Quaker discernment

[Shawna]

And I certainly don?t understand that you can?t admit how important a ?well formed conscience? would be or admit that there is a distinction.

A well-formed conscience is extremely important.  The Dignity USA folks believe it is extremely important too, but they have been marginalized by the RCC for following theirs.

It is possible to have a well-formed conscience and still disagree with the RCC, MeAgain.

[meAgain]

No, not at all, but I might suggest you are not understanding what Maggie is saying. She isn?t claiming those with same-sex attractions are perverts ? you are.

No, Maggie is claiming it.  Maggie is the one who most recently used the word pervert to describe LGBT folks, in the feelings about sexual orientation thread (reply #141):

^Utter nonsense. Half the world, approximately, consists of people who crush homosexuals under brick walls. What you mean is that the post-Christian, increasingly totalitarian west, having completely lost its understanding of the meaning and purpose of marriage, will ratify the romantic relationships of any individual or group that demands it.  Big whoop. There's an accomplishment like unto wiping out small pox. What a sense of pride and joy I feel at the thought of normalizing the pelvic obsessions of the masses of downtrodden perverts in our society.

Maggie used the word pervert to describe LGBT folks, MeAgain.

Her point remains the same. You only read the parts you want to. She has explained much clearer elsewhere that it is the behavior that is perverted. IMO, she was simply exercising a little poetic license for a dramatic effect here. Tis part of the fun in forum banter. You read Maggie like you read Scripture -- selectively.

If I had the time or energy, I could probably go thru your posts and pick out phrases you've said that don't give the full picture of your beliefs.

You see Maggie how you want to see Maggie. Just like you see me how you want me to be seen. You told me in the other thread that I had said hateful things about gays, b/c to believe the opposite doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion about those who oppose homosexual unions.

[meAgain]

And I certainly don?t understand that you can?t admit how important a ?well formed conscience? would be or admit that there is a distinction.

A well-formed conscience is extremely important.  The Dignity USA folks believe it is extremely important too, but they have been marginalized by the RCC for following theirs.

It is possible to have a well-formed conscience and still disagree with the RCC, MeAgain.

Shawna, right and wrong exist. For example, I know you believe abortion is wrong. It would be like unless you tell a woman that it is ok for her to have an abortion and that abortion is ok as long as she believes that it is, then you are guilty of marginalizing her. Marginalizing is one of those terms people like to throw around like "tolerance". That is nonsense. I believe we can be loving and supportive toward others without telling them that what they are doing is just okey-dokey. How dare we marginalize someone by suggesting they might be wrong!

[Shawna]

Her point remains the same. You only read the parts you want to. She has explained much clearer elsewhere that it is the behavior that is perverted. IMO, she was simply exercising a little poetic license for a dramatic effect here. Tis part of the fun in forum banter. You read Maggie like you read Scripture -- selectively.

If I had the time or energy, I could probably go thru your posts and pick out phrases you've said that don't give the full picture of your beliefs.

You see Maggie how you want to see Maggie. Just like you see me how you want me to be seen. You told me in the other thread that I had said hateful things about gays, b/c to believe the opposite doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion about those who oppose homosexual unions.

Maggie thinks your friend is a pervert, MeAgain.  She said so with her "pelvic obsessed... perverts" comment.  You can choose to ignore that, but it is true.  Ask Maggie why she hasn't chosen to explain in that other thread that she believes that active LGBT folks are worthy of respect and love and friendship and that Christ dwells in them as in all of us, and that they can be useful contributing members of society.  The reason she hasn't said it, is because she doesn't believe it.  (Prove me wrong, Maggie!  C'mon, say it!)

[Shawna]

How dare we marginalize someone by suggesting they might be wrong!

The RCC didn't marginalize Dignity USA by suggesting that they might be wrong.   They marginalized Dignity USA by denying them access to RCC buildings for their meetings.  As group for Catholics by Catholics, they used to be allowed to meet in church basements and such. And then they were kicked out.

[meAgain]

Her point remains the same. You only read the parts you want to. She has explained much clearer elsewhere that it is the behavior that is perverted. IMO, she was simply exercising a little poetic license for a dramatic effect here. Tis part of the fun in forum banter. You read Maggie like you read Scripture -- selectively.

If I had the time or energy, I could probably go thru your posts and pick out phrases you've said that don't give the full picture of your beliefs.

You see Maggie how you want to see Maggie. Just like you see me how you want me to be seen. You told me in the other thread that I had said hateful things about gays, b/c to believe the opposite doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion about those who oppose homosexual unions.

