-
I think overall, most people have been respectful and civil in this thread. There have been a few notable exceptions though.
I don't think of these threads as a debate where two sides go after each other. They are intended as more of a discussion, where people can share their perspectives and better understand where others are coming from. At least, that was the thought behind experimenting with a News/Opinions board.
Please help us keep this thread civil and on topic. Otherwise, the OP has asked us to close the thread and we'll just go ahead and do that.
-
@MrsMcD: To those of us who believe certain "different points of view" are discriminatory and bigoted, it's hard not to be "unendingly exasperated" (to put it mildly).
I went back and forth on replying to this topic because gay acceptance a very important subject to me. For anyone who thinks it's a sin, or thinks living the "lifestyle" is a sinful choice, I'd ask that you think about what you'd do if the roles were reversed. Could you ever in your life stop being straight? Could you stand to love someone and never truly be able to be with them? Or, to not feel like you have the right to go out and find a lifelong fulfilling relationship? Think really hard about that for a few moments, and what your reality would look like in that situation.
It might be hard to imagine if you've never loved anyone but been unable to be together. I know from my experience, love and emotion are not rational feelings. You can't wish them away, no matter how much someone else says they're wrong. You try to stay away from that person and your heart is just sick. You feel like you're living a half of a life because it's a life without them. And if you have no idea what it is to feel like what I'm describing, then get down on your knees and thank whatever you believe in for giving you an easier path in life than others.
To say it's ok to be gay but not ok to live a gay life is cruel and self absorbed.
-
I'll be honest, it would take me a bit to get used to the idea. But again, it really is all about my childs happiness. And I would hate for my child to think they would have to hide who they are from me because of our religion. It just takes me some time to get used to new things. It always has.
-
Oh, @looch:! So nice to speak with you! Which of my two statements do you not understand?
Is it the sentence in which I used variations of the word "exasperate" twice? That simply means that I'm greatly irritated by others' great irritation.
Or is is the sentence in which I poked fun at athiests and agnostics badgering Christians in this thread? If that's the one, I simply respond: "The thread speaks for itself."
Please clarify your request for clarification if you intend to ask for further clarification.
-
@ShootingStar: why should you call someone else opinion or religious views "self absorbed" I think everyone should share their opinion respectfully
-
I guess some would call me a Christian, but I prefer to call myself a Jesus girl. I feel called and inspired to live a life like Jesus did, modeled after his ministry in the New Testament. To me, this means taking care of the poor. Reaching out to the helpless, the fatherless, and those who need hope. It means being a loving and accepting person, embracing all. It means guarding my words so that I lift up and encourage those around me.
Jesus was a radical. He spent time amidst people who were viewed to be the lowest of society. He loved them. He engaged them. He did not judge them. Time and time again (hundreds of times!) he commanded believers to take care of the poor. He valued unity, community, and love (of course). Not ONCE did he say to hate the gays, condemn the homosexuals, etc. I do not gather an ounce of that from his teachings.
I firmly believe that those who use Christianity as a basis for being "anti-gay" have it very, very wrong and are missing out on what makes following Jesus so very special. Love. Jesus is love.
I would accept my gay/straight/purple/green child whole heartedly. Her identity is in her heart, her passions, her faith, the way she treats others, and the unique way God designed her--not in whom she loves.
I have a preference that my daughter grow up to be loving and generous and accepting and kind. I do not have a preference for whom she chooses to spend her life with.
ETA: I see responses her from people who who say they would not go to a gay wedding ceremony, or even a Hindu or atheist wedding ceremony for that matter. I cant picture Jesus refusing an invitation to a ceremony because the guests of honor were Samaritan or pagan or fill-in-the-blank. In fact, that seems to go directly against his character. He would attend the ceremony and call them friends.
ETA again: I am not God. And unless someone can prove me wrong, no physical human being on this earth is God either. We have no right to place judgement.
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: Beautifully written! and I love it..."Jesus girl"!!
1
-
Okay, seriously? I genuinely think that those who are questioning biblical rationale are actually being quite eloquent about doing so. Let's be real; this is an emotionally charged topic on both sides. For some - Christians and non-Christians alike - this is a matter of intolerance and inequality. Advocates and supporters of the LGBTQ community are going to question the logistics and beliefs of those who don't approve of their equal rights. It's a simple fact, and we all know it. It hits very close to home for some people, especially those with loved ones who have gone through an immensely trying road, simply to live in this world, just as they are.
