|
On July 13 2012 10:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 09:24 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 09:13 ghrur wrote:On July 13 2012 09:05 kevinmon wrote:On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This guy has a good point, you can't make babies. There's a difference between making babies and raising babies. And I don't understand how someone like BobbyT, who claims to be a "law student" (WOOT! ANOTHER UNVERIFIED EXPERT I MUST LISTEN TO!), can support civil unions but not gay marriages when that's essentially "separate but equal" when Brown vs Board of Education has stated that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Although, I suppose if you want to say you're allowing the inequality on the basis of sex, there's some merit, but let's be realistic. The difference is not on the basis of sex but sexual orientation. You answered your own question. There are differences between the sexes. There are not differences between the races. Gay marriage supporters do not support a definition which involves a determination of your sexual orientation. So any two straight people will be able to marry. I have no idea how you could prove/disprove that someone is gay, you'd have to take their word for it. So obviously any definition of marriage that involved orientation would be unworkable and stupid because there is no way to tell who someone is truely attracted to. So then don't involve orientation in the definition of marriage? The fact that you think it's "unworkable" is hilarious considering that dozens of nations around the world seem to have done it without any issues.
You misunderstand my point. What's unworkable is conditioning same sex marriage on sexual orientation. Not allowing same sex unions themselves, thats easily done.
|
And google takes one more step towards world domination
|
A long, long time ago 22:15-21 Matthew wrote:
he [Jesus] responded
“Then give to Caesar what is Caesar, but give to God what is God’s.”
This response supports the separation of church and state, and the idea that Christians should support their state in its matters.
Christians are supported by this passage when they protest against the idea of gay marriage being lawful in their own church on the basis of other sections of the religious text, no matter how contrary to the Golden Rule amongst other Christian principles it might seem to other Christians - this is a theological debate and one that will take rather a while to settle, though it seems likely that the shift towards inclusivity and away from apocalyptic thought in most mainstream strands of Christianity is likely to decide on the primacy of the Golden Rule at some point. (This is not guaranteed, but is my prediction.)
However, should a Christian wish to protest against taxes, gay marriage in the civil sense, or property laws, they cannot use scripture as their justification. Civil law is in the arena of Caesar rather than God, so the arguments made to support or oppose changes to civil laws must stand without reference to scripture. Arguments may be based on philosophy, evidence or the combination of the two.
Just as the laws of a state cannot make any marital union valid in the eyes of any church, no church can pass laws that invalidate the marital union of any couple in the eyes of the state.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 05:14 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:11 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:00 Starshaped wrote:On July 13 2012 04:56 Joedaddy wrote:On July 13 2012 04:47 Starshaped wrote:On July 13 2012 04:28 Joedaddy wrote:On July 13 2012 04:22 AdamBanks wrote:On July 13 2012 04:04 MindBreaker wrote:On July 13 2012 03:56 Joedaddy wrote:[quote] Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us  As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products. I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify. I can only speak for myself but.... Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean. Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents. Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else. Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person. Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see. And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other. Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking. Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol. This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do. This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard. Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society. The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude. The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc. What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that? It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness. That is not the reason that blind people are generally not allowed to drive. The reason most are not allowed to drive is because they have not demonstrated enough safety in vehicle operation to even be offered a test, let alone passed the test. We also don't allow non-blind people who can't drive well enough to pass the test to drive. You can be legally blind and hold a license in the US, you just need to pass the test.
|
A saavy business move. Im sure their analysts are telling just them much internet and tech spending is attributable to young liberals and gays, whereas their ability to extract money from ultra conservative Christians is relatively insignificant.
|
I don't get it,
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented.
the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state.
It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this.
|
On July 13 2012 17:34 Arunu wrote:
I don't get it,
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented.
the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state.
It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this.
I believe the thought process is this:
Christianity has a concept of marriage
Christians are God's favorites because Jesus was God and God's son or something like that
Therefore,
Christians have sole ownership of marriage
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the logic. I don't agree, but I think that's how they rationalize being the one religion that gets to decide, even though lots of others have different ideas.
|
On July 13 2012 17:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 17:34 Arunu wrote:
I don't get it,
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented.
the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state.
It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this. I believe the thought process is this: Christianity has a concept of marriage Christians are God's favorites because Jesus was God and God's son or something like that Therefore, Christians have sole ownership of marriage Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the logic. I don't agree, but I think that's how they rationalize being the one religion that gets to decide, even though lots of others have different ideas.
