Religion based intolerance...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I think you're missing the point. I'm saying we "non-believers" make it our choice to NOT push hate on Christians, and they still come at us with all they have. Do you honestly think any act of hate can be justified because it comes from a Christian source?

Christians aren't pushing hate at all. Completely the opposite. We supposed to love the sinner who is also our brother. That doesn't mean that we're not supposed to point out what he/she is doing wrong. That's where the misconception comes in.

It is clearly stated in the Bible that God hates sin. Homosexuality, as a sin, is no exception.

Quote

If so, I pity you, friend.

I don't need your pity but thanks. Good luck with your plan. You'd better be right.

[nigel99 144]

I hope I am not missing the point here and not knowing the situation in the US. Here in the UK they have recently or are going to repeal the law protecting schools from "promoting" the gay lifestyle as normal and healthy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/613023.stm

In this manner their lifestyle which I disagree with will be "shoved" down my childrens throats - so yes it does directly infringe on my beliefs.

Out of interest - the bible always quotes male homosexuality - does that mean that lesbians are ok?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[pajarito 0]

No, it does mention female homosexuality.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:24-32

[Nightingale 0]

You did not answer my question, Pajarito.

I asked you if you had ever known someone who went through the process of questioning their own sexuality.

Your answer was irrelevant to the question, since apparently, you are heterosexual, and therefore, your desire for your wife and your desires for other women are manifestations of that heterosexuality.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

You did not answer my question, Pajarito.

I asked you if you had ever known someone who went through the process of questioning their own sexuality.

Your answer was irrelevant to the question, since apparently, you are heterosexual, and therefore, your desire for your wife and your desires for other women are manifestations of that heterosexuality.

The point in my previous statement was to point out that we all have our own “demons” to deal with in our own way. People with homosexuality are no exception whether they are born with that tendency or they learned it from the environment that they grew up in. There was a guy in college whom I considered a good friend who displayed many homosexual traits. He hung out in our group of friends and always tried to mask it by constantly surrounding himself with girls. That’s one of the reasons I hung out with him back then because he was so good at that. I’m not homosexual so I can’t speak as to what he was feeling inside but you could draw assumptions based on his actions sometimes. However, I don’t see the relevance to your question either. I liked him because of the person and not his homosexual mannerisms. That doesn’t change anything in regards to the topic of discussion.

[pajarito 0]

Not walking away from this. I've got to go for a while. Be back later.

• Quote

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

To me that implies that god pushed them towards homosexuality and evil behaviour because they had denied him. Interested to hear your interpretation.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Nightingale 0]

I asked the question because you seem to keep claiming that sexuality is a choice. Did you choose to be attracted to women? or did it just kinda happen that way? was there a point in your life where you decided "I'm going to like chicks!" somehow I doubt it. Ditto for someone who's gay. The act of questioning one's sexuality isn't really a matter of "trying to figure it out", its a process of acceptance of who they are.

I have very strong doubts whether someone who has actually watched a close friend or family member go through this time could actually continue to maintain that it's a choice.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

They wish to make it clear that they exist and in considerable numbers, more than many ethnic minorities that exist in the US. And they want equal rights.

This quote above from kelpdiver concerning the “gay pride” marches/gatherings/block parties, whatever you want to call them, leads me to believe that they are pushing a political agenda and not just gathering to broil hamburger over the grill.

Kelpdiver is in San Francisco. He wasn't in Philly, I was and I told you what was going on.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

considered a good friend who displayed many homosexual traits.... mask it by constantly surrounding himself with girls.

Maybe he wasn't gay, I've got a friend who's as camp as a field of pink tents but he's not gay.

If he was gay though you think that it's better that he hides it?
Would you still have liked him for the person he was if he'd been openly gay?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Christians aren't pushing hate at all. Completely the opposite. We supposed to love the sinner who is also our brother. That doesn't mean that we're not supposed to point out what he/she is doing wrong. That's where the misconception comes in.

And that's why, once again, I don't label these protestors as Christians, because they are poor excuses for them. Driving around in a bux with a sign that says Homosexuality is Unamerican has exactly what to do with Christ?

Quote

I don't need your pity but thanks.

And gays don't need yours. So why go out of your way to tell them they're going to hell?

[billvon 2,427]

>"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of
>them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
> death; their blood shall be upon them."
> Leviticus 20:13

>The verse is referring to spiritual death and not hanging someone
>from a tree because they are different from you.

