YouTube account canceled

[RobertNashville]

I believe that responsibility belongs to Saint Peter :)

Then why do you keep doing HIS job?

Edited July 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[daddyo]

It's real easy to shoot yourself in the foot with boycotts. I boycotted Google for a little while because of their anti-gun stance. Then decided that I was hurting myself a lot more than I was hurting them. If I want to make a difference in the gun debate, it won't be through my choice of search engines.

It has nothing to do with making a difference. It has everything to do with conscience and personal standards.

And, frankly, the "consistency police" can shove it.

[RobertNashville]

Giving up YouTube is giving up a lot...there is a huge amount of very worthwhile information available on YouTube that you give up if you decide to now use it...it's about like refusing to have a cell phone because you get phone calls you don't want.

Sure, telemarketing calls and wrong numbers are irritating but you give up both a lot of convenience AND possibly even life-saving help if you refuse to have a cell phone but I can almost guarantee you that every cell phone maker and every cell service provider either openly supports homosexuals or at least offers them the same health care benefits, etc. as heterosexuals.

I guess what I'm wondering is, where does the boycotting stop? How do you decide what business you won't use anymore because, as I said above, just about every business that exists today, in one way or another, "supports" the homosexual lifestyle. :shrug:

Edited July 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

It has nothing to do with making a difference. It has everything to do with conscience and personal standards.

And, frankly, the "consistency police" can shove it.

 

It's just more opining. Best I can tell, nobody has really moved off their position in the last 10 gay threads.

[RobertNashville]

It's just more opining. Best I can tell, nobody has really moved off their position in the last 10 gay threads.

 

How often has anyone on this (or any other forum) ever changed their position about anything (you old coot)?  ;)

 

On a somewhat more serious note, I've lived in several different states, spent time (sometimes significant time) is many, many different countries; served eight years in uniform and still do in a small way; obtained multiple degrees including two graduate degrees; worked for some of the largest companies in the world; read literally hundreds and hundreds of books; faced death and watched many friends die and basically spent the better part of 60 years in forming my opinions and positions on various issues.  Now I know some will disagree but I'm not such an elitist or so self-centered that I am incapable of changing my mind about something...only a fool is that that set in his positions.  But, I'm not going to change my opinion just because of what someone or even a lot of "someones" say on the internet. :pleased:

Edited July 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[leroy]

We've travelled off in lots of pasture fields with this little bit of examinaton of a real 'hot button' topic.  We've heard lots of reasoned debate, satire (...some of it pretty good...), some laughable stuff (...meant to be laughable, some not...) and some regrettable stuff.  

 

The discussion of late has turned to the "supposed hipocracy of "Christians" who pick and choose just what sins are "ok" and what are "not-ok".  As a person of faith, i feel compelled to try in my small way to answer the question that when asked as a genuine and serious question is supremely important to both believers and non-believers; and, at it's worst, is a "rhetorical "gotcha".   I think it is a supremely important, "really big" question which is very important to this discussion and all "pop-culture" questions.  It is the question of how should a christian react and ineract with his brother and sister human beings -- especially those labelled as "heinous sinners"....  Here goes:

 

The New Testament narrative gives us this answer in an account of the God-Man being asked a question by the "religious elites" of his time (...Think Westboro Baptist Church here; plus some others i wont name...).   This woman was caught in "the very act of adultry" the narrative says; and she was brought to the God-Man for a "legal ruling" on her "sin" by the "religious elites".   Actually, the religious elites weren't interested in the woman's sin; they were interested in entrapping the The God-Man in a matter of Old Testament jewish law which would allow them to accuse the God-Man of blasphemy and put Him to death (...Old Testament Jewish Law...) for it to shut Him up. The "old testament jewish law clearly called for stoning to death for adultry"..

 

The God-Man didnt answer the question directly ---- He said nothing.   He simply wrote in the dust of the street "...Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...".  He got no takers and the religious elites left one by one, starting with the oldest first.   Finally, no one was left other than the God-Man and the woman who was clearly guilty.  He then said "...Woman, where are your accusers?...".   He then said: "...Go and sin no more...". 

