Woke is Marxism Evolved to Take on the West

[ralliann]

It seems to me that you keeping mixing OT apples and NT oranges. As I and others have suggested, the Levitical command for homosexuals to be put to death has a plausible basis: God's desire for His chosen people to be as pure as possible and to avoid the corrupting influence of same-sex immorality. I don't think we have any idea how many, if any, were actually put to death, but certainly the Levitical command likely had a strong deterrent effect. SINCE THE LEVITICAL COMMAND NO LONGER APPLIES, to keep harping on it is just beating a dead horse. No mature Christian is ever going to be suggesting homosexuals should be put to death. As to whether biblical Christians agree with the Levitical command: yes, in the context and time in which it was given.

In the NT, sexual immorality - all sexual immorality - is one of many grave sins. But since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, it's irrelevant whether homosexuality is "more grave" than adultery or shoplifting. I believe it does cut to the core of God's plan for humanity, but just on the basis of numbers alone it's probably less harmful than unbiblical divorce. As I and others have suggested, what may seem like a disproportionate Christian backlash is almost entirely a reaction against the aggressive efforts to normalize and celebrate this behavior.

Given the biblical commands, there is no room for a biblical Christian to ask about "harm." if sexual immorality including homosexuality is an abomination to God, there is no room for a biblical Christian to say "Well, it's not an abomination to me." There is room to take the approach Jesus took with the adulterous woman, but not to normalize and celebrate sexual immorality. (Jesus did say "GO AND SIN NO MORE" - not "It's OK, sweetie, just don't caught again.")

You as an atheist reject any biblical authority. Ergo, for you the question is simply how you evaluate homosexuality and think others should evaluate it in purely secular terms. That's fine. Even at this level, I think the psychological and sociological research into homosexuality might raise legitimate questions as to whether it should be normalized and celebrated. But that's a purely secular debate.

I don't see where this discussion has any possibility of going anywhere. The Christian's foundation is the Bible. Yours is not. You want the debate to be conducted in purely secular terms, which for a biblical Christian is simply not possible. You seem to think you score "Gotcha!" points with your continued emphasis on the Levitical command, when the Levitical command is irrelevant today except to underscore that homosexuality was and is a serious sin in God's eyes. The fact that I and others say in 2023 that we agree with the Levitical command in the context of its time and purpose scarcely seems like "Gotcha!" stuff to me.

My sense is not that anyone is quoting Scripture with the idea of convincing you, but rather simply to explain the basis of the Christian position.

A religious question, from a religious book, of religious people, on a religious forum.....but no religious answer will do because it is in a secular inclusive section??????????????????????

 

[Bradskii]

A religious question, from a religious book, of religious people, on a religious forum.....but no religious answer will do because it is in a secular inclusive section?

You are free to us scripture and/or theology to your hearts content. But you won't find atheists commenting on any matter where religious debate takes place as we are not allowed to post in most areas. But you will find them in this section, which is for general discussion and debate. But a religious argument means nothing to an atheist. You know that so please cut out the faux surprise.

So yeah, a religious answer will tell me why you think something is wrong but it's worthless in trying to convince me. How many times do I have to explain this?

 

[Bradskii]

It seems to me that you keeping mixing OT apples and NT oranges.

Last time I checked, the quote was from the NT. It's from Romans. So we're talking oranges here. But I really don't care where it's from. I have explained to you how it was used and in what context. That is the problem. Which has already been explained to you in some detail. You seem to want to to ignore that.

You as an atheist reject any biblical authority. Ergo, for you the question is simply how you evaluate homosexuality and think others should evaluate it in purely secular terms. That's fine.

Exactly right. Whether you personally think God abhors it or whether some other Christian thinks that God is fine with it has no relevance to me.

I don't see where this discussion has any possibility of going anywhere. The Christian's foundation is the Bible. Yours is not. You want the debate to be conducted in purely secular terms, which for a biblical Christian is simply not possible. You seem to think you score "Gotcha!" points with your continued emphasis on the Levitical command, when the Levitical command is irrelevant today except to underscore that homosexuality was and is a serious sin in God's eyes. The fact that I and others say in 2023 that we agree with the Levitical command in the context of its time and purpose scarcely seems like "Gotcha!" stuff to me.

