Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

hmmm what about those who deny Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and transgress the doctrine of Christ?

Huh?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I don't believe that to be true. Some are, not many. The one's you see on TV and in the media are chosen for that purpose. The one's I know personally do not advertise it, and would never talk about their love life. We had a couple (for lack of a better term) that came to my wife's graduation party I doubt most of the people there had any idea the two of them were gay.

Most of the homosexuals I've met are obvious about it. Some of those have been pretty pushy, too. I've only met a few who are discreet. Unfortunately, even when they're discreet about their actual lifestyle, their mannerisms and appearance can be obvious. I don't think the latter is always intentional, but it is noticeable. I've met a couple (as in two different people--not a "couple") who were still "in the closet" but were so obviously gay it was comical. It was a relief of sorts when they finally came out and admitted what everyone pretty much knew anyway.

You're right, though--I'm sure those in the media are purposely chosen for their flamboyance.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

NOW, Standards represents the views that many have. Homosexuality is something to fear, the great Abomination, that can infect others if not quarantined. He's not isolated in his views.

Oh, I know you're right. And I represent something a sensible person would say! I'm objecting particularly to the use of the Q-word. It's HIGHLY offensive. There are two words to describe those in the gay community that should never be used. One starts with an "F", the other with a "Q". It's the equivalent of the N-word. Absolutely unacceptable.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Me, too! Every night, in fact.

And you are a great father.

[Standards]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Oh, I know you're right. And I represent something a sensible person would say! I'm objecting particularly to the use of the Q-word. It's HIGHLY offensive. There are two words to describe those in the gay community that should never be used. One starts with an "F", the other with a "Q". It's the equivalent of the N-word. Absolutely unacceptable.

Again, I apologize and ask for the admins to delete my post with the above mentioned word.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Most of the homosexuals I've met are obvious about it. Some of those have been pretty pushy, too. I've only met a few who are discreet. Unfortunately, even when they're discreet about their actual lifestyle, their mannerisms and appearance can be obvious. I don't think the latter is always intentional, but it is noticeable. I've met a couple (as in two different people--not a "couple") who were still "in the closet" but were so obviously gay it was comical. It was a relief of sorts when they finally came out and admitted what everyone pretty much knew anyway.

You're right, though--I'm sure those in the media are purposely chosen for their flamboyance.

Like they propositioned you? lol

So what's better, an out-of-the-closet homosexual sinner or a discreet, in-the-closet secret sinner?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Oh, I know you're right. And I represent something a sensible person would say! I'm objecting particularly to the use of the Q-word. It's HIGHLY offensive. There are two words to describe those in the gay community that should never be used. One starts with an "F", the other with a "Q". It's the equivalent of the N-word. Absolutely unacceptable.

Wait don't they use the word Q**** for themselves? I don't think it's as much a pejorative these days. Am I out of touch?

Thought I heard the word used recently by a homosexual activists group

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

hmmm what about those who deny Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and transgress the doctrine of Christ?

I think this is a different discussion altogether. There are extreme cases where we have to disfellowship someone, but they are exceedingly rare (far more rare than those who practice this regularly would purport), AND those cases refer to believers who have strayed; not sinners who have never known Christ.

Do you have a scripture reference that calls us to shun sinners who have never known Christ?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Wait don't they use the word Q**** for themselves? I don't think it's as much a pejorative these days. Am I out of touch?

Thought I heard the word used recently by a homosexual activists group

It's one of those things that depends on who it's coming from and in that sense very similar to the word used within the black culture. They use it on each other, but not from us to them. Some hate that and granted, it can appear inconsistent, but for me, I figure it's their right to see how they like. After 200+ years of being treated as inferiors, they've earned the right....from my perspective anyway.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think this is a different discussion altogether. There are extreme cases where we have to disfellowship someone, but they are exceedingly rare (far more rare than those who practice this regularly would purport), AND those cases refer to believers who have strayed; not sinners who have never known Christ.

Do you have a scripture reference that calls us to shun sinners who have never known Christ?

I agree. Those scriptures are neither as much prescriptive to all of us, as much as pertaining to specific situations. And in most cases the trespassor was coming AGAINST the flock, knocking on their doors in secret and pointing them away from the Gospel! Hardly the case when this is employed by our Secret Society churches.