YouTube account canceled

[Mike.357]

you will find no takers Crimson.

[RichardR]

you will find no takers Crimson.

Probably because it is irrelevant & diversionary?

[Chucktshoes]

you will find no takers Crimson.

Probably because it is irrelevant & diversionary?

Not really, it goes to standing and credibility. Edited July 8, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[G27]

Probably because it is irrelevant & diversionary?

Is it? The OP stated he was leaving youtube because they were 'supporting LGBT pride' - I'm curious as to whether the Christians who support him extend the same judgement or intolerance to all sin that's outlined in the bible or if that's applied only to homosexuality. I'm a Christian and I've a hard time understanding how someone can (seemingly) pick and choose which sins are tolerated and which are not. 

Edited July 8, 2013 by crimsonaudio

[RichardR]

Is it? The OP stated he was leaving youtube because they were 'supporting LGBT pride' - I'm curious as to whether the Christians who support him extend the same judgement or intolerance to all sin that's outlined in the bible or if that's applied only to homosexuality. I'm a Christian and I've a hard time understanding how someone can (seemingly) pick and choose which sins are tolerated and which are not.

I can't think of any other sinful lifestyle choices that are celebrated, or even accepted by *devote* followers of any religious faith, members of the Christian faith included.

Hence the irrelevance to the current discussion, devotion is an odd thing, it is easy to claim to be a follower of a religious belief, it is another to fully devote yourself to the beliefs, teachings & tenants of one though..

Casual believers will always be wishy-washy in their morality.

[RichardR]

Not really, it goes to standing and credibility.

That's to broad a brush to paint anything other than the side of a barn with.

[G27]

I can't think of any other sinful lifestyle choices that are celebrated, or even accepted by *devote* followers of any religious faith, members of the Christian faith included.

Hence the irrelevance to the current discussion, devotion is an odd thing, it is easy to claim to be a follower of a religious belief, it is another to fully devote yourself to the beliefs, teachings & tenants of one though..

Casual believers will always be wishy-washy in their morality.

Fair enough, I guess my point is this - do you consider tolerating a sinful behavior the same as celebrating? There are tons of sinful behaviors that are widely tolerated by the church (both Catholic and Protestant), so where is the line drawn? Further, are you wanting a theocracy in the US or are you wanting equal freedoms applied to all consenting adults? 

 

These aren't 'gotcha' questions, they're very real issues we as Christians have to deal with. I love my neighbors who are separated and cheating on each other just as I did when they were together. I also love my alcoholic friends, and those who are gay. I just try to love my neighbor and let God handle salvation / condemnation. Does that make me wishy-washy?

[RichardR]

are you wanting a theocracy in the US or are you wanting equal freedoms applied to all consenting adults?

Non-sequitur arguement, preserving the definition of traditional marriage as one man, one woman does not equal "theocracy", nor does it restrict the "freedoms" of anyone, especially when the benefit issues had been settled with civil unions/domestic partnerships.

Irrelevant strawman arguements aside, your level of devotion to your personal beliefs, is only something you yourself could possibly know.

I can say that they do not match my definition of deep devotion, according to my own personal understanding of scripture.

[Oh Shoot]

I can't think of any other sinful lifestyle choices that are celebrated, or even accepted by *devote* followers of any religious faith, members of the Christian faith included.

 

I dunno, shore are a lot of fat people at them church suppers. ;)

 

- OS

[RichardR]

I dunno, shore are a lot of fat people at them church suppers. ;)

- OS

Is their being over-weight caused by sinful gluteny or a modern, sedentary lifestyle? I can't help but wonder just how many irrelevant silly strawman arguements are we going to waste time on?

[TMF]

You should have had this conversation with your father as a pre-teen, if you had you wouldn't be so confused with how all of this reproductive stuff works.

Wow. I had a genuine question and was responding with genuine arguments, not personal attacks.

You want to be a smartass and make a personal attack because you obviously have no argument.

Let me fashion my reply:

Go f**k yourself. If you talked to me like that in person I'd punch you in your bitch mouth. Edited July 8, 2013 by TMF

[Curiousgb]

I can't think of any other sinful lifestyle choices that are celebrated, or even accepted by *devote* followers of any religious faith, members of the Christian faith included.

Hence the irrelevance to the current discussion, devotion is an odd thing, it is easy to claim to be a follower of a religious belief, it is another to fully devote yourself to the beliefs, teachings & tenants of one though..

Casual believers will always be wishy-washy in their morality.

 

 

If you believe that being gay is a lifestyle "choice" you don't have a clear understanding of sexual "orientation." 

Edited July 8, 2013 by Curiousgb

[daddyo]

A little "tolerance" for you, courtesy of "Angry Queers":

 

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/christian-preachers-brutally-beaten-at-gay-pride-festival.html

[56FordGuy]

A little "tolerance" for you, courtesy of "Angry Queers":

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/christian-preachers-brutally-beaten-at-gay-pride-festival.html

So the preachers intentionally went there to be inflammatory, unless you truly believe a sign that says "Repent or else" is going to change hearts and minds.