New testament. It's from the New testament. Which might be a problem for you as it's Paul who was meant to have written it. Maybe you think you should ignore it or accept it. Either way it's irrelevant to me.

My sense is not that anyone is quoting Scripture with the idea of convincing you, but rather simply to explain the basis of the Christian position.

It wasn't posted as a means to further some theological discussion in regard to some position. It was a cheap shot gainst gay people. It happens all to frequently in discussions like this. It's a problem and will be called out whenever it happens. If you can't see it as a problem then I guess you'll not be doing anything to help prevent it.

 

[Bradskii]

Last attempt: The NT passage says those who practice such things (a number of different) sins "know God's righteous decree" that they are "deserving of death" but continue to practice those things and give approval to others who practice them. This is standard Christianity 101. It's focus is not limited to Christianity, and it says nothing about putting homosexuals or anyone else to death. Any Christian who said he or she disagreed with it would not be a biblical Christian.

Yet again...It was said that gay people deserved death. No context. No theological nuance. No mention of other sins. No suggestion that they could avoid it by repenting. No admission that hey, we all deserve death. It was specifically directed towards gay people. No confusion about that. And how do you think a gay person reading that specific snippet of biblical '101' might feel to be told in isolation that 'Hey, you. Yeah you. You deserve to die'. And the person quoting it says yeah, I agree that they deserve to die. Got a problem with that?

But at least you eventually got that it was written by Paul. Can we class that as progress? No, I don't think so...but at least it was your last attempt.

 

[Robban]

During the battle of the Atlantic WW2, merchant ships were being sunk by German U-boats.

But (by a Godsend?) the British navy found an abandoned U-boat, so they went onboard

and took the German enigma machine.

British mathematician Alan Turing who helped crack Nazi Germany's enigna code,

and laid groundwork for modern computer, was pardoned on Tuesday six (article from 2013)

decades after his conviction for homosexuality

It is said to have driven him to suicide.
.

 

[ralliann]

You are free to us scripture and/or theology to your hearts content. But you won't find atheists commenting on any matter where religious debate takes place as we are not allowed to post in most areas. But you will find them in this section, which is for general discussion and debate. But a religious argument means nothing to an atheist. You know that so please cut out the faux surprise.

So yeah, a religious answer will tell me why you think something is wrong but it's worthless in trying to convince me. How many times do I have to explain this?

Last attempt: The NT passage says those who practice such things (a number of different) sins "know God's righteous decree" that they are "deserving of death" but continue to practice those things and give approval to others who practice them. This is standard Christianity 101. It's focus is not limited to Christianity, and it says nothing about putting homosexuals or anyone else to death. Any Christian who said he or she disagreed with it would not be a biblical Christian.

It occurred to me on my 5-mile morning walk (try it!) that we Christians often make a mistake when we let atheists frame the discussion. (Yes, I do have extensive experience dialoguing with atheists.) As we can see, @Bradskii either cannot get past, or will not let go of, the "deserving of death" mantra. Do you believe THAT - huh, huh, huh? Is THAT what you'd say to a homosexual - huh, huh, huh? Apart from your silly Bible passages, what possible basis could there be for saying THAT - huh, huh, huh?

I will try to approach the subject from a less defensive position.

Biblical Christians believe God's plan for humanity is pretty clear, both from the Bible and our real-world experience. God created two genders, male and female. God instituted marriage, whereby male and female come together as one flesh. God provided for procreation through the sexual act, which is both procreative and pleasurable. Within the institution of marriage and family, God provided for the male to fulfill one role and the female to fulfill another with each role complementing the other in the scheme of marriage, family and society. It's a coherent plan that would achieve a harmonious and functioning society that looks NOTHING like what we have today.

Because the sex drive is essential to God's plan for humanity, it is an exceedingly strong drive. Without the restraining influence of Christian belief - and often even with Christian belief - the sex drive is easily abused. Indiscriminate fornication and all that flows from it. Extramarital sex and all that flows from it. Sexual addictions and perversions and all that flow from them. That which God intended to be procreative and pleasurable within the context of marriage can easily become destructive to the self and one's relationships. For obvious reasons, the sex drive provides a golden opportunity for demonic influence. To abstain from sexual immorality is a constant challenge for all.

