ha. and i thought seattle was above this shit.

lame.

"bogotted hatred"

Two things:

1.) Might wanna check your spelling.

2.) You and I both know that Hutch doesn't hate homosexuals. That rhetoric is tired. Move on.

All of my ex-black friends can't stand Rev. Hutcherson.

He doesn't hate us. He just thinks we should be fired from our jobs, denied housing, and that our relationships should have no legal standing.

I can feel the love!

Imagine if I told a black person that I refused to rent an apartment to blacks, thought they should be fired from their jobs, and that I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one—do you think he'd believe me if I said I didn't hate blacks?

Hutch doesn't hate homosexuals

Now that there is a prime example of tired rhetoric.

He says he doesn't hate homosexuals, but he hates "homosexuality."

Right.

He says his opinions are not his own; they are the opinions of God himself.

Right.

See, what Hutcherson says and does prove that not only is he a bigot, he is in fact a stupid, hypocritical, arrogant motherfucking bigot.

People who say: "I don't hate; God hates" are merely cowering behind God, cloaking their own bigotry in vaguely theological terms.

Fucking bullshit.

Down in Florida, the founder of Domino's Pizza is building an all-Catholic community, where people who want to impose their extreme world views on themselves can live together.

How happy I would be if the Ken Hutchersons of the world would do the same.

God hates sin. Homosexuality is sin.

Period.

Big Dan:

They are doing the same. They just chose Key Arena and Kirkland instead of Florida.

Not sure how you rate Shultz as a "good Man". he supports the zionist racist apartheid illegal occupation of Palestine. I wouldn't support Starbucks for ANY reason!!

Scott!!

If Hutcherson hates gays, why are there ex-gays in Antioch's congregation? Why does he have ex-gay friends? Please someone explain that to me.

"zionist racist apartheid illegal occupation of Palestine."

Wow.

Nick, if you are sincere, I will check my anger and take you to school on the issue. Unfortunately I have to assume you are a lost cause and not worth the effort. Prove me wrong and we can get into it.

Hootch, if they decide to live there permanently and wall themselves off from society, I'll say an amen and a hallelujah. Also, it will render the whole Sonics renovation begging moot. Neat-o!

Indeed!!

I didn't stutter.

The evil zionist regime is the same minions of the devil the Neo-cons who have hijacked America, taken us to war and made the enemies of israel now the enemies of the United States.

They say israel is out only friend in the Middle East, Before israel we had no enemies. FUCK israel!!

Effendi!!

And oddly enough, Starbucks Israel stores did so poorly the local licensee eventually closed them all.

Wow, nick, welcome to the SLOG, we aren't usually blessed by the presence of righty nuts. Anyway, to answer your question, most sane people understand that being ex-gay is like being ex-black, it's impossible. They may be living in denial, but still gay. Who on earth would choose to be gay in world filled with people like you? As a straight man, it's easy for me to realize that i could not possibly choose to be attracted to men. I am naturally programmed to crave pussy. Hutcherson has graciously accepted them into his congregation as long as they deny their true selves and live a lie.
So you believe we are God's creation? Well he created GAY, then.

Ugh, nevermind.

There has always been a denial of pluralism related to the civil rights movement. Many people believe that feminism and women's rights advocacy detracted from the civil rights movement, too. Unfortunately, this approach also denies that race, class, gender, and sexuality inextricably influence every person’s life experience.

It is absurd to argue that one may discriminate from a menu of options. One cannot discriminate against a person if they are black or a woman, but it’s okay if they are poor or gay. How are the courts supposed to differentiate?

Haha, liberals like Scott are funny.

"Neocons, blah blah blah, F**k Israel!, Freedom for Palestine (nice new terrorist gov't. they have there), Bush is Hitler, blah blah."

It's old. It's tired. Just shhh.

That's a good thing.

But it doesn't change the fact that everytime you support starbucks you support the illegal and immoral occupation of Palestine.

