Gay Rights in Churches

[Budget Player Cadet_]

When it comes down to it, Christianity is all about love. Loving your neighbors, loving your enemies, loving your God. Yeah there's some other stuff in the book, but that's the main point. God also says in the Bible, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Meaning, let he who is pure make the judgement. No one is pure or without sin, other than God himself. God doesn't want discrimination among people, nor does he want people to judge what is right or wrong, only him. To deny a gay service to a church would be against God's word. (Also, the Bible seems to make more remarks against shrimp than it does against gays).

But in the bible, it also demands that adulterers be stoned to death. That homosexuals be stoned to death. That those who do not believe in Christ be tortured forever. Anyone who refuses to accept Jesus and his followers would be treated to a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. This idea that Christianity is all about love is an incredibly questionable interpretation of the bible that requires you to throw out massive amounts of the theology to essentially whitewash a religion which contains unmeasurable injustice and cruelty.

 

[Claire Diviner]

That those who do not believe in Christ be tortured forever. Anyone who refuses to accept Jesus and his followers would be treated to a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I don't recall this part.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't recall this part.

Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

I recommend taking a look through the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

I recommend taking a look through the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

After reading through it, I gotta say that I am a woman of my word - any wishful thinking I've had for any religion is officially lost. Carry on.

 

[PeterJude]

It also suggests that people shouldn't wear clothing of mixed threads or eat figs. It also suggests that "Chariots of Iron" are enough to subvert God's divine will. It has numerous sexist remarks and is a loose inconsistent collection of texts in general. Understanding it requires that you understand the context in which it was written, taking any part of it literally and out of context is going to end badly.

Um... no. You have no control over what color skin you're born with, you most definitely have control over your sexuality. To explain a bit more: I understand that some people are not tempted towards homosexuality while others most definitely are, and that there's a limited at best control over what tempts you. However, the actual act of homosexuality is definitely a choice, which means it's closer to discriminating because someone watches pornography than because they're a different skin color.

People have no control over their sexuality. That has been demonstrated time and time again. It's one of those bizarre things people like to try and state.

He's a fun test of your hypothesis though. If you feel sexuality is in any way a choice, go out and hook up with someone of your own gender (or if you're gay, someone of the opposite).

Based on the remainder of your argument though, let's put it in more comparable means. "Not committing homosexual acts" when gay is closer to not being allowed to speak your native language. That is, if you're born in America into an English speaking environment, then moved to say, Germany, it would be like never being allowed to speak German. The closest equivalent I can think of here is a church banning someone for speaking English at home while living in Germany. Most would think that a bit much.

 

[adumbrodeus]

People have no control over their sexuality. That has been demonstrated time and time again. It's one of those bizarre things people like to try and state.

He's a fun test of your hypothesis though. If you feel sexuality is in any way a choice, go out and hook up with someone of your own gender (or if you're gay, someone of the opposite).

You're arguing a semantic point that was resolved literally years ago.

He capitulated on that point, moving on.

 

[Ikiimoni]

So what you're saying is that their moral theology should be ignored in their own institution?

It's kind of setting a double standard to say that gays can do whatever they want in their private lives, and that Christians shouldn't invade their functions and protest, but Christians can't do what they want in their private institutions, and gays are allowed to come in and force them to give them communion.

Does this mean I have to let all black people in my own house too? If it's my house, I should be able to pick and choose who I let into my house.

To me what you're suggesting is like a guest going to a person's house where they remove their shoes before entering the house, but the guest refusing to remove his shoes and insisting he is entitled to wear them in the host's property.

Being gay isn't a choice. It's like the guest has the shoes glued to his feet for his whole life, and just wants to be at the host's house. He's being told he needs to change and take off his shoes, but he can't. Sure, churches can exclude people, but the general message in all major religions is that "God made everyone equal", so if that's true, why should anyone be discriminated for age, race, gender, sexuality, physical appearance, religious beliefs?

 

[Pachinkosam]

It's funny when people who are against gay marriage, here in the states said there moving to Canada. And i want to see there faces when they get to canada, and find out that they had gay marriage, legalized since 2004.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

Being gay isn't a choice. It's like the guest has the shoes glued to his feet for his whole life, and just wants to be at the host's house. He's being told he needs to change and take off his shoes, but he can't. Sure, churches can exclude people, but the general message in all major religions is that "God made everyone equal", so if that's true, why should anyone be discriminated for age, race, gender, sexuality, physical appearance, religious beliefs?

God is also the creator of the universe. I think the creator has the stuff to say what's right and wrong. And FYI, being gay is a choice, as I've had gay friends and straight friends who have reversed. In the blink of an eye, and in the span of a long time.

 

[Sucumbio]

God is also the creator of the universe. I think the creator has the stuff to say what's right and wrong. And FYI, being gay is a choice, as I've had gay friends and straight friends who have reversed. In the blink of an eye, and in the span of a long time.

Did you "choose" to be heterosexual?

And to play devil's advocate, why does it matter if it's a choice?

And not to put too much emphasis on the religious aspects of gay rights, but arguing against homosexuality on the basis of God is a serious cop out. I mean while we're at it let's stone people for infidelity or eating shell fish. No, I'd encourage this sort of thing be kept out of the debate.

And as far as "blink of an eye" rarely is someone's sexual preference so easily changed. It takes years of suppression before the truth is revealed. We can choose to live in secret. We can choose to repress our impulses. But we don't choose who we're sexually attracted to. Doesn't even fit for gender alone; we don't choose to find blonds attractive or redheads, etc. Or people with low voices or large body types or a million other combinations of physical traits.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

Did you "choose" to be heterosexual?

