In Reply to: Re: Why a "Christian ghetto?" posted by Jo on October 03, 2006 at 12:44:58:
Jo:
You misunderstood what I meant about a ghetto, and then ran ahead with your idea.
That's probably because you cannot stand me; as a person, because of the beliefs you espouse and broadcast in high volume here on this chat board, versus my own beliefs, which I am trying very carefully to simply state, and answer questions, ask my own, etc (in other words, “chat”), in an attempt to communicate ideas, without getting personal and nasty with individual persons.
I have nothing against you personally. I seriously doubt you can hoestly say that about me; though.
Jo; are you attempting, even in your misunderstanding, to tell me, and others reading, that you actually BELIEVE that YOU speak for everyone here on ExFam?
I doubt that that is true. Even if it were, and it is NOT, WC recently stated, why do you assume yours is the “official” voice, when it is not?
I really love both reading and posting over on NDN, and I am quite familiar with what goes on there, and I am certainly part of the community over there, and know that there is quite a lot of “cross-pollination”between here, and there, so-to-speak.
I am well aware that some Coordinators there have studied, among other things, theology. So have I, over 30+ years, although I have not as yet been able to afford a seminary education.
I am quite an avid reader; however. I both know my sources, and know what it is that I am talking about.
You meant that you think that they are superior to me; I guess; right? Interesting.
Just what do you mean that they “can offer their insights without running others down for their lifestyles”? I’m trying to stick with “ideas”; here, Jo?
I am not running anybody down personally; although you would obvioulsy like to try and reframe me that way. Then you would not have to substantiate your accusations.
You mean that you personally assume that homosexuality IS condoned Biblically, IN the Bible, and that anyone that doesn’t take that current PC stand is one of the bad guys, theologically; right?
OK, then; back it up; please: defend the idea.
That’s what we do here; discuss ideas and be polite to people; right?
Are you sure that all those over on NDN do NOT take the historic stand that homosexual sin is something to be repented of, and abandoned? I would probably not assume that, if I were you.
I am not being ugly or rude about anything; I just thought we should both be on the same page about that.
You did read that my wife and I have done hospice work with homosexual men dying from AIDS, are not bigots, love the sinner & try to obey God by hating the sin separately, and all that; right?
I just don’t like being re-framed and accused by innuendo; you know ? You wouldn’t be trying to do that, here; would you, Jo?
Here’s yet another explanation about the “ghetto” idea, Jo. If you will simply read, and not read INTO, what I posted, you’ll see that I meant that Christians, as well as all others, should not be isolated away from everyone else, and treated like second class citizens, and not be allowed to state their ideas, if they keep the posting rules, just like everybody else.
You agree with that; don’t you? I hope so. That would kind of make the rest of what you accused moot; wouldn’t it?
But I am certainly glad you don’t think that NDN is a “ghetto”; whatever YOU meant by that! LOL!
I already know what Journey’s focus is.
Are you possibly upset that WC just RE-focused it, where exers of the “still Christian” persuasion can actually have their say; too, without being marginalized by political zealots like yourself?
Aren't you advocating for a pro-homosexual revisionism of Christianity, via liberal theology? I say that you are, by all appearances, at least.
As such, “any religion and no religion” HAS been reframed by the owner/operator of the board to govern rudeness shown by non- and anti-religious individuals here, too; for which I am sure all fair-minded people here are quite thankful.
It WAS getting a little weird, on ALL sides. We SHOULD “discuss ideas, and not attack people”.
That does NOT imply tacit agreement with a minority OR majority view; now does it; honestly?
From your own point of view, I am sure that you feel that “Question” did have it “right” (again; according to you, not necessarily me).
However, I am not here to act like we’re voting; we’re not.
This is a chat board, and people who have expectations that it is something else should probably not waste their time telling people not to post their opinions, since THAT is the purpose of the board.
In other words, it is not a popularity contest, slanted in favor of the PC crowd; or any crowd in particular; according to its owner, despite your pro-PC political beliefs (and those ARE political views).
SINCE it is a chatboard, my opinion does not NEED to be solicited; ALL are invited to comment, within the rules. Period. No ONE view is to be “ghetto-ized”.
“Exhortation” sounds like a very weighted and loaded word. In fact, it sounds just like an Elizabethan word, found in the King James Bible. Since you seem to assume all “religious” people (by YOUR apparent definition) should take a back seat, to people of YOUR political opinion, on ALL opinions, that would ALWAYS re-frame YOUR comments as opinions, and mine as “exhortations”. That's so obviously unfair, it is silly to even discuss it.
You really cannot have it both ways, Jo. It’s the same rules for all; WC said so.
May we proceed as idea-discussing adults, now?
As to experiences, mine are as valid on this board as yours are; like it or not, Jo.
That’s what the new fine-tune on the rules MEANS.
THAT is ACTUALLY the “main issue”.
With respect yet,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)