Originally posted by epiphinehasYou can't love someone without wanting what's best for them; and Christians know that nothing is more important for a person's welfare than the eternal fate of one's soul. So, when a person is engaged in a sinful life, it would be hypocritical for a Christian to not even try to help the person out of that life.
I understand that the church's official stand on homosexuality should not contradict the bible, but what I don't understand is why Christians are so obsessed with homosexuality. The subtlety of unrepented bigotry seizes on scripture to justify its own ends and neglects Christ's call to love our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus Christ demands love, ...[text shortened]... o extend God's kingdom into the lives of all people, without regard to their sexuality.
Besides, Christians aren't obsessed with homosexuality. For the vast majority of Church history, Christians didn't need to focus any attention on it. Certain political movements since the last quarter of the previous century have pushed it into the public square; Christians have a responsibility to respond.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf it is about the child, then you will be glad to know that Mary Cheney enjoys a healthy, mutually
And I thought advocates of the whole "Gay adoption" thing said it was all about the child.
rewarding and respectful relationship with her partner (as best as we can tell). Assuming that this
is true, her child will grow up learning the values of reciprocal love, generosity, compassion as well
as observing parents who have unusually high political awareness and social involvement.
So, I guess you're happy for the child, then.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
You can't love someone without wanting what's best for them; and Christians know that nothing is more important for a person's welfare than the eternal fate of one's soul. So, when a person is engaged in a sinful life, it would be hypocritical for a Christian to not even try to help the person out of that life.
They disagree with you that it is a sinful life or that their soul is in any danger by virtue of the
way in which they express their love. Maybe they believe in a God that will recognize the love for
the values it expresses, the way it reflects His Love on earth -- rich in compassion, respect, forgiveness,
and self-sacrifice.
Or, maybe, they don't believe in God and souls to begin with.
Are you suggesting that you are interested in the state of souls generally, or that this particular
expression of what you consider to be rejection of God's Law is unusually offensive?
Certain political movements since the last quarter of the previous century have pushed it into the public square; Christians have a responsibility to respond.
Yes, there have been a handful of people who say, 'Hey! Look at me! I'm a man and I'm kissing a
man! Pay attention!' But this is not the norm. Most gay people don't parade it in front of people.
They live their intimate lives the way you do: privately (as it should be). Gay folk are only asking
that their expression of intimacy (homoeroticism) would not be discriminated against.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf it is about the child, then you will be glad to know that Mary Cheney enjoys a healthy, mutually
If it is about the child, then you will be glad to know that Mary Cheney enjoys a healthy, mutually
rewarding and respectful relationship with her partner (as best as we can tell). Assuming that this
is true, her child will grow up learning the values of reciprocal love, generosity, compassion as well
as observing parents who have unusually high political awareness and social involvement.
So, I guess you're happy for the child, then.
Nemesio
rewarding and respectful relationship with her partner (as best as we can tell).
Healthy? My view of "health" is a little broader than just the physical and psychological self-satisfaction.
Mutually rewarding? Sure, in a sense.
[Mutually] respectful? Similar to "healthy" above.
Assuming that this is true, her child will grow up learning the values of reciprocal love, generosity, compassion as well as observing parents who have unusually high political awareness and social involvement.
Aren't you missing something (quite a few things, actually) here?
Clue: You jumped from talking about the "parents'" relationship with each other to the well-being of the child.
So, I guess you're happy for the child, then.
To the extent that he receives these things, yes.
I'm also happy that some hungry kids in Africa manage to get a few meals a day. Doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the fact that they don't have a roof over their heads.
Originally posted by NemesioAre you suggesting that you are interested in the state of souls generally, or that this particular expression of what you consider to be rejection of God's Law is unusually offensive?
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]You can't love someone without wanting what's best for them; and Christians know that nothing is more important for a person's welfare than the eternal fate of one's soul. So, when a person is engaged in a sinful life, it would be hypocritical for a Christian to not even try to help the person out of that life.[ n of intimacy (homoeroticism) would not be discriminated against.
Nemesio[/b]
Generally. This particular sin is no more or less grave than many others -- and I don't actually find it offensive. What I consider offensive is the public and political element of its advocates.
Gay folk are only asking that their expression of intimacy (homoeroticism) would not be discriminated against.
Saying something is what it is (or saying it isn't what advocates claim it is) isn't discrimination.
Originally posted by NemesioYou really should stop gossiping, Nemesio.
It was a solicitation for Ivanhoe to respond to my well-thought out
post above. Ivanhoe has a notorious history of asking questions and
not answering those posed to him (or ignoring the answer).
Of course, it relies on your reading more than a single post to assess
context, but that's probably how you read the Bible (one verse at a time)
so I shoul ...[text shortened]... looking closer to home: I'm sure Jesus would be proud of your
post to me, though.
Nemesio
( In your style: You should be ashamed of yourself, Nemesio. Isn't it time for you to stop gossiping ?)
Originally posted by lucifershammerSpeaking of kids in Africa, I know someone who has adopted an AIDS orphan. How do you feel about gay single adoptive parents?
I'm also happy that some hungry kids in Africa manage to get a few meals a day. Doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the fact that they don't have a roof over their heads.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhich is...?
For the most part, much the same as I do about straight single adoptive parents.
(Quick, let me try some mind-reading: in the absence of a binary adoptive couple, a single adoptive parent fulfils a valuable role in raising a child who would otherwise be without family).
