Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians

[rbmcdonald]

Let’s look at it this way:

If homosexuality was right then Homosexuals would be able to reproduce between themselves, plain and simple. 

1414491[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Based on this logic, being a priest or nun in the catholic church would also be "wrong".

[Azazello1313]

hostility? 

 

1414991[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

well not physical hostility, at least not in your case. but rhetorical hostility, sure. you're comparing it to raping children and horses, after all.

[Pope Flick]

well not physical hostility, at least not in your case.  but rhetorical hostility, sure.  you're comparing it to raping children and horses, after all.

 

1414996[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

That was his mild comparison. He directly compared it to murder in one of his earlier posts.

[Azazello1313]

doesn't mean you abandon what you believe is right.  it just means you work harder to make it work and support it.

 

1414993[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

you mean, you don't abandon what you believe is right if you fail yourself....you just get real sanctimonious about the failings you perceive in others.

[rbmcdonald]

I do not care if anyone reads this or not, I enjoyed the h*ll out of writing it.

 

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

 

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;it is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves by any of these things”(Lev.18:22,24) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them

have committed an abomination...”(Lev.20:13).

 

accepting Jesus as the son of God comes with accepting the above statements, and many others in the bible that show us how to live our lives.  so homosexuality is a sin, one of many that we commit as imperfect human beings

1414104[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Genesis 19 30-38 The story of Lott and his two daughters, after the distruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

30And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.  31And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:   32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.  34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.  36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

 

Since God blessed the product of not one but two incestuous relationships by making them founders of nations, I assume that followers of Christ would be supportive of marriages between Fathers and Daughters or Mothers and Sons?

 

Any discussion about if the bible should be taken literally or interpretive, is ridiculous.

 

The writings that comprise the New Testament were written down, over a period of some 50 years, this process did not even begin until some 20 years after the death of Jesus.  Therefore, you have writings that were an interpretation of oral history anywhere from 20 to 70 years later.  You have no printing press, so anything that is distributed from person to person is hand copied.  There was no organized structure to insure accurate or faithful renditions, and at the time the writing would have been viewed more as family history, than religious or historical text.  It was not until some 200 years later, that the texts were wide spread and recognized as some type of authoritative documents.  The roman church did not start the fifty year process of determining exactly what was and was not part of the “New Testament”, until 300 years after the death of Jesus. By this time, they would have been working with documents that are who knows what generation of text 10th, 20th, 50th? The documents way not have all been written in the same language, but most would have been originally written in Greek.  How many people that actually witnessed the events that took place in the New Testement do you think actually spoke greek? How many language translations would they have gone through in that 300 year period?

 

Printed version of the Bible? 1445, some One Thousand Four Hundred years after the death of Jesus. First authorized English version of the bible? 1538, authorized by none other than King Henry the VIII.  At least we can be certain that he would never play politics with religion!

 

So, if you tell me that you do not believe in “interpreting” the bible, then my response to you is that you are well over 1000 years, numerous languages and 1000s of people too late.

 

However, this whole thread started about if christians should be allowed to denounce gays in public schools, public universities and in the work place.  If you say yes, then you have to agree that muslems should be allowed to do the same to christians, or baptists to do they same to catholics, or members of the church of scientology to denounce anyone that does not believe in giving money to a dead science fiction writer.  Man what a great place school would be then.  Are you going to send your kids to that place?

 

1414990[/snapback]

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2006 by rbmcdonald

[tonorator]

In discussion about if the bible should be taken literally or interpretive, is ridiculous.

 

The writings that comprise the New Testament were written down, over a period of some 50 years, this process did not even begin until some 20 years after the death of Jesus.  Therefore, you have writings that were an interpretation of oral history anywhere from 20 to 70 years later.  You have no printing press, so anything that is distributed from person to person is hand copied.  There was no organized structure to insure accurate or faithful renditions, and at the time the writing would have been viewed more as family history, than religious or historical text.  It was not until some 200 years later, that the texts were wide spread and recognized as some type of authoritative documents.  The roman church did not start the fifty year process of determining exactly what was and was not part of the “New Testament”, until 300 years after the death of Jesus. By this time, they would have been working with documents that are who knows what generation of text 10th, 20th, 50th? The documents were not all originally written in the same language and how many language translations would they have gone through in that 300 year period?

 

Printed version of the Bible? 1445, some One Thousand Four Hundred years after the death of Jesus. First authorized English version of the bible? 1538, authorized by none other than King Henry the VIII.  At least we can be certain that he would never play politics with religion!

