Sean Penn's Speech

[b&wpac4]

Good post, andross, but I have a question for you:

If it is not the worst sin (and I agree with you, it isn't) why are so many Christians caught up in trying to force the government to prevent the granting of marriage rights to homosexuals while not also trying to force the government to restrict rights based on other Christian principals? It seems that many Christians do believe it is the number one problem, while homosexuality is mentioned a few times in scripture while worshiping any other gods is mentioned over and over again yet there is no major push to ban the practicing of different religions.

 

[andross77]

Good post, andross, but I have a question for you:

If it is not the worst sin (and I agree with you, it isn't) why are so many Christians caught up in trying to force the government to prevent the granting of marriage rights to homosexuals while not also trying to force the government to restrict rights based on other Christian principals? It seems that many Christians do believe it is the number one problem, while homosexuality is mentioned a few times in scripture while worshiping any other gods is mentioned over and over again yet there is no major push to ban the practicing of different religions.

I COMPLETELY agree with you. Our priorities are screwed up as humans. I was just thinking this the other day when i was praying over the phone with my girlfriend that we need to give lost people's salvation our #1 priority in prayer and only THEN think about praying for an injury or a lost job situation or etc. But we as humans screw up our priorities a lot.

My only "counter" to your question (it's not really a counter, just a statement) is that "2 wrongs don't make a right" and we really should not be comparing ourselves to other humans but rather to God and his will.

What i'm saying is that i believe homosexuality is a sin but so is coveting and greed and when people overeat regularly. We need to be constantly conforming ourselves to what God designed us for.

I mean that's how we get into most of our "trouble" these days anyways.

The Smith's down the street are doing this, so it must be ok for me to do that.

My brother is 75 pounds overweight so the fact i'm 30 pounds overweight is no big deal.

Becky has cheated on every exam this year so if i cheat on this one i'm ok.

no, no, no, no, no. If we compare ourselves to others only, we will have a never static, ever changing set of rules and morals that make no ultimate sense. It's just what's comfortable or "acceptable" in society's eyes. Like the killing of babies in the name of "women's rights."

This is why we need to go to God's Word so we have a CONSTANT and true direction about what is pure and acceptable in God's sight.

Am i just rambling now?

 

[Psudopod]

Psudopod,
For a start, I do not believe that "homosexaul" is an accurate translation.
ok but there may be thieves, the greedy, adulterers, slanderers who don’t agree with the translations. Yet here on CF a slanderer would gte penalised for flaming. Why should a slanderer get penalised for slander and someone else not get penalised for promoting homosexual relationships?

Well, can a slander show that the word slander is not a very good translation? If he can’t then he doesn’t really have a leg to stand on.

The problem is Romans doesn’t even mention homosexual but men with men instead of with women which is homosexual isnt it? So I don’t see any validity in your objection.

Not necessarily. Cases in prison of male rape aren’t necessarily homosexual, but could men asserting authority, humiliating a victim or gaining sexual satisfaction the only way they can. They might be gay, but they might not.

and From what I have been shown, it does not equate to those in loving monogamous relationships, but those who use male prostitues. Bit of a difference.

No mention of loving monogamous relationships in the Bible except man and woman, so I don’t see how this is relevant.

Because that is what we have today. Men and women in loving monogamous relationships. Culturely, that was unknown at the time of the bible.

Secondly, you can be against those things personally without denying people rights. I don't see any campaigns to prevent adulterers from remarrying.

That’s a good point but that would depend on what the authorities saw as rights.

Well, people have the right to marry a consenting adult no matter what (race, age, nationality ect), apart from gender. I would say that is a discrimination.

Basically, even if the bible completely utterly and totally condemns homosexuality, I’d see that as a Christian issue, not one that can be applied to whole countries who may not be Christians. It should be down to churchs to decide if they are going to allow homosexual marriage, but there should be no legal say in it.

Thirdly, most of those things listed you and I can both agree are harmful.

All are harmful if they lead to death rather than life as the Bible says, what do you mean? Besides according to the Bible sexual immorality is harful to ones own body, so they are all harmful.

This should be backed up by evidence from outside the bible though. I don’t see homosexual relationships as any more harmful as heterosexual ones.

I do not see homosexuality as harmful,

Ok that’s fair enough you are entitled to that view.

