Conservative Christians should reexamine their views on homosexuality.

[tumbleweed41]

I do not think my view on homosexuality will change.

What about your views on wearing clothes made of two different types of material?

Are those lined with the scripture?

 

[fallingblood]

According to many conservative Christians, their opposition to homosexuality is largely based on Christian theology. Would you like for me to post the links to some conservative Christian websites that claim that their opposition to homosexuality is largely based upon the Bible?

Those same conservative Christians also eat pork and shellfish, etc. Thus, they are picking and choosing what ideas in the Bible they want to keep.

If they were truly looking to the Bible for their beliefs, then they would not be so selective in what they choose to follow. All that conservative Christians are doing then are finding something in the Bible that supports their prejudice, and then hiding behind the Bible.

Now they may claim that it is all based on the Bible; however, I think that is a ridiculous claim. Because in order to hate homosexuals so much, they also have to ignore other ideas in the Bible (such as love your neighbor as yourself). Thus, their opposition is not based on the Bible, but on their own prejudices. The same thing was true with a number of different ideas, such as slavery.

But you must know that not eating pig and shellfish was Old Testament law, not New Testament theology. In the Old Testament, God ordered that anyone who worked on the Sabbath Day, or worshipped other Gods, should be put to death. Surely you would not claim that conservative Christians are not consistent if they do not want people to be put to death today for working on the Sabbath Day, or worshipping other Gods.

Paul says that people can eat whatever they want to eat, and worship on whatever day of the week they want to worship.

And the opposition to homosexuality is baed on Old Testament Law, not New Testament theology. So your point is moot here.

You keep mentioning that there is something deeper, but you still have not stated what it is.

It is well-known that in the U.S., the chief opponents of homosexuality by far are conservative Chrisitians. The same goes for abortion and physician assisted suicide. For conservatives of many religions, what their religious books say is often all the motivation that they need to believe something. Are you trying to propose that conservatives of all religions do not pay any attention to their religious books, and do not believe that their religious books state what the will of God is.

One poll showed that about 40% of Americans believe that the earth is young, and that creationism is true. Why do you suppose that they believe those things? Surely because they believe that that is what the Bible teaches.

I actually have stated what that something deeper is. It is the fact that homosexuals are a minority, thus are seen as different, and history has shown that those who are minorities and seen to be different are persecuted.

As for conservative Christians and the Bible, no, they pick and choose what they want. They are not looking to the Bible for their ideas. They form ideas and then try to use the Bible to support them. And in order to do so, they have to really pick and choose the ideas that they want, and even contradict their own supposed beliefs (like that the OT laws were abolished by Jesus, yet they still look at them to condemn homosexuals).

As for the young earth and creationism, that is a completely different subject then hating homosexuals. One is a historical claim (creationism), one is a theological claim (oppression of homosexuals). Very different subjects, very different motivations.

Your arguments are not reasonable. Islam is a very large religion, not a minority religion, but conservative Christians oppose it because they believe that it is a false religion. Deism is a minority religion, and conservative Christians oppose it, but they oppose it because they believe that it is a false religion, not because it is a minority religion.

I am quite surprised that you do not know that for a lot of Christians, the Bible alone is all of the motivation that they need to believe many things.

You are completely twisting my argument. And actually Islam and deism are minority religions by sheer numbers. The majority of people are neither. But that is besides the point and has nothing to do with my argument. Also, if you notice, many people oppose Islam based on the fact that they are minorities in many areas, which is certainly the case for the United States. People fear what they do not know. Again though, this has nothing to do with my argument, and you trying to twist it simply is silly.

As for Christians relying on just the Bible, that simply is a crock. The Bible teaches love. The Bible teaches that one should follow the OT laws. The Bible teaches a lot of stuff that Christians do not follow. To claim that the Bible is their sole motivation simply is ignoring logical reasoning.

But Jesus basically said that Moses accepted divorce because the hearts of the people were hard, and that his (Jesus') new teaching was that divorce was only acceptable in cases of adultery.

Again, still acceptable. And Paul went further with this.

Where does Paul say that divorce is okay? At any rate, the teachings of Jesus are the most important teachings in the New Testament.

You're moving the goal posts. However, Paul states it in 1 Corinthians 7. And no, Jesus teachings are not the most important. We see that Paul certainly didn't agree with your statement. More so, much of Christian theology has been adapted from Paul.


If conservative Christians only pick certain parts of the Bible to believe, and to follow, then it is not logical to state that the Bible is their only motivation. Because the Bible does not tell one that it is okay to pick and choose what one wants from various books. So there must logically be a different motivation, such as they previous prejudices.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to fallingblood: Many polls have shown that in the U.S., the chief opponents of homosexuaity, abortion, and physician assisted suicide by far are conservative Christians. If religion had little to do with opposition to those things, and personal, non-religious prejudices was the main factor, the polls would be much different.

