Christian publisher drops writer's book because he came out to Time Magazine as gay

originally posted by: Anyafaj
Please quote where he said homosexuality is not sinful. I'm half dead from being up all night last night and I can't see it.

This would constitute that.

He alleges that he was then asked to sign a statement that he does 'not condone, encourage, or accept the homosexual lifestyle'.

Robertson, who is also a spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, refused to sign the statement

He was asked to sign something saying he thought it was wrong, he refused to do so.

If you're arguing for the sake of argument, I honestly cannot continue. I have two brothers who do that, and they can be very emotionally exhausting after 15 minutes of a visit with them. If not and I'm reading the last few pages wrong. I happily apologize. As I said, I'm exhausted right now. I have to attempt to get some rest now. I think my couch/bed is calling me.

Not at all. I think there are many times things happen and I think the Christian side does the wrong thing. This simply is not one of them. The author had been skirting the line, but had a stance that is quite similar to mine. I do not condone, encourage, or accept a homosexual relationship that includes sex. I do still love them.

I also think any two people should be able to be "married" and enjoy the government benefits that comes with it. Even those related to each other or best friends. Sex does not even have to occur for two people to spend their lives together, and even in heterosexual relationships sex does not always occur. There are numerous civil advantages which have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Personally I think a term other than "marriage" should be used, but confer all the same benefits. The author crossed the line though in the Time article, and was given the opportunity to clarify his position to bring it in line with the publisher's stance, and refused to do so.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I do not condone, encourage, or accept a homosexual relationship that includes sex. I do still love them.

I can't imagine loving someone and not accepting something as fundamental about them as their orientation, or not encouraging them to express themselves in life in ways that maximize their happiness.

...but that's me.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

So, because its in the Old Testament, its not relavent to Christians?

What do you think Jesus taught from?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: ketsuko

That's not what was said. The "gay lifestyle" is different IMO from being gay.

The difference between heterosexuality and the heterosexual lifestyle is what?

One produces offspring and is condoned by most religious groups.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Thank you for saying this. I was in too crappy a mood to get it out properly yesterday.



My apologies to those whom I may have upset.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I do not condone, encourage, or accept a homosexual relationship that includes sex. I do still love them.

I can't imagine loving someone and not accepting something as fundamental about them as their orientation, or not encouraging them to express themselves in life in ways that maximize their happiness.

...but that's me.

Well, right now my son is extremely sugar oriented, but I don't allow him to express that desire to maximize his happiness. He is also extremely new toy oriented too. If I indulged that desire and allowed him to express it to its greatest extent, I'd be broke.

Sometimes, you have to learn to moderate your urges and sometimes you have to understand that not every desire is the best for you too even though it produces temporary gratification.

Again, this isn't about love. Love the emotion is never wrong. But sex the act can be.

a reply to: Anyafaj



Well, you can say all you want...BUT...your book DOES specifically say that homosexuality is a sin...

So, which is it?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Except you should read your Bible because you are absolutely 100% wrong. There was no need for me to correct you earlier because it really does not matter. Now I will do so. Not all Christians are bound by the Laws.

According to Paulinity, which is what you're selling. Who ya gonna believe? Jesus Christ or Paul? Here's what your "Christ" advised his followers when asked about the letter of the "LAW".

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

As far as I can see, Heaven and Earth have not disappeared and, obviously, everything isn't accomplished yet, so the very "stroke of Paul's pen" condemns HIM to be called the "least" as his teachings are the teachings that are promoting sin, not this author's, as you so wrongly argue.

Talking about murder is a great logical fallacy. If you can not figure out why I will clue you in. I would prefer to give you the opportunity to not make yourself look a fool again. Your call.

Sigh.

Murder
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Jesus "Christ" made the "LAW" a whole lot harder. He didn't absolve anyone from anything, especially those who claim to follow his teachings and call themselves Christians.

