If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place — Page 75

darth_ender said:

  In fact, if you ever speak up for your values and believe that others who don't share the same standards are wrong about something, you are in fact hateful and holier than thou.

That's probably because you are Blanche.

Christians are specifically told not to do this .

To err is to be human so while other people may forgive this Christian sin now and then it smacks at double standards when it becomes a habit and boy is it moreish to some, including myself it has to be said but I'm not a Christian.

Bingowings said:

Some Christians give Paul a great deal of importance as a Saint and tent pole of the early church, others just see him as anything from an early Christian commentator/leader to a misogynist embarrassment.

Either way he commented on Christians having sex outside of matrimony (including same gender sex). Not everyone is a Christian.

I agree, he is lesser than Christ.  We have musical instruments in our church, and our women do lots of speaking.  Not everything he said is 100% accepted.  I was just pointing out that it was not only in Leviticus.  Sex outside of marriage is definitely wrong, but Paul was clearly speaking against homosexual sex as well, particularly in Romans 1.  And I know not everyone is Christian.  I am especially less inclined to judge someone for sin if they do not hold the same beliefs as I do.  But that doesn't mean I won't try to teach them what I believe is true either.

Paul isn't God the Father he is a man (and presumably a sinner). Jesus according to most Christians is God incarnate and he doesn't mention the topic at all and yet a lot of Christians just can't get enough of talking about it and campaigning against it outside the Christian sphere while not really making so much of a noise about idolatry for example.

I agree, there is much hypocrisy in Christian circles.  I hate it.  It shouldn't raise such a big stink.  I feel it is wrong, but I feel there are many other things that are wrong that don't get nearly enough attention, especially from televangelists and the like, as you mention later.

Perhaps they don't want to upset Hindus, who didn't really have a big stance against homosexuality until the British introduced their Christian attitudes into the region where it is most practiced.

I wish to point out that it was a Hindu that originated the sinner of "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

Jesus never endorsed the actions of the woman caught in adultery. he didn't admonish her either (he forgave her and told her not to do it again) he did admonish the men with rocks about to painfully execute her when they were all guilty of something themselves.

You are correct except that he never stated that he forgave her.  He said that he didn't condemn her.  In other words, while the rest of the Jewish world had already consigned her to hell, he was encouraging her to repent.  And yes, we are all guilty, and thus not in a position to determine the judgment of others, at least to some extent.

Now if only the blameless can throw stones and the only blameless adult being chose not to, where does that leave the sanctions in Leviticus?

And yet Christians keep referring to Leviticus to justify their judgement on and lobbying against others including people who don't share their beliefs.

The new message wasn't love the sinner hate the sin. It was love your neighbour and repent your sin.

Interestingly, you will note that the commandments of Jesus were often stricter, not looser.  Not only should one not kill, he should not even hate.  Not only should one never commit adultery, he shouldn't even lust.  That said, Jesus also did emphasize the importance of the spirit of the law over the letter.  And really, Jesus' message wasn't new, it was simply a reminder of what was really not being practiced, as the Jews of the time were so caught up in the letter and missing the spirit.  The Old Testament teaches to love your neighbor (in Leviticus no less).  The two primary sects were hating the sin and the sinner.

I feel like I'm rambling.  Let's get back to the point.  Let's forget homosexuality for a sec and speak of sin in general.  How are we supposed to feel about it?  Like it?  Love it?  Feel indifferent towards it?  No, clearly Jesus taught us to abhor sin, to lead clean lives, to encourage others to lead clean lives, but to love our neightbors.  Jesus went after the lost sheep, leaving 99.  The prodigal son got a party while the good son was encouraged to care less about his own righteousness and more about the repentance of the sinful brother.  Clearly those who sin the most might actually be among those God cares most about, and whom he wants us to care most about.  Clearly we are meant to be concerned with their wellbeing, even so far as going after to help them.  Don't embrace sin (which implies accepting sinful behaviors without any worry).  But embrace the sinner.

Now amazingly, we are all sinners.  We are not in a position to judge harshly.  But we are to judge righteously.  If when my kids are 16 and wnat to go out with friends to drink and cruise the streets, or if they want to spend time with girls with lower standards, I'm sorry but I'm going to judge those friends.  I will judge righteously and tell my sons not to spend that kind of time with those individuals.  But I will tell them to continue loving those individuals, even if they do not embrace their behavior.

