Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians

[Ursa Majoris]

this is what i was searching for.  this is the persecution i deal with.  and in comparison to a homosexual, it is trivial.  don't get me wrong there.  I hate being lumped into that third group everytime a discussion involving religion comes up.  Like i said b4, if Jesus was here today I think he would be whipping them in the temple square for their hypocriticalness.  Isn't that the real anger button.  The hypocrisy of their words.

 

I've often discovered in my conversations with those who are seeking to truly know God that is all they think God is.  That which they see displayed by the hypocrites which somehow have all the media time and make the headlines.  Jesus taught humility so I'm sure that will never change as most of us won't really challenge that which is changing.  That's what I thought I saw in the original article that started this thread.  Some that were actually going to challenge the free speech no matter what.  I do have a fear that one day speaking against homosexuality can constitue a hate crime.  That's a fine line to cross.

 

I remember the movie the American President where the president says you have to love America cause it is advanced citizenship.  You have to accept someone speaking out against that which you hold most dear and whose words makes your blood boil and would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of your voice. 

 

I don't think I'm processing all my thoughts coherently the way I feel them.  It's late.  And I'm off to bed.  Would love to stay up and continue this one.  Good night and Shalom!

 

1414220[/snapback]

 

 

 

Hypocrisy sums it up neatly enough. I usually characterize that type of militant Christian as being more like Pharisees.

[skins]

i'm not aware of any direct quotes from him on the topic, but the bible clearly speaks out against it.

 

1414104[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Bingo. Jesus never spoke out on homosexuality, the Old Testament did, and Paul/Saul, who had never met Jesus and was feuding with James, the brother of Jesus, spoke out against homosexuality.

 

Anyone claiming that Jesus was against homosexuality is imposing their own viewpoint on the unknowable. And an interesting point about the New versus the Old Testament: in the first centuries of Christianity, the only holy scripture followed or recognized by Christians was the Old Testament. There was no New Testament until the Fourth Century. In fact, St. Justin, Martyr, I believe, in the second centuury, trivialized the gospels themselves as being secondary in status to the Old Testament and the Prophets, and not divinely inspired at all.

 

If one looks at the New Testament gospels from a Jewish perspective, it becomes pretty obvious that they are merely liturgical writings in a midrash tradition intended to expand upon the Old Testament through the stories about Jesus. Thus, in early Christian synagogues/churches, initially full of Jews and, as time passed and Paul spread his word, containing more and more pagans, a reading from the Torah would begin the ceremony. And then a reading from a gospel or letter may follow to enhance and expand upon the original Hebrew bible verse. And, like all liturgical Jewish worship, these readings followed the Jewish calendar. If you actually match them up chronologically, the giving of the law by Moses would be followed by the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew, because the second at the time was a modern expansion and commentary on the former in a post-Temple Jewish Jesus follower world.

 

The vote on the books of the New Testament and the movement to orthodoxy in Christianity was a great thing for Western civilization on many levels, but it was a very sad day for religion, in my opinion. Dont get me started on the vote for the divinity of Jesus. That was a doozy.

 

The most depressing thing of all now is that most Christians know next to nothing of their own religion.

 

tonorator, you sound like a nice guy, but all yer doing with this anti-gay marriage marriage stuff is imposing yer personal values and beliefs onto yer understanding of what you think yer religion says. The teachings of Jesus have nothing to do with homosexuality and very little to do with rules of law or contractual relationships under a secular government. Any so-called Christian saying otherwise doesnt know enough about their own religion.

 

I am sure you firmly believe that yer society should stand by traditional marriage between a man and a woman as a structural institution, but that has nothing to do with Jesus. It does have a lot to do with modern fundamentalist Christianity, but modern fundamentalist Christianity has very little to do with Jesus, either. Follow Jesus or these secular so-called "Christian" traditional values. But please dont mix the two up.

Edited April 11, 2006 by skins

[tonorator]

Bingo. Jesus never spoke out on homosexuality, the Old Testament did, and Paul/Saul, who had never met Jesus and was feuding with James, the brother of Jesus, spoke out against homosexuality.

 

Anyone claiming that Jesus was against homosexuality is imposing their own viewpoint on the unknowable. And an interesting point about the New versus the Old Testament: in the first centuries of Christianity, the only holy scripture followed or recognized by Christians was the Old Testament. There was no New Testament until the Fourth Century. In fact, St. Justin, Martyr, I believe, in the second centuury, trivialized the gospels themselves as being secondary in status to the Old Testament and the Prophets, and not divinely inspired at all.

