"Wrong"

are they really? I don't buy for a minute that these people being "forced to accept" homosexuality are just adhering to some religious teaching. No religious teachings say "Thou shall not sell provide goods and services to people who don't agree with you politically."

I personally think they are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing behind religion to excuse their prejudice.

 

You can lead a horse to water...

I don't think that poster is the slightest bit interested in understanding why people kill themselves. I think it plays right into some people's arguments that suicide occurs among gay people. It gives them fodder to the mantra that homosexuality is a mental illness.

Amazing such wicked behavior from people that worship a God they say is of love. Huh?

 

It still applies to what you said, which was:

If someone says something that drives another to commit suicide....they share the blame.

Now you want to decide what words would cause suicide and which ones won't ?


Boy, the gays sure love a wide open playing field when they set the rules. I guess so that blame can be thrown elsewhere whenever they desire.....

 

No, it doesn't apply, because someone saying "gay marriage is stupid" is not what drives gay teens to commit suicide. That I have to repeat this to you a second time only further highlights your ignorance.

 

Many passages in the New Testament teach that sin is not to be tolerated or encouraged Jude1:22, James 1:27, 2 Peter 3:9, and others. Its commonly referred to as "love the sinner, hate the sin". Other passages go further and make it clear that sin is to be rebuked and revoked whenever and wherever it is encountered 1 Timothy 5:20, Luke 17:3, Titus 1:13, for example.

The Christian baker provided cakes for gays when the occasion was for an event that did not cross the religious boundary (birthday for example), but correctly refused to provide a cake which promotes sin - in this case a gay wedding. If he had provided the cake to the wedding, his enabling would have given his approval to the sin.

Homosexuality is a sin, Christians are completely correct in not supporting it by withholding their skills. In fact, they should be actively rebuking it.

 

wasn't aware doing business with people was supporting them. I figured it was supporting yourself.

Please tell me is it sinful to provide goods and services for Bar Mitzvahs? Isn't it sinful for somebody not to accept Christ? Is it okay to condone that sin?

This religious crap is just a smoke screen. It's strictly politics. I could pick out bible verses that by your standard make them hypocrites. See above.

 

Like I said, you want to define what drives gays to suicide. You can't put yourself in the mind of the one who kills himself.

Instead of hanging onto the one silly example I typed, can you list the phrases we shouldn't say ?

If your dad says "you're an F'ing queer", and you kill yourself.... is he to blame ?

Follow-up, since you just said "yes" in your head....
Is he to blame for causing it? or to blame just because he's the nearest guy around who disagrees with you? (the usual case)


This is just another of those "we'll set the rules as we go" types of gay-as-victim B.S.
The sooner you and a couple others here accept that suicide is a personal choice, the sooner you can stop blaming others... for everything.

 

The fundamental difference is your position is that a person should operate as 2 parts, one a secular part to be used in public, the other a nonsecular part to be used in private, a person should be able to transition seamlessly between the two parts, and the two parts should operate independently and in isolation from each other.

Sort of like keeping a fundamental part of a person in the closet, so to speak. Sound familiar?

 

Actually, you can get an idea of why people try to kill themselves by talking to the ones that failed to succeed and survived their attempt. Nobody ever kills themselves because somebody tells them "gay marriage is stupid." Gay teen suicide is not the result of disagreement. You don't have a clue, and you don't even care to understand so there is no point talking with you. There is nothing I can do to educate someone like you who chooses to remain willfully ignorant.

 

And you can apply their reasoning to a grand total of that ONE person. What you can not do is blame the parents of one suicide victim, because a failed victim says his parents drove him to it.
Which is what you seem to want to do.

I'd hope not. I would hate to think they are any less stable than we already know.
As I said, you can continue to be hung up on that comment, or accept that it was just a silly example of your earlier reasoning.

Your choice.

Nor is it what I claimed. Ever.

I already understand and that understanding is not up for discussion.
I have clearly spelled out my experience in the matter. What the shrinks, specialists and failed victims tell me will trump anything you have to say.

No offense, but knowledge wins. Always will.
Good luck trying to convince others.



Maybe next time a gay kid kills himself, and you run through your list of who is at fault.... you should ask yourself why his name isn't there.

 

Of course you can place the blame on parents if the bad actions of the parents resulted in depression, suicidal thoughts, and ultimate suicide. To say otherwise is silly. Suicide does not occur in a bubble.

Glad you came around and now agree that such a comment is not what causes suicide.

You accused me of blaming suicide on people the victim disagrees with. That was never what I claimed, or anyone claimed.

Others don't need convincing because unlike you, they have a clue.

No need to ask. If you have a clue about suicide, you'd already know why.

 

Which bible are you referring to there are so many different interpretations?

 

Be interested to see your answer to the question instead of trying to avoid it, the question from Polydectes was "Please tell me is it sinful to provide goods and services for Bar Mitzvahs? Isn't it sinful for somebody not to accept Christ? Is it okay to condone that sin?" in case you missed it.

