Previous 11 - 20 Next
How is that any different than those who claim they understand homosexuals and how they behave? What Michael Brown is doing is really not that different from religious people in the past who used their religion to justify their hatred, be it slavery or jihad. It has happened time and again. The minorities often change, but the intent hasn't. And Lonnie, insulting others does not make their points less valid.
"I do pray for you, sir, as my president, that God would grant you the humility to recognize the error of your ways." And he would likely do the same for you in hopes that you would see the error of your was as well, Mr. Brown. Your ways are simply anti-Christian and profoundly immoral. They go against the Golden Rule that Christ himself preached. You are seeking to retain an ability to disparage an entire group of people who are born with the same worth as yourself. How can you claim to be a Christian while using it as a shield to hide your hatred of these people? You may claim compassion, but your deeds are not in line with your words. The Golden Rule, as spoken by Christ, did not contain a clause that singled out homosexuals. Your refusal to acknowledge this shows that you are not a Christian. You only seek excuses to preserve your prejudices, hatred, and livelihood.
"In truth, this is not a Civil Rights issue, as if gay were the new black." There's no question that African American individuals were subject to discrimination and horrendous treatment, but it's worth noting that a lot of this treatment was justified by Christians, citing passages about slavery and The Curse of Ham. But like African Americans, homosexuals have historically been subject to harassment, bullying, violence, and discrimination. To claim this isn't a civil rights issue is to ignore the suffering of these human beings.
"Mr. President, must you now even take the place of God and tell Christians what they can and cannot actively practice?" The executive order said nothing about what Christians can and cannot practice. It just says that when doing business with the federal government, they cannot discriminate. Why would that bother Christians so much? Would tolerating homosexuals really be that big an affront to the values espoused by their faith? We're not talking about something arbitrary here. This involves other people who live, love, and suffer like anyone else. To seek a means of discriminating against them goes completely against the Golden Rule and the foundation of Christian values.
"Children supported by World Vision, with the help of federal funds, would be deprived of food and shelter unless World Vision leaders compromised their Christian convictions." If being allowed to disparage homosexuals is more important than caring for children in need, then World Vision's priorities are completely backwards. It says more about those who claim to be religious who cling to the need to hate and discriminate than it does about those who actually seek to practice what they preach. It hardly counts as charity if one helps others out of obligation rather than compassion. That's no different than government welfare.
"Have you forgotten entirely that our nation was founded on the concept of religious freedom?" Freedom of religion ends when it infringes on the freedom and protections of others. You might have a religious obligation to discriminate, disparage, and treat other people as sub-human, but you don't have a right to do so in a way that supercedes the law. As it stands, the law says that discrimination against homosexuals is illegal. You can't use religion as an excuse to subvert the law.
"How can you attempt to force Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others, to violate fundamental aspects of their moral codes..." It's simple, Mr. Brown. If your moral code involves discriminating, disparaging, and hating a minority such as homosexuals, then your code is not moral. It's not even a code. It's just thinly veiled bigotry. The core of Christian morality is the golden rule, doing as to others as you would have done unto you. Would you want the kind of treatment you're giving to homosexuals? If not, then you're not being very Christian. You're just using it as an excuse for your bigotry, as many have used their religious convictions as an excuse over the ages.
In response to:

The Coming Christian Revolt

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jul 22, 2014 9:32 AM
Christians don't have to accept it as normal. They just can't discriminate against homosexuals and treat them as sub-human. What's so sinister about that?
In response to:

The Coming Christian Revolt

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jul 22, 2014 9:31 AM
Christ never said a word about homosexuality. He did speak out against divorce, yet Matt Barber shows no outrage towards this issue. And the only authority that ever called homosexuality an abomination is the bible and the bible is a book. It's not God. It's not Christ. It's not a deity. It's a book written by primitive, pre-modern men with the prejudices and biases of their time. Using it as a guide for what counts as an abomination is asinine.
In response to:

The Coming Christian Revolt

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jul 22, 2014 9:29 AM
Christians have rarely had to go to court to force their views on others because Christians, historically, have wielded power since the beginning of the republic. They're the ones imposing these views. That means it's the minorities who must take them to court. When Christians become the minority, that will likely change and at the rate they're turning people away, that will happen eventually.
In response to:

The Coming Christian Revolt

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jul 22, 2014 9:25 AM
I think you're also missing another important point: heterosexual couples engage in these activities as well. Even other animals engage in it. The obsession with this one act is just asinine. If it doesn't appeal to you, then don't do it. How difficult is that?
Previous 11 - 20 Next