And to play devil's advocate, why does it matter if it's a choice?

And not to put too much emphasis on the religious aspects of gay rights, but arguing against homosexuality on the basis of God is a serious cop out. I mean while we're at it let's stone people for infidelity or eating shell fish. No, I'd encourage this sort of thing be kept out of the debate.

And as far as "blink of an eye" rarely is someone's sexual preference so easily changed. It takes years of suppression before the truth is revealed. We can choose to live in secret. We can choose to repress our impulses. But we don't choose who we're sexually attracted to. Doesn't even fit for gender alone; we don't choose to find blonds attractive or redheads, etc. Or people with low voices or large body types or a million other combinations of physical traits.

I can give you plenty of verses that say not only why its wrong, but why you can't understand. People like to use the Old Testament as a basis for arguing it, but forget that it's also shown to be wrong in the New Testament as while.

What people seem to miss is that Christians don't hate gay people, on the contrary, we love all and want all to end up in the eternal paradise, not eternal punishment.

Technically, churches are both public and private, and the pastor retains the right to refuse marriage to a heterosexual couple too, and I've seen it happen. They act as if it is some sort of hate crime to say no.

You know what is a hate crime? Suing for $135,000 because two bakers said they wouldn't bake your wedding cake, like a lesbian couple did in Oregon, then having the government silence you and say you can't say why you refused in public. That's hate.

Need I remind some people that some religions around the world kill homosexuals? I'd be pretty content if refusal of marriage was the only thing they did as opposed to murdering me, wouldn't you?

 

[Sehnsucht]

I can give you plenty of verses that say not only why its wrong, but why you can't understand. People like to use the Old Testament as a basis for arguing it, but forget that it's also shown to be wrong in the New Testament as while.

I would invite you to quote relevant verses in support of your stance. It would at least serve the purpose of posterity.

What people seem to miss is that Christians don't hate gay people, on the contrary, we love all and want all to end up in the eternal paradise, not eternal punishment.

What an absurd state of affairs. 8/

A person once asked God why things are set up along an axis of eternal reward/eternal punishment, to which God only shrugged and said, "Don't hate the Player, my child -- hate the Game."

In other words, I've always wondered why Heaven-Hell, reward-punishment, sin-salvation, and not some other state of affairs. We have no say in the game we're playing; we either have to play, or tough it out. But I digress.

The more relevant curiosity is why homosexuality is even considered deplorable in the first place, metaphysically-speaking. Does God shudder and/or shake his proverbial fist whenever someone puts their mouth/hands/genitals/etc. where he doesn't like them to go? Or even when two same-sex individuals express love for one another, and all that this love entails?

Is it because it's a violation of the Natural Order? Well, a great many species engage in sexed reproduction. If God desires the proliferation of species, then it's no surprise God would want to encourage heterosex.

But it's not like homosexuality risks causing extinction or any population crisis. Only a minority portion of the human population is non-heterosexual. So if extinction prevention is not the reason God encourages procreation, why else? Does God have a surplus of souls he needs to have incarnated? Does the birth of every child fill God with gleeful gratification? Does God want to bolster our numbers so we stand a chance when the Rovers of the Hyades descend upon the Earth to ravage all?

Seems so utterly arbitrary, to get upset over who does what with whom consensually -- for humans, let alone for That Which Created All Things. I guess one could be upset if one is playing this MMO we call The Salvation Project -- Christians are dismayed that homosexuals are not playing the game a certain way, thus minimizing the total end score -- but it's not like one needs to play a game a certain way (for video games as it is for In Real Life).

Also, I don't buy that homosexuality is a choice***, any more than bisexuality or transexuality or asexuality is a choice. Because why would anyone choose to go down those paths if they could help it? Either a bunch of people are jumping on the rainbow lifestyle bandwagon jUsT tO SiN, or it was never a choice to begin with.

***Also, homosexuality (in the form of pair-bonding, same-sex mating, child-rearing, and sexual assault) has been observed in a frankly astonishing number of species, from mammals to birds to reptiles and more. I doubt they chose to do engage in such practices, since I doubt generally that they choose to do anything.

Technically, churches are both public and private, and the pastor retains the right to refuse marriage to a heterosexual couple too, and I've seen it happen. They act as if it is some sort of hate crime to say no.

You know what is a hate crime? Suing for $135,000 because two bakers said they wouldn't bake your wedding cake, like a lesbian couple did in Oregon, then having the government silence you and say you can't say why you refused in public. That's hate.

Dunno about how the particulars of American law, but I would think there are clauses disallowing undue discrimination against a given class or category of people.

People often equate same-sex and interracial marriage, and not without reason. One cannot help having been born with a certain skin colour, much as one can't help having the sex/gender/class/eye colour/etc. they were born with. Can one be held morally accountable for skin colour? People eventually realized that you can't really, and so interracial marriage was allowed (so I would assume for America, anyway).

So too for homosexuality***. You mentioned earlier that it's a choice. So tomorrow, I could just decide to start being attracted to other guys. Seems like that could be both fun and useful. I would basically double the candidate pool of potential romantic/sexual partners overnight!

Attraction doesn't work that way, though. Like skin colour and height and other things, attraction is not something you can help. Further, it cannot affect anyone in any negative way. Neither the partners involved (assuming it's consensual all around), nor the populace at large -- unless there are people who would lament every single union that doesn't end up leading to procreation and proliferation.