 

So, if you tell me that you do not believe in “interpreting” the bible, then my response to you is that you are well over 1000 years, numerous languages and 1000s of people too late.

 

However, this whole thread started about if christians should be allowed to denounce gays in public schools, public universities and in the work place.  If you say yes, then you have to agree that muslems should be allowed to do the same to christians, or baptists to do they same to catholics, or members of the church of scientology to denounce anyone that does not believe in giving money to a dead science fiction writer.  Man what a great place school would be then.  Are you going to send your kids to that place?

 

1414990[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

you can read 'the case for christ' which demonstrates that by any measure of journalistic integrity you use, the new testament is one of the most authentic set of documents ever preserved in human history.

 

and i do believe that people of differing faiths have every right to express what their faith believes. i would just hope that it is done peacefully with the intention to enlighten and expand our thinking vs. being done in a hostile manner, meaning to provoke. only through peaceful discourse will we make any progress toward common understanding or simply agree to disagree, still respecting each other.

 

i respect all of you heathens!

[Pope Flick]

You can also read "How the Irish Saved Civilization" which discusses at length that as Europe slid into the dark ages there was a group of Irish monks who did nothing but make handwritten copies of the Bible for years, while most copies on the continent became lost or destroyed.

[tonorator]

That was his mild comparison. He directly compared it to murder in one of his earlier posts.

 

1414998[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

what i was comparing was the concept of consent. the thought was that if two people consent, then it is OK. i was bringing up some radical examples to show that just because two people think that it is OK and that no one is harmed, that doesn't mean that it is right. i was not saying that sexual preference is on par with killing another person.

 

the children and horse example, again radical, was to show that sexual preferences could potentially take many forms, so why stop with same sex? the best example here that i believe is closer is polygamy. if all adults consent, therefore no one is harmed, why not support this too?

 

how i decide to satisfy my sexual desires should not be a matter of public policy and legal rights. should a prolific masturbater (sorry cliaz) be granted some sort of legal rights because of his preference? where does it stop?

 

marriage is not there to grant benefits to any kind of sexual preference. it is in our laws to support the foundation of our country, which is the family. only a man and a woman can make that happen.

[tonorator]

you mean, you don't abandon what you believe is right if you fail yourself....you just get real sanctimonious about the failings you perceive in others.

 

1415001[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

have i been sanctimonious? it deeply saddens me when marriages don't work out, christian or non-christian, especially when kids are involved.

[cre8tiff]

I like the term "rhetorical hostility". I think I will have to use that someday...

[tonorator]

I like the term "rhetorical hostility". I think I will have to use that someday...

 

1415035[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i don't even see how i've been rhetorically hostile. unless you believe that expressing your beliefs is inherently hostile.

[rbmcdonald]

you can read 'the case for christ' which demonstrates that by any measure of journalistic integrity you use, the new testament is one of the most authentic set of documents ever preserved in human history.

 

i respect all of you heathens! 

 

1415008[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That may be, but the timelines and dates posted above are widely held as being accurte (by the cathlic church). And being "one of the most authentic set of documents ever preserved in human history" is a very far cry from establishing that a couple quotes from the bible is absolute proof that God hates homosexuality. I can find as many quotes in the bible that indicates that God does not have a problem with slavery, as you can that God hates homosexuality.

 

Are you going to allow a child to wear a pro KKK, pro slavery shirt "peacibly" to your public school?

[junebugz]

oh man, look what i missed

 

first of all, who the f*ck is this skins guy bringing so much negativity into our midst?

 

tonorator...i really feel like the anti-gay attitudes you're expressing here are wrong and truly anti-christian.  hostility to gays, simply because they are attracted to the same sex and not the other, in the name of christ, sickens and depresses me.

 

you might think about reading this book to reconsider just how strong the "scriptural" argument against tolerating homosexuality really is.

1414985[/snapback]

 

 

 

The Bible's view on homosexuality is that it is an abomination to God. That is why zealous Christians get upset about the topic and many times go overboard. When Jesus was walking on this earth, He did not go looking for murderers, adulterers, homosexuals, little-white-lie tellers, or anyone else who has ever made a mistake or sinned just so He could condemn them. Frequently, when people were brought before him whether in need of healing or to try and trap Him in an argument, Jesus would tell them their sins were forgiven and then "Go and sin no more" ... should a Christian following the Bible be made to *think* it is ok for homosexual activity to go on even though the Bible speaks out about it? no, the tolerate you speak of is more of seemingly the christian keeping his/her mouth shut so as not to offend or say something bad against them ...

