Dilemma of Being ****sexual

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

If Jesus were real I am sure that most of his followers would be embar***ing to him. Most of the people I have ever known to claim themselves as followers of Jesus; have shown themselves to be anything but Christ like. Whatever happened to not judging, and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (figuratively and literally)? Very few of these so-called "Christians" seem to use the ***le for anything more than cosmetic purposes, because they will be looked down upon if they aren't, and rarely practice what they preach.

What you mean by Christian is a spiritualizing and useless definition as shown by your phrase "Christ like." Just as "gentleman" is not an adjective descriptive of a "good" person and not a noun that defines a person of nobility. Christ came to save the wicked, and in so far as where they were before becoming a Christian to where they are now or heading towards is what is important. If you were hard-core racist, and God is changing you inside out, that Christian may still show tendencies of a racist... but the question is how far on his journey as a Christian has he/she become a better person? In their old life, such racist qualities would be unrepentent and even proud and haughty of it. I agree with you that there are many professing Christians that are bad Christians, I would agree with you regarding prison conversions in general as a means to an ends for inmates as they use it for the purpose of showing an attempt of reform and early release (although there are genuine inmates who do progress as Christians in the real world environment upon their release); but a Christian is one that ***ents to the teachings of Christ and acknowledge who he is accurately. Hence, I have come out and said regarding Asdf's comments regarding ****sexuality and Christianity being completely compatible as not representative of authentic Christianity. In regards to judgement, Christ and John the Baptist did this a lot with the Pharisees and Saducees even calling them names as white-washed tombs, brood of vipers, and hypocrites. In terms of judgement, Christians judge their own. Since Asdf claims to be Christian, I judge what he says in terms of Scripture and in context of historical Christian teaching. As far as you are concerned, you don't abide by Scripture, so my approach is different. Your authority of what you believe is what I would be pointing to since it defies natural revelation and is inconsistent in its own ability... since in most cases your morality is based on relativism. For you to try and convince me you are right, you must attack our Scriptures, our Traditions by your own standands of what you feel at the moment. You as the outsider looking in, you are just judgemental as you claim we are in your own perception.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

What you mean by Christian is a spiritualizing...

Quite the contrary, actually.

and useless definition as shown by your phrase "Christ like."

Erm, do you know the etymology of the word "Christian"?

[IncitingRiots]

Originally Posted by Columcille

What you mean by Christian is a spiritualizing and useless definition as shown by your phrase "Christ like."

No, not really. The first Christians were called so because they followed the teaching of Jesus Christ. It should be mentioned here that "Christ" is a ***le, meaning "annoited one" - not a surname. Many of the people today who call themselves Christians have no right to do so as they aren't really following the teachings of Jesus.

Originally Posted by Columcille

Just as "gentleman" is not an adjective descriptive of a "good" person and not a noun that defines a person of nobility.

Actually, that is exactly what a "gentleman" is. It is an adjective to describe a "good", or rather, polite chivalrous person, usually of the male gender. However, people rarely describe themselves as a "gentleman", that is usally something one would say about another person. Whereas Christian is a ***le that people give themselves.

Originally Posted by Columcille

For you to try and convince me you are right, you must attack our Scriptures, our Traditions by your own standands of what you feel at the moment.

Yes, I attack your scriptures. That is how argument works. I suppose if you prefer I could attack you personally - but I try and stay away from ad hominem tactics.

Originally Posted by Columcille

You as the outsider looking in, you are just judgemental as you claim we are in your own perception.

Of course I am judgemental, I never said that I wasn't. The difference is that I don't claim to be a follower of a belief system that is against being judgemental. Since "all have sinned and therefore fall short of the grace of God" none of you have any right to judge anyone.

[Columcille]

[ad. L. ChrWstiQn-us, (in Gr. vq·rsi‰m¾|, Acts xi. 26), f. ChrWstus, vq·rs¾| Christ. Introduced with the Renascence in taking the place of the earlier cristen, christen a. (Cf. the Anglo-Fr. cristien, found from 12th c.)]

Acts 11.26:

and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.

5 [26] Christians: "Christians" is first applied to the members of the community at Antioch because the Gentile members of the community enable it to stand out clearly from Judaism.

OED definitions:

A. adj.

1. a. Of persons and communities: Believing, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ.

b. most Christian: a ***le of the kings of France.

c. In the names of various religious sects or ***ociations, as Christian Israelites, †Christian Royalists (see quot.), Christian Socialists (whence Christian Socialism, the principles of Christian Socialists; Christian-socialize v. (nonce-wd.), to imbue with Christian Socialism).

d. Politics. Christian Democrat (see quot. 1957); so Christian Democratic adj.