Your dollars buy Bullets and Bombs to Kill innocent people in their homes.

Starbucks dollars bought the caterpillar that crushed Rachel Corrie to death.

Rememeber that the next time you buy a cup!!

Effendi!!

That's a good thing.

But it doesn't change the fact that everytime you support starbucks you support the illegal and immoral occupation of Palestine.

Your dollars buy Bullets and Bombs to Kill innocent people in their homes.

Starbucks dollars bought the caterpillar that crushed Rachel Corrie to death.

Rememeber that the next time you buy a cup!!

Effendi!!

Maybe Summerlin can put a more eloquent spin on it than my babling, but the idea of "ex-gay" is just so rediculous i don't even know where to begin! i need a drink

Longball:

"Who on earth would choose to be gay in world filled with people like you?"

You don't know me. I like how I'm automatically an evil, right-wing nut. That's cool.

Anyway, this is the easiest argument. God did not create gay. God created Adam, then Eve. He created males to be with females. That's the way he designed it. Not males for males, females for females.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Longball, but personally I think you covered it well enough. I've read a handful of posts by Nick, now, and that's enough for me. I have no intention to engage him further.

Oh, here we go again. Your Sky Spirit did this, your Sky Spirit meant that, blah blah blah praise the Sky Spirit. You want to play by those rules in your sandbox, go right ahead. Out here in the civilized world, you don't get to tell people who don't subscribe to your religious devotion what rights they can and can't have.

Yeah David, run from the guy who disagrees with you. And you say our side doesn't listen.

Fuck You Nick,

You rightwing nut piece of shit!!

It's traitors your punkass that need to get shot!!

Bush IS a traitor to the American people and if you support him so are you.

You CAN'T ssshhh me PUNK.

Fucking traitors like yourself have already sold out America over the last 6 years and your days are numbered.

Bet you wouldn't ssshhh to me to my face, I'd kick your fucking teeth in!!

Effendi!!

Sorry Effendi, I try to stay away from crazies.

I bet Kerry's loss hit you hard, didn't it? Hillary's loss will too, I'm sure.

When are you guys gonna nominate someone that has a chance to win?

Oh, I forgot, your party is the one that nominated Howard Dean to be your CHAIRMAN. That's probably why the RNC has a $32 million cash advantage over you in fundraising. Howard Dean as Chairman? Have you guys lost your minds?

"He doesn't hate Jews. He's friends with lots of ex-Jews."

Yeah, that makes sense.

You're not born gay, just like you're not born Christian or Jewish. You make the choice.

Your argument doesn't make sense.

Good point, Nick. Let's get to work on removing civil rights protections for religious beliefs. Can't be protecting choices, now, can we?

Nick:

I hate to break this to you, but Bush is Gay.

For further reading, please see:

http://www.bettybowers.com/isbushgay.html

A fundamental belief in Judaism is that one is born Jewish. It's matriarchal lineage.

Realistically one may choose not to practise the religion, though. It doesn't mean that they're not Jewish anymore. If one still believes in Christ, but doesn't go to church, they're still basically Christian.

By the same token, one may also choose not to engage in sexual activities, too. However, not engaging in the physical practise doesn't make them any less hetero- or homosexual. People have a vast array of sexual preferences that cover a spectrum of degrees of sexual identity and homosexuality is just as legitimate as homosexuality.

I don't expect a lot of people to understand the concept that you can still love someone even though you don't agree with their life style.

To say, "because Hutch is against this bill that just passed and against gay-marriage he doesn't love gays" is fallacious and ignorant.

Christians, based upon their biblical worldview, are called to love people not lifestyles.

Imagine if smokers defined themselves by their behaviour the same way some homosexuals do. They would think we all hate them because we don't want them to smoke. Sure we have evidence it's not good for their health but they don't care it's their body, it's their choice. But that doesn't stop us from putting out all these horrific ads depicting smokers as disguisting. We must really hate smokers.
(sarcasm over)
Obviously we don't hate smokers. But based on are value of health and youth (and maybe other stuff) most of us are against smoking--not smokers.