Homosexuality and transgenderism cut to the very core of God's plan for humanity. They are at the absolute extremes of what opposition to God's plan for humanity could possibly look like. Denying that there are two genders and celebrating non-procreative same-sex and transgender relationships is about as extreme as things could get. The "harm" of these movements, therefore, is fundamentally spiritual. Christians should oppose them, at least to the extent of not participating in the normalization or celebration of them, not because they are condemned in Leviticus and Romans but because they are flatly in inconsistent with and opposed to God's plan for humanity (as is all sexual immorality).

To an atheist, of course, there is no spiritual dimension to anything. There is no plan to creation at all. Sex is just what animals do, which is why I suggested that Bradskii's perspective on homosexuality is essentially at the barnyard level. Morality, if it exists at all, is defined by the self or some human consensus. It's flexible and may change dramatically with the times. An extremely narrow view of "harm" is entirely consistent with an atheistic worldview. A completely hedonistic lifestyle is difficult to criticize from an atheistic perspective. (Studies of the New Atheist movement showed that it was often far less about a diligent search for truth and far more about finding a landing spot where sexual immorality was tolerated, normalized and celebrated.)

In a nutshell, the debate over homosexuality is just a microcosm of the larger Christian-versus-atheist debate. It's a conflict of irreconcilable worldviews.

What I see around me is sexual immorality run amuck. The LGBTQblahblahblah movement is merely (or not so merely) the latest, most visible and most extreme manifestation of this. I can attribute, and do attribute, what I have seen just over the course of my lifetime to demonic influence to a considerable extent. Christians who join in the normalization and celebration of any form of sexual immorality are going far, far off the rails. What they view as progressive is fundamentally unbiblical and opposed to God's plan for humanity.

Losing sight of or being refused of the spiritual application to ourselves, as Christians (not those outside of it), the death penalty has been administered to all of us in Christ. Water baptism, immersion, or sprinkling has been applied dealth penalty.
If our spiritual applications were slapped with the label "gender" would it be ok for them? I do doubt it but it is pretty much the same thing. We have died. But we have been regendered to newness of life as well

 

[Aldebaran]

Some people don't see it. If the conversation continues it needs repeating.

If you want it to have meaning, then you'll need to more than keep repeating the same tired assertions.

 

[Aldebaran]

You are free to us scripture and/or theology to your hearts content. But you won't find atheists commenting on any matter where religious debate takes place as we are not allowed to post in most areas. But you will find them in this section, which is for general discussion and debate. But a religious argument means nothing to an atheist. You know that so please cut out the faux surprise.

So yeah, a religious answer will tell me why you think something is wrong but it's worthless in trying to convince me. How many times do I have to explain this?

If it's so meaningless to you, then why do the Bible verses I quotes still control you to this day?

 

[Aldebaran]

Yet again...It was said that gay people deserved death. No context. No theological nuance. No mention of other sins. No suggestion that they could avoid it by repenting. No admission that hey, we all deserve death. It was specifically directed towards gay people. No confusion about that. And how do you think a gay person reading that specific snippet of biblical '101' might feel to be told in isolation that 'Hey, you. Yeah you. You deserve to die'. And the person quoting it says yeah, I agree that they deserve to die. Got a problem with that?

But at least you eventually got that it was written by Paul. Can we class that as progress? No, I don't think so...but at least it was your last attempt.

If you go back to Romans 1:28 and then read from that point, you'll see that plenty of other sins are mentioned.

 

[Bradskii]

It occurred to me on my 5-mile morning walk...

There are two aspects to this. One you've talked about - and I'll come back to that shortly. The other? You are either ignoring it or, less likely, you don't understand what I've been talking about. So I want you to consider these two conversations:

'Dad, we need to talk. I'm...actually gay'.
'Oh my...that must have been so difficult for you to tell me. Look, whatever happens from this point on, you have to know that your mother and I love you dearly and we'll always be there for you whatever happens. You know how strong my faith is and you know that God considers homosexuality to be a sin. But look, we all sin. I'm no different. So we are all in danger of not achieving eternal life. Especially me for all the wrong things I have done in my life. So I'm obviously concerned for you in that regard. I always have been. But we'll talk this through. And whatever happens, whatever you eventually choose, your mother and I will always be there for you'

OR

'Dad, we need to talk. I'm...actually gay'.
'You're homosexual? Well, let me tell you that the bible says that you deserve death! Romans 1:32. And let me tell you, I fully support scripture. So, do you have a problem with that?'

