Discussion/Questions on new FSGs.

[Athene]

When they are paraphrasing christian scripture perhaps?

Touche!

 

[Athene]

I have a question that i am concerned about, especially because of the wording.

A poster says: Gays should live single, celebate, chaste lives.

I then point out that that is similar to Christ's chastising of the Pharisees who, with legalities, would tie burdens to the backs of their followers, suggesting that sacrifice and suffering for God makes him happy, and shows him their dedication, while giving themselves easy lives.

In the same way, if one is not ready to leave his wife, and live a life of lonliness, no romantic contacts, no sex, and companionship, to show gays how they should live, then at least the person is living by example. However, like the Pharisees, they command others to live a harder life than they are willing to do themselves, and claim it to be what God commands.

I continued to point out that because it is so similar to the false idea the Pharisees offer, that God demands our suffering, that it is not God that the person wants the gay person to obey, but themselves. In believing God would want that for another, while not wanting it for themselves, they have not loved their neighbor. By thinking that God wants us to suffer is to not understand God at all. To be unable to understand what you are asking of a gay person, unable because you refuse to put yourself in their shoes, see them as an equal, as a neighbor, again, is not loving ones neighbor.

Yeah, it's harsh.

Am I violating the rules?
In my mind, while i may be responding to the poster, it is more of that concept, one which I have heard a number of times, usually from happily married couples who are somehow threatened by the idea that gay couples can be happy, too, and even want the same things. It's a matter of realizing that straight people aren't better than, but equal to gays, and that's very humbling. Its an attitude that is common among heterosexuals, and that is what I am addressing.

I think that it is an important thing to point out, especially when the people that demand such a thing rarely actually think about what they are asking, what that would be like, mostly, because they have an easy life, and don't care. Its important to explore who is really happy with it - God, or the person making the demand.

It's a concept that is being addressed, and not a poster. The poster is irrelevant, because it isn't something that any gay poster has heard 10 times already.

I don't see any issue in your response, it's quite a good rebuttle imo.

 

[MachZer0]

If I speak in the languages of men and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal.

To put it another way, if your speak your truth but your delivery stinks i.e you offend and insult people then all you are is background noise, nobody will listen, nobody will pay attention.

Seems to me that God had a tendency to be pretty harsh at times, in love, remembering that abomination is what God calls it. So have we reached a point that quoting God here is a flame? If one person claims that sin is good and a Christian points out that God called sin an abomination, that would be a violation?

 

[arborvita]

I think Athene has done a very good job of explaining the rules and clarification that I gave in the QCF forum. We are not going to allow people to flame each other with the Word of God it will most likely be a rule violation everytime. Keep your posts civil, respectful and in good context.

 

[NPH]

.

 

[Beanieboy]

Seems to me that God had a tendency to be pretty harsh at times, in love, remembering that abomination is what God calls it. So have we reached a point that quoting God here is a flame? If one person claims that sin is good and a Christian points out that God called sin an abomination, that would be a violation?

I think this is a valid point. If one quotes something that it says in the bible, and that some Christians believe, it is better to be said and discussed, rather than unsaid, and boil beneath the surface.

It will also allow people to examine what "abomination" is, since Leviticus calls the eating of shellfish an abomination, the eating of pork and abomination, etc., and see if what the poster claims is an abomination of God, is God's believe, or the poster's.

Neither do I see "homosexuality is a sin" a flame, but rather, what some Christians firmly believe, and I think being able to discuss it, and examine whether what they are saying is indeed what the bible says, or not what the bible says at all, will be beneficial to anyone who actually cares what the Bible says, rather than what they choose to read into it, to support their own belief.

In my experience, as i said in the thread Resolving Mosaic Law, the Pharisees came to Christ, telling her that they had caught a women committing adultery, and wanted his approval to stone her to death, according to Mosaic Law. If he agreed, he would violate Roman Law, and be jailed. If he disagreed, he would be violating God's law, proving himself to not be the Son of God.

