How can Christians survive the politics of homosexuality

[Inkfingers]

Calvanism is heresy.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 3:13 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already"

 

[poolerboy0077]

A behavior is not the same thing as race. Behavior is a choice. Race is not.

Although race is in some sense “an immutable, non-behavioral characteristic,” racism is all about chosen behaviors. The racist doesn’t simply object to people’s skin color: he objects to their moving into “our” neighborhoods, marrying “our” daughters, attacking “our” values and so on. In other words, he objects to behaviors, both real and imagined. What’s more, discriminating on the basis of race is most certainly chosen behavior. Calling race “non-behavioral” misses that important fact.

At the same time, calling homosexuality “behavioral” misses quite a bit as well. Yes, homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is expressed in behaviors, and some of those behaviors offend people. But one need not be sexually active to be kicked out of the house, fired from a job, or verbally or physically abused for being gay. Merely being perceived as gay (without any homosexual “behavior”) is enough to trigger the abuse.

Even where chosen behaviors trigger the abuse, it doesn’t follow that they warrant the abuse—any more than blacks’ choosing to marry whites (and vice versa) warrants abuse. So the insistence that race is immutable whereas homosexuality is behavioral, even if it were accurate, misses the point. Gays, like blacks, face unjust discrimination, often in the name of religion, that interferes with some of the most intimate aspects of their lives. Hence the analogy.

 

[Marius27]

Wishful thinking, and absurd. Try reading more of what they all said instead of cherry-picked pro-gay illogical "what ifs".

What's wishful thinking? That Saint Augustine said that? And ironic that you're accusing me of cherry picking since that's what you do. You know nothing about the so called anti-gay verses in the Bible. You just need justification to condemn a group of people you don't like.

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people you do". - Anne Lamott

Saint Augustine:

But if one has relations even with one's wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle earlier said the same thing about women, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature." quoting Romans 1:26 (Marriage and Desire, 20.35)"

Anastasios:

Clearly they (the females referred to in Romans 1:26) do not go into one another, but rather offer themselves to the men. (Brooten, 1996, p. 337n)

You're clearly oblivious to the fact that the anti-gay verses had different interpretations throughout the last 2000 years.

But of course, you can't possibly be wrong so I guess I should blindly follow your interpretation?

 

[Sunshine Locket]

John 3:13 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already"

Exactly.

 

[Sunshine Locket]

John 3:13 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already"

Because of their sin nature.The sinner has to be redeemed in order to be reborn from their sin nature and the death the sin nature affords so as to be reborn in the spirit.
We're all condemned until we accept Jesus as our savior.

 

[Sunshine Locket]

"Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust." St.Augustine 6 = Source: 12 Quotes Against Sodomy That Every Catholic Should Know

What's wishful thinking? That Saint Augustine said that? And ironic that you're accusing me of cherry picking since that's what you do. You know nothing about the so called anti-gay verses in the Bible. You just need justification to condemn a group of people you don't like.

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people you do". - Anne Lamott

Saint Augustine:

But if one has relations even with one's wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle earlier said the same thing about women, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature." quoting Romans 1:26 (Marriage and Desire, 20.35)"

Anastasios:

Clearly they (the females referred to in Romans 1:26) do not go into one another, but rather offer themselves to the men. (Brooten, 1996, p. 337n)

You're clearly oblivious to the fact that the anti-gay verses had different interpretations throughout the last 2000 years.

But of course, you can't possibly be wrong so I guess I should blindly follow your interpretation?

 

[brewmama]

What's wishful thinking? That Saint Augustine said that? And ironic that you're accusing me of cherry picking since that's what you do. You know nothing about the so called anti-gay verses in the Bible. You just need justification to condemn a group of people you don't like.

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people you do". - Anne Lamott

Saint Augustine:

But if one has relations even with one's wife in a part of the body which was not made for begetting children, such relations are against nature and indecent. In fact, the same apostle earlier said the same thing about women, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those which are against nature." quoting Romans 1:26 (Marriage and Desire, 20.35)"

Anastasios:

Clearly they (the females referred to in Romans 1:26) do not go into one another, but rather offer themselves to the men. (Brooten, 1996, p. 337n)

You're clearly oblivious to the fact that the anti-gay verses had different interpretations throughout the last 2000 years.

But of course, you can't possibly be wrong so I guess I should blindly follow your interpretation?

Thanks for proving my point so exactly. If you can't see that St. Augustine is condemning any sex that isn't procreational, which would of course include all aspects of homosexuality, then you are simply delusional. Or like I already said, cherry-picking and wishful thinking.

 

[Marius27]

"Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust." St.Augustine 6 = Source: 12 Quotes Against Sodomy That Every Catholic Should Know

You haven't proven anything except you can quote a nonsense link which doesn't even understand the story of Sodom, or the fact that the KJV translates sodomite from the Hebrew word for a temple prostitute, thereby indicating even your link is condemning temple prostitution, not gay people.

Come back to me when you have something credible.

 

[Marius27]

Thanks for proving my point so exactly. If you can't see that St. Augustine is condemning any sex that isn't procreational, which would of course include all aspects of homosexuality, then you are simply delusional. Or like I already said, cherry-picking and wishful thinking.

I didn't prove your point, I'm merely indicating that even early church writers didn't consider Romans 1 to be a reflection on homosexuals. Romans 2 further disproves that ridiculous theory. Therefore, stop cherry picking Romans 1 to attack gays. It does not make a good witness for Christ.

 

[Skybringr]

John 3:13 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already"

It is possible for even an atheist to be saved. The Church has spoken on this. You take that verse out of context, and reject it's true meaning.

 

[Inkfingers]

It is possible for even an atheist to be saved. The Church has spoken on this. You take that verse out of context, and reject it's true meaning.

It's possible for anyone to be saved if God choses to save them. The point is that we don't need to judge the world because it has already been judged....and found wanting.

 

[Affliction]

I suspect politically, conservative Christians will come to accept this as a non-issue. They might think homosexuality is wrong, but that in a free society they can do what they want with their lives.

Morally there is probably room to allow for homosexuality not be wrong. Some Christians already argue that most references to homosexuality in the NT aren't actually about those with a same-sex sexual orientation being in a relationship. Ie: there's bad interpretation.

Alot of the Anti-Gay verses are highly misinterpreted, so it is definitely a non-issue at this point in my opinion.

 

[SaphireOwl]

Alot of the Anti-Gay verses are highly misinterpreted, so it is definitely a non-issue at this point in my opinion.

Let's go with that. Please post a scripture that can only be interpreted as God validating, approving, homosexuality.

 

[Marius27]

Let's go with that. Please post a scripture that can only be interpreted as God validating, approving, homosexuality.

As soon as you post a verse where God validated heliocentrism. Clearly, it must be wrong.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The Bible doesn't deal with a lot of minority situations.

 

[Affliction]

Let's go with that. Please post a scripture that can only be interpreted as God validating, approving, homosexuality.

Misinterpretation.

"And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them."

You obviously know what this is right? Well, a differently (And correctly) worded version is here. I feel like I have a much different perspective on this than you do...?

 

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

This thread will remain permanently closed. Site rules prohibit the promotion of homosexuality and this thread has ventured into the area of the morality of homosexuality.

The Statement of Purpose for this forum:

Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Rights: Discussion of these topics must comply with the sitewide rule barring the promotion of homosexuality. Discussion and debate should only be directed toward political, legal, historical and civil rights issues, and should not be directed toward the morality of homosexuality or same-sex marriage. Please remember that promotion of homosexuality and same-sex marriage is not allowed. For more information please read this thread.

MOD HAT OFF