Canadian SC: Christian law school can't forbid students from gay sex

[PeaceByJesus]

Alas, I have to disagree with your interpretation of these scriptures. A Christian who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, but cannot/will not/does not act on that knowledge is a poor Christian, but a Christian nonetheless.

Similarly, a person who gets their annual flu shot, but still catches the flu, cannot be said to have never received a vaccination, can they?

Analogy - Wikipedia
But were they ever in the first place? That's the question...

Fallacy - Wikipedia
A person does not become a Christian via an ineffective inoculation, analogous to mere head knowledge and inert faith, nor simply faith in a promise abstract from who made it, but as is abundantly manifest in Scripture, one only becomes a Christian by effectual faith in the person of the Lord Jesus (and thus God the Father who sent Him and the Spirit by whom one believes). With obedience by the Spirit being his credentials as a believer, in contrast to those who profess but do not posses the Spirit.

For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. (Hebrews 6:7-10)'

For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:13-14)

There are plenty more in conflation if you want.

But were they ever in the first place? That's the question...

Indeed, and which often is the problem. However, Scripture quite clearly warns believers as believers against not continuing in the faith, but departing from it, and impenitently continuing in willful sin. and making Christ of no effect, to no profit, falling from grace, and drawing back unto perdition.

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again [those who were set free] with the yoke of bondage [going back into what they were set free from]. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if [submission to Judaizers these believers are being warned against] ye be circumcised [signifying justification obtained by keeping all the law], Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become [an effectual change due to their choice] of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace[their former state]. For we [those who continue to believe] through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. (Galatians 5:1-5)

Take heed, brethren, [contextually not a general sense, but as believers] lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God [a departure from their former state s believers]. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin [a change of heart]. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end [[perseverance of the saints]. (Hebrews 3:12-14)

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering [continued exhortation to persevere]; (for he is faithful that promised And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, [indicating departing from the faith, as follows] as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Hebrews 10:23-25)

For if [a choice brethren are warned against] we [not just you] sin wilfully [not out of weakness, but with full consent, as a decision not to continue but to depart, signified by giving up being with the believers] after that we have received the knowledge of the truth [a term which refers to believing, as per 1Tim. 2:4; 2Tim. 3:7], there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins [cf. Hebrews 6:6-8; a terminal condition of judgment, with no provision for repentance and forgiveness, having forfeited what saving faith obtained], But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Hebrews 10:26-27)

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified [a past condition, appropriated by faith, now forfeited by a definite denial of the same] , an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:28-29)

Cast not away therefore your confidence, [the issue being faith, out of which obedience flows] which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise [not that doing earns the promise, but that saving faith is that which finally perseveres, which faith as manifested in works God - who gave faith and the ability and motivation to obey - rewards under grace] For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Now the just shall live by faith [the just live by faith, not merely profess it, with such faith being what appropriates justification]: but if any man draw back [a denial of justifying faith], my soul shall have no pleasure in him [as solemnly, fearfully described above]. But we [who do not draw back, but persevere] are not of them who draw back unto perdition [contextually a terminal condition of judgment, with no provision for repentance and forgiveness due to treating Christ with contempt] but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:35-39)

Such departing from the the living God, drawing backing into perdition, falling from grace, etc., is likely the the "great transgression," (Psalms 9:13) that of having "wickedly departed from my God,"(2 Samuel 22:22) which David stated he did not do, but confessed in repentance when convicted of sin. (2 Samuel 12:7-13)

Yet i pray and trust that as David said, The Lord will perfect that which concerneth me: thy mercy, O Lord, endureth for ever: forsake not the works of thine own hands. (Psalms 138:8)

Thanks be to God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ah, but I'm no hypocrite. As I am not a Christian, the instruction never applied to me.

Then it means you are engaging in false teaching by using such against Christians who reprove sin.

Your correction on the matter is welcomed, but not expected.

Then you must have been surprised when you were clearly corrected, though whether you accept correction or not is also revealing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Rather than negating my argument as you imagine, it confirms it. Of course the suicide rate should be higher in places where it lesbianism is less accepted,which attests to it being a negative quality, as is any behavior or belief which leads to people engaging in self-murder. Evangelical Christians are the most despised by the MSM, and homosexual rights results in such being in danger of being unable to practice business and expression the way want, yet if that results in self-murder then then there is something wrong.

I fail to see how what I said confirms what you're saying.

