Recipe to condemn with impunity: Using Corinthians to define homosexuality as a sin

[awediot]

I backtracked to your original post, as I agree much can be learned from this thread, and I wanted to prove just how clueless I can be. Might any of this serve to clear up gaps that may not be your point anyway?

Originally Posted by emproph

...how does one go about equating a committed loving gay relationship, or a dainty heterosexual man with raping, robbing, and murdering?

They have no comparative innocuous sin and do not see this a sign of being wrong, but that homosexuality must be by definition nastier than our description or sincerity of defenses we convey. The normal life we try to signify must be the exception. ( and sadly, it is. But it also IS the exception in the straight world as well---which is probably our fault too)

And if I am so sick and so confused, to the point where I am convinced I was born this way, like I’m convinced yesterday happened, how can that be a sin?

Slam dunk! And that one hits bone... even the clarity their own prayers bring regarding this dilemma must serve only to discomfort them...

WHY would he not use words like EVIL, LYING, UNREPENTANT, SINNERS, who know EXACTLY what they are doing to harm others?

... because he is attempting to use the same nonviolent concepts used here. And the sweetness with which one can shred another's Soul is salt in the wound. The Down Side of Nonviolence.

-Are we sick and confused?

Yes, but probably no longer about this issue...

-Or are we intentionally trying to take away the rights of others?

If the desire and ability to keep certain types from joining in their private club is considered a RIGHT, yes we are. (and this is my central, borderline disagreement with aspects of this group, BTW)

-And WHY are the answers to these questions NEVER addressed?

They are grand, frightening and some answerable questions.

I agree with your frustration emproph, and am ashamed and confounded to have the name of my belief used in such 'anti-christian' ways. They still think logic and common sense is to be put aside if it 'conflicts' with THE WORD. They have yet to discover they need not be contradictory, and they can indeed take the brain the good Lord gave 'em, out of its box.

We do not pose a threat or offer an adjustment to a particular, out of place sin. We loom as the very possibility of undermining it all. The chink in the armour, weak link and Achilles heel that if acknowledged, may inadvertently reveal a way in, unraveling the whole universe, their sacrosanct truth, education, reputation, family and their very Soul. You underestimate how terrifying and intelligent a demon you seem in their eyes. They are generally nervous children who have yet to take their first steps into spiritual adulthood. The fact that they have gained power and influence without the (one would hope) prerequisite gentleness and decency, is a great injustice and one of God's irritating mysteries.

[Emproph]

Thanks you guys, there's way too much quality responses/material here to reply to in full just yet.

tdogg -I’m glad you used the word brainstorm. I’ve tried to do it around here before but haven't gotten much of a response. Then again, it was just that, brainstorming, not necessarily presented with a specific strategic angle on how to go about it. Good to know you’re on board in that sense though. (p.s. I have plenty more thoughts on your post)

Dash -Ok, you need to write a book. I almost cried when I read that last post, it made me weak, and perfectly apropos sentiment.

awediot -The feeling’s mutual. When you signed on I was like, OMG THIS is what people mean when they say they don’t understand my posts. I know it makes perfect creative sense, but I just don't always-get-all-of-it.

And Zerbmeister, that’s the best homework assignment I’ve ever been given.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Dash

Our love is really love.

They use all the force of their faith and law to shout down the holy revelation of this truth about ourselves.

They refuse to yield the right of judgment.

But we know our love is love.
For all the grace they hoard from us....

...there is still no law against love.

Yes. Yes. And more yes to all of the above! Dash- your words are beautifully written. And your 'voice' made me cry with joy and recongnition. Hope you're saving what you wrote.

Emproph- Reading and watching your journey here has been like watching a skilled surgeon do his work. I think you've made an accurate diagnosis of the patient. But does the patient want the cure? The conclusions you've come to would be one bitter pill to swallow- as Awediot notes. I think Zerbie has cannily put her finger on the matter: How to get the treatment out there for those who can face it.

[keltic63]

a discussion that I've gotten myself into over at the UMC boards has me thinking about this thread.

