Classical Concert in Florida Cancelled

[F1fan]

I don't know what their "code of conduct" is. If their code of conduct prevents them from letting them sing, then they have that right.

Their "code of conduct" should reflect what Jesus taught since they are a Christian organization, yes?

I believe I answered that question and to quote, "Are there unreasonable prejudices? Absolutely - and in every camp and shouldn't be so"

You are being evasive. Do you think Christians are like anyone else, just another ordinary camp? Shouldn't Christians have a higher standard?

All Christian don't have irrational prejudices against homosexuals.

So some do. What do you think about Christians who have irrational prejudices, which is usually for superficial reasons?

Certainly, as I mentioned above, there should be prejudices.

There should be? Why?

Let me make it more biblical:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

Are these judgmental? Not at all. Are they prejudices? nope. They are simply requirements for that position. If you are a "supervisor" - there are requirements. If you are a "doctor" there are requirements.

None of this is relevant to my questions. It's simple, should a Christian organization prejudoice against gay people just for being gay? Is that a message to teach children?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying what is moral and what isn't is determined by you or a group of certain people and if they say what is moral and what isn't, they would be correct?

Societies determine morals, and as you know homosexuality is as acceptable today as mixed race marriage. These days there is no rational reason to prejudice against gays for who they are. If you disagree, present your case. The biblical justifications are weak, mostly from the Old Testament. Christians interpret the test in ways even Jews don't, and that is something to take into account when questioning the motives of Christians.

 

[Father Heathen]

Somehow gorillas and lizards don't figure how to sew and make garments for themselves.

They don't need to.

 

[lukethethird]

You are being evasive.

Do ya think?

 

[crossfire]

I don't follow your point. Are you saying you would have anyone speak and/or play music to you no matter what their lifestyle was?

Jesus regularly invited prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners to eat with him, much to the puzzlement of the Pharisees. (Matthew chapter 9, esp vs 11.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus regularly invited prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners to eat with him, much to the puzzlement of the Pharisees. (Matthew chapter 9, esp vs 11.)

And some of them put faith in him and no longer practiced things like prostitution. And the parable that Jesus gave about the rich man and Lazarus shows this point out very well.

 

[YoursTrue]

They don't need to.

Why not? Now that you mention it, they don't have pride days or psychiatrists either. Good point!

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus regularly invited prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners to eat with him, much to the puzzlement of the Pharisees. (Matthew chapter 9, esp vs 11.)

What made him so different from the Pharisees then?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And some of them put faith in him and no longer practiced things like prostitution. And the parable that Jesus gave about the rich man and Lazarus shows this point out very well.

Lazarus was a prostitute?

 

[Viker]

Jesus regularly invited prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners to eat with him, much to the puzzlement of the Pharisees. (Matthew chapter 9, esp vs 11.)

Pharisees = conservatives.


"an ancient Jewish sect, distinguished by strict observance of the traditional and written law, and commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity."

Sounds awful familiar, just no longer a Jewish sect.

 

[Quagmire]

Wow. You're actually trying to compare love between two consenting adults to the victimization of children who aren't adults and can't legitimately consent?

No, that's not what he was doing.

He was trying to demonstrate that different people think different things are harmful, different people than different things are healthy.

The people who canceled the show probably do , to some extent, put homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia, since from the viewpoint of Orthodox Christianity anything other than heterosexual sex is a perversion.

That's the point.

Whether they're right or wrong about the comparison is a completely different discussion. And whether or not anyone in this thread agrees with that perspective is neither here nor there.

The topic isn't all that clear since the only question in the OP was, "Where will it end?" but assuming there's supposed to be a topic, I would guess it would have to be something along the lines of, "Did the college have the right to do what they did? Or are they just being ****s?"

Does a religious institution have a right to bar entry based on what they would see as violations of their religious precepts?

You've been here long enough to know that this false equivalency has been raised and thoroughly refuted countless times before.

And you've been here long enough to know that just because somebody is trying to explain a particular position or viewpoint doesn't automatically mean that that they share that position or viewpoint.

(And actually I think you do know that. I think you're just engaging in an over-extended cheap shot here).

