Anti-gay bigots are the ones with the problem

[Kangaroo Feathers]

 

[Spartan]

One of your crazier statements, without any evidence to back it up. The evil sky fairy was apparently responsible for having babies killed, you obviously haven't read the Bible!

That's lame. You don't even know the difference between divine justice on wicked nations who murder their infants by sacrificing them to Molech, etc. (like the Canaanites), and murder.

 

[Spartan]

What an unpleasant bigot you are.

Poor poopie. Truth hurts? Get your feelings hurt, did you? Need a band aid or perhaps a support dog?

Like I said before, you demean and place negative labels on people who believe in the Biblical moral laws of God rather than the unprincipled behavior of active homosexuals. That kind of hate-filled rhetoric is sick, perverse, and deserves a place on a psychologist's couch.

 

[JJ50]

Poor poopie. Truth hurts? Get your feelings hurt, did you? Need a band aid or perhaps a support dog?

Like I said before, you demean and place negative labels on people who believe in the Biblical moral laws of God rather than the unprincipled behavior of active homosexuals. That kind of hate-filled rhetoric is sick, perverse, and deserves a place on a psychologist's couch.

It is disgusting that you are using the Bible as an excuse for your unpleasant behaviour. Many other forums would have banned you for you anti-gay stance.

 

[viole]

That's lame. You don't even know the difference between divine justice on wicked nations who murder their infants by sacrificing them to Molech, etc. (like the Canaanites), and murder.

Well, that divine justice murdered the same infants, too. Therefore, He was not much better than Molech.

And He is the giver of your morality, right? You would probably be much better off if Hannibal the Cannibal were the source of your morality.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like I said before, you demean and place negative labels on people who believe in the Biblical moral laws of God rather than the unprincipled behavior of active homosexuals. That kind of hate-filled rhetoric is sick, perverse, and deserves a place on a psychologist's couch.

What truth? That you take your morality from a moldy old book written by people who knew far less about the world that we do?

You've got it backwards. Your hate filled rhetoric against gay people is what is perverse.
If you're taking it from the Bible, then your Biblical law is also perverse and hate filled.

Gay people are human beings and deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other human being. You'd think a loving and moral God would recognize that.

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for the update. That makes sense, though. The two groups, from what I've seen, are pretty similar, hence my confusion.

About the only similarity between Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons is that neither group are part of "mainstream" Christianity. There, the similarity pretty much ends. (You know, there is a way to quickly figure out what a person's religion is so that you don't just have to guess. The person's religion, if he has chosen to make it public, is right there on the screen for all to see, just as yours is.)

 

[Scott C.]

The problem is that religious people who believe that homosexuality is immoral don't just keep it to themselves. They push it on people and try to use the law to enforce their morality. They show up at Pride events with bullhorns, insulting us and telling us God hates that event and we're going to burn in hell - including the young children attending with their families. They can believe whatever they want. If their religion proscribes homosexuality for its members, that's their business. But they have no business pushing it on others that don't belong to their religion. My religion doesn't have a concept of sin and my gods don't care what your gender or sexual orientation is. They're pretty queer themselves. So some Christian telling me I'm sinful is quite stupid and offensive. I don't protest outside of churches and read passages from the Eddas over a loudspeaker, so I'd appreciate it if Christians didn't try to push their views on me.

I agree with much of what you s

Oh, Scott, you are posting as if you came to your conclusions all by yourself, but I don't believe you did that at all, did you? If I'm not mistaken, you are a JW, is that correct?

If so, then your "beliefs" are actually the pronouncements and beliefs of the leaders of the JWs, and those "beliefs" are subject to change at any time...and you will immediately shift 180 degrees as to what you "believe" if the GB reverses course.

It might behoove you to consider critically thinking about what you've been told to believe rather than merely accepting whatever those men tell you. Be like the Beroeans...examine your faith. I know that JWs tell everyone else to examine their beliefs, but I also know that JWs are told that they should not even THINK anything that has not been told to them by the GB and that they should simply obey even if what they are told appears to be wrong. Ask yourself why they require this and do what you tell others to do...examine your faith.