 

obviously hate crimes are wrong, is a religious belief wrong? no. it is what you do with those beliefs. each religion has those who are over-zealous and go on Crusades or fly planes into buildings. should the religion be judged by the lunactics that cross the line? no. unfortunately, they normally are since that is what makes the news.

[cre8tiff]

what i was comparing was the concept of consent.  the thought was that if two people consent, then it is OK.  i was bringing up some radical examples to show that just because two people think that it is OK and that no one is harmed, that doesn't mean that it is right.  i was not saying that sexual preference is on par with killing another person.

 

the children and horse example, again radical, was to show that sexual preferences could potentially take many forms, so why stop with same sex?  the best example here that i believe is closer is polygamy.  if all adults consent, therefore no one is harmed, why not support this too?

 

how i decide to satisfy my sexual desires should not be a matter of public policy and legal rights.  should a prolific masturbater (sorry cliaz) be granted some sort of legal rights because of his preference?  where does it stop?

 

marriage is not there to grant benefits to any kind of sexual preference.  it is in our laws to support the foundation of our country, which is the family.  only a man and a woman can make that happen.

 

1415022[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I usually agree with you, but you are obsessed with the sex act only. Gay relationships are not just an excuse to flog the dog. These people have emotional lives and experience commitment to each other with the same range of emotional (or not) attachment straight people do. Basing your opinion of an entire group based only on one act is short-sighted. Gay marriage is about recognizing these folks can and do have just a viable emotional, and yes physical relationships as we straight people do.

 

And as for the last statement above, are you suggesting that in order for a marriage to be viable, the couple must have children? If so, you just eliminated a lot of straight couples. If not, why does it matter if the two loving, committed people are not of the opposite sex, other than religious intolerance?

Edited April 11, 2006 by cre8tiff

[junebugz]

That may be, but the timelines and dates posted above are widely held as being accurte (by the cathlic church).  And being "one of the most authentic set of documents ever preserved in human history" is a very far cry from establishing that a couple quotes from the bible is absolute proof that God hates homosexuality.  I can find as many quotes in the bible that indicates that God does not have a problem with slavery, as you can that God hates homosexuality.

 

Are you going to allow a child to wear a pro KKK, pro slavery shirt "peacibly" to your public school?

 

1415040[/snapback]

 

 

 

slavery in the Bible did not always necessarily have to do with race, which your scenario would bring up ...

[junebugz]

And as for the last statement above, are you suggesting that in order for a marriage to be viable, the couple must have children? If so, you just eliminated a lot of straight couples. If not, why does it matter if the two loving, committed people are not of the opposite sex, other than religious intolerance?

 

1415054[/snapback]

 

 

 

So does preventing someone to hold the beliefs found in the Bible constitute that person being non-religious intolerance? It then becomes quite the vicious circle.

 

You can't stop someone or condemn them for having a religious viewpoint or holding to a belief system.

[cre8tiff]

No but the Bible did encourage fun with the youngsters...

 

Bible: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137, 137:9)

[junebugz]

No but the Bible did encourage fun with the youngsters...

 

1415068[/snapback]

 

 

 

Go ahead, find some more to take out of context.

[rbmcdonald]

slavery in the Bible did not always necessarily have to do with race, which your scenario would bring up ...

 

1415057[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Fine, take the KKK and race out of it. If you are going to allow a child to wear a shirt to school that says "Being Gay is a Sin to God" then are you going to allow a child wear a shirt to school that says "God does not have a problem with owning a human slave"?

[junebugz]

Fine, take the KKK and race out of it.  If you are going to allow a child to wear a shirt to school that says "Being Gay is a Sin to God" then are you going to allow a child wear a shirt to school that says "God does not have a problem with owning a human slave"?

 

1415078[/snapback]

 

 

 

personally, i wouldn't let my child wear either though i hold both to be true

[Azazello1313]

this is worth reading. the last bit...

 

A Profound Prejudice

The fact is that there is, behind the legal tenor of Scripture, an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus’ identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God sides with the powerless, God liberates the oppressed, God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel’s imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.

