Think...

[BAFRIEND]

Think about what it is and what it means that you are asking us to go along with here, homosexuals.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I don't get it...

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

What is the purpose of this question? Think of what it means to tell you homosexuality is okay? It means we have opinions and we'd like you to hear them in hopes of changing your mind.

Boy that was easy.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Honestly, it's not that hard to accept. But then you read the scriptures, it just seems crazy to think that this one sin is the only one messed up due to translations, and the efforts of those who claim these errors are only in the area of this one sin.

 

[OllieFranz]

Honestly, it's not that hard to accept. But then you read the scriptures, it just seems crazy to think that this one sin is the only one messed up due to translations, and the efforts of those who claim these errors are only in the area of this one sin.

God is God, and as He pointed out to Job, He does not have to explain Himself to His creatures. And yet, He wants us to be more than just creatures. And so He has given us the Gospel message of Grace through Jesus Christ. And to explain the Gospel message, He has given us the Bible.

In the Bible, He gives us not only a list of sins to avoid, but he tells us why they are sins, he gives examples of people who succumb to the sins, and of the consequences of that sinning. He does that for all sins except those that were decreed for the purpose of establishing the Jews as a people set apart. (The Holiness Code) That is because those bans were not sins but ritual impurity.

The ritual and the reasoning has changed since the Grace of Jesus Christ is the basis of righteousness, rather than the purity of Israel. In Acts 11 and 15, we are told that the Holiness Code has been set aside.

We do not have any New Testament examples of violations of any of the sins of the Holiness Code. The closest is in 1 Corinthians 8 and Colossians 2, where Paul says that if you are weak, and unsure if something (such as eating certain meats) is sinful, and do it anyway, then for you it is a sin, since you chose to do it despite the likelihood it would be sinful.

But there is no controversy about eating meats, or blended fabrics, or tattoos and piercings. There are a few extremists who worry about women wearing slacks, but in the main, the only Holiness Code violation that people claim to be sin is homosexuality. That is why it is the only "sin" for which there is so much disagreement.

Let me ask you a counter-question. Where are the examples of people commiting this "sin" and the descriptions of the consequences? [BTW, If you were planning on answering "In Romans 1," I would suggest you read Plato's Laws and the Wisdom of Solomon before do so. Paul carefully constructed that chapter to remind the Gentile Christians of the one, and the Jewish Christians of the other in order to lull them into thinking they knew where he was headed before springing the "trap" in chapter 2.]

Where, in fact, are there any passages (other than the two in the Holiness code in Leviticus and the two Pauline passages which use the word "arsenokoitai," to point back at it) which discuss homosexuality at all? There are none.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Think about what it is and what it means that you are asking us to go along with here, homosexuals.

I don't think anyone is asking or expecting you to "go along" with anything.

However, I do know some people are expecting respect and human dignity. If one is unable to give that freely and without reservation (i.e. without throwing scripture around to "help" people, often coupled with hatred) then one had better re-examine what it really means to be a follower of Jesus.

 

[BAFRIEND]

I don't think anyone is asking or expecting you to "go along" with anything.

However, I do know some people are expecting respect and human dignity. If one is unable to give that freely and without reservation (i.e. without throwing scripture around to "help" people, often coupled with hatred) then one had better re-examine what it really means to be a follower of Jesus.

So, you believe that it is okay to redefine another's religion to validate a sinful lifestyle ?

 

[OllieFranz]

So, you believe that it is okay to redefine another's religion to validate a sinful lifestyle ?

Let me turn that question back on you. Do you believe that it is okay to redefine another's religion to validate a sinful lifestyle?

 

[tulc]

So, you believe that it is okay to redefine another's religion to validate a sinful lifestyle ?

No, what he's saying is it's not your job to decide if he has a relationship with God.
tulc(at least that's what I think he means)

 

[ChaliceThunder]

So, you believe that it is okay to redefine another's religion to validate a sinful lifestyle ?

Am I redefining your religion?

Wow - didn't think I had the power!

 

[BAFRIEND]

Well, give me a history or this arguement.

When was it ever acceptable or even debatable that a gay lifestyle was an acceptable practice in either Evangelicalism or Catholicism ?