About homosexuality you make good points.  Let's say that you are even correct.  My points are not to say you are not because I know we won't ever agree theologically on that.  My point is merely that it is not a prejudiced or horrible thing to say "love the sinner, hate the sin."  I can be best friends with a serious sinner and still not approve of what he or she does.  Heck, all my friends are sinners, and I love them anyway.  I hope they feel the same about me, and I hope they feel the same about my sin.

The loudest Christian voices seem to be saying to get the outsider to be repentant we need your cash.

 I won't argue with you there.

TV's Frink said:

Here's the problem: you are judging how others choose to live their lives.  It's why I think Olie's "love your children despite the wrong they do" analogy fails.

Religions should try a little more "live and let live," then perhaps they wouldn't piss so many people off.

 I get the appeal, and I generally agree.  I do not like to impose my beliefs on others.  That is why I find my greatest dissonance in my Church's political action against gay marriage.  I believe it is wrong.  But I also have real difficulty believing that legislating against it is right.  People commit adultery, and I feel that is far worse, and yet that is legal.

But is it wrong to teach others my beliefs?  Is it wrong to share why I believe it is wrong?  Is it wrong to encourage them not to engage is immoral practices?  Is it wrong to abhor sin, while showing an increase in love towards the sinner?  I really don't think so.

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

  In fact, if you ever speak up for your values and believe that others who don't share the same standards are wrong about something, you are in fact hateful and holier than thou.

That's probably because you are Blanche.

Christians are specifically told not to do this .

To err is to be human so while other people may forgive this Christian sin now and then it smacks at double standards when it becomes a habit and boy is it moreish to some, including myself it has to be said but I'm not a Christian.

 Actually, Christians are commanded to specifically told to judge righteous judgment in the same chapter.  To me, that means exactly what I've been arguing for.  Don't judge the sinner.  You are a sinner too.  But don't love the sin itself.

darth_ender said:

But is it wrong to teach others my beliefs? 

Not if they want to be taught.

Is it wrong to share why I believe it is wrong? 

Not if someone wants to hear why.

Is it wrong to encourage them not to engage is immoral practices? 

Depends on what the immoral practice is. Your definition of immoral is not everyone's definition of immoral.

Is it wrong to abhor sin, while showing an increase in love towards the sinner?

 It's better to not abhor something that does no harm and is only considered sin because people in power decided it's a sin.

I abhor your sinful avatar!

As I stated, I don't wish to force my beliefs on others.  But I will offer my opinion.  If they disagree, don't want to hear more, and they are not hurting anyone, I will not overshare my opinion.

darth_ender said:

I abhor your sinful avatar!

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

  In fact, if you ever speak up for your values and believe that others who don't share the same standards are wrong about something, you are in fact hateful and holier than thou.

That's probably because you are Blanche.

Christians are specifically told not to do this .

To err is to be human so while other people may forgive this Christian sin now and then it smacks at double standards when it becomes a habit and boy is it moreish to some, including myself it has to be said but I'm not a Christian.

 Actually, Christians are commanded to specifically told to judge righteous judgment in the same chapter.  To me, that means exactly what I've been arguing for.  Don't judge the sinner.  You are a sinner too.  But don't love the sin itself.

In that instance Jesus is teaching people how to make nuanced ethical judgments not how to judge others. Indeed it's raised in reference to them judging his actions, accusing him of being demonically possessed because he transgresses a Old Testament law.

I'm going to bitch, now, about having to change the title of a certain thread so many times in order to appeal to all the varied tastes of the other posters here -- it's frustratingly annoying.

^^Exactly.  Judge the actions of people, not the people themselves.  People can be better.  Their actions, once committed, cannot be changed.

Judge your own actions not the actions of others but in a nuanced way seems to be the message of the piece.

Others were judging Him. Being without sin he can pass judgement on their passing of judgement on Him.

        "Judgement", yet another question easily resolved when one first resolves to reject the traditions of the state church and carefully read in context.

        A cruel evildoer is a cruel evildoer as long as he posesses that depraved state of mind. Christians are COMMANDED to JUDGE him as such. He is NOT a "brother".

        The word "judgement", in Greek as well as English, has various shades of meaning. An appointed judge in our legal system is NOT EVER supposed to "judge" a matter according to his own druthers, but according to the properly intstituted legal code (a state legal code is NOT True Law, but, at it's very best, a pathetic human attempt to codify True Law. Anyway....)