Point being that there doesn't seem to be a good rationale for not serving same-sex couples, beyond religious ones. I expect people were upset in that scenario you mention because they are a business offering public goods and services to the public (and so is in the State's domain), and there should be a separation of Church and State as per the US Constitution, yet that business is denying service to a segment of the populace on religious grounds. I don't know the particulars of that case (certainly not enough to know whether suing the business was warranted), but I can see why people got upset.

It also doesn't make sense from a business perspective -- you are willingly capping your maximal revenue by shutting out a segment of your consumer base -- but that's beside the point.

Lastly, I doubt that whole shebang could qualify as a hate crime. Again, dunno how it's framed in American law, but I would think hate crimes are defined as undue discrimination against any given group -- be they potential or actual threats of violence and abuse, preferential treatment towards other groups at their expense on the sole basis of group trait X, unjustified vandalizing/defamation/ etc. Government censorship is not palatable, I agree, but in this case, there may be (and I would venture, are) legal precedents in play that forced the government's hand. That's not so much hate as it is following established legal conduct.

***You might say there is a difference, in that unlike race, orientation is not just about innate traits, but actions people take -- and it is action that has moral value. So, being gay may not be at issue, but acting upon one's gayitude is the question of moral scrutiny. So is engaging in homosexual love and/or acts morally impermissible? As I noted before, one wonders why that would be, since it at the very least benefits no one except the parties directly involved, and certainly does no real or lasting harm to anyone.

Need I remind some people that some religions around the world kill homosexuals? I'd be pretty content if refusal of marriage was the only thing they did as opposed to murdering me, wouldn't you?

This is framed like a Lesser of Two Evils dichotomy.

We can all agree that wanton killings are not desirable. But does this mean that, in face of that disagreement, we must accept the alternative (in this case, refusal to perform same-sex marriage within religious institutions)?

There is, also, a third alternative -- namely, actually allowing same-sex marriage across the board. Why accept either of those two former options when this third one is available as well?

Note that my contention here is more with the framing of the argument. My actual stance, which I think I might have outlined earlier in this thread, is that it doesn't matter how churches and other religious institutions choose to conduct marriage (since, again, the State ought be and is separate from the Church). It's the civil and social aspect of marriage, and all of its entailed privileges and statutes, that are essential, and the government shouldn't deny this privilege to a segment of the population on the pure basis of who loves who (and who does what consensually with who).

Which is why I'm pleased the US has legalized same-sex marriage at the federal level. Here in Canada, it's been that way since the mid-2000s, and things have been unfolding swimmingly on the social and cultural front in the time since, so far as I can see.

 

[adumbrodeus]

To be quite frank @ Capybara Gaming , if you were simply concerned about the wellbeing of homosexual people as opposed to simply endorsing bigotry you wouldn't be attacking homosexuality as immoral, you'd be arguing that gay sex is immoral.

Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are all variations of how the brain responds to the putative pheromones secreted by men and women. Homosexual men and heterosexual women respond to the male putative pheromone while homosexul women and heterosexual men respond to the female putative pheromone. This is well established by science (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129091 and https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0600331103 for example, though there are other examples) and since sexuality is understood as based on sexual desire, scientifically measurable response to putative pheromones would be the biological basis for that desire.

Of course this does not technically mean that it's not a matter of choice nor unchangable, no, what makes it that is the fact that in spite of numerous studies on the topic, not a single one has managed to produce a lasting change in sexuality, in spite of the participant's desire otherwise, and I challenge you to provide one which shows a neurological change in response to putative pheromones by decision.

So, the options for those friends of yours that changed orientation:

1. They were never the orientation they initially claimed.

or

2. They were never the orientation they claimed to transition to.

or

3. They were always bisexual.


Beyond that, as a Christian who claims biblical scholarship you should be well aware why it's entirely impossible that the Bible ever condemned homosexuality.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

Beyond that, as a Christian who claims biblical scholarship you should be well aware why it's entirely impossible that the Bible ever condemned homosexuality.

This sentence refutes the validity of you post, because simply put, it's wrong.

@ Sehnsucht this is something you asked too; so I'm tagging you as well.

Leviticus 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
Even if what you were saying about marriage and the alleged "love" which is nothing more than a trick from the ultimate deceiver, Satan, do you sincerely doubt a couple in "love" will abstain from sexual activity? This alone makes it an asset to sin, and thus a sin in itself.

Now, before you make the point that "The Old Testament is invalid", might I direct you to the book of Matthew, iin it's 5th chapter, verse 17.
"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Now, granted, one could argue several of those old laws were not mentioned in the New Testament, and thus have no relevance. I'm not going to try to refute that, but rather the fact that this one in particular is mentioned SEVERAL times in the New Testament. Scream mis-translation all you want, I personally do not believe God, Creator of the Universe, would allow his own Word to become so convoluted as to deceive his children.

The Bible says this in the book of 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 1:18:
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

What this means is that those who do not believe in the Word of God are doomed to not understand it.

Personally, if the all-powerful Creator of the Universe says something is wrong, I wouldn't be doing it. It's his disgression to decide what's right and wrong and is not ours to understand.

Romans 1: 26-28 clearly states this:
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."

As does 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Jesus himself speaks about marriage in Mark 10: 6-9:
"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”"

I.E. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman going by God's standards.

If you felt as though a blind man was going to walk off a cliff, wouldn't you want to warn them what is about to come of them? This is how the true Christian should see sin; we should be loving and kind to others, but not spare the warning of the eternal damnation.

Now, onto the topic at hand; gay marriage. The issue I have is this: this promotes that which is sin, an entire lifesyle based on it. One cannot just repent and go back to sinning or it isn't true repentance, and thus these souls are not going to be saved.