 

The moral.  He loved the "sinful" woman in a brotherly and alturistic way --- He did not condemn her; even though she was clearly guilty under the law.   He did not condone the sin, He mentioned it privately to her and placed His life (...He later gave it to save all of us...) in danger to save her life.   That's where the ole "hate the sin", but "love the sinner" thing came from.  

 

... Whether you choose as an individual to believe this account or not (...i happen to believe it...); or whether you see it as a fanciful tale; you cannot help but see the wisdom, kindness, and majesty in this act.   You can find this account in any New Testament concordance.  I wont bother with the citations...

 

The way i see things, as christians, we are called to be like the God-Man if we are His followers.  We are also reminded that we too, are not without sin -- it aint just "them" that are sinners.  We are all sinners, whether christian or "unaffilliated".  The christians are just "forgiven"...As christians, we are also called to be honest and even-handed in our dealings with everyone.  That means we should never ostracize anyone, no matter how heinous (...or minor-- by our flawed standards...) the sin.  Does that mean christians must "approve and embrace sin"?  Of course not.  It does, however, mean that we are to be intellectually and ethically fair in our treatment of any matter; whether it's "approved of or not".

 

Remember this, the "unaffilliated' and jhadists among us are watching our actions and are lookin for an excuse to call us out and point us out as hypocrites.  The fact is that we are all hypocrites, because we are human.  We have all "sinned' in some way. 

 

All that bein said, if we claim His Name, we need to be like Him in as much as we possible can.  I say to my brother and sister christians; "...be fair and loving in your dealings with others, no matter who they are...".  You can campaign against certain things based on moral issues; just be sure that campaign is fair. 

 

The DOMA thing wasn't fair as soon as the individual states recognized more than one species of marriage....I would say in the kindest way possible, think everything thru, be kind, be reasonable, be supremely honest.  Otherwise, we denigrate that Name by which we claim to be called.  Remember, marriage was sanctioned by the Christian God in the beginning; not the state. 

 

leroy

Edited July 8, 2013 by leroy

[RichardR]

Then why do you keep doing HIS job?

I've not done anything of the sort, I've simply articulated my thoughts & opinions, as best as I could, on the topic at hand, from my own personal brand of traditional morals, in the interest of representing the other side of the issue.

Determining another's eternal soul's condemnation &/or salvation is above my paygrade, expressing my opinion & viewpoints on the matter however is not.

[RobertNashville]

I've not done anything of the sort, I've simply articulated my thoughts & opinions, as best as I could, on the topic at hand, from my own personal brand of traditional morals, in the interest of representing the other side of the issue.

Determining another's eternal soul's condemnation &/or salvation is above my paygrade, expressing my opinion & viewpoints on the matter however is not.

Who said anything about determining eternal damnation or salvation?  Who is changing the argument now as you accused TMF of doing?

Clearly you are doing his job; you've made it clear in other threads that you don't want "unrepentant" homosexuals in your church...you offer a pass to a glutton if his weight is due to his "modern" lifestyle yet offer none to a homosexual, practicing or not.
 
Based on your prior statements, you get your panties in a wad over homosexuals while taking a cavalier attitude toward other sins.
 
You've stated...

I guess that would depend on iffin they are repentant or not ...

Therein lies the main crux of the issue.

 
If "repentance" is the "crux of the issue" then I ask again how can YOU know if someone is truly repentant or not?
 
I submit that, unless St Peter is whispering in your ear, you cannot know and if you cannot know then repentance or lack of it cannot be a legitimate part of the equation.
 
Since we've now eliminated repentance from the equation I ask again; since you don't care about the cause/the cause doesn't matter then are you are going to start demanding that fat people (and heterosexuals who engage in premarital or extramarital sex, anyone who has ever told a lie, those who covet what their neighbors have, those who have false gods like their TV or video games) leave your church? Edited July 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

Who said anything about determining eternal damnation or salvation? Who is changing the argument now as you accused TMF of doing?

Clearly you are doing his job; you've made it clear in other threads that you don't want "unrepentant" homosexuals in your church...you offer a pass to a glutton if his weight is due to his "modern" lifestyle yet offer none to a homosexual, practicing or not.

Based on your prior statements, you get your panties in a wad over homosexuals while taking a cavalier attitude toward other sins.

