Christian hate & insanity

[ViaCrucis]

I would go along with that fact that homophobia is everywhere. However the wording you have chosen raises a good point, that Christians see homosexuals as needing sympathy like there is something wrong with them. This is homophobic behaviour in my opinion, I cannot go along with thinking something is wrong because it was thought so thousands of years ago. Society has changed a lot and we are more civilised in our behaviour, or most of us anyway.

I think hedrick's point about sympathy wasn't about there being something wrong with them so much as sympathy concerning the way they are, as people, mistreated in our society. At least that's how I took it. Christians are supposed to be on the side of the mistreated, the rejected and the social outcast in imitation of Jesus who hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers and "sinners".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Humble Pie]

Hello. I have been away for a while after all of my questions had been answered, but I have been prompted again recently. I keep coming across a lot of what I can only describe as hatred from many Christians, which to me seems incompatible with what I would imagine Jesus would preach.

Some of the main areas are:

1. The main topics that generally revolve around women, have a strong mysgyonistic attitude towards rape and the rights of rape victims.

"'it must have been God's will for her to be raped' and recommended that she attend church more frequently."" Quoted from a chaplain

2. Homosexuals seem to be classed as sub-human, immoral monsters that choose to be gay. If I remember correctly, the subject is actually forbidden on this forum, are you ashamed of what God wants? Can we please discuss this in a civil way?

"Say what you will but homosexuals are not even human. They are diseased, degenerate creatures who mock humans. The goal that they will freely admit to is to erase any trace of decency or humanity from the planet until we are all wallowing in filth and disease like them. If you are religous at all you recognize that this is the work of satan and that they have no souls, just lust for each other"

3. Atheists being thought of as having no morals is also a common theme

"Could atheists talk themselves into anything? The methodical erosion of ones values and morals can be so damaging, to the point that it's acceptable that"Atheists eat babies."

An atheist may still be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will not have a final reason or authority to which they can appeal."



Now to the insanity, how do you know if a Christian has crossed the line and are infact, crazy? If someone started speaking to me about demons I would question if they were playing with a full deck...

"Leviathon is a spirit I have battled as well. It was a hard battle but was won. It was about four months or more ago. My wife and I were in McDonalds and were having a conversation with an angel and Leviathon had come up. I told the angel that i wanted to fight this demon and he said I could. On the way back to the hotel I asked the angel if he could bring the demon to a predestinated place and he said yes. I figured that since Leviathon was from the depths of the sea he would be used to the cold water so I filled the tub up with scalding hot water and blessed the water. The angels (there were two now) brought Leviathon bound to the tub and fought with me. We all pulled our swords from our hips and began running this demon through with all my strength and everything I had. I would say it took atleast half an hour or more. We were all spent but the battle was won."


My question is how can anyone be so hateful and still proclaim to be a loving Christian? Why are 'heathens' hated and not loved with conversion attempted? Why do you care if one man is a homosexual, why can't they just be left to do what they want and why can't God handle this on his own? Why is it only Christians (or Muslims) that state that homosexuality is a choice, whilst everyone else agrees that it is not? I could not choose to find a man attractive, it repulses me the same way it repulses a homosexual to imagine being with a woman. It seems they are hated for being 'unnatural' whilst your entire religion worships those that prove to be as unnatural as possible ie supernatural!

I mean no offence to any individual, but I am sick of people like the Pope preaching hatred, it does nothing to help the world.

Some people have different views to others, you need a thick skin. The posts that concern me are the ones made by 'Christian' men who appear to be pro inappropriate content, and ones who talk sleezy like marriage is based on booty or they talk down about their wives. I avoid them because I believe their attitudes are wrong. Maybe you could do the same.

btw the leviathan story you referenced was pretty funny, you have to admit!!

 

[Curious Atheist]

That's pretty sick. I don't see how anybody can go there unless the woman herself organized the rape of other women, but even then, that's pretty sick. As a Christian, I believe in free will, responsibility, and a loving God. I do not believe that crimes like this are God's will, though God is smart enough and powerful enough to turn them around for good.


That's beyond the pale. I as a Christian believe that homosexuals are people, and that it is not how you are tempted that makes you a sinner, but saying "yes" to the temptation does. Hence homosexual lust and actions are sinful. Jesus would love a homosexual like he loved the tax collectors - he certainly treated them with decency and reached out to them, but he didn't say it was OK for them to be greedy and corrupt. Neither would Jesus say that it's OK to live a homosexual lifestyle, though he would of course reach out to homosexuals and treat them with decency.