Christians based upon their value of God's Word, the Bible, are against homosexuality among the many other sins--not against homosexuals.

For some reason people on the extremes are unable to use logic and common sense in order to distinguish the facts. Instead they rely primarily on their feelings.

sincerely,
OrganicRules---because it really does

Nick was born an idiot.

I'm sure the rest of you can see that even trying to explain something so simple is not going to work.

ANYONE that still supports bush after all he has done to destroy America is an idiot.

And there is no way any of you who might be gay are actually going to be able to talk any sense into a straight repulitard.

it's the party line...remember?

and Nick, You should stay away from people like me, I don't have much tolerence for deliberate stupidity!!

Organicrules: Homosexuality is not a behavior. One can be homosexual and be celibate. It's about love and attraction, among other things. It's the people who fear homosexuality and homosexuals who seem to be obsessed with homosexual behavior.

Also, most smoking restrictions are in place because of their impact on other people, not because of some inherent evil in smoking. Your analogy is completely without merit. When homosexual behavior has a demonstrable impact on people not engaged in it, then restrictions might be warranted.

You, as a Christian, are welcome to hold whatever views you'd like to hold. Your insistence that the civil government behave according to your beliefs to the direct detriment of others is what's not acceptable.

OrganicRules: I understand your rationalization perfectly, and I reject it. I understand that you believe homosexuality is something one does rather than something one is, and I reject that. I understand that you insist on distinguishing between a "lifestyle" and an "orientation," and I reject that.

I understand that you feel compelled to speak for "Christians," and to insist that you represent "the Christian view," and I reject that. I understand that you believe you possess a common sense that "radical homosexuals" do not, and I reject that.

I have met many people with views very much like yours who insist they are misunderstood.

You are not misunderstood. You are wrong.

I am not gay because I fuck my husband in the ass, or because he fucks my ass. I am not gay because I enjoy pleasuring my husband by licking that magic spot under his ball sack, or because I like it when he sucks my nipples. I am not gay because I enjoy certain combinations of kissing, rubbing, jerking, licking, fingering, penetrating or being penetrated.

You could take all of that away and I would still be gay. I would just be frustrated, unhappy and gay. And I would probably jerk off a lot more.

Hutcherson wants to rescind a bill that does nothing more than add sexual orientation--something that partially defines me, but not entirely--to a list of reasons you cannot discriminate against people in ways that matter.

The bill has absolutely no effect on his life or on anything he cares about. It affects my life, and he wants to take away those few legal protections.

Hutcherson wants the state to recognize his marriage to the exclusion of mine. I don't care whether Antioch Bible Church ever recognizes my marriage, but I do demand equality in the eyes of the state. My equality in the eyes of the state has no efffect of Hutcherson's life or anything he cares about. It affects my life, and he wants to take that away from me.

If you can't understand why that makes me angry, or why I refuse to accept your bullshit rationalizations, then you are fucking crazy.

And further, organicrules, this statement -
For some reason people on the extremes are unable to use logic and common sense in order to distinguish the facts. Instead they rely primarily on their feelings.

- is a LOAD of BS. People who support equal protection for homsexuals aren't "on the extremes". Further, folks basing their beliefs on religion ought to avoid accusing their detractors of not using logic and common sense. Your mystic belief in some almighty being who gets his holy knickers in a twist at the thought of same sex couples is pretty far from logical. Are you sure it isn't your own prejudice that makes such an absurd belief system appealing to you? Yeah, you are, but the rest of us know better.

And further, organicrules, this statement -
For some reason people on the extremes are unable to use logic and common sense in order to distinguish the facts. Instead they rely primarily on their feelings.