        Christians must NEVER substitute their own "judgement" for that of God.

        Christians are COMMANDED to be EXTREMELY judgemental, of ALL OTHERS as well as themselves, according to the True Law of God revealed through CREATED NATURE as well as INSPIRED SCRIPTURE, at ALL TIMES.

It's a shame you've never learned to think for yourself.

Bingowings said:

Judge your own actions not the actions of others but in a nuanced way seems to be the message of the piece.

Others were judging Him. Being without sin he can pass judgement on their passing of judgement on Him.

 I find it hard to believe that this is what Jesus taught, or what anyone believes.  If you think about it, you judge my actions, including any prejudice you see in me.  If I beat my children or cheated on my wife or murdered my next-door-neighbor, I'm sure you would judge my actions as evil.  Would such not be righteous judgment?

But you are certainly correct that Jesus is in the best of positions to judge others, being without sin.

Am I still allowed to bitch about something other than homosexuality?  Because I'm going to.

I work in a nursing home, which you may or may not know.  (and this may not exactly be bitching, but I don't know where else I should share it) And although a resident dying is obviously one of the most heartbreaking things to experience at work, another very saddening thing that happens every day is when a resident with severe Alzheimers or dementia asks for a loved one, or even worse a spouse, who has been dead, in some cases for a very long time.  It's heartbreaking, and incredibly difficult to respond to.  Do say the honest thing and  tell them the truth, and have to watch as they break into tears and relive the news over again (since they have forgotten)?  Do you lie and say they are fine?  Do you go somewhere in between and say you don't know where they are (technically true since we don't know what happens when we die) or that they aren't here right now? (also technically true)?  It's very hard and I hate dealing with this and feel so bad for them.  To be truthful causes deep pain, while giving the answer that will soothe them makes you a liar.

I also work in a nursing home, and believe it or not, I'm on the dementia wing today.  I even have an Alzheimer's patient speaking to me off and on right now.  She often asks questions.  The thing to remember about reality is that none of us can be sure what it truly is.  Most of us agree on a similar reality, but all of us perceive the world in a unique way, and some construct a very different reality, often changing based on what limited information they receive or remember or perceive.  It can be good to reorient schizophrenics to reality if hallucinations are present, as it can help dispel them and their negative effects.  But a dementia patient is different.  They will not benefit from such reorientation in the same way.  First off, they are not hallucinating.  Their perceptions are not necessarily damaging.  Repeatedly hurting them with reminders of something sad like the loss of a loved one will have no benefit at all.  They will be sad to learn this, and then forget, thus never going through the grieving process and coping with the loss.  They simply are repeatedly shocked to learn of the loved one's death.  It is better to be as truthful as possible, but not divulge too much information.  Saying, "I don't know" or "They aren't here now" are good answers.  It might not hurt, considering your religious beliefs, to say that they will see them later.  If necessary, less truthful statements might be necessary.  Remember, you are not dealing with our reality.  You are dealing with someone with a fractured, unstable, changing reality.  You must address their situation in their reality, not in yours.

http://allnurses.com/geriatric-nurses-ltc/therapeutic-lying-dementia-754397.html

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

Judge your own actions not the actions of others but in a nuanced way seems to be the message of the piece.

Others were judging Him. Being without sin he can pass judgement on their passing of judgement on Him.

 I find it hard to believe that this is what Jesus taught, or what anyone believes.  If you think about it, you judge my actions, including any prejudice you see in me.  If I beat my children or cheated on my wife or murdered my next-door-neighbor, I'm sure you would judge my actions as evil.  Would such not be righteous judgment?

But you are certainly correct that Jesus is in the best of positions to judge others, being without sin.

         This brings up a whole other broad aspect of the term "judge". Beat, cheat, murder are actions which must be "judged" in order to produce a final conviction and condemnation. People who commit these grave offences are no longer brothers within the community. It's not a matter of realizing that you have sins as bad or worse and must focus on that. Justice must be done. Who must produce justice? When and in what venue? For the Christian, God ultimately provides. The State, when consistantly trying to act within True Civil Law, must be relied upon. A religion of Law can deputize leading members of the community. Even the Church can, without stepping on State perogatives, step in and provide some decisions. All of this requires a great deal of judgement by, hopefully, Christian people.