If the most dangerous thing about a particular activity, is how negatively the rest of society treats you and abuses you as a result, then the problem is with society, and not the activity itself.

Like my carrot example...if someone punched you in the nose every time you ate a carrot because they hated carrots, that doesn't mean "eating carrots is bad because it causes broken noses". It means people need to stop being abusive to you based on a disagreement about which foods should be eaten.

Or, if we use your logic...
You had this to say:

Evangelical Christians are the most despised by the MSM, and homosexual rights results in such being in danger of being unable to practice business and expression the way want

Now, if you're going to be consistent in your reasoning, that would mean that the fact that you're being treated poorly as a business owner, by society, and are in danger of not being able to run your business the way you see fit, is evidence that the way you run your business is wrong...because if it weren't wrong, then society wouldn't be giving you flak for it...remember???, that's the reasoning you used above.

So, time to be consistent here...which is it? Is poor treatment by society evidence of the wrongness of an action? Or should actions be evaluated individually based on their own impact, regardless of how the rest of society in a particular locale feels about it?



Bottom line here is: Many right-wing evangelicals want to treat the LGBT community like garbage (unless they're willing to convert the way they see fit), and then use the damaged emotional state of many LGBT folks (which is the direct result of the aforementioned treatment, and nothing else) as some sort of proof of "look, see how bad this is? If it weren't bad, they wouldn't have these issues".

Like I mentioned before, it's a self fulfilling prophecy...no different then if I were to say "Eating potatoes kills you", and then when someone eats a potato and I get mad and shoot them, I say "See...I told you eating potatoes was bad...that dude ate one and he was dead within minutes!!!"

It's intentionally obfuscating the issue, and intentionally displacing the blame on someone else, when in fact, the blame lays at the feet of the very people making the accusation.

If you're the one calling gays evil, and you're the one trying to gain legal powers to discriminate against them, and you're the one insisting that they're unacceptable to the creator, and you're the one telling them if they don't convert, they're an abomination unless they hide their true feelings and live a lie... then, when they get mental health issues and try to kill themselves, it's your fault, not the fault of their built-in attractions (which they have no control over).

By your flawed logic, every kid who's contemplated suicide for being bullied for being a "nerd" by all the jocks isn't the victim, it's their own fault for being a nerd.. and if anything, it's evidence of why "nerdiness is bad...they should just stop liking learning so much and conform and play sports"

See how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Paul wrote quite a number but some were written pseudonymously in his name. I don't think "most" is accurate.

So some say, and I differ, yet God as the real author of all 27 books is what is key. Meanwhile, CF forbids Christians from arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Please, I thought they gave up on that argument long ago.

Gave up on what argument? The one demanding consistency?...no, I have no intention of giving that one up. If people are going to insist on bashing someone else over OT laws, then I want to make sure they're following all of them and not just cherry picking the ones that they, themselves, find it easy to abstain from to label as "evil" and "requiring conversion".

It's become far too easy for a person to dismiss rules as "it was for another time" when they want to have a bacon cheeseburger (a flagrant violation of the rules since mixing meat & dairy is a no-no), but then taking a strict adherence approach for the things they find visually "icky" or the things they were indoctrinated to oppose from age 5 in Sunday School

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then it means you are engaging in false teaching by using such against Christians who reprove sin.

Is teaching true or false based on what it says, or who says it?

Then you must have been surprised when you were clearly corrected, though whether you accept correction or not is also revealing.

Quite a bit of verbiage there; it's going to take some time when I'm not on my phone to sort through it all. Aside from the Bible, where did you get it from?

Never mind; I'll Google it when I get home. Merry Christmas!

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Is teaching true or false based on what it says, or who says it?

It is based on systematic theology, considering context, place, time, genre, eotc. and what else is said on the subject, versus your recourse to isolationist exegesis which leaves texts irreconcilable.

Quite a bit of verbiage there; it's going to take some time when I'm not on my phone to sort through it all. Aside from the Bible, where did you get it from?
Never mind; I'll Google it when I get home. Merry Christmas!

It came from Scripture.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Gave up on what argument? The one demanding consistency?...no, I have no intention of giving that one up. If people are going to insist on bashing someone else over OT laws, then I want to make sure they're following all of them and not just cherry picking the ones that they, themselves, find it easy to abstain from to label as "evil" and "requiring conversion".