 

If one looks at the New Testament gospels from a Jewish perspective, it becomes pretty obvious that they are merely liturgical writings in a midrash tradition intended to expand upon the Old Testament through the stories about Jesus. Thus, in early Christian synagogues/churches, initially full of Jews and, as time passed and Paul spread his word, containing more and more pagans, a reading from the Torah would begin the ceremony. And then a reading from a gospel or letter may follow to enhance and expand upon the original Hebrew bible verse. And, like all liturgical Jewish worship, these readings followed the Jewish calendar. If you actually match them up chronologically, the giving of the law by Moses would be followed by the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew, because the second at the time was a modern expansion and commentary on the former in a post-Temple Jewish Jesus follower world.

 

The vote on the books of the New Testament and the movement to orthodoxy in Christianity was a great thing for Western civilization on many levels, but it was a very sad day for religion, in my opinion. Dont get me started on the vote for the divinity of Jesus. That was a doozy.

 

The most depressing thing of all now is that most Christians know next to nothing of their own religion.

 

tonorator, you sound like a nice guy, but all yer doing with this anti-gay marriage marriage stuff is imposing yer personal values and beliefs onto yer understanding of what you think yer religion says. The teachings of Jesus have nothing to do with homosexuality and very little to do with rules of law or contractual relationships under a secular government. Any so-called Christian saying otherwise doesnt know enough about their own religion.

 

I am sure you firmly believe that yer society should stand by traditional marriage between a man and a woman as a structural institution, but that has nothing to do with Jesus. It does have a lot to do with modern fundamentalist Christianity, but modern fundamentalist Christianity has very little to do with Jesus, either. Follow Jesus or these secular so-called "Christian" traditional values. But please dont mix the two up.

 

1414235[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

paul met Jesus on the road to damascus.

 

"christianity has very little to do with Jesus." alrighty then.

 

jesus claimed to be the son of God, the God of Abraham and Isaac. that is a pretty clear tie to the OT and to who he was.

 

i don't know anywhere where i've imposed my personal values on anyone. i've stated them, but i don't have the power to impose them.

Edited April 11, 2006 by tonorator

[skins]

paul met Jesus on the road to damascus.

 

"christianity has very little to do with Jesus."  alrighty then.

 

jesus claimed to be the son of God, the God of Abraham and Isaac.  that is a pretty clear tie to the OT.

 

1414261[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Paul "met" Jesus on the road to Damascus? Yer kidding, right?

 

I said that modern fundamentalist Christianity has little to do with Jesus. But yer right, I will expand it to add that almost all modern Christianity has more to do with secular community, lifestyle, and political matters than the actual teachings of Jesus. Yer arguments here are evidence of that.

 

You have a lot of reading to do, tonormanondog, this is a good start.

 

It makes the interesting point that yer position is the one that undermines the institution of marriage by not expanding it to all committed adults who want to take on the obligations and benefits of a committed caring adult monogamous long term relationship. How do you like them apples? Yer silly argument about marriage is actually helping to destroy the institution of marriage?

 

Crazy, huh? Are you a Protestant or a Catholic? Dont tell me. I only ask because both Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Church, for the first 1000 years it existed, thought that the legal issues of marriage--the contractual binding together of a man and woman--had nothing to do with religion or the church. They believed that later, a religious ceremony could be held to commemorate the coming together of two people.

 

I guess you would be ok if we removed all of the benefits under the law from marriage between a man and a woman? You are comfortable denying them to other Americans based on their gender, I guess removing them would be ok, right?

[tonorator]

Crazy, huh? Are you a Protestant or a Catholic? Dont tell me. I only ask because both Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Church, for the first 1000 years it existed, thought that the legal issues of marriage--the contractual binding together of a man and woman--had nothing to do with religion or the church. They believed that later, a religious ceremony could be held to commemorate the coming together of two people.

 

I guess you would be ok if we removed all of the benefits under the law from marriage between a man and a woman? You are comfortable denying them to other Americans based on their gender, I guess removing them would be ok, right?

 

1414270[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i worship at a calvary chapel, which is non-denominational. this is an evangelical church. we are followers of the teachings of Christ, pure and simple.