Give me an institutionalized example more than 100 years old.

 

[tulc]

Am I redefining your religion?

Wow - didn't think I had the power!

Well...you are just back from your honeymoon in Italy so you probably are unaware of how cool you are!
tulc(thank for the happy birthday wishes by the way!)

 

[ChaliceThunder]

You may serve an institutionalized god - but I do not. The point is moot.

We have grown in wisdom and understanding. (well...many of us have done so)

We now know that the sun does not revolve around the earth.

We now know that it was wrong to enslave people.

We now know that it was wrong to treat women as property.

And many of us now know that it gay people are a normal part of the human condition. As such, it is wrong to treat us in ways that dehumanize...including the incessant SCAPEGOATING perpetrated by the religious "right." There is NOTHING right about it - scapegoating is sinful behavior because it dehumanizes beautiful children of God based upon prejudice.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Child, I have had 2 weeks on the road since then as well - dang...travel's not always all it's cracked up to be!

I hope you had some excellent coffee on your b-day. I assume mrs. t made you a coffee cake???

 

[BAFRIEND]

And many of us now know that it gay people are a normal part of the human condition.

3% by definition is not normal.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

3% by definition is not normal.

You cannot prove that it is 3% any more than I can prove it's 20%.

It matters not - we are beloved children of God - we are a part of society, and we always have been.

For heaven's sake: If there were a queer rapture tomorrow, Sunday morning in church would be an absolute disaster.

 

[OllieFranz]

And many of us now know that it gay people are a normal part of the human condition.

3% by definition is not normal.

You are (deliberately?) confusing two different words with the same spelling and pronunciation. While it is true that gays are not the "norm" (the average) since neither the median nor the mode (two of the three mathematical "averages" -- the third, the mean not applying in the case of discrete, non-mumerical entities), that is not the word ChaliceThunder was using.

"Normal," as CT used it means natural, expected and common. In this sense it does not require that it be the most common (mode) or that it be at the peak of the bell curve (median), simply that it not be vanishingly rare. Although I suspect that 3% is a bit low, I'll accept it for the purpose of determining the rarity (or lack thereof) of "gayness." since there are 282,125,000 people in the United States, 3% would be 8,463,750 gays. Hardly vanishingly small. When the worldwide population is considered, there are even more! So, in the sense CT used it, being gays are normal.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

You are (deliberately?) confusing two different words with the same spelling and pronunciation. While it is true that gays are not the "norm" (the average) since neither the median nor the mode (two of the three mathematical "averages" -- the third, the mean not applying in the case of discrete, non-mumerical entities), that is not the word ChaliceThunder was using.

"Normal," as CT used it means natural, expected and common. In this sense it does not require that it be the most common (mode) or that it be at the peak of the bell curve (median), simply that it not be vanishingly rare. Although I suspect that 3% is a bit low, I'll accept it for the purpose of determining the rarity (or lack thereof) of "gayness." since there are 282,125,000 people in the United States, 3% would be 8,463,750 gays. Hardly vanishingly small. When the worldwide population is considered, there are even more! So, in the sense CT used it, being gays are normal.

THanks OllieFranz - a very learned response!

Reminds me that last weekend I was in a church meeting planning a national event. Out of 24 people present, 7 were gay. (and I think there were 1 or 2 who had just not come out yet)

So it just goes to show you - depending on how we are gathered at any particular moment in time - we are bound to have people who are different from us.

Of course the only REAL Christian way beyond this is to have respect for EVERYONE. I wonder if that's too much to expect from any of us...

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Well...you are just back from your honeymoon in Italy so you probably are unaware of how cool you are!
tulc(thank for the happy birthday wishes by the way!)

I thought you were refering to barfriend and marriage. I was like whattt, whooo, whattttt. There cannot exist a woman

 

[MrPirate]

Honestly, it's not that hard to accept. But then you read the scriptures, it just seems crazy to think that this one sin is the only one messed up due to translations, and the efforts of those who claim these errors are only in the area of this one sin.

Excuse me?


Some of us looked at the evidence and rejected hate and bigotry.



I am opposed to racism and a supporter of civil rights….do you think that makes me black?