 

Uh, yea.... I already said so in an earlier post.

Hopefully one day you'll understand that no comment "causes" suicide.

Why the one who committed suicide is never to blame ? ffs, do you even have a clue wtf you're saying?

Stop pretending to know stuff.... because you don't.

Gays... always blaming everyone else.
Unbelievable.

 

That isn't at all what I'm saying.

I said this has nothing to do with religion. And I illustrated that very well. So no, I'm not saying what you have misrepresented my argument to say at all. That is your strawman.

It clearly has nothing to do with religion. I think that people need to start calling these people out on their bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

I'm calling them liars.

 

No, that is exactly what you are saying. You are making 2 claims. First you are claiming that people should separate their religion from their daily life, that they should live 2 lifestyles - one a private lifestyle in which their religion plays a role, and the second a public lifestyle which conforms to the secular rules created by people like you. In other words, religious people should keep their religion in the closet.

Second, you claim that the issue of homosexuality has nothing to do with Christianity, which is clearly false to anyone that has a Bible. Christians have a clear religious mandate to witness to nonbelievers, and rebuke sin. I gave you several verses from the New testament, there are many more, and entire bodies of work on the subject of Christians and their relationship with sin and sinners. You can call religious people liars, but only out of your ignorance of religion.

 

Incorrect. What I'm saying is that religion is just an excuse, and has nothing to do with this.

All you really posted was verses that you interpret To be relevant to homosexuality.

I really only mean that they are disingenuous for claiming discrimination against only one kind of "sinner" is mandated by their religion. That is false. And it really doesn't have anything to do with their religion, it's more about politics. The more you insist it isn't the more disingenuous you sound.

 

Which version of the bible would that be, there are so many and if you really had done any research on bible translations you would have found that in order to make all homosexuality a sin the translators had to add in words.

 

The word "homosexuality" did not exist until recently and was not in the Bible, but that does not mean it did not exist and was not referenced. Homosexuality was referred to as men laying with men, men performing unnatural acts with men, and similar phrases.

 

Except that in the most used quotations from the bible it doesn't actually say that when read in context, and as I said words were added to change what the direct translation meant.

 

It's not relevant than. Homosexuality is natural to homosexuals. The bible likely didn't take nature into consideration.

 

No, you are claiming is that the secular world should always trump the religious beliefs of every person and in all aspects of life that relate to public or nonfamily members. Because you believe one thing (that Christianity has nothing to do with certain aspects of public life), you want to impose that belief on all people.

NO, I posted a few verses that had to do with how a Christian should relate to sin and sinners, the verses did not discuss homosexuality. Remember, the topic is whether a Christian has an obligation to rebuke sin or should set aside his religious requirements while in the public square.

Clearly, when presented with evidence that decisively refutes your claim, you close your mind to the evidence to salvage your personal bias.

Again, the Bible in both New and Old Testaments is quite clear that a person must rebuke sin wherever it is encountered. The sin is the target, not the sinner unless the sinner is incorrigible. The idea is that God loves all people, all people are worthy of salvation, and only in well defined circumstances should a person be shunned. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16) is to bring salvation to all people of the world, which requires respectful contact with people of all types.

 

Who gets to decide what constitutes an "unnatural act"? You? Me? Someone else? And by what authority? I argue that two gay men having sex together is as natural as my wife and I having sex together. What... a mans penis does not belong in another mans anus? Is it unnatural for a mans penis to be in a woman's mouth... between her breasts... or up her anus? What is natural/unnatural during sex will vary from person to person. To some anything other than missionary position with the lights off is unnatural... while to others the sky is the limit and its all natural.

 

Whether it is relevant or not still doesn't explain the fact that when read in context there are no biblical quotes that directly condemn all homosexuals, and to add insult to injury the translators had to add in words in order to make it say what their bias told them it should say.

- - - Updated - - -

Except for the fact that no where in the true exact translation of the bible does it say all homosexuality is a sin.

for example look at one of the most often used quotes from the bible to condemn homosexuality - Lev. 18:22

I prefer one that has the closest possible translation from Hebrew, In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee.". The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example:

The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."

On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."

The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:

Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" in this verse into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."

Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the ancient Israelite to be executed or expelled from the tribe.

Religious conservatives and Bible translators tend to interpret this transgression as a moral sin. The King James Bible is typical; it calls sex between to men to be an "abomination." However, others interpret it as a ceremonial uncleanliness -- as an impurity, ritual impurity, or act that results in ceremonial uncleanliness.

The verse in question is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is ambiguous. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

The Net Bible translation inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."

An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.

It all really relies on which bible interpretative translation the person is reading.

The other thing that most Christians fail to acknowledge is that they are not bound by the laws of the OT, they may choose to follow them if they wish, though I would suggest that most only follow the laws of the OT that they want to and the ones that they perceive as aligning with their own agenda .. such as Lev. 18:22