Originally Posted by Julie

We could get into a huge debate over why I feel the way I do or we can just love and accept one another as we are.

"can't we all just get along?" kind of thinking..... evidently not when you say, however politely, that I'm going to hell in a handbasket because I'm gay. Julie is just too "nice" wanting to keep her christianity cloak about her, eventhough she "knows" homosexual acts are wrong, but God loves gays and straights alike.

I keep coming back to this thread. If you really believe I'm sick/confused/reprobate, then say so. If I'm that confused mentally, is it still sin? How can God hold that against me? I'm an idiot, I can't know better!

I think I'm getting this argument formed in my head, but for me, it still needs refining! Help?

[Zerbie]

Hmm, well I'm not one to help ya Keltic - this just ain't my territory. (I've never gotten the whole gay=sin equation, simply see nothing there no matter how much I look at it, so I'm not one to take on this debate).

I am, however, eagerly awaiting Emproph's return with the completed "homework" or hey, just a rough draft will do. Hear that Emproph? rough drafts still getcha an "A" and a whole fresh crop of carrots. Emproph is our guy when it comes to that particular argument - come back, come back!!!

That said, I ran into another whole set of anti-gay arguments the other day and wanted to pass it along to you, E, (it's a video collection you can view free on the internet) but 1) you're busy with this stuff, 2) I had serious trouble getting the links to work, and 3) my blood pressure rose so high after 45 seconds of listening that I thought my eyeballs were going to explode! I didn't want to inflict that on you. But if you're interested in taking on FOF's lead anti-marriage strategist's very best arguments, I will pass the info on to you. I'm talking about Glenn Stanton, btw, dunno if you've run across that name yet. He's quite the debater - came here last summer and trounced our activists on a radio show.

From the 45 seconds I heard, the arguments are emminently debate-able, they seem to be based purely on insulting gay people while claiming not to, and on distortion of the real issue. I just couldn't deal with listening to the insult - I ended up cursing out my computer monitor and shutting the program off.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Emproph- Reading and watching your journey here has been like watching a skilled surgeon do his work.

I think you've made an accurate diagnosis of the patient. But does the patient want the cure? The conclusions you've come to would be one bitter pill to swallow- as Awediot notes. I think Zerbie has cannily put her finger on the matter: How to get the treatment out there for those who can face it.

Daniel that’s one of the best compliments I’ve ever received. I sincerely appreciate it, thank you.

I didn’t say anything to that and to the rest of you too, I haven’t come back here yet because there are so many more things in all of your replies that I wanted to elaborate on before posting further, but it’s becoming a distraction to the real work at hand, my “homework assignment” (or if you prefer, my 'homowork' assignment ). So I don’t thing you’ll mind if I try to keep speeding ahead.

Keltic I read your post earlier and I started a response to you after going to that UMC thread. From what I read, you were doing a pretty good job of holding your own and their feet to the fire, most graciously. And now with pastorsteve and True to Him, I cannot believe after everything that was said in that thread that they would have the gaul to come in with their "Because the Bible says so" BS, no qualification, no explanation, knowing full well how insulting that was and still thinking that's Christian behavior.

Anyway, before they came in I decided that I should just get in on it (I've been over there a few times so far). So I wrote out a response, mostly addressing Ezekiel but covering all the issues up to pastorsteve, and it was great, so then I signed up and tried to post it. I don’t think it was much longer than Zerbie’s post above but I couldn’t preview it or even post it, and I saw from your post there you had that problem too. I couldn’t find any information on posting limits so I e-mailed and asked about it, haven’t heard back yet.

As I’m sure you saw I posted there earlier and I'll be following the thread, this is exactly what I'm looking for. We can always talk specifics here though as well.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I am, however, eagerly awaiting Emproph's return with the completed "homework" or hey, just a rough draft will do. Hear that Emproph? rough drafts still getcha an "A" and a whole fresh crop of carrots. Emproph is our guy when it comes to that particular argument - come back, come back!!!

