There are some people who must be able to reach be 24/7. I'm not particularly important (except to those people, I guess) so I expect that most people are in that position too.
This is exactly why there is backlash against things like Google Glass. Just because there is no law against it doesn't mean that it is a socially acceptable thing to do.
At the moment Google Glass can't do very much, but it is only a matter of time before it does more.
I have mild face blindness, and it would be fantastically useful for me to have a pair of glasses that could identify who I was talking to.
Equally well, it would make life very difficult for me if other people had similar glasses. I run a website that is considered objectionable to some people. If everyone could recognise me every time I went out to buy milk, it would be very difficult for me to live anything like a normal life.
The passive-aggressive nature of social networks would be magnified if they were in any way integrated with Google Glass or indeed any wearable computer.
I never understood the public's continued fascination with the Titanic.
I live near the shipyard where the Titanic was built. They recently opened a Titanic museum there. On Saturday, there was a huge sound and light show about the history of the Titanic, complete with fireworks. If that's how we celebrate the death of 1517 people, then, man, the celebrations in 2014 are going to be AWESOME.
I'm not saying that there are gay Christians, therefore Christ would have supported gay marriage. The key point of the article I linked to is this: "by opposing same-sex marriage, you are effectively encouraging poorer health in gay men, which is hardly a Christian position to take."
Why is only the "leaving" metaphorical? The rest of the passage doesn't look metaphorical to me.
Anyway, if you just focus on verse 27, it is very difficult to get anything other than a "strange interpretation". However, if you look at the whole context of the passage, you will see verse 27 is not nearly so general as you think - see http://faithandpride.org/2011/01/17/romans-1-and-sound-bite-theology/
What do you think the end of verse 27, "and received in themselves the due penalty for their error", means?
Where I live there are a lot more white people than black people. Does that mean it is OK for me to say "I don't wanna see black people" or "I don't wanna see interracial couples"?
Many worship God and live religious lives
As do my husband and I.
but there is one thing that God absolutely will NOT tolerate
Don't know which God you are talking about, but the Christian God has never condemned same-sex relationships (although many of his worshipers mistakenly believe he has.
homosexuality and all its spinoffs (lesbianism, pedophilia, transsexualism, etc)
Pedophilia and rape (which you mention later) are not "spinoffs" from homosexuality.
If I say I am not interested in shacking up with another man, then I am NOT INTERESTED.
There is a HUGE difference between not wanting to shack up with another man, and not wanting to see gay couples anywhere.
And if that's how you read it, you must agree that it cannot be used as a general condemnation of all same-sex relationships. Neither I nor my husband have ever had sex with women, and so we have never "left" it.
Could you email me at the info address on http://faithandpride.org/contact/ ? I am interested in your church, and I think discussing it here would be way off topic:-)
I've already posted a link to what I've written about Romans, but do you seriously think that it is as simple as quoting 1 Timothy 1:10? Do you think that gay Christians simply ignore that verse for some reason? Or is it really more complex than you think?
Slashdot Mirror
As I was watching the animation, this track started playing. It worked surprisingly well as a soundtrack.
There are some people who must be able to reach be 24/7. I'm not particularly important (except to those people, I guess) so I expect that most people are in that position too.
This is exactly why there is backlash against things like Google Glass. Just because there is no law against it doesn't mean that it is a socially acceptable thing to do.
At the moment Google Glass can't do very much, but it is only a matter of time before it does more.
I have mild face blindness, and it would be fantastically useful for me to have a pair of glasses that could identify who I was talking to.
Equally well, it would make life very difficult for me if other people had similar glasses. I run a website that is considered objectionable to some people. If everyone could recognise me every time I went out to buy milk, it would be very difficult for me to live anything like a normal life.
The passive-aggressive nature of social networks would be magnified if they were in any way integrated with Google Glass or indeed any wearable computer.
Where I live, there is no such thing as a 'real name'.
Some Christians, not all.
Who reads those stupid ads anyway?
