Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Onkara]

The NRSV takes advantage of the best and latest scholarship, and the oldest known texts. It does so without a theological agenda.

Timothy is talking about the Hebrew texts, which were the only "scriptures" available when the letter was written.

Thanks Sojourner, that makes sense. It means there is no reason to have any views on some parts of the writing, we can pretty much define our own Christianity as long as we follow Christ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think a better question is why does anyone hate anyone else just for being different than them.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think a better question is why does anyone hate anyone else just for being different than them.

Do you mean it in the sense that you actually wish to develop the subject? No sarcasm meant, I am only wondering.

 

[somethingNiftyhere]

Thanks. I honestly did not know there were rules for selling one's own daughter as a slave, as well as for marrying one's own daughter and sleeping with her, in Exodus.

To think that there are those who think such a book should be followed to the letter... boggles the mind.

Think of the Sin List, when thinking of mind boggling taken to an even further level. Over 667 sins that chance to offend God when committed by those who are born predisposed to sinning. Interesting number that. 667. Imagine one short so as to achieve the dread 666. Question is, which sin is the added one so as to take away that mark of the antichrist?

Numbers are a factor in the Jewish faith. So too in the Christian. The mystery tradition as it were, as Christianity start and as Jesus implied his teachings were.



2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

Given 667 chances to sin and offend God would even the most devout redeemed 'saved' person stand a chance of achieving the perfection they're charged with pursuing once they've been washed clean of their sins in the blood of the lamb?
Lambs blood brushed across the door post of the Egyptian households during Moses pursuit of achieving the ancient Jews exodus from bondage under Pharaoh warded off the angel of death. Sin is death. Sinners are dead until they're baptized.Interesting tradition that could lead the sleuth type into all sorts of avenues of pursuit. Not fundamentalist but rather esoteric if you will.

"He [Jesus] told them, ' The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" (Mark 4:11-12)

Especially interesting when one considers the aforementioned scripture's "god of this world' is Satan. Who was cast out of heaven and fell to earth to become by God's will the Lord of the Earth. And now humans born here inhabit his domain as his disciples because they are born bearing the stain that marks them as his first. Sinners destined to Sin.
So what was Jesus purpose being born into the world where his adversary, the antithesis of his kingdom, rules?
"No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." (1 Corinthians 2:7)

And then remembering all of God's laws. Far exceeding the 10 commandments. By 603 additional one's. (List 613 God's Laws)

Truly the Fundamentalist should keep on their toes. Between paying attention to the 613 laws and self policing the potential for commission of 667 sins.

 

[sojourner]

Thanks Sojourner, that makes sense. It means there is no reason to have any views on some parts of the writing, we can pretty much define our own Christianity as long as we follow Christ?

No, Christianity is always communally defined. There is no such thing as an "individual Christianity." Christianity is community.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you mean it in the sense that you actually wish to develop the subject? No sarcasm meant, I am only wondering.

Just in a very general, very broad sense. Afterall, Christianity does not have a monopoly on many things that some people seem to think it does, and hatred of homosexuals is one of them. People from any walk of life can be found who hate others from a different walk of life. Some Christians hate Atheists and vice versa, some whites hate blacks, some poor people hate rich people, some dumb people hate smart people, etc.

 

[Ingledsva]

Sure, I know they don't say "homosexual" or "asexual", but they may say "those that have depraved feelings towards other men" and "those that are made eunuch by heavens" (don´t care for sex at all)

While I don´t find it completely impossible he may be referring to gays, I do think it is not "obviously" doing so, so one cannot assume it definitely refers to gays. I always read that line as referring to people that don´t have a sex drive at all. Maybe you are right about the interpretation, but we simply cannot know, so it wouldn´t be intellectually honest to just assume it means gays.

I've always thought Mat 19 referred to gay men.

The subject is "can "MARRIED" men put away their wives." He basically says no -BUT gives a clause = eunuchs!

WELL - we know that men with deformed penises, removed organs, and such problems, were NOT ALLOWED TO MARRY by LAW.

And Children were married off in arranged marriages very early.

SO - The only "MARRIED" men given the "right to divorce clause" - "as eunuchs" - would be gay men. Other "eunuchs" were not allowed to marry. Those who grow up and realize they are homosexual, are allowed to divorce their arranged wives.

In other words The only people whom are "eunuchs" from the "womb" when it comes to "their WIVES", are homosexuals!!

Also, most verses in the Bible taken as against homosexuality - when read in the original languages - are actually about Sacred Prostitutes, not gay people.