It's become far too easy for a person to dismiss rules as "it was for another time" when they want to have a bacon cheeseburger (a flagrant violation of the rules since mixing meat & dairy is a no-no), but then taking a strict adherence approach for the things they find visually "icky" or the things they were indoctrinated to oppose from age 5 in Sunday School

Rob, i hardly think you are ignorant of the easily documented fact that a new covenant was promised, and which was distinctly promised to be different from the Sinaitic covenant, (Jer. 33:31-34) and which in the NT was instituted by the death of the testator, (Hebrews 9:16,17) and the way in which it was different is explained. That of abrogation of typological ceremonial and dietary laws, "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation," (Hebrews 9:10)

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [that made these "shadows " Christ that he fulfilled) is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Meanwhile basic universal moral laws are clearly reiterated and magnified. Thus contrary to your misrepresentation, there is not cherry picking when rejecting dietary laws as binding, except by you if you will not go by the whole of the revelation that those you attack are to go by.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I fail to see how what I said confirms what you're saying.

That practices have effects.

If the most dangerous thing about a particular activity, is how negatively the rest of society treats you and abuses you as a result, then the problem is with society, and not the activity itself.

Like my carrot example...if someone punched you in the nose every time you ate a carrot because they hated carrots, that doesn't mean "eating carrots is bad because it causes broken noses". It means people need to stop being abusive to you based on a disagreement about which foods should be eaten.

False analogy. I never argued that how one is treated indicates a practice is wrong, but issue was how you handle being treated, by punching yourself in the nose.
"the suicide rate should be higher in places where it lesbianism is less accepted, which attests to it being a negative quality." Suicide is not executed by others, but by yourself, usually in response to issues.

Or, if we use your logic...
You had this to say:
Now, if you're going to be consistent in your reasoning, that would mean that the fact that you're being treated poorly as a business owner, by society, and are in danger of not being able to run your business the way you see fit, is evidence that the way you run your business is wrong...because if it weren't wrong, then society wouldn't be giving you flak for it...remember???, that's the reasoning you used above.

False equivalence. My argument was not that being treated wrongly indicated a practice was wrong, but how the practitioners respond to it, by self-murder.

So, time to be consistent here...which is it? Is poor treatment by society evidence of the wrongness of an action? Or should actions be evaluated individually based on their own impact, regardless of how the rest of society in a particular locale feels about it?

Why is it that you fail to comprehend my argument, or misrepresent it?

Bottom line here is: Many right-wing evangelicals want to treat the LGBT community like garbage (unless they're willing to convert the way they see fit), and then use the damaged emotional state of many LGBT folks (which is the direct result of the aforementioned treatment, and nothing else) as some sort of proof of "look, see how bad this is? If it weren't bad, they wouldn't have these issues".

Bottom-line here is that you are resorting to a form of ad-hominem, which, contrary to the Fred Phelps characterization prohomsoexuals apologists rely on in their railing against those who oppose their promotion, does not describe evangelicals overall in personal relationships with homosexuals, unless you think opposing redefining marriage contrary to Scripture means we treat them like garbage. But which is how homosexual activists are shown to treat those who oppose them.

Which was advocated years ago, and has been followed.

In which Harvard-trained graduates, [54] Marshall Kirk (1957–2005), a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Hunter Madsen (pen name Erastes Pill), who was schooled in social marketing, advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they used jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, Gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."[55][56]

"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."[57] " It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary... our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof."[58]

Like I mentioned before, it's a self fulfilling prophecy...no different then if I were to say "Eating potatoes kills you", and then when someone eats a potato and I get mad and shoot them, I say "See...I told you eating potatoes was bad...that dude ate one and he was dead within minutes!!!"

Rather, what would be analogous would be if potato eaters showed markedly higher rates of murder, even self-murder, then there could be a case for avoiding tubers.

It's intentionally obfuscating the issue, and intentionally displacing the blame on someone else, when in fact, the blame lays at the feet of the very people making the accusation.

Not so, for it is not prohomosexuals but evangelical-types who are attacked and maligned by the mainstream, and fined and otherwise punished for not being politically correct, yet according to you we should have an excuse for committing suicide..

If you're the one calling gays evil, and you're the one trying to gain legal powers to discriminate against them, and you're the one insisting that they're unacceptable to the creator, and you're the one telling them if they don't convert, they're an abomination unless they hide their true feelings and live a lie... then, when they get mental health issues and try to kill themselves, it's your fault, not the fault of their built-in attractions (which they have no control over).