For a lot of the Christians who have difficulties understanding the separation of church and state it seems that there is a distinct failure to comprehend that different beliefs are actually possible. They might know that there are different religions, and people have different interpretations of their own religion, but they have not thought through the logical consequences of the co-existence of people with differing beliefs. Often they fail to realise that morality does not stem from religion, though aspects are often guided or encouraged by it. So to them, secularism or indeed any law that goes against some aspect of the behavioural code of their religion are immoral and dangerous. Better religious and philosophical education would be useful in helping people to differentiate between the parts of a religious code that are useful for wider society, and the parts they can live by and let others not live by without allowing harm to happen by saying nothing. By doing so, it would reassure religious people that society can run along secular lines without becoming a nightmare dystopia.
TL; DR: Many Christians in Christian majority areas have difficulty internalising the idea that other beliefs are valid and lack of unbiased education in world religions and philosophy does not help.
|
I would love to see Christians boycott google. Yahoo is going to be raking in the cash.
|
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
The last thing this world needs is more children/people.
|
On July 13 2012 18:02 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 17:41 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2012 17:34 Arunu wrote:
I don't get it,
The construct of marriage predates christianity, it is not something christianity invented.
the whole issue is moot.
If a religious person does not want to marry a same sex couple, fine.... (i can respect that, well not really but meh)
There should however, since we use a separation of state and church, never be any question whether they should be allowed to marry before the state.
It should always be allowed.
Hard to believe people still have issues with this. I believe the thought process is this: Christianity has a concept of marriage Christians are God's favorites because Jesus was God and God's son or something like that Therefore, Christians have sole ownership of marriage Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the logic. I don't agree, but I think that's how they rationalize being the one religion that gets to decide, even though lots of others have different ideas. For a lot of the Christians who have difficulties understanding the separation of church and state it seems that there is a distinct failure to comprehend that different beliefs are actually possible. They might know that there are different religions, and people have different interpretations of their own religion, but they have not thought through the logical consequences of the co-existence of people with differing beliefs. Often they fail to realise that morality does not stem from religion, though aspects are often guided or encouraged by it. So to them, secularism or indeed any law that goes against some aspect of the behavioural code of their religion are immoral and dangerous. Better religious and philosophical education would be useful in helping people to differentiate between the parts of a religious code that are useful for wider society, and the parts they can live by and let others not live by without allowing harm to happen by saying nothing. By doing so, it would reassure religious people that society can run along secular lines without becoming a nightmare dystopia. TL; DR: Many Christians in Christian majority areas have difficulty internalising the idea that other beliefs are valid and lack of unbiased education in world religions and philosophy does not help.
On July 09 2012 06:09 Probe1 wrote:
I would say instead of how dumb people are, how little they actually have in defense of their bigoted beliefs.
To the opposition of gay marriage:
You don't have any legitimate reasons to oppose gay marriage. Homosexuals make you uncomfortable. You're afraid of gay people and you're probably afraid of your own sexuality. So you hide behind the Old Testament and then pervert marriage laws that were never supposed to preserve the sanctity of Christian beliefs.
It's fuckin bigotry. The same arguments were used against Negros. The same shit was said about womens suffrage. It's stupid shit that feels great to say because it costs you nothing. Who cares if a gay man or woman doesn't have rights? It doesn't bother you in the slightest if a gay man or woman is alienated and given unfair or unequal treatment but it's a problem when they want to be given the same rights as a straight person?
I don't want you to live on my planet anymore.
Those are my thoughts.
It is becoming evident to me that the hinge of your focus is around the derogitorisation of homosexuals, and in terms of such discrimination I am in absolute agreement. As Christians we must not despise or be anything other than loving towards homosexuals. I think what happens is people are so vehemently opposed to and disgusted by homosexual behaviour that they revert to being derogatory towards the homosexual person as a way of expressing their feelings and beliefs. The Scriptural injunction is that we must be totally unaccepting of sin. Unfortunately, this sometimes makes us unaccepting of the person committing the sin.
Jesus still hated the sin, while loving the sinner. He clearly equated loving with admonishing for sin and requiring repentance. He recognised this problem of religious people being judgmental, but He still required repentance. The woman taken in adultery (John 8) is a good example. Jesus dealt with the religious men for condemning her as a person and in v.11 He said "Neither do I condemn thee:go and SIN NO MORE" (my emphasis). He didn't say ' Well I feel sorry for you because you were probably born sexually promiscuous. Just carry on and we'll hope people will accept what you are doing because they should do that'. No, He said, lovingly but authoritatively, "go and sin no more". He wanted the religious people to love her as He did, but the sin had to end - she had to repent.
