What God Wants *Debate (Believers Welcome, But Be Warned)*

[The Laughing Man]

wow! powerfully clear! If nothing else, and not to add my views to the subject, as I haven't been involved, and wish to remain that way, I find that a beautiful elucidation and stunning (to me, in my limited knowledge of sal)revelation.

[Prebe]

Why does it [Being Gay] have to be the first thing we have to encounter?

And why do you have to write so many posts about it? You are quite obviously disproportionately pissed off (to the point of obsession) by people who find it necessary to mention that the are gay. As I said in a previous post, the reason for playing this card early is (i believe, correct me if I'm wrong VS) that many people will feel, if they find out your sexual orientation later, that you have been hiding something from them, that was vital for them to know. Wrong as that may be, I am sure that is how many peple feel.

[Avatar]

Quite apart from anything else, why shouldn't it be something that you can mention? It may not be a reflection of oneself, but it is certainly a part of what makes somebody themselves, much as the fact that I am not a christian characterises me to some extent.

Should I hide that fact (or refrain from mentioning it) because it is not the totality of my existence? Or should it be easily and freely acknowledged as contributing to the sort of person that I am?

I see absolutely no difference betwen the two, especially in the context of discussions like these. The simple fact that, if nothing else, it colours my opinions, makes it relevant. It is not the be-all and end-all of my life, certainly. But it is part thereof, and worthy of recognition in that regard.

Certainly I have (and do) preface many of my posts (far more often than Vs mentions his own orientation) with the qualifier that I'm an unbeliever. By your reasoning, is that wrong?

--A

[sgt.null]

Variol has the right to mention any info he feels is relevent to the topic. i mention here that i am Catholic and married (straight). some would say excessively. and too often people will use the holding of that info as a chance to attack. and to be honest i have no idea for the most part if anyone here is gay. i have an aunt and cousin who are gay, so maybe i'm more used to it than some folk?

[The Laughing Man]

I can say that knowledge of "orientation" is unneccessary,, and irrelevant, to me, because I just don't judge, therefore "beat up" people, but I can see the necessity for this to be important information for some people to have for the reasons stated. We can all see the evidence for that, unfortunately. I would not seek to pity, nor empathise, something I had no understanding of, to be sure. If you feel its relevant, by all means state it.

[Cail]

Why does it [Being Gay] have to be the first thing we have to encounter?

And why do you have to write so many posts about it? You are quite obviously disproportionately pissed off (to the point of obsession) by people who find it necessary to mention that the are gay. As I said in a previous post, the reason for playing this card early is (i believe, correct me if I'm wrong VS) that many people will feel, if they find out your sexual orientation later, that you have been hiding something from them, that was vital for them to know. Wrong as that may be, I am sure that is how many peple feel.

It shouldn't make any difference. We're discussing things on the internet, and very few of us will ever meet. Who cares if someone's gay?

[ur-bane]

It isn't an issue to me, to God, or to anyone here. So I asked, why is it an issue to you, Variol Son? Why do you need to say, "I'm gay"?

Sal---you are making it an issue. The reason that VS mentioned it is clear. It is not an issue for him in the way you are interpreting it.

And as a matter of fact, it is an issue in many religions and governments as well.
VS clearly explained his motivation behind his statement, and that was that.
Or it should have been, anyway. None of us who have known have ever made the type of "issue" out of it that you are making. You apologise for making it an issue, and then continue to lecture VS about why it should not be an issue.

I think the time has come to drop it. VS has made his point, so have you.
We can move on now and get back to topic, OK?

[Prebe]

It shouldn't make any difference. We're discussing things on the internet, and very few of us will ever meet. Who cares if someone's gay?

I certainly don't. I was just attempting to explain, why VS has felt necessary to mention it. I have no way of knowing this, which is why I ask VS if I might be right.

[Avatar]

I think the time has come to drop it. VS has made his point, so have you.
We can move on now and get back to topic, OK?

Agreed Ur-Bane, and an excellent post at that.

Perhaps we should re-state the original question even more clearly: Is it more important to god that we love our fellow man, or that we love god?

It's an easy question. (If not an easy answer. )

--Avatar

[SalotHSaR]

Maybe you guys are right.

I would however like to hear from Variol Son. He's a big boy & he can talk for himself.

If nothing else, I'd just like to get to know people like Prebe & Variol Son without the education of knowledge that they are gay. I find that fact meaningless. It's like saying, well just so you know, I"m black. I really don't give a $*(@. I just want to know the person. Is that so much to ask? Honestly...

[ur-bane]

If you find the fact meaningless, why are you assigning so much meaning to it???????? (Where did you pick up that Prebe is gay?)
Let's drop it, please.