Wrong. There is no hiding true feelings and living a lie, but honesty and help for a problem. I had to accept that I was evil (and even now, in my carnal nature there is no good thing), and had no right to practice what was contrary to God (and sometimes the government) and was unacceptable to the creator until I came to repentance of faith, and found pardon on Christ's account. And if i killed myself as a result of the persecution that comes with not being politically correct, including being incessantly attacked as homophobic among other things, then it is my fault, though God will deal with unjust treatment.

And while I cannot sanction homosexual relations nor heterosexual fornication, I am characteristically nice to those I meet, and would feed or otherwise help them right now with basic needs, as towards straights.

By your flawed logic, every kid who's contemplated suicide for being bullied for being a "nerd" by all the jocks isn't the victim, it's their own fault for being a nerd.. and if anything, it's evidence of why "nerdiness is bad...they should just stop liking learning so much and conform and play sports" See how ridiculous that sounds?

While bullies are to be opposed, you will not get ride of them all, and not being able to handle intimidation is a problem, and committing suicide cannot be justified. And if choosing to be a Christian corresponded with much higher rates of suicide, much less anything akin to the ills among MSM, then atheists would love that, since it supports their attack on Christians as being weak and needing a crutch.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is based on systematic theology, considering context, place, time, genre, eotc. and what else is said on the subject, versus your recourse to isolationist exegesis which leaves texts irreconcilable.

It came from Scripture.

That's nice, but it doesn't answer my questions.

 

[FireDragon76]

While this probably wouldn't fly in America's legal climate, it makes sense to me why Canada would be interested in ensuring that future students are exposed to an education in a climate that encourages diversity and respect.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

False analogy. I never argued that how one is treated indicates a practice is wrong, but issue was how you handle being treated, by punching yourself in the nose.
"the suicide rate should be higher in places where it lesbianism is less accepted, which attests to it being a negative quality." Suicide is not executed by others, but by yourself, usually in response to issues.

False equivalence. My argument was not that being treated wrongly indicated a practice was wrong, but how the practitioners respond to it, by self-murder.

Why is it that you fail to comprehend my argument, or misrepresent it?

I'm not using a false analogy, nor am I making a false equivalence or misrepresenting what you're saying.

You're claiming that the fact that they resort to self-harm (as a result of being bullied) is somehow evidence of the flaws with their lifestyle. That line of reasoning is nonsensical victim blaming.

I pointed out, not only is that a flaw with how society treats them, but that bullying for other things also leads to increased rates of self-harm and suicide attempts.

Things like "being a bookworm"/"nerd"/"shorter than the other kids"/etc... can all lead to bullying, and bullying (in general) comes with the risk of increased rates of self harm. We had a kid who was picked on for being a nerd when I was in 10th grade commit suicide. I guess, by your train of thought, the fact that he responded to the bullying so irrationally "attests to the fact that looking different and being really good at math are negative qualities"

By your logic, that "attests to" reading, being shorter than other people, or being viewed as a "nerd" for being smart are negative qualities...because a societal clique says so. That is what you're saying. Basically, you're victim blaming.

The reason why that rate is more elevated in that particular community vs. other forms of bullying, is because the victims of other forms of bullying tend to at least have a support system at home, unlike many in the LGBT community who are more likely to be subjected to more mistreatment even by family members.


No matter how you slice it, your side is wrong on this one. You want to be able to mistreat a group of people, and when they end up with mental issues from the mistreatment (as many people LGBT or otherwise do after years of bullying and mistreatment), use that as evidence of what you perceive as a flaw with their lifestyle.

Here's a novel idea: Treat people with respect, treat people equally and with respect, and don't publicly demonize them over your own personal beliefs, and they won't feel hopeless or try to commit suicide.


"If your differences didn't make me so angry, then I wouldn't have to mistreat you...so see, it's your fault for being different, because if your differences weren't so bad, then they wouldn't make me so angry" isn't a valid line of reasoning, and I think you know that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

OT laws? You are really going to try to tell me God doesn't have a problem with Homosexuality now?

..well, I'm an atheist so I don't believe in God, so that's really a non-starter.

Lessor sin? You're just making this stuff up as you go. Homosexuality is an abomination whether it's kissing or full on you know whating.

Why are you going into this stuff about the first amendment? Yes I wish they'd get back in the closet, and I'm well aware of their rights, so? Was that even an argument, of course it wasn't.

Indoctrinated to oppose? Nope, not at all, I assure you, my dislike for something that is absolutely gross to me, all came naturally. You're just making things up again because you'd like to think that's all there is too it.

