• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Teaching bibles view of sexual ethics could be hateful under new law

Discussion in 'News & Current Events (Articles Required)' started by wisdomsophie, Nov 23, 2020.

  1. Ignatius the Kiwi

    Ignatius the Kiwi Anti-Democratic Monarchist

    +2,874
    New Zealand
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    All I can think of, is of course the bible's standards are 'hateful' by today's standards. What does the bible encourage or present as the sexual standard? By in large sex within marriage, the continuation of family, lineage and generations. Adultery is a crime in the Old Testament. Homosexuality is contrary to nature by Paul's reckoning and an abomination in the Old Testament. There are women's clothes and there are men's clothes neither should be on the incorrect sex.

    The problem is that where liberals see hate, I just see standards.
     
  2. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,451
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    I'm not sure I follow that. It's one thing to say that homosexual acts are sinful and forbidden by the Bible--because that's what the Bible says. It's quite another to say that homosexuality is nothing but a wicked lifestyle choice and that homosexuals are evil predators trying to recruit our children. The Bible doesn't say that.
     
  3. loveofourlord

    loveofourlord Newbie

    +3,627
    Christian
    Private
    How about letting the kids and the family decide rather then demanding that we be hateful and bigoted to them? Your hatred of reality doesn't change it.
     
  4. Whyayeman

    Whyayeman Well-Known Member

    +875
    United Kingdom
    Atheist
    Married
    Hate speech is a crime in UK. These reports are not about grammar.

    They are also a distraction from the substantive issue of how hateful religious intolerance has been towards homosexuality and - more importantly to me - about the subservience of women.
     
  5. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Part of the IT crowd Supporter

    +10,301
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    The "letting the kids and family decide" is a double-edged sword.

    I understand what you're saying, but the "let the parents decide what should be taught to their kids" is the exact same argument the other side uses when wanting to justify teaching something hateful to their kids.

    For instance, when a parent pulls their kid out of public school and tries to homeschool them (even though the majority of parents aren't equipped to teach...not meant to be an insult, just simply stating a fact) simply because they don't like that public schools teach evolution or something else that goes against religious beliefs, that's an example of "letting the family decide" that could have a negative impact on the kids rather than a positive one.


    Obviously there should be a tamping down on the kinds of teaching and rhetoric that directly lead to and incite abusive behavior, but vaguely worded laws can be problematic.

    There's a massive difference between a church saying "we prefer traditional marriage", and the kind of stuff Westboro/Phelps used to do.


    The issues with the "let the child/parents decide" is that there is a meaningful policy need to make sure that random religious strangers can't enforce laws on other people that prevent certain choices from being made based on a religious objection (when it's got nothing to do with them)

    ...the flip side is that the concept can't be so vaguely worded and applied that we drift over the line of common sense, like with some advocates in the US who are suggesting that we should allow 3-9 year olds to make the choice on whether or not they want to start hormone replacement therapy and take puberty blockers, and suggest that any objection to that idea amounts to "hate".

    If a policy is constructed well, the extremes on both side should hate it lol.
     
  6. loveofourlord

    loveofourlord Newbie

    +3,627
    Christian
    Private
    True, but the point of puberty blockers is to let the child decide rather then force them into a decision that's worse later on.

    But I do agree as that would easily allow for circumcision of males and females under that, or conversion therapy and other stuff I would disagree with, but it's a hard balance. There is something to be said about way too many people getting their noses in other people's medical procedures. Try getting a vasectomy when young, as many people and even doctors will say, "You will change your mind." and such.
     
  7. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Part of the IT crowd Supporter

    +10,301
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    I understand the rationale behind them...the idea being that if a biological male has gender dysphoria, and chooses to live as a female, and that doesn't change with age, it's a lot easier to pass as a convincing female if the effects of male puberty haven't taken their effect.