So as long as you treat someone with decency it is OK to think of them as a sinner because a book says so? I don’t think you are getting the point, there is nothing evil about loving someone you don’t personally approve of. You don’t have to go back long in American history (and there isn’t much American history) before you would find a time when an inter-racial relationship would have been considered taboo (or result in a lynching). It was Christians then who said God disapproved, with the KKK being the most famous. You can say ‘well that wasn’t all Christians’ etc etc but there were 500,000 members of the KKK and I would wager that the attitudes shown towards gays today will be seen under the same light in 50 years’ time too. Christians have used God to hate all kinds of groups and justify all manners of evil, I am just trying to point out the irrationality of it and I honestly don’t believe Jesus would have approved of any of it. I can tolerate most behaviour but I really cannot stand irrational prejudice towards innocent people by entire organised groups of people.

I'm not going to say that atheists necessarily have no morals, but I can see where the second quote actually makes sense about atheists not having a final reason or authority for having good morals. And some disturbing rejection of morals has come from atheists/agnostics. But for you, as an atheist, if you disagree that there is no final reason or authority that an atheist can appeal to, then what is that final reason or authority to you?

Good question! Well I would say that my morals come from the same place as everyone else, from the culture and society of the time/my parents. If I was raised 2,000 years ago I would assume I would think men were superior to women, thought hanging and stoning adulterers was OK and would probably believe the world was flat and full of witches and beasties. I might believe in any number of Gods like Zeus and Thor. But thankfully science has answered many questions and we live in a more enlightened age, yet thankfully still full of mysteries. So I have been raised in a far more civilised and less ignorant age, were empathy and fairness are rampant.
I can also say that I follow these moral rules because I want to, I know it is the right thing to do and I receive no joy from harming anyone else. I also, like everyone else feel good when I can be kind to others and give charitably. Sorry to answer your question with a question, but why does it make you any more moral if you follow rules because you believe to have a final authority? Does it somehow make your charity or kindness more worthwhile if you are doing it to get a reward after death, or due to fear of being punished with hell? It can be argued that because I feel good, my actions are inevitably never selfless and indeed selfish. But neither is trying to please an imaginary parent figure who is always watching. You must notice that dragging the morals from the past into the 21st century is never a good idea, we should learn from the past using our modern understanding. Not just repeat the same mistakes for the small selfish hope that someone watching might approve.
If hating gays was truly moral and the commandment of God then there wouldn’t be such strict rules on this forum to prevent people from trying to talk about it. I am surprised I haven’t received another warning for this thread already. I think if you are just honest with yourselves you know you have your own conscience and if you are clever enough to rationalise, you can make a list of immoral actions in the bible that have no place in the modern world.

I believe in angels, demons, and spiritual warfare, but not like that. What I believe in is more like praying for people, and saving their lives by doing so and following up with them. If there's a demon, you exorcise it, but you don't go hunting for demons, and you don't face them with earthly weapons.

But why would you believe something is a demon when there are far more likely and rational explanations? Is everyone in a mental institution or everyone in prison a victim of an invisible demon, pretending to be something else? How do you possibly end up as demon as the most likely explanation?

Well, there's religious Jews too. But to answer your question, what is often ignored is that once you start going down the road of a particular sin, that sin becomes easier to commit next time. Keep at it, and you find yourself trapped in it, so that it's almost impossible to say "no" to it.

My question was why you think it is a choice, not if you think it is a sin. Why does everyone agree you cannot choose your sexuality other than the religious? Answer this question honestly, can any of you wake up and decide to desire the same sex? What about animals or children? Can you just decide to find these things sexually attractive, some people are aroused by buildings or other inanimate objects but none of these things can just be chosen. I could no sooner find a man or wall attractive than I could fly through the air, there is no choice involved! I find women attractive, that is the way I was born but it wasn’t how we were all born.

Our clergy are to be good examples of how a Christian should live, so that precludes a practicing homosexual from being a member. If a gay person were Christian, strong in the faith, celibate, and otherwise meets the Biblical requirements, I would consider him as a potential minister and he would of course need to be loved such that straight ministers are.

Well, I hope that is one small win…As long as they remain celibate then they aren’t considered to be unworthy of teaching the Bible, sounds like equality to me.

This is interesting though, do all members of the clergy get checked out so see if they are secretly thinking about any other sins? What other thought crimes can they be sacked for? I mean what if they were overweight, would this disqualify them too?

 

[Curious Atheist]

Some people have different views to others, you need a thick skin. The posts that concern me are the ones made by 'Christian' men who appear to be pro inappropriate content, and ones who talk sleezy like marriage is based on booty or they talk down about their wives. I avoid them because I believe their attitudes are wrong. Maybe you could do the same.

btw the leviathan story you referenced was pretty funny, you have to admit!!