I do feel compelled however, to look at scripture in the case of homosexuality, and a good place to start is always at the beginning! So, the beginning in relation to the individual, is the question: 'Is a person genetically "wired" to be homosexual or heterosexual?'. This is a popular argument used to support homosexuality. Research doesn't support this, however. For example, research with identical twins has found that despite being genetically absolutely identical, in half the cases where one twin is homosexual, the other is heterosexual. So while there may be a genetic predisposition at best, it is environmental influences that combine with any genetic predisposition to influence orientation. Research also suggests that heredity affects sexual orientation only indirectly by influencing personality factors which in turn may steer young people towards different socialisation experiences and it is those that essentially determine orientation. (The references are available from psycologists I know).
The thing is, we all have genetic predispositions, many of which may be socially unacceptable, immoral etc. I might have, for example, a genetic predisposition to kleptomania and I might even be brought up in, or have life experiences that support that predisposition. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing I can or should do about it and that I have the right to steal what I can.
Therefore, it comes down to the fundamental question of right and wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, then like the kleptomania example, a genetic predisposition and life's experiences don't excuse it. The question of whether something is right or wrong is ultimately a Scriptural one. No Christian can disagree that God is the final arbiter of right and wrong. So, does Scripture say homosexuality is right, wrong, or is it equivocal or silent on the matter?
So, the second beginning is to start at the beginning of the Scriptural record where we see from Genesis 2:18-24 that homosexuality violates the very nature of the sexual relationship that God put in place at creation, to be fulfilled only in the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman.
A fundamental and defining doctrine of Christianity is the doctrine of original sin. That is, any behaviour that violates or seeks to change God's plan and standards is a result of the introduction of sin into God's creation. Some even suggest that God creates homosexuals, but it would be contrary to God's nature to create a person in direct violation of His own blueprint and standards. Homosexuality is a consequence, therefore, of the fallen human nature/sin. We must, therefore, respond to it like any other temptation and sin. The Bible is replete with advice and instructions on how to deal with temptations and sinful behaviours in our lives.
Homosexuality clearly falls into the category of sin, not only because of the plan for human relationships God established at creation, but also because He then explicitly and decisively addressed the problem as it had arisen in Sodom (Genesis 19). Suggestions that this account can be read as not referring to homosexual behaviour are fanciful and contrived at best, but basically evidence a fundamentally unintelligent misunderstanding of both the Hebrew and English languages. The meaning of the Genesis 19 events in terms of homosexuality has been accepted by society in general throughout the ages and is indicated of course, by the etymology of the word "sodomy".
Not only did God deal decisively with the problem at Sodom but He then explicitly outlawed homosexual behaviour and recorded this in Scripture. First, it is recorded in Leviticus 18:22 where it is referred to as an "abomination" (KJV). Interestingly, the next verse condemns bestiality, referring to it as "confusion". Yet while the New Zealand criminal law continues to outlaw and provide severe penalties for the "confusion" of bestiality, it has legalised the "abomination" of homosexuality! It can be argued that the "laws" of Leviticus are not to be strictly observed as absolute law by us living in the Christian era. Certainly, one can point to some of them, such as the mixing of fibres in clothing, as being difficult to understand. My response to this view is that perhaps they are not absolute laws (although just because we don't understand them or think we have progressed beyond them as a society, doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't know something that is good for us that we don't know. For example, science is now catching up by realising the dangers associated with eating shellfish! After all God's "laws" are actually for our benefit), but they do, at the very least, show us the mind of God.
In the case of homosexuality, God describes it as an abomination or detestable in Leviticus. Indeed, so serious is it in His eyes that in Leviticus 20:13 He said that both partners committing homosexual sex must be put to death. Even if we argue that this law is no longer applicable in terms of penalty, it shows clearly how seriously God views this behaviour. Remember too that God is unchanging. His view of homosexuality has not changed in the three or so millennia that have passed since the writing of Leviticus. He may have relaxed the penalty of death, since Christ has paid that penalty on our behalf (provided we accept that and repent), but He hasn't changed His view of the behaviour as being an abomination. Incidentally, there's a very plain statement in Deuteronomy 23:17 also: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" I trust no one would demonstrate their lack of Biblical exegesis by suggesting this applies only to Jewish people.
So, if we still decide to ignore God's views set out in the Old Testament because we think they are no longer applicable, has God dealt with the issue in New Testament times? Clearly, He has. Romans 1:24-27 clearly refers to homosexuality. Indeed, not only does it refer to homosexual acts but also to homosexual desire - "burned in their lust for one another". Interestingly, the last phrase of v.27 is likely a reference to Aids. Then in v.32 God's view of the gravity of this behaviour, along with others, mirrors the view contained in Leviticus 20:13. Note too that those who agree with or condone these behaviours are equally as disappointing to God.