Thank you and I support your right to hold the opposite view. I just do not think people should be denied rights on this basis.

[/quote]
Dont get me wrong I respect your right to your position and I dont expect you to necessarily believe what I do. What I do insist on is those who say they believe the Bible and clearly dont. [/quote]

I think personally you are wrong, and those people do believe the bible. I think it is entirely possible for people to read the same text and come away with a different impression, and I think culture and translation shouldn’t be ignored when reading it (not saying that you personally do, but I’ve seen others who utterly unwilling to consider anything other than their favourite English version, without thinking about the lives lead by the apostles or how language might have changed.) However, this moving off topic a bit, so I’ll leave it there.

 

[andross77]

psudopod, why do you call yourself a "spiritual atheist"? i'm intrigued. your hook worked. i'm biting.

 

[b&wpac4]

To Andross:

Would you agree then that Christian values and the Christian life is for Christians to follow and not to try to force onto a society that reject that view? Trying to legislate it, such as banning secular homosexual marriage, or forcing people to be Christians, would be a bad idea?

I understand two wrongs do not make a right, that's is clear. However, is it right to believe your moral system should be the default system for people who are unbelievers?

Not singling you out, and I give you an immense amount of credit for stepping up to the plate here!

 

[Psudopod]

psudopod, why do you call yourself a "spiritual atheist"? i'm intrigued. your hook worked. i'm biting.

Very off topic, but basically it works like this:
I don’t believe in gods of any shape, therefore I am an atheist. However I do believe in “spiritual” things, like the existence of the soul, life after death, post humous justice etc.
I’m an odd fish J

 

[andross77]

To Andross:

Would you agree then that Christian values and the Christian life is for Christians to follow and not to try to force onto a society that reject that view? Trying to legislate it, such as banning secular homosexual marriage, or forcing people to be Christians, would be a bad idea?

I understand two wrongs do not make a right, that's is clear. However, is it right to believe your moral system should be the default system for people who are unbelievers?

Not singling you out, and I give you an immense amount of credit for stepping up to the plate here!

dang, now you are talking outside of my understanding . Some atheist in another thread was talking about how crazy it is that Christians won't tell kids about Jesus if their parents wouldn't like it. He said it was the same as if a kid was going to jump off a cliff (or die some other way) and we didn't prevent it because it was against someones wishes.

This is how i think. I don't like knowing people will die and spend eternity in hell. it gives me no joy and it gives God no joy. I don't understand why God gave us free will so that we CAN sin against him and end up separated forever. But i believe it. And i believe that eternity is just that, forever.

So i can't answer your first paragraph at all i don't understand government and civil rights issues well enough to say. But i do know that i NEED to love people. I need to love people that love me but more importantly, to show people i know Jesus, i need to love people that hate me. I can't think of a more loving thing to do than to point people to Jesus, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

As to your second paragraph, no i do not believe Christian morals are the default system of morality for non-believers. It really all depends on the worldview. If the person is an atheist, their "default" worldview should be much bleaker, closer to a nihilist. If the person is a Buddhist or Hindu and really caught up in religion or letting go of things, their "default" will be a more moral lifestyle. So the answer to your 2nd paragraph is no

 

[andross77]

[/color]
Very off topic, but basically it works like this:
I don’t believe in gods of any shape, therefore I am an atheist. However I do believe in “spiritual” things, like the existence of the soul, life after death, post humous justice etc.
I’m an odd fish J

i would say so. very confusing to me i thought atheists were more naturalists and that if you don't have "phsyical evidence" of something it doesn't exist or is not important. ??

Who administers this "post humous justice" you speak about? Wouldn't it have to be a god? If it was just another spirit, which one? Do we all judge each other in a random half-hazard way? If there is a hierarchy, wouldn't it be fair to call the people that judge, "gods"??

 

[b&wpac4]

dang, now you are talking outside of my understanding . Some atheist in another thread was talking about how crazy it is that Christians won't tell kids about Jesus if their parents wouldn't like it. He said it was the same as if a kid was going to jump off a cliff (or die some other way) and we didn't prevent it because it was against someones wishes.

This is how i think. I don't like knowing people will die and spend eternity in hell. it gives me no joy and it gives God no joy. I don't understand why God gave us free will so that we CAN sin against him and end up separated forever. But i believe it. And i believe that eternity is just that, forever.