- is a LOAD of BS. People who support equal protection for homsexuals aren't "on the extremes". Further, folks basing their beliefs on religion ought to avoid accusing their detractors of not using logic and common sense. Your mystic belief in some almighty being who gets his holy knickers in a twist at the thought of same sex couples is pretty far from logical. Are you sure it isn't your own prejudice that makes such an absurd belief system appealing to you? Yeah, you are, but the rest of us know better.

Oh damn, the dreaded double post - I hate myself!

Boycott Starbucks!

Skinny--Behavior: the way in which something functions or operates. Merriam-Websters Dictionary.

It seems to me homosexuality is a behavior, however, I will think through this and see if there is a better way for me to communicate what I mean.

I understand that someone can have feelings for the same-sex and not act upon them.

You said "It's the people who fear homosexuality and homosexuals who seem to be obsessed with homosexual behavior."
What do you mean by 'fear' and 'obsessed'? Have you ever been to a gay-pride parade? Would you consider walking down the street with an enlarged penis in your hand or dressed in sex gear as being 'obsessed'?

So if 1 in 5 homosexuals in Seattle have HIV do you think that impacts other people?

My analogy is not w/o merit as I was comparing the premise by which we as a society determine what is beneficial and how Christians have a Worldview perspective, the Bible, by which they arrive at what is considered beneficial.

Having laws against smoking is one thing but placing ads on billboards and tv that depict smokers as disgusting is another.

I understand that comparing homosexuality with smoking is apples and oranges. The focus of my comparsion was on the treatment of the individuals not the actual act of smoking and homosexuality. Smokers don't think we hate them just because we have strict laws or depict them in negative ways on tv.
If both sides could better understand where the other is coming from no doubt things would be better. However, there are just some things neither side will compromise on...Antioch, Pastor Hutch, Pastor Joe, etc... have never slandered homosexuals, yet I come here to this site and hear about the protests where pro-gay come out and slander, use ad-hominem against Hutch and Christians. It seems extremely hypocritical and I have yet to see anyone in the homosexual community call them on it.

You said "Your insistence that the civil government behave according to your beliefs to the direct detriment of others is what's not acceptable."

What's acceptable is my freedom in America to vote just like you. I haven't insisted on anything.

Do you believe me being against gay-marriage is a detriment others, if so why? You yourself said what makes someone homosexual is 'love and attraction among other things.' How is me being against gay-marriage going to change any of that. I'm not denying a homosexual the right to be homosexual I just don't agree with what seems to be an agenda to get everyone to think homosexuality is okay.

I find it confusing that some homosexuals want to use a religious term like marriage instead of civil union. Each of us wants our side to win. You may think I'm a homophobe, or I discriminate or fearful of gays...but I have a worldview just like you and everyone else mine happens to be based upon over 2,000 years of history and I believe to be the Word of God.

That doesn't mean I won't listen or consider the other side but it does mean that my worldview has certain boundaries that I 'chose' to not cross.

thank you for your time.
sincerely
OrganicRules
i apologize for any syntax errors im in a hurry.

So, Hutch supporters: he says we should live by the bible. The bible says that homos should be killed—do you support that? Is that loving? It's what God commanded—along with, oh, kill adulterers (like Ronald Reagan?), and slaves should obey their masters, etc.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people."

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him."

People who claim their lovely Christian worldview opposing equality for gay people comes from the Bible, but who neglect to mention that it comes from a selectively fundamentalist reading of only certain passages from the Bible, are nothing less than hypocritical liars. Hateful liars. Fuck you.

Would you consider walking down the street with an enlarged penis in your hand or dressed in sex gear as being 'obsessed'?

No more so than someone carrying a flag or a (fake) rifle in a parade, or wearing a uniform. Celebratory? Sure. Obsessed? Not so much.

So if 1 in 5 homosexuals in Seattle have HIV do you think that impacts other people?

Wow, so now we're going to think it's OK to discriminate against women because a high proportion of them get breast cancer?