And even if someone does, privately, buy into a particular viewpoint, no one has a right to call them on it based on an assumption.

Why is Christian morality is so arbitrary and superficial?

Probably for the same reasons that most people's morality is, in practice at least, arbitrary and superficial.

 

[PureX]

I wouldn't think so. They probably have a written standard at the university.



Not at all... but I certainly wouldn't have him preaching from the pulpit. Not that he is an evil person but rather I have a different message. I'm sure that McDonalds wouldn't have a Burger King special offer at their cash register

But this was a choir that sings songs that were perfectly acceptable before they discovered that one of the choir members is gay. So there's no "gay" preaching going on, here.

And how is hiring or inviting someone to perform a task in any way "endorsing their beliefs"? This is what I would like to see explained as being something other than just plain old bigotry.

So what exactly is their objection (and I don't care that they have some "written standards", I care WHY they choose to impose them)?

Sadly, these people will never explain themselves, or even question themselves. And they will continue to besmirch the Christian religion with their mindless acts of bigotry.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why not? Now that you mention it, they don't have pride days or psychiatrists either. Good point!

Therefore?

 

[Secret Chief]

I said, there probably are social workers or doctors to help prevent homosexuals from killing themselves.

There would be no need for any such intervention if there was no bigotry and homophobia.

 

[Kenny]

Jesus regularly invited prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners to eat with him, much to the puzzlement of the Pharisees. (Matthew chapter 9, esp vs 11.)

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! No argument here!!! I do too! We have people who even go to strip clubs to talk to performers, give gifts and love on them.

He probably would even fellowship with a devil worshipper, but I'm pretty sure something would have to change before he invited the devil worshipper to be one of the twelve.

EDIT: I am not equating devil worshippers with a homosexual but rather talking about the principle of "who would he actually have as a potential model and what would he have as a requirement". I have to add this because there are people who read into a statement beyond what is there.

 

[Polymath257]

Well then what's wrong with a man or woman walking naked. In public. Or do you think it's ok but you wouldn't maybe try it because uh, why?

There is nothing 'wrong' with it other than we have chosen, as a culture, to not allow it.

Sort of like how the US chooses to drive on the right side of the road. There is nothing *wrong* with driving on the left. We have simply chosen to not do it that way.

And there are subcultures where it is perfectly acceptable to be naked in public. No harm done as long as the horses aren't spooked.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh man Kenny,you are just digging your hole even deeper and now you have raised questions about your own sexuality. For the majority one's sexual orientation is not a choice. Most tend to be fairly strongly heterosexual or homosexual. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle and it is not a choice. For most. It may be for you and that may also explain the homophobia that you have demonstrated here. I cannot say for sure. You may not be able to.

I would point out that a significant number of people are bisexual: they are attracted to both men and women. For such, it may well be a choice which attraction to pursue.

I suspect that many who argue the choice aspects of being gay are actually bisexual themselves and so *do* have a choice.

 

[Polymath257]

Because if I'm not mistaken, you said something about core beliefs of homosexuals and it is also claimed that pedophiles cannot change their strong attraction to having sexual relationships with children.

What is it about the inability of children to give consent that eludes you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would point out that a significant number of people are bisexual: they are attracted to both men and women. For such, it may well be a choice which attraction to pursue.

I suspect that many who argue the choice aspects of being gay are actually bisexual themselves and so *do* have a choice.

Yes. I was trying to get that concept across. I keep seeing posts from those that have strong homophobia that indicate that they are likely to be at least bi themselves. They tend to make statements of people "choosing the gay lifestyle". And this continues even after being informed that for most it is not a choice. It is what are. That indicates that it was likely to have been a choice for them.

 

[metis]

There shouldn't be anything wrong with nudity. The human body is natural, and aversion to it is purely irrational, arbitrary cultural baggage.

Being an old "gym rat" for decades, being naked is not any kind of "issue" with me, and it's so unfortunate that so many equate nakedness with sex.

 

[pearl]

There shouldn't be anything wrong with nudity.

Only when its exploited. This year Nantucket Massachusetts has voted to allow all nude beaches.