Hey, James. I was thinking last night about your definition of 'straight' as being 'true and proper'. One cannot necessarily be true at the same time as being proper. If we go by that, even the straightest of the straights isn't straight.

What do you think?

 

dont encourage him

 

Why not?

Just because you don't find what he's talking about interesting, it doesn't mean I don't!😏 If you don't like lunch time blathering while laptop-printer issue is being fixed, you go on Apple watch thread in C&T Related and slag Apple off, go on.

 

True as in plumb rather than true as depicted in the film Liar, Liar where Jim Carey has to tell the whole truth all of the time. I agree it would be improper to do that; we have discernment so as to protect people's feelings. I think also proper in this context means correct and right rather than the slightly disparaging and pejorative sense of the word when used sneeringly to describe Mrs Bucket characters.

So, if we accept straight to mean true (plumb) and proper (correct and right) it immediately implies that to be non-straight is to be not plumb, not correct and not right. Again, as a Christian, I am of the view that no one is 'straight' irrespective of their sexual orientation. We can only be straight as I have defined it when we are in Christ.

 

iv a feeling , jacks patience is wearing thin

 

Well, true as true; meaning truthful. That's what most people would interpret being true. True is not conditioned, it's genuine and personal.

'Proper' is not always genuine, it can be impersonal and leans towards the conditions set by others.

Therefore, if one is 'True' and 'Proper' at the same time as a straight one, I'm afraid they've been caught out before they go any further with their claim of being a straight one; going by your definition. They're claiming to be what they're not. The term itself is incongruent. That's regardless of those straight ones being Christian or non-Christian.

 

Jack needs to know that you're just a wind up merchant.

 

I've bracketed the definition bit up there^, because I'm interested in the rest of this statement, although that may lead to a 20-pager.

Why can't someone be straight if they aren't in Christ? What if they're in Buddha or alike? Is Christ holier then Buddha and other Christ-like geezers/geezerettes?

Also, if someone is in Christ and talks a load of bollocks, can he/she be classed as straight? I'm not quite sure about it, you know.

 

You know my answer to this as we addressed it in the previous thread. Incidentally, I'm now FB friends with Glen Scrivener who authored and recited the poem that launched that thread. He's actually read through it! It was he who inspired me to launch this one having read the article below, and having sought permission to plagiarise the concept. You never know, he might make an appearance on SN one day.

http://christthetruth.net/2014/04/21...o-be-straight/

 

That would be gay

 

Hm. Seems like there's a lot of propaganda atm with the agenda of attracting LGBT to Christianity. In your vid from the other thread, the over passionate speaker was shouting his head off to act all inclusive towards gay people, and this one picks on the term 'straight' too literally, and uses it to impress the LGBT.

In that case, with the view of......

.....How would Christianity deal with the sins, then? Will it expect loved people to join Christianity despite their sexual orientation (which could be their sin), and then clean their sins because those sins are hated; just like the term 'straight', which is hated by the speaker/campaigner you quote? And then they will become true and proper- in order to be in Christ? Or, can they still be in Christ with all their sins, as long as they believe in him and go to the church?

I think that has also been answered by you in general context. Let's focus on sexual orientation such as homosexuality here on this thread, with you talking of 'straight' and 'no one is straight unless they're in Christ'.

 

Well, I'm sure Buddhist (and the likes) gay people do exist. But it doesn't mean that all of them are gay. Buddhism and the likes are inclusive to the heterosexuals as well, you know.

 

Two sides of the debate:

https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

https://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php

 

How did that work out, Pete?

 

Ok, which side are you on, then?

 

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...l#post11703967

This is where I was, but I am persuaded by the argument for reform. I don't think I've fully resolved my position.

 

Ok. Thanks, James.

That is why, Christian call for LGBT inclusivity doesn't seem and sound sincere. Not to me, anyway. Either you're unconditionally inclusive to all sexualities, or you're not. If you're going to be conditionally inclusive to them, then you're being insincere and manipulative. If you're in two minds, you're confused with not knowing which way to go, Simple.

At least the LGBT know what they want. They're much more straight than any confused Christian tbh. You're right. You are not straight.

 

If you'd taken the time to read the two essays I'd posted you'd have realised that two people, both gay, have opposing views on this subject. That I find them equally compelling and persuasive is perfectly natural; I am as entitled to be undecided as they are to be adamant. That you assume that all gay people hold to the same view on this exposes your own prejudices, Swati.

 

Bloody Hell, Jimbob - what've you been on tonight?

 

***** by the sound of it!! Gayer