Gay Activist Anti-Protest Turns Violent....and Disgusting

[TimelessTheist]

I don't know. I would probably take the side of the people that 'aren't' throwing human feces at people, but, you know, that's just me.

[Jedidiah]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

The man is a moronic troll, why be surprised at stupid posts?

[Cerebrum123]

The man is a moronic troll, why be surprised at stupid posts?

He will now claim victory for your proper identification of him as a . Further indication that this is indeed a correct identification.

[Spartacus]

Should we really refer to people by the type of sin they struggle with when they have repented as if it still defines them?

Kinda hard to repent of an attraction

[Teallaura]

Kinda hard to repent of an attraction

But 'attraction' isn't a sin, now is it? Being tempted, no matter how much, isn't sinning; ACTING on that temptation by succumbing to it is sin.

A murderer will never in this life not still be that person's murderer - but if we identify him only as a murderer, then have we forgiven him - and more to the point, if he has indeed repented, would God still be identifying him as 'Bob the Murderer'?

If Bob only thinks of himself in terms of his worst sin, how can he progress past that sin (once repented and forgiven)? God puts our sin away from us once we repent ('as far as the East is from the West'...) so why would we continue to identify ourselves that way? Yes, Bob was a murderer - but Paul tells us that this is not a permanent state ('some of you were' not 'some of you are but act better now').

Those who have chosen to follow Christ over following their carnal desires - even very powerful ones - aren't doing themselves any favors by think of themselves in terms of those desires instead of being followers of Christ. How we identify ourselves colors how we think about ourselves - this is part of why labeling people can be such a negative thing - so why do we describe our brothers and sisters by their former sins again, exactly?

[Spartacus]

But 'attraction' isn't a sin, now is it? Being tempted, no matter how much, isn't sinning; ACTING on that temptation by succumbing to it is sin.

A murderer will never in this life not still be that person's murderer - but if we identify him only as a murderer, then have we forgiven him - and more to the point, if he has indeed repented, would God still be identifying him as 'Bob the Murderer'?

If Bob only thinks of himself in terms of his worst sin, how can he progress past that sin (once repented and forgiven)? God puts our sin away from us once we repent ('as far as the East is from the West'...) so why would we continue to identify ourselves that way? Yes, Bob was a murderer - but Paul tells us that this is not a permanent state ('some of you were' not 'some of you are but act better now').

Those who have chosen to follow Christ over following their carnal desires - even very powerful ones - aren't doing themselves any favors by think of themselves in terms of those desires instead of being followers of Christ. How we identify ourselves colors how we think about ourselves - this is part of why labeling people can be such a negative thing - so why do we describe our brothers and sisters by their former sins again, exactly?

Most of the people I know who identify as gay don't have any such sins to repent of.

[OingoBoingo]

But 'attraction' isn't a sin, now is it? Being tempted, no matter how much, isn't sinning; ACTING on that temptation by succumbing to it is sin.

Just curious, but how do you feel that squares with Matthew 5:28?

[Bill the Cat]

Most of the people I know who identify as gay don't have any such sins to repent of.

If they have engaged in homosexual sex acts, then they have.

[Bill the Cat]

Just curious, but how do you feel that squares with Matthew 5:28?

I think the type of lusting Jesus is referring to goes far beyond a simple temptation. From what I have read on the subject years ago, it is an active mind plotting on how to make that temptation a reality.

[Spartacus]

If they have engaged in homosexual sex acts, then they have.

They have not. They nonetheless identify as gay.

[Bill the Cat]

They have not. They nonetheless identify as gay.

We have a member here in the same boat. He is celibate.

[Teallaura]

Just curious, but how do you feel that squares with Matthew 5:28?

I think Matt 4:1-11 becomes more than a little problematic if we assume temptation is the same as sin, doesn't it? Lusting, incidentally, is an act, albeit mental. And it's one that follows after temptation - the fleeting thought isn't at issue; the mental drooling is.

Ergo, there's nothing to rectify - temptation isn't sin and sin is not limited to physical acts.

[Teallaura]

Most of the people I know who identify as gay don't have any such sins to repent of.

Then the question stands, although I will modify it slightly, Mr Wants to be a Lawyer - is it healthy or wise to self-identify according to a predilection that, unchecked, leads to sin?

And yes, Mr. Semantics, there is a difference between identification and predilection. We all have some predilection or other; very few of us use that to identify who we are. Your obsession with complex argumentation doesn't define you as a person (does make arguing with you occasionally annoying! ); despite what Sparky thinks, my love of cats doesn't tell you who I am (one more 'cat lady' comment and I'm shipping him a full, used litter box parcel post!); why should a sexual predilection define a person?

[Spartacus]

Then the question stands, although I will modify it slightly, Mr Wants to be a Lawyer - is it healthy or wise to self-identify according to a predilection that, unchecked, leads to sin?

And yes, Mr. Semantics, there is a difference between identification and predilection. We all have some predilection or other; very few of us use that to identify who we are. Your obsession with complex argumentation doesn't define you as a person (does make arguing with you occasionally annoying! ); despite what Sparky thinks, my love of cats doesn't tell you who I am (one more 'cat lady' comment and I'm shipping him a full, used litter box parcel post!); why should a sexual predilection define a person?

It is worthwhile to have people who identify as gay without trying to fulfill those desires if only as a necessary counter-witness to the culture that can't comprehend that such a person might 1. exist 2. be basically happy and 3. have an array of deep and fulfilling non-sexual relationships

[OingoBoingo]

I think the type of lusting Jesus is referring to goes far beyond a simple temptation. From what I have read on the subject years ago, it is an active mind plotting on how to make that temptation a reality.

I think Matt 4:1-11 becomes more than a little problematic if we assume temptation is the same as sin, doesn't it? Lusting, incidentally, is an act, albeit mental. And it's one that follows after temptation - the fleeting thought isn't at issue; the mental drooling is.

Ergo, there's nothing to rectify - temptation isn't sin and sin is not limited to physical acts.

Got it. Thank you both.