We can agree that for an injustice, punishment must be served. In the case of God's standards, the stakes are much higher, those for an eternity in the soul. My goal in the end is to be used as the Lord's tool to save others. I want everyone to end up in heaven one day.

Then there are those who make me mad; those like that lesbian couple who try to stir up trouble, accusing others of hate while being a hypocrite themselves.

But I've gotten a bit off-topic. The issue is that technically, churches are like people: they have free choice. It is up to their discretion to marry a couple, heterosexual or otherwise (and yes, I've seen a pastor refuse several heterosexual couples). If the "Seperation of Church and State" which everyone loves (which by the way, doesn't actually appear in any historical document, in fact, quite the opposite) is true, then the government has no right to interfere in the institutions of the church. Plain and simple. There's the county clerk, they can get their marriage license there and be legally wed. No harm no foul, and they don't have to be around those that openly disapprove of their actions.

It's when people try to silence us that makes me go full rage mode, and I'm surprisingly calm in this post.

 

[adumbrodeus]

This sentence refutes the validity of you post, because simply put, it's wrong.

@ Sehnsucht this is something you asked too; so I'm tagging you as well.

Leviticus 18:22 - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Not a condemnation of homosexuality. Condemnation of homosexual sex.

Even if what you were saying about marriage and the alleged "love" which is nothing more than a trick from the ultimate deceiver, Satan, do you sincerely doubt a couple in "love" will abstain from sexual activity? This alone makes it an asset to sin, and thus a sin in itself.

Since when were we talking about couples? We're talking about homosexual individuals and the inherent sinfulness or lack thereof of being a homosexual.

Now, before you make the point that "The Old Testament is invalid", might I direct you to the book of Matthew, iin it's 5th chapter, verse 17.
"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Now, granted, one could argue several of those old laws were not mentioned in the New Testament, and thus have no relevance. I'm not going to try to refute that, but rather the fact that this one in particular is mentioned SEVERAL times in the New Testament. Scream mis-translation all you want, I personally do not believe God, Creator of the Universe, would allow his own Word to become so convoluted as to deceive his children.

The Bible says this in the book of 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 1:18:
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

What this means is that those who do not believe in the Word of God are doomed to not understand it.

Personally, if the all-powerful Creator of the Universe says something is wrong, I wouldn't be doing it. It's his disgression to decide what's right and wrong and is not ours to understand.

Irrelevant to the posed question.

Romans 1: 26-28 clearly states this:
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."

Again a condemnation of homosexual sex not homosexuality.

As does 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God"

Poor translation but even in this translation it's not a condemnation of homosexuality but instead homosexual sex.

Jesus himself speaks about marriage in Mark 10: 6-9:
"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”"

Not relevant to the question.

I.E. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman going by God's standards.

If you felt as though a blind man was going to walk off a cliff, wouldn't you want to warn them what is about to come of them? This is how the true Christian should see sin; we should be loving and kind to others, but not spare the warning of the eternal damnation.

Now, onto the topic at hand; gay marriage. The issue I have is this: this promotes that which is sin, an entire lifesyle based on it. One cannot just repent and go back to sinning or it isn't true repentance, and thus these souls are not going to be saved.

Not relevant to the question.

We can agree that for an injustice, punishment must be served. In the case of God's standards, the stakes are much higher, those for an eternity in the soul. My goal in the end is to be used as the Lord's tool to save others. I want everyone to end up in heaven one day.

Then there are those who make me mad; those like that lesbian couple who try to stir up trouble, accusing others of hate while being a hypocrite themselves.

But I've gotten a bit off-topic. The issue is that technically, churches are like people: they have free choice. It is up to their discretion to marry a couple, heterosexual or otherwise (and yes, I've seen a pastor refuse several heterosexual couples). If the "Seperation of Church and State" which everyone loves (which by the way, doesn't actually appear in any historical document, in fact, quite the opposite) is true, then the government has no right to interfere in the institutions of the church. Plain and simple. There's the county clerk, they can get their marriage license there and be legally wed. No harm no foul, and they don't have to be around those that openly disapprove of their actions.

It's when people try to silence us that makes me go full rage mode, and I'm surprisingly calm in this post.

Again, not relevant to the question.

You seem to be entirely dodging the question by posting on somewhat related topics that do not actually cover the very specific issue.




Also, not really relevant to my challenge of your scholarship but you should be aware that just because Jesus came to fulfill the law according to the New Testament is not the same as saying that Christians hold fast to the old laws, right? For example Christians are explicitly released from the cleanlyness laws in acts 10:9 to 11:18 with other implications to relations with the law. Other verses such as Romans 6:14 also cover this topic. The overall position of the new testament is fulfillment of the law means that the law's specifics are no longer binding upon Christians for they were designed for the Jewish nation prior to being saved by Jesus' coming.

While elements remain, Christianity is a new covenant with God, made possible by the saving power of the crucifixion. Examples of explicitly changed elements are things like divorce being forbidden and dietary regulations being removed.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

didn't read lol

Except they weren't removed. He didn't come to remove them. I don't understand what you don't get about that. They are not gone. They are the rules of his chosen people. We are his chosen people. We must follow them.

I can't tell if you just skimmed what I read. I suggest you go back and read the Bible. Lusting after someone is also a sin. If they get married and have sex, then they are still committing the sin. It specifically condemns sin. Homosexuality is described as a sin. Several times. You can't pick and choose. You can't shout mistranslation because you are not a translator. And you cannot claim to be a Christian and support that which is wrong. If you think about a sin, it is no better than committing the sin.

