I tried to keep this short and avoid theological arguments, hoping to clarify some points.

Let me lay some foundations in my thinking.

The quick reference used to the Catholic/Protestant split was to illustrate that the break was never fixed; the two still pass in the scripture, and no one belief system impressed the other enough to change so completely. Yet, they respectfully agree to disagree on matters. That is all – nothing more. Please don’t read more into a simple example.

While this can derail into a long conversation on theology and who is saved – my intent was to cut to the chase. The theologies of affirming churches are never going to meet with the theologies of non-affirming churches.

Consider this, there are several theological issues in which evangelicals differ. Some are concerning Rapture, Tribulation (pre, mid, post) Interpretation of Revelations, Grace vs. Works, etc… The basic need of respect goes to those when they differ on these issues but somehow has been overlooked when it concerns those people who believe that homosexuality is either acceptable or unacceptable.

Thus far, all the preaching and “intentions” of just wanting to tell the truth and “save” others has moved hundreds of thousands of people away from Christ. My biggest concern when we attempt to activate the great commission is that we shoot our toes off because we are tripping on our own feet. Telling the truth might be heard more clearly if we lived the truth. One of the most impressive things to me about Jesus’ life is that he ate with those who were cast away from the church of his day. And he befriended them.

The table I was referring to was not one of agreement and but one of respect. Nor was it the table where only evangelical Christians sit. Before I am slammed for being some ecumenical messenger, I am not saying we must believe in the peace and unity of people under one banner of faith or religion. Not at all. I am saying befriend others.

Most of all let the religion go.

How dare you have a life and any other priorities outside of answering my questions! I am incensed!…ya right….LOL.

Thank you for being so conscientious and for the quick note in the midst of your busyness. I truly appreciate the time and the insights you’ve shared as I’ve muddled through this conversation.

Godspeed in your endeavours.

I’m not avoiding answering – I have been out of town and unable to respond. I have quickly read through your response and will answer shortly – maybe tomorrow or the next day. A couple of items take precedence at this moment.

And that, after you had just returned to posting on this thread, still ignoring Ann’s question that she posted at least twice to you.

With Evan, you decided to be hung-up on the definiton of atypical while you yourself used the even more vague term ‘stereotypical’. And then, while still puzzling over atypical, rehash your own bisexual theories which are, IMHO, a lot less clear than Evan’s discourse on atypicalism. (I secretly found great humor in this. You seem to assume that if you can’t grasp something, it’s either incomprehensible or the speaker is unintelligible. You never seem to catch on that it might also suggest that you are bull-headed and close-minded. You also seem to think that the conversation must stop until you’ve declared that you now understand. I, for one, have no trouble with leaving you behind…or allowing you to read on the sidelines until you grasp what’s being said. LOL. I picture a student in the first day of physics class constantly interupting the teacher with ‘but you still haven’t explained ‘quantum physics’.)

(I often don’t engage in conversations with drowssap…not because I think what he’s saying is foolish…but rather, because the conversations are ‘out of my league’. I read and try to learn from the sidelines. LOL. And when he and Evan get going, I find that I actually do develop a better understanding of what they’re talking about.)

Then I post several long and thoughtful posts about considering the possibility of any sources of homophobia that aren’t rooted in conservative religion and you don’t acknowledge the merits (or lack thereof) of anything I said, instead you feel compelled to ask me to address your concerns.

You pretended your question was just ‘your concern’ but you conveniently addressed it to me (again, why the need to address it to me?)…and put your remarks re secret bigots saying they have gay friends in quotes…I believe, to purposely suggest that the friends I mentioned reaching were probably still quite homophobic at some level. But, as always, the reference is just vague enough that you can scream “oh no, that’s not what I intended at all; you’re being way too sensitive”.

Re the answer to your question. I’m going to ask that you use deductive reasoning, read my posts here and answer the question for yourself. If that fails you, use your recall abilities to remember when we’ve discussed politics before. I answered quite specifically then. At the moment, I’m not in the mood for dancing.

Yes, it’s true that many Christians aren’t loving; it’s also true that many liberals aren’t open-minded. That’s a truth that bears reiterating.

Actually, you didn’t answer any of my questions. My concern is, when does and when should, if ever, our vote reflect our religious beliefs, and when should it not? Should we vote so that our gay neighbor, who may not believe as we do, is denied certain rights and privileges? This is not a question that you answered, and one I believed I asked

Do you believe it is alright to deny our gay neighbors certain rights simply because our religious beliefs dictate that we, and others who may not believe as we do, behave certain ways?

