"Wrong"

No That isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that because religion is protected people are attempting to exploit that protection to enforce their will upon the society. I'm simply calling bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

It's a moot point you made because all Christians are sinners. They need to approach sinners based in the golden rule. Besides homosexuality isn't a sin, so far you have failed to prove that. And just randomly selecting things that aren't liked isn't how sin is defined.

Pretend sin for political smoke screen no Christians should not rebuke that, that is usurpation of Christ.

Bias against what, Christians? I am Christian, I'm biased against liars.

Again modern political posturing isn't really rebuking. It's serving a different master for political gain. That is a sin and I'm called to rebuke what you are doing. You simply remain defiant.

I personally have no problem with business owners refusing business to anybody for any reason. Further I think it's wrong to have anti discrimination laws if there is no serious issue with groups having access to needs and services.

But this religious bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is just that. Just say you don't think it's right, why the religious crap?

 

I've actually got a list of several anti gay Christian scholars that have stated that the bible doesn't mention homosexuality or anything of the sort. But I don't bother, many people who insist upon this being against Christianity do so to justify their political position.

It isn't about sin, it isn't about religion it's politics. You and I both know that.

 

Well, you prove my earlier point that you are not interested in facts, conversation, or alternative ideas. You hate Christians, possibly all religious people. You have made your position clear.

 

Then male homosexuality is a sin and is repugnant to God. We agree on that item and I will leave it there.

Its common knowledge and most Christians understand the New Testament defines a covenant with God and all people, the Old Testament defines a covenant between God and the Jews. If some non-Jewish Christians choose to follow parts of the Old Testament because it indicates Gods direction, then there is nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't conflict with the New Testament covenant.

 

What is natural or not is to an extent a personal choice - personal choices are restricted by various agreements such as the legal code, religious principles, morality of family and friends. Society through the legal system and social pressure makes rape an unnatural act, a man is punished for performing that unnatural act. In a similar manner, a person who has accepted Jesus as Savior is bound by the rules and restrictions of Christianity and must abstain from unnatural acts defined by that religious doctrine.

The issue is whether you can force other people to adopt your choices as to what is natural and unnatural., whether you can dictate your morality to all people.

 

Oh, so the only reason people could possibly disagree is because they hate Christians?

I'm perfectly fine with discussion, but you and I disagree. Now if you are only capable of having discussions with people that share your opinion, and say that everybody that disagrees with you is just a mean big bad old jerk that hates Christians, I'd say it's you that is incapable of having a discussion.

I've said several times this isn't about Christianity. You simply wish to insist that it is so you can continue playing victim. You simply aren't going to get away with that with me.

 

I argue that rape is illegal because it causes harm to the victim. Most of our laws are about the mitigation and penalization of harm.

The Bible is subjective and wide open to interpretation. Christians cannot even come to a collective agreement on what it says as proven by the Church's many splits. Poll Christians from many different denominations on what acts of sex are allowed by God and you will receive a wide variety of opinions because the Bible is subjective and wide open to interpretation.

Are gays trying to make you have sex with people of your sex? If not then the above quote is moot. Do you want to make it so gays cannot marry? If so then you are being hypocritical.

 

In your previous post, you essentially wrote that no matter what I presented, you will believe that religion is nothing more than an excuse used by people who hate homosexuals. I don't care if you do or do not share my opinion, but facts are another matter, and the facts of Christianity are that a Christian must exercise his religious beliefs throughout his life, not just in a private closet. You don't have to like that fact, and you don't have to accept that religion, but those are the facts.

 

"Harm" is both physical, emotional, and mental. Forcing someone to perform an act which violates their deeply held beliefs does harm. That's why freedom of religion is in the first amendment.

Some aspects of the Bible are open to interpretation, to claim it is wide open to interpretation is false.

But assume the Bible is open to interpretation, it does not matter to this discussion. People are free to believe in any philosophy of their choosing as long as it remains within certain legal boundaries, the people aligned with a particular religion have all accepted that dogma, and it is irrelevant that outsiders do not fully or even party accept that dogma.

No, but that does not mean gays are imposing upon me. When gays try to force my children to learn that the gay lifestyle is just as valid and effective as the traditional family, that violates my deeply held personal beliefs and flies in the face of an abundance of data - the gays are harming me and my family. When gays want to force Christians to perform gay weddings, it harms Christians. Gays have harmed many people simply because those people did not publicly embrace the gay lifestyle.