No, Leviticus is largely a compilation of laws that early jews lived by. I mean, that book also advises what to eat, how to compensate someone for lost wages when they are hurt in a fight, and how to punish someone who causes a woman to miscarry. Heck, Exodus advises when to kill an ox who has gored someone. Surely the bible is not referring to the spiritual death of the ox! It also calls for lesser punishments in some cases, such as exile. (Which is done when a man commits the unpardonable sin of having sex with a woman during her period.)

Ref:

"If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit."
Exodus 21:28

"But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death."
Exodus 21:29

'If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.'
Leviticus 20:18 (NIV)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

They wish to make it clear that they exist and in considerable numbers, more than many ethnic minorities that exist in the US. And they want equal rights.

This quote above from kelpdiver concerning the “gay pride” marches/gatherings/block parties, whatever you want to call them, leads me to believe that they are pushing a political agenda and not just gathering to broil hamburger over the grill.

I'll repeat - the gays in America want to live free from the risk of physical assualt and with rights equal to everyone else - in particular to be allowed to have a mate with the same legal protections as everyone else.

They are not interested in hiding from public view, do not believe they should have to, just because some Christians are so uptight about it. And having a big block party with like minded fellows is something that just about every community does frequently. SF has the big Pride parade, the Chinese New Year parade, St Paddy's Day, the cherry blossom festival, ..... Most of them have little more in their agenda than having a good time.

Oh, here many churches has chosen to embrace gays into their congregation. Others are protesting, and they will pay a price for it.

[pajarito 0]

Wow….quite a barrage. I seem to have the monopoly on the “A#%HOLE Poster” position for this thread. Anyway, this is in response to all.

Quote

Jakee: To me that implies that god pushed them towards homosexuality and evil behaviour because they had denied him. Interested to hear your interpretation.***

No. People were given free will. They push themselves toward good or bad behavior. What the verse mentioned means is that God let them make their decision and they are left to live with the consequences.

***Nightingale: I asked the question because you seem to keep claiming that sexuality is a choice. Did you choose to be attracted to women? or did it just kinda happen that way? was there a point in your life where you decided "I'm going to like chicks!" somehow I doubt it. Ditto for someone who's gay. The act of questioning one's sexuality isn't really a matter of "trying to figure it out", its a process of acceptance of who they are.

I have very strong doubts whether someone who has actually watched a close friend or family member go through this time could actually continue to maintain that it's a choice.

Did I mention that my Dad, Grandfather, and most of my Great Uncles on his side of the family are all alcoholics? I have a very addictive personality and I’m pretty sure there is a hereditary factor involved. Therefore, I am very conscious of how much alcohol I drink. I do drink, on occasion, but I choose not to in excess anymore because I admit there is a problem. If I am in Las Vegas without my wife, I am tempted by other women. I’ve never been to Las Vegas. It’s just a hypothetical example. I, however, choose to ignore my natural impulses of infidelity and be faithful to my wife. You’re right. I’m fairly sure that I was born with those male heterosexual tendencies. That in no way admonishes my responsibility concerning the ethics of what I act on.

Quote

PhillyKev: Kelpdiver is in San Francisco. He wasn't in Philly, I was and I told you what was going on.

What? They don’t have these same “gay pride” rally/parade/block party/backyard bar-b-que demonstrations in San Francisco? I’ll bet they have more. He sounded like he knew what they were all about.

Quote

jakee: Maybe he wasn't gay, I've got a friend who's as camp as a field of pink tents but he's not gay.

If he was gay though you think that it's better that he hides it?
Would you still have liked him for the person he was if he'd been openly gay?

It’s possible. I don’t know for sure. It didn’t matter to me concerning our friendship. In answer to your second statement, I think it is better, ideally, that he not sin and defile himself against God, in any context. That’s speaking ideally. I, in no way come close to that standard. Again, I do not consider myself more righteous than someone who is homosexual just because I consider what they’re doing a sin. I’ve got plenty of my own to deal with. Do I think it better that he hides it? Not necessarily. I think if he “acts” on it, however, then it is an abomination. Would I still like him otherwise? Yes. My friendship wasn’t based on his sexual preference.

Quote

PhillyKev: And that's why, once again, I don't label these protestors as Christians, because they are poor excuses for them. Driving around in a bux with a sign that says Homosexuality is Unamerican has exactly what to do with Christ?