I am lucky enough to live in the UK, I don't have to deal with too many crazies as religion is dying out. But the problem I face is what Americans have as the 1st ammednment, the separation of church and state. It bothers me that some gay-hating chap in a dress with no authority at all can change the governements stance on things like gay marriage. I don't like feeling like ignorance can keep us all in the dark ages. Gay rights and equality for women are some of the last things the church is trying to keep its claws into and doesn't want to let go.
But I do appreciate the thick skin comment, we should all try to be like that. But this is a good place to ask the questions that bother me, whilst occasionally being annoyed by Muslims burning poppies or abortion clinics being blow up by fundamentalists

The leviathon story is very funny, it is obviously a cherry-picked crazy story to make a point. The serious point I was trying to make though is how do you know if the author of that little gem was actually insane or not?

 

[Curious Atheist]

Wow talking about stirring up the hornets nest, lol. Most Christians I have met are loving, compassionate people though I will admit that are some nutty ones out there that are all of what you describe. It sad, but true. It's a balancing act between hating sin and loving the sinner.

That has been my experience too for the most part. The part about homosexuals though is a gray area, as those who do not have any hate still seem to believe it is wrong to be gay or hope that they change from their 'sin'. It is no different than saying it is a sin to be blind 'so you cannot appreciate God's creation' then disapproving of the blind. They don't deserve your disapproval or any inequality.

Just found this which is a perfect examples:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17693947

This is the important quote " "non-profit Christian initiative seeking to support men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression. It respects the rights of individuals who identify as gay who do not seek change."

They respect the rights of Gays, but still want them to change and thinks they should

 

[technofox]

Some people have different views to others, you need a thick skin. The posts that concern me are the ones made by 'Christian' men who appear to be pro inappropriate content, and ones who talk sleezy like marriage is based on booty or they talk down about their wives. I avoid them because I believe their attitudes are wrong. Maybe you could do the same.

btw the leviathan story you referenced was pretty funny, you have to admit!!

I would be concerned just as much as you are about said Christian men. Thinking your wife is nothing more than a booty call and being proinappropriate content is gross; however, your point is spot on in ignoring the more unsavory individuals.

 

[technofox]

That has been my experience too for the most part. The part about homosexuals though is a gray area, as those who do not have any hate still seem to believe it is wrong to be gay or hope that they change from their 'sin'. It is no different than saying it is a sin to be blind 'so you cannot appreciate God's creation' then disapproving of the blind. They don't deserve your disapproval or any inequality.

Homosexuality is a sin though there is not denying that; however, Christians are called to love their neighbors. It's sad how some people taking things to far. Personally I believe whatever you do in life is between you and God, we are all sinners and being is no worse than someone who habitually lies. It's tough for some people to realize that they ate no more righteous than any other. Our righteous as Christians is not our own, but from Christ himself, it's just that some believers forget that.

 

[hedrick]

I think hedrick's point about sympathy wasn't about there being something wrong with them so much as sympathy concerning the way they are, as people, mistreated in our society. At least that's how I took it. Christians are supposed to be on the side of the mistreated, the rejected and the social outcast in imitation of Jesus who hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers and "sinners".

-CryptoLutheran

That's right. I meant it generally as describing a normal Christian attitude towards others.

I agree that homophobia exists, and is a problem. I'm not convinced that when opposition to homosexuality is based on a consistent position of inerrancy that this is a fair characterization of it. Nor do I think that conservative Christianity is always driven by that kind of hatred, though we can all see situations where it seems to be.

Inerrancy goes back to the 16th or 17th Cent. It arose from arguments with Catholics over authority. We may suspect that its popularity in the 19th Cent US was partly due to its usefulness in supporting slavery, but its usefulness in supporting social conservatism is certainly not the only motivation.

The greater religious conservatism in the US than the UK is not unrelated to the greater continuing influence of religion in the US. The US is in general a more popular culture than the UK. We've been that way from the beginning.

Our traditional churches are not very different from those in the UK in theological approach. However the US has always had a very large Christian population that was skeptical of that type of Christianity. Indeed during most of our history, active church members were a fairly small minority. During the late 19th and 20th Cent, we saw the growth of populist Christian movements, including Pentecostals and Evangelicals. They rejected the more scholarly approach taken by the traditional churches. While the Methodist movement in the UK was kind of the equivalent, during the modern period you don't have the same kind of broad-based popular Christianity.

 

[Sketcher]

So as long as you treat someone with decency it is OK to think of them as a sinner because a book says so?

Absolutely - Jesus did. To deny this would be to deny either that the tax collectors were greedy, dishonest, and corrupt men who stole from their fellow countrymen as much as they wanted beyond the required tax with the full backing of the Roman authorities, or to deny that Jesus loved them in spite of what they did.

Love the sinner, hate the sin - Jesus did it. More recently, Martin Luther King Jr. did it. I have no problems with it.

I don’t think you are getting the point, there is nothing evil about loving someone you don’t personally approve of.

In your opinion.