"Nor those who practice homosexuality" doesn't just mean sex. It means any act which constitutes homosexuality. Being a homosexual constitutes homosexuality. I don't understand how you aren't getting thi-oh wait, yes I do.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

It's because your ignorant and decide to cherrypick what you want to see.

Ignorance of the Bible is no excuse to sin.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, I'm not an ancient languages expert. But I have some historical training particularly in ancient Israel due to taking college courses there.

And the fact is that they culturally didn't have certain concepts that we did.

For example, there was no concept of "body" in Aramaic, at least not in the sense that would've been used in "eat my body". Rather translations that use that are generally translating the concept of "flesh".

The relevant one however is, homosexuality literally did not exist as a concept. Period.

While some cultures did have a concept that was sort of similar to a male homosexual identity it was related to "taking the women's role in sex" as opposed to simply being sexually attracted to men.

As such, linguistically and culturally homosexual sex was something that was done not something people were and condemnations of it could only extend to actions. Of course choosing to entertain lust is certainly an action, but merely being a homosexual could not have possibly been condemned by the bible because the concept simply did not exist.


No, you are choosing to purposefully read the Bible in a way that justifies your bigotry without paying attention to the actual concepts put forth.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

bigotry

Lol your silly. God bless you and your silly thinking.

So silly, I'm not even going to try justifying wasting my time trying to explain it.

I like it how you are viciously going out of your way to attack my way of thinking, and I'm not doing anything like that.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Lol your silly. God bless you and your silly thinking.

So silly, I'm not even going to try justifying wasting my time trying to explain it.

Of course this seems weird to the modern reader, but the reality is this is well-studied by academia and attributing a homosexual identity to anyone prior to the 19th century is presentism.

Of course homosexuals existed prior to that time, being a biological effect, but they would not have conceptualized themselves which makes attributing homosexuality to earlier people problematic and difficult at best. Of course it means that works referencing homosexuality before that time could not have been referencing the identity as we understand it in the modern world.

The modern concept and the term of homosexuality was invented by Karoly Maria Benkert in the 19th century.

For further information into the topic, Making Sex by Professor Thomas Laqueur delves extensively into the topic.

The fact is that you like many before you make the mistake of believing the ancients were working with the same language and concepts as we were. This is no different then when people argue that heliocentricism was proven when Galileo presented his concepts when in reality the evidence of the day was decisively more in favor of geocentricism and mixed systems.

The fact is, it may seem odd to you, but the evidence is completely in favor of there being no concept of sexuality when the Bible was written, just sexual acts. The Bible could not have been talking about sexuality.

I like it how you are viciously going out of your way to attack my way of thinking, and I'm not doing anything like that.

I'm not being vicious, but attacking people on the basis of traits which they neither have control over having nor can change is bigotry.

Your reading of the Bible ignores all sense of context in order to justify bigotry which was never present in the text. I am merely calling you out on that fact.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

I'm not being vicious, but attacking people on the basis of traits which they neither have control over having nor can change is bigotry.

You don't need to attack people to make a point. It only makes you seem like a condescending jerk.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You don't need to attack people to make a point. It only makes you seem like a condescending jerk.

This the part where you attempt to distract people in order to avoid admitting you're wrong? The call out was legitimate and my argument is historian consensus as demonstrated by the works I referenced. Saying "you're a meanie face" for calling a spade a spade won't change that.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

This the part where you attempt to distract people in order to avoid admitting you're wrong? The call out was legitimate and my argument is historian consensus as demonstrated by the works I referenced. Saying "you're a meanie face" for calling a spade a spade won't change that.

No, this is the point where I stop replying to someone who obviously doesn't do any research in the Bible he claims to know so well. G'day.

 

[Teran]

So random question do you think Churches should be forced to give communion to gays and other supposed sinners?

It's kind of the same principle.

No, and gay people shouldn't be wanting to be part of an institution that demonises them.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

No, and gay people shouldn't be wanting to be part of an institution that demonises them.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING

This guy gets it ^

Though, we don't all demonize them, in fact, a lot of us really just want all to inherit the eternal reward because we don't believe that those who live that way will be a part of it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, this is the point where I stop replying to someone who obviously doesn't do any research in the Bible he claims to know so well. G'day.

I'm referencing academically well supported areas of cultural context which are important to understanding the original text while you're arguing a plain meaning reading, of a book that comes from many different periods with unique contexts, and has been re-translated many times, often with the translations explicitly inserting political and social views (such as the King James Bible translation Revelations 17:9 as "hills" instead of "mountains", explicitly to change a reference to all the Kingdoms of the World to a reference to Rome), yet you still argue a "plain meaning" translation.

And I'm the one who does no research?

There are many Christian denominations that have sophisticated Biblical criticism, the Catholic Church being an easy example. Evidently your denomination is not one of them, I'm unsurprised that this produces such an anti-intellectual attitude towards it.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

I'm referencing academically well supported areas of cultural context which are important to understanding the original text while you're arguing a plain meaning reading, of a book that comes from many different periods with unique contexts, and has been re-translated many times, often with the translations explicitly inserting political and social views (such as the King James Bible translation Revelations 17:9 as "hills" instead of "mountains", explicitly to change a reference to all the Kingdoms of the World to a reference to Rome), yet you still argue a "plain meaning" translation.

And I'm the one who does no research?

There are many Christian denominations that have sophisticated Biblical criticism, the Catholic Church being an easy example. Evidently your denomination is not one of them, I'm unsurprised that this produces such an anti-intellectual attitude towards it.