If the signs read “Homosexuality is un-American”, I agree with you. There is no truth in that as homosexuals make up a part of our population and are friendly and productive members of society just like anyone else.

***And gays don't need yours. So why go out of your way to tell them they're going to hell?

I’m not saying that homosexuals are going to hell. I’m saying that they are sinning against God with their behavior. They will only go to hell if they refuse to accept Jesus as lord and savior and repent of their sin. Just like the rest of us. I’m also not “giving them pitty” as you put it.

Quote

billvon: No, Leviticus is largely a compilation of laws that early jews lived by. I mean, that book also advises what to eat, how to compensate someone for lost wages when they are hurt in a fight, and how to punish someone who causes a woman to miscarry. Heck, Exodus advises when to kill an ox who has gored someone. Surely the bible is not referring to the spiritual death of the ox! It also calls for lesser punishments in some cases, such as exile. (Which is done when a man commits the unpardonable sin of having sex with a woman during her period.)

I know about the Jewish laws of the Old Testament. Here again is what I posted before in case you didn’t read it:

The commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was specifically that of the nation of Israel.

I misstated before and I apologize. I believe I corrected myself in an earlier post, however, concerning this. Here was my reply….again.

Even though someone probably would have been physically stoned to death for committing acts of homosexuality (as with heterosexual adultery) in those times, the whole theme of the Bible is that your physical body here on Earth is of no consequence and that your eternal soul is what matters. Jesus sacrificed himself at the cross and ushered in a new covenant with his people (us). If one doesn’t accept the gift of his sacrifice, it will be their own fault because they have no excuse. Romans 1:18-19. The Bible is pretty clear that hell is not a pleasant place. It was prepared for Satan and the fallen angels. Jesus spoke of hell and described it as a place of horror. He said that it would be better to sever your own limb that might lead you there than to suffer what is there. It is also described as the grave, the pit, and the place of the dead. It is said that souls will burn forever in eternal torment and that this is the “second death.” It is said to be complete separation from God. The rewards in heaven for those who are faithful and trust in Jesus are described as being incomprehensibly great. The penalty for choosing the latter is apparently equally the reverse.

Quote

kelpdiver: I'll repeat - the gays in America want to live free from the risk of physical assualt and with rights equal to everyone else - in particular to be allowed to have a mate with the same legal protections as everyone else.

I believe they should be able to live free, without risk of assault, and with equal rights as anyone else also (i.e. life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). Included in this, I believe they should have legal protections just like anyone else. However, in the case of marriage, any long-standing society the world has ever known has existed with families consisting of one man and one woman. For the most part, that is also how we define it here in the US. Privileges and protections associated with marriage and family should be limited to legitimate marriages and families. If two homosexuals want to be partners, that’s fine. They’re free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else.

Quote

They are not interested in hiding from public view, do not believe they should have to, just because some Christians are so uptight about it. And having a big block party with like minded fellows is something that just about every community does frequently. SF has the big Pride parade, the Chinese New Year parade, St Paddy's Day, the cherry blossom festival, ..... Most of them have little more in their agenda than having a good time.

I don’t believe it’s just the Christians provoking the homosexual’s movement. I believe that’s mainly attributed to conservatives, in general. Christians just make up a portion of that group. Also, if it truly was just a “block party” gathering/get together, there’s nothing wrong with that. That would be like a huge party of skydivers. If it has a political motive or undertone with an attempt to draw attention and invoke change in the system, then it is open to peaceful protest. Even if the protestors are Christians.

Quote

Oh, here many churches has chosen to embrace gays into their congregation. Others are protesting, and they will pay a price for it.

If a Church, whatever the denomination, openly goes against what is clearly stated in the Bible to be wrong according to God, then they are as wrong as anyone. That church is even more so, in my opinion, because they represent many and are leading them astray either in their teachings or the example that they set.

[Nightingale 0]

sure, you resist infidelity... you have intimacy available to you. how easy would it be for you if the bible said that touching a woman, even if you were married, was a sin? what would you do then?

[billvon 2,427]

>Even though someone probably would have been physically stoned
> to death for committing acts of homosexuality (as with heterosexual
> adultery) in those times, the whole theme of the Bible is that your
> physical body here on Earth is of no consequence and that your
> eternal soul is what matters.

Well, the bible also proscribes things like working on the Sabbath (whatever day you choose that to be) having sex with a woman during menstruation, eating shellfish etc. Most people pick and choose which of those are 'valid' biblical commands, and which are either optional or simply no longer apply. You cannot profess a strict interpretation of the bible and eat shrimp, or have sex with a woman during her period. Which means that it is an individual's choice as to which subset of biblical morality they subscribe to.

