Thanks for the input, I hadn't known why, but that is probably it because Paul speaks about the Lord coming soon, as if Jesus would return in their lifetime. He speaks about taking himself a wife from amongst them too.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians, why do you hate Gays?
- Thread starter R34L1TY
- Start date
Thanks for the input, I hadn't known why, but that is probably it because Paul speaks about the Lord coming soon, as if Jesus would return in their lifetime. He speaks about taking himself a wife from amongst them too.
I don't mean only the sexual prohibitions. I'm talking about all of them. Lady B says that Christ rendered the old law obsolete by his sacrifice, yet he himself says not one letter will be stricken from the law until all is accomplished. So this means no bacon double cheeseburgers (meat, dairy AND pork together); no peel 'n eat shrimp or All-You-Can-Eat-Shrimp at Red Lobster. I wonder if just going into Red Lobster is an abomination (I personally think it is.. they always manage to screw up my order
). No shaving the beard, no fabric blends, no planting eggplants, peppers and tomatoes in the same little home garden. It means the entire Mosaic Law is still in effect for Jews and Christians.
Along those lines, Christians shouldn't eat chocolate, get massages, etc. They're for pleasure.
In many Christian denominations, sex in marriage is understood to not just be for breeding, but also for bonding.
The argument that it's for pleasure isn't a particularly strong argument unless one can show why that would be a bad thing.
Paul isn't God, last time I checked. He was a guy who thought the world was ending soon.
Your vote is to reduce freedoms.
You can't separate your vote from the outcome of that vote.
Who here is voting for anything that reduces your freedoms? Do you have an example?
The Constitution protects the minority from mob rule from the majority. Unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise or unless the Supreme Court completely reverses its interpretation of the Constitution on this issue, any law has to have a secular basis.
Not for "pleasure" but for "desire of the flesh", pleasure can come from serving Christ. Desire is the issue because it is worldly rather than heavenly, it is selfish rather than altruistic.
I don't mean only the sexual prohibitions. I'm talking about all of them. Lady B says that Christ rendered the old law obsolete by his sacrifice, yet he himself says not one letter will be stricken from the law until all is accomplished. So this means no bacon double cheeseburgers (meat, dairy AND pork together); no peel 'n eat shrimp or All-You-Can-Eat-Shrimp at Red Lobster. I wonder if just going into Red Lobster is an abomination (I personally think it is.. they always manage to screw up my order
Paul annulled the laws when establishing the Church of Jesus Christ. Or that is how it appears to read to me.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Lady B
noob
I don't mean only the sexual prohibitions. I'm talking about all of them. Lady B says that Christ rendered the old law obsolete by his sacrifice, yet he himself says not one letter will be stricken from the law until all is accomplished. So this means no bacon double cheeseburgers (meat, dairy AND pork together); no peel 'n eat shrimp or All-You-Can-Eat-Shrimp at Red Lobster. I wonder if just going into Red Lobster is an abomination (I personally think it is.. they always manage to screw up my order
I did not say Christ rendered the law obsolete, where did you see I said that? I said and hold to the law is perfect, It is reflecting on the perfections of God, It is also given to men to direct them to God's mercy and Christ's sacrifice and atonement. We (Christians)
are no longer under the penalty of breaking the laws for we believe Christ fulfilled the law, not obliterated it. As I pointed out previously we are still to try to obey God's moral laws, not the priestly laws and not the sacrificial laws as Jesus fulfilled them. We also know that we cannot possibly gain righteousness by keeping the laws for we fail miserably and so we rely on Christ's perfect sacrifice and the grace of God to save us from the curse of the law which is eternal death.
Those without Christ are still under the penalty and judgement of breaking the laws whether you acknowledge them or not, whether you make fun of them or not,whether you believe them or not.
Like I said, the Bible is conflicted on the issue. I don't see how you can hold to the concept of sin while also holding to what Paul says: "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself."
If you're going to argue that the Bible doesn't give contradictory messages here, that's your prerogative, but it's dishonest to ignore inconvenient verses when making your argument.
Yes... who would feel safe in a society where they only had the grace and power of a loving God to rely on? What's that worth? :sarcastic
No... I think that passage assumes that there will be a non-Christian majority with the political power who do their own thing and make their own laws, and there would be a Christian minority who rejected all that and lived on the fringes, but still trusted that God would make sure their needs were met.
Do you do any different when you vote against same-sex marriage? Isn't the god you believe in capable of ridding the world of same-sex marriage if it really did offend him?
Great... but first you need to ascertain his will and make sure you're right. And that doesn't just mean deciding "God hates homosexuality", but it also means deciding "God wants me to use secular law to make life difficult for gay people."
It also doesn't mean that you're in God's good graces when you take a position that rejects love, justice and mercy.
Show me the verse that supports the idea that Christians should participate in voting or secular government.
No, I claimed that Paul's writings set aside the idea of sin. If you're going to assume that Paul's words are God's, that's up to you. They are in the Bible, though.
I said already that I don't think Christ would vote at all. He said many times that his kingdom was not of this world.
But it does mean that any position not founded in love is wrong in the eyes of Christ, regardless of whether you can find a religious justification for it.
Even if you think that homosexuality makes a person "hellbound", I don't see how taking a position that says "same-sex couples should be unmarried" makes those couples any more or less hellbound than if they were married.
There is no choice available to you that will stop homosexual people from being homosexual. The only choice you have is whether homosexual people will be married or not. Do you think that a homosexual person commits a greater sin if he or she marries than if he or she stays unmarried?