Maggie thinks your friend is a pervert, MeAgain.  She said so with her "pelvic obsessed... perverts" comment.  You can choose to ignore that, but it is true.  Ask Maggie why she hasn't chosen to explain in that other thread that she believes that active LGBT folks are worthy of respect and love and friendship and that Christ dwells in them as in all of us, and that they can be useful contributing members of society.  The reason she hasn't said it, is because she doesn't believe it.  (Prove me wrong, Maggie!  C'mon, say it!)

Shawna, Maggie probably feels exactly like I do ? surprised that someone feels the need to state that they believe homosexuals are worthy of respect and love and friendship ? duuuuuuh!

Talk about marginalizing. You attempt to tell us what Maggie believes b/c her posts don?t meet your low standards of being sure to state how much you love and respect your fellow man, less someone assume otherwise.

And once again, I believe you misunderstand Maggie?s position. You are basing your judgment on attributing the word pervert to perhaps more than it is. Where in the definition of pervert does it say a hated, or evil human being? The very term itself is used to describe one?s behavior and it is making a claim about one?s behavior

Here is the definition of pervert . . . .

A pervert: n. (p?r v?rt )
One who practices sexual perversion

To pervert: tr.v. per?vert?ed, per?vert?ing, per?verts
1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse.


You may not agree that homosexual acts are a perversion, but if one does believe that the word pervert means ?wrong or improper use?, etc, then I see nothing wrong with using such a word to describe homosexual acts.

What?s wrong and uncalled for, however, is labeling someone hateful simply b/c you do not agree with their position.

[meAgain]

How dare we marginalize someone by suggesting they might be wrong!

The RCC didn't marginalize Dignity USA by suggesting that they might be wrong.   They marginalized Dignity USA by denying them access to RCC buildings for their meetings.  As group for Catholics by Catholics, they used to be allowed to meet in church basements and such. And then they were kicked out.

Shawna, any Catholic Church can decide who or who not can use their building. You cannot marginalize a private institutions right to use its facilities for purposes they see fit. Especially if they believe someone would be engaging in something they don?t support. The Church must follow their conscience and do what they believe is right and well, it is their building.

I doubt the Catholic Church would allow Planned Parenthood to hold meetings in their building either. It doesn?t mean the Catholic Church hates those involved in PP. It means the Catholic Church does not support what PP does.

I don?t know a lot about this group Dignity, but if its agenda is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, they really ought to find somewhere else to hold their meetings, unless of course, they are purposely looking for a fight . . . .

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Undoubtedly the woman thinks the RCC should fund that fine group Catholics for Choice. Heaven forbid that Christians should ever dare to pronounce some behavior godly and some not.

While having to read what has been quoted here defeats the beauty of having her on ignore, I must say this latest round of has been vastly amusing. Even yet she does not possess enough self-knowledge to realize that she is boasting about what she believes is her moral superiority. Well, she certainly has the approval she craves most-- the atheists here all seem to think she is wonderful. Meh.

I worry about Christ's approval. I don't think he is overly pleased with those who affirm others in their sins. Those who do will incur a far greater share of the guilt than those who are honestly ignorant of what God desires for us. Wolves in sheep's clothing spring to mind. How much harder it is to love one's erring friends enough to be honest with them than to tell them that they are just fine! How much harder it is to support them in their struggles than it is to affirm them in their sin!

[kevin]

.

[Shawna]

Maggie, you have yet to tell me that I am wrong in my assessment of your beliefs regarding LGBT people who haven't bought into the ex-gay lifestyle that many Christians would require of them before they are acceptable.  I will keep asking, but your silence tends to confirm my opinion that you really do believe that they are perverts who are not capable of being useful productive members of society, and that they are not worthy of friendship or love or respect or dignity, and that one does not see Christ in them when one looks into their eyes.

MeAgain has amply proven that she believes that LGBT people are human beings who are capable of being useful productive members of society, who are worthy of friendship and love and respect and dignity, and who have Christ dwelling in them as in each of us.  You have not.  Your continued ranting simply looks to me like you are trying to avoid having to write how you truly feel about LGBT folks... probably because you don't want MeAgain to think any less of you.

[kevin]

meagain, you have attempted over and over to re-interpret what maggie says, while maggie has stood by silently and acquiesced to your work.

i think it's time for you to show some concern and ask maggie to explain herself to you. not to me, or anybody else, but to you.

maggie is carefully silent on the questions that might cause you difficulty, and i notice that you are silent about putting the questions to her..

meagain, im asking you to ask maggie to explain herself, by asking maggie to answer the questions below.

i won't ask you again, but this is a test, meagain. it's a test of you, not maggie. your response is important.