I am straight.....is that a problem now that you know that?

Let's drop it, please.

And now I apologise for continuing it with this response. I am done.

Avatar---I think I've already answered that earlier, but I am still thinking about it. There have been some excellent and varied interpretations in this thread, all of which are valid. I can see both sides here very easily, regardless of my own personal opinion.

But I still feel that god wats us to love him. Whether it is more or less than our fellow man, I am now rethinking.

[SalotHSaR]

Maybe I'm gay. Would that surprise you? The point is that it DOES NOT MATTER & should not be the thing that is stated as WHO I AM because it cannot begin to encompass who I am as a person and I want you all to know who I am as a person. If I'm gay or if I am not gay has nothing to do with how I feel about things. That's simply something that is a part of me, just a boy is a boy. A person doesn't even say "well from a man's point of view..." blah blah blah. A woman might, but that is a weakness. It shouldn't be "this is a woman's point of view". It should never be on the table. I don't care if Furl's Fire is white, black, woman, man, gay, or an intelligent ape. I just want to know Furl's Fire opinion and hear about who she is as a person. All the rest comes in time. THe first thing in her responses should not be, as a woman this is what I think. IT should be, AS A PERSON! this is what I think. All the rest comes later.


I don't understand why this notion is so difficult to understand. AM I saying this wrong?

[ur-bane]

Oh, my sexuality is but a very small part of who I am. I mention it because homosexuality seems to be one of the great unforgivable sins of the late twentieth/early twenty first century, and the Civil Union Act, which creates a legally recognized relationship status as an alternative to marriage that homosexuals have access to, was a huge political issue earlier this year.

In America you have "God Hates Fags", and the President suggests amending the very constitution to prevent the possibility of gay marriage. Here in New Zealand politicians and high profile pastors spout rhetoric about children of homosexuals suffering abuse, and about their parents being everything from perverts to muslim terrorists. The National Party leader (New Zealand's version of the leader of the republican party) has even stated publicly that he represents "mainstream" New Zealanders, not homosexuals.

Hatred of me, or of a part of me, is waved in my face every day. It's very hard to get away from. And where there is no hatred, there is still stigma and seperation. Almost every heterosexual person I know, including my closest friends, think of me as being gay, look at me as being gay, and introduce me to others as being gay.

But that is all quite irrelevent to this discussion, since my sexuality was never a source of shame for me when I was a christian. The shame that drove me from the church was much more mundane.

I got sick of feeling guilty when I didn't go to the Saturday evening service, the Sunday morning service and the Sunday evening service.

I was tired of the "pep" talk I'd receive every time I said I couldn't be the worship leader at six out of the twelve services that month.

Being accused of having a "spirit of rebellion" every time I had questions about the church's youth group structure wasn't amusing, especially since said structure underwent drastic changes every month anyway.

I was told I had character issues and that I undermined leadership because I didn't blindly believe everything they told me, and encouraged others to question as well.

I am even credited with leading my best friend into sin because he decided that he wasn't going to manipulated into pushing himself until he had an emotional breakdown just to do more for the church.

My youth group leaders would manipulate the situation so that all my friends and I wanted was their approval, and then use that desire to squeeze every last drop of "service" from us before awarding as with their disdain instead.

If my step-father treated my mother like that, it would be termed emotional abuse and she could probably get a restraining order if she took a psychologist to court with her. It is violent behaviour in that it harms people with the intent of controlling their actions.

One day I decided that I wasn't going to put up with it anymore. Life is a gift, and I was not going to allow mine to be poisoned, even by those who believe they are doing so with the best of intentions.

Please note that I understand that not all churches or christians behave in this manner. this was simply my experience.

Emphasis Mine.
Geez,man. Did you actually read all that was said, or did you just get hung up on "gay"?????

You are making "gay" the meaning of VS's life, nobody else.

And yes, I understand that it is not important on an everyday basis, but the statement was relevant to the discussion.

You said that it's OK to know those things in time.
Did you happen to look at VS's join date? I think time has been spent here. If VS in comfortable with himself, and with the people on this board to be open, why should that bother you so? Really. Why?

Pretend he didn't say "gay" and respond with your thoughts on the subject. Is that too much to ask?