There is a civil union recognized by the government, and a religious marriage recognized by the church. I don't care if gays get a civil union which will allow them equal treatment under the law - equal tax status, insurance recognition of their significant other, hospital visitation, etc. I don't care if gays get a religious marriage in a religion that accepts that sort of thing. But I do care and oppose gays getting a religious marriage in a religion that sees homosexuality as a sin.

And that last is what the gays cannot stand. They just cannot tolerate any lack of acceptance and will try to force their beliefs on others.

 

Indeed.

You have evidence to back up that claim or it that just an opinion? What parts of the Bible are not open to interpretation and what athority enforces unity in view?

Nor does that dogma have any athority over non believers.

Please present this "abundance of data" that you refer to. What actual harm are gays causing your family?

I think you and I have a different view of what constitutes harm, but none the less I am against Christians being forces to preform same sex marriages as it violates the separation of Church and State.

How so?

I agree.

So you believe that you know he minds of others? To me the above is a stereotype.

 

Vonsidering the crap that Christians have done to homosexuals over the past two thousand years, why shouldn't anyone be hostile towards Christians?

What is it with this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) "Christians must not be hated" stuff?

You people have caused a lot of harm in the world thanks to your beliefs.

You don't want Christians to be hated then stop the hatred and bigotry of non Christians and stop trying to force everybody to bow down to christian beliefs as well.

Hate begets hate, and Christians are among the most hateful of all people.

But, the problem is with all haters, bigots, and racists, they never ever see themselves that way and think they are doing good.

There will always be detractors of the main group.

There is also some close mindedness from you because there is two thousand years of Christian tradition that homosexuality is in the Bible and is denounced by god. It's also something of a dishonest and misleading claim because the term homosexuality itself wasn't coined until the mid 18oo bt a German female psychiatrist.

What it can do is describe the behavior.

It is also close minded to ignore and dismiss this.

But that's how religion works. it never really changes, but when people have a disagreement with the major group, they will break off and form their own group and then act the same way as the major group.

Being open minded means investigating both sides of the issue, and not just listening to the side you want to hear.

That's how global warming deniers and conspiracy people work. And is actually a logical fallacy, I believe.

Both appeal to authority and to take a small amount and to inflate the numbers to make it seem as though a huge amount of people believe the same thing and to say they are changing their minds.

 

Your hatred has confused your reading. I did not write anywhere that people could not hate Christians, or that Christians were perfect. You are not even on the right topic for this OP.

 

I'm going to skip most of your questions (even though they are good questions) because they are side issues to this discussion, I don't have the time to address them, and you can easily find the answers on the internet if you are interested.

I will address the "gays have harmed many people because they did not publicly embrace the gay lifestyle"

Gays forced Brendan Eich (CEO of Mozilla) out of his job because 6 years earlier he had donated $1,000 to support proposition 8 (citizens initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman - it won). The gays mounted a social campaign which also targeted his family, friends, coworkers, to drive him out of Mozilla. Even though there was no indication Eich's personal opinion had influenced his professional actions in any way, and there was no check to see if in the intervening 6 years Eich had changed his opinion, the gays could not tolerate a man who earlier in life had participated in a legal action which did not support the gay agenda.

There is Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty), who stated a personal religious opinion (homosexuality is a sin) which was contrary to the gay agenda. Robertson was attacked by the gays even though there was no evidence his opinion impacted his business or media activity. The gays could not allow a popular public figure to voice an opinion which did not support the gay agenda.

David & Jason Benham's do-it-yourself home repair tv show was canceled after the gays protested the brothers. The brothers "crime" was thinking homosexuality was a sin and that abortion was wrong. The brothers attitude about gays and abortion was not publicly known, but their father was a pro-life activist, so the gays went after his sons. An extremist organization dug into the brothers past to find some "dirt".

There are other cases, easily found on the web.

The gays attack and destroy people who at any time in their lives expressed an opinion which does not pass the gay vetting process. Even if the people did not harm others, did not impose on others, and did not do anything illegal, and might have changed their mind, the gays cannot tolerate them.

 

As you posted no source citation I will only comment on the Phil Robertson comments as I am familiar with the controversy.

He was attacked by many people not just gays. Just as Phil is allowed his opinion others who oppose his views are allowed their opinions. So what actual harm was inflicted upon Phil by those who stood against his comments?

You make generalized statements that are tantamount to stereotypes. In a free/ish country people are allowed their opinion and believe me there are many on your side who are every bit as abrasive as some of the more militant gays. I reject the fringe element of both sides as biased and lacking any objectivity.

 

No, not to hate homosexuals. I didn't say that. I said they do it to force their politics through.