 

i believe that the institution of marriage should involve the union of a man and a woman. i am not in support of laws that extend the marriage definition to a man and a man or a woman and a woman. i like the benefits as they are as they support a more stable society that is consistent with God's view of the world.

 

the law, which is created by men, however, can go in any way that man takes it. whether or not it is decided to give benefits and recognition under the law to homosexual unions, it does not change my beliefs. i will never associate a same sex marriage with the marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of laws that we may pass. i would vote with my conviction against any such measure, just as i vote with my conviction on many other matters.

 

i don't believe sexual preferences deserve legal status. men and women were made to reproduce and form a family. our laws support this family unit by trying to make it stronger to promote a stable society and future generations. no love surpasses that of both a mother and a father for a child. this is the model that our laws support and aid because it is the best one, pure and simple. we institute laws to support a desirable society, and an in-tact family unit is as good as you can get. there is no need to extend this to other configurations because of a different preference ... if we do, then we do open the door for all other kinds of preferences that people may have.

[TDFFFreak]

i worship at a calvary chapel, which is non-denominational.  this is an evangelical church.  we are followers of the teachings of Christ, pure and simple.

 

i believe that the institution of marriage should involve the union of a man and a woman.  i am not in support of laws that extend the marriage definition to a man and a man or a woman and a woman.  i like the benefits as they are as they support a more stable society that is consistent with God's view of the world.

 

the law, which is created by men, however, can go in any way that man takes it.  whether or not it is decided to give benefits and recognition under the law to homosexual unions, it does not change my beliefs.  i will never associate a same sex marriage with the marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of laws that we may pass.  i would vote with my conviction against any such measure, just as i vote with my conviction on many other matters.

 

i don't believe sexual preferences deserve legal status.  men and women were made to reproduce and form a family.  our laws support this family unit by trying to make it stronger to promote a stable society and future generations.  no love surpasses that of both a mother and a father for a child.  this is the model that our laws support and aid because it is the best one, pure and simple.  we institute laws to support a desirable society, and an in-tact family unit is as good as you can get.  there is no need to extend this to other configurations because of a different preference ... if we do, then we do open the door for all other kinds of preferences that people may have.

 

1414298[/snapback]

 

 

 

Do you think homosexuals are your equals? Are they equal in God's eyes?

[skins]

i worship at a calvary chapel, which is non-denominational.  this is an evangelical church.  we are followers of the teachings of Christ, pure and simple.

 

i believe that the institution of marriage should involve the union of a man and a woman.  i am not in support of laws that extend the marriage definition to a man and a man or a woman and a woman.  i like the benefits as they are as they support a more stable society that is consistent with God's view of the world.

 

the law, which is created by men, however, can go in any way that man takes it.  whether or not it is decided to give benefits and recognition under the law to homosexual unions, it does not change my beliefs.  i will never associate a same sex marriage with the marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of laws that we may pass.  i would vote with my conviction against any such measure, just as i vote with my conviction on many other matters.

 

i don't believe sexual preferences deserve legal status.  men and women were made to reproduce and form a family.  our laws support this family unit by trying to make it stronger to promote a stable society and future generations.  no love surpasses that of both a mother and a father for a child.  this is the model that our laws support and aid because it is the best one, pure and simple.  we institute laws to support a desirable society, and an in-tact family unit is as good as you can get.  there is no need to extend this to other configurations because of a different preference ... if we do, then we do open the door for all other kinds of preferences that people may have.

 

1414298[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That is all fine and dandy. But it has nothing to do with the legal issue of gay marriage in this country, it is just yer personal preference. And yer man on dog argument is just as weak now as earlier.

 

We impose laws to support a desirable society, but not at the expense of constitutional rights. There are only two logical choices, married heterosexual couples give up all legal benefits of marriage, or gay people get them. The latter is coming, so it is really a moot point.

 

And what do you make of Matthew 19:12, by the way? Does it make you want to get all freaky deaky like the early Christians?

[TDFFFreak]

That is all fine and dandy. But it has nothing to do with the legal issue of gay marriage in this country, it is just yer personal preference. And yer man on dog argument is just as weak now as earlier.

 

We impose laws to support a desirable society, but not at the expense of constitutional rights. There are only two logical choices, married heterosexual couples give up all legal benefits of marriage, or gay people get them. The latter is coming, so it is really a moot point.

