I stand by my assertion. If you wish to take offense though I have been clear I was making a general statement, that's not on me.
Then you are acting the bigot, smearing entire groups of people, and are no better than those you oppose. I don't personally take offense, but it is sad - I've seen you think and write enough to know that you are smarter than to take those kind of intellectual shortcuts.
Despite the wordplay, this only supports my point.
A) You won't permit LGBT persons in church because of who they are.
That is not true. Homosexuals who refuse to repent and prove hardened to correction are denied
membership. Anyone is welcome in Church. My little sister goes to church with me and visa versa whenever we can get together, though we naturally prefer different congregations
.
But that is true of
any belief-based organization. If you are a board member of NARAL and you come out in public to declare that Abortion is murder, abortionists need to go to prison, and abortion supporters are the new Holocaust supporters, well, NARAL will probably be revoking your ability to speak on their behalf fairly quickly.
B) You won't permit them to actively practice their faith, because of who they are.
They cannot be a member of a belief-based organization if they refuse the beliefs around which the organization is based.
C) You think they have something to repent for.
Yes and that makes them
just like me. If I refused to repent of (for example) feeding an addiction to pornography, or being verbally abusive to others, or sleeping with my mother, then the result (either repentance and acceptance, or, after multiple intercessions, loss of membership) would equally apply to me.
Any or all three of these are representations of what I said earlier and this is why I stand by it. Especially C). I won't derail the thread with a religious discussion. If a Christian refuses service in the most flowery terms, A-C are behind it.
C is. But participation in, and indeed, enablement of, homosexual weddings would be sinful for the Christian - they would be something requiring repentance. Jesus was pretty hard on those who took the easy way out and let others suffer for it.
They are being denied service for who they are
No they are not. No one is saying "gays can't eat here" or "gays can't get their automobile serviced here". Christians are simply refusing to
take part in their weddings.
It's who they are and that is unkind/rude/cruel.
Again, you are ascribing opposition to your motives to those who oppose your means. It's no more supportable than the claim that the only reason you take the position you do is because you are bigoted against Christians and want to stamp Christianity out of the public space.
There is no mistaking, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They are being rejected by Christians, for being who they are, no matter the nuanced language.
On the contrary, this is precisely the enactment of the Love The Sinner Hate The Sin rule. You don't hate a sin by celebrating it, and you don't love a sinner by enabling them.
I used Phelps as an example that there are those who shout ugly things about LGBT persons. Remove them from the discussion, there are still plenty on this board and in out in the world who say awful things about the LGBT community
Sure, and there are plenty of low-wattage folks on the other side who say awful things about the Christian community.
Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson partially blaming 9/11 on "gays and lesbians".
I
know you are not going to be able to understand this, but, while I agree that was a completely bonkers argument, it does not actually require hatred to make that statement. They were attempting to apply a Deuteronomistic structure to a calamity.
I'll post them if you would like, but I don't want to take up the space.
:shrug: you could, but you haven't demonstrated an ability/willingness to differentiate between "disagreement" and "hate" on this issue. On the contrary - you have (see first item) rather declared that you do not
intend to differentiate.
The American Family Associate, a lobbying group, said this:
The Mark of the Beast is Here
:lol: I had no idea they had said this. That is going into a project I am working on - what a beautiful example of hyperbolic stupidity. thank you for that
They have a page of links to their views on homosexuality, including the belief that homosexuals are broken people.
Well, that part is true. But, again, understand that, to a Christian, to say that someone is "broken" is merely to say that they are a sinner, which is to say, they are human.