Now let's be honest at this point. Which of those would you say is the more Christian response? Which do you think would get a thumbs up from Jesus? They're both saying pretty much the same thing. That God thinks that some sins, if the sinner does not repent, will not lead to everlasting life. But which one of them is showing concern? Which one is showing love? Which father would you rather be?

The post we are discussing bore no resemblance whatsoever to the first. None at all. And was very much aligned with the second. Only much later, when it was called out, did we get some context thrown in, some comments to the effect that hey, it's not me saying that, it's God, and I'm a sinner as well, and it's other sins as well (see post above for another late example of that) and Islam does the same and gee, all you have to do is repent...

Me? I don't agree with the first father, but I'd support him as much as he would be supporting his daughter. The other guy? I wouldn't give him the time of day. But I'd reach out to his daughter.

The other point is that, however sick and tired you are of hearing this, I determine what is allowed by asking if harm is caused. It really is that simple. So do gay relationships cause harm? Well, no more (and much less) then straight relationships do. Does a 'gay lifestyle' cause harm? Well, assuming you might mean multiple sexual partners then it would. But no more (and a lot less) than those who are straight and have similar lifestyles. There are some gay couples I know whose relationship has been solid for literally decades. And some straight marriages that have ended soon after they started.

The advice I gave my kids as they were growing up was to treat others with respect. Don't drink too much. Stay clear of hard drugs. Don't sleep around. Take precautions. In short, don't do anything stupid. Don't cause harm to yourself and certainly not to others. They did OK. Both now in long term partnerships with kids of their own. Now you don't know if either of them are gay. If you met them then I'm pretty certain that you'd think that they were really good people. Would you personally change your mind in that regard if one of them happened to be gay? Would you then say 'Hey, you have succumbed to the demonic influence of the lbgt agenda! You are living like barnyard animals!'

Really? Gimme a break...

 

[Bradskii]

If it's so meaningless to you, then why do the Bible verses I quotes still control you to this day?

The bible has no influence on my life. Other than I treat what Jesus taught (as related in scripture) as good advice as to how to live a good life. But He's one of very many I have read about and listened to and taken advice from over the decades.

So the bible doesn't control me. No more than Marcus Aurelius' Meditations controls me. Or Bentham's Principle of Morals. or Plato's Republic.

 

[sjastro]

There are two aspects to this. One you've talked about - and I'll come back to that shortly. The other? You are either ignoring it or, less likely, you don't understand what I've been talking about. So I want you to consider these two conversations:

'Dad, we need to talk. I'm...actually gay'.
'Oh my...that must have been so difficult for you to tell me. Look, whatever happens from this point on, you have to know that your mother and I love you dearly and we'll always be there for you whatever happens. You know how strong my faith is and you know that God considers homosexuality to be a sin. But look, we all sin. I'm no different. So we are all in danger of not achieving eternal life. Especially me for all the wrong things I have done in my life. So I'm obviously concerned for you in that regard. I always have been. But we'll talk this through. And whatever happens, whatever you eventually choose, your mother and I will always be there for you'

OR

'Dad, we need to talk. I'm...actually gay'.
'You're homosexual? Well, let me tell you that the bible says that you deserve death! Romans 1:32. And let me tell you, I fully support scripture. So, do you have a problem with that?'

Now let's be honest at this point. Which of those would you say is the more Christian response? Which do you think would get a thumbs up from Jesus? They're both saying pretty much the same thing. That God thinks that some sins, if the sinner does not repent, will not lead to everlasting life. But which one of them is showing concern? Which one is showing love? Which father would you rather be?