I hear ya’ loud and clear and those have been my exact thoughts as of late. I want to start posting one example at a time. (The arguing points or ‘sound bites,’ cliff’s notes, and the more thorough explanation.) Otherwise I get overwhelmed with the enormity of all the different parts and one thing just starts bleeding into another.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

That said, I ran into another whole set of anti-gay arguments the other day and wanted to pass it along to you, E, (it's a video collection you can view free on the internet) but 1) you're busy with this stuff, 2) I had serious trouble getting the links to work, and 3) my blood pressure rose so high after 45 seconds of listening that I thought my eyeballs were going to explode! I didn't want to inflict that on you. But if you're interested in taking on FOF's lead anti-marriage strategist's very best arguments, I will pass the info on to you. I'm talking about Glenn Stanton, btw, dunno if you've run across that name yet. He's quite the debater - came here last summer and trounced our activists on a radio show.

I’ve been busy with this and I’m moving, today in fact. (Just two miles away and have lots of help, but prayers welcome.) So that’s been a whole ‘nother stress, the distraction in relation to what I’m most passionate about.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

From the 45 seconds I heard, the arguments are emminently debate-able, they seem to be based purely on insulting gay people while claiming not to, and on distortion of the real issue. I just couldn't deal with listening to the insult - I ended up cursing out my computer monitor and shutting the program off.

You’re preaching to the choir here. I dread going to those sites when I’m researching because I have the same adverse reaction. Sometimes when I have to go to one, FOF, CWA, AFA etc., I literally make sure I “avert my eyes” to anything other than what I’m looking for as I know what I’m looking for is going to make me mad enough. But when I’m ready I'll check it out, I've put it on my gay agenda.

[Emproph]

I don’t know if these are necessarily in order but this is a rough draft. Consider it Brain fodder (<you can use that..).

First the response to the arguments or questions need to be noticed as being a consistent pattern of response with the goal of being able to continually and EASILY come back to the original question.

Examples of consistent pattern of response:
-no answer at all
-same non-answer (confusion/diversion/irrelevance)
-an even more convoluted explanation
-etc.

Each of the above "responses" need follow up questions/responses that lead to the same:
-no answer at all
-same non-answer (confusion/diversion/irrelevance)
-an even more convoluted explanation
-etc
And so on until there is either breakthrough or stalemate. Stalemate is fine so long as it is defined as such in no uncertain terms to the arguing party in question. At least you know where that person stands and why, and they know they are no longer credible with you.

Second, the EASILY part is what needs to be noticed and recognized by anyone watching and reading, that’s the contagious part. No formal “training” necessary, no need to go to a certain website etc. The truth is seen and immediately recognized as such. Nothing’s off the table, just not necessary, I do eventually want a centralized website for this though.

Third, in order to get this to go mainstream it needs to start with those who are already sympathetic. By not exposing the KNOWN shenanigans of FOF and the likes, the mainstream media are collusive in this, it has to be from the grass roots up, in this case “Blogging for change.” This grass roots effort doesn’t require door knocking, phone calls, mailings or leaving your home. By capitalizing on our often ‘loser-like’ independence, THIS is how we liberals can unite. The joy of this is that we can take our time with our responses to make sure they are precision accurate and presented most effectively. That’s where a website to refer back to would come in handy. (I’m looking to take classes).

I think part of, if not the core of this strategy needs to revolve around the questions that cannot be answered.

Using questions themselves, specifically to avoid all the tanglings that can come with supposition that can lead to the perception of accusation. To avoid: On our side, getting angry and less able to argue effectively and on their side, giving them further ammunition. “See how the gay agenda operates? Always trying to accuse people who disagree of having an agenda!”

It’s their response to the questions that are their answers, whether they answer the questions directly or not, or not at all for that matter, this part is already the case of course. We need to be able to consistently and systematically extract and elucidate the meaning of their non-responses.

(Example of questions)
These are pretty much the heart of it. This is all based on the assumption that the Bible is inerrant:
Where in the Bible does it say that your interpretation of it is also inerrant?
How is it possible to determine something to be inerrant without actually being inerrant?