So i can't answer your first paragraph at all i don't understand government and civil rights issues well enough to say. But i do know that i NEED to love people. I need to love people that love me but more importantly, to show people i know Jesus, i need to love people that hate me. I can't think of a more loving thing to do than to point people to Jesus, the Way, the Truth and the Life.

As to your second paragraph, no i do not believe Christian morals are the default system of morality for non-believers. It really all depends on the worldview. If the person is an atheist, their "default" worldview should be much bleaker, closer to a nihilist. If the person is a Buddhist or Hindu and really caught up in religion or letting go of things, their "default" will be a more moral lifestyle. So the answer to your 2nd paragraph is no

Honest answers. I like you.

 

[Psudopod]

i would say so. very confusing to me i thought atheists were more naturalists and that if you don't have "phsyical evidence" of something it doesn't exist or is not important. ??

That’s certainly not how I think nor anyone I know who would call themselves a naturalist. Basically, if you want someone else to accept something, you need to provide them with evidence, and if two pieces of evidence are contradictory, then only one can be right. But many people have said x is impossible, simply because it hasn’t happened yet, and ended up with egg on their face.
I personally have no problem with beliefs without evidence, what I have an issue with is either forcing those beliefs on others, or lying to make other accept those beliefs. I’m very against pseudoscience like creationism, homeopathy etc, but I have no problem with religious beliefs. (I find mythology and folk lore of all cultures very interesting.)

Who administers this "post humous justice" you speak about? Wouldn't it have to be a god? If it was just another spirit, which one? Do we all judge each other in a random half-hazard way? If there is a hierarchy, wouldn't it be fair to call the people that judge, "gods"??

Heh, I’m fairly sure people would be able to say I did believe in a divine entity, but I don’t consider that myself. Basically, it’s kind of like Karma, only without the reincarnation: you experience the pain you have inflicted on others throughout your lifetime. It doesn’t matter if you (or anyone else) thought it was right or wrong at the time. Basically, I think the universe just works this way.
(If this is getting in the way of the thread, I’ll take it to pm).

 

[Phinehas2]

Psudopod,

Well, can a slander show that the word slander is not a very good translation? If he can’t then he doesn’t really have a leg to stand on.

Can you show that homosexual isnt a good translation, no not to me so why should you think the judgement is up to you?

Not necessarily. Cases in prison of male rape aren’t necessarily homosexual, but could men asserting authority, humiliating a victim or gaining sexual satisfaction the only way they can. They might be gay, but they might not.

I didnt refer to male rape, I referred to men with men instead of women. Do you think male rape doesn’t have two men involved? If you do, its homosexual rather than heterosexual which proves my point. If you don’t what is it?

Because that is what we have today.

Nope the Biblical condemnation addresses men with men instead of women so if a loving monogamous homosexual relationship is two men its still condemned. What we have today is people trying to justify something they have made up which obvioyusly the Bible doesn’t mention as they have made it up.

Men and women in loving monogamous relationships. Culturely, that was unknown at the time of the bible.

As you have been shown that’s not the case I love men in my Christian fellowship. I don’t think you understand love the same as Christians do.

Basically, even if the bible completely utterly and totally condemns homosexuality, I’d see that as a Christian issue, not one that can be applied to whole countries who may not be Christians. It should be down to churchs to decide if they are going to allow homosexual marriage, but there should be no legal say in it.

Pity as other non-Christians don’t believe in homosexuality either, why do exclude others’ views in society on the basis of Christian views?

This should be backed up by evidence from outside the bible though. I don’t see homosexual relationships as any more harmful as heterosexual ones.

For you perhaps, but as you don’t seem to believe the medical and scientific evidence I don’t think it matters for you anyway. For me I don’t need outside Biblical evidence anyway.

Thank you and I support your right to hold the opposite view. I just do not think people should be denied rights on this basis.

Well I don’t believe they are rights for the reasons explained but as I have friends in civil partnerships and we remain friends hopeful that shows that I accept the decisions occur even though I wouldn’t vote for them. The main thing is we don’t fall out of being friends.

and hopefully however vehemently we disagree we will also acknowlegde we are at least still fellow forum posters who can debate with each other.