The post we are discussing bore no resemblance whatsoever to the first. None at all. And was very much aligned with the second. Only much later, when it was called out, did we get some context thrown in, some comments to the effect that hey, it's not me saying that, it's God, and I'm a sinner as well, and it's other sins as well (see post above for another late example of that) and Islam does the same and gee, all you have to do is repent...

Me? I don't agree with the first father, but I'd support him as much as he would be supporting his daughter. The other guy? I wouldn't give him the time of day. But I'd reach out to his daughter.

The other point is that, however sick and tired you are of hearing this, I determine what is allowed by asking if harm is caused. It really is that simple. So do gay relationships cause harm? Well, no more (and much less) then straight relationships do. Does a 'gay lifestyle' cause harm? Well, assuming you might mean multiple sexual partners then it would. But no more (and a lot less) than those who are straight and have similar lifestyles. There are some gay couples I know whose relationship has been solid for literally decades. And some straight marriages that have ended soon after they started.

The advice I gave my kids as they were growing up was to treat others with respect. Don't drink too much. Stay clear of hard drugs. Don't sleep around. Take precautions. In short, don't do anything stupid. Don't cause harm to yourself and certainly not to others. They did OK. Both now in long term partnerships with kids of their own. Now you don't know if either of them are gay. If you met them then I'm pretty certain that you'd think that they were really good people. Would you personally change your mind in that regard if one of them happened to be gay? Would you then say 'Hey, you have succumbed to the demonic influence of the lbgt agenda! You are living like barnyard animals!'

Really? Gimme a break...

Imagine if your kids also turned out to being left handed as a conservative Republican wants to extend the web of intolerance to "lefties" as well.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Imagine if your kids also turned out to being left handed as a conservative Republican wants to extend the web of intolerance to "lefties" as well.

View attachment 332364​

Marje is a vile one. So sinister.

 

[Aldebaran]

The bible has no influence on my life. Other than I treat what Jesus taught (as related in scripture) as good advice as to how to live a good life. But He's one of very many I have read about and listened to and taken advice from over the decades.

So the bible doesn't control me. No more than Marcus Aurelius' Meditations controls me. Or Bentham's Principle of Morals. or Plato's Republic.

And yet, Romans 1:32 is what has kept you in this thread after you specifically said you were leaving. The evidence is here for all to see.
God said His Word would not return void, and He is correct.

 

[sjastro]

Marje is a vile one. So sinister.

It wasn't too long ago left handers like myself were labelled as "sinistra" with its negative connotations.
In the Middle Ages it wasn't safe being left handed.

In the Middle Ages, the Holy Inquisition considered the left-handed population to be the product of the devil or witches, so they were persecuted, imprisoned, and even burned at the stake.

Hopefully religious tolerance which has developed towards left handers will eventually apply to the LGBTQ community as well.

 

[Bradskii]

And yet, Romans 1:32 is what has kept you in this thread after you specifically said you were leaving. The evidence is here for all to see.
God said His Word would not return void, and He is correct.

His word is not what I am concerned with. It's how it is presented.

 

[FenderTL5]

His word is not what I am concerned with. It's how it is presented.

I understand your point.

It should be possible to refrain from "practicing such things" and refrain from "approving those who practice them" yet at the same time, not be a jerk about it or go out the way to make others miserable. It's possible to love one's neighbor and not approve of the lifestyle.

Another consideration, is the same passage goes on to say, "whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself.."
Or as one 80s CCM poet phrased it,
"When the chicken squawks loudest,
Gonna lay a big egg."

The Apostle Paul addresses sexual immorality in another passage as well (1 Corinthians) and the church is to judge those within the congregation.. but leave those outside to God.
The modern mindset reverses this, tending to give a pass to indiscretion among church members but making demonstrative accusation and protest against those outside the church.

 

[Bradskii]

I understand your point.

It should be possible to refrain from "practicing such things" and refrain from "approving those who practice them" yet at the same time, not be a jerk about it or go out the way to make others miserable. It's possible to love one's neighbor and not approve of the lifestyle.

I think that's what being Christian is all about.

 

[Aldebaran]

His word is not what I am concerned with. It's how it is presented.

How would you like it presented, other than how it is already written?

 

[Aldebaran]

I think that's what being Christian is all about.

If you agree with it, why be atheist?