Chick-fil-A is still bankrolling anti-LGBTQ causes

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

35 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It absolutely is.  

I will also say, the woman caught in adultery seemed to understand what Jesus told her (go and sin no more).  She didn't argue with him that what she was doing wasn't wrong in the first place.  We're living in an odd time where everyone calls for grace and love, but no one wants to respond with repentance and turn from their sin.  In fact, they get mad if you call it sin in the first place.

Now that said - that's not an excuse to be snotty or mean or hateful to people.  It's not a good reason to focus only on a person's sin and withhold love and empathy from them until they change.  

I just don't see it that way. What I see is people who rather point out homosexuality as the latest sin of the day as a cover for their own sins.  Pointing out the splinter in another's eye when there is a plank in their own eye. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

7 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I just don't see it that way. What I see is people who rather point out homosexuality as the latest sin of the day as a cover for their own sins.  Pointing out the splinter in another's eye when there is a plank in their own eye. 

While that's certainly true in some cases, what I said is also true.  It's gotten to where even calling some things sin gets you labeled as "spreading hate" no matter how loving and kind you actually are.

And it was true of the story of the woman caught in adultery.  There were two parts to that interaction - love and mercy, AND the call to leave one's sins behind and live differently going forward.  There is not one without the other.  We must be patient and gentle with people who don't repent right away.  But both parts are still necessary to the process of redemption.  To truly experience forgiveness and restoration, we have to at some point realize that we've done something that we need to be forgiven for.   

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

26 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

While that's certainly true in some cases, what I said is also true.  It's gotten to where even calling some things sin gets you labeled as "spreading hate" no matter how loving and kind you actually are.

And it was true of the story of the woman caught in adultery.  There were two parts to that interaction - love and mercy, AND the call to leave one's sins behind and live differently going forward.  There is not one without the other.  We must be patient and gentle with people who don't repent right away.  But both parts are still necessary to the process of redemption.  To truly experience forgiveness and restoration, we have to at some point realize that we've done something that we need to be forgiven for.   

But it's God's job to convict of sin. If man does it the decisions aren't usually lasting. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, GiveEmElle said:

But it's God's job to convict of sin. If man does it the decisions aren't usually lasting. 

It's ultimately the Holy Spirit that does that in a person's heart, but God uses people to convey the message of the need for repentance, much like John the Baptist said "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand."  It doesn't generally come by osmosis.

[homersapien 11,377]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Christians are not concerned with the future of Christianity Homer. 

Correct.

They are really concerned with the future of themselves.  

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

It's ultimately the Holy Spirit that does that in a person's heart, but God uses people to convey the message of the need for repentance, much like John the Baptist said "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand."  It doesn't generally come by osmosis.

I'm aware of that. My point is we have toomany people within the church body that preach a messsge of condemnation rather than reconciliation. 

[PUB78 1,358]

5 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I'm aware of that. My point is we have toomany people within the church body that preach a messsge of condemnation rather than reconciliation. 

The only reconciliation for unrepented sin is condemnation. A person must realize their need for Christ, not for Christ to accept them for what they are and practice.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

3 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

The only reconciliation for unrepented sin is condemnation. A person must realize their need for Christ, not for Christ to accept them for what they are and practice.

And if the message is constant condemnation the reception is cold. 

 

[Mikey 16,604]

Here' my only interest in this matter: I suppose that the Q on the end of LGBTQ is for queer? So if it's come full circle, then good. They can have queer. I want gay back. Gay is/was a perfectly delightful word with many uses: "The parade route was lined with gay bunting" or "A gay time was had by all who attended" or "The band played a gay tune as it marched into the distance". The word gay has many uses and there aren't many accurate synonyms for it. Queer on the other hand has a lot of other words that work in its place.

The entire dictionary cannot be dedicated to this one subject, so if they want queer they should give up something. May I please have gay back? It seems like a fair trade.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

9 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

I'm aware of that. My point is we have toomany people within the church body that preach a messsge of condemnation rather than reconciliation. 

I cannot disagree.  It just also seems that even when the message isn't one of condemnation it is taken as such merely for stating a need to repent at all - at least if it includes one's need to repent of some certain sexual behaviors.  It is one thing to reject the message because it's done in a spirit of hatred or self-righteousness.  It's entirely another to reject it simply because one objects to some of their actions being called sin at all.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

57 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I cannot disagree.  It just also seems that even when the message isn't one of condemnation it is taken as such merely for stating a need to repent at all - at least if it includes one's need to repent of some certain sexual behaviors.  It is one thing to reject the message because it's done in a spirit of hatred or self-righteousness.  It's entirely another to reject it simply because one objects to some of their actions being called sin at all.