You don’t have to go back long in American history (and there isn’t much American history) before you would find a time when an inter-racial relationship would have been considered taboo (or result in a lynching). It was Christians then who said God disapproved, with the KKK being the most famous.

But was that based on a Biblical argument, or was it based on the prevailing prejudices of the time? It was not Biblical, you will not find a solid Biblical case for the racism that existed in this country in that era or any other era. And you will certainly not find a Biblical case for the terror tactics the KKK used either. This is what I call "liberalism in the other direction" because instead of staying with what Scripture has always said, people allowed their own prejudices and cultural norms to pervert their interpretation of Scripture rather than submitting their hearts and minds to its true message.

Good question! Well I would say that my morals come from the same place as everyone else, from the culture and society of the time/my parents. If I was raised 2,000 years ago I would assume I would think men were superior to women, thought hanging and stoning adulterers was OK and would probably believe the world was flat and full of witches and beasties. I might believe in any number of Gods like Zeus and Thor. But thankfully science has answered many questions and we live in a more enlightened age, yet thankfully still full of mysteries. So I have been raised in a far more civilised and less ignorant age, were empathy and fairness are rampant.

So what is your basis for saying you are any more moral now than another person of your intellect would be 2,000 years ago? Back in the days of slavery, crucifixion, limiting social hierarchies, and cuthroat politics? After all, according to your argument the people back then didn't know any better.

I can also say that I follow these moral rules because I want to, I know it is the right thing to do and I receive no joy from harming anyone else. I also, like everyone else feel good when I can be kind to others and give charitably. Sorry to answer your question with a question, but why does it make you any more moral if you follow rules because you believe to have a final authority? Does it somehow make your charity or kindness more worthwhile if you are doing it to get a reward after death, or due to fear of being punished with hell? It can be argued that because I feel good, my actions are inevitably never selfless and indeed selfish. But neither is trying to please an imaginary parent figure who is always watching.

Good point, but there's another reason why I do what I do morally - Jesus, who died in my place, which I didn't deserve, would have me live in such a way. It's not just to avoid punishment, or to gain reward - eternal punishment is no longer a threat for me, and eternal reward is a lifetime away and for all intents and purposes now, just serves as an encouragement. I do the good I do to honor Jesus, because it is the least I can do for him. I love others because Jesus said to love others - one could say my past of being unloved would serve as a motivator, but that can move you to not love others and step on them to advance yourself as much as it can to show compassion to them. I need more than that. And if I'm a worse person without Christ than you are without Christ, then praise be to Christ for moving me to be a better person than what I would otherwise be!

You must notice that dragging the morals from the past into the 21st century is never a good idea, we should learn from the past using our modern understanding. Not just repeat the same mistakes for the small selfish hope that someone watching might approve.

Such as what now?

“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you."

“You shall not murder."

“You shall not commit adultery."

“You shall not steal."

“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

"Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness."

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD."

“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

If hating gays was truly moral and the commandment of God

Is that the command of God, or is the command of God to abstain from homosexual activity?

But why would you believe something is a demon when there are far more likely and rational explanations? Is everyone in a mental institution or everyone in prison a victim of an invisible demon, pretending to be something else? How do you possibly end up as demon as the most likely explanation?

That's case-by-case, really. I'm not one of those demon-behind-every-temptation Christians. We sin enough without the extra help, but sometimes they're there causing extra trouble. When there is supernatural occult activity for example, demons are at work.

My question was why you think it is a choice, not if you think it is a sin. Why does everyone agree you cannot choose your sexuality other than the religious? Answer this question honestly, can any of you wake up and decide to desire the same sex?

What I'm saying is there's a slippery slope of choices, and the first action will be a choice. I do not claim to speak for those who liked the same sex all their lives and didn't have to make one of those choices to start on the slope and get that going. I'm just telling you how depravity is linked with choices, whether it's sexual or not. I do not believe this is absent from the lives of many gay or bisexual people. Now, there can be temptations which were just always there, and I don't consider homosexual temptation to be a choice. What one does with it is a choice - people can say "yes" or "no" to the temptation, and that's a choice. I'm a straight man myself, but checking out women is a choice. I can look there, or not. I can look up something on the Internet, or not. I can choose to pursue a woman who is already taken, or not. In the same way, a homosexual has the same kinds of choices.

This is interesting though, do all members of the clergy get checked out so see if they are secretly thinking about any other sins? What other thought crimes can they be sacked for? I mean what if they were overweight, would this disqualify them too?

We don't demand perfection, just good examples. A pastor shouldn't be fornicating, committing adultery, or in a homosexual relationship, to name a few things. We have high standards for behavior, which can only be lived out with a certain purity of heart, since if there's sin in your heart, it will come out as action sooner or later.