Read 19 from the top with this in mind.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

In my view, the "Christians" who truly hate gays are the ones that go along with justifying homosexual acts.

 

[dgirl1986]

In my view, the "Christians" who truly hate gays are the ones that go along with justifying homosexual acts.

huh?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

huh?

It's pretty simple. If the God of the universe is indeed one that judges our deeds and if he is not swayed into changing his definition of right and wrong by the argument that "I was born this these inclinations therefore I am justified in acting on them", it's safe to say that anyone that's party to leading people onto a path that would anger him isn't exactly a friend.

 

[Drolefille]

In my view, the "Christians" who truly hate gays are the ones that go along with justifying homosexual acts.

So how much do they have to disagree with YOU before they're "Christians" instead of Christians?

Maybe you should ask the people who are affected by "hate" what they think, I think their opinion matters more than yours.

 

[Drolefille]

It's pretty simple. If the God of the universe is indeed one that judges our deeds and if he is not swayed into changing his definition of right and wrong by the argument that "I was born this these inclinations therefore I am justified in acting on them", it's safe tp say that anyone that's party to leading people onto a path that would anger him isn't exactly a friend.

So do you agree that Muslims who don't force you to convert hate you?
That Jews who don't proselytize to you hate you?
I mean, if they loved you, they'd make you live right, wouldn't they?


Or is it only your rules that are required to be forced on others?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

So do you agree that Muslims who don't force you to convert hate you?
That Jews who don't proselytize to you hate you?
I mean, if they loved you, they'd make you live right, wouldn't they?


Or is it only your rules that are required to be forced on others?

If what they believe is actually a path to find salvation then I would say that a failure notify me of that path is a failure to love me

 

[dgirl1986]

It's pretty simple. If the God of the universe is indeed one that judges our deeds and if he is not swayed into changing his definition of right and wrong by the argument that "I was born this these inclinations therefore I am justified in acting on them", it's safe to say that anyone that's party to leading people onto a path that would anger him isn't exactly a friend.

I see what you mean now, even if I dont fully agree with it.

Homosexuality is a complicated issue. It was called sin in a day where it wasnt even slightly understood. I think that is what people fail to realise.

There are more than a few things in the bible which are seen as acceptable today which were not at all acceptable in those days and seen as sin. The reason the view of these have changed over time is from understanding, research, study, logic etc.

 

[Me Myself]

It's pretty simple. If the God of the universe is indeed one that judges our deeds and if he is not swayed into changing his definition of right and wrong by the argument that "I was born this these inclinations therefore I am justified in acting on them", it's safe to say that anyone that's party to leading people onto a path that would anger him isn't exactly a friend.

1- Thats a giganourmous "if" right there. A wrong one too.

2-"If" that was right (which is not) it would also be possible that a friend trusts God to actually have compassion at least not worst than the average human (this person would be wrong "if" this case) and gives you advice accordingly. Unknown to him that reality would be better served if Cthulu was our Lord and Savior.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

The interesting thing about Yahweh is that he doesn't feel obliged to fully explain himself to everybody. He expects people to take his word for it. See the story of Adam and Eve. Yahweh said "if you eat this you will die". The Devil said "no you won't, you'll become like God." Yahewy didn't bother to prove it to them. He expected them to trust him.

 

[romana03]

If what they believe is actually a path to find salvation then I would say that a failure notify me of that path is a failure to love me

The thing is, if a Christian informs me that my marriage to my wife is a sin, that's one thing. Having a group of screaming people with bibles and loudspeakers harassing us when we go shopping in town is quite another (true story).

The fact that we know that (some) Christians think it's a sin should make no difference to us whatsoever. If a Christian thinks gayness is a sin, fine, don't be gay. I don't see why we're supposed to care what they think.

And I certainly don't think that those opinions should be able to stop us being married. The Quakers in the UK are fighting to be able to perform same-sex marriages. The opinions of other religions shouldn't be able to stop them :rainbow1:

 

[Storm]

In my view, the "Christians" who truly hate gays are the ones that go along with justifying homosexual acts.

Tolerance is proof of hate now? I think not.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Tolerance is proof of hate now? I think not.

Define tolerance. Personally, I don't equate justification with tolerance.

 

[Straw Dog]

Just a thought: Who are "Gays" anyway? Do we label people "Straights"? Someone's sexual orientation is only one facet of the microcosm that constitutes that person. It seems like we're trying to pigeonhole an individual's complexity into very narrow categories.