Final response to you, because one more thing and I'll probably block you.
The Catholic Church as an example is not helping your case, because apparently the Pope's taken it upon himself to rewrite the 10 Commandments.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Final response to you, because one more thing and I'll probably block you.

Sure, it's not like you were every willing to even consider your ideas.

Your entire principal of whether somebody's schooled on the Bible seems to be whether or not they agree with you, even though you haven't responded to a single challenge nor have you illustrated any sort of insight into the cultural, linguistic, or variance in translator elements which are relevant to Biblical interpretation.

It's rather clear that the Dunning–Kruger effect is very much at play here, while I do not claim perfect knowledge I certainly have basic competence on Biblical scholarship, something you clearly lack.

So unless you're willing to give some basic thought to the other side and be willing to form a coherent response, you frankly don't belong in the Debate Hall at all, so sure, feel free to block me. It's pretty much the kind of response I expected from you.

The Catholic Church as an example is not helping your case, because apparently the Pope's taken it upon himself to rewrite the 10 Commandments.

How so?

If you're arguing because they use different numbering and organization of which rule into which commandment, the Catholic numbering predates the Lutheran and Reformed numbering by about 1000 years (Catholics use Augustine's numbering and organization) and both are different then the Jewish traditional grouping, so if either is a rewrite both are.

If you mean something else, you should probably explain.

 

[Capita]

I'm totally mixed about this Supreme Court decision. This forum seems to have an overwhelming liberal majority.
First off, I'm glad same-sex couples are able to marry. I believe marriage was intended upon its creation to be a union between a man and a woman, however I don't believe that exclusion based off of personal and moral views is right. What I think of marriage as isn't the law of the land, and if a religious institution or two individuals believe in a definition that isn't the same as mine, I don't think anyone has the right to stop them. While legal same-sex marriage isn't my ideal solution of marriage privatization where government is out of the question and marriage is left to religious institutions and individuals of legal age to decide (which would allow things such as polygamy between consenting adults), legal same-sex marriage is a step in the right direction.
That's only my view on same-sex marriage as a whole though. I had some issues with the Supreme Court ruling. When did the supreme court become an unelected 9 person legislative body? What happened was that 5 people made a ruling that goes into effect throughout the entire United States, a course of action that was somewhat beyond their powers. It's not that I have a problem with the outcome, it's more the course of action taken. Judges are not supposed to pass laws, they are supposed to judge laws. I have trouble getting the logic used as well. The reasons for legal same-sex marriage were that the marriages rights were protected under under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, however a marriage is not an individual. Collective rights are not protected under the constitution, only individual rights. Marriages are a collective of individuals; the marriage doesn't have special rights but those individuals in said collection have their fully protected rights. This whole thing isn't the end of the LGBT debate though. I assume the future debate will be on whether churches can decline to wed gay couples or not, which I believe they shouldn't be forced too. Government has no right to force religious institutions to wed certain people. There will always be competing institutions who will happily wed same-sex couples. While I'm against exclusion based off of personal views to an extent, I'm also against forced inclusion. Up to a point, we need the right to say no.

Sure, it's not like you were every willing to even consider your ideas.

Your entire principal of whether somebody's schooled on the Bible seems to be whether or not they agree with you, even though you haven't responded to a single challenge nor have you illustrated any sort of insight into the cultural, linguistic, or variance in translator elements which are relevant to Biblical interpretation.

It's rather clear that the Dunning–Kruger effect is very much at play here, while I do not claim perfect knowledge I certainly have basic competence on Biblical scholarship, something you clearly lack.

So unless you're willing to give some basic thought to the other side and be willing to form a coherent response, you frankly don't belong in the Debate Hall at all, so sure, feel free to block me. It's pretty much the kind of response I expected from you.



How so?

If you're arguing because they use different numbering and organization of which rule into which commandment, the Catholic numbering predates the Lutheran and Reformed numbering by about 1000 years (Catholics use Augustine's numbering and organization) and both are different then the Jewish traditional grouping, so if either is a rewrite both are.

If you mean something else, you should probably explain.

I'm not the most religious of people, but whatever is in a religious text is not God's words, but a man's words partially inspired by God. That would make it easy to put one's personal views. However, I'm just a Deist who doesn't believe in organized religion, so I may be off.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm totally mixed about this Supreme Court decision. This forum seems to have an overwhelming liberal majority.
First off, I'm glad same-sex couples are able to marry. I believe marriage was intended upon its creation to be a union between a man and a woman, however I don't believe that exclusion based off of personal and moral views is right. What I think of marriage as isn't the law of the land, and if a religious institution or two individuals believe in a definition that isn't the same as mine, I don't think anyone has the right to stop them. While legal same-sex marriage isn't my ideal solution of marriage privatization where government is out of the question and marriage is left to religious institutions and individuals of legal age to decide (which would allow things such as polygamy between consenting adults), legal same-sex marriage is a step in the right direction.
That's only my view on same-sex marriage as a whole though. I had some issues with the Supreme Court ruling. When did the supreme court become an unelected 9 person legislative body? What happened was that 5 people made a ruling that goes into effect throughout the entire United States, a course of action that was somewhat beyond their powers. It's not that I have a problem with the outcome, it's more the course of action taken. Judges are not supposed to pass laws, they are supposed to judge laws. I have trouble getting the logic used as well. The reasons for legal same-sex marriage were that the marriages rights were protected under under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, however a marriage is not an individual. Collective rights are not protected under the constitution, only individual rights. Marriages are a collective of individuals; the marriage doesn't have special rights but those individuals in said collection have their fully protected rights. This whole thing isn't the end of the LGBT debate though. I assume the future debate will be on whether churches can decline to wed gay couples or not, which I believe they shouldn't be forced too. Government has no right to force religious institutions to wed certain people. There will always be competing institutions who will happily wed same-sex couples. While I'm against exclusion based off of personal views to an extent, I'm also against forced inclusion. Up to a point, we need the right to say no.