I believe the Bible is true. I hate homosexuality. God hates homosexuality (via the Bible). Therefore, God confirms my hatred of homosexuality.

MEANING: I believe the Bible is true. I believe my understanding that homosexuality is perverted is true. Therefore my belief that the Bible is true confirms my belief that homosexuality is a perversion. (Ergo: Beliefs + Beliefs = Facts.)

The original belief in Biblical inerrancy doesn’t stand to reason that’s why they have to make up or find their own misleading studies and statistics about gays, to forge the universe back into the box they created it in. “Because the Bible says so” doesn’t fly in a court in America, or with anyone who has a working brain for that matter. In the court of public opinion, homosexuals eat feces flies, in more ways than one..

My point is that once the Biblical aspect of the argument has been sufficiently neutralized, next comes the barrage of statistics and studies. Easy enough to counter if one is familiar with them and/or know how to become familiar with them. “The Politics of Demanding and Refuting Sources” is the title of next weeks lesson children, and hopefully I'll have some lesson plans ready by then too.

[Emproph]

This is an experiment, I'm just going to keep editing this one post to try and nail these particulars down, so pay no attention.

Examples of consistent pattern of response:

-no answer at all
--You ignored me. Why did you ignore me? Ignoring people is not Christian.

-same non-answer (confusion/diversion/irrelevance)

-an even more convoluted explanation
--That's your interpretation, there are many others, how do you know better? Without knowing of all interpretations, how CAN you know better?

-other
-{Not Sure Where These Fit Yet}
-- Refer to 'The Gay Agenda,' as "The Christian Right's Gay Agenda" (The characterization of equality as something sinister) It belongs to them.

Definition--UnChristian behavior = behavior that is not Christian
Definition--Anti-Christian behavior = behavior that is unChristian but is justified/portrayed specifically as being Christian behavior

--Ignoring the issue or not answering question 3 times = troll. They are no longer to be engaged except to be referred to as troll and why. (Troll 4x, Troll 5x, Troll 6x...)

--homosexual behavior = heterosexual behavior. heterosexuals not having sex with the opposite sex at the moment they are speaking with you, are not heterosexuals. And thus not in a position to make that distinction. This includes virgins.

Pray No Fear

[Zerbie]

First of all - I LOVE the Susan B. Anthony quote. See, she was *cool!*

Secondly - whaddaya mean I could use some brain fodder? Is that an insult. *smack*. What I could really use is a good chill pill and some theta brain waves, not more stimuli.

Thirdly - good luck with your move. I hope you will be comfortable and happy in the new place.

I've enjoyed reading your drafts so far. Keep 'em coming. Yes, I concur the mainstream media treats groups like AFA and FOF like they hold a neutral stance on issues, rather than an extreme one.

As to the arguments against gay marriage, I cannot get a working link. When you have the time and inclination, take a look and be prepared you may get mightily pissed off. To find the arguments, since I can't get a link for you, do this:

Go to azpolicy.org (that's my local set of opponents). At the top of their home page, as of now, they have a banner that reads "why NOT gay marriage?" and you can get to the video by clicking there. You might want to take frequent pauses to let the steam evaporate. I couldn't watch more than 45 seconds, total (I listened to the sub-heading, How does my gay relationship hurt your marriage?) and thought my eyeballs were going to burst and spew across the room.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Keltic I read your post earlier and I started a response to you after going to that UMC thread. From what I read, you were doing a pretty good job of holding your own and their feet to the fire, most graciously. And now with pastorsteve and True to Him, I cannot believe after everything that was said in that thread that they would have the gaul to come in with their "Because the Bible says so" BS, no qualification, no explanation, knowing full well how insulting that was and still thinking that's Christian behavior.