 

And what do you make of Matthew 19:12, by the way? Does it make you want to get all freaky deaky like the early Christians?

 

1414304[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

And this seems to be the thing that the religious right seems to forget... It's the simplest and truest of statements. It saddens me that so many people continue to see homosexuals as any less of a human and deny the rights that any upstanding American deserves. I feel like we are still living in the early 1900s.

Edited April 11, 2006 by TDFFFreak

[Dr. Love]

On the original issue of this thread, I think there is no doubt that GIT is on the wrong side of the speech issue.

 

On the flip side, I find it amusing that within the same debate Christians will try to cast themselves as the majority (e.g., we define what's normal, society is built on our values, etc.) and then do a complete 180 and claim that they're the minority victims (e.g., we're being marginalized, our views don't matter, etc.).

 

As to the same-sex marriage debate, I can't believe that we're wasting so much time and energy on this when there are issues of far greater importance that will have a much bigger impact on the future that need to be addressed.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Dr. Love

[Ursa Majoris]

On the original issue of this thread, I think there is no doubt that GIT is on the wrong side of the speech issue.

 

On the flip side, I find it amusing that within the same debate Christians will try to cast themselves as the majority (e.g., we define what's normal, society is built on our values, etc.) and then do a complete 180 and claim that they're the minority victims (e.g., we're being marginalized, our views don't matter, etc.).

 

As to the same-sex marriage debate, I can't believe that we're wasting so much time and energy on this when there are issues of far greater importance that will have a much bigger impact on the future that need to be addressed.

 

1414367[/snapback]

 

 

 

It's a wedge issue and panders to people's basic prejudices. That's why it gets trundled out every so often.

[untateve]

Okay, but none of this explains why heterosexual men enjoy watching two women having relations with each other.

[junebugz]

And what do you make of Matthew 19:12, by the way? Does it make you want to get all freaky deaky like the early Christians?

 

1414304[/snapback]

 

 

 

You may want to study the greek usage of the word eunuch in the Bible. It does not refer to homosexuality, it refers to being celibate (in that specific passage because one's "package" was removed or such).

[Caveman_Nick]

Okay, but none of this explains why heterosexual men enjoy watching two women having relations with each other.

 

1414378[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Because if they are hot, it's hot!

[Duchess Jack]

On a side note to all of this... I was watching the Sureal Life last night (only reality TV I watch) and they have Aleix Arket (sp?) on it.

 

They're at a bar and people start giving her shucks for being a transvestite and she loses her mind on them.

 

I believe that a good many people are born gay. Some make a choice - some people become gay as a reaction to stuff in their childhood, but there is a fair amount of people born gay.

 

In her case, in this situation - she needs to assume a bit of responsibility. She was making herself a spectical. She could certainly dig men - but this is something that she chose to do - the dressing as a woman, though - that is a choice.

 

This does not give a right for the people to come down on her and make fun of her - but she certainly has to expect that when she puts herself in these situations and not lose her mind on them because of their small mindedness

Edited April 11, 2006 by Duchess Jack

[Caveman_Nick]

This does not give a right for the people to come down on her and make fun of her - but she certainly has to expect that when she puts herself in these situations and not lose her mind on them because of their small mindedness

 

1414467[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

People have every right to make fun of her. Constantly. That's what this is all about.

[Duchess Jack]

People have every right to make fun of her.  Constantly.  That's what this is all about.

 

1414475[/snapback]

 

 

 

A legal right, yes. A moral right, no.

 

There are a lot of Kate Middletons well within their legal right.

 

They're still Kate Middletons though.

[Yukon Cornelius]

boy i need some koolaid after reading that

[cliaz]

Let’s look at it this way:

 

 

If homosexuality was right then Homosexuals would be able to reproduce between themselves, plain and simple. Since they cannot have offspring Homosexuality is in fact no intended in nature and therefore is wrong. Can’t argue with that.

 

Should Homosexuals be able to marry? We live in the United States of America, the home of the free where the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed and all men/woman are created equal. Homosexuals should be able to marry. Plain and simple.

 

Should Homosexuals have the same benefits that a heterosexual couple receives when they get married. No. Because those Benefits were designed with the Man/Woman template in place.

[skins]

You may want to study the greek usage of the word eunuch in the Bible.  It does not refer to homosexuality, it refers to being celibate (in that specific passage because one's "package" was removed or such).