It is difficult or impossible to find a Southern Baptist pastor who openly approves of homosexuality, but it is easy to find an Episcopalian pastor who openly approves of homosexuality. Why is that? Obviously, because generally, Episopalians interepret the Bible much more liberally than Southern Baptists do regarding homosexuality.

As for Christians relying on just the Bible, that simply is a crock.

Please pay better attention to what I write. In my previous post, I said:

"You and I know that many if not most conservative Christians are sometimes inconsistent, but in their minds, they have good reasons for their inconsistencies, and in their minds, God partly uses the Bible to communicate with humans, including what the Bible teaches about homosexuality."

I used the word "partly," not "just" as used.

As for the young earth and creationism, that is a completely different subject then hating homosexuals. One is a historical claim (creationism), one is a theological claim (oppression of homosexuals). Very different subjects, very different motivations.

Nevertheless, it shows that the Bible alone is sufficient evidence for conservative Christians regarding some issues, which suggests that the Bible must at least be "partly" important to conservative Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality. Surely the vast majority of conservative Christians believe that the Bible opposes homosexuality. If that is true, it would be absurd for anyone to claim that the Bible is not an important part of their opposition to homosexuality.

As a practical matter, if you debate conservative Christians who oppose homosexuality, and merely use your "personal prejudice" argument, you will not get anywhere.

History clearly shows that religious beliefs have always had great significance regarding the lifestyles of the majority of people in the world.

 

[Agnostic75]

The Bible teaches that one should follow the OT laws.

Please quote some New Testament Scriptures, and some scholarly sources, that agree with you.

A Christian website at Which Old Testament Laws Apply to Christians Today? | Grace Communion International is just one of many Internet sources that explains some Christians' perspectives regarding Old Testament laws.

Consider the following from the article:

"We will see how Jesus, Paul and the early church deal with the difference between old and new, then explore that difference with a few examples of laws that almost all Christians agree are obsolete.

"We then apply those principles to the seven annual Sabbaths, dietary laws, and the weekly Sabbath. We close by noting some of the commands the New Testament gives us, and end by emphasizing that, although Christians should obey God, our salvation is received on the basis of faith, not on the basis of our obedience."

 

[Jose Fly]

So that's a question I've asked various Christians over the years and I have yet to get any sort of straight answer. As I understand it, Jesus was quite clear about the OT laws when he said,

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That seems exceedingly clear to me. "I'm not here to change the law, it applies as long as heaven and earth are here, and anyone who tries to change it will be screwed".

Now I realize that Paul argued that Christians didn't have to keep the Jewish laws, and that's understandable given that he was trying to convert adult gentile men (think about it). But the way I've always seen it phrased then is "Do you follow Jesus or Paul".

Very interesting.

 

[Agnostic75]

If a God inspired parts of the Bible, but did not inspire any Bible writer to specifically write about homosexuality, obviously, nothing that the Bible says about homosexuality is inspired, and the original writers, and/or copiers merely wrote about their own prejudices and also attributed their prejudices to God.

I agree that the authors prejudices would come into play. In the case of homosexuality, it is probably a little more complicated as to why they had those prejudices, but that would be a different discussion.

Prejudices can be twofold. For example, a religious writer can personally oppose a practice for secular reasons, and "also" believe that God opposes it. Multiple motives regarding many issues are not uncommon in society.

My point was to simply show the error in your statement. Just because there are errors in the Bible, that does not mean it is not inspired. It simply means that there are errors in it. It being inspired would be a completely different thing.

If God did not inpsire any Bible writer to write about homosexuality, it is quite obvious that what the Bible says about homosexuality was not inspired by God. Theoretically, a religious book can be partly inspired by God, but not completely inspired by God.

How do you propose that Christians try to find out which parts of the Bible God inspired and preserved, and which parts he did not inspire and preserve?

 

[JacobEzra.]

What about your views on wearing clothes made of two different types of material?

Are those lined with the scripture?

That is in scripture. And if one wants to follow it then that is fine. But the Law is not binding anymore. But homosexuality is still forbidden in the NT

 

[tumbleweed41]

That is in scripture. And if one wants to follow it then that is fine. But the Law is not binding anymore. But homosexuality is still forbidden in the NT

Not binding anymore.
How convenient.
So all OT laws not specifically endorsed by the NT are OK?

 

[fallingblood]

Message to fallingblood: Many polls have shown that in the U.S., the chief opponents of homosexuaity, abortion, and physician assisted suicide by far are conservative Christians. If religion had little to do with opposition to those things, and personal, non-religious prejudices was the main factor, the polls would be much different.

It is difficult or impossible to find a Southern Baptist pastor who openly approves of homosexuality, but it is easy to find an Episcopalian pastor who openly approves of homosexuality. Why is that? Obviously, because generally, Episopalians interepret the Bible much more liberally than Southern