OK, I had to go back there and post. If you've seen it there, it is substantial, and hopefully somewhat pithy. (and no, I'm not typing with a lithp) I used some of your words and ideas. I hope you don't mind. I'm insulted that True to Him thinks I've done no research on this at all. Yet, he repeatedly ignores the questions we bring up, posts some platitudes, and the "Bible says so" stuff without benefit of good interpretation, and thinks that settles things. It's not been that long since I posted over there (5 hours at this point) but I've noticed that no one has responded to my particular post yet. I'm hoping the silence means they don't have a response. If a response comes, I'm predicting that the questions will be deflected and a new argument will be presented. (you saw it here first, folks! Place your bets!)

[Emproph]

{I wrote the material for this and the following posts by hand because I didn’t have the computer hooked back up yet (my move, all good). Then I got back up and running and I went over to UMC and started reading through that thread and just about lost it. I figured it’d be best to get this stuff up here first}

Plagiarize me all you like Keltic! -what's that line, immitation is the sincerest form of flattery? Please take it that next step..

(I’m using Julie as an example -she seemed quite sincere)
The thing with Julie and like, just as the quote you put earlier. The “good Christian” stance, she doesn’t want to “debate” her beliefs for the sake of being a “good Christian.”

You ARE the debate. I’m not suggesting to get confrontational with people like her, you guys had a really “Christian” conversation, much better than I could do, but by engaging you at all, she’s already debating. You guys were already debating.

To say I believe you are sinning but I don’t want to debate my beliefs as to why with you is to say that I’m arguing with you but I don’t want you to think so (and in her case), because I don’t want to think that about myself. Essentially, I’m right and you’re wrong, I have no desire to learn otherwise, so let’s just agree to disagree by you agreeing that I am right without asking any more questions, SO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO ASK MYSELF ANYMORE QUESTIONS.

To say “I love you, even though you're wrong, but I don’t want to share with you why or how, BECAUSE I AM A CHRISTIAN" is not an invitation to debate, it is the demand for one.

-Here’s the qualifier: You can believe anything you want and believe that you are right too, you don’t even have to know or care why, that’s not the debate. But by saying that you don’t want to debate that in the name of being Christian, for the sake of treating me the way you would want to be treated yourself, I need to know which particular stance you take in order to even attempt to respect it. Otherwise you're breaking the only commandments of Christianity.

-- Loving God above all else, by treating others the way you would want to be treated.

You’ve determined that I or some aspect about me is evil. If you know why and how, then I need to know that.

If you do not know why and how, other than “because the Bible says so,” then I need to know that.

And if that is the case then I need to know that you do not CARE why and how I or my “behavior” or my “lifestyle” is evil.

There is are BIG BIG differences, this is what I’m asking.

[Emproph]

(Our beloved die hards have learned to think ahead.)

JUST IN CASE they happen to find a “gay gene.” The “argument” says, well that STILL doesn’t make it ok or natural because it’s like alcoholism. It’s another strawman, build up a fake idea and then easily knock it down "argument."

To start with, there are statistics on the success/recovery rate of alcoholism and they are significant enough to dismiss drug addiction as even being comparable with the attempts to be "Ex-gay."

So that’s 2 distortions. Characterizing Loving someone as a destructive behavior #1, and #2, comparing known definable success stories of sobriety with the virtually non-existent stats on ex-gays. All of the small % of success rates that I have ever read of, include VARYING degrees of questionable success, and those definitions of success are all over the map.

Such as, Ex-gay = celibacy, or having heterosexual sex and/or “relationships.” Even the studies Exodus International points to from NARTH include complete failures, or unavailable to be included in studies. (I always wonder what happened to them...)

Even Mike Haley, Focus on the Family’s Ex-gay guru, mentions in his book that the “temptation” rears itself every so often “like a pesky little fly” he says. MIKE HALEY IS A BISEXUAL!

Point being, the best success stories of recovery from “gay addiction” are negligible at best, there’s NO comparison to those who've gotten sober, to say so is distortion at best. Except for TOTALLY straight Stephen Bennett, the poster child for the price of heterosexuality, TOTAL MORAL CORRUPTION. The quintessential testament that God only loves gays as long as they are willing to spend the rest of their lives lying about others.

Be ready for “there’s also little to no success/recovery rate for pedophilia too,” Again, distortion. We’re not talking about CHILD ABUSE, were talking about 2 people in love!

