Oct 21, 2010 -- 2:06PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Oct 21, 2010 -- 11:36AM, MilesB wrote:

Oct 21, 2010 -- 9:27AM, piecesofthewhole wrote:

Oct 20, 2010 -- 1:37PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Just a point of clarification, many Christians believe that it's not being homosexual that is the sin, it's acting on that (i.e, being in a relationship, having sex, etc...). Much like, it's not being an alcoholic (drunkard) that is a sin, it's choosing to drink and act on it that is.

It's different from say the sin of lust or anger, neither of which require the Christian to act on them for them to be a sin.

Hello Girlchristian,

I feel this is a rationalization to help the holder of these beliefs feel better.  Sorry if that sounds harsh!  But, if I were to say to myself, "I don't think being gay is a sin, but acting on it, that is where the sin is" I'd really be wanting to stop another human being from feeling and expressing their love.  You may be who you are, but you may not allow yourself to love....

That's harsh. 

Again, everyone is entitled to think as they wish, and if you hold these beliefs, and saw a same sex couple walking past you on the street, and smiled at them...I guess that's what matters, right?

I don't know.

We should pull out what Moderate White Americans thought of Segregation, I bet they would sound deafeningly similar. I know what Martin Luther King Jr. said of them though.

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

Now I do hope GirlChristian (I believe I remember she did) separates her religious belief when the voting booth comes around?

Your memory is correct. IMO, the only reason to vote against same-sex marriage based on the belief that it's a sin (again, no different or worse than the sins I commit...) is if I wanted to punish others for that "sin" which is neither my place or anything I have any desire to do. Like I've said before, it never comes up unless I'm debating it and whether or not it's a sin or I'm specifically asked. I am NOT one of those Christians who goes around pointing out other people's sins. Trust me, I have enough of those to work on myself as my non-Christian friends point out to me regularly (they get some joy out of holding me accountable to things they don't even believe in).

BTW, Miles, it's nice to see you back posting!!

Yep and seeing this, FYI, I would consider you a friend, as a gay man. As I said when agreeing with Erey, it is Acts that which I judge on. I wouldn't be able to consider you very close though. I also think this is why you didn't answer my question (even though for me it was tongue in cheek). You knew it was acts, which in MLK Jr made clear :).

EDIT: GC I do not know if this is their motivation but in my religion the tenets of Love, Respect and Humbleness would require I do remind you of things you say you believe; even if I do not believe the Bible myself. Because I have read the Bible and it being the majority faith I am well aware of many of its tenets, it is only out of love first, second respect for your held faith, and lastly a humbleness to concede this is what you believe and is equally valid as mine. That reminding you of your own faith is merely out of practicing my own. I would be led to believe Christians would do the same by "Loving thy neighbor as thyself" if they were to correct me. Just most don't know much of anything about Creek Tradition lol.

Oct 21, 2010 -- 1:01PM, Wendyness wrote:

Oct 21, 2010 -- 12:45PM, MilesB wrote:

Oct 21, 2010 -- 12:26PM, Erey wrote:

Again,  Some people might think homosexuality is a sin and I get that this view is considered hurtful to people.  we all have at least somewhat different views on the concept of sin. 

And you are free to go ahead and loathe the people that adhere to the belief that homosexuality is a sin.

But you can't say that holding that view is bullying.  If people are respectfull about their views and sensitive about their views that is about all you can ask for. This extrapolation that everyone's churchy grandma that will admit when questioned that homosexuality is a sin is somehow responsible for suicideds and depression is ridiculous. 

I know that some people are not respectful about their views on homosexuality.  They will wave signs and picket gay bars, and say all kinds of awful things,  stuff like that.  Those people are not being respectful and are being deliberately hurtful and that is a different story.

I agree Erey, held beliefs (HELD) won't do harm. Acts will.

Yep, every act has been a thought first.  What makes homosexuality a sin? That someone is "different" than you?  That a book says so? That a church says so?  The thought of having sex for me with the same sex does not invoke desire in me, that it does in another is not a sin.  For another it is as natural as a breathing. That we make others feel shame for being different is a sin. How many have walked this earth and made to feel shame for being a "different" skin color?  "You are not like me therefore you are less?"  How incredibly narcissistic! 

I thought and used my imagination where I hit a co-worker because they were irritating me so much but did not act on it. Instead I used a mechanism we all do, our Imaginations. You know like when we were children.

In Erey's posts, I pointed out, her difference in opinion appears, she believes it to be a choice. I am gay and let me tell you, that line of thought is VERY hard to change. Though I know Erey votes strongly Republican (I have heard she supported a Democratic candidate before, but she's like me in reverse, I need a good reason) so her choice in the booth of a candidate creates an act where discrimination of GLBT people happens, even if her own conviction it is wrong, she just holds "other" issues of more value. Again, this is VERY hard to change and others to understand. Meghan McCain is a prime example of how difficult one is even ostracized by their own party for taking a different stance (Politically). It's a cultural battle and the old people are losing.

This is also what MLK Jr was talking about and we all know what happened in the 60s and 50s.

Oct 21, 2010 -- 6:04PM, Christianlib wrote:

Again, I would warn about the foolishness of trying to lump "the Christians."  You may speak, reasonably, about individuals, even about specific groups, but there simply never has been, and is not now, any way to truthfully paint "The Christians" with a single brush.

Is this directed at me? And I checked my posts, the only point I generalized was in reference to Christians having that discussion. The Reason I said it like that is, in the case of what Christian churches and people want to consider sin, it's among Christians to decide. As even though I could read the Bible all day long, not professing I believe in it, makes my arguments seem only in an objectivity and not genuine. It doesn't help further a long anything. I would feel similar if a Christian were to remark to me of the Commonly Held Belief across many native traditonials it's natural, explaining how we're in err. This was discussed among nations prior to colonialism and after. See Two Spirited people. It just wouldn't be genuine.

I was trying to figure out why you said to me "this shows progress"  And your statement that you "pondered why it was important to me."

If I misunderstood, I'm sorry.  But other than the way I took it, your post was really unclear to me.

Oct 21, 2010 -- 5:48PM, MilesB wrote:

Yes and there are parts in the New Testament Bible non-Levitical that I also have in mind. Even conceding that in Romans and Timothy it is speaking of homosexuals; I would ponder why adulterers and Remarriage exist (that's explicitly a no no, by Jesus himself and those remarried would be adulterers no matter what, again According to Jesus himself) and liars are on the same level. Yet are not talked about? As I explain to those who visit my door to convert me when asked why I am not Christian or won't convert to Christianity, "I read the Bible."

To quash at ad naseum of this; it is accepted by all serious religious theologians of the Christian faith it does not appear. It says two Greek words malikos and some other word. However, there was a Greek word for homosexuality (this word itself is a Modern word, brought about by the Nazis) and Paul did neglect to use it. English translations do include this word. Though I find it funny the German Bibles in its place use pedophile. But if you two want to get into it, there is a board for this :).

I prefer to pin them down, in that: This Religion, supposedly based on the teachings of Jesus the Christ, nowhere does the reported statements (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) does Jesus address this subject.