        In the story of the adultress (possibly extra-canonical, btw) a people of The Law attempted to carry out their terrible responsibility. They paused to receive guidance from a Rabbi. Christ reminds them that The Law is to lead ultimately to Mercy and that they were not truly qualified to deliver such an ultimate condemnation and conviction. Then what happens? WWJD? Christ turns and JUDGES the horrible wicked behavior of the adultress and admonishes, exhorts, and commands that she go to where she should be without sinning any further.

        Context and who is acting as judge matters. In The Sermon on the Mount, Christ delivers a shocking set of instructions. The State Church, obviously wishing to escape the judgement of their human cattle while gaining even better control over them, insisted and insists that all of these instructions must apply to all Christian laity at all times. Is this what Christ intended? A careful reading of the Gospels will reveal that the "Disciples" were NOT the laity. Many times Christ speaks to the general audience and then pulls the disciples aside for further special instruction. These were very special MISSIONARY CLERGY (I strongly suspect they were the 72). Furthermore, the intstructions were meant for a very special and limited period of time (Christ's Ministry, when they received special help and protection.) Towards the end of Luke, Christ makes it clear that the special period has ended and Christian missionaries must begin behaving as regular human beings in the natural world.

        Paul instructs the leaders to avoid contentiousness in their regular, day-to-day lives. They are to be EXTREMELY judgemental all the while. They were never to give the impression that sin was no big deal. They could give stern admonishment in appropriate circumstances. Christians may not walk around the shopping mall with a chip on their shoulders breathing fire and brimstone while others are just trying to find some new clothes. They are not to be unduly disruptive. They should lead by example when they are "out in the world". When they are in a debate sort of venue challenged.... 

darth_ender said:

I also work in a nursing home, and believe it or not, I'm on the dementia wing today.  I even have an Alzheimer's patient speaking to me off and on right now.  She often asks questions.  The thing to remember about reality is that none of us can be sure what it truly is.  Most of us agree on a similar reality, but all of us perceive the world in a unique way, and some construct a very different reality, often changing based on what limited information they receive or remember or perceive.  It can be good to reorient schizophrenics to reality if hallucinations are present, as it can help dispel them and their negative effects.  But a dementia patient is different.  They will not benefit from such reorientation in the same way.  First off, they are not hallucinating.  Their perceptions are not necessarily damaging.  Repeatedly hurting them with reminders of something sad like the loss of a loved one will have no benefit at all.  They will be sad to learn this, and then forget, thus never going through the grieving process and coping with the loss.  They simply are repeatedly shocked to learn of the loved one's death.  It is better to be as truthful as possible, but not divulge too much information.  Saying, "I don't know" or "They aren't here now" are good answers.  It might not hurt, considering your religious beliefs, to say that they will see them later.  If necessary, less truthful statements might be necessary.  Remember, you are not dealing with our reality.  You are dealing with someone with a fractured, unstable, changing reality.  You must address their situation in their reality, not in yours.

http://allnurses.com/geriatric-nurses-ltc/therapeutic-lying-dementia-754397.html

 Yes, I'm well aware of all that.  My questions were rhetorical, and I was bitching about the stress associated with choosing what to reply with, not that the choice was difficult in and of itself.

Oh, well, you're welcome then ;)

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

Judge your own actions not the actions of others but in a nuanced way seems to be the message of the piece.

Others were judging Him. Being without sin he can pass judgement on their passing of judgement on Him.

 I find it hard to believe that this is what Jesus taught, or what anyone believes.  If you think about it, you judge my actions, including any prejudice you see in me.  If I beat my children or cheated on my wife or murdered my next-door-neighbor, I'm sure you would judge my actions as evil.  Would such not be righteous judgment?

But you are certainly correct that Jesus is in the best of positions to judge others, being without sin.

What is the point of Christ telling you not to judge or face judgement if judgement of others is okay?

I do make judgements of what I perceive to be prejudice against me but as I repeat I'm not claiming to be a Christian.

Christians should be bound by their ethics, there is no such obligation for non-Christians.

As a Christian, if you are constantly monitoring your own actions from a Christian perspective (Is this act what Jesus would approve of?) and you are still repeatedly beating a child or spouse I imagine or at least hope someone would take you away to a place of safety and make a medical intervention applying medical ethics. Hopefully what's wrong is curable.

What consenting adults do in a sexual context in private isn't anywhere near the same league as a Christian man beating up a child.