 

1414391[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

It actually means many things in this usage: a traditional eunuch or castrate, one who is impotent, a celibate, or one who is "born a eunuch." I dont know how someone can be born with their "package removed." But it certainly is logical to interpret what Jesus is saying as being about people who are born without the desire to enter into a traditional man-woman union.

 

And the craziest thing of all, thousands and thousands of early Christians used this passage to justify cutting off their junk. It was specifically spoken out against by the solidifying Orthodox Christian Church in Rome, I think at the Council of Nicea, because so many dang Christians were pulling Lorena Bobbit's on themselves. The early Church father Origen was one.

 

And Cliaz, that's just silly. What if the government passed a law that said midget banging momofektards couldnt have the same rights as everyone else cause it was "wrong"? You'd be screwed. Think a little more broadly, please.

Edited April 11, 2006 by skins

[junebugz]

It actually means many things in this usage: a traditional eunuch or castrate, one who is impotent, a celibate, or one who is "born a eunuch." I dont know how someone can be born with their "package removed." But it certainly is logical to interpret what Jesus is saying as being about people who are born without the desire to enter into a traditional man-woman union.

 

And the craziest thing of all, thousands and thousands of early Christians used this passage to justify cutting off their junk. It was specifically spoken out against by the solidifying Orthodox Christian Church in Rome, I think at the Council of Nicea, because so many dang Christians were pulling Lorena Bobbit's on themselves. The early Church father Origen was one.

 

And Cliaz, that's just silly. What if the government passed a law that said midget banging momofektards couldnt have the same rights as everyone else cause it was "wrong"? You'd be screwed. Think a little more broadly, please.

 

1414502[/snapback]

 

 

 

there certainly are people who are born without proper organs for sexual use, albeit that probably is fairly uncommon. granted, there are also those who do not seem to have a desire or need for a marital relationship, but the passage you referred to does not have anything to do with homosexuality which seemed to be the point of your argument.

 

the whole reason those in that passage remain celibate was for "the kingdom of heaven's sake" not to fool around with other dudes.

[wiegie]

or one who is "born a eunuch." I dont know how someone can be born with their "package removed."

1414502[/snapback]

 

 

 

could be referring to men who were born with undescended testicles

[junebugz]

I believe that a good many people are born gay.  Some make a choice - some people become gay as a reaction to stuff in their childhood, but there is a fair amount of people born gay.

 

1414467[/snapback]

 

 

 

So what do you say about the people who were gay and then decided it wasn't right and went on to have a marital relationship with a woman? If they were born gay how were they able to overcome that and make a choice to then "switch" their sexuality?

 

For whatever reason, this happens whether people switch to become gay or whether they are gay and switch to become straight. This would seem to indicate that it is a choice not something you are born with.

[cliaz]

And Cliaz, that's just silly. What if the government passed a law that said midget banging momofektards couldnt have the same rights as everyone else cause it was "wrong"? You'd be screwed. Think a little more broadly, please.

 

1414502[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

But there is nothing wrong with banging a midget.

[wiegie]

It actually means many things in this usage: a traditional eunuch or castrate, one who is impotent, a celibate, or one who is "born a eunuch." I dont know how someone can be born with their "package removed." But it certainly is logical to interpret what Jesus is saying as being about people who are born without the desire to enter into a traditional man-woman union.

 

And the craziest thing of all, thousands and thousands of early Christians used this passage to justify cutting off their junk.

 

1414502[/snapback]

 

 

 

uh, if your logical interpretation about eunuchs is correct, why would "thousands and thousands" of early Christians have castrated themselves instead of just deciding not to enter into a traditional man-woman union? The fact that they cut their balls off shows that they weren't interpreting what Jesus said in the way that you are saying it could be interpreted. Do you have any contemporaneous evidence that anyone interpreted the use of the word eunuch in the way that you are suggesting it could be interpreted?

Edited April 11, 2006 by wiegie

[Savage Beatings]

As to the same-sex marriage debate, I can't believe that we're wasting so much time and energy on this when there are issues of far greater importance that will have a much bigger impact on the future that need to be addressed.

 

1414367[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly... forget illegal immigration... what about Gay Immigration? Do we really want those people sneaking in under the border? They're gonna take all of our interior decorating jobs people!