 

Many of us have a powerful personal revulsion against homosexuality -- a revulsion that goes far beyond reason to what almost seems to us an instinctual level. Homosexuality seems “unnatural” -- and it would be for most of us. I myself have had to struggle against feelings of superiority and prejudice in regard to gays. Yet for some persons it appears to be the only natural form their sexuality takes. This feeling of revulsion or alienness, or simply of indifference, is no basis, however, for ethical decisions regarding our attitudes toward homosexuality. It seems to me that we simply need to acknowledge that for the majority of us who are heterosexual by nature this deep feeling amounts to nothing more than prejudice when applied to others. It has no sure biblical warrant, no ethical justification. It is just the way we feel about those who are different. And if we can acknowledge that profound prejudice, perhaps we can begin to allow others their preferences as well.

 

I want to close by quoting a paragraph from a 1977 address by C. Kilmer Myers, bishop of California, before the Episcopal House of Bishops:

 

The model for humanness is Jesus. I know many homosexuals who are radically human. To desert them would be a desertion, I believe, of our Master, Jesus Christ. And that I will not do no matter what the cost. I could not possibly return to my diocese and face them, these homosexual persons, many of whom look upon me as their father in God, their brother in Christ, their friend, were I to say to them, “You stand outside the hedge of the New Israel, you are rejected by God. Your love and care and tenderness, yes, your faltering, your reaching out, your tears, your search for love, your violent deaths mean nothing! You are darned! You have no place in the household of God. You are so despicable that there is no room for you in the priesthood or anywhere else.” There are voices in this country now raised proclaiming this total ostracism in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. What will be the nature of the response to this in the House of Bishops?

Now that this issue has become one that none of us can dodge, what will be the nature of our response?

 

[junebugz]

personally, i wouldn't let my child wear either though i hold both to be true

 

1415081[/snapback]

 

 

 

it is not my job to condemn but rather to live my life the way i feel i am called to live it

[cre8tiff]

So does preventing someone to hold the beliefs found in the Bible constitute that person being non-religious intolerance?  It then becomes quite the vicious circle.

 

You can't stop someone or condemn them for having a religious viewpoint or holding to a belief system.

 

1415066[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No, when the move is to legislate the freedoms of others, regardless of thier personal rights to enforce your religious beliefs it becomes intolerance.

[tonorator]

I usually agree with you, but you are obsessed with the sex act only. Gay relationships are not just an excuse to flog the dog. These people have emotional lives and experience commitment to each other with the same range of emotional (or not) attachment straight people do. Basing your opinion of an entire group based only on one act is short-sighted. Gay marriage is about recognizing these folks can and do have just a viable emotional, and yes physical relationships as we straight people do.

 

And as for the last statement above, are you suggesting that in order for a marriage to be viable, the couple must have children? If so, you just eliminated a lot of straight couples. If not, why does it matter if the two loving, committed people are not of the opposite sex, other than religious intolerance?

 

1415054[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

good counterpoints.

 

i believe the marriage laws are on the books to support the traditional family structure ... mom, dad, kids. men and women make kids. usually, they love them from birth and want to raise them in the best possible way they can. having laws that help is a wonderful thing. supporting the two people who come together and decide to do this is what i support. now, they may not end up having kids. they may not want kids and then later may change their mind. they may want kids but are unable to conceive. these situations do not remove the societal support for the union. many of the benefits, like a child deduction, only kick in if you have kids. we should keep working to find the best, most efficient way to support our families.

 

to start extending this to any union of people who care about each other/feel deeply about each other/support each other/love each other/have sex with each other is inefficient and doesn't have anything to do with the family. families deserve to survive, because our kids need them.

 

the man and woman who marry and do not have kids are not exactly rolling in benes as a result. if they both work, they probably file separately and do not receive any benefits. any other type of legal arrangement two people would like to have could probably be drawn up in a contract by lawyers and signed. wills and powers of attorney can be drawn up for anyone. so really, i'm not even getting the point about all these benefits of a civil union that gays are missing out on. can someone list what they are being deprived of? i do need education on that one.

 

i believe that the entire issue is not about rights and benefits. it is about RECOGNITION. homosexuals want their lifestyle recognized as valid and OK as any traditional marriage. it is actually the homosexual community that has the obsession with going to the government for validation, not christians. they can have whatever private ceremonies they like and are free to live together for life, so i'm not sure why gay marriage even has to become a legal issue.

[rbmcdonald]

Go ahead, find some more to take out of context.

 

1415072[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Lot offered his virgin daughters to be sexually molested by a rioting crowd, in an attempt to keep them from siezing angels of the Lord. The very angels that he believed had the power to destroy the entire city. There is some logic for you, worthy to base your system of law on.