I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not a Jehovah's Witness. And yes, you're right that I did not come up with these views all on my own. These are my beliefs based on my understanding of scripture and the teachings of my church which I believe. I'm pretty active in trying to learn about other faiths and have placed my belief in the validity of my church's major claims.

 

[Katzpur]

My perspective on this subject has changed considerably over the years. At this point in my life, I tend to believe that God is more opposed to sexual promiscuity than He is to sex outside of marriage, per se or to same-sex intimacy. My daughter has been in a relationship with her (opposite sex) "significant other" for over ten years now. She'd like them to be married, but she isn't pushing for it because he has made it clear that it's not for him (his dad was married six times and he's a bit gun-shy). They are 100% devoted to one another and while it would make me feel better about their relationship if they were to get married, I don't think God's as strongly opposed to their living arrangements as some within my faith community believe He is. They're completely faithful to each other and I think that's what matters to Him most.

Now, why would I even mention this in a thread on homosexuality? It's because I've come to realize how essential a physical relationship is in a person's life. We are created with the need for physical intimacy as an important means of expressing romantic love for someone. If I were still, say 35 years old and had never married, I would probably have at least made an effort to remain celibate (as sex outside of marriage is against the teachings of my church). Whether I'd have been successful or not is, of course, impossible to say. But, as a heterosexual woman, I would at least have always been able to have hope that sooner or later, I'd find "Mr. Right" and would be able to get married and be physically intimate with someone I loved. A homosexual man or a lesbian woman in my church would not have the hope that a heterosexual person would have. Instead of hoping on a daily basis that they'd eventually fall in love, they'd be hoping every day of their live that they wouldn't fall in love. Since my church does not encourage gays and lesbians to marry heterosexual partners and hope to develop a good intimate relationship with their spouse, these individuals are basically doomed to a life without any physical intimacy. And if they were to try to just live with a person they loved and remain celibate, that would be almost worse. I just can't get my head around the idea that God would want a person to live a life of such loneliness when there are so many people like them out there who want to be in permanent, committed relationships. IMO, God is not going to condemn a gay/lesbian individual who is in a permanent relationship with another person of the same sex who is deeply in love with them and committed to making a life together.

If I'm wrong, so be it, but as far as I'm concerned, sexual morals are a matter of personal conscience and any decisions regarding them are between the person and God (if they person believes in God at all, which many LGBT people do). That's my two cents.

 

[Scott C.]

You don't see the problem in telling a person that their sexual orientation (that they didn't choose any more than you did) is sinful and how people may be offended by such pronouncements?

You asked, so I will give my candid answer. Yes I can see how someone would be offended. If I understand homosexuality correctly, I see these people as being in a particularly difficult position if they are members of my church, choose to believe it's teachings, and choose to follow the commandments.

There are many single heterosexual adults in my church who are asked to abstain from sex until (and if) they get married. Some of them may have to abstain for years or even their entire lives. This is not easy for many of them. Some of them "mess up", have a chat with their bishop, repent, and are on their way, back on track. When they mess up, nobody thinks they are terrible. We all get it. We understand temptation. We sin. We repent. The point is that we believe a certain way and try to live that way. Nobody should ever feel that the commandments are so difficult that they get depressed or even worse do something so drastic as suicide. God loves us. He knows we sin. He only wants our hearts and effort and then he forgives.

If a person is homosexual, and if this orientation is every bit as "fixed" or "innate" as I consider my heterosexuality to be, that person has a particular challenge. There is no sin whatsoever in the orientation. If this gay person chooses to believe in my church, believes they should abstain from gay sex, they will need to make a commitment to God to do so for the rest of their lives. This is similar to the single heterosexual who never marries. But in my opinion, it's also different and more difficult. The gay person would know that unless their orientation changes (and I'm not suggesting it can or will change), they will never have sexual fulfillment. As a believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that one or two things are true 1) the orientation may change over time and a gay person can enjoy a heterosexual marriage or 2) if the orientation is permanent, the gay person will find peace, joy, spirituality, and happiness as they follow the guidelines of the gospel and abstain from sex. If they "mess up", they see their bishop, repent, and move on, as in the heterosexual example above. Nobody should tell them they are horrible, disgusting, or will burn in hell, anymore than anyone says that to the heterosexual single who "messed up". We all should treat each other with love and compassion. But nevertheless my church will continue to teach that we should all follow God's law of chastity as this is the way to spiritual freedom and happiness.