Moving on, we are left totally without excuse when we read 1 Corinthians 6 -10. Unrepentant homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Surely a person would have to be blinded by sin or satan not to be concerned by that plain warning from God Himself. Furthermore, like the Old Testament, the New testament consistently refers to homosexuality when listing serious sin. So it is included in the list in 1 Timothy1-10 as well.
I believe in the literal method of Bible interpretation - that is, the understanding of a text that any person of normal intelligence would understand without the help of any special keys, codes, or background knowledge (like culture for example). If one believes the Bible to be the inspired word of a timeless God, then one must believe that it is understandable on the face of it and that just as God "breathed" His inspiration into its writing, He will see to it that if we really want to hear what He has to say through it, we will do so in a clear and unequivocal way.
Isaiah 5:20 says: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil". When we make or support a law that legalises evil we are sending the message that the legalised behaviour is acceptable. Even if we are doing it out of some liberal type notion that laws restrict peoples' "rights", the psychological effect of laws that legalise a given behaviour is that they legitimise that behaviour and make it into a "good" behaviour in the eyes, particularly, of young and other vulnerable and impressionable people.
Please be careful when you claim that such beliefs cause me to discriminate against minorities, for this is leaning toward an accusation of intentional discrimination which although unfortunately can happen as a side affect of the way in which humans live out the bibles message, is by no means a 'true christian' approach to such matters. Of course I meet people with genuine beliefs that may differ from my own, that is not justification for discrimination, nor is it in my belief justification for judgment; be mindful that the above account is scriptual - if someone was doing wrong I would not say to them "that is wrong" but rather "that is wrong according to the bible". I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change.
Thus I in closing wish to say sincerely that I have not offended any minority in what I have written.
|
Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
|
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote:
Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
|
I don't agree with his views but the post was actually very well written.
|
On August 23 2012 08:38 Savio wrote:
Can you give me the TL:DR version pls?
tl;dr: Homosexuality under the Christian religion is wrong and to challenge that Christianity can be inclusive of homosexuality is theologically unsound.
Edit: Although I disagree with some of his points, it sort of is a nutshell of christian theology when it comes to homosexuality. Sort of. I skimmed through it.
|
It was actually a fairly interesting read...I've never read a Christian's views on the subject so fleshed out before, and he does it fairly eloquently. I think I can give a slightly better TLDR than sunprince can though 
The first thing is he believes in condemning the "sin" that a person commits (i.e. homosexuality) but not the person; he believes all people are worthy of respect and can be saved, but that they can sin/make mistakes.
Then he talks about how there is no evidence from genetics or psychology that people are born homosexual, citing an example of genetically identical twins growing up two have different sexual orientations.
Thirdly he gives several examples from the bible that would show to any Christian that God explicitly thinks homosexuality is an abomination, and in the old testament that gays should be put to death. He reiterates that similar passages are found in the new testament (don't think there's anything about putting them to death though).
I think he's genuinely trying to be a good person, but he holds the bible in such high regard that his views are seen as bigotry. I wouldn't be so harsh on him, you don't help people by being insulting or rude, you generally only entrench them in their views further or give them negative opinions about people who hold different beliefs.
He has a nice closing: I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change.
I mean he's trying his best, its just the bible explicitly tells him homosexuality is wrong. I think there's a good person underneath all that
|
Did those studies only look at twins separated at birth to exclude environmental factors?
EDIT: Hey you took out the part about the studies...
|
Gangnam Style, explain why your religious views should be imposed on others? What gives you the right to impose your religious viewpoints into your law? Because you know that whole "separation of church and state" thing? Yea, this is precisely what it's talking about. One sect imposing it's views on everyone using the law. Not okay.
All you are saying is that YOU shouldn't get gay married. You have not talked about why none of us should be allowed to.
I also am always confused by homophobic people claiming they have homosexual friends. All this says to me is that you're willing to be a complete jackass to your friends. Do your homosexual friends agree with you? Why should I care that you have homosexual friends? Should I be impressed by the fact that you think your own friends don't deserve equal legal rights to you? Because that doesn't impress me. That just sickens me more.
And if you hold the bible in such high esteem, are you as flagrantly sexist as the bible is? You do realize that women do not have the power of consent in the bible, right? Rape is when the father, brother, or husband does not agree. It has nothing to do with the woman. I'm not sure why you hold the bible in such high esteem when it's so flagrantly evil and opposed to human rights.