So the “just in case there is a gay gene” argument is a non sequitur, another distortion, a straw man argument. Characterize the situation in an unholy light and then easily condemn it.

[Emproph]

(Like insects and insecticide, they just keep adapting.)

The comparison of the “sin” of homosexuality/behavior with adultery is an attempt to ‘soften’ the perception of bigotry. It’s usually not intentionally deceptive, but the intention is to justify the hatred by conforming/distorting it to the bible.

By comparing the “sin” of homosexuality to adultery, the insulting and inflamatory comparison to theft rape and murder are avoided, yet the connotation and 'disgust' of sexual sin is maintained. The obvious and MONUMENTAL problem with this particular characterization is two fold.

The comparison/characterization is between a gay couple who love each other and one partner of a straight couple who is cheating on the other. You have the sexual "sin" of sex outside of marriage, and worse, the dishonesty of what that implies. It’s nothing short of changing the subject for the purpose of avoiding the issue, -how can love be evil? {Or am I delusional, and why, and how do you know beyond “because the bible says so?”}

Within the context of the Biblical story of the woman at the well, where Jesus Loved the sinner but admonished the sin (adultery), lies another entirely deeper level of insidious distortion and distraction.

Since Jesus, God, didn’t directly say anything about homosexuality, by portraying it as equal to adultery, now he did. AND, since Jesus is now seen as being against it, the very effort to characterize homosexuality as equal to adultery can now be seen as “what Jesus would do.” Absolving our beloved bigot of all responsibility in doing so. Leaving us with the impression that something is amiss but we don’t know quite what.

It’s not necessarily intentionally deceptive. The intentional part is the effort to continue thinking they are right and we are wrong, it’s more self deception. And there’s you’re bigotry, in this instance and all the other distortions like it.

It’s the DESIRE to think homosexuality is wrong that is the bigotry.

[Venari]

Emproph,

You greatly missed a few points.

First, Dr. Anderson presents the argument that "homosexuality is ok because it is natural and there for not immoral" is flawed. It opens the door for other "issues" to be argued along the same lines. This is not a comparison of homosexuality to any other sin but presenting the argument made by Rev. White and Soulforce are flawed and on those grounds NCU refused to engage them in conversation.

Second, despite the claims of Soulforce NCU has never expelled a student for just being gay. Here is a link to a student message board where MANY students repeat this Student Discussion. I know you'll read things you'll take issue with but the underlying point is none of the students that know the facts behind previous dismissals form the University. From this point Soulforce was not approaching NCU in an honest manner, this and other issues.

Third, there was a lack of respect for the right to have differing view points. NCU offered to sit down and discuss how with the Equality Ride if they agreed not to protest, this was refused by the Equality Ride, that was protest not to still visit. Also there is an attempt to change out policies, which from that stance of Soulforce may seem decimator. But speaking as a student they are fairly distributed and applied to all students. Granted homosexual conduct is not allowed, but it comes down to this is a private, religious group, who has the freedom to believe what they want. NCU in no way encourages "gay bashing" and I have known many students to received disciplinary action for making derogatory comments to other students perceived as homosexual.

So I guess NCU believes homosexuality is a sin, but will protect a gay student from being harassed by other students.

That is what I believe NCU represents... and where Soulforce is failing. People are not always going to agree, and I would hate to live in a world where everyone agreed. What becomes key is building respect with the people you disagree with.

NCU is firm in its stance but was willing to talk, Soulforce was form in its stance and unwilling to talk and only wanted NCU to change.

Who is intolerant?

-Venari

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

First of all - I LOVE the Susan B. Anthony quote. See, she was *cool!*

Thank you, I know. I’d seen the quote a couple times but I don’t think with the credit to her name, so finally I did, and then confirmed with a search and now I can use it. Still trying to locate a couple other goodies...

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Secondly - whaddaya mean I could use some brain fodder? Is that an insult. *smack*. What I could really use is a good chill pill and some theta brain waves, not more stimuli.

