where we accept that individuals have equal rights, including the right to their own beliefs, and to accommodate them and welcome them to the extent possible without harming others?
Featured Stories
See All
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
3h ago
3.8k
12:07
2h ago
3.6k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
17h ago
966
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger
Colonel Ingus
"We are not a team built to play from behind" - Elko
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29