Enter hypocrisy. My denomination wants to be very vocal against homosexuality but chose to support a presidential candidate who has been married three times, openly bragged about committing adultery, and has degrading views about women. It's the picking and choosing of which sins to rail against that bothers me. 

[alexava 6,973]

3 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Enter hypocrisy. My denomination wants to be very vocal against homosexuality but chose to support a presidential candidate who has been married three times, openly bragged about committing adultery, and has degrading views about women. It's the picking and choosing of which sins to rail against that bothers me. 

Claiming God answered prayers and sent us Trump is what bothers me. Or Alabamans wanting Bentley impeached for his lack of morals when they overwhelmingly support Trump are the hypocrisies I can't bear. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

20 minutes ago, alexava said:

Claiming God answered prayers and sent us Trump is what bothers me. Or Alabamans wanting Bentley impeached for his lack of morals when they overwhelmingly support Trump are the hypocrisies I can't bear. 

Exactly. 

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

Claiming God answered prayers and sent us Trump is what bothers me. Or Alabamans wanting Bentley impeached for his lack of morals when they overwhelmingly support Trump are the hypocrisies I can't bear. 

See, we are all guilty of focusing on others' actions when we should be concerned with our own. Unfortunately, it comes with being human.

[PUB78 1,358]

15 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

And if the message is constant condemnation the reception is cold. 

 

I agree that this can be the case. Delicate balance between showing love and compassion, but at the same time, explaining the need for salvation and a new walk of life.

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 6:56 AM, TitanTiger said:

I cannot disagree.  It just also seems that even when the message isn't one of condemnation it is taken as such merely for stating a need to repent at all - at least if it includes one's need to repent of some certain sexual behaviors.  It is one thing to reject the message because it's done in a spirit of hatred or self-righteousness.  It's entirely another to reject it simply because one objects to some of their actions being called sin at all.

I had a former pastor that said quite often: "Correct a fool and they will hate you for it; correct a wise person and they will appreciate you for it."

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

17 hours ago, PUB78 said:

I agree that this can be the case. Delicate balance between showing love and compassion, but at the same time, explaining the need for salvation and a new walk of life.

Good point here Pub. To add to this, people want us Christians to be like this, when God instructs us to be the opposite. The Bible refers to this as lukewarmness. God said in Revelations that we are to either be hot or cold; if we are lukewarm, he will spew us out of his mouth. We are to judge the sin, but judging the sinner is up to God alone. If I catch you in a sin, or you catch me in a sin we are to point it out to each other in a loving, non-judgemental way, but we are not to keep quiet about it. We are never to accept sin, or say that it's ok for any reason.

[TexasTiger 12,892]

18 hours ago, Grumps said:

See, we are all guilty of focusing on others' actions when we should be concerned with our own. Unfortunately, it comes with being human.

What does that mean in this context?

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

47 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

What does that mean in this context?

He was saying that alex was calling out Trump for his actions, and that's no different than calling out gays for their actions. We all focus on other people's actions more than our own.

[Mims44 1,871]

On 7/8/2017 at 11:25 PM, Mikey said:

Here' my only interest in this matter: I suppose that the Q on the end of LGBTQ is for queer? So if it's come full circle, then good. They can have queer. I want gay back. Gay is/was a perfectly delightful word with many uses: "The parade route was lined with gay bunting" or "A gay time was had by all who attended" or "The band played a gay tune as it marched into the distance". The word gay has many uses and there aren't many accurate synonyms for it. Queer on the other hand has a lot of other words that work in its place.

The entire dictionary cannot be dedicated to this one subject, so if they want queer they should give up something. May I please have gay back? It seems like a fair trade.

Going off my horribly inept knowledge of the group...

I believe gay is still used to designate a dude that likes other dudes.

Queer however is for side lifestyles and is one of (maybe the only) letter than CAN be used by heterosexuals.

[alexava 6,973]

That's interesting 

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

What does that mean in this context?

Excellent question. 

[homersapien 11,377]

2 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

I had a former pastor that said quite often: "Correct a fool and they will hate you for it; correct a wise person and they will appreciate you for it."

Didn't stick, huh?

[ArgoEagle 1,788]

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Didn't stick, huh?

Apparently not for you.

[homersapien 11,377]

Just now, ArgoEagle said:

Apparently not for you.

I think for myself.