I understand what you are saying in your last sentence, and I am not equating.  I am pointing out how we have to judge the actions of people as right or wrong, not the people as hell- or heaven-bound.  I don't hold you or other non-Christians to the same standards as a Christian anyway.  But you must understand, as a non-Christian you are not bound to live by Christian commandments, but neither are you really in much of a position to interpret them any more correctly than I.

Am I wrong to believe that homosexual acts are wrong?  For you to make such a call is, in fact, judging my "sin" (even if you don't believe it's a sin per se).  But are you judging me as a person because of that?  Well, if you are using merely a moral view to justify calling me a hateful person (*cough*hairy_hen*cough*), then yes you are.  But if you are merely thinking, "Wow, he sure is ignorant on this topic, and thinking that a sexual act between consenting adults is sinful is a sure sign of his ignorance," then I think you are merely "hating the sin" (of opposing homosexual behavior) without hating the sinner.

Possessed said:

darth_ender said:

I also work in a nursing home, and believe it or not, I'm on the dementia wing today.  I even have an Alzheimer's patient speaking to me off and on right now.  She often asks questions.  The thing to remember about reality is that none of us can be sure what it truly is.  Most of us agree on a similar reality, but all of us perceive the world in a unique way, and some construct a very different reality, often changing based on what limited information they receive or remember or perceive.  It can be good to reorient schizophrenics to reality if hallucinations are present, as it can help dispel them and their negative effects.  But a dementia patient is different.  They will not benefit from such reorientation in the same way.  First off, they are not hallucinating.  Their perceptions are not necessarily damaging.  Repeatedly hurting them with reminders of something sad like the loss of a loved one will have no benefit at all.  They will be sad to learn this, and then forget, thus never going through the grieving process and coping with the loss.  They simply are repeatedly shocked to learn of the loved one's death.  It is better to be as truthful as possible, but not divulge too much information.  Saying, "I don't know" or "They aren't here now" are good answers.  It might not hurt, considering your religious beliefs, to say that they will see them later.  If necessary, less truthful statements might be necessary.  Remember, you are not dealing with our reality.  You are dealing with someone with a fractured, unstable, changing reality.  You must address their situation in their reality, not in yours.

http://allnurses.com/geriatric-nurses-ltc/therapeutic-lying-dementia-754397.html

 Yes, I'm well aware of all that.  My questions were rhetorical, and I was bitching about the stress associated with choosing what to reply with, not that the choice was difficult in and of itself.

I spent a number of months in hospital a number of years ago and I experienced the other side of your situations. I was put in a respiratory ward where I was the only person under 70 years old. It was divided in half with women up one end and us chaps down the other.

I was pretty febrile at the time and there were fans running all through the night to try and get my temperature down. None of us could sleep because there was a very old man who spent the whole night calling out and way off in the distance, beyond the women's ward was another male voice constantly screaming. The nurses would just tell the old man to be quiet. Nobody visited him. One morning I woke up to find his bed empty.

As I got better I found out the other chap was younger than me and had tried to kill himself with an insulin overdose because his girlfriend had left him. I was wheeled passed his room and door was open. He was wild eyed, glazed with sweat, every vein raised from his skin like worms on a wet beach and he was just constantly screaming at the top of his voice. This was as I say was next to a room full of mostly dying old people. They said they didn't have anywhere else to put him.

I was so glad to get away from that place.

That was hell.

The guy in the bed over from me had just been told he would never be allowed to eat or drink again because his food kept getting in his lungs. Would a God who sees and loves all invent a sensual pleasure as profound and simple as eating a meal or drinking a cup of tea and then condemn a sentient being to draw sustenance from a pipe in his gut?

It's not a winning policy.

I'm too tired to get up from the couch.

hairy_hen, TV's Frink, et al., I think you may be misunderstanding what "hate the sin, love the sinner" means. It doesn't mean "judge what others do and look down on their actions, but still love them," or "tell everyone to repent and that what they do is evil, but make sure you tell them you love them." It means that one shouldn't hate or dislike someone just for doing something wrong, though one shouldn't approve of their misdeeds.

hairy_hen said:

Okay, so I'm a hateful douche, because I defend the rights of gays against judgemental pricks who put them down by condescendingly claiming to have absolute moral authority on their side.

No, you aren't hateful, and I don't know what rights you're defending. As far as I am aware, Ender, Warb, Fo, and myself all agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. All of us besides Fo think it is wrong, but there are no gay rights that we are attacking and thus you are defending those rights for nothing.

Yep.  This thread is officially hilarious.