However, what is important here is that these men, the teachers of Scripture who enjoyed high places in society, revered by their followers, and thought holy, were not concerned about serving God, or following God by obeying Mosaic Scripture. Their concern was only to entrap Jesus, even to the point of killing someone to do it. After all, according to her, God wanted her dead anyway.

I believe that sometimes, people quote such things as, "God says that homosexuality is an abomination" not to teach, or edify, or correct, but rather to support their condemnation that they hold in their heart, and then claim that it is God's word, and not theirs. They take a verse from an ancient time, and then try to apply it to a modern time, with very different understanding, claiming that "it is clear what the Bible says."

The result is usually frustrating, as they rarely even entertain that they may be misinterpretting or misusing scripture, but for someone who may be coming to the realization that they are gay, and only hear things like, "homosexuality is an abomination" as I did from my church, I would like to see an opportunity for others to act as Christ did with the adulteress, and examine the claim of the accuser, the motivation of the accuser, and the authority of the accuser, in order to defend the accused.

 

[OllieFranz]

Since the meaning of the English word "abomination" has changed since King James' time, it is no longer a good translation of the Hebrew. "Taboo," which was not available to the AV translators, because it only entered into mainstream English from the Polynesian after the AV was complete, would be a better translation. I would say that we should allow "abomination" once per thread, only as part of a Bible quote, but after the above has been pointed out, any attempt to hint that a practice is, or worse, those who engage in that practice are, "abominable" should be closely moderated.

 

[Athene]

Seems to me that God had a tendency to be pretty harsh at times, in love, remembering that abomination is what God calls it. So have we reached a point that quoting God here is a flame? If one person claims that sin is good and a Christian points out that God called sin an abomination, that would be a violation?

Actually, we've always took a dim view of people who use scripture to flame others, there is nothing new here. Nobody is stopping anyone from calling something a sin, if people think homosexuality is a sin they are free to say that, they can quote the Bible to support their arguments, they can use the word abomination providing they are not using it to label and condemn a group of people.

 

[mpok1519]

ok, sure; I won't call anyone a bigot, however, as Christ would want it, I will be quick to point out any bigotry taking place by bigots. I won't point at them and call them a bigot, but I will point at the fact that they are bigots by pointing out their bigotry.

Also, does promotion of Messianic Judaism count? Or howabout Mormonism? Or how about any number of millions of pseudo-Christian pseudo-nicene pseudo philosophies Christianity now encompasses world-wide? How can one even accurately describe a rule stating one cannot promote religion other than "christianity", when Christianity has been divided and schismed and split so many times certain forms of Christianity do not remotely resemble what it once stood for.

New rules?

More like new complications that're simply going to give the mods more and more headaches that they dont deserve.

--------------------------------------------------------

Bigot isnt a defamatory, derogatory, or slurr of anykind; its a word that accurately describes one who exhibits bigotry, something many here do. So now, is it okay to be a bigot without repercussion? oooookay. Seems a bit strange and weird and unchristianity-like.....

And now I will be awaiting a satisfactory answer I know does not exist. good day.

 

[Athene]

ok, sure; I won't call anyone a bigot, however, as Christ would want it, I will be quick to point out any bigotry taking place by bigots. I won't point at them and call them a bigot, but I will point at the fact that they are bigots by pointing out their bigotry.

Christ said we could go around condemning other people did he? He said we can point out the splinter in other peoples eyes while ignoring the plank in our own, is that right? Unless you are God (and in that case please accept my most humble and abject apologies for my impudence) you do not have the authority or the power to judge the hearts of other people.

Also, does promotion of Messianic Judaism count? Or howabout Mormonism? Or how about any number of millions of pseudo-Christian pseudo-nicene pseudo philosophies Christianity now encompasses world-wide? How can one even accurately describe a rule stating one cannot promote religion other than "christianity", when Christianity has been divided and schismed and split so many times certain forms of Christianity do not remotely resemble what it once stood for.

