Any "Glee"/sodomite fans present among us?

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Winston]

I don't have thin skin. Believe me.  I want to know what his point is.
[/quote]


The point is apparently the top of your head.


It really doesn't take a lot of brainpower to see that the real point of the thread was to see how "inclusive", "tolerant", "liberal", and downright flagrantly carnal some "fundamentalist" Christians are.  Is that clear enough for you?

 

[Izdaari]

Btw, "sodomite" is a misnomer, since homosexuality or sexual sin of any kind are at most a very minor part of the reasons Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. At least if you believe Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel, all of whom talk about the fate of those two cities and why they were destroyed... and don't mention sexual sin of any kind as one of the reasons.

Is it too late to amend my OP title to "queer"?

"Queer" would be fine. For one thing, it's a lot less offensive. Many homosexuals prefer to call themselves "queer". None refer to themselves as "sodomites".

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
"Queer" would be fine. For one thing, it's a lot less offensive. Many homosexuals prefer to call themselves "queer". None refer to themselves as "sodomites".
[/quote]

But seriously, there are no homosexuals here, so the whole question of offense ought to be moot.  The real undercurrent of the thread shouldn't be about the choice of conceptual language, but rather that there is serious cultural agenda, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so much, that we Christians can get sucked into, and become desensitized so that we accept their labels of "bigot" and such because we merely dare to challenge the appropriateness of depicting two males losing their virginity to each other on the silver screen.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Winston]

I don't have thin skin. Believe me.  I want to know what his point is.

The point is apparently the top of your head.


It really doesn't take a lot of brainpower to see that the real point of the thread was to see how "inclusive", "tolerant", "liberal", and downright flagrantly carnal some "fundamentalist" Christians are.  Is that clear enough for you?
[/quote]

I am "inclusive", "tolerant" and in some ways "liberal". I do not claim to be a "fundamentalist" aside from agreeing with the historic Five Fundamentals.

 

[Bob H]

I don't have thin skin. Believe me.

I'll try but it ain't looking good 

I want to know what his point is.

Point? That's what the forum's all about. We argue...I mean disCUSS alcohol, calvinism, eschatology and other subjects here.............Except for being a Buckeye, Al's alright

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]



I am "inclusive", "tolerant" and in some ways "liberal". I do not claim to be a "fundamentalist" aside from agreeing with the historic Five Fundamentals.
[/quote]


I hope you'd admit, that despite all of your confessions , I've never treated you disrespectfully.  It's only newbs like Whinnie the Pooh that gets my derision.  Your opinions and points of view are always welcome IMHO, even when they are in diametric opposition to any given position I hold.

 

[Bob H]

"Queer" would be fine. For one thing, it's a lot less offensive. Many homosexuals prefer to call themselves "queer". None refer to themselves as "sodomites".

Would the term democrat be better?   

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]
"Queer" would be fine. For one thing, it's a lot less offensive. Many homosexuals prefer to call themselves "queer". None refer to themselves as "sodomites".

But seriously, there are no homosexuals here, so the whole question of offense ought to be moot.  The real undercurrent of the thread shouldn't be about the choice of conceptual language, but rather that there is serious cultural agenda, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so much, that we Christians can get sucked into, and become desensitized so that we accept their labels of "bigot" and such because we merely dare to challenge the appropriateness of depicting to male losing their virginity to each other on the silver screen.
[/quote]

Right, I got that from the beginning. But are you sure there are none here? There are some nearly everywhere. Of course, my perception of that may be skewed, being from Seattle, aka San Francisco North.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]



I am "inclusive", "tolerant" and in some ways "liberal". I do not claim to be a "fundamentalist" aside from agreeing with the historic Five Fundamentals.

I hope you'd admit, that despite all of your confessions , I've never treated you disrespectfully.  It's only newbs like Whinnie the Pooh that gets my derision.  Your opinions and points of view are always welcome IMHO, even when they are in diametric opposition to any given position I hold.
[/quote]

Thanks, I appreciate that. And I feel the same way about you. That's probably why we get along so well.  :-*

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Bob H]
............Except for being a Buckeye, Al's alright
[/quote]

How many years will it be this time before y'all win The Game?

 

[Bob H]

I do not claim to be a "fundamentalist"

Just to be clear I am. I came out of new evangelicalism and ain't going back

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
Right, I got that from the beginning. But are you sure there are none here? There are some nearly everywhere. Of course, my perception of that may be skewed, being from Seattle, aka San Francisco North.
[/quote]

There may be, and in such case, if they know my history, they know that I've came to their defense (at least one in particular that posted on the old forum anyway) when it comes to being intentionally offensive with the language.  The title was nothing more than a firebrand, conversation starter for the more serious stuff.  Hopefully that's where the thread will go.

 

[Izdaari]

I do not claim to be a "fundamentalist"

Just to be clear I am. I came out of new evangelicalism and ain't going back

I'm coming out of it too, but going in a different direction. Conservative evangelicalism is no longer a real good fit for me. I'm heading towards the mainstream.

 

[Bro Blue]

I don't like the fact that they believe they should be a protected species due to their sexual perversions. Queers were probably the motivation behind some of the gender neutral bible versions. I think they get pandered to way too much. I am not tolerant of their lifestyle. Why in the world did christians let them come out of the closet and take over the house?

 

[Winston]

[quote author=Winston]

I don't have thin skin. Believe me.  I want to know what his point is.

The point is apparently the top of your head.


It really doesn't take a lot of brainpower to see that the real point of the thread was to see how "inclusive", "tolerant", "liberal", and downright flagrantly carnal some "fundamentalist" Christians are.  Is that clear enough for you?
[/quote]


My question was in regard to your use of sodomite, and yes, I know that some versions of the bible use that word.  But I can see now from your posts that you are one of those fundamentalists who seems to revel in trying to raise people's ire.

As to being a "newb" as you call it, you've been on this forum 5 days longer than me.  I guess you are the epitome of the typical fundy poster.

 

[Ransom]

Any "Glee"/sodomite fans present among us?

I, for one, am a big fan of sodomites.

Those little buggers sure can sing!

 

[Winston]

[quote author=Izdaari]
"Queer" would be fine. For one thing, it's a lot less offensive. Many homosexuals prefer to call themselves "queer". None refer to themselves as "sodomites".

But seriously, there are no homosexuals here, so the whole question of offense ought to be moot.  The real undercurrent of the thread shouldn't be about the choice of conceptual language, but rather that there is serious cultural agenda, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so much, that we Christians can get sucked into, and become desensitized so that we accept their labels of "bigot" and such because we merely dare to challenge the appropriateness of depicting to male losing their virginity to each other on the silver screen.
[/quote]

Then why didn't you say that? Afraid that the average person on her couldn't follow that type of sentence?

 

[Bob H]

I'm coming out of it too, but going in a different direction. Conservative evangelicalism is no longer a real good fit for me. I'm heading towards the mainstream.

I'd reconsider. Mainstream evangelicalism believe one can deny "the historic Five Fundamentals" and still be saved. BTW, I'm with Al, you seem to be a good person here

 

[Bob H]

I, for one, am a big fan of sodomites.

Those little buggers sure can sing!

Our High School group wasn't that good..... but we didn't have a sodomites neither    ...I don't think anyways. It's hard to remember 40 yrs ago

 

[Castor Muscular]

Glee is in large part about desensitizing the culture towards gay relationships and forwarding their agenda.  Do you think that Christians should advocate art with such an anti-Christ message?

I have never seen Glee, but it's hardly the only show with a gay agenda.  Even the cooking shows glorify gay people.