Christians have a Worldview perspective, the Bible, by which they arrive at what is considered beneficial.

Yet you feel free to pick and choose which portions of the Bible are worth enforcing and living by, and which ones are OK to ignore. How do you decide? Why is it that homosexuality is so important to you?

If both sides could better understand where the other is coming from no doubt things would be better.

Have you actually tried to understand what it's like to be treated like a second-class citizen, denied the right to share the same benefits as the rest of society?

Do you believe me being against gay-marriage is a detriment others, if so why?

It's not your belief that is directly detrimental. It's the policy as it currently exists, which you support.

I'm not denying a homosexual the right to be homosexual I just don't agree with what seems to be an agenda to get everyone to think homosexuality is okay.

Again, you're welcome to think I'm icky. You're not welcome to deny me my right to enjoy the benefits of civil marriage.

I find it confusing that some homosexuals want to use a religious term like marriage instead of civil union.

Marriage is currently what the government uses to describe the civil union of two (straight) people. Until that changes, we just want access to the same rights and benefits.

Oh, and lots of gay folks are already MARRIED in the eyes of their religions, yet not recognized as such by the government.

summerlin writes:

"...but who neglect to mention that it comes from a selectively fundamentalist reading of only certain passages from the Bible, are nothing less than hypocritical liars."

(and i couldn't agree w/ you more, Dave. But...)

speaking of hypocrites, wasn't it you in a recent post who previously wrote that the Muhammad cartoons shouldn't be published because we shouldn't offend a basic tenet of Islamic faith -- there shall be no depictions of the Prophet. When in fact, this tenet is one practiced mostly by fundamentalist Muslims?

I have no problem with calling these extremist Christian bigots out on the carpet for being the hypocrites that they are. But can't we be a little consistent in our arguments here, Dave?

Let's face it: All devout followers of any religious dogma are hipocrites.

Dogday, you've actually misrepresented my opinion on the Muhammad cartoons. I'd correct you, but I'm burned out on it, I've said all that a zillion times already, and I don't need to get into it again. Trust me that I'm being consistent, though I don't hold myself accountable to a standard of consistency.

Okay, Dogday, I lied, I'll issue a small correction on my consistency, but let's not reopen the whole can of worms:

My position on the Muhammad cartoons had nothing to do with respect for fundamentalist Islam, nor did I ever deny the right to publish the cartoons. My position was: 1) Some of the cartoons were hurtful stereotypes, 2) Republishing hurtful stereotypes could be hurtful/rude to good friends and neighbors and 3) If we do choose to republish them, it's not a very good idea to accessorize them with a diatribe against Islamism.

My position was based on kindness and respect, something these Hutcherson fuckwads wouldn't know if it grew on their genitals.

Just because I am a kind and respectful person doesn't mean I can't open up a can of nasty when confronted by a pathetic waste of human life like Hutcherson. I put him on par with the neo-Nazis who demonstrated in Fremont a couple weeks ago. I am under no obligation to be kind or nice to awful people.

fair enough

Dan Savage--The Bible says a lot of things and unless a person seriously desires to know what it is and what it says then I don't expect them to understand what it means.

I'm a fool for even engaging in this but...what the heck it's not the first time...

Your questions/statements, assuming they're not sincere, are ignorant and fallacious.

Rules on Debate with Christians:

1. Use a bunch of bible verses that make them look hateful and like bigots. Just because you probably don't read the Bible and study it like they do is no big deal. Remember you don't want to understand, because you already know.

2. Use swear words...that works wonders. Especially when you don't have anything logical to say.

3. Don't ask them questions, because you already know everything about Christianity.

4. Just keep saying over and over and over again they're homophobes, they hate gays, they're fearful of gays, etc...as much ad hominem as possible.

