Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[LegendarySandwich]

I'm not the one trying to take sex out of the love equation. I'm arguing against that position.

I agree. Sex is a part of love.

[Stevil]

It is not about sex!

Yes it is! Exclamation points don't change that! If it's not about sex, then date people of the opposite sex. They have the same spectrum of personality.

Why are you interested in the sexual habbits of two people (strangers to you)?

Generally they're not, as I've mentioned. See my signature.

Poor Voter, I see other people are getting confused between your stance and your argument against me.

I see sex and love as two different things however sex can be a result of love or can be affected by love. But sex can also be void of love.
I was certainly trying to gain clarity on the Christian point of view (through Voter and his assumed alignment with Christian POV) and whether the issue they have with homosexuality is based on love or simply sex. Voter has made a personal statement that the issue as he sees it is simply Sex and not love. Hence I think Voter is stating that if love were based on personality that same gender people could fall in love. However Voter would go on to suggest that people should then avoid situations where same gender relationships develop and progress and should simply put themselves into situations where opposite gender relationships develop.

There are a couple of obvious issues with this stance:
1. Why should they? If a person is developing a loving relationship with a person of the same gender, then why should they cease and decist? For whose sake would this benefit? Simply because it would make Christians feel more at ease?
2. The assumption that (given sex is taken out of the equation) people can equally fall in love with people regardless of gender. This is a more difficult thing to think through as it is hard to know why people are attracted to each other. Is it personality?, is it physical attraction? (e.g. they think someone looks pretty), is it a desire to have sex? In my case, sex is secondary, I don't really think about it until I really get to know and like a person and admire them and adore them, slowly it feels natural to allow my personal space to be invaided by this person. Touch suddenly becomes desired and enjoyable. Sorry I am giving too much information here (TMI).

[Sophus]

No it isn't. They're not a different color or something. I don't know they're gay unless they tell me. I can't treat someone differently on the sole basis of being gay when I don't even know they're gay.

I didn't know prejudice could only exist toward colors. I was also unaware no one is ever suspected of even possibly being gay or accused of it for acting more like the opposite sex.
 

How dare I have a different opinion than you!

What if I were to respond, "How dare you desire the right marry! I don't think Christians should be allowed to. After all, by your logic it's not discrimination because I only know you're a Christian if you tell me." In which case I would hope you would respond "how dare you think that!" So, yes, I am proudly intolerant of some opinions.

[LegendarySandwich]

So, yes, I am proudly intolerant of some opinions.

What do you mean by "intolerant"? Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to have certain opinions?

[Whitney]

So, yes, I am proudly intolerant of some opinions.

What do you mean by "intolerant"? Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to have certain opinions?

I have never gotten the impression that Sophus is anti freedom of speech.  I think he means intolerant in that he isn't going to sit aside and not say something about it because some opinions are not only wrong but bad.

[LegendarySandwich]

So, yes, I am proudly intolerant of some opinions.

What do you mean by "intolerant"? Do you think people shouldn't be allowed to have certain opinions?

I have never gotten the impression that Sophus is anti freedom of speech.  I think he means intolerant in that he isn't going to sit aside and not say something about it because some opinions are not only wrong but bad.

Oh, I agree, though I still respect their right to have those opinions.

[Stevil]

Oh, I agree, though I still respect their right to have those opinions.

The problem of course with regards to people having opinions is that some of these become law or are used to persecute others. e.g. It was against the law to be homosexual once. It is currently against the law for homosexuals to be married in many places.

Christian churches and faiths instill a value into their followers that homosexuals are immoral and hence promote persecution and non tolerance. These opinions are dangerous and have victims.

In my opionion it is peculiar to see that the faith followers don't really seem to have opinions of their own. Their opinions are that of their church, which they unquestionly adopt, follow, defend and use to excuse what I would term as unacceptable behaviour.

Intolerance should be questioned and discouraged. I simply won't tolerate it (LOL)

[LegendarySandwich]

Oh, I agree, though I still respect their right to have those opinions.

The problem of course with regards to people having opinions is that some of these become law or are used to persecute others. e.g. It was against the law to be homosexual once. It is currently against the law for homosexuals to be married in many places.

Christian churches and faiths instill a value into their followers that homosexuals are immoral and hence promote persecution and non tolerance. These opinions are dangerous and have victims.

In my opionion it is peculiar to see that the faith followers don't really seem to have opinions of their own. Their opinions are that of their church, which they unquestionly adopt, follow, defend and use to excuse what I would term as unacceptable behaviour.

Intolerance should be questioned and discouraged. I simply won't tolerate it (LOL)

Yes, but you can't just say "you can't hold these opinions I view as dangerous and immoral". You can discourage and ridicule them, but that's where I draw the line.

[Stevil]

Yes, but you can't just say "you can't hold these opinions I view as dangerous and immoral". You can discourage and ridicule them, but that's where I draw the line.