[Plissken]

Maybe I'm gay. Would that surprise you? The point is that it DOES NOT MATTER & should not be the thing that is stated as WHO I AM because it cannot begin to encompass who I am as a person and I want you all to know who I am as a person. If I'm gay or if I am not gay has nothing to do with how I feel about things. That's simply something that is a part of me, just a boy is a boy. A person doesn't even say "well from a man's point of view..." blah blah blah. A woman might, but that is a weakness. It shouldn't be "this is a woman's point of view". It should never be on the table. I don't care if Furl's Fire is white, black, woman, man, gay, or an intelligent ape. I just want to know Furl's Fire opinion and hear about who she is as a person. All the rest comes in time. THe first thing in her responses should not be, as a woman this is what I think. IT should be, AS A PERSON! this is what I think. All the rest comes later.


I don't understand why this notion is so difficult to understand. AM I saying this wrong?

No, I don't think it's wrong. People who use their membership card in whatever minority or special interest group as a way to legitimise their points - instead of just making a good argument and the backing it up - annoy me as well.

It's also off-putting when people work whatever unique little quirks they have into a conversation as often as possible, or denigrate others for not being a part of whatever social or political group they are ("Well, you're just a ________, you wouldn't understand - really, it's more of a ________ thing.")

You're also right when you say that it's nice to be able to get to know someone without finding out who they like to go to bed with in the first five minutes.

HOWEVER, I don't think that VS has done any of these things - he was telling us about himself, and how he came to the place he did with the religion he was raised in (ie: Where God Is in his life, and why.) He might've used more generic terms in explaining why he had to get out of his old religion and find his own way, but I think that he painted a much clearer picture by choosing to give us the specifics.

I think that letting us into his personal life in the interest of giving a clear picture of his worldview is admirable - especially since not everyone here has made their preferences and positions known on the subject. In so doing, VS opened himself to the possibility of much harsher attacks than you gave him, and for a reason that was relatively minor.

[CovenantJr]

Pretend he didn't say "gay" and respond with your thoughts on the subject. Is that too much to ask?

Well said.

Now, as Avatar suggested, back to the question at hand: Is it more important to god that we love our fellow man, or that we love god?

Various people have put forward their view that loving one another is more important to god than loving him. But since so much of the written "word of god" seems to make a strong case for god-love being the main priority, it makes me wonder whether the people who advocate the people-love approach are indulging, unconsciously, in wishful thinking; if they feel strongly that god is real, but couldn't live with a god who would demand our adoration of him above all else. And if the people-love view is so much at odds with Christian documents, can such people really claim to be Christians at all?

[Cail]

I believe that both are important, but I believe that Christ spent most of his time talking about loving our fellow man, about charity and giving, about taking care of the weak and infirm. Therefore, by a nose, I think people-love is just a bit more important than God-love.

[ur-bane]

I suddenly feel completely undecided. I mean, the OT clearly states that love/fear of god is the "in thing." Then, Jesus comes along and says "love one another."

But the thing is, he also said "whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." So, if you love man, you automatically love god, according to Jesus. IOW, they are one and the same, which means they share the exact same degree of necessity. At least that is my new thinking after re-reading all the posts as well as some of the Bible.

But it still makes me wonder why god suddenly changed his tune?

[Cail]

Interesting take.......I'll ponder that during soccer practice, but that really makes sense.

[SalotHSaR]

Pretend he didn't say "gay" and respond with your thoughts on the subject. Is that too much to ask?

Well said.

Yeah, let's just overlook stuff. That's useful.

In so doing, VS opened himself to the possibility of much harsher attacks than you gave him, and for a reason that was relatively minor.

I'm not attacking the guy. Maybe it looks like it to you & others, but that's not the case. Even VS thought I was. Kinda incredible when you actually read my post.

[Fist and Faith]

Depends on what you think the Bible is. If you believe it must be one story, unified and without contradiction, then you need to figure out how to fit the seemingly contradictory aspects together.

However, here's a different way of viewing the Bible. Blasphemous to some, but I don't believe as they do, and I think these ideas are beautiful. Yes, I've posted these quotes before, and likely will again.

What I am committed to is taking the Bible seriously. Not as a basic text on physical science, biology or even history, but as the faithful attempt by many authors to tell the story of God's relationship to people. It tells me a great deal about who God is, and in the process I learn about who I am as well. -- Matthew (A guy I used to email with a lot)

The Upanishads are not systematic philosophy; they are more like ecstatic slide shows of mystical experience - vivid, disjointed, stamped with the power of direct personal encounter with the divine. If they seem to embrace contradictions, that is because they do not try to smooth over the seams of these experiences. They simply set down what the rishis saw, viewing the ultimate reality from different levels of spiritual awareness, like snapshots of the same object from different angles: now seeing God as utterly transcendent, for example, now seeing God as immanent as well. These differences are not important, and the Upanishads agree on their central ideas: ... -- Eknath Easwaran