    The issues with allowing people so young to make those choices is that
    A) many young people have short term focus without thinking about the long term, and given that those drugs can carry serious risks long term effects, combined with the fact that well over 60% of youths diagnosed with gender dysphoria desist on their own before age 20 completely absent of any drugs or outside therapy or influences, allowing an elementary school kid to take those kinds of drugs can be dangerous and unethical

    B) It's only really applicable the M-t-F scenario and not the F-t-M scenario. Once a boy hits puberty and starts growing much larger than a female would, broad shoulders, etc... it's a little tougher transition. However, F-t-M hormone therapy can happen at relatively any point during (or even after) puberty without any sort of major difference in outcome.

    Obviously, there are times when it's pretty easy to tell when someone is transgender in a M-t-F situation.

    However, for F-t-M, that can happen at pretty much any point in early adulthood if the person decides they want to pursue that option and nobody would the wiser afterwards.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    (all examples of biological females that decided to transition to male after already reaching adulthood, and nobody walking down the street would even be able to tell if they saw them.)
     
  8. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,139
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Ok. But who would preach that in church? Seems odd.
     
  9. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,139
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    No, that's false. Jesus also defines marriage in the New Testament as when a man leaves his father and mother, cleaves unto his wife, and the two become one. If He meant, "Any two people", He would have said so and there would be confirmation elsewhere in scripture, as every word is confirmed by two or three witnesses. That is not hateful, any more than "do not defile the marriage bed" and stick only to your spouse is "hateful".
     
  10. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +17,451
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Many right-wing fundamentalist Pastors and Televangelists. it would surprise me a bit to learn that it was being taught at religious extremist institutions like Liberty or Bob Jones
     
  11. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,871
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    I'm not Christian but I am against the idea of thought crimes.

    Freedom of speech requires the possibility of people being offended or not liking what one has to say. It doesn't matter what is said....someone can always take offense.

    To punish someone for that legally is a far greater injustice than mere offence.
     
  12. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,871
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Why?

    There's a slogan that the Black Lives Matter crowd pushed during the most recent protests. It was abbreviated ACAB (and I can provide numerous examples of this if you want) which stood for "All Cops Are Bad"....except the last word isn't typically "Bad" it's an expletive that refers to a fatherless illegitimate son.

    Would you support a law against such hate speech and, as they now do in some European nations, throw the offenders in jail?

    It certainly meets your criteria for stirring up hatred against a particular group of people.
     
  13. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,871
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Didn't the UK just rule against puberty blockers for children?

    It makes sense....children can't consent to sex, cannot consent to a drink of alcohol, cannot consent to any number of more benign choices we agree should only be made as adults.

    Why then would we allow a child to consent to potentially life altering drugs at a young age for a condition that isn't life threatening?
     
  14. loveofourlord

    loveofourlord Newbie

    +3,627
    Christian
    Private
    High suicide rates is not life threatening?
     
  15. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +14,231
    United States
    Other Religion
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    In the case of criticizing police, they are part of the government, and critique of the government is an established right in a liberal democracy.
     
  16. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +14,231
    United States
    Other Religion
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    Jesus doesn't define marriage for all people. Jesus was just one first century rabbi, there's no reason to think he's the ultimate authority on the matter, especially for those that don't subscribe to your religious beliefs.
     
  17. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,871
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    I've no doubt that some of those suicides are connected in some way to people saying things they find personally hurtful.

    It sadly reminds me of a guy who committed suicide in high school when his girlfriend broke up with him and had said some unkind things about him.

    It makes me sad, and I wish he hadn't killed himself.....but it would be ridiculous to demand that his girlfriend not be able to express herself and her thoughts and feelings. It would be even more ridiculous to throw her in jail for it.

    To my knowledge, she didn't encourage him to kill himself even though her words might have been hurtful....he is ultimately responsible for his actions.
     
  18. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,871
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Lol so is criticizing your fellow man. It's called freedom of speech.

    It's a bit bizarre that you find the horrible abuse hurled at a person who wears a uniform and works a job completely acceptable.....but you think that the average person on the street deserves better.
     
  19. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +14,231
    United States
    Other Religion
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    I never said I found abuse acceptable, merely that there should be limits on what the government does about it.
     
  20. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,871
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Ok....so let's imagine someone is hurling expletives at a cop....for being a cop....

    What do you think is acceptable to do about it?
     
Loading...