...ah, so you're suggesting that with no outside influences at all, if you had not been part of a particular religious system, you'd have just naturally come to the conclusion that two guys kissing is just as bad as someone shooting someone else with a gun?

I find that very hard to believe.

Why do I bring up the 1st amendment? Because it's important to illustrate the significance of it and highlight the fact that it protects everyone from ideas like yours, that apparently would be completely content with laws that would force things you don't like seeing into the shadows for your own selfish purposes of "ewww, I don't wanna see that".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not so, for it is not prohomosexuals but evangelical-types who are attacked and maligned by the mainstream, and fined and otherwise punished for not being politically correct, yet according to you we should have an excuse for committing suicide..

That's not a valid equivalency, as evangelicals have a support community they can lean on in most cases (their church, and their friends and family) when they have a rough day. Not all LGBT folks have that luxury.

It's when bullying is accompanied by lack of a support system that the issue of self-harm really raises it's ugly head.

As I demonstrated with the map I posted earlier. Locales with more accepting attitudes and more tolerance have significantly lower rates of self harm than areas like the deep south where they're still treated like 2nd class citizens in many ways.

In fact, if you look at very progressive countries where tolerance is promoted on that subject, the suicide rate among that community doesn't really differ from that of the general population. And there's a definite trend in the promotion of equality and the lowering of the suicide rate. For instance, the passage of laws promoting equality, and specific efforts to promote tolerance and anti-bullying awareness campaigns were directly linked to a 14% reduction in suicide rates among LGBT teens, and a 7% reduction in the overall high school suicide rate as well.

Treat people well, and have support systems available for people when they're not treated well, and suicide rates will drop. FACT

Intolerance is a learned behavior...it can be unlearned as well.

 

[Kenny'sID]

..well, I'm an atheist so I don't believe in God, so that's really a non-starter.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? Odd...or is that your way of saying you now realize you haven't a leg to stand on with that argument?

...ah, so you're suggesting that with no outside influences at all, if you had not been part of a particular religious system, you'd have just naturally come to the conclusion that two guys kissing is just as bad as someone shooting someone else with a gun?

I find that very hard to believe.

Show me where I made that claim? You're making things up again.

Why do I bring up the 1st amendment? Because it's important to illustrate the significance of it and highlight the fact that it protects everyone from ideas like yours, that apparently would be completely content with laws that would force things you don't like seeing into the shadows for your own selfish purposes of "ewww, I don't wanna see that".

I'm selfish? You ever heard the phrase "get a room"? You do realize there are those who voluntarily choose to not even make out in public, right? But that's right, it's always someone else with the problem.

And yeah, I've seen some of the outrageous things they do in public, things that will turn the stomach of some people, but I'm glad you're happy they have the freedom to give them all a bad, or worse name..

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? Odd...or is that your way of saying you now realize you haven't a leg to stand on with that argument?

Invoking God means one doesn't have a leg to stand on in an argument? That's interesting...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? Odd...or is that your way of saying you now realize you haven't a leg to stand on with that argument?

...because I'm pointing out the hypocrisy many evangelicals engage in when it comes to which "sins" they want to fixate on. They want to make the sins that they, personally, object to more (and have an easier time abstaining from) be viewed as "the really bad ones", while the other ones only get a tepid objection (if any objection at all).

Show me where I made that claim? You're making things up again.

Which claim:
Indoctrinated to oppose? Nope, not at all, I assure you, my dislike for something that is absolutely gross to me, all came naturally. You're just making things up again because you'd like to think that's all there is too it.

...and then there was this from earlier on (which started it all off)
We fixate because they insist on defending it as if it's no big deal. If someone came in here telling us murder/theft and so on were ok and started offering similar nonsense as they do for defense of Homosexuality
By your words, you're claiming that the defense of homosexuality would be on par with someone defending murder. I pointed out that's nonsense since one directly violates the rights of others (murder), while one's sexuality does not.

...that is, unless you're doing the old "imply then deny" routine?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Theocratic policies would make this country a miserable place to live. ...everyone having to hide everything and anything conservative fundamentalists found objectionable. We'd have practically no good music, movies, art, literature, etc... due to the demand that "you should have to keep that hidden cuz I don't like to see it"

Which is absurd. Evangelicals are quite active in music, movies, art, literature, etc., while a world in which the faith and love of the NT church was fully followed would be missing murder, rape, malevolence, racism, rape, porn, unwanted children, indolence, etc. but would be a society of love and productivity. Of course, the secular government would likely impose its ideology on it while demanding believers not to influence state policy.

