First Green Lantern, now James Bond

[ScotchRobbins]

Absolutely. Hate the sin, not the sinner. But hating sin = hating sin; we do not encourage the act.

[Drewsov]

Our faith is against hate. Our faith is against fear. Our faith is against excluding those who need Jesus' love. And, honestly, that entire verse lists all of the people who need Jesus' love.

Is that reason to say that we are "against" them? That's not the faith I share, and that kind of attitude makes me ashamed to call myself a Christian.

Well said,
though there are a few things I should note.

Now lets look at what ScotchRobbins said,

I should mention that our faith is against homosexuality.

He did not say we are against them, rather the sinful act.

As for what Paul said, (By all means correct me if I am wrong.)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthains 6:9-10.

Paul wasn't saying we are against these people ether, rather that they wont inherit the kingdom of God at their current state.
(Which gives us more the reason to help them. Like what Drew said, they need Jesus' love.)


...That was all I had to say at the moment.

I don't make a distinction between "homosexuality" as an act and as an orientation. That word is too loaded. Specify: "the act of homosexuality"; "pulling a Ledger/Gyllenhaal"; "dudes mackin' with dudes". Something, other than saying "we're against homosexuality," which flat out says that the speaker is against the act and the orientation.

[CountKrazy]

"pulling a Ledger/Gyllenhaal"

[ScotchRobbins]

I have a feeling that I have either said something unedjucated, upset Drewsov, or upset him by saying something unedjucated, because I seem to be taking a lot of flak from him on a lot of threads.

[Drewsov]

Erm.

"Uneducated."



And, no, you didn't upset me or say something that made me "STRIKE OUT"; this is just kind of how I roll sometimes. Do you feel like I'm attacking you? (Serious question... I'll back off a bit if you feel like I am.)

[CountKrazy]

I don't know that Drew's really giving you flak. I'd probably say he's being opinionated and disputatious, but this whole forum is pretty good at that, including you (and myself, for that matter).

[ArcticFox]

I don't make a distinction between "homosexuality" as an act and as an orientation. That word is too loaded. Specify: "the act of homosexuality"; "pulling a Ledger/Gyllenhaal"; "dudes mackin' with dudes". Something, other than saying "we're against homosexuality," which flat out says that the speaker is against the act and the orientation.

I think there's a time when a certain distinction is useful, but it's a matter of perspective.

A close friend of mine is a guy who's attracted to men. He's also a member of the LDS Church. He's also open about this. He lives his life in accordance with the teachings of the Church and hopes one day to find a lady to become his wife. I don't know what it's like to struggle with it the way he does, and I respect him immensely for doing it.

But here's the question: Is he a homosexual? Some would argue that his same-sex attraction means that yes, he is whether he acts on that or not. Others would say it only counts of he does act on that attraction. Either way, indeed it is a homosexual orientation. Personally, I have no idea, but I think both sides would agree that he isn't committing any homosexual acts.

The problem is that on some level in today's world it's fashionable to put one's sexuality as the centerpiece of their personal identity. There's a tendency to react to a rejection of homosexual behavior as equivalent to a rejection of the people who engage in that behavior, and that is not necessarily the case.

I was once angrily told by a homosexual that my rejection of homosexuality as a lifestyle made it impossible for me to love a close family member who was gay. I found the idea absurd but nevertheless this guy held onto that mentality like a pit bull to a soup bone. Apparently the only way I could possibly have sincere love for this family member was to embrace and encourage his lifestyle. Kinda stupid, but a surprisingly common attitude.

[ChickenSoup]

For the record, I saw Skyfall and this was blown up way more than it should have been. It was less than two minutes of the movie and Bond's "what makes you think it'd be my first time?" line came off as a snarky "come at me bro" line more than anything else

[_bloodborn01_]

Seriously! C'mon. Not cool

[ChickenSoup]

Seriously! C'mon. Not cool

No, see, the point was that it was so small you would be paranoid to worry that much about it

[Deepfreeze32]

For the record, I saw Skyfall and this was blown up way more than it should have been. It was less than two minutes of the movie and Bond's "what makes you think it'd be my first time?" line came off as a snarky "come at me bro" line more than anything else

I concur.

[blacksinow]

It only would make sense that Bond would use mind games, especially considering that Q is no more. No Q, no gadgets.

[Orodrist]

Except they brought back Q in Skyfall, soooo.....