Truly being neutral on this topic is impossible for those who are passionate about equal rights for homosexual couples wishing to live and love, and be accepted for it. It would be like me coming into a conversation and saying, "Well, I respect your right to believe that African Americans should be enslaved, but...." For some people, it stings and baffles just the same. Let's not sit here and debate whether Christians are being stomped on, here. And let's not assume that everyone disagreeing with said doctrine is a non-believer. This conversation is actually surprisingly tame and mild mannered. I don't feel that any single poster has been out of line in their presentation, what so ever.
-
@MrsMcD: Bahahahahha! Your humor kills me!!!
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: amen!
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: Probably just being hormonal, but this brought tears to my eyes!
Beautiful and I couldn't agree more!
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: This is really nicely written - you have a beautiful heart
-
@MrsMcD: your comments were intentionally inflammatory and I think you are fully aware they were. You have confirmed that with your second post.
Is there something you wanted to contribute to the discussion?
-
@looch: +1. Personally, I think you've been nothing but respectful and thoughtful in this conversation.
@Rainbow Sprinkles: My kind of Christianity.
-
@MsLipGloss: To your last suggestion that I failed to answer your clearly stated question, I note that this is what you first wrote to inform me of a contradiction in my statements:
"[Y]ou have stated that it is "problematic" to try to pull rules out of Christianity "in isolation from the rest of Christianity" (a loose paraphrase of your most recent response . . . for whatever that means), yet you stated in an earlier post that "Christianity talks about sins of the flesh and counsels that they are to be avoided . . . I think they get a lot of attention because they tend to be bright-line rules." So, it's either "problematic" to pull rules from the Bible regarding sins of the flesh or the Bible presents "bright line rules" regarding sins of the flesh. It can't be both. The circular logic presented in this (and other threads) is breathtaking."
The first point is that there is no question here.
Second, concerning your assertion that there was circular logic and contradiction in proposing at the same time 1) that Christianity provides certain bright line rules, and 2) that I find it problematic when we try to pull rules for scrutiny out of their full Christian context, I explained that there is no contradiction or circularity in holding 1) and 2) here. It is perfectly consistent to have a system propose bright line rules in some instances and for an individual to maintain a preference to discuss those rules in their broader context. The mere existence of a bright line rule does not mean that it cannot make sense to interpret that rule as part of a broader context. And preferring not to analyze a rule outside of that rule's broader context does not mean that it cannot be a bright line rule. There is nothing inconsistent or circular in maintaining 1) and 2).
In your second post there was also no question, notwithstanding your subsequent post. In that subsequent post you changed your position to claim that you had "asked" me a simple question:
"More plainly, I am asking you whether you believe (1) that Christianity provides bright line rules for sins of the flesh, or (2) that Christianity doesn't provide bright line rules for sins of the flesh. It's that simple and straight forward."
But in fact, as noted, you had not asked that before. And actually this question was answered implicitly in my prior post and even in your prior posts: Yes, there are bright line rules and moreover, it makes sense to discuss them in their broader context. But their broader context might be futile if we don't agree on some basic predicates, for example, the existence of God, which is an important predicate if you're a Christian. That's the reason I asked that in the first place. Because if the answer were in the negative, i.e., someone said, "I do not believe in God," I'm sure you would agree that for that discussion to be productive, it would be prudent to engage that discussion differently than if I were speaking with someone who said "Yes, I believe in God."
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: Wasn't gonna comment on this thread, but wow, what you wrote - that was lovely.:)
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: Beautifully written, I want to print, frame, and hang that on my wall!
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: I think there is fine line between understanding that Jesus loves and accepts everyone but also understanding that all those who came in contact with him were changed. For instance he was friends with prostitutes and tax collectors, they were considered the lowest of the low at that time, and after meeting Jesus they were changed. they didn't continue being a prostitute or whatever else. He defended an adulterer ( Mary magdalene) from being stoned to death but he didn't say" hi five go back and do it again", he said go and sin no more. His approach is a gentle loving correction but a correction nevertheless.
-
@looch: I'm sorry if my comment - which was unambiguously directed at no one individual person and was certainly not directed at you - has inflamed you in any way. I personally don't know you from Adam and have no clue what you've contributed to this thread.
With that said, my contribution was limited to my initial comment - such contribution, again, being directed at no one.
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: Beautiful, beautiful post. This has always been what I thought Christianity was supposed to be about, but it has sadly been distorted by so many others. You expressed yourself eloquently and clearly - I wish your words could be read aloud at churches across the world as I think a lot of people need a reminder of what Jesus was actually all about. Thank you for sharing.