5. Lastly just use swear words and make fun of them...yeah it takes a lot for one of them to come to this forum and even if they aren't hell fire and brimstone it doesn't matter...the goal is to be as mean as possible. Even though they don't make fun of gay people and talk trash about them and go out picketing their events in Seattle...who cares we're going to treat them the way we hate to be treated.

Looks like organicrules/nick/scott (same person) was able to rile up a nearly second place comments record. Good work!

Wow! A couple of nuty x-tians can really liven up a party. Does anybody know how I can rent some for my Oscar party?

Yay for feeding the trolls!

Not.

ignorant and fallacious

Mmmmm. Fallacious.

David, that made my day. Fallacious. Hee hee hee. Hee.

"Don't ask them questions, because you already know everything about Christianity."

Oh, but we have. Seems like you missed them, so let me start from the top:

1.) Why is it that Christians will interpret one passage of Leviticus as literal fact that supposedly condemns homosexuality while considering other passages two inches up the page that describe committing unspeakable acts to people as justification for their engagement in trivial acts as being merely quaint period writing, and then will attempt to argue that there interpretation isn't merely arbitrary dogma, but the word of God by the grace of God?

2.) Why is it when you confront a Christian on this theological dichotomy that the best they can usually eek out is something in between a condescending cop out "you aren't a Christian and you haven't studied the bible like I have" or pseudo-mysticism "God works in mysterious ways"?

3.) Why is it that you assume that because I'm not a Christian I (or anyone else who isn't a Christian) haven't studied the bible thoroughly? I read religious texts in great earnest when I was younger as a method of sorting out what did and did not philosophically jive with me. I know several philosophy/religion/mythology students who have a better understanding of the bible than the pastors who preach it, especially when it comes to considering the writing within the proper context.

4.) Why is it that Christians will readily ignore the bulk of experiential evidence in favor of dogmatically clining to what their ineffective, arbitray ethical code claims they should do? You needed examples? Sure:

Why did the Vatican have a policy of non-intervention during the holocaust? Why did the church support the notion that negros had no soul? Why does Pat Robertson think that gays and abortionists caused Hurricane Katrina? Why do conservative policy-makers favor abstinence-only sex education in public school despite that there is no correlation between abstinence-only education and a reduction of teen pregnancy? Let's move on, shall we?

5.) Why is it that so few Christians realize that all modern translations of the bible are not necessarily historically or contextually accurate to the author (and subsequently God's) theological intent?

I've read some older texts of the bible prior to King James (have you?), I'll tell you how I interpreted that particular passage:

1.) which is phrased in a better way than I have time to on andrewsullivan.com stresses the avoidance of various bodily fluids (seminal, menstrual, blood, muccus, spit) due to the rampant disease and sanitation issues of the time. The colloquialism "cleanliness is next to Godliness" is derived from this line of thinking, but I'll link the letter from Sullivan's blog:

""Our culture's 'surface revulsion' to homosexuality isn't really that superficial and it is not 'genetic'; it is deeply imbedded in our Judeo-Christian heritage. Well, actually, in our Judaic heritage, and it's all about germs.

The traditional, though now discarded proposition (which came to me via the Articles of Faith of the Anglican Church), that the moral, but not the sanitary, laws of Moses are carried forward and incorporated in the New Covenant. Of course, at some point a bright light, probably some pagan classicist, observed that moral and sanitary laws were indistinguishable in most ancient Mediterranean and Semitic culture - physical purity WAS religious purity. Conversely, physical impurity WAS religious, or moral, impurity. This was equally true in its broadest features in Greece and Canaan. The physical spilling of blood, not the act of murder per se, within the polis, for example, resulted in ritual uncleanness. Hence, the need for public expiation. In the Jewish context, the taboos became increasingly elaborate and, typical of ancient Hebrew society, tended to fixate on things sexual, consistent with the procreative and sanitary anxieties of a small, weak nomadic society traveling among more numerous settled populations. Semen, menstrual fluid, urine, feces - all are unclean. The Hebrew phobia of homosexuality ultimately derives from this culturally transmitted notion of ritual uncleanness. So, Kaus's "revulsion", far from being 'genetic', is ultimately 'memetic'. It is a culturally inherited and imprinted response that is based in the idea that homosexuality is 'dirty'."