Oh I forgot, YOU have a husband... Wait no, If I recall my drunken stupor correctly, I don’t know who I was referring to, but what I may have meant by that was that you’re pretty good at organization, so I’m throwing this stuff out in the hopes that someone, somewhere, somehow, can help me focus more gooder so I don't just confuse eyeball popping people like you with my ramblings who lose it every time someone happens to demonize entire groups of people like us in the name of Christianity...

And the move went just fine, though I didn’t appreciate it at the time, so thank you. Just as soon as I’m feeling a little bit too good about myself I’m planning on heading over to that website you've suggested and get right back to the angry bitter little self I know and love so well..

Ya’ know, maybe you should watch that thing again, just set up a video camera before doing so this time, as long as the eyeballs remain attached and can be put back in, you could probably make the guinness book of world records. Not that you’d be able to appreciate it, visually speaking of course...

-Bear with me on this next one, It’s a big ramble. Well maybe it’ll makes sense, I’ll know tomorrow...

{P.S. If I had one wish, I’d give the internet literate world a cordless mouse. I don’t know how I’ve lived this long without one. Oh and a coke too.}

(P.P.S. Thanks for weighing in Venari, I appreciate it, I’ll get back with you. )

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Venari

Emproph,

You greatly missed a few points.

First, Dr. Anderson presents the argument that "homosexuality is ok because it is natural and there for not immoral" is flawed. It opens the door for other "issues" to be argued along the same lines. This is not a comparison of homosexuality to any other sin but presenting the argument made by Rev. White and Soulforce are flawed and on those grounds NCU refused to engage them in conversation.

Fair enough, I did not realize that the message was stereo specific, but I'm challenging his challenge, that's what is at issue here.

Originally Posted by Venari

Second, despite the claims of Soulforce NCU has never expelled a student for just being gay. Here is a link to a student message board where MANY students repeat this Student Discussion. I know you'll read things you'll take issue with but the underlying point is none of the students that know the facts behind previous dismissals form the University. From this point Soulforce was not approaching NCU in an honest manner, this and other issues.

I take you at your word, you’re there and you would of course know better than me. That’s not the issue that I have. I've read your posts and I appreciate your concerns, It's not a point of contention.

It has nothing to do with the equality ride or Dr. Anderson, or making religious schools accept homosexuality as not sinful. What I mean is that they are all a part of it but not the significant part.

The reason we’re having this discussion is because of the HORRIBLE flaw in his reasoning. But he and his speech are just representative of it. That man characterized me and every other gay person on this planet as a thief, murderer, rapist etc. repeatedly, did you read what I’ve written? Go, back, Answer my questions and I’ll answer yours. Pick one or two even, throw me a bone here, humor me, I'm desperate!

I’m willing to have this discussion, but it’s not about the equality riders. It’s about the reason for the equality riders. The reasoning in his speech, or lack of it EXEMPLIFIED the ONLY reason why that experience had to happen in reality, not just at your school.

I honestly want answers to these questions Venari, if it's possible. Do people like him really think I'm just to stupid to realize that I'm sick? Do they think I'm lying when I say I'm certain I'm not, or do they just think that I'm lying? How is LOVE EVIL? Do you know what he would say? This is what I NEED to know if I am to not judge them unjustly.

Do they EVEN think about it? Because if you're going to TEACH that an entire group of people are equal to murderers, without explaining why, without explaining how, and then say that your doing so in the name of the truth of Christianity, then you've got A LOT of questions to answer.

This is the issue, this is where I'm coming from.

[dewdrop_world]

Originally Posted by Venari

First, Dr. Anderson presents the argument that "homosexuality is ok because it is natural and there for not immoral" is flawed. It opens the door for other "issues" to be argued along the same lines. This is not a comparison of homosexuality to any other sin but presenting the argument made by Rev. White and Soulforce are flawed and on those grounds NCU refused to engage them in conversation.

Don't have time now to write a full response, but this is not an accurate reflection of the pro-gay position.

A more accurate reflection would be, "Homosexuality occurs in nature, it does not harm the participants, and suppressing one's given sexual orientation creates separation from the divine (which IS immoral)."

