I tried to keep this short and avoid theological arguments, hoping to clarify some points.

Let me lay some foundations in my thinking.

The quick reference used to the Catholic/Protestant split was to illustrate that the break was never fixed; the two still pass in the scripture, and no one belief system impressed the other enough to change so completely. Yet, they respectfully agree to disagree on matters. That is all – nothing more. Please don’t read more into a simple example.

While this can derail into a long conversation on theology and who is saved – my intent was to cut to the chase. The theologies of affirming churches are never going to meet with the theologies of non-affirming churches.

Consider this, there are several theological issues in which evangelicals differ. Some are concerning Rapture, Tribulation (pre, mid, post) Interpretation of Revelations, Grace vs. Works, etc… The basic need of respect goes to those when they differ on these issues but somehow has been overlooked when it concerns those people who believe that homosexuality is either acceptable or unacceptable.

Thus far, all the preaching and “intentions” of just wanting to tell the truth and “save” others has moved hundreds of thousands of people away from Christ. My biggest concern when we attempt to activate the great commission is that we shoot our toes off because we are tripping on our own feet. Telling the truth might be heard more clearly if we lived the truth. One of the most impressive things to me about Jesus’ life is that he ate with those who were cast away from the church of his day. And he befriended them.

The table I was referring to was not one of agreement and but one of respect. Nor was it the table where only evangelical Christians sit. Before I am slammed for being some ecumenical messenger, I am not saying we must believe in the peace and unity of people under one banner of faith or religion. Not at all. I am saying befriend others.

Most of all let the religion go.

How dare you have a life and any other priorities outside of answering my questions! I am incensed!…ya right….LOL.

Thank you for being so conscientious and for the quick note in the midst of your busyness. I truly appreciate the time and the insights you’ve shared as I’ve muddled through this conversation.

Godspeed in your endeavours.

I’m not avoiding answering – I have been out of town and unable to respond. I have quickly read through your response and will answer shortly – maybe tomorrow or the next day. A couple of items take precedence at this moment.

Ah yes, your concerns….your concerns….yes, it’s always about your concerns. Even though I had just stated several times that I had no interest in any further talk in the ‘bash the conservatives’ vein…and even though I hadn’t been talking about politics, “your concerns” gave you the right to direct that question to me. (Silly me for thinking it must have been connected to something I actually said.)

And that, after you had just returned to posting on this thread, still ignoring Ann’s question that she posted at least twice to you.

With Evan, you decided to be hung-up on the definiton of atypical while you yourself used the even more vague term ‘stereotypical’. And then, while still puzzling over atypical, rehash your own bisexual theories which are, IMHO, a lot less clear than Evan’s discourse on atypicalism. (I secretly found great humor in this. You seem to assume that if you can’t grasp something, it’s either incomprehensible or the speaker is unintelligible. You never seem to catch on that it might also suggest that you are bull-headed and close-minded. You also seem to think that the conversation must stop until you’ve declared that you now understand. I, for one, have no trouble with leaving you behind…or allowing you to read on the sidelines until you grasp what’s being said. LOL. I picture a student in the first day of physics class constantly interupting the teacher with ‘but you still haven’t explained ‘quantum physics’.)

(I often don’t engage in conversations with drowssap…not because I think what he’s saying is foolish…but rather, because the conversations are ‘out of my league’. I read and try to learn from the sidelines. LOL. And when he and Evan get going, I find that I actually do develop a better understanding of what they’re talking about.)

Then I post several long and thoughtful posts about considering the possibility of any sources of homophobia that aren’t rooted in conservative religion and you don’t acknowledge the merits (or lack thereof) of anything I said, instead you feel compelled to ask me to address your concerns.

You pretended your question was just ‘your concern’ but you conveniently addressed it to me (again, why the need to address it to me?)…and put your remarks re secret bigots saying they have gay friends in quotes…I believe, to purposely suggest that the friends I mentioned reaching were probably still quite homophobic at some level. But, as always, the reference is just vague enough that you can scream “oh no, that’s not what I intended at all; you’re being way too sensitive”.

Re the answer to your question. I’m going to ask that you use deductive reasoning, read my posts here and answer the question for yourself. If that fails you, use your recall abilities to remember when we’ve discussed politics before. I answered quite specifically then. At the moment, I’m not in the mood for dancing.

Yes, it’s true that many Christians aren’t loving; it’s also true that many liberals aren’t open-minded. That’s a truth that bears reiterating.