There is no belief here, I know it has nothing to do with Christianity. In all your chasing of white rabbits you did not show me scripture that says "Christians must not do business with sinners." You carried on about rebuke and other nonsense that had nothing to do with selling goods and services. Than you carried on about some dual life nonsense. The but about rebuke is hogwash. And there is no need to live a double life if you are a Christian business owner.

This nonsense again?

Opinion Isn't really relevant here. The bible never says that Christians can't do business with gay people. It never even says homosexuality is a sin.

The only facts here, are that people will make up religious beliefs as they go in order to support their political opinions. This has nothing to do with religion, that is also a fact.

You can produce all the strawman arguments and special pleading fallacies you wish, the facts I listed don't change.

 

I agree with you on this fringe thing.

And as far as Phil Robertson goes, any celebrity that opens their mouth politically speaking is going to get backlash from it. Just look up the Dixie chicks.

 

You obviously didn't read my comment or if you did you ignored most of it.

So which do you follow OT or NT, if it is NT then there is nothing in the NT that condemns homosexuality, I hope you are not like those that pick and choose what parts of the OT they want to follow usually to bolster an already failed ideology

 

I gave you three easily verifiable examples. Out of curiosity, why do so many people here dismiss something if the writer does not constantly add sources? Don't you have access to the internet - the worlds largest resource? Can't you spend 5 minutes doing your own research and enriching your own self? I always do my own checking even when the post I am reading contains links.

Or is it that not seeing links is a convenient excuse to dismiss something that doesn't fit the readers bias?

On Phil Robertson, he survived because his family was not intimidated by the gays, and the family supported him. Others are not so lucky, people lose their job because of attacks on their employer and co-workers, attacks which go far beyond simply stating an opinion.

 

You are wrong, its quite clear that a Christian has the obligation to oppose sin in the world and is demanded to refrain from sin in his own life.

You have not listed any facts, no references, no religious criticism, just your disproved opinion.

 

Eh, he was attacked for his comment by gays.... he was attacked for being a Christian by others.

But people with common sense understood he was just stating his belief because he was asked.
No one really cared.

Not even A&E network, who threw out that faux suspension, thinking they needed to appease the gays.
Soon as they remembered how much money Phil makes for them.... they were smart enough to quickly change their minds.
Money was much more important.

None. The attempts fell flat.

He signed a new contract, which included higher pay.

 

So what you're saying is.... you make claims about things you have no clue of?

Read 1 Corinthians and Romans, for starters.

Then you can never say this again: "there is nothing in the NT that condemns homosexuality"

 

Jim Crow was part of a deal to resolve the Presidential election of 1876 called the Hayes Compromise, I think. The Southron power structure was told that Reconstruction would be officially ended and the occupying troops, which had been enforcing the black's right to vote and a consequent Black hegemony in local politics, were withdrawn. Without the Army to stop them the Southrons used the Klan to stop blacks from voting and kill all those who objected to anything else they did. Within a few decades they had reestablished slavery in all but name and it stayed that way until the 1960's

Jim Crow, however, was a product of the 1890s. Along with the "Lost Cause" and the "Good Slaveholder" myths the idea was to make Southern Apartheid look somewhat less harsh than it actually was. According to the segregationist myth blacks remained violent savages, benignly tolerated, but necessarily kept in an inferior position.

 

I have and probably from a far better translation than you have, which only goes to show it is YOU that have no clue.

 

Because when you make a claim without a source it places me in a position of having to decide if you are objective enough for me to take you at your word... which I do not as I do not even know you. Citing a spicific source places us both on the same page where we can collectively review the same evidence and argue it point by point. Without source citation we can make any claim that we like.

Making others do your work is lazy debate. Like I said above, source citation places us both on the same page. Do you assume for example all web pages on the Duck Dynasty contraversy will say the exact same thing? Do you not understand that each author will report the contraversy from their own perspective leading to varying reports of the same thing? This is why source citation is important as it places us both on the same page.

He survived? Survived what exactly? Again I challange you to provide some proof... evidence... that he or his family were actually harmed by those who stood against his comments. Any wounds Phil received were self inflicted as he is a celebrity on a for profit TV show viewed by an audience made up of people from many different backgrounds. To comment on any hot button topic will offend some of his viewers. I assume Phil is smart enough to understand that, and even if he is not the wound is still self inflicted. The only harm I see is that his comments cost the show viewers and perhaps some money... which is no ones fault other than Phil.

Please cite sources with specific examples to debate.

 

And your point is?

And your point is?

Then why the contraversy if no one cared?

And your point is?

Here we agree.

And your point is?