Should Christians evangelize gays?

[wanderingone]

Lying makes baby Jesus cry.

You should see what it makes grown up Jesus do

 

[wanderingone]

The mayor in Florida is totally insane, he wants to use thousands of tax dollars to create automated toilets that fling the doors open if it thinks you were in there too long. God help you if you're constipated.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm a Christian. I'm also a bisexual, liberal, progressive. You make it sound as if there's some sort of contradiction between those labels.

David.

Which is the most important?

 

[LittleNipper]

Agape? Sanctimonious nonsense. It's just an excuse for people to feel superior, and no one ever achieves it anyway - they seem to have an agapic blind spot when it comes to certain groups that they don't like.

I'll stick with storge, philia, and eros, thanks. I've found that it's possible, although challenging, to extend your storge and philia feelings to lots of other people, to try to find things to love about everyone, and to care about everyone's suffering. And if you do that, you don't have to make people feel inferior by looking down your nose and saying that, for the sake of your own salvation, you love them despite the fact that they're disgusting/immoral/worthless, because Jesus told you to.

So don't expect me to think you're amazing for belonging to a tradition where you're supposed to have an agapic love for everyone. That's not a love worth receiving, since all it seems to achieve is you feeling better about yourself. And don't expect me to care that you misunderstand other kinds of love, and think them "worldly" - every form of love can be precious and beautiful. Oh, you think yourself so high and mighty because you keep your sexuality in a box. Well I have news for you: whatever you may think, there are those of us who know what good sex can do in the world, and what wonderful connections that can be forged and strengthened by lovemaking. It's precisely those who don't have a consumerist view of sex who can begin to appreciate that.

Christians are not supposed to feel superior. They are to feel forgiven for their sins.

 

[wanderingone]

Christians are not supposed to feel superior. They are to feel forgiven for their sins.

Perhaps we should start acting more in accordance with our feelings.

 

[cantata]

Christians are not supposed to feel superior.

Several seem to fail at that.

They are to feel forgiven for their sins.

I can't comment on whether or not they do feel that part.

I'm finding it difficult to read these remarks as a direct response to the post you quoted, I have to say.

 

[LittleNipper]

Perhaps we should start acting more in accordance with our feelings.

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the definition of sin.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the definition of sin.

"I'm all right Jack, not like all you sinners"

 

[BigBadWlf]

Lying makes baby Jesus cry.

But you can’t justify bigotry by telling the truth.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

But you can’t justify bigotry by telling the truth.

Bigotry cannot exist in the truth.

 

[Aerika]

The gay community and the Christian community are worlds apart on proper moral behavior, so why should Christians bother with homosexuality and those that engage in it?

Should Christians evangelize gays?

A question for Christians to consider.

A sharp increase in risky sex
COVER STORY / New ways of hooking up are reshaping gay sex, survey finds: http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=4&STORY_ID=4617&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=2 :
Matthew Hays / Xtra West / Wednesday, April 09, 2008




Are gays "given up?" Should Christians evangelize "Gays."

Paul about a segment of Roman life that bears a striking similarity to the sexual immorality of today:

Outside of gay threads, what threads are you active in? I suspect 90 percent or more of your posts are in gay threads. Do you have any other interest besides condemning gays?

Homophobe :

He describes the concept as a phobia about homosexuals….It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for—home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.

Theorists including Calvin Thomas and Judith Butler have suggested that homophobia can be rooted in an individual's fear of being identified as gay.[citation needed] At least one study indicates that homophobia in men is correlated with insecurity about masculinity.[27] In addition, a study in 1996 showed that some homophobic males are sexually stimulated by "homosexual stimuli." [28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

 

[Mling]

Bigotry cannot exist in the truth.

That's what we keep trying to tell you.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Outside of gay threads, what threads are you active in? I suspect 90 percent or more of your posts are in gay threads. Do you have any other interest besides condemning gays?

Homophobe :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Where have I "condemned" anyone? Since you are monitering my posts you'll have no problem listing them.

And a wikipedia reference? A trained parrot can write an opinion there.

Oh boy, the self-loathing gay guy charge. Next up, the troll charge. Gay debate tactic number 5 is it?

I must be a bank robber too then.

Homophobe is a neologism.

BOO!!!! isn't going to work either.

Now, how about the OP? Since GLBT's think Christians are commiting a hate crime for believing that homosexuality is a sin, why should Christians bother to witness to them and present the Gospel to them, when it could land them (the Christian) in jail or get them sued and have them lose their homes and jobs?

It is a question, and nothing more.

Do you have an answer or are you just going to continue to condmen me post after post?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

Bigotry cannot exist in the truth.

That's what we keep trying to tell you.

​

Really? I thought you were trying to tell me that homosexuality is something that Christians should approve of, or face criminal charges and/or civil penalties if they didn't?