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: wow, beautifully written and beautiful sentiment! *This* is the kind of religion even my atheist-self can get behind! I mentioned it on the thread about what you will teach your children about religion; but what you wrote is exactly what we plan to tell/teach LO about Jesus - we also personally admire those qualities and strive to live our lives to enrich, help and advocate for those who need our assistance, support and compassion as well. Love it.
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: Love it. It would be so fascinating to see how Jesus would react to the world today. Who he would embrace and who he would say have it all wrong. Personally I think a lot of "Christians" would be surprised.
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: I don't think we have to be of the same religion to agree that you have absolutely nailed it.
-
@MrsMcD Amen!
@honeybear Totally agree with you!You know what I find funny? Honeybear shares her feelings about this topic and no where does she call out anyone for their opposing views but everyone has to call her out and "ask" questions about her beliefs. And the asking of questions to me feels like badgering in a sense because its the challenging of her views instead of just accepting that she doesn't believe what you believe.
If you have the right to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is okay than she has the right to feel the opposite.
-
@Mrsbells: This is true, yes. However, I don't think that it is my place to try and change someone or even say who does or does not need changing.
-
@sunshine83: Everyone has a right to their opinions; no one is suggesting otherwise. With all due respect, this isn't a matter of diaper preference, nor are we debating which cosmetic company makes a superior mascara. For many, this is a human rights issue, hence the curiosity and passionate questioning.
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: I just
you more and more.
-
@sunshine83: I didn't mean my questions to @glitter to be badgering. Not sure if you were talking about me or not.
One of the reasons I like Hellobee so much is that there is almost always a civil dialog in threads that might be considered heated topics. It's rare for me to find that in real life and almost impossible to find it online.
My DH's family is very religious. I wish I could have these types of conversations with them, but I can't for a whole host of reasons. I want to understand their point of view and ask them the same questions but I don't have that opportunity.
I really appreciate @glitter answering my questions because I think it gives me some insight into my family's thought process. My goal isn't to change her mind, but to get a deeper understanding for myself.
-
@TemperanceBrennan - I appreciate your desire to learn from others. Yes, it's hard to find a forum to talk about these topics without it getting very heated.
@deerylou I never said it wasn't a significant topic so no need to jump on me. What I said above doesn't even elude to any feelings that I thought it wasn't.
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles: I knew I liked you! Beautifully said!
-
To answer the original question, if my LO came out to me it would not change my love for him one bit. It is wholly unconditional.
-
@sunshine83: Not sure where I was jumping on you, but okay?
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles:
I wish I was as eloquent as you. You've expressed my thoughts perfectly.
-
This thread makes my head hurt. But..um, @Rainbow Sprinkles: if you ever decide to start up an online church I can attend in my pajamas, let me know. You're speakin' my language, lady!
I wouldn't like it if my LO were gay. I would be so sad for them because of the area we live in (REALLY anti-gay), and the lack of family support they would have. I would love them just the same, but I know without a doubt I can't say the same for their grandparents, uncles, etc. so I would really, really prefer if they weren't gay just for the fact that it's so unacceptable in my world.
Uhg, such an ugly topic.
-
@deerylou: No worries . . . totally not guilty of any kind of jumping, hopping, springing, pouncing, etc.
-
@deerylou
The tone of your post that was directly in regards to what I said came off a little snarky. You say "with all due respect this isn't a matter of diaper preference" etc . Come on really? All I said is we should be tolerant of other peoples views and tolerance goes both ways. What's wrong with that and where in what I said made it sound like I thought topic didn't deserve any attention? -
@sunshine83: My response to you was from a calm place, so I think you may be jumping to conclusions about my tone. I was attempting to express why some people appear to be posing more heavy hitting questions. If the topic was indeed more trivial (like diapers or mascara, my chosen examples), a debate would be pretty silly. Again, I was merely clarifying, since you expressed that you found it "funny" that some posters were asking questions. *shrug* I'm really not willing to argue here. Wall me if you feel offended, further.
-
@Rainbow Sprinkles:
-
@Mrs. Jacks: I wanted it read at our wedding, but DH vetoed me on it & picked something else. It is so beautiful, I'm happy to hear you guys used it.
-
@deerylou: I like how you equate it to "Well, I respect your right to believe that African Americans should be enslaved, but...." I wholeheartedly support someone's right to disapprove of something, to be uncomfortable, to find it reprehensible, but as soon as it crosses the line outside of themselves, as soon as those beliefs turn into an entitlement to dictating other people's lives, I have a big problem with it. You can disapprove of my marriage, you can decide it's wrong for you, but don't try to stop me from having my marriage my way.
@Rainbow Sprinkles: That was lovely. I admire the grace & love in your heart.
1
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
244 comments