This isn't the topic however supreme court's purpose in the US system IS to override the legislature. Basic separation of powers.

They are in turn checked by the executive through appointments, and through the legislature through their ability to assent to or deny appointments and their ability to amend the constitution.

Also you mischaracterize the decision, the supreme court ruled it was unconstitutional to deny individuals the ability to engage in marriage simply because they were members of certain groups.

Note that the decision did not force religions to do anything, it merely prevented civil marriage from rejecting people on the basis of gender and allowed religious groups who wished to marry same sex individuals to have their marriages have civil force if they desired.

I'm not the most religious of people, but whatever is in a religious text is not God's words, but a man's words partially inspired by God. That would make it easy to put one's personal views. However, I'm just a Deist who doesn't believe in organized religion, so I may be off.

Not entirely sure how this relates to what was said.


Also, you should probably use paragraph breaks.

 

[Capybara Gaming]

Sure, it's not like you were every willing to even consider your ideas.

Your entire principal of whether somebody's schooled on the Bible seems to be whether or not they agree with you, even though you haven't responded to a single challenge nor have you illustrated any sort of insight into the cultural, linguistic, or variance in translator elements which are relevant to Biblical interpretation.

It's rather clear that the Dunning–Kruger effect is very much at play here, while I do not claim perfect knowledge I certainly have basic competence on Biblical scholarship, something you clearly lack.

So unless you're willing to give some basic thought to the other side and be willing to form a coherent response, you frankly don't belong in the Debate Hall at all, so sure, feel free to block me. It's pretty much the kind of response I expected from you.



How so?

If you're arguing because they use different numbering and organization of which rule into which commandment, the Catholic numbering predates the Lutheran and Reformed numbering by about 1000 years (Catholics use Augustine's numbering and organization) and both are different then the Jewish traditional grouping, so if either is a rewrite both are.

If you mean something else, you should probably explain.

No, I mean that he is literally re-writing Biblical texts to include modern age thinking by claiming he was inspired by God.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, I mean that he is literally re-writing Biblical texts to include modern age thinking by claiming he was inspired by God.

You're leaving out literally all the relevant details, could you just provide a source for his actions that you are talking about?

 

[Capita]

This isn't the topic however supreme court's purpose in the US system IS to override the legislature. Basic separation of powers.

They are in turn checked by the executive through appointments, and through the legislature through their ability to assent to or deny appointments and their ability to amend the constitution.

There was no federal law that Congress was ruling on, it was resolving a dispute on conflicting state laws. The Supreme Court was the one that struck down all stage laws regarding marriage recognition.

The Supreme Court isn't meant to "override" Congress, they rule both Congressional laws and Executive acts and may deem some as unconstitutional and may strike down such laws/actions.

Not entirely sure how this relates to what was said.

Inputting my view of biblical interpretation (which was discussed before).

Also, you should probably use paragraph breaks.

Sorry, I forget how ugly it looks when it is a wall of text. Didn't mean for it to be like that, I thought just hitting enter would've been enough.

 

[adumbrodeus]

There was no federal law that Congress was ruling on, it was resolving a dispute on conflicting state laws. The Supreme Court was the one that struck down all stage laws regarding marriage recognition.

Yes there was, they ruled on the 14th amendment which is federal law.

The Supreme Court isn't meant to "override" Congress, they rule both Congressional laws and Executive acts and may deem some as unconstitutional and may strike down such laws/actions.

In other words, override congress and the executive in some situations and be overridden by them in others. Your characterization isn't incorrect but you're not recognizing that it's a micro expression of the meta view on governmental structure I'm explaining. These powers weren't given haphazardly, they were explicitly designed to create a functioning system of separation of powers so no one branch of government could become a Tyranny.

Technically the legislature has the most power on paper, but the legislature is rarely unified enough to truly exercise this so in practice the branches function on relatively equal terms.

Inputting my view of biblical interpretation (which was discussed before).

I just mean how was that particular view of interpretation relevant the discussion and particularly the segment you quoted? It's just odd to quote something if you're not expressing an opinion on what you're quoting.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

God is also the creator of the universe. I think the creator has the stuff to say what's right and wrong.

My father made me. Does this give my father the right to determine what is or is not just and moral? Or, to just cut straight to the chase, if God commanded the **** and murder of infants, would that somehow make it moral? And if so, why should I care about what is or is not moral? This is not a trivial question. Morality is often trumped up as something we almost by definition have to care about, but if morality is equally defined as "that which a divine power commands", then I'm sorry, but you're going to have to give me a reason why I should care about that version of morality.

And FYI, being gay is a choice, as I've had gay friends and straight friends who have reversed. In the blink of an eye, and in the span of a long time.

It's not that's immutable. Sexuality, like gender, can be fluid and mutable. That doesn't make it a choice. It doesn't mean I can just wake up one day and say, "I no longer find dudes attractive". I might change as a person over time, but why exactly I might find the urge to get involved with any particular man or woman is largely out of my control, and our best attempts to wrest control of it away from our base urges have failed. Miserably.