 

[Psudopod]

Psudopod,
Well, can a slander show that the word slander is not a very good translation? If he can’t then he doesn’t really have a leg to stand on.
Can you show that homosexual isnt a good translation, no not to me so why should you think the judgement is up to you?

I wish I could find the thread that was going on a while ago. It wasn’t my argument, so I can’t remember things exactly, but several Christian posters showed that the word arsenokoites which is translated as homosexual doesn’t mean homosexual as we understand it today, but those who use male prositutes. It condemns as specific homosexual act, but not the orientation or the majotity of relationships. I think we can both agree that prostitution isn’t a good thing.

Not necessarily. Cases in prison of male rape aren’t necessarily homosexual, but could men asserting authority, humiliating a victim or gaining sexual satisfaction the only way they can. They might be gay, but they might not.

I didnt refer to male rape, I referred to men with men instead of women. Do you think male rape doesn’t have two men involved? If you do, its homosexual rather than heterosexual which proves my point. If you don’t what is it?

My point was that male-male sex acts are not necessarily homosexual. Homoexuality is an orientation, an attraction to the same gender. Unfortunately not every sex act is based on mutual physical attraction.

Because that is what we have today.

Nope the Biblical condemnation addresses men with men instead of women so if a loving monogamous homosexual relationship is two men its still condemned. What we have today is people trying to justify something they have made up which obvioyusly the Bible doesn’t mention as they have made it up.

I can’t see that it’s made up. It’s mentioned throughout history and various cultures. I just can’t see people devoted to each other for something they have made up in essence for rebellion.

Men and women in loving monogamous relationships. Culturely, that was unknown at the time of the bible.

As you have been shown that’s not the case I love men in my Christian fellowship. I don’t think you understand love the same as Christians do.

Maybe. I can only go on my experience. I have friends who I love, friends of the same gender, friends of opposite gender. But none of them do I feel the same way about as I do with my partner.

Basically, even if the bible completely utterly and totally condemns homosexuality, I’d see that as a Christian issue, not one that can be applied to whole countries who may not be Christians. It should be down to churchs to decide if they are going to allow homosexual marriage, but there should be no legal say in it.

Pity as other non-Christians don’t believe in homosexuality either, why do exclude others’ views in society on the basis of Christian views?

I don’t understand the non-religious opposition. I can see where Christians are coming from when they say it is a sin as demonstrated by the bible, but there is no non scriptural justification that I have seen, only lies.

This should be backed up by evidence from outside the bible though. I don’t see homosexual relationships as any more harmful as heterosexual ones.

For you perhaps, but as you don’t seem to believe the medical and scientific evidence I don’t think it matters for you anyway. For me I don’t need outside Biblical evidence anyway.

Do you have any medical or scientific evidence I can look at? I have’n’t seen any that wasn’t faslsified.

Thank you and I support your right to hold the opposite view. I just do not think people should be denied rights on this basis.

Well I don’t believe they are rights for the reasons explained but as I have friends in civil partnerships and we remain friends hopeful that shows that I accept the decisions occur even though I wouldn’t vote for them. The main thing is we don’t fall out of being friends.

and hopefully however vehemently we disagree we will also acknowlegde we are at least still fellow forum posters who can debate with each other.

Indeed and on that note, good night J

 

[Garyzenuf]

I didnt refer to male rape, I referred to men with men instead of women. Do you think male rape doesn’t have two men involved? If you do, its homosexual rather than heterosexual which proves my point. If you don’t what is it?

It's not sexual anything, it's violence, with 'sex' used as a weapon. Thinking of rape as sex is like hitting someone in the face with a frying pan, and calling it cooking.

What we have today is people trying to justify something they have made up which obvioyusly the Bible doesn’t mention as they have made it up.

Your laws are interpreted by your constitution, not the bible.

For you perhaps, but as you don’t seem to believe the medical and scientific evidence I don’t think it matters for you anyway. For me I don’t need outside Biblical evidence anyway.

What medical and scientific evidence?

*

 

[kat69]

It's not sexual anything, it's violence, with 'sex' used as a weapon. Thinking of rape as sex is like hitting someone in the face with a frying pan, and calling it cooking.




Your laws are interpreted by your constitution, not the bible.





What medical and scientific evidence?

*

Agreed!