Since Dr. Anderson didn't address the real argument, his counterargument does no more than knock down a straw man.

hjh

[Venari]

Originally Posted by Emproph

It has nothing to do with the equality ride or Dr. Anderson, or making religious schools accept homosexuality as not sinful. What I mean is that they are all a part of it but not the significant part.

...

The reason we’re having this discussion is because of the HORRIBLE flaw in his reasoning. But he and his speech are just representative of it. That man characterized me and every other gay person on this planet as a thief, murderer, rapist etc. repeatedly, did you read what I’ve written? Go, back, Answer my questions and I’ll answer yours. Pick one or two even, throw me a bone here, humor me, I'm desperate!

My question is what is wrong with his logic? To Dr Anderson homosexuality is one aspect of "fallen" human nature. That is everyone’s nature is to sin and homosexuality is part of that nature. Being part of that nature doesn’t mean it is right but rather on par with every other sin.

This comes to the crux of the matter. Dr Anderson, the AG and many other churches view homosexuality as sin and that is where the issue comes from. There is a group of people who view your sexuality, which you accept as being from God, as part of fallen human nature and when expressed a sin. That does not mean you, nor any other gay person, is inherently wicked. Rather it means you have a capacity to sin in a way that others may not.

So embracing homosexuality as a natural and good gift from God represents to them embracing sin for that sake of your own comfort while rejecting the truth.

I know this is fairly brief. The matter comes to how do you interact with the people who disagree with you? Do you call them the poster child for speaking and removing all about of being an idiot? Do you Go to the source and ask them to clarify their statements? Or do you realize there may be an irreconcilable difference?

What matters is we have a right to hold our own views no matter how much another person may not like them. What matters is not becoming divisive and drawing the line in the sand over the issue and coming to an understanding.

So yes the Equality Ride and Soulforce does tie in here. They approached NCU and other schools demanding change of their beliefs not attempting to foster understanding.

I would love to hear Dr Anderson say "You know what, I was wrong." But I know the man is sincerely and honestly convinced his beliefs are right and I respect him for that.

Finally, you need to consider your point of view may sound just as absurd and conflicting to people on the "other side of the fence." So instead of looking on how opposed they are to you look for what you have in common and build a trusting relationship from there. (I know you may never meet Dr Anderson but this applies to anyone who would hold the same view.)

-Venari

[Emproph]

Maybe I haven’t been clear enough. If ya' don’t care why something is a sin, so be it, that’s what I’m trying find out.

As it stands, I respect Fred Phelps and his “God hate’s fags” gang more than those you've described ^above because they have the guts to say what they feel. They hate me and want me to die in the worst way possible, period! THAT I can respect, as sick as that sounds.

What I don’t respect is pussy footing around the issue. So NO, YOU’RE WRONG, IT DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY OR CHRISTIANITY. It has to do with honesty.

There is one question, and one question only. Do you, or do-you-not reason the meaning of sin beyond “because the Bible says so?"

I don’t care which one of the two it is. I just want to know WHICH ONE it is.

If it is indeed reasoned beyond "Because the Bible says so," there should be no problems answering the follow up questions because they will have already been determined.

I consider the attempt to define evil to be IMPORTANT. If it is a sin, you've called ME EVIL. Now I want to know WHAT THAT DEFINITION OF EVIL IS.

Is it or is it not, "just because the bible says so?"

My "Sin" is not harming ANYONE!!! If malice is not a requirement for evil and sin, so be it, JUST SAY SO.

Honestly, have I not been clear on this? There is a group of people living on this planet, Christian and non-Christian alike who define evil as something that causes harm.

Do the Dr. Andersons of this world NOT make that distinction between causing harm and not causing harm when determining what is a sin, OR do they blindly accept what the Bible says when it's convenient for them?

And what is effeminate supposed to mean as a sin worthy of hell?
{Sorry Venari, I took out the angry part (hell), but I'm frustrated because I can't get an answer, I'm just asking why}