"Oh no, we don't hate you, dear.  We just loathe and abhor everything about your inner self that makes you behave the way you do, but we don't hate you, we promise!"

This is a complete misportrayal and misunderstanding of what I meant. I already clarified what I meant, so I won't do it again.

Yeah, excuse me while I don't believe a word of this nonsense.

Neither do I. Thank goodness no one around here is peddling it...

Bottom line: being gay isn't a sin.  God never said it was, because it's only an outdated superstition that got mixed up with a bunch of other unrelated writings.  Folks who believe every literal word of such things really need to take a step back and get with the times, because that kind of thinking is seriously outmoded and has no place in any modern society claiming to be civilized.  It's what gives religion a bad name, when if it actually followed the true spirit of Christ's message, it would be very wonderful indeed.

Nope, being gay isn't a sin and neither God, darth_ender, Warbler, or myself indicated such.

Now, if God actually had said that being gay was a sin, then I would say that God was a worthless sh!tbag, completely unworthy of being paid attention to in any way.  But he didn't.  I will, however, say that there is no such thing as Christianity, nor has there ever been, since hardly anyone in the history of the world has ever really tried to live life in accordance with his philosophies.  'Judge not', he said, and yet judging others for their differences is practically the only thing many so-called 'Christians' know how to do.  'Live and let live, and don't be a douchebag' is how it might be put in modern terms, but I guess that's just too complicated for some to figure out.

There is no such thing as Christianity! That's a bold claim! Perhaps you mean that no one is perfect like Christ was, and that would be a correct statement. A Christian's goal is to be perfect, but it is not an achievable goal. But by trying to reach it, a person can get reasonably close.

When you're more concerned about whether someone with a cock wants to get with someone else who also has a cock than you are with treating people decently, you're doing exactly the opposite of what Christ wanted.  When you condescendingly look down on someone for doing something you consider wrong or shameful, but which, in fact, informs the entire essence of their being and could no more be changed than the colour of their skin, all the while claiming only to want what's best for them, then you have a serious prejudice you don't want to acknowledge.  It is entirely necessary for such hypocrisy to be exposed for what it really is.

Again, I don't think anyone here was saying that gays are bad or that they should become straight. It does not inform "the entire essence of their being" but is only a part of who they are. An important part to some, but still a part. I don't have any prejudices that I don't want to acknowledge, except against what is immoral. Being gay is certainly never immoral and nowhere in the Bible does it say so. Nowhere in this thread has someone said so. More hypocritical is your condemnation of our point of view and your dismissal of it as not worth considering, yet you think I should be adopting your point of view.

Try this example on for size:

"I don't hate you for being black.  It's so unfortunate you were born into a black family, because God says that all black people will go to Hell when they die, and you're really quite wonderful, dear, despite your disadvantage.  Have you tried being white instead?  It's the only way you could ever be saved, I'm sad to say, and I would really hate for you to have to burn . . ."

I don't think gays are going to hell or even that openly gay people who have sex often will go to hell. No one goes to hell for something that isn't their fault (and that, in my opinion, means that a lot of atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions will be going to heaven, because it is not usually their fault that they belong to that religion or philosophy).

Needless to say, this doesn't fly AT ALL.  

I agree entirely.

And all the anti-gay arguments I've ever heard have exactly this same sort of ridiculously skewed perspective behind them.  

I disagree entirely. You are just misunderstanding those arguments and positions and I suspect you don't want to even try to understand them (based on your statements about it being a position not even worth arguing because it's so stupid and bigoted).

You can claim it's not the same thing all you want, but you're only fooling yourself if you try.  

You're only fooling yourself into thinking that you're morally superior to us because you wouldn't even think about what we actually mean because it's such a stupid position.

People with sense can see right through it, and we don't like what we see.  The world is moving on from this kind of thing, and thank goodness for that.  You should move on from it, too.  Trust me, it feels a lot better.

 I've moved on from the old idea that gays should be killed (which goes against Christ's teachings). I've moved on from the idea that what they do should be illegal (which is also not a position supported by Scripture). I've moved on from condemning gays for their actions.

Please consider what you've said, hh, and try harder to understand what I mean. I've explained myself clearly and any further refusal of yours to see what I mean will only work in my favour.

And there was no condescension, hatred, offense, judging, or anything of the sort intended by what I wrote. I just want to clarify my position and would appreciate a greater effort on your part to understand what we actually think.