Love you brother. You made me smile.

In the word of Arnold Schwarzenegger, I’ll be back!

LOL

Love to all of you!

Lisa

As they say in the movies: “Ditto!” LOL. I read your last post in my inbox rather than on the site and, I’ve gotta say, you’ve got the conversation down better than most of us. I went to hit ‘reply’ and caught myself. I think I’m pretty good at conversation but I do have a leaning towards ‘preachy/exhorty’ when on a topic; that usually dampens a conversation. In person, I have a laugh and a sense of humor to buffer but that’s very difficult to convey via keyboard.

You will keep us informed of the progress, won’t you? We may not still be hanging around on this topic thread but peek up in recently commented and find us there. Or, if it’s really newsworthy, give Warren a shout and perhaps your news will become the topic of the day. Then we’ll find you! Thanks for being a refreshing and optimistic voice!

It is easier said than done. I was just posting it AGAIN as a reminder. When Jesus said it, it sounded easy then too.

I was just signing off for awhile because I am overwhelmingly busy with this project and my peace out is a big lets try to treat each other better and call it a day…as over simplified as that sounds.

Anyway, grateful for your no…I don’t really have any more room anyway and I just wanted you to feel included because I thought after you realized you had me confused with someone else and I had never asked you to participate , the least I could do is ask you. SO I did.

I would love to go into HERMIT MODE. Enjoy it. Sounds very appealing to me.

Wish you well EDDY.

Lisa

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Well, if you knew–or had strong reason to believe–that the bridge was out on the road I was travelling, I sure hope you’d tell me. I think you’d be out of line if you called me ‘stupid’ or ‘blind’ for being on the wrong road but I’d certainly hope that you’d have enough love for me to share your concerns with me.

Many evangelicals do set themselves up as judge and do resort to regrettable name-calling but there are many others who simply want to say “I think you may be on the wrong road and here’s why.” Conversely, there are many from ‘the other side’ who believe it’s the evangelicals who are on the dangerous road.

For either side to fall silent about what they strongly believe God has showed them…that would mean that neither side was actually following the golden rule…neither side would be sharing a deep and heartfelt concern that they have for the other.

So many of us are good at ‘speaking the truth’–as we perceive it–but we fall short on the ‘in love’ part. “Speaking the truth IN LOVE.” And we all need to fully grasp that we all–even the brightest bulbs among us–’see through a glass darkly’. I’m thinking that the humility that comes from that revelation when coupled with speaking the truth as we perceive it would create the change of attitude that would create conversations rather than sermons and potshots.

(I’ve been encouraged by this particular topic thread because, as a whole, we have conversed rather than gone preaching or mud-slinging. I appreciate your part in that!)

“Live and Let Live” is far closer to what many hope for than the Golden Rule. LOL. Many probably think that IS the ‘Golden Rule’.

(Re your previous post. I appreciate the kudos but I still feel that I must decline to be interviewed. Maybe I’m saving it all for a book I dream of writing some day; maybe I’m still unwilling to step out of hermit mode…I’m not sure of the reasons but I’m at total peace with ‘no’. Sorry!)

Jayhuck–
I’m a bit perplexed by the comment you addressed to me–and others. If it was just to me, I’d assume your references were to just how far my friends’ attitudes have changed…has it impacted them in the voting booth? Apart from this blog and sometimes with my family, I simply don’t discuss politics…so I have no way of knowing how they now vote on issues important to the gay community. I’m reasonably content with the fact that I was able to take some degree of antagonism and turn it into some degree of acceptance–and that that acceptance wasn’t just extended to me but a number of gays have enjoyed it too.

If your comment was really meant for ‘me–and others’, it seems to indicate that you thought we didn’t already have that understanding. Let me assure you that we do. I realize our detour into discussing other possible sources of homophobia might have made it seem that we are blind to the issues within the church. Once again, I assure you we are not. As to levels of intolerance, I believe we are also aware. And I’m sure we’re also aware that the traditions of Christianity can and do have impact on more than just the church; some components of the homophobia that is expressed by the unchurched does, in fact, stem from the church’s impact on society.(I have no idea how much. You and some others obviously feel that it’s much more than I do. But none of has more than opinions or anecdotes on that question.) But, we wanted to step outside of the box for a bit, away from the conversations that we’ve had over and over again, and look at some other possibilities.

LOL. Somewhere in there I hope I answered the concerns you presented in your post.