 

[AdamClarke]

Rights should not be voted on. Something is a right, and open to everyone, or it is not. You cannot apply rights to one group and not another.

At the risk of appearing to be anti-same sex marriage I must point out that all rights are voted on. Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were voted on. Every amendment to the constitution since the Bill of Rights also had to be voted upon. Universally held Rights do not just pop up to be recognized.

 

[Garyzenuf]

At the risk of appearing to be anti-same sex marriage I must point out that all rights are voted on. Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were voted on. Every amendment to the constitution since the Bill of Rights also had to be voted upon. Universally held Rights do not just pop up to be recognized.

Rights may well be voted on, but it's your supreme court that interprets the Constitution, not majority rule. If left to the majority most all minority rights would be done away with. It seems you're talking more about laws than rights

*

 

[SughaNSpice]

Psudopod,
Makes no sense. Here are some of the sins listed in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6
sexually immorality, idolatery, adultery, prostitution, homosexual offending, theft, greed, drunkeness slander and swindling. How can Christians who have been set free from these sins be for rights to do them?
You are challenging the very heart of the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Except homosexuality isn’t mentioned anywhere in Corintians

 

[Maren]

At the risk of appearing to be anti-same sex marriage I must point out that all rights are voted on. Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were voted on. Every amendment to the constitution since the Bill of Rights also had to be voted upon. Universally held Rights do not just pop up to be recognized.

In that case, can you show me the vote that overturned Segregation? What about the right for interracial couples to marry? While it is true that the Constitution was voted on, not all rights have been recognized by the nation voting (such as a Constitutional Amendment).

 

[SughaNSpice]

Psudopod,
ok but there may be thieves, the greedy, adulterers, slanderers who don’t agree with the translations.

Nice way to associate these people with a minority – I guess doing so make prejudice easier for you.
Funny how you change pointing out the fact that there is no evidence to support the translation of Corinthians to include homosexuals to “agree” as if facts are somehow opinions based on whims

Yet here on CF a slanderer would gte penalised for flaming. Why should a slanderer get penalised for slander and someone else not get penalised for promoting homosexual relationships?
The problem is Romans doesn’t even mention homosexual but men with men instead of with women which is homosexual isnt it? So I don’t see any validity in your objection.

Hasn’t your false interpretation of Roman’s been sent up enough?

No mention of loving monogamous relationships in the Bible except man and woman

And those are pretty few

 

[SughaNSpice]

Psudopod,

Can you show that homosexual isnt a good translation,

That has been done more than a few times already.

The biggest problem for claiming it does translate to mean something like homosexual is that there is absolutely no evidence at all to support that claim.

no not to me so why should you think the judgement is up to you?

You are saying here that you are unwilling to honestly look at evidence you don’t like. So why ask for such evidence in the first place?

I didnt refer to male rape, I referred to men with men instead of women. Do you think male rape doesn’t have two men involved? If you do, its homosexual rather than heterosexual which proves my point. If you don’t what is it?

So if a man rapes a lesbian – that will make her a heterosexual

Nope the Biblical condemnation addresses men with men instead of women so if a loving monogamous homosexual relationship is two men its still condemned. What we have today is people trying to justify something they have made up which obvioyusly the Bible doesn’t mention as they have made it up.

The bible doesn’t mention homosexuality – so your claims about condemnation must be made up

As you have been shown that’s not the case I love men in my Christian fellowship. I don’t think you understand love the same as Christians do.
Pity as other non-Christians don’t believe in homosexuality either, why do exclude others’ views in society on the basis of Christian views?

So hate is OK if it is popular?

For you perhaps, but as you don’t seem to believe the medical and scientific evidence I don’t think it matters for you anyway. For me I don’t need outside Biblical evidence anyway.

What medical and scientific evidence?
I hope you aren’t talking about claims of gays life expectancy – that has been shown to be a lie more times than I can count

Well I don’t believe they are rights for the reasons explained but as I have friends in civil partnerships and we remain friends hopeful that shows that I accept the decisions occur even though I wouldn’t vote for them. The main thing is we don’t fall out of being friends.

and hopefully however vehemently we disagree we will also acknowlegde we are at least still fellow forum posters who can debate with each other.

Your denial that rights are rights doesn’t change what they are any more than if you denied that the right to sit where one pleased on the bus is a right doesn’t’ change it