Which society of Christian ethos stands in contrast to historical Christian theocracies or state atheism.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Which is absurd. Evangelicals are quite active in music, movies, art, literature, etc.,

So are Muslims -- and yet Muslim theocracies aren't all that pleasant.

while a world in which the faith and love of the NT church was fully followed would be missing murder, rape, malevolence, racism, rape, porn, unwanted children, indolence, etc. but would be a society of love and productivity.

Right -- everything will be perfect if we give you absolute authority... you'll forgive us if we decide not to put that to the test...

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I'm not using a false analogy, nor am I making a false equivalence or misrepresenting what you're saying.

You're claiming that the fact that they resort to self-harm (as a result of being bullied) is somehow evidence of the flaws with their lifestyle. That line of reasoning is nonsensical victim blaming.

I pointed out, not only is that a flaw with how society treats them, but that bullying for other things also leads to increased rates of self-harm and suicide attempts.

Things like "being a bookworm"/"nerd"/"shorter than the other kids"/etc... can all lead to bullying, and bullying (in general) comes with the risk of increased rates of self harm. We had a kid who was picked on for being a nerd when I was in 10th grade commit suicide. I guess, by your train of thought, the fact that he responded to the bullying so irrationally "attests to the fact that looking different and being really good at math are negative qualities"

By your logic, that "attests to" reading, being shorter than other people, or being viewed as a "nerd" for being smart are negative qualities...because a societal clique says so. That is what you're saying. Basically, you're victim blaming.

Wrong again. If being good at math was the problem then increased rates of suicide would characterize all who are, while resorting to suicide does attest to a problem of not being able to handle challenges to life. I am very sure if increased rates of suicide characterized Christians then atheists would have no problem connecting the two as testimony to the deficiency of that faith.

Of course, you could argue that homosexuality appeals to people who by nature were already predisposed to suicide, which would be a valid proposition, but it would not make homosexuality a solution as enabling them to overcome this.

In contrast, not only does a Christian as myself have strong compassion toward a suicidal lesbian and would try to stop them from committing it, but i would try to help them to overcome this, as others have and do thru Christ. Which does not mean lying to yourself, but actually being honest about yourself, while knowing that that not everything you feel is right and justified as acting out, but happiness is by knowing Christ and being an expression of His love and truth in service - despite being maligned, isolated and attacked by the majority and political powers.

The reason why that rate is more elevated in that particular community vs. other forms of bullying, is because the victims of other forms of bullying tend to at least have a support system at home, unlike many in the LGBT community who are more likely to be subjected to more mistreatment even by family members.

Rather, in the West it is any disapproval of homosexuality that places you in the cross hairs of politically correct bullies, and often distancing by family and society endangers employment, once one is "outed."

No matter how you slice it, your side is wrong on this one. You want to be able to mistreat a group of people, and when they end up with mental issues from the mistreatment (as many people LGBT or otherwise do after years of bullying and mistreatment), use that as evidence of what you perceive as a flaw with their lifestyle.

You mean by being friendly to the homosexuals i meet (including the daughters of two of my neighbors, and other i encounter) but being mistreated and bullied into affirming homosexual relations by society for opposing it? If the recourse of evangelicals to this was suicide then it would testify to a flaw in their beliefs, as it does with homosexuality or anything else that leads to that drastic solution. Scripture teaches to overcome, not succumb, and thus has endured both "Christian" as well as secular/atheistic persecution, by the grace of God.

Here's a novel idea: Treat people with respect, treat people equally and with respect, and don't publicly demonize them over your own personal beliefs, and they won't feel hopeless or try to commit suicide.

You mean do not act like homosexual activists, and respond by conscientiously opposing their agenda?

"If your differences didn't make me so angry, then I wouldn't have to mistreat you...so see, it's your fault for being different, because if your differences weren't so bad, then they wouldn't make me so angry" isn't a valid line of reasoning, and I think you know that.

The only definition of mistreatment you can lay at my feet is opposing homosexuality as being good and its expressions sanctioned as moral, and being pressured to affirm the same, thus suffering because of my traditional beliefs due to the hateful intolerance of so-called tolerant liberals, many of whom would exclude all such from employment and child rearing, as they seek to convert children to their own ethos and sinful lifestyle.