2. a. Of things: Pertaining to Christ or his religion: of or belonging to Christianity.

†b. Court Christian: an ecclesiastical court. Obs. exc. Hist.

†c. Christian ale: see quot. and ale 3. Obs.

3. Of persons and their qualities or actions: Showing character and conduct consistent with discipleship to Christ; marked by genuine piety; following the precepts and example of Christ; Christ-like.

4. Of or belonging to a Christian or Christians.

5. a. Human as distinguished from brutal; now only colloq. or humorous. b. mod. colloq. or slang. Of things: Becoming a Christian; ‘civilized’, ‘decent’, ‘respectable’. Cf. B. 3.

6. Christian name: the name given at christening; the personal name, as distinguished from the family name or surname. (Also allusively = ‘proper name’.) Hence to Christian-name v. trans. (nonce-wd.), to call by one's Christian name; Christian-named ppl. a., having a Christian name.

7. Christian era: the era reckoned from the accepted date of the birth of Christ, and adopted in all Christian countries.

B. n.

1. a. One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.

†b. even Christian: fellow-Christian; also collectively, fellow-Christians. Obs. See even-.

2. One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety.

3. a. colloq. and dial. A human being, as distinguished from a brute. [A common sense in the Romanic langs.] b. colloq. or slang. A ‘decent’, ‘respectable’, or ‘presentable’ person.

4. Used as a denominational or sectarian name.
Pronounced chrWstian, it was ***umed as a ***le by a sect which arose in America. Among the names of religious societies in England and Wales certified to the Registrar General occur ‘Bible Christians’, ‘Christians owning no name but the Lord Jesus’, and ‘Christians who object to be otherwise designated’.

†5. a. A variety of pear; ? = bon-chrétien; also a variety of plum. Obs.

b. Comb. (a) Parasynthetic, as Christian-minded a., and derivatives as Christian-mindedness n. (b) Christian-wise adv., in a Christian way.



When you state "Christ like," it is generally of the adjective #3 and #5because it is related to conduct and not belief. Even in the noun usage, it appears your usage resembles #2 and #3. However, when a person does convert to the precepts of the Christian faith, piety is not like some McDonald's drive-thru. There is no instant piety. In many instances, the struggles increase rather than decrease... because you become aware of sinful behavior... whereas, like you have claimed yourself;

"Of course I am judgemental, I never said that I wasn't."

When you quote scripture, you are not contextualizing it. When we do the contextualizing for you and point out errors of your interpretation, wether we go to the Greek language, point out other sources that explain its context, you will eventually just ignore it and move to another criticism. I have to wonder why you are here. Did some professing Christian hurt you? What is your ax that you are grinding? I have an ax to grind, I was molested by ****sexuals, I see wolves attempting to clothe themselves in sheeps clothing and intermingling with the sheep and overpowering the shepherds on watch... the Episcopal Church USA being just one example. I am not tolerating such idiocy or putting my head in the sand hoping it will not infect the Catholic Church or the other "seperated brothers and sisters" whom I know love the Lord. The Church has let you down, but it is not our doctrinal positions nor our moral stances from which your attacking us. Your attacking us because you love your sin.

[IncitingRiots]

Originally Posted by Columcille

However, when a person does convert to the precepts of the Christian faith, piety is not like some McDonald's drive-thru. There is no instant piety. In many instances, the struggles increase rather than decrease... because you become aware of sinful behavior... whereas, like you have claimed yourself;

Uh...... what does that even mean?

Originally Posted by Columcille

When you quote scripture, you are not contextualizing it. When we do the contextualizing for you and point out errors of your interpretation, wether we go to the Greek language, point out other sources that explain its context, you will eventually just ignore it and move to another criticism.

Please, by all means point out my errors of interpretation.

Originally Posted by Columcille

I have to wonder why you are here. Did some professing Christian hurt you? What is your ax that you are grinding?

The reason I am here I stated very clearly in my introduction post on this site.

Originally Posted by Columcille

I have an ax to grind, I was molested by ****sexuals,

So then you are essentially condemning a whole group for what one did to you? What if I were to lump all Catholic priests in with child molestors because what a few of them have done?

Originally Posted by Columcille

The Church has let you down, but it is not our doctrinal positions nor our moral stances from which your attacking us. Your attacking us because you love your sin.

If being rational and having a working BS detector is sinful - then bring on the sin.