Maggie, you have yet to tell me that I am wrong in my assessment of your beliefs regarding LGBT people who haven't bought into the ex-gay lifestyle that many Christians would require of them before they are acceptable.  I will keep asking, but your silence tends to confirm my opinion that you really do believe that they are perverts who are not capable of being useful productive members of society, and that they are not worthy of friendship or love or respect or dignity, and that one does not see Christ in them when one looks into their eyes.

MeAgain has amply proven that she believes that LGBT people are human beings who are capable of being useful productive members of society, who are worthy of friendship and love and respect and dignity, and who have Christ dwelling in them as in each of us.  You have not.  Your continued ranting simply looks to me like you are trying to avoid having to write how you truly feel about LGBT folks... probably because you don't want MeAgain to think any less of you.

[kevin]

.

[meAgain]

meagain, you have attempted over and over to re-interpret what maggie says, while maggie has stood by silently and acquiesced to your work.

i think it's time for you to show some concern and ask maggie to explain herself to you. not to me, or anybody else, but to you.

maggie is carefully silent on the questions that might cause you difficulty, and i notice that you are silent about putting the questions to her..

meagain, im asking you to ask maggie to explain herself, by asking maggie to answer the questions below.

i won't ask you again, but this is a test, meagain. it's a test of you, not maggie. your response is important.

Kevin, I'm sorry but I have no reason or need to put a question to Maggie. I am pretty sure I GET what she is saying and I really am sorry that you perhaps don't. If I have a question regarding something Maggie has said, I'll be sure to ask her for clarification, otherwise, I'm really not sure how this concersn me -- as I have already posted -- I have no issue with Maggie's comments. I'm not sure if I am failing your test in responding this way, but I hope you can understand my response.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

meagain, you have attempted over and over to re-interpret what maggie says, while maggie has stood by silently and acquiesced to your work.

i think it's time for you to show some concern and ask maggie to explain herself to you. not to me, or anybody else, but to you.

maggie is carefully silent on the questions that might cause you difficulty, and i notice that you are silent about putting the questions to her..

meagain, im asking you to ask maggie to explain herself, by asking maggie to answer the questions below.

i won't ask you again, but this is a test, meagain. it's a test of you, not maggie. your response is important.

Kevin, I'm sorry but I have no reason or need to put a question to Maggie. I am pretty sure I GET what she is saying and I really am sorry that you perhaps don't. If I have a question regarding something Maggie has said, I'll be sure to ask her for clarification, otherwise, I'm really not sure how this concersn me -- as I have already posted -- I have no issue with Maggie's comments. I'm not sure if I am failing your test in responding this way, but I hope you can understand my response.

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. If this doesn't beat all! I wouldn't have supposed that even the Quaker mafia could stoop this low. But it has. Do you seriously suppose that you can demand that I obey your commands?

How DARE YOU try to put meAgain on trial for my messages! I have you and your wife on ignore for a reason. I am tired of your sanctimonious garbage. If I read more than one message a day from either one of you, I need a bath. I will not explain anything to you. My words are clear, as is my meaning. You can continue to twist what I say all you like. It will not make your outrageous misrepresentation of what I have said true, nor will it make the scurrilous "conclusions" you draw from that misrepresentation of what I say true, nor will it make your misrepresentation of what Christianity teaches true. Be content with misleading the atheists here. You will not succeed in making me dance to a tune of your piping.

[Shawna]

My words are clear, as is my meaning.

Yes, they are.  Your words and your meaning are quite clear regarding your attitude towards active LGBT people, and your words state that they are perverts who are destroying society... no way to reinterpret their meaning, Maggie. 

You have chosen to rant, instead of telling MeAgain and me and the rest of the forum that you acknowledge what MeAgain acknowledges.... that active LGBT people are worthy of love and respect and friendship, that they can be useful productive members of society, and that Christ dwells in them, as in us all.  It's kind of sad that you don't believe that too.

[kevin]

Kevin, I'm sorry but I have no reason or need to put a question to Maggie. I am pretty sure I GET what she is saying and I really am sorry that you perhaps don't. If I have a question regarding something Maggie has said, I'll be sure to ask her for clarification, otherwise, I'm really not sure how this concersn me -- as I have already posted -- I have no issue with Maggie's comments. I'm not sure if I am failing your test in responding this way, but I hope you can understand my response.

i do understand it, meagain. i'm disappointed, but i'm not surprised.

ah, well

[kevin]

lol

those were the days . . .

[Tom]

... my friend when we thought that it would never ....