2.) as a result of the above, sex is icky and gross and not fit for godly worship. The passage so frequently quoted actually refers to homosexuality in a secondary way. I essentially got "Babylonians like to do the following as methods of orgiastic pagan worship: they include but are not limited to homosexuality, bestiality, other non-sexual related acts including idolatry etc etc, sex is icky as previously discussed, so it is separate from God, do not have sex as a means of worshipping God, those Babylonians are some crazy bastards and don't know what the fuck they are doing" But there is nothing there contextually or literally that seems to say that gay sex (nor bestiality, nor any other form of sex) is specifically better or worse or more or less godly than heterosexual sex.

Your turn.

Snazzletooth---You can feel free to believe I'm the other two people but I'm not. I have no reason to lie.
Ahura--Good job Ahura I see you read my rules for debate good job on using #5. I'm not for rent but I'd be more than happy to have coffee and a donut in Seattle sometime and talk; TopPot is a great place. That invite goes out to everyone. Just send me an email--thinkingthruit@aol.com.

Jesse W---Christians like people from all belief systems have different ways of addressing issues. I hope these answers help.

Answers to your questions:
1.) A Christian who spends time studying the Bible in it's entirety would use passages from both the Old and New Testament to show that homosexuality is a sin. The purpose of using the Leviticus passage is not meant to be the basis for the belief that homosexuality is a sin rather is serves as a passage of reference when looking at the other passages in the Old and New Testaments. If it were the sole basis for calling homosexuality a sin it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to be consistent as to what qualifies as sinful.
I find it interesting that non-believers question the method by which Christians currently and historically have interpreted the Bible.

2.) I would say the majority of Christians haven't really studied the Bible and are relying on what their Pastor(s) has told them. There's nothing wrong with that, however, it poses an obvious problem when they simply take what the Pastor says w/o doing their own studying into the matter. The Pastors are generally the instruments of instruction, however, a good Pastor will always tell his/her congregation to the study the Word themselves and not merely take their word for it.
Having said that about most Christians I have found, in my personal experience, that the vast majority of non-Christians have no clue about methods of biblical interpretation.
If I'm having a sincere discussion with a non-Christian I would have no cop out and wouldn't be condescending. I would take the time to answer every question as best as I could.

3.) I try my best not to assume anything, as I've found over time this is not the best approach. I like to take the 'proof is in the pudding' approach. Let's talk, no assumptions, and we'll go from there.

I've got to go now...I'll answer the rest of your questions hopefully by tonight.
sincerely
OrganicRules

I've created a thread in the forum under SLOG to continue this discussion. I'm calling it 'when a Christian arrives at The Stranger'

I don't recall any passages in the New Testament that decry homosexuality aside from Paul who basically only references Old Testament teachings which are basically moot at this point as Jesus' arrival negates those teachings (hence why modern Christians don't keep kosher).

So, which specific passages are you referring to in the New Testament?

I'd also point out that you've already run the "you haven't studied the bible" cop out already in this thread, which is untrue for at least one Non-Christian reader (myself).

I'll check your SLOG forum posting.

which is untrue for at least one Non-Christian reader

Me two. Read it cover to cover twice as a confused young man. Much exposure as a member of a liberal southern baptist congregation through pre-teen. Abandoned it in my teens, but studied theology at a Catholic university with a hefty theo/phil requirement. Currently have an N.R.S.V. and an N.A.B. version on the bookshelves, along with Lao Tzu, the Bhagavad Gita and a few dozen other texts from an era when I cared to delve into such nonsense.

What people mean when they say "you haven't studied the Bible," is really "you haven't discerned the will of God like I have." It's just arrogance.