 

[hedrick]

So as long as you treat someone with decency it is OK to think of them as a sinner because a book says so? I don’t think you are getting the point, there is nothing evil about loving someone you don’t personally approve of.

Christians believe that we should love even enemies, so loving and treating with decency isn't an issue. But even a liberal like me is going to have some behaviors that I think are wrong.

Any useful kind of tolerance is going to have to include dealing with significant differences of opinion. We are going to have people who differ on what is right and wrong, so they are going to think that other people are doing things that are wrong. As long as they treat them properly, we should be able to live with such a situation.

People will have different ways of deciding what is right. A lot of it depends upon tradition. I find the best non-Biblical basis for ethics to be something that's been called "reflective equilibrium." It's almost certainly neither practical nor desirable to rebuild ethics from scratch on some kind of completely rational basis. Rather, we start with our existing ethics, and engage in ongoing adjustment based on experience and critical reflection, and go from there. As far as I can tell, "generic" secular US (and UK, I assume) ethics uses this process starting from general Christian premises, but is willing to make adjustments more quickly. So it has diverged from the conservative Christian community.

Where the US is unusual is that we try to allow for multiple traditions, mandating only truly essential standards. So we're going to have a Christian ethical tradition based on Scripture (actually several, because there are different traditional ways to approach it), and a Muslim tradition based on the Quran and the hadiths. That's perfectly OK as long as we don't push it so far that we let someone opt out of laws against murder or abuses of children or women. Or gays, for that matter.

I'm actually a part of a different tradition than the majority here, and my judgement is closer to yours on most issues. But still, I think we need to allow evangelicals to use their own tradition, even if I think it's closer to the 1st Cent Pharisees than Jesus. They're going to consider people "sinners" that I wouldn't And visa versa, I think, as well.

 

[elman]

I understand your sentiment, but it does seem like you are saying that if you don't believe in God then there is only meaningless after death. But that doesn't mean that there is a God, it just means you want to believe in more and probably find the idea of death fearful. But does fear of death or the want for more really ustify belieiving in the supernatural with nothing more than anectdotal evidence and faith?

I am not saying the belief in God creates meaning. I am say there being a God creates meaning outside ourselves that might transcend our present existence. I don't fear death anymore than you probably; and most Christians face death calmer than those who do not believe in God.

 

[Harry3142]

Curious Atheist-

We Christians do have a code of conduct which we are to abide by, and it is our conduct measured against this code that determines if we are sincere in our faith, or it's 'just for show':

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

Note that among those acts listed under 'the acts of the sinful nature' is 'impurity'. This is the heading that homosexuality falls under, so as Christians this activity is taboo to us. But 'hatred' and 'fits of rage' are also listed under 'the acts of the sinful nature'. So even as we see homosexuality as offlimits, we must also see exhibiting hatred, or even rage, against those who practise it as equally offlimits. None of the actions listed in that paragraph are to be seen as approved Christian conduct, and that includes the emotions, such as hatred, rage, ambition, etc.

Instead, our conduct as Christians must be within the borders outlined under the heading 'fruit of the Spirit'. It is those 9 'fruit' which are the parameters for everything that we say and do. If our words and actions are to have assurance of being 'in synch' with what God wants of us, then 'the fruit of the Spirit' must be the impetus for those words and actions. They are to be the core of our new nature as Christians.

 

[oi_antz]

It bothers me that some gay-hating chap in a dress with no authority at all can change the governements stance on things like gay marriage.

Whose right is it to define "holy matrimony"? Does that right belong to a secular government or a holy priest of God? Why is a civil union not sufficient?

 

[Curious Atheist]

[FONT=&quot]Absolutely - Jesus did. To deny this would be to deny either that the tax collectors were greedy, dishonest, and corrupt men who stole from their fellow countrymen as much as they wanted beyond the required tax with the full backing of the Roman authorities, or to deny that Jesus loved them in spite of what they did.

Love the sinner, hate the sin - Jesus did it. More recently, Martin Luther King Jr. did it. I have no problems with it.[/FONT]

Yes but homosexuality isn’t being banned from churches or marriage, homosexuals are. So whether or not you claim that your church ‘tolerates’ gays or otherwise they are being widely seen as sinful and not to be mixed with. Are you all comfortable letting your children socialise with a homosexual family and their child? I imagine honestly most of you wouldn’t, so whether you are hateful or not you are still causing significant harm and unjust inequality with your actions or lack of action. But let’s not get too bogged down with the gay debate, I am more trying to understand why Christian hate is tolerated in general.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In your opinion.[/FONT]

Yes it is my opinion that it is not evil to not love those that an out-of-date book tells us to love. However freedom of speech and thought is great, as long as your opinion on what is right and wrong doesn’t impact on other people’s rights, freedom and lives. Unfortunately, they do. The Catholic church for example is a multi-billion dollar organisation that holds large influence amongst its followers. If the Pope tells Africans to stop using condoms, millions of babies are born with AIDs and millions die. If the Pope/Church tells its flock that something is a sin, that sin is avoided likewise if they say a certain type of person is sinful they will avoid affiliating with that group. I can tolerate angry Muslims marching through our streets calling for all Westerners to die, but if they ever harm anyone then they have crossed the line. That is my point, your ignorant views on gay rights has severe impacts on innocent people so it isn’t just an opinion anymore.