That's as it should be, I think. The bible is no more a law book than a science book. It is a moral guide, and different people get different messages from it. A gay man might decide not to eat any shellfish, not work on sundays, etc and might be more technically in line with biblical commandments than you; that does not mean his morals are any more or less pure than yours. He simply chose a different set of morals than you did.

Two things you said later which are in contradiction:

>If two homosexuals want to be partners, that’s fine. They’re free to
>do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else.

Agreed.

>Privileges and protections associated with marriage and family
>should be limited to legitimate marriages and families.

But what if they want those privledges and protections? You said above they can do whatever they choose as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else - and it is the ultimate law of this land that we are not truly free unless those freedoms are bestowed on everyone equally. We've learned this the hard way, and we look back in shame on our denial of rights to women and blacks. We will someday look back in shame on our denial of the same rights for gays.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

sure, you resist infidelity... you have intimacy available to you. how easy would it be for you if the bible said that touching a woman, even if you were married, was a sin? what would you do then?

Nobody said living a Christian life was easy. It would suck considerably if it was against God's wishes that men be attracted to women. However, he set it up that way.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

(I'm no biblical scholar, so be gentle.)

I thought Jesus' new covenant replaced the one of Moses, and therefore invalidated the draconian penalties that infractions committed while living under Leviticus' f'ed up laws required.

Am I correct?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Well, the bible also proscribes things like working on the Sabbath (whatever day you choose that to be) having sex with a woman during menstruation, eating shellfish etc. Most people pick and choose which of those are 'valid' biblical commands, and which are either optional or simply no longer apply. You cannot profess a strict interpretation of the bible and eat shrimp, or have sex with a woman during her period. Which means that it is an individual's choice as to which subset of biblical morality they subscribe to.

That's as it should be, I think. The bible is no more a law book than a science book. It is a moral guide, and different people get different messages from it. A gay man might decide not to eat any shellfish, not work on sundays, etc and might be more technically in line with biblical commandments than you; that does not mean his morals are any more or less pure than yours. He simply chose a different set of morals than you did.

Billvon, do you actually read and digest the things I post before you respond to them? I described in detail the different types of moral, ceremonial, and civil Jewish law. I explained what would be globally applicable, what would be applicable only to the Nation of Israel, what would be applicable in ceremony, and what would not be applicable today due to the new covenant that was brought about with the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In your second paragraph, what has any of this that we’re talking about go to do with science or whether the Bible has scientific applicability?

Quote

Two things you said later which are in contradiction:

>If two homosexuals want to be partners, that’s fine. They’re free to
>do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else.

Agreed.

>Privileges and protections associated with marriage and family
>should be limited to legitimate marriages and families.

But what if they want those privledges and protections? You said above they can do whatever they choose as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else - and it is the ultimate law of this land that we are not truly free unless those freedoms are bestowed on everyone equally. We've learned this the hard way, and we look back in shame on our denial of rights to women and blacks. We will someday look back in shame on our denial of the same rights for gays.

What’s in contradiction? I guess you’re in the boat with the sexual preference = ethnic/race origin theory. I’m not and don’t think someone’s sexual preference gives them special privileges or protections.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

(I'm no biblical scholar, so be gentle.)

I thought Jesus' new covenant replaced the one of Moses, and therefore invalidated the draconian penalties that infractions committed while living under Leviticus' f'ed up laws required.

Am I correct?

I'll get back with you. Be back in an hour.

[billvon 2,427]

>Billvon, do you actually read and digest the things I post before you
>respond to them?

Yes, I did, and I understand that you discard some of the rules in the bible because they are older civil jewish law. That's your choice; other people discard other parts of the bible for other reasons. In any case, you said "The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that" - and that includes the prohibition against doing any work on the Sabbath.

>In your second paragraph, what has any of this that we’re talking
>about go to do with science or whether the Bible has scientific
>applicability?

There are still a lot of people who believe in a strict interpretation of the bible - the world was created in seven days, you can't have sex with women who are menstruating etc. I don't think that's the way to go. It's not a science book or law book, and was not meant to be read in that way. It's a moral guide, and people choose what they want to take away from it. You reject the old jewish law because you feel that it's applicable only to the nation of Israel. That's fine. Other people reject the teachings that homosexuality is bad, or that eating shellfish is bad, or that working (or jumping) on a saturday/sunday is bad. That's fine as well. The measure of the good someone gets from the bible is how they use it to live better lives, not which of the thousands of biblical admonitions they heed.