You've stated...

If "repentance" is the "crux of the issue" then I ask again how can YOU know if someone is truly repentant or not?

I submit that, unless St Peter is whispering in your ear, you cannot know and if you cannot know then repentance or lack of it cannot be a legitimate part of the equation.

Since we've now eliminated repentance from the equation I ask again; since you don't care about the cause/the cause doesn't matter then are you are going to start demanding that fat people (and heterosexuals who engage in premarital or extramarital sex, anyone who has ever told a lie, those who covet what their neighbors have, those who have false gods like their TV or video games) leave your church?

Welp Robert, there is literally no answer I can give you, that will ever be "good enough" so iffin you you still have unanswered questions of faith, ask your local pastor, priest or preacher for clarification on sins & repentance, maybe even what the difference is between passing judgement & having an opinion.

[Hozzie]

Welp Robert, there is literally no answer I can give you, that will ever be "good enough" so iffin you you still have unanswered questions of faith, ask your local pastor, priest or preacher for clarification on sins & repentance, maybe even what the difference is between passing judgement & having an opinion.

 

So is me saying "I think you are a bigot who wants to convince yourself that you're not" me passing judgment or me simply having an opinion.  Many of us must be too ignorant to grasp this significant difference.  Anyone who wants to say they have an opinion, but aren't passing judgement are balled face liars.  I think we would have more respect for you if you would just say you hate gays.  At least then you wouldn't be pretending to not pass judgement.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Hozzie

[daddyo]

So is me saying "I think you are a bigot who wants to convince yourself that you're not" me passing judgment or me simply having an opinion. Many of us must be too ignorant to grasp this significant difference. Anyone who wants to say they have an opinion, but aren't passing judgement are balled face liars. I think we would have more respect for you if you would just say you hate gays. At least then you wouldn't be pretending to not pass judgement.

If hate is all you understand, then you should just go ahead and admit that you hate anyone who disagrees with your perspective on the issue.

[RobertNashville]

Welp Robert, there is literally no answer I can give you, that will ever be "good enough" so iffin you you still have unanswered questions of faith, ask your local pastor, priest or preacher for clarification on sins & repentance, maybe even what the difference is between passing judgement & having an opinion.

You are right; there isn't an answer you can give because...

1. Because your two positions on repentance seem to be in direct conflict with each other, and,

2. Because you keep changing the question/introducing new elements into the mix making answering the original question moot.

[Hozzie]

If hate is all you understand, then you should just go ahead and admit that you hate anyone who disagrees with your perspective on the issue.

 

No, we can disagree all day long and I don't have a problem with that.  I agree to disagree with many people on many issues on a daily basis.  I don't hate them.  Pretending that someone isn't passing judgement and just giving their opinion and that is somehow different is laughable. 

Edited July 8, 2013 by Hozzie

[daddyo]

No, we can disagree all day long and I don't have a problem with that. I agree to disagree with many people on many issues on a daily basis. I don't hate them. Pretending that someone isn't passing judgement and just giving their opinion and that is somehow different is laughable.

Then it's pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that someone hates gay people just because they're gay.

Apply the same standard to yourself or don't apply it at all.

[RobertNashville]

Then it's pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that someone hates gay people just because they're gay.

Apply the same standard to yourself or don't apply it at all.

I don't see his position as disingenuous but at the very least, it's no more so than someone who has made it clear in this and other threads that he has a real problem with "gays" but seems very willing to turn a blind eye to other sins. :shrug:

[RichardR]

If hate is all you understand, then you should just go ahead and admit that you hate anyone who disagrees with your perspective on the issue.

Agreed, from what I've seen the vast majority of the name-calling, hateful, personal attacks (as well as threats of physical violence) in this thread have been coming from the homosexual activist side of this conversation/debate.

So much for the claims of promoting "tolerance" eh? A trendy, hip new breed of politically correct zealotry is sweeping the lands, can't wait to see how it plays out, I'm guessing it ends badly.

[Hozzie]

Then it's pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that someone hates gay people just because they're gay.

Apply the same standard to yourself or don't apply it at all.