After I got engaged and before I got married, Facebook kept showing me ads for wedding dresses. I'm a guy. As is my now-husband
I know it's probably just pavlovian conditioning, but I like the smell of bleach.
No they do not.
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I am married to one, and my best friend is one.
I never understood the public's continued fascination with the Titanic.
I live near the shipyard where the Titanic was built. They recently opened a Titanic museum there. On Saturday, there was a huge sound and light show about the history of the Titanic, complete with fireworks. If that's how we celebrate the death of 1517 people, then, man, the celebrations in 2014 are going to be AWESOME.
but the bigoted people have zero power, despite their size.
And that's why it is illegal to discriminate against gay people, and why there is same-sex marriage, and so on!
Kids are already losing their childhood innocence too quickly, there's no point in being part of the problem, for EA.
What consenting adults to behind closed doors is none of my business, but if they start doing it in front of my children, it becomes my business.
So seeing two people of the same sex in a relationship is contributing to the loss of childhood innocence?
Is seeing two people of the opposite sex in a relationship contributing to the loss of childhood innocence?
All I'm asking for is a bit of common courtesy. The world would be a whole lot better off if people had RESPECT for others.
That's all gay people are asking for too, you know. I respect your relationships, and it would be nice if you respected mine.
Trouble is, no matter how hard you wish it, the majority of people don't believe homosexuality is "normal"....
Do you have any statistics to back that up?
I'm not saying that there are gay Christians, therefore Christ would have supported gay marriage. The key point of the article I linked to is this: "by opposing same-sex marriage, you are effectively encouraging poorer health in gay men, which is hardly a Christian position to take."
Why is only the "leaving" metaphorical? The rest of the passage doesn't look metaphorical to me.
Anyway, if you just focus on verse 27, it is very difficult to get anything other than a "strange interpretation". However, if you look at the whole context of the passage, you will see verse 27 is not nearly so general as you think - see http://faithandpride.org/2011/01/17/romans-1-and-sound-bite-theology/
What do you think the end of verse 27, "and received in themselves the due penalty for their error", means?
There are a lot more of us than there are of you.
Where I live there are a lot more white people than black people. Does that mean it is OK for me to say "I don't wanna see black people" or "I don't wanna see interracial couples"?
Many worship God and live religious lives
As do my husband and I.
but there is one thing that God absolutely will NOT tolerate
Don't know which God you are talking about, but the Christian God has never condemned same-sex relationships (although many of his worshipers mistakenly believe he has.
homosexuality and all its spinoffs (lesbianism, pedophilia, transsexualism, etc)
Pedophilia and rape (which you mention later) are not "spinoffs" from homosexuality.
If I say I am not interested in shacking up with another man, then I am NOT INTERESTED.
There is a HUGE difference between not wanting to shack up with another man, and not wanting to see gay couples anywhere.
I'd say I'm pretty married.
What are the SI units again?
And if that's how you read it, you must agree that it cannot be used as a general condemnation of all same-sex relationships. Neither I nor my husband have ever had sex with women, and so we have never "left" it.
Could you email me at the info address on http://faithandpride.org/contact/ ? I am interested in your church, and I think discussing it here would be way off topic :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRkIWB3HIEs
Really? I'm gay and I've never left the natural use of the woman. I've never used a woman, naturally or otherwise.
Do straight men use women?
Straight men are weird, if they do. I have never used a sexual partner.
I've already posted a link to what I've written about Romans, but do you seriously think that it is as simple as quoting 1 Timothy 1:10? Do you think that gay Christians simply ignore that verse for some reason? Or is it really more complex than you think?
Look at St. Paul's letter to the church at Rome. Pretty much condemns homosexuality right there. Both male and female.
Yay, soundbite theology about Romans! Here's what I think...
Jesus the man would have supported gay marriage
I think you might have overstepped there.
I disagree. Supporting gay marriage is a fundamentally Christ-like thing to do.
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
How does one 'promote' homosexuality?
A gay guy could very well wake up one day and decide he's not gay.
Could a straight guy wake up one day and decide he's not straight?
Could you wake up one day and decide you have changed your sexual orientation?