If it were simply an individual, I would just ignore these opinions but when it is being taught and championed by a group of large organisations e.g. Christianity and is impacting laws then it needs to be talked through, clarified, understood and hopefully the offender can learn the error of their ways and hence stop helping to promote the opinion.

[Whitney]

If it were simply an individual, I would just ignore these opinions but when it is being taught and championed by a group of large organisations e.g. Christianity and is impacting laws then it needs to be talked through, clarified, understood and hopefully the offender can learn the error of their ways and hence stop helping to promote the opinion.

I think the main problem there, and largely why the OP exists, is because smaller groups of crazy chrsitians claim to be speaking for all Christians.  In my experience most Christians just live their lives and pretty much aren't that religious unless asked about what they believe or don't involve themselves with the various churches....they just don't care about organized religion and so they don't speak up when others act like idiots.

[Tank]

If you take sex out of the equation, what is the love based on? It must be personality.

There is no set of personality characteristics that is exclusive to either men or women.

Therefore, it's nonsensical to say that a person could only be able to fall in love with a person of a certain gender.

If that doesn't explain it, post what you think I mean and I'll address.

I have lost any respect for you I once had.

Why so? Voter's view seems perfectly valid to me. Emotions are at the base of relationships. Physicality is what one is born with. Whom one loves is what matters not the respective genders of the individuals concerned. Which is what I think Voter is getting at.

On its own, I don't see much wrong with it, other than the fact that sex IS part of the equation, because sex is a part of love.

By sex I assume you mean intercourse, mutual masturbation, sodomy, kissing etc. etc. Well sex is not required in a loving relationship. I love my kids but I don't have sex with them. Sorry for the rather blunt example. But sex and love are not immutably bound.

However, he's trying to use this argument to say that if being gay isn't about sex then they should just date members of the opposite sex to gain society's/"God's" approval, and if it is about sex then it's okay to discriminate against them since it isn't the same thing at all as discriminating against people based on their skin color (I think...tell me if I've gotten your position wrong).

Hopefully,  I don't need to explain how wrong this argument is.

Well if Voter is saying that homosexuality and homosexuals are Okay as long as they don't have sex, then I would not agree. What two consenting adults do with their own bodies and to each others bodies is entirely up to them. Saying one adult is better than another because of their consensual sexual habits is simply a personal perception.

[LegendarySandwich]

By sex I assume you mean intercourse, mutual masturbation, sodomy, kissing etc. etc.

That, and also physical attraction, which I would count under "sex".

Well sex is not required in a loving relationship. I love my kids but I don't have sex with them. Sorry for the rather blunt example. But sex and love are not immutably bound.

I course. I didn't mean to imply that all love requires sex. Nonetheless, I think it's an important part of romantic relationships. Can you have a romantic relationship without sex (including physical attraction)? Maybe, but I'd be skeptical, and I'd think the couple was lacking.

[Tank]

By sex I assume you mean intercourse, mutual masturbation, sodomy, kissing etc. etc.

That, and also physical attraction, which I would count under "sex".

No dispute with that. And of course it is equally possible to have a physical sexual attraction without love, that's how porn works.

Well sex is not required in a loving relationship. I love my kids but I don't have sex with them. Sorry for the rather blunt example. But sex and love are not immutably bound.

I course. I didn't mean to imply that all love requires sex. Nonetheless, I think it's an important part of romantic relationships. Can you have a romantic relationship without sex (including physical attraction)? Maybe, but I'd be skeptical, and I'd think the couple was lacking.

You can definitely have a romantic relationship without sex. It's rare but it does happen. One can be infatuated with somebody but not in a physically sexual way. Whether a relationship turns physical depends on a number of factors, but that's for the 'When Harry met Sally' thread  

[Stevil]

Well if Voter is saying that homosexuality and homosexuals are Okay as long as they don't have sex, then I would not agree. What two consenting adults do with their own bodies and to each others bodies is entirely up to them. Saying one adult is better than another because of their consensual sexual habits is simply a personal perception.

The clarification I would like from Voter would be the following:
1. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to fall romantically in love with each other? If not, why not?
2. Do you think it is OK for same sex people to have sexual intercourse with each other? If not, why not?
3. Do you think it is OK for people to discriminate against people doing 1 or 2 or both of the above? If it is OK, please explain?

BTW My intent on these questions is to understand your position better, not to judge you (although other people on this forum might). I may however make an attempt to try and change your mind  

[Gawen]

Good grief...this thread could use a major split.

Per the OP...after two days since I posted here I've pretty much lost my train of thought and I'm not going back to read the first three pages to get it back.

So yes, every single christian is responsible for Christianity, as a whole - speaking of the dogma/doctrine directly. Not only that, they are responsible for their particular tangent of Christianity. It doesn't matter one way or the other, because we discuss the whole or the 'finer' points here. As long as at least one person propagates the doctrine of "Jesus" regardless if he/she holds placards that say "God hates Fags" or sits at home and never goes to church, he/she is responsible.