 

My statement (it wasn't a suggestion or disingenuous) was based on my interpretation of RichardR's posts as a whole.  I am passing judgment that he is a bigot (someone who hates gays for being gay) in my opinion.  I don't hate him for it, but I do disagree with his view on this particular matter.  He has the right to not like whomever or whatever he wants for any reason he wants.  Just don't act like you aren't passing judgement and acting holier than though.  I fully own my statement and will stand by it.  If you feel I am disingenuous, I am ok with that too.

[Hozzie]

Agreed, from what I've seen the vast majority of the name-calling, hateful, personal attacks (as well as threats of physical violence) in this thread have been coming from the homosexual activist side of this conversation/debate.

So much for the claims of promoting "tolerance" eh? A trendy, hip new breed of politically correct zealotry is sweeping the lands, can't wait to see how it plays out, I'm guessing it ends badly.

 

I am far from politically correct.  I love to debate and have these conversations.  I would be just a comfortable having this discussion in person in the sense that I believe what I believe.  I don't see it as a personal attack, but rather an honest opinion of how I interpret your words.  I would have the same exact conversation with my mother and be willing to call her a bigot, or racist, or whatever other correctly applied term to my view on the matter.  This isn't personal to me, it's my view based on the information as I have interpreted it.  I have never been in a fight in my life and sure as hell am not going to get into one over this.  But I am willing to give a blunt, honest opinion of how I see it.  When you respond to posts like these, you open yourself up to criticism.  That's just the way it is.  I don't expect to be coddled and neither should anyone else.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

I am far from politically correct.  I love to debate and have these conversations.  I would be just a comfortable having this discussion in person in the sense that I believe what I believe.  I don't see it as a personal attack, but rather an honest opinion of how I interpret your words.  I would have the same exact conversation with my mother and be willing to call her a bigot, or racist, or whatever other correctly applied term to my view on the matter.  This isn't personal to me, it's my view based on the information as I have interpreted it.  I have never been in a fight in my life and sure as hell am not going to get into one over this.  But I am willing to give a blunt, honest opinion of how I see it.  When you respond to posts like these, you open yourself up to criticism.  That's just the way it is.  I don't expect to be coddled and neither should anyone else.

LoL I love that you mentioned this. I actually did have this conversation with my mother earlier today when she saw me reading the thread. I did argue some of the same points I and others have made here. The funniest part though is she called herself the bigot without any help from me, "I guess the older I get the more of a bigot I become". Obviously I didn't change her mind but I did enjoy the conversation/debate.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Keal G Seo

[daddyo]

This isn't personal to me, it's my view based on the information as I have interpreted it.

 

When you resort to calling names and accuse people of hatred just for having an opposing viewpoint, then that crosses the line over into personal.

 

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[RobertNashville]

When you resort to calling names and accuse people of hatred just for having an opposing viewpoint, then that crosses the line over into personal.

 

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Well, the one you claim he called "names" has been doing the same in multiple threads that have dealt with the subject of homosexuality...I'm not saying it's right for anyone to do it but in this case it's hardly a one way street.

[Hozzie]

When you resort to calling names and accuse people of hatred just for having an opposing viewpoint, then that crosses the line over into personal.

 

Sorry, I don't buy it.

No problem, I am not trying to convince you or anyone else.  That's my opinion and I believe it is a representative term, not just name calling.    I will bow out now, I have said my peace.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Hozzie

[daddyo]

No problem, I am not trying to convince you or anyone else. That's my opinion and I believe it is a representative term, not just name calling. I will bow out now, I have said my peace.

Ah, I see. Using the same logic then, words like "reprobate" and "deviant" would also be "representative terms".

[Mike.357]

this thread is great, it has it all.

 

C'mon, no quitting it yet.   Hate I had to bail on it this morning.

 

Yes MikeGideon I am as old and probably fatter than you.  but at least no one has yet accused me of being a commie aside from being an AK lover over that lame AR platform.  

 

Hey I AM fat.  Just another reason for me to burn in hell.  At least it won't be for hating Gays like some here deserve.

 

Seriously all this thread now misses is 1911 vs. the POS Glock argument.  oops.....

Edited July 9, 2013 by Mike.357

[Guest Bonedaddy]

Dang. I musta miss some fun here but way too many pages for me to go back and stir the dookie on.