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
Here's what I've learned. Christians who "hate" gay people do it with the kind of controlling love that is sort of okay when you're looking at a parent child relationship, but is incredibly abusive in adult relationships.
The "i know what's best for you so I'm going to make you do it" attitude at BEST infantalizes queer adults and at WORST is the control of an abuser who will continue to beat us down until we stop standing up for ourselves. This same attitude can be seen in the Civil Rights movement, the women's lib movement and so on.
We won't be beaten down by the physical violence, nor will hateful speech, slander, and hate groups make us shut up. Our relationships are valid, and trying to force us to believe as you do will only make us reject you. Because you can't try to prove "God's love" through hate and control.
But this gives me hope:
The "i know what's best for you so I'm going to make you do it" attitude at BEST infantalizes queer adults and at WORST is the control of an abuser who will continue to beat us down until we stop standing up for ourselves. This same attitude can be seen in the Civil Rights movement, the women's lib movement and so on.
We won't be beaten down by the physical violence, nor will hateful speech, slander, and hate groups make us shut up. Our relationships are valid, and trying to force us to believe as you do will only make us reject you. Because you can't try to prove "God's love" through hate and control.
But this gives me hope:
Bigots grow old and die off and the younger generation is far more tolerant.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
What exactly are they guilty of?
Paul annulled the laws when establishing the Church of Jesus Christ. Or that is how it appears to read to me.
Paul didn't have the authority to do so. Paul usurped authority from Peter and the apostles who knew Jesus personally. Paul only met Jesus in a vision. And if I'm not mistaken, all Jesus said to him was "Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Saul was Paul's original name, he being Jewish.
Those without Christ are still under the penalty and judgement of breaking the laws whether you acknowledge them or not, whether you make fun of them or not,whether you believe them or not.
So then... whether or not a non-Christian same-sex couple is married or not makes absolutely no difference at all.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Because you vote to oppress people, and we don't.
Hey, you're the one wants laws based on religion. Why don't you move to Iran?
The only reason you don't say liberals don't force their opinions on you NOW is that when you did before, it was debunked.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
As far as I'm aware, the Mosaic Law is only for the Jewish people, not for us Gentiles.
Do you think there is a difference between not one iota being removed from the Law, and the Law becoming obsolete?
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
You're choosing, by your vote, to force others to behave in a manner you approve of. "You can't get married because I don't think God approves." When asked how you would feel if this right was removed from you, you dodged the question and claimed the First amendment protected you but showed no empathy for those lacking that protection.
My rights are taken away by votes like yours. MY vote does not touch your rights. It does not force you to get "gay married" or start having sex with women. Your vote specifically affects ME and until you understand that your vote actually has consequences and affects people - not "the gays" or "sinners" but PEOPLE - human beings who love and laugh and have families and children and even who have found acceptance in the same god you claim to serve. You cause them pain and you cannot wash your hands of that blood by saying "God said so."
I scream injustice at the injustice in the world. At the blindness you have to the pain and suffering of others and at the lives that will be lost to it.
I can't even get you to answer a hypothetical question about living in a world where you face similar problems so telling me to leave is childish and unworthy of discussing further.
You have the right to be bigoted, no one but you has claimed otherwise. You can continue to vote to directly harm others, and I will just wait until a few more bigots die off, because people who cannot empathize with others are already too far gone to care about trying to change.
I did not say Christ rendered the law obsolete, where did you see I said that? I said and hold to the law is perfect, It is reflecting on the perfections of God, It is also given to men to direct them to God's mercy and Christ's sacrifice and atonement. We (Christians)
are no longer under the penalty of breaking the laws for we believe Christ fulfilled the law, not obliterated it. As I pointed out previously we are still to try to obey God's moral laws, not the priestly laws and not the sacrificial laws as Jesus fulfilled them. We also know that we cannot possibly gain righteousness by keeping the laws for we fail miserably and so we rely on Christ's perfect sacrifice and the grace of God to save us from the curse of the law which is eternal death.
Those without Christ are still under the penalty and judgement of breaking the laws whether you acknowledge them or not, whether you make fun of them or not,whether you believe them or not.
Maybe it was someone else who said it. Anyway, the priestly laws, sacrificial laws and moral laws are all in the same book of Leviticus. And to repeat, Jesus himself said the old law was not abolished. He said he came not to abolish it but to fulfill it, yet he still said it would not be abolished until all things were accomplished and until heaven and earth pass away, meaning a long, indeterminate amount of time. I do not know where he said all things were now accomplished, except on the cross "it is finished" but heaven and earth are still here. So the old law stands.
You cannot have it both ways no matter how you spin it. Leviticus is Leviticus is Leviticus, no ifs, ands or buts about it. If two men lying together is an abomination, so is eating clams on the half shell. You can't pick and choose which verses stay and which go. Uncomfortable, isn't it?
Why don't Christians agree with that observation?
Many are beginning to, but it's not what they are taught (I was part of that when I was Catholic). Many Christians are coming to see Christianity as Paulism.
Me Myself
Back to my username
This is actually hard, because while he said that he did not come to undo the laws, he did go against eating prohibitions when he said "do not call impure what God has made pure!" and pretty much forced his apostle to eat something that was impure according to "the law".
So Jesus´s words contradict, as they often do in a lot of things. We are left trying to find out the meaning, but it is not straightforward, and people wont agree.