[Columcille]

The whole group, yes. There is no natural law against becoming a priest. I'll be the first to condemn a priest that is also a child molestor, because in such a position they are more responsible, the same goes for teachers, police officers, and any public official.
****sexuality may be legal in the United States and other countries, but it is spiritual decay.

In regards to judgement, your main text is found in Matthew 7.1-5. However, it does not stop at verse 5 but includes verse 6. "Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you."

This verse demonstrates a discernment in judging. Also, verse 5 states, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."

So it is not, in the context given, saying absolutely not to judge... in fact, it encourages judgement to be moderated and controlled. You just stop with the phrase "Do not judge" and forget the rest of the p***age. Without judgement, both people with a speck and a log are still faced with the same problem. We as Christians are to perform a more intense self-examination. You do not have to hold yourself to such, because of your own authority. An authority from which only baby's know and some never grow out of it... the "me" complex. I don't think I ever want to live that way again. It is miserable living at the top of your own authority. I'd rather submit to God's standard.

[IncitingRiots]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The whole group, yes.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You win the "Most Ignorant Person I Have Ever Met" Award.

Originally Posted by Columcille

I don't think I ever want to live that way again. It is miserable living at the top of your own authority. I'd rather submit to God's standard.

Well that pretty much sums it up right there.

[ActRaiser]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

Well that pretty much sums it up right there.

I hope that I can totally submit to God's authority one day. Coincidently, I have been raped by enough males as to number my sexual ***aults in the triple digits. I don't condemn the whole group but I certainly don't like NAMBLA. NAMBLA has a common theme to it, which is, gay, adult males attracted to children. "Sex before eight or its too late."

Think about it please. Sexual molestation/rape is always wrong no matter what your sexual preference, but contrary to popular belief, molestation and rape is sometimes correctly attributed to sexuality, as well as power. Sexuality is not some exalted, god-like quality. It is definitely spiritual and holy, but it isn't God or a god.

[IncitingRiots]

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

I have been raped by enough males as to number my sexual ***aults in the triple digits.

No offense, but I think that is an exaggeration, if not a downright lie.

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

I don't condemn the whole group but I certainly don't like NAMBLA.

I don't think anyone here is trying to support NAMBLA. I personally would like to see those guys executed on national television.

Originally Posted by ActRaiser

Think about it please. Sexual molestation/rape is always wrong no matter what your sexual preference, but contrary to popular belief, molestation and rape is sometimes correctly attributed to sexuality, as well as power.

Sexual ***ault in any context, whether it be molestation or rape, is seldom about sex and more about power and control. Therefore a person's sexuality doesn't mean they are more or less likely to sexually ***ault someone. Just a little fyi most rapists are straight males.

[ActRaiser]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

Sexual ***ault in any context, whether it be molestation or rape, is seldom about sex and more about power and control. Therefore a person's sexuality doesn't mean they are more or less likely to sexually ***ault someone. Just a little fyi most rapists are straight males.

I'm not saying gays have a greater propensity to rape. I'm saying that the rapes that took place would not have.

[IncitingRiots]

Would not have.....if?

[ActRaiser]

Would not have... if they had another target. Which is a selfish thing to wish for, but it might be true (another if coming) if they of course, did things to gratify their paraphilias.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by IncitingRiots

CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You win the "Most Ignorant Person I Have Ever Met" Award.

Thank you for your comment.

It reminds me of the following:

Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 1.26-31, NRSV)

What can I say? Live and let live, who are you to judge my standards when your standards have no backbone. I've been in situations were I was kicked down for my beliefs in Tacoma, WA. I share my beliefs with people who have laid down their life for the Gospel. My belief system supports missionaries in places where your high life Satanists would never consider going because of the discomfort and hardships, what good is all your wisdom? What is it you hope to attain in this life? And when atrocities have been filmed, evidences have been obtained, what makes it so difficult to believe people have gone through trauma? If ActRaiser says it, you can reserve judgement because you haven't the facts--but I would not dismiss the possibility. Next thing you are going to say is that the holocaust never happened and it is a down right lie and exaggeration.


There is one more thing in regards to the p***age I quote. Jesus said love your enemies, you despise them; Jesus was crucified, and not Ceasar; Jesus was lowly, he was weak and he was despised. But why was he despised? He judged peoples' actions as sinful, and he calls us to share in his suffering. When we speak, he promised the world would despise us. You are of the world. It is only natural for you.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I have an ax to grind, I was molested by ****sexuals.

I'm very sorry that you were molested.

You do realize that not all gay and lesbian people molest?
And further, that some heterosexual people molest?

You don't take away the civil rights of a group based on the immoral actions of a couple bad apples - especially not when you have a couple bad apples in your own orchard...