Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is it antichristian to battle antihomosexual discrimination?

Page 3 of 6 [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

27 Dec 2011, 12:56 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
91 wrote:
I suggest you look at the 'Ruby Tuesday Law'

http://helives.blogspot.com/2010/05/int ... o-fun.html

The laws of the OT certainly continue, but we do not live under the a covenant of law. Rather, we live under a covenant of grace. The laws matter but they must be interpreted in line with the values through the life of Jesus. The idea that all believers that don't call for stonings are cafeteria Chrsitians is silly. Jesus met many blasphemes and idolaters, he never called for one of them to stoned.

I fully agree. However, I'm not making that claim. Rather I'm stating that anyone who asserts Christianity can in any way be "tolerant" of gays is, at best, misinformed. The Old Testament clearly defines gay sex as sinful, and Jesus Himself apparently said that the Old Testament laws remain valid.

Laws, but which laws? Stoning seemed a law that Jesus did not support, we could say to be about reinterpreting the laws. AFAIK, Jesus in the gospels never touched homosexuality, however, he would have condemned extramarital sex.

The issue I see her is Paul, Paul supports the OT views on homosexuality.

Really though, using an ancient book and reinterpreting it, which was written ages ago, to apply to current times is bit of a joke.



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

27 Dec 2011, 2:15 pm

Come to think of it, isn't the bible the root source of anti gay feeling? If not where does this general distaste of homosexuality come from?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,740
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Dec 2011, 2:18 pm

blunnet wrote:
dmm1010 wrote:
91 wrote:
I suggest you look at the 'Ruby Tuesday Law'

http://helives.blogspot.com/2010/05/int ... o-fun.html

The laws of the OT certainly continue, but we do not live under the a covenant of law. Rather, we live under a covenant of grace. The laws matter but they must be interpreted in line with the values through the life of Jesus. The idea that all believers that don't call for stonings are cafeteria Chrsitians is silly. Jesus met many blasphemes and idolaters, he never called for one of them to stoned.

I fully agree. However, I'm not making that claim. Rather I'm stating that anyone who asserts Christianity can in any way be "tolerant" of gays is, at best, misinformed. The Old Testament clearly defines gay sex as sinful, and Jesus Himself apparently said that the Old Testament laws remain valid.

Laws, but which laws? Stoning seemed a law that Jesus did not support, we could say to be about reinterpreting the laws. AFAIK, Jesus in the gospels never touched homosexuality, however, he would have condemned extramarital sex.

The issue I see her is Paul, Paul supports the OT views on homosexuality.

Really though, using an ancient book and reinterpreting it, which was written ages ago, to apply to current times is bit of a joke.


There is a good possibility that Paul was writing specifically about male prostitution, which had been practiced among converts in the congregation he was writing to.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



OddFinn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,276
Location: Finland

27 Dec 2011, 2:31 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
Rather I'm stating that anyone who asserts Christianity can in any way be "tolerant" of gays is, at best, misinformed. The Old Testament clearly defines gay sex as sinful, and Jesus Himself apparently said that the Old Testament laws remain valid.


The Law was delivered via Moses to the nation of Israel, not to other nations. The fact that the Old Testament laws remain valid, does not imply that all Christians would be bound to the Law's specific commands that were given to Israel solely. For example, we are not required to stone to death someone who worked on Sabbath.

In fact, this issue has been discussed in Acts chapter 15.


_________________
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

27 Dec 2011, 2:37 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
Come to think of it, isn't the bible the root source of anti gay feeling? If not where does this general distaste of homosexuality come from?


I don't think it's the Bible. I've often wondered, myself. :?


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,740
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Dec 2011, 2:41 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Come to think of it, isn't the bible the root source of anti gay feeling? If not where does this general distaste of homosexuality come from?


I don't think it's the Bible. I've often wondered, myself. :?


In ancient Greece, homosexuality was not only accepted, it was celebrated.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

27 Dec 2011, 3:08 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Come to think of it, isn't the bible the root source of anti gay feeling? If not where does this general distaste of homosexuality come from?


I don't think it's the Bible. I've often wondered, myself. :?


But where from? I think if left to their own devices people are not really that bothered. I reckon the root of prejudice is in religion.



dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

27 Dec 2011, 7:46 pm

blunnet wrote:
Laws, but which laws? Stoning seemed a law that Jesus did not support, we could say to be about reinterpreting the laws.

Are you referring to the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11)? It seems to be a favorite of many Christians. Unfortunately for them there is serious doubt as to whether this tale, which appears only in the Gospel of John, is authentic.

Quote:
AFAIK, Jesus in the gospels never touched homosexuality, however, he would have condemned extramarital sex.

He didn't specifically say anything about premarital sex either.

Quote:
[...] Really though, using an ancient book and reinterpreting it, which was written ages ago, to apply to current times is bit of a joke.

Precisely.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

27 Dec 2011, 7:46 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
I fully agree. However, I'm not making that claim. Rather I'm stating that anyone who asserts Christianity can in any way be "tolerant" of gays is, at best, misinformed. The Old Testament clearly defines gay sex as sinful, and Jesus Himself apparently said that the Old Testament laws remain valid.