There is a statement of faith, one can not promote any religion/belief which is contrary to this statement of faith.

http://christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_0

Bigot isnt a defamatory, derogatory, or slurr of anykind; its a word that accurately describes one who exhibits bigotry, something many here do. So now, is it okay to be a bigot without repercussion? oooookay. Seems a bit strange and weird and unchristianity-like.....

And now I will be awaiting a satisfactory answer I know does not exist. good day.

This is a Discussion and Debate forum. In debate you need to address ideas not personalities, points, not the people who made them, that's how it goes in civil debate. No calling other members bigots either explicitly or implicitly, it contributes nothing to the discussion and often baits people into responding with a flame.

Have a nice day.

 

[mpok1519]

This is a Discussion and Debate forum. In debate you need to address ideas not personalities, points, not the people who made them, that's how it goes in civil debate. No calling other members bigots either explicitly or implicitly, it contributes nothing to the discussion and often baits people into responding with a flame.

Have a nice day.

no, I meant point out the bigotry of the individual, not the individual bigot.

 

[MachZer0]

Actually, we've always took a dim view of people who use scripture to flame others, there is nothing new here. Nobody is stopping anyone from calling something a sin, if people think homosexuality is a sin they are free to say that, they can quote the Bible to support their arguments, they can use the word abomination providing they are not using it to label and condemn a group of people.

That's just simply not true. My post addressed no person and no group but rather homosexuality as it is described by God and the post was deleted. It appears the true intent here is to protect homosexuality from any negative criticsm. Meantime, atheists can claim that Christians ignore reality and are allowed to get away with it

 

[Beanieboy]

That's just simply not true. My post addressed no person and no group but rather homosexuality as it is described by God and the post was deleted. It appears the true intent here is to protect homosexuality from any negative criticsm. Meantime, atheists can claim that Christians ignore reality and are allowed to get away with it

If you look in the thread about the new rules, I defended you, saying that I think that you should have the right to say that, and that it opens discussion to discuss your claim, and the scripture that you claim says that. I said that I believe that it would help to come to a better understanding.

However, some do flame using scripture. My favorite example is the poster from another site that used Romans 12:9: Let you love be without hypocracy; cling to what is good, abhor what is evil. She then said that she abhored me because I am gay, and homosexuality is evil. She then went to the Old Testament, and quoted a verse that said that God hated evil doers, thus justifying her hatred.

It's pretty common for people to use the bible as a weapon, rather than a tool, or as a guide.

I also said that because the bible says that a man lying with another man is an abomination, that saying that shouldn't count as a flame, because one is quoting the bible. Regardless of the intent, simply quoting the bible isn't in and of itself a flame, but a person trying to follow their belief. If it is used as a flame, it's pretty easy to illustrate that.

 

[mpok1519]

yeah, its pretty sick and double-minded when I'm not allowed to call some who is racist a bigot, but someone can call beanieboy evil bc the Bible says its okay.

 

[MachZer0]

yeah, its pretty sick and double-minded when I'm not allowed to call some who is racist a bigot, but someone can call beanieboy evil bc the Bible says its okay.

Can you link the post where someone called beanieboy evil?

 

[mpok1519]

Can you link the post where they called beanieboy an exceptional human being?

 

[MachZer0]

Can you link the post where they called beanieboy an exceptional human being?

I don't think there was a charge made that he was called an exceptional human being

 

[katautumn]

Mach, you didn't post Scripture. You spammed the thread to push the limits of the new FSGs all the while ignoring the questions people were asking you.

 

[MachZer0]

Mach, you didn't post Scripture. You spammed the thread to push the limits of the new FSGs all the while ignoring the questions people were asking you.

I paraphrased Scripture. there's nothing I've seen in the rules that states Scripture must be quoted verbatim. As I said, my post addressed no person and no group, but rather a behavior. The best I can tell, that violates no rule

 

[mpok1519]

Im making a charge that he is an exceptional human being.

I think most people are exceptional human beings, including you Mach.

I just don't know why people can't just live and let live. If everyone was an eye for an eye, the world would be blind. IF everyone was a tooth for a tooth, the whole world would only be able to eat pureed foods.