Superman's son comes out as bisexual in a new comic.

[Clizby WampusCat]

It says that all sinners are worthy of death.

How does this make it any better? You also quoted that verse in response to a gay superman. The context was clear.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand what your bible says. It says that homosexuals are worthy of death. That kind of language should be pushed back on.

I can understand the upset among Secularists when some Christians of a Theonomic bent try to press for a more legal type of influence with the Bible. But there is a difference between citing that in the O.T. era among the Israelites, homosexuality was disdained by Law and is spiritually detrimental VERSUS Christians of some sort or other today insisting that American Laws should incorporate the same measures.

How much "push back" are you wanting to make in this regard? Like the kind where it becomes illegal to resort to citing Paul the Apostle's teachings anywhere at anytime in any church, across the board?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not if they keep following the bible.

Most of them don't harp on the stuff about divorce and remarriage anymore. So with luck, the future will see fewer and fewer harping on these other hangups.

 

[Hammster]

How does this make it any better? You also quoted that verse in response to a gay superman. The context was clear.

It’s not supposed to be better. It’s supposed to show that we are all sinful and that there’s a coming judgement. The subject here just happens to be about homosexuality, and the scriptures are clear about its sinfulness.

 

[Hammster]

Most of them don't harp on the stuff about divorce and remarriage anymore. So with luck, the future will see fewer and fewer harping on these other hangups.

Let me know when one of those topics comes up. I have verses.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I can understand the upset among Secularists when some Christians of a Theonomic bent try to press for a more legal type of influence with the Bible. But there is a difference between citing that in the O.T. era among the Israelites, homosexuality was disdained by Law and is spiritually detrimental VERSUS Christians of some sort or other today insisting that American Laws should incorporate the same measures.

When Christians believe that God "wrote" the bible then it is problematic. Because then they believe that God at one point told people to kill homosexuals.

How much "push back" are you wanting to make in this regard? Like the kind where it becomes illegal to resort to citing Paul the Apostle's teachings anywhere at anytime in any church, across the board?

Nope, I never said this. I said hate speech is free speech. It should never be illegal to say things with the exception of certain situations the supreme court has outlined. But that does not mean those ideas should not be pushed back on by protest or peaceful confrontation etc.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It’s not supposed to be better. It’s supposed to show that we are all sinful and that there’s a coming judgement. The subject here just happens to be about homosexuality, and the scriptures are clear about its sinfulness.

Yes, Leviticus says to kill them, not wait for God's judgement like other sins. So it is a sin that has different punishment than others at least at one time in history.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, Leviticus says to kill them, not wait for God's judgement like other sins. So it is a sin that has different punishment than others at least at one time in history.

Can you quote the verse? And the context?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When Christians believe that God "wrote" the bible then it is problematic. Because then they believe that God at one point told people to kill homosexuals.

ok. I understand you think this, but we've been over this kind of topic in the past and I think we've both stated our respective positions on it.

Nope, I never said this. I said hate speech is free speech. It should never be illegal to say things with the exception of certain situations the supreme court has outlined. But that does not mean those ideas should not be pushed back on by protest or peaceful confrontation etc.

You're correct. You didn't say that, and fortunately I didn't imply that you did. Hence, the reason I asked you two questions rather than making statements of qualification, the purpose of which was to invite you to clarify your meaning, and you have done that.

As for push back, I understand your advocacy on this point as well since my entire Master's Degree involved working through a secular education for the promotion of various forms of Liberal Social Activism on behalf of socially disadvantaged and deprived groups. So, don't think I don't empathize with folks who have felt the direct brunt of prejudice and discrimination. However, what I am concerned about is that the supposed supposition of your form of political push back isn't much different in form than that of some politically invested Christians, that your intent (along with groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation) is to more or less place a muffler on all kinds of Christian speech in the public arena.

Am I wrong in having this concern, that the social measures you're advocating essentially lead to a kind of coerced shutdown or 'cancellation' of Christian speech and thought?

 

[Bradskii]

Why? It’s Christian Forums. I am pretty sure it’s allowed.

Quoting scripture is obviously allowed. I guess what people might want to know is how you interpret it. You must know that some people take this section literally: 'that those who practice such things are worthy of death'.

I'm certain that you don't think that homosexuals should be killed. No reasonable person could think that. But just quoting that passage without further comment doesn't give it any context. Let's just say that it's not a good look...

 

[Hammster]

Quoting scripture is obviously allowed. I guess what people might want to know is how you interpret it. You must know that some people take this section literally: 'that those who practice such things are worthy of death'.

I'm certain that you don't think that homosexuals should be killed. No reasonable person could think that. But just quoting that passage without further comment doesn't give it any context. Let's just say that it's not a good look...

All sinners are worthy of death. But in this context, homosexuality is the evidence of God’s wrath. So it’s not a good idea to be supporting something that is evidence of God’s wrath on humanity.

 

[Bradskii]

All sinners are worthy of death. But in this context, homosexuality is the evidence of God’s wrath. So it’s not a good idea to be supporting something that is evidence of God’s wrath on humanity.

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask. I certainly didn't ask, or was suggesting, that you might support homosexuality if you didn't quote that passage or read it in a non literal sense.

Which was the question. And not answering it only gives credence to those who might suggest that you do take it literally. Which again I would suggest, is a position no reasonable person could take. Clarifying your position in that regard would prevent those people from thinking that of you.

 

[Hammster]

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask. I certainly didn't ask, or was suggesting, that you might support homosexuality if you didn't quote that passage or read it in a non literal sense.

Which was the question. And not answering it only gives credence to those who might suggest that you do take it literally. Which again I would suggest, is a position no reasonable person could take. Clarifying your position in that regard would prevent those people from thinking that of you.

I do take it literally. I take all of scripture literally.

 

[Bradskii]

I do take it literally. I take all of scripture literally.

Then people's perceptions of you will reflect the fact that you think that homosexuals should be killed. To be perfectly honest, that a moderator feels he can espouse such extreme views makes me wonder what else might be allowed. Seems odd that one cannot suggest that covid is a conspiracy (a quite reasonable rule) yet one can propose that gay people be put to death.

I should ask for clarification on the rules so I don't fall foul of them myself.

 

[pitabread]

I do take it literally. I take all of scripture literally.

You believe the Earth is flat?

 

[Bradskii]

You believe the Earth is flat?

Talking trees?

 

[Hammster]

You believe the Earth is flat?

No.

 

[Hammster]

Talking trees?

No.

 

[Hammster]

Then people's perceptions of you will reflect the fact that you think that homosexuals should be killed. To be perfectly honest, that a moderator feels he can espouse such extreme views makes me wonder what else might be allowed. Seems odd that one cannot suggest that covid is a conspiracy (a quite reasonable rule) yet one can propose that gay people be put to death.

I should ask for clarification on the rules so I don't fall foul of them myself.

I never said that. And I have been clear, but you don’t want to take me at face value. You want me to say that homosexuals should be stoned, and that’s not my view.

 

[Bradskii]

No.

Literal apparently means something different to you than it means to me. Or it means the same and you only apply it when it you think it should be applied. I'd guess the second. But you are free to confirm that.