What people seem to miss is that Christians don't hate gay people, on the contrary, we love all and want all to end up in the eternal paradise, not eternal punishment.

I believe you believe that. That said, I don't think you think about this particular paradigm very hard.

Do you believe that God is moral? That he is just, moral, and otherwise virtuous?

Do you believe that God set up the system for determining who does and does not go to hell or could change this system?

Do you believe that I deserve to be tortured forever?

Think about those ones for a minute, then get back to me.

This whole "love the sinner hate the sin" line is just nonsensical. Who you are attracted to and who you love is a fundamental part of who you are, and what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom with another consenting adult is none of your business. However, you believe that a perfectly moral entity would torture us forever for this. In other words, you believe that we deserve to be tortured forever for this.

That.

Is.

Really.

Really.

****ed up.

You know what is a hate crime? Suing for $135,000 because two bakers said they wouldn't bake your wedding cake, like a lesbian couple did in Oregon, then having the government silence you and say you can't say why you refused in public. That's hate.

You do realize that there was a law in Oregon specifically protecting against this kind of discrimination, right? The fear that businesses would shut out a specific kind of customer is not a new one. These kinds of protections for black men and interracial couples were the norm in the 70s, because they were needed. Discriminating against someone due to some inherent part of their persona like their race, gender, or sexuality is not something that needs to be protected. This lawsuit won because it had the law on its side - a democratically supported law of the region it was in. The bakers were explicitly in the wrong according to the law. You can appeal to religious liberties all you want; if your religion prohibits you from serving gay people, perhaps you'd be better off getting out of the service industry.

Need I remind some people that some religions around the world kill homosexuals? I'd be pretty content if refusal of marriage was the only thing they did as opposed to murdering me, wouldn't you?

What a non-argument. "These people are only a little marginalized here, but they're a lot marginalized there! See how enlightened we are?" Yes, we know, some religions around the world kill homosexuals! Like what they tried to do in Uganda, a country where the vast majority of people are... Christian. Whoops. Yeah, I know you meant Iran or Saudi Arabia, but saying "See, our religion doesn't do it!" is just straight-up wrong.

As Sehnsucht explained at length, if our options are "Kill the gays", "Force the gays into the closet", and "Let the gays have equal rights to the rest of us", the correct option is not the one somewhere in the middle. We shouldn't just be happy that we aren't as bad as the people everyone recognizes as morally reprehensible, we should strive to be the best we can be. And if you think denying them the right to marry is the best we can be, you're wrong, as the supreme court proved a week or two ago.

Oh, by the way, while we're on the subject of biblical moral pronouncements, have you read Exodus 21 recently?

 

[Teran]

Though, we don't all demonize them, in fact, a lot of us really just want all to inherit the eternal reward because we don't believe that those who live that way will be a part of it.

You don't need to give that PC bull**** answer, the attitude towards homosexuality is made abundantly clear in Abrahamic scriptures.

All places of worship should have the right to uphold their belief system within their walls, but let's not be acting like those beliefs are anything more than vitriolic words concocted by nomadic savages millenia ago.

 

[Sucumbio]

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Probably the best summation one will find on the various reasons Christians would hate on homosexuality. Some of the points are rather disturbing so read at your own risk. But make no mistake, all of it commits several logical fallacies not the least of which include Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Nature, just to name two.

 

[Drevis2]

Do religious people really believe that people who approve of homosexuals deserve to die as well? That's just messed up imo.

 

[Champ Gold]

I've been going to church with few homosexuals for years. While majority of us from our beliefs see it in a negative light most cases, we don't offend gays and or obstruct them.

It's more about being an intelligent person showing love. WE tend to forget that and assume that all Christians should show hate when God and Jesus showed that hate is never way.


Do unto others as you want to to yourselves.

 

[A-money2121]

To answer the question in a short term, we should not judge; that is true Christian character.

I feel that many people misinterpret the teachings of the Bible. The Bible is a very difficult book to understand; it has been with us for centuries, yet scholars today are still trying the understand the basis of it. Do you think Jesus would look down onto people with different discriminations? No! The Bible's goal is to enforce mankind to show humble, christian character, similar to that of Jesus. It is important to treat others the way we would treat other individuals. It is the Golden Rule; even Pope Francis enforces it, and it cannot get any simpler than that. Of course the Bible has several accounts claiming that gay marriage is wrong (maybe not gay marriage in general but it still says stuff concerning the same topic), but the Bible doesn't tell us to perform maltreatment against those who believe in these morals. Unfortunately, many Christians today refuse to look at these people equally, and when the Bible tells us to pray for these people, they go ahead and judge him for holding a hand of another man. Furthermore, it seems that religion has become more of a "power" game rather than an opportunity to form a connection with a god. I mean, why do you think people blame the religions for the Holy War battle that has been going on for decades now? It's not the religion, it's the people: these are the real hypocrites. Religion shouldn't be a reason for violence; in fact, the Bible NEVER ENFORCED mankind to commit violence. But, perhaps I'm getting off topic here. To finish it off, I believe we should accept and love people for who they are. In a Christian's perspective, we are all sinners. God doesn't look at the Priest and the gay man in the street any differently. The Church should be more accepting and pray for these people, rather than mistreat them for what they believe. This probably plays as a factor to why people dislike religion during this day.

 

[Kaiduru Zeta]

Not to beat a dead horse but I'm generally wondering. What do you think of the Bakery denying the gay couple. I know it was practically a year or two ago. But I'd love to know your guys' thoughts on the topic.(Sorry for reviving a pretty much dead thread)