Christ's message was of tollerence, you have in him a Messiah who protects and dines with prostitutes. Who eats with tax collectors and stops condemns stoning. In his parable of the fields, the only one he explains line by line, he talks about then seed planted along with the weeds. The servants ask if they can pull up the weeds and Christ says an emphatic 'No!' because they might also pull up the grain.(edited here to fix error in statement)

His position is not as black and white as accept/condemn he simply does not empower us to judge. He does not allow the crowd to stone the woman, but he also tells her go and sin no longer. The law may say that something is wrong, but unlike the OT, we empowered to enforce it because of the change in the covenant. Jesus is a teacher who wants us to struggle for ourselves, he clearly sees this as a noble thing. He does not want us to distract ourselves by running around passing judgement on one another.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Last edited by 91 on 29 Dec 2011, 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

28 Dec 2011, 8:52 am

dmm1010 wrote:
"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).

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18).

I think Christians are making excuses again.


Yeah, but two guys don't do it the same way that a man and a woman do it.

I'm Catholic and I have no problem at all with gay folks. In fact, I dearly love gay men.

I think it's only antichristian to be against discrimination if you are a member of Westboro Baptist Church ;-)

One of the best and most devout Catholics I know is a gay man. I know a nun who is a lesbian, she's celibate so why would it matter to anyone what her orientation is?


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

28 Dec 2011, 9:07 am

OliveOilMom wrote:
dmm1010 wrote:
"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).

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18).

I think Christians are making excuses again.


Yeah, but two guys don't do it the same way that a man and a woman do it.

I'm Catholic and I have no problem at all with gay folks. In fact, I dearly love gay men.

I think it's only antichristian to be against discrimination if you are a member of Westboro Baptist Church ;-)

One of the best and most devout Catholics I know is a gay man. I know a nun who is a lesbian, she's celibate so why would it matter to anyone what her orientation is?

It does to the vatican.

Really, I know most people that call themselves Catholic are merely cultural catholics that have nothing to do with their religion as in at all, but that doesn't mean the Vatican itself is not full of bigots. (Pedophile apologist bigots as well)


_________________
.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

28 Dec 2011, 10:07 am

Vexcalibur wrote:

Really, I know most people that call themselves Catholic are merely cultural catholics that have nothing to do with their religion as in at all, but that doesn't mean the Vatican itself is not full of bigots. (Pedophile apologist bigots as well)


I've noticed that people seem to assume that Catholicism is tolerant because individual Catholics are tolerant. I've always been mystified by people's inability to separate the two.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

28 Dec 2011, 10:09 am

puddingmouse wrote:
I've noticed that people seem to assume that Catholicism is tolerant because individual Catholics are tolerant.


Or, indeed, the general behaviour of the Catholic Church in general. Magdalene laundries anyone?

Robdemanc wrote:
But where from? I think if left to their own devices people are not really that bothered. I reckon the root of prejudice is in religion.


Most people are not that bothered but that doesn't apply to everyone.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

28 Dec 2011, 3:19 pm

Surely it is a matter of conscience for the individual Christian to decide upon whether or not homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour are sinful. I firmly support any person who, in good faith, decides that issue and holds to that decision. I am perfectly comfortable that one or another particular churches prohibit gay clergy or, for that matter, female clergy, black clergy or any other characteristic. I am equally comfortable that other churches embrace openly gay, non-celibate clergy. There is a diversity in Christian learning and understanding, and all churches can, nonetheless, provide a valid route to divine Grace.

But I have a much less sanguine view that a bona fide belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality serves to justify discrimination in the public realm. The question of whether or not public law allows for same-sex marriage or adoption by gay and lesbian couples is not a question on which any church is competent to speak. Churches remain free to enjoin their members from behaviours that they view as sinful, but they are in no position to judge or constrain the behaviour of non-believers, or of believers who adhere to a church with a different doctrine.

The tolerance of discrimation is, to my mind, inherently sinful. It strikes me as hypocritical to condemn the homosexual as a sinner without first taking the plank from one's own eye.


_________________
--James


Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

28 Dec 2011, 3:21 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Surely it is a matter of conscience for the individual Christian to decide upon whether or not homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour are sinful. I firmly support any person who, in good faith, decides that issue and holds to that decision. I am perfectly comfortable that one or another particular churches prohibit gay clergy or, for that matter, female clergy, black clergy or any other characteristic. I am equally comfortable that other churches embrace openly gay, non-celibate clergy. There is a diversity in Christian learning and understanding, and all churches can, nonetheless, provide a valid route to divine Grace.

But I have a much less sanguine view that a bona fide belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality serves to justify discrimination in the public realm. The question of whether or not public law allows for same-sex marriage or adoption by gay and lesbian couples is not a question on which any church is competent to speak. Churches remain free to enjoin their members from behaviours that they view as sinful, but they are in no position to judge or constrain the behaviour of non-believers, or of believers who adhere to a church with a different doctrine.

The tolerance of discrimation is, to my mind, inherently sinful. It strikes me as hypocritical to condemn the homosexual as a sinner without first taking the plank from one's own eye.


That sounds fine but in Britain that would clash with the Equal Opportunities and Discrimination laws.



Hikikamori
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 88

29 Dec 2011, 2:28 am

People can translate and interpret Leviticus in many ways. That passage could have even be put in later.
When it comes to things like this you have to look into the spirit of the bible, even say WWJD. I think Jesus would be pro homosexuality.

I think the distaste comes from woman and femininity...and from anal sex. That seems very distasteful to me TBH, but "being" homosexual doesn't mean you have to do that. I think when regular guys hear gay they automatically go to butt sex and that turns them off.