Alterego wrote:Be more specific.
Christians only stoned people in the Old Testament, the NT changed all of that. Christians, I believe, should be tolerant, which doesnt mean relativistic. We can/must disagree with those who have different beliefs than our own, but we can be civilized about it. The group would be condoning Clark's beliefs if they allowed him to continue to be their leader.
Um, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here but first of all are Chrstians generally though of as the followers of Christ? Secondly, isn't the Old Testiment more about the state of affairs in the world before
Christ was born and then the New Testiment is supposed to be something of a biography of his life?
So, if the above premises are true, wouldn't that then make it impossible for Christians to stone anyone in the time of the old testiment, simply because they didn't really exist yet? I'm guessing that most of those people were Jewish, and then some of those people splintered off and formed Christianity.
Either way, you say that Christianity is/should be about tollerance. So, why then would you word things in such a way that it gives the impression that you AGREE with the decision of this group? What this group did is not exactly what I'd call an act of tollerance. More like an act designed to try and bring enough social pressure down onto this person that they will conform to their particular ideals. One of the more dispicable tendencies of the modern church if you ask me. They essentially hold a double standard by saying that you should be tollerant to other people, then turning around and pulling stunts like this one. Any belief system is fine, so long as it's endorsed by the Church is the basic message they're sending, and anything NOT endorsed by the chuch is automatically wrong. That's just a shining example of tollerance.
I do get a good laugh out of the "converted" people who claim to be "ex-gays" myself. I don't think that would work any more than it would trying to "convert" me to homosexuality. The people who run these sorts of "classes" (I can never bring myself to even imply education with religion without feeling dirty) should consider the alternate view. Suppose that only 10% of the population was heterosexual and religion had deemed heterosexuality a sin, but everything else were pretty much the same. How do you think these people would like having influential people whiping large groups into a frenzy about how "evil" these heterosexusals were for living in sin like they do. Something tells me that if the tables were turned, they wouldn't exactly be the ones rushing to these "classes" to become "ex-heteros". That's assuming they managed to get past the dunken rednecks that occationally like to beat up heteros or to have people telling them they're going to hell all day long. I just can't see why someone would CHOOSE (as the Christian church tends to assert) to live a lifestyle where they know full well they'll be persecuted relentlessly. OK, maybe a FEW people would actually choose that life, but we're talking about maybe 1/1000 of a percent of the entire homosexual comunity. More than likely, people are just simply born with the disposition for being attracted to men or women. Most are programmed for the opposite sex, some aren't.
Something else to consider. Assuming God created life, he would have had to create homosexual people. Unless it's an unexpected "mutation", but then you have to consider can a being powerful enough to create the universe and the life on this planet be capable of making such a simple mistake? Isn't to be divine to be perfect?
To quote Carlin on this, "These are not the sorts of results you'd expect on the resume of a supreme being. This is the sort of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. So I think most reasonable
people would agree that he's at least incompetent, and just maybe, just maybe doesn't give a shit."