>What’s in contradiction? I guess you’re in the boat with the sexual
> preference = ethnic/race origin theory.

?? I have never heard the theory that sexual preference is determined by race or ethnicity. Where did you see that?

> I’m not and don’t think someone’s sexual preference gives them
>special privileges or protections.

I agree. They get exactly the same rights as anyone else; no more and no less. That means you can't exclude them from something by claiming "Hey! Heteros only!"

[pajarito 0]

Quote

(I'm no biblical scholar, so be gentle.)

I thought Jesus' new covenant replaced the one of Moses, and therefore invalidated the draconian penalties that infractions committed while living under Leviticus' f'ed up laws required.

Am I correct?

Sort of.

“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment – to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” Ephesians 1:7-10

That means that all the stuff that Billvon mentioned as being confusing about old Jewish law and that one could just pick and choose are all irrelevant and not binding. All one must do now, due to the new covenant, is to trust in Jesus. All else will fall into place (i.e. New Covenant)

[Nightingale 0]

so where does Jesus say that being gay is bad?

*it may be in there, I just don't have a bible handy right now

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Privileges and protections associated with marriage and family should be limited to legitimate marriages and families. If two homosexuals want to be partners, that’s fine. They’re free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else.

I think Bill has covered your contradiction here well. This is "separate but equal." Or perhaps you can tell us how giving a gay couple with a civil union the typical access, tax breaks, and estate laws as married couples infringes on someone else.

Quote

Quote

Oh, here many churches has chosen to embrace gays into their congregation. Others are protesting, and they will pay a price for it.

If a Church, whatever the denomination, openly goes against what is clearly stated in the Bible to be wrong according to God, then they are as wrong as anyone. That church is even more so, in my opinion, because they represent many and are leading them astray either in their teachings or the example that they set.

The Vatican still appears to argue that birth control is immoral. Fortunately, most churches have taken a more enlightened approach. And unless you're going to use the original bible, not one of numerous translations/intepretations, it's silly to say you're following the words of God (as written by men). As Bill said, you're picking and choosing. Part of the reason Christianity has so many different sects is in the interpretation of the bible varying substantially.

As an atheist I still support the notion of churches and what they provide to its congregation. But when they instead focus their energy on taking away from others (the Mormons are particularly guilty of this with respect to gays), I'd be happy to see them lose their tax exempt status.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of gay pastors then, either?!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Yes, I did, and I understand that you discard some of the rules in the bible because they are older civil jewish law. That's your choice; other people discard other parts of the bible for other reasons. In any case, you said "The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that" - and that includes the prohibition against doing any work on the Sabbath.

I don’t deny that people pick and choose what best suits them from the Bible. That does not make it right. Your reference to old Jewish law, however, was cancelled out by the New Covenant that I just described as a means for salvation. Righteousness now only comes by the grace of God through faith in his son, Jesus Christ. It is very clear.

Quote

There are still a lot of people who believe in a strict interpretation of the bible - the world was created in seven days, you can't have sex with women who are menstruating etc. I don't think that's the way to go. It's not a science book or law book, and was not meant to be read in that way. It's a moral guide, and people choose what they want to take away from it. You reject the old jewish law because you feel that it's applicable only to the nation of Israel. That's fine. Other people reject the teachings that homosexuality is bad, or that eating shellfish is bad, or that working (or jumping) on a saturday/sunday is bad. That's fine as well. The measure of the good someone gets from the bible is how they use it to live better lives, not which of the thousands of biblical admonitions they heed.

You’re jumbling things up again.

Quote

?? I have never heard the theory that sexual preference is determined by race or ethnicity. Where did you see that?

You’re trying to compare the two in an effort to strengthen the case of the homosexual movement, and therefore, achieve some of the same goals.

“We've learned this the hard way, and we look back in shame on our denial of rights to women and blacks. We will someday look back in shame on our denial of the same rights for gays.”

Quote

I agree. They get exactly the same rights as anyone else; no more and no less. That means you can't exclude them from something by claiming "Hey! Heteros only!"

By definition, marriage currently consists of one man and one woman. It is what it is. If homosexuals want to make up their own, I guess they’re free to do so but it’s not the same thing.