re: When a lesbian comes out of the closet; not what you're thinking tho

quote:

---

homosexuality is a special elevated form of sin that blocks someone from inheriting Christ's salvation?

---

What do you mean by "inherited" Christs salvation?



*can you be specific?*

quote:

---

She's welcome in the tent with the rest of us sinners

---

As long as she repents and stops acting on the impulse? Right?

quote:

---

What are you referring to?

Can you provide an example or an analogy?

Thanks.

---

Sure, up until recently, nearly every single state had public pensions plans that were prohibited from having the pension holder naming their homosexual partner as beneficiary.

quote:

---

No. You described the worldview of ONE wing of “conservatives” and attributed it to ALL conservatives. It was inaccurate for that reason. Plain and simple.

---

It’s like you read what I posted and comprehended it without comprehending it at all. Allow me to introduce you to a concept called “necessary implication.” This is when I make a statement that implies a foundational concept without explicitly stating it. For instance, if I say, “I think the world would be a better place if all cars were painted black,” this necessarily implies that there are cars that exist which are not painted black. So, if you respond, “Well, the problem with what you said is that there are some cars that are red, and some others that are green, and so on,” you are only telling me what I obviously already know. In the same way, when I say, “Conservatives would be better off if they all adopted a live-and-let-live social stance,” and you respond by saying that no, there are conservatives who don’t abide by that stance at all, you are merely telling me what I clearly know already, but acting as if you’ve presented me with some kind of powerful rebuttal.

This “debating” method of responding to an assertion by explicitly stating the necessary implications of that assertion is pretty common by those who want to seem smart and yet actually have nothing to add to the conversation at hand.

quote:

---

when I say, “Conservatives would be better off if they all adopted a live-and-let-live social stance,” and you respond by saying that no, there are conservatives who don’t abide by that stance at all, you are merely telling me what I clearly know already, but acting as if you’ve presented me with some kind of powerful rebuttal.

---

Except that this is not the part of your original post which I disputed. In fact, I actually agreed with that part of your post (in the final paragraph of my post, as I recall).

The part of your post with which I took exception was the part which described “the” fundamental /traditional principle of conservative thought… a principle that is NOT a fundamental principle of more than half of all “conservatives.”

In essence, I agree with you underlying premise, but saw a fallacy in part of your argument in support thereof. That seems to bother you.

Se la vie.

quote:

---

And those who truly know and accept Christ's salvation understand that his sacrifice covers all forms and types of sin, including homosexuality.

---

Amen. However those who are saved must also be turning from sin. Being saved from sin is not liberty to sin.

quote:

---

The idea that homosexuality disconnects one from following and accepting Christ and inheriting eternal salvation is merely a flawed humanistic way of interpreting the teachings of Christ. Both ourselves and everyone we have ever known and loved have sinned and will continue to live with sin.

---

Amen again. Someone who struggles with sinful homosexual lust can be forgiven just as much as someone who struggles with sinful heterosexual lust.

The issue isn't whether or not it is a sin or whether or not a sinner can be saved. The issue is whether or not those who profess faith in Christ should continue in unrepentant sin. The short answer is no, they shouldn't.

quote:

---

A lot of Christians hide behind their faith to treat homosexuals like pieces of shite compared to other groups of people that could be lumped together based on their specific sin. Just my personal experience.

---

I agree that homosexuality has been singled out as of late by Christians and to shameful ends regarding being unloving towards others. The reason why it's been singled out, IMO, is that homosexuality has been pushed as something to tolerate (don't condemn as sinful) in our culture. The backlash should be expected, but it should be done in love.

quote:

---

Pretty wild that since homosexuality is some grave eternal sin, that Christ himself did not teach once against it. He literally did not mention homosexuality one time in the Bible. You would think our God we follow would at least teach against it if it were such an elevated form of sin.

---

Christ didn't preach against several sins, including some other sexual sins like incest or bestiality, in the new testament. Does this mean that they weren't sins? Of course not.

Jesus is God and He existed in the Old Testament. He gave the law to Moses and wasn't in disagreement with the Father on it. He knew what was sin and what wasn't, and because He didn't run into a situation where He needed to specifically confirm that homosexuality or incest or bestiality was sinful, He didn't provide additional condemnation of those things, specifically.

That said, He affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman (Matt. 19:3-5) and that anyone who has lust in His heart for another woman has already sinned (Matt. 5:27-28). If it's sinful for the sanctioned (by marriage) pair of male and female to be convicted of sin for just lusting, then what does that say about homosexuals? Are they excluded from this sin? Of course not.

quote:

---

If you think it is a choice, I can't reason with you on this particular issue. I'll just have to trust that God knows the intentions of my heart and soul much more than any other human on this planet could.

---

It's not about whether or not homosexual lust is a choice, it's a matter of whether or not it's recognized as sinful and should be repented of.

Remember that heterosexual lust is also something that is also not a choice in the same sense, and lust for someone who is not your spouse should also be repented of. Just because you have a natural proclivity to a type of sin (there are many sins that people have proclivities toward) doesn't mean that such a proclivity should be tolerated and repentance should not be sought after.

quote:

---

And someone had the audacity to suggest that I though that I was God.

---

I'm not God but I know what God has said. He hates sin and while we as Christians are free from sin, we are not free to sin.

The political definition of conservatism is an ideology devoted to the preservation of long standing institutions and tradition while opposing rapid and/or significant change.

It’s why, from substance perspective, conservatism varies from culture to culture. For instance, a conservative in the US has a much different set of values than a conservative in Iran.

You can argue with it all you want but, at the end of the day, you are not correct.

quote:

---

The atmosphere has become so intolerant that some leftists insist she is bisexual — and not a lesbian

---

Oh that's rich. "You're not really a lesbo! Burn the witch!" I love it when the left feast on their own.

quote:

---

The political definition of conservatism is an ideology devoted to the preservation of long standing institutions and tradition while opposing rapid and/or significant change.

---

quote:

---

You can argue with it all you want but, at the end of the day, you are not correct.

---

This is a childish game played by people who want to hang a negative on a political label. What is a "long standing institution"? A lot of conservatives would vote tomorrow to abolish the Dept of Education. That would be rapid and significant; are they no longer conservatives? Just because they think some institutions are worth preserving doesn't mean they'll oppose rapid change to any institution.

Where is the definition for liberal, BTW? Can we draw a box around it where we get to define the lines?