Otherwise, since scripture supports my positions, or, better yet, I support scripture positions, I should have known you weren't referring to me as a bigot. I didn't know we had an accord. I thought you were tring to say that Christians could promote homosexuality. Obviously since scripture makes it clear of the inappropriateness of engaging in same-gender sex acts (homosexuality as it is called today) for believers, I thought you were on the side of the anti-Christian bigots trying to force Christians to accpet the gay agenda.

Guess I was mistaken about you.

 

[Mling]

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

Bigotry cannot exist in the truth.





​

Really? I thought you were trying to tell me that homosexuality is something that Christians should approve of, or face criminal charges and/or civil penalties if they didn't?

Otherwise, since scripture supports my positions, or, better yet, I support scripture positions, I should have known you weren't referring to me as a bigot. I didn't know we had an accord. I thought you were tring to say that Christians could promote homosexuality. Obviously since scripture makes it clear of the inappropriateness of engaging in same-gender sex acts (homosexuality as it is called today) for believers, I thought you were on the side of the anti-Christian bigots trying to force Christians to accpet the gay agenda.

Guess I was mistaken about you.

When have I ever said this? Since you are monitoring my posts, I'm sure you'll have no trouble listing them.

For the record, a while ago (a long while ago, pre-you, I think), the topic came up here about whether stores should be allowed to carry music that advocates killing gay people. I argued in favor of it.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

When have I ever said this? Since you are monitoring my posts, I'm sure you'll have no trouble listing them.

I just take the responses as they come.

For the record, a while ago (a long while ago, pre-you, I think), the topic came up here about whether stores should be allowed to carry music that advocates killing gay people. I argued in favor of it.

C'mon, that's horrible. I am anti-violence. I don't own a gun and all I seek is to show that opposing homosexuality (a neologism, but the behavior is ancient) is not a bad thing. In fact it is a loving and Christian thing to do. People engage in the behavior for many reasons, and not one is what a Christian should support and especially not promote.

I'm out for the night.

 

[Mling]

Believe what you want, and I support your right to believe it. If you want to write it down and sell and, or record it as music and sell that, I support your right to that too. If you want to live *your own life* in accordance with what you believe, I support your right to that.

Sure, it's horrible to write music that advocates hurting anybody and make money off it. But when one culture is trying to stomp out another, the first things to be banned are religion, music and language. I prefer to see those remain intact, rather than banned, even if it means that some idiots will use the rights to say and do idiotic things that I find horrible.

What I am arguing for, is to have the same respect returned to me.

 

[Aerika]

And a wikipedia reference? A trained parrot can write an opinion there.

Oh boy, the self-loathing gay guy charge. Next up, the troll charge. Gay debate tactic number 5 is it?

Actually a study has found Wikipedia nearly as accurate as Britannica. It requires you to cite sources and they have a self-policing procedure for preventing people from sabotaging the project. This particular Wikipedia cites 50 sources at the bottom of the article. If you had actually read it, you would have seen them.

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

In response to situations like these and others in its history, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has always maintained that the service and its community are built around a self-policing and self-cleaning nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Where have I "condemned" anyone? Since you are monitering my posts you'll have no problem listing them.

condemn :

to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

And after all of your other rhetoric and dogma, I noticed you did not cite any other threads you are active in.

It is a question, and nothing more.

Do you have an answer or are you just going to continue to condmen me post after post?

And even the stated purpose of this thread is disingenuous. Besides this thread you have started other gay threads.

Gay theology (i.e. Mel White, Soulforce) why even try?

Gays and Lesbians (GLBT) versus Christians

The tone in your threads is very condescending and it's as if you take pride in poking lil' jokes at everybody. To borrow a phrase that you have used, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck....

He describes the concept as a phobia about homosexuals….It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for—home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.

 

[Mling]

I just take the responses as they come.

Great...so which of my responses was anything like what you described?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Where have I "condemned" anyone? Since you are monitering my posts you'll have no problem listing them.

And a wikipedia reference? A trained parrot can write an opinion there.

Oh boy, the self-loathing gay guy charge. Next up, the troll charge. Gay debate tactic number 5 is it?

I must be a bank robber too then.

Homophobe is a neologism.

BOO!!!! isn't going to work either.

Now, how about the OP? Since GLBT's think Christians are commiting a hate crime for believing that homosexuality is a sin, why should Christians bother to witness to them and present the Gospel to them, when it could land them (the Christian) in jail or get them sued and have them lose their homes and jobs?

It is a question, and nothing more.

Do you have an answer or are you just going to continue to condmen me post after post?

Does being a neologism render an argument or opinion invalid? You seem to discount an awful lot due to nothing more than a contained neologism.

Quantum mechanics is a neologism, as is feminism and computer. Doesn't render their use inaccurate or non-meaningful.