I can easily understand why a gay person would say "No thank you, I don't believe that there's a God who wants me to abstain from gay sex for the rest of my life." I totally get it. But there are gay members of my church who believe in my church and who try to follow it's teachings and who find peace in their decision. I admire them and certainly hope they find peace and joy in their choice.

Tom and Todd Christopherson are interesting examples to me. Todd Christopherson is a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles in my Church. Tom, his brother, is a gay member of our church. Tom left the church and lived the gay life style for years. Later, he decided to come back to church and conform his life to it's teachings. He says he made the right choice for himself and believes God wants him to refrain from further homosexual sex. Tom and Todd as brothers have maintained a strong bond of love and friendship over the years when Tom was in and out of the Church. The fact that Tom was living one way while Todd was actively participating in the formulation of church policy and statements, did not break their bond of love and friendship. I see their relationship as a great example of how we should treat one another even when we have widely differing views. Tom wrote a book which I have not read. I only gave a superficial description of their situation based on what I have learned.

When I hear that a gay member of my church has committed suicide because they think a life of abstinence is more than they can bear, and they would rather die and face their Maker now, I am heart broken and think something went terribly wrong. Nobody should ever feel that the commandments are so difficult that they would take their life. I also wonder if I am getting the whole story. The gospel must be taught. It must be taught with love and compassion. The greatest chance for happiness is in living the gospel IMHO.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You asked, so I will give my candid answer. Yes I can see how someone would be offended. If I understand homosexuality correctly, I see these people as being in a particularly difficult position if they are members of my church, choose to believe it's teachings, and choose to follow the commandments.

There are many single heterosexual adults in my church who are asked to abstain from sex until (and if) they get married. Some of them may have to abstain for years or even their entire lives. This is not easy for many of them. Some of them "mess up", have a chat with their bishop, repent, and are on their way, back on track. When they mess up, nobody thinks they are terrible. We all get it. We understand temptation. We sin. We repent. The point is that we believe a certain way and try to live that way. Nobody should ever feel that the commandments are so difficult that they get depressed or even worse do something so drastic as suicide. God loves us. He knows we sin. He only wants our hearts and effort and then he forgives.

If a person is homosexual, and if this orientation is every bit as "fixed" or "innate" as I consider my heterosexuality to be, that person has a particular challenge. There is no sin whatsoever in the orientation. If this gay person chooses to believe in my church, believes they should abstain from gay sex, they will need to make a commitment to God to do so for the rest of their lives. This is similar to the single heterosexual who never marries. But in my opinion, it's also different and more difficult. The gay person would know that unless their orientation changes (and I'm not suggesting it can or will change), they will never have sexual fulfillment. As a believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that one or two things are true 1) the orientation may change over time and a gay person can enjoy a heterosexual marriage or 2) if the orientation is permanent, the gay person will find peace, joy, spirituality, and happiness as they follow the guidelines of the gospel and abstain from sex. If they "mess up", they see their bishop, repent, and move on, as in the heterosexual example above. Nobody should tell them they are horrible, disgusting, or will burn in hell, anymore than anyone says that to the heterosexual single who "messed up". We all should treat each other with love and compassion. But nevertheless my church will continue to teach that we should all follow God's law of chastity as this is the way to spiritual freedom and happiness.

I can easily understand why a gay person would say "No thank you, I don't believe that there's a God who wants me to abstain from gay sex for the rest of my life." I totally get it. But there are gay members of my church who believe in my church and who try to follow it's teachings and who find peace in their decision. I admire them and certainly hope they find peace and joy in their choice.