Adultery
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

It makes one scratch one's head. In all his teachings, Jesus himself never once called out or denounced homosexuality, even though he WAS keen on denouncing adultery, which many, many heterosexual Christians are most certainly guilty of, and remain unrepentant.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Anyafaj
Please quote where he said homosexuality is not sinful. I'm half dead from being up all night last night and I can't see it.

This would constitute that.

He alleges that he was then asked to sign a statement that he does 'not condone, encourage, or accept the homosexual lifestyle'.

Robertson, who is also a spokesperson for Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, refused to sign the statement

He was asked to sign something saying he thought it was wrong, he refused to do so.

If you're arguing for the sake of argument, I honestly cannot continue. I have two brothers who do that, and they can be very emotionally exhausting after 15 minutes of a visit with them. If not and I'm reading the last few pages wrong. I happily apologize. As I said, I'm exhausted right now. I have to attempt to get some rest now. I think my couch/bed is calling me.

Not at all. I think there are many times things happen and I think the Christian side does the wrong thing. This simply is not one of them. The author had been skirting the line, but had a stance that is quite similar to mine. I do not condone, encourage, or accept a homosexual relationship that includes sex. I do still love them.

I also think any two people should be able to be "married" and enjoy the government benefits that comes with it. Even those related to each other or best friends. Sex does not even have to occur for two people to spend their lives together, and even in heterosexual relationships sex does not always occur. There are numerous civil advantages which have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Personally I think a term other than "marriage" should be used, but confer all the same benefits. The author crossed the line though in the Time article, and was given the opportunity to clarify his position to bring it in line with the publisher's stance, and refused to do so.

I do agree on the civil unions. Heartily! I personally think the publisher crossed the line asking him to sign the statement, but that's my own personal opinion. I'd have to see whether or not the publisher had asked others in the past to sign similar statements as well to determine more fully.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Thank you for saying this. I was in too crappy a mood to get it out properly yesterday.

My apologies to those whom I may have upset.

No apologies Ketsuko. You are still loved and respected here.

a reply to: chr0naut

One produces offspring and is condoned by most religious groups.

Not familiar with artificial insemination and surrogate mothers? Just because you're gay doesn't mean your reproductive organs cease to function. Gay people can and do reproduce. Hell...sometimes gay people reproduce by having sex with the opposite sex.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So, because its in the Old Testament, its not relavent to Christians?

What do you think Jesus taught from?

What?

Are you referring to my comment about the New Covenant and the hypocrisy? I am basing that on what Christians often say in regards to OT in discussions. What's relevant or what you want to believe about your dogma is up to you.

As I said. If you do use OT as a source for being anti-homosexuality than all you can possibly take from it is that men having sex with men is sinful. Since those verses don't include women it's not towards lesbians. Additionally none of it's towards the homosexual orientation itself, as that concept wasn't existent then. The language reflected sexual acts themselves.

a reply to: nullafides

Well, you can say all you want...BUT...your book DOES specifically say that homosexuality is a sin...

Yes it does. If you are very selective with your translations that is...

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Soooo....you're saying that christianity is ok with homosexuality. Interesting.

From the Bible, I'd never have thought this were the case.

a reply to: nullafides

Read my prior posts then share your thoughts concerning my take on what scripture does and does not say.

I am in no way saying Christians are 'okay' with homosexuality. It's more than evident that a large portion of people belonging to Abrahamic faiths are against homosexuality.

That's a separate thing to what scripture actually says.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you're salivating at the very prospect of that being the case...

but...

Isn't the bible, and it's scripture, the cornerstone of the faith of christianity?


Well, I'm out. Enjoy the thread

a reply to: nullafides

The interpretations vary. Vary amongst denominations and vary amongst the clergy whom instruct within these various churches. So yes of course the dogma is a cornerstone. It doesn't negate my points about scripture and the translations. One church could teach from a modern translation that includes 'homosexuality", and another Christian church could use a different modern translation that does not. Or even more genuine, and more rarely, perhaps a church that is cognizant of what the source material actually says [or doesn't rather].