[FONT=&quot]But was that based on a Biblical argument, or was it based on the prevailing prejudices of the time? It was not Biblical, you will not find a solid Biblical case for the racism that existed in this country in that era or any other era. And you will certainly not find a Biblical case for the terror tactics the KKK used either. This is what I call "liberalism in the other direction" because instead of staying with what Scripture has always said, people allowed their own prejudices and cultural norms to pervert their interpretation of Scripture rather than submitting their hearts and minds to its true message. [/FONT]

Sorry but you are being incredibly hypocritical with that comment. How can you possibly condemn others for “[[FONT=&quot]allowed] their own prejudices and cultural norms to pervert their interpretation of Scripture” when you do it all the time? Here is a quote regarding homosexuality:[/FONT]
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
So if you follow the Bible, you should be up for putting gays to death. I could also list of many other barbaric acts cited in the OT but I do not need to. How can you rationalise not putting them to death, unless you are following modern culture that tells us that it is wrong? You either follow the rules of the Bible or admit that your own sense of morals is more powerful, which shows that Bible is not needed for our morals.
But regarding the KKK, they merely twisted scripture for their own ends the exact same way you and the other ‘personal religion’ people do, you just re-interpret and cherry pick the parts you want to believe and ignore the rest. So the KKK were racists, you are a homophobic and I think history will condemn you and your Church for the pain you cause, which is already happening for the last centuries of genocide and paedophilia and intolerance.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But So what is your basis for saying you are any more moral now than another person of your intellect would be 2,000 years ago? Back in the days of slavery, crucifixion, limiting social hierarchies, and cuthroat politics? After all, according to your argument the people back then didn't know any better. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have already answered that question. I rationalise that I am more moral today because of how society and cultures have evolved us into a more civilised people. I think I am more moral because I am not taking my morals from a book written in a time when slavery, crucifixion etc were considered normal….can you say the same? Or do you again just choose to ignore the parts where God condones stoning women to death for adultery, infanticide, rape, slavery and torture? Don’t lie to yourself and try to suggest the Bible is a good source of morals, you already need inherent morals to judge what is applicable today and what was the zeitgeist of the people when the Bible was written. If you then decide it is 100% how do you then rationalise silly stories like Noah’s Ark? It is absurd and another act of genocide by God’s hand….which again shows his lack of foresight. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Good point, but there's another reason why I do what I do morally - Jesus, who died in my place, which I didn't deserve, would have me live in such a way. It's not just to avoid punishment, or to gain reward - eternal punishment is no longer a threat for me, and eternal reward is a lifetime away and for all intents and purposes now, just serves as an encouragement. I do the good I do to honor Jesus, because it is the least I can do for him. I love others because Jesus said to love others - one could say my past of being unloved would serve as a motivator, but that can move you to not love others and step on them to advance yourself as much as it can to show compassion to them. I need more than that. And if I'm a worse person without Christ than you are without Christ, then praise be to Christ for moving me to be a better person than what I would otherwise be![/FONT]

Sorry again, but that is the exact same reason. You have just called it a ‘motivator’ instead of the reward I mentioned. What exactly is the difference between a motivator and a bribe? Because surely you cannot just choose to love someone, not in any genuine way because seldom have I heard a less sincere expression of emotion than “[FONT=&quot]I love others because Jesus said to love”. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you cannot find any reason to be good other than to please Jesus, then I would argue you are not pleasing Jesus at all, because I would guess he was after some genuine emotion and genuine selfless behaviour. I think genuine altruism shows far better respect and honour than when you have the underlying motive to receive praise or any other motive other than just to be good.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Such as what now?

“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you."

“You shall not murder."

“You shall not commit adultery."

“You shall not steal."

“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

"Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness."

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD."