People became inflamed and fired up. We're surprised by that?

No, they shouldn't have been attacked. Yes, the people responsible should be held accountable. But it would be like a black guy going to a KKK rally with a sign that calls them ignorant fools. You know that nobody's mind will be changed, and nothing good will come of it.

Does any of this even matter? I believe in under five years we will see gay marriage/ civil unions recognized at the federal level, at least for the states that allow it.

Imagine that. Some states allowing things, other states not... It's almost like the way the country was intended to work...:lol:

[mikegideon]

Is their being over-weight caused by sinful gluteny or a modern, sedentary lifestyle? I can't help but wonder just how many irrelevant silly strawman arguements are we going to waste time on?

 

Jeez. We had a gaggle of fat people in our church when I was a little kid, in the '60's. No, it ain't because of X box.

[Mike.357]

Non-sequitur arguement, preserving the definition of traditional marriage as one man, one woman does not equal "theocracy", nor does it restrict the "freedoms" of anyone, especially when the benefit issues had been settled with civil unions/domestic partnerships.

 

 

seems then you only have a problem with gays using the word Marriage to define their relationship with their partner.  Unless of course a gay person in TN wants a civil union then they are left out.

[RichardR]

Wow. I had a genuine question and was responding with genuine arguments, not personal attacks.

You want to be a smartass and make a personal attack because you obviously have no argument.

Let me fashion my reply:

Go f**k yourself. If you talked to me like that in person I'd punch you in your bitch mouth.

Welp that would be unwise.

Don't feel like being mocked? Than you probably should refrain from asking "seriously stupid" questions.

[TMF]

[

Welp that would be unwise.


Don't feel like being mocked? Than you probably should refrain from asking "seriously stupid" questions.

Where I'm from some who runs their suck without backing it up is a coward. Keep running your mouth, but I know the truth which is you are a scared little girl. I challenge you to come on down to my neck of the woods and repeat any of your nonsense to my face.

[Mike.357]

well this thread certainly has it all now.

[RichardR]

If you believe that being gay is a lifestyle "choice" you don't have a clear understanding of sexual "orientation."

Pushing legislation, filing lawsuits, being annoying, demanding the definition of "traditional marriage" be altered to suit your sexual proclivities is a voluntary choice, as is engaging in or supporting any other various social engineering projects.

[G27]

Non-sequitur arguement, preserving the definition of traditional marriage as one man, one woman does not equal "theocracy", nor does it restrict the "freedoms" of anyone, especially when the benefit issues had been settled with civil unions/domestic partnerships.

Irrelevant strawman arguements aside, your level of devotion to your personal beliefs, is only something you yourself could possibly know.

I can say that they do not match my definition of deep devotion, according to my own personal understanding of scripture.

Fair enough, was going to ask you to answer my other questions in that post as well instead of cherry picking, but after seeing the loving attitude you've displayed here, I'll pass. Have fun.

[mikegideon]

well this thread certainly has it all now.

 

Nope. Voldemort hasn't showed up yet

[RobertNashville]

I dunno, shore are a lot of fat people at them church suppers. ;)

 

- OS

Excellent point.

 

For reasons none of them can explain in any logical or scriptural way, many so-called Christians have an extremely high tolerance for some "sins" and no tolerance for others...a 5'2" 400lb Christian who has been divorced 5 times with two kids (he knows of) out of wedlock can be in Church every Sunday with nary a word being said about his lifestyle -that same Christian will be up in arms if a homosexual dares set foot in "his" church.  The hypocrisy is enough to choke an elephant.

 

[RobertNashville]

Is their being over-weight caused by sinful gluteny or a modern, sedentary lifestyle? I can't help but wonder just how many irrelevant silly strawman arguements are we going to waste time on?

Is being homosexual (which really only means someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex) a choice?  A matter of environment? or a matter of genetics?

 

I submit, that any one could be true of any given homosexual man or woman, some are homosexual by choice, some because of the environment they were raised in and some because they are genetically predisposed.

 

Surely; if the fat man can be taken off the hook for the sin of gluttony because of his sedentary lifestyle; surely there must be some room for the homosexual to get the same offer of immunity for at least being homosexual because of environment or genetics???   ;)

Edited July 8, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Pushing legislation, filing lawsuits, being annoying, demanding the definition of "traditional marriage" be altered to suit your sexual proclivities is a voluntary choice, as is engaging in or supporting any other various social engineering projects.

And a tiny percentage of all homosexuals actually engage in any of the above.

 

If, however, you want to judge ALL homosexuals by their most wacky fringe activities then surely it's fair, isn't it, to judge ALL Christians by the actions and teachings of the Westboro Baptist Church, right???  :panic:

Edited July 8, 2013 by RobertNashville