Finally, you may want to look up Edie Windsor: http://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/doma-headed-supreme-court
|
On August 23 2012 08:40 sunprince wrote:TL;DR: Gangnam Style is a Christian bigot, but doesn't want you to call him that. He also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible told him so.
we'll at least he took the time to explain his view point instead of bashing because they're emotionally insecure and butt hurt over the matter. only bigot i see is you and the people who have that same emotional response when someone doesn't agree with them.
|
On August 23 2012 09:07 radscorpion9 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It was actually a fairly interesting read...I've never read a Christian's views on the subject so fleshed out before, and he does it fairly eloquently. I think I can give a slightly better TLDR than sunprince can though The first thing is he believes in condemning the "sin" that a person commits (i.e. homosexuality) but not the person; he believes all people are worthy of respect and can be saved, but that they can sin/make mistakes. Then he talks about how there is no evidence from genetics or psychology that people are born homosexual, citing an example of genetically identical twins growing up two have different sexual orientations. Thirdly he gives several examples from the bible that would show to any Christian that God explicitly thinks homosexuality is an abomination, and in the old testament that gays should be put to death. He reiterates that similar passages are found in the new testament (don't think there's anything about putting them to death though). I think he's genuinely trying to be a good person, but he holds the bible in such high regard that his views are seen as bigotry. I wouldn't be so harsh on him, you don't help people by being insulting or rude, you generally only entrench them in their views further or give them negative opinions about people who hold different beliefs. He has a nice closing: I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change. I mean he's trying his best, its just the bible explicitly tells him homosexuality is wrong. I think there's a good person underneath all that
He shares that view with the majority of non-fundamentalist christians in western countries. The bible explicitly says it was not the intention of God for same-sex relationships to happen, however it also teaches to accept everybody. Just because somebody does or believes something that goes agaist what you believe, doesn't give you a right to judge them or force your beliefs upon them, and the vast majority of christians do not (at least in Australia, maybe the US is different. The bible explicitly says somewhere something along the lines of 'judge others and you will be judged', so the people going around saying that they're better than everyone else clearly missed some main points of the faith.
I was raised in a Christian family, so yeah I've met a lot of people that follow the faith, and none of them (perhaps barring the really old generations, like 65+) act at all rude or judgemental towards anyone of homosexual persuasion. They do however view marriage as defined by the state to be defined as between man and woman, because marriage by the state was based upon christian marriage, perhaps if we redefined it, and separated it from any religious ties, it would go down better?
|
On August 23 2012 09:45 Rollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 09:07 radscorpion9 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +It was actually a fairly interesting read...I've never read a Christian's views on the subject so fleshed out before, and he does it fairly eloquently. I think I can give a slightly better TLDR than sunprince can though The first thing is he believes in condemning the "sin" that a person commits (i.e. homosexuality) but not the person; he believes all people are worthy of respect and can be saved, but that they can sin/make mistakes. Then he talks about how there is no evidence from genetics or psychology that people are born homosexual, citing an example of genetically identical twins growing up two have different sexual orientations. Thirdly he gives several examples from the bible that would show to any Christian that God explicitly thinks homosexuality is an abomination, and in the old testament that gays should be put to death. He reiterates that similar passages are found in the new testament (don't think there's anything about putting them to death though). I think he's genuinely trying to be a good person, but he holds the bible in such high regard that his views are seen as bigotry. I wouldn't be so harsh on him, you don't help people by being insulting or rude, you generally only entrench them in their views further or give them negative opinions about people who hold different beliefs. He has a nice closing: I indeed have homosexual friends myself and do not treat them differently; it is ultimately up to them and the holy spirit should anything change. I mean he's trying his best, its just the bible explicitly tells him homosexuality is wrong. I think there's a good person underneath all that He shares that view with the majority of non-fundamentalist christians in western countries. The bible explicitly says it was not the intention of God for same-sex relationships to happen, however it also teaches to accept everybody. Just because somebody does or believes something that goes agaist what you believe, doesn't give you a right to judge them or force your beliefs upon them, and the vast majority of christians do not (at least in Australia, maybe the US is different. The bible explicitly says somewhere something along the lines of 'judge others and you will be judged', so the people going around saying that they're better than everyone else clearly missed some main points of the faith. I was raised in a Christian family, so yeah I've met a lot of people that follow the faith, and none of them (perhaps barring the really old generations, like 65+) act at all rude or judgemental towards anyone of homosexual persuasion. They do however view marriage as defined by the state to be defined as between man and woman, because marriage by the state was based upon christian marriage, perhaps if we redefined it, and separated it from any religious ties, it would go down better?
It's already separate from religious ties. Nonchristians get married too, weirdo. Not to mention there are also Christians that believes gays should be allowed to get married as well. It's not like Christians are unanimous in this regard. Not at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