Tom and Todd Christopherson are interesting examples to me. Todd Christopherson is a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles in my Church. Tom, his brother, is a gay member of our church. Tom left the church and lived the gay life style for years. Later, he decided to come back to church and conform his life to it's teachings. He says he made the right choice for himself and believes God wants him to refrain from further homosexual sex. Tom and Todd as brothers have maintained a strong bond of love and friendship over the years when Tom was in and out of the Church. The fact that Tom was living one way while Todd was actively participating in the formulation of church policy and statements, did not break their bond of love and friendship. I see their relationship as a great example of how we should treat one another even when we have widely differing views. Tom wrote a book which I have not read. I only gave a superficial description of their situation based on what I have learned.

When I hear that a gay member of my church has committed suicide because they think a life of abstinence is more than they can bear, and they would rather die and face their Maker now, I am heart broken and think something went terribly wrong. Nobody should ever feel that the commandments are so difficult that they would take their life. I also wonder if I am getting the whole story. The gospel must be taught. It must be taught with love and compassion. The greatest chance for happiness is in living the gospel IMHO.

I disagree with most of this, but I thank you for sharing your point of view.

Quite honestly, and without any intention of offence toward you, I have to say that you have provided many reasons why I think a gay person would not find fulfillment in being a member of your church. That is, if they value happiness and acceptance in the one and only life we know we get for sure. Because this sounds like a whole lot of "don't be who you actually are" to me. That's not the path to happiness.

 

[JJ50]

I wonder if some extreme anti-gay bigots are actually gays in denial?

 

[Spartan]

What truth? That you take your morality from a moldy old book written by people who knew far less about the world that we do?

You've got it backwards. Your hate filled rhetoric against gay people is what is perverse.
If you're taking it from the Bible, then your Biblical law is also perverse and hate filled.

Gay people are human beings and deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as any other human being. You'd think a loving and moral God would recognize that.

Love and respect for life speaks the truth to try to save people from perdition. You encourage sin and sinners all the way down to perdition. With friends like you who needs enemies?

 

[Spartan]

Well, that divine justice murdered the same infants, too. Therefore, He was not much better than Molech.

And He is the giver of your morality, right? You would probably be much better off if Hannibal the Cannibal were the source of your morality.

Ciao

- viole

Ha. If it weren't for God's grace you wouldn't even be breathing.

 

[Spartan]

It is disgusting that you are using the Bible as an excuse for your unpleasant behaviour. Many other forums would have banned you for you anti-gay stance.

Go whine to somebody else, JJ. I don't share your folly.

 

[viole]

Ha. If it weren't for God's grace you wouldn't even be breathing.

And? Even if true, that does not entail that He is not the greatest murderer in written history, if you take that written mythology seriously.

How wonder how anybody would worship anything of the sort.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Spartan]

And? Even if true, that does not entail that He is not the greatest murderer in written history, if you take that written mythology seriously.

How wonder how anybody would worship anything of the sort.

Ciao

- viole

OK so, when the Canaanites sacrificed their babies (murder) to the pagan deity Molech (idolatry), engaged in Bestiality, adultery, incest, and homosexual sin, God is supposed to let them multiple so a larger population of Canaanites can butcher even more babies? And you're ok with letting them continue that slaughter?

<facepalm>

Dawkins: “What do I think about God? The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Ravi Zacharias responds: “Now, he (Dawkins) just finished telling us God’s a fictional character! That’s half of the point. The other half of the point is what he thinks about humanity. He goes on to say that basically, he believes in the goodness of humanity without God watching over. Either I’m confused or he is. If God doesn’t exist and all these descriptions apply, then who did these things? Who wrote the Old Testament if God didn’t inspire the words? That would be his answer. And who ordered all these things? That would be humanity. Why are you (Dawkins) so positive about humanity and so down on God when it was humanity who manufactured the God that you deny?” And who killed all those people throughout history – hundreds of millions of them, if God is fictional? It was humanity. And you – Dawkins – believe humanity is ‘good’! Atheists….

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It is disgusting that you are using the Bible as an excuse for your unpleasant behaviour. Many other forums would have banned you for you anti-gay stance.

The irony of someone choosing the screen name "Spartan" being rabidly anti-homosexual is probably lost on him.

 

[Spartan]

The irony of someone choosing the screen name "Spartan" being rabidly anti-homosexual is probably lost on him.

What's lost on you and those who think like you are any objective moral values.