This approach certainly has some merit.
I will also say that the next time I hear of a homosexual group going to a Christian event with signs saying I'm sorry for the way the gay agenda keeps wanting to expose your children to men wearing briefs and playing with sex toys in public will be the first time.
That said, I'm far more partial (as I think Pastor Dusman is) to a presentation of the Law and the Gospel. Mere apologies for how some churches and some church people, with whom I claim only peripheral fellowship if they're going around screaming at homosexuals and refusing to share the good news of forgiveness, new birth, washing, and renewal in Jesus Christ, have treated some homosexuals are not nearly as good as...sharing the good news of forgiveness, new birth, washing, and renewal in Jesus Christ.
Maybe the Christians in question are apologizing for the things they themselves have done in the past. If so, what's the big deal?
ReplyDeleteEither way, I believe they're apologizing for actions committed by some in the Christian community that were directed towards those within the gay community (such as labeling all gays as predators and pedophiles, drug addicts and terrorists, suggesting that gays should be in jail and seeking to deny gays any chance for equal opportunity in housing and employment). Maybe you feel such actions need no apology?
On the flip side, while most gays don't prance around in their underwear (at least not the many that I know), if they did, how would their lack of modesty constitute an "attack" on you personally as a Christian or even as a fellow American?
That is unless you wish to suggest that everyone who wears a thong at the beach is deliberately attempting to be provocative and is seeking to "shove their sexuality" in everyone's faces? The bathing suits of most women at American resorts could probably fit in a thimble.
Sure, some people have no class. To suggest that their lack of it is somehow a personal attack on you is a bit silly, though.
I'm sorry I don't have calves that nice.
ReplyDeleteNice calves come automatically if you don't have a car.
ReplyDelete"Nice calves come automatically if you don't have a car."
ReplyDeleteLOL! Too true!
Maybe the Christians in question are apologizing for the things they themselves have done in the past. If so, what's the big deal?
ReplyDeleteNot a big deal, per se.
I don't think they're only apologising for what THEY did, though.
One of the signs says "I'm sorry for how the Church treated you".
To be fair, the other visible one says "I was a Bible-Banging Homophobe. Sorry".
It seems like they're at least partly apologising for "The Church", and I don't see a good reason for that. I for one haven't done anything for which I'd like to apologise to "the gay community".
Maybe you feel such actions need no apology?
No, they do, from those who committed the acts.
What good will an apology from me do? I didn't do anything like that. You might as well apologise to 12th century Jews for what the Crusaders did.
while most gays don't prance around in their underwear
A much greater % do so than heteros. Why is that?
Also, far more gays prance around in their underwear brandishing sex toys than do heteros. Why is that?
And yes, I'd like an apology for that.
how would their lack of modesty constitute an "attack" on you personally as a Christian or even as a fellow American?
Who used "attack" language? You did. I did not.
unless you wish to suggest that everyone who wears a thong at the beach is deliberately attempting to be provocative and is seeking to "shove their sexuality" in everyone's faces?
1) Do thong-bikini wearers stage public marches down Main Street demanding the right to brandish sex toys?
2) Are thong bikinis equivalent to men wearing briefs?
Sure, some people have no class. To suggest that their lack of it is somehow a personal attack on you is a bit silly, though.
1) If they have no class, our approach should be what I suggested, not what the picture demonstrates.
2) Again, you're projecting an idea of "personal attack", whereas I never suggested anything of the kind.
Peace,
Rhology
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the concept of apologizing for someone else is a liberal construct, given that, for an apology to be sincere, the apology must come from the one who committed the offense. Apologizing for someone else is generally used as a pretentious way to demonstrate presumed moral superiority.
ReplyDeleteThen again, the concept of being offended is often a liberal tactic in itself, usually employed to silence a critic -- and that critic is often the truth of God's Word.
Then again, the concept of being offended is often a liberal tactic in itself, usually employed to silence a critic -- and that critic is often the truth of God's Word.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the concept of being offended is often used as a tactic, but not just by liberals: some Muslims are offended by cartoons of Muhammad- and some Christians are offended by men wearing briefs in public.
Hardly equivalent.
ReplyDeletePlus, it's not just the briefs, though that's bad enough. It's the flamboyance, the sex toys, etc.
Seems to me that these church people are lumping us all in with a vast minority that want to be vitriolic. Sexual sin can be pointed out in love, and most of the time is in my experience.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, rho- you're offended by flamboyance? Er, you will have to excuse me if I don't take your being offended very seriously. I just hope you at least keep it to yourself- I wouldn't like to think that you are a bigot.
ReplyDeleteMostly the sex toys.
ReplyDeleteAnd bigotry = a prejudging based on ignorance. I'm anything but ignorant about the topic. I've considered it at length.
It would be more amusing to see how people misuse "bigot" simply to mean "someone I don't like," if it were not a reflection on the educational system that raises such children.
ReplyDelete