“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."[/FONT]

There are some important morals missing from the commandments you add for yourself. ‘Do not rape”, “Do not molest or harm children’ etc or with a modern slant “Do not use the internet and technology to deprive your neighbour of their privacy”. Yet although the list if endless, I do not need to list them because they are obvious, which I am sure you would have retorted yourself ‘well of course it is wrong to rape’. But how do you know it is wrong to rape if your only follow what the Bible says?
Also please do not confuse not being convinced God exists or wrote a book to someone who rejects anything and everything in the Bible. I think if Jesus was real then he indeed spread some great moral messages that are still applicable. I am saying though that not all are relevant in the 21st century, thankfully our inherent morals do shine through. Some light of rationality is occasionally shone across the pages so we can now all agree that there are no witches, they do not need to be burned. We know mythical creatures like unicorns, leviathans etc are only myth. We also know for 100% fact that it is impossible to collect and fit every species of animal on a wooden boat. We also decide that stoning people to death for minor crimes is wrong and every one of us contradict what the Bible tells us to do EVERY SINGLE DAY. We now have almost entire equality for the sexes and eventually will have total equality for homosexuality. I have no doubts that civilisation is becoming less barbaric and more tolerant, I just wish the religious masses didn’t have to drag their feet every bloody inch of the way and try and keep us trapped in the dark ages…again.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Is that the command of God, or is the command of God to abstain from homosexual activity?[/FONT]

Well it is my understanding that being a sinner isn’t a good idea, neither is socialising and approving of sinners. If being gay is a sin, why risk your immortal soul by having anything to do with it? So whether it is hate, avoidance or otherwise the end result is for them to be ostracised, which I see as a hateful thing to do. But whilst on the subject, god also commanded that gluttony is a sin, so do you have the same attitude you have towards gays as you do to the fast-food loving obese? They are showing no restraint at all, never mind just failing to deny their natural desires for love.

[FONT=&quot]That's case-by-case, really. I'm not one of those demon-behind-every-temptation Christians. We sin enough without the extra help, but sometimes they're there causing extra trouble. When there is supernatural occult activity for example, demons are at work.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So it is a demon when you say so? Surely that isn’t enough to justify something so utterly…bizarre and removed from reality? Especially when it flies in the face of sound scientific evidence? Cults etc are all easy to explain with basic psychology…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What I'm saying is there's a slippery slope of choices, and the first action will be a choice. I do not claim to speak for those who liked the same sex all their lives and didn't have to make one of those choices to start on the slope and get that going. I'm just telling you how depravity is linked with choices, whether it's sexual or not. I do not believe this is absent from the lives of many gay or bisexual people. Now, there can be temptations which were just always there, and I don't consider homosexual temptation to be a choice. What one does with it is a choice - people can say "yes" or "no" to the temptation, and that's a choice. I'm a straight man myself, but checking out women is a choice. I can look there, or not. I can look up something on the Internet, or not. I can choose to pursue a woman who is already taken, or not. In the same way, a homosexual has the same kinds of choices.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] A slippery slope to what exactly? There seems to be this underlying irrational bias that being gay is just bad, but what terrible thing happens? I cannot choose to go out and be gay, it isn’t how I was born but I can’t see any reason why somebody else being born differently has any negative impact on…anything at all. If I had children with a gay teacher at school, so what? They aren’t going to ‘catch gay’ and I can’t see any harm even if this was possible. In fact if you want to look at a slippery slope scale, if more people were gay perhaps there would be a decline in the speed at which we are overpopulating the planet. This would help solve world hunger, habitat loss and a plethora of other problems. So I am all for it, I wish 50% of us were gay in that case![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We don't demand perfection, just good examples. A pastor shouldn't be fornicating, committing adultery, or in a homosexual relationship, to name a few things. We have high standards for behavior, which can only be lived out with a certain purity of heart, since if there's sin in your heart, it will come out as action sooner or later.[/FONT]

Well if we agree that a person can be born gay, then surely a gay pastor is the pinnacle of a good example? They are surely showing they can refrain from putting their desires in to practice? Although there is nothing less natural than never having sex ever, I also personally believe that trying to subdue powerful sexual behaviour is dangerous. Just look at the high rates of child abuse in the churches by frustrated celibate priests.

 

[Curious Atheist]

Whose right is it to define "holy matrimony"? Does that right belong to a secular government or a holy priest of God? Why is a civil union not sufficient?

To be honest, I am not the best person to debate the merits of marriage since I don't have any real interest in the subject. I am just saying that if being married is important to other people, then there surely must be a very good reason to deny it. So far I have heard only faith and tradition based arguments that seem to spawn from bias and ignorance.
So tell me, if two of the same sex are married what terrible harm will be done? Perhaps in your eyes they will be condemned to hell, along with billions of un-baptised children. But that is your opinion that your are welcome to as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's lives...the sad fact is that such a large population of people like Christians hold quite a lot of sway and can cause significant harm.

 

[Curious Atheist]

I am not saying the belief in God creates meaning. I am say there being a God creates meaning outside ourselves that might transcend our present existence. I don't fear death anymore than you probably; and most Christians face death calmer than those who do not believe in God.

You seem to be arguing that without a God life is meaningless, so therefore there must be a God because you so dearly want it to be true. This kind of "final consequence" argument is entirely illogical, I really don't understand how you think this is a convincing argument to the existence of the supernatural...nevermind a personal timeless God and other stories easily disproved through science.

 

[technofox]

Whose right is it to define "holy matrimony"? Does that right belong to a secular government or a holy priest of God? Why is a civil union not sufficient?

I can answer from the USA perspective.

In the US, states have different laws regarding civil unions versus marriages. Some states give both civil unions and marriages equal rights, others have marriages retaining more rights than civil unions. My state is one where civil unions have fewer rights than marriages and that is why, I am assuming, gay marriage was passed.

Personally a small part of me hopes the gays have a smaller divorce rate, than heterosexuals, because of the high divorce rates here in the US (52%) to be exact, as a rebuke or awakening to have the church re-examine as to why marriages between men and women are no longer lasting like they once did. It sucks to say that, but those high divorce rates (especially when Christianity as a collective whole is above 30% of that 52%) shows that we need a rude wake up call to examine what exactly is causing this, especially amongst people of our own faith.


Please note: I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. The only reason for that small part bit that I have mentioned, is due to the fact that I want things to get better; especially for people amongst our own faith. Its one of many reasons why I see people objecting to accepting Christ

 

[hedrick]

Whose right is it to define "holy matrimony"? Does that right belong to a secular government or a holy priest of God? Why is a civil union not sufficient?

Both. Marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. Christians see it as something God established, and consider it religious. As far as I know, no one disputes that churches can recognize only heterosexual marriages. However there are practical advantages to having the State provide legal support for marriage. The State may or may not agree with the church. Indeed it can't agree with all churches, since there are at least some differences on who can get married (e.g. the Catholic position on remarriage after divorce).

If I were homosexual, I'd want recognition for marriage as well. "Separate but equal" is now understood as being a bad idea. It's basically legislating a public judgement that these relationships are second-class. Who could be expected to accept that? The legal consequences may be different as well. E.g. states are expected to recognize each other's acts. If you move to or visit a state without civil union what are their obligations? How about insurance policies, and other things written to give specific rights to spouses?

 

[hedrick]

Personally a small part of me hopes the gays have a smaller divorce rate, than heterosexuals, because of the high divorce rates here in the US (52%) to be exact, as a rebuke or awakening to have the church re-examine as to why marriages between men and women are no longer lasting like they once did.

Early data suggests that there probably isn't much difference. E.g. see Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage - US News and World Report.

The correlations seem to be stronger with education and social class than with religion. This is probably the reason for the pattern shown in the article cited. (States that allow gay marriage are by definition more liberal, and thus probably had lower divorce rates anyway.)

I agree with your overall concern about divorce. Churches need to develop more effective ways to support families. Preaching legalistic sexual ethics and condemning divorce and gay marriage probably won't do it. Given the pattern of how divorce varies, my assumption is that it tends to be higher among conservative Christians because the population in those churches tends to come from backgrounds where they don't have as good interpersonal skills, and where economic situations tend to be more challenging. If I were going to attack this problem, I'd find ways to help couples develop both interpersonal and job skills, and to provide good support for them when they are having problems. I'm pretty sure such programs exist.

 

[hedrick]

Yes but homosexuality isn’t being banned from churches or marriage, homosexuals are.

In principle you're wrong. Churches should be reaching out to homosexuals, even though they are concerned about homosexual actions. In practice you may well be right in too many cases.

If the Pope tells Africans to stop using condoms, millions of babies are born with AIDs and millions die.

You are right that teaching has consequences. That's why there are limits to freedom of speech. I'm afraid that this one probably has to be tolerated, although I wish we had an alternative. Fortunately a lot of African bishops and priests are more realistic.

There are some important morals missing from the commandments you add for yourself. ‘Do not rape”, “Do not molest or harm children’ etc or with a modern slant “Do not use the internet and technology to deprive your neighbour of their privacy”. Yet although the list if endless, I do not need to list them because they are obvious, which I am sure you would have retorted yourself ‘well of course it is wrong to rape’. But how do you know it is wrong to rape if your only follow what the Bible says?

Christian tradition sees the 10 commandments as meaning more than you think they do. That is supported by Jesus' interpretations, as given in Matthew 5. Do not commit adultery has generally been expanded into a fairly broad treatment of sexual ethics.

Exactly what the contents of sexual ethics are depends upon the church. My own church emphasizes intent and consequence for the people involved, just as Jesus did. Hence we look carefully at not just rape but at other situations in which there may be a tendency to push a person into doing something they wouldn't really want to do. Remember that I'm from a "liberal" church. But no church operates directly from Scripture, without having some interpretive tradition.

Catholics have a very large traditional component to their sexual ethics. The principle behind many of things things you (and I) object to isn't actually the Bible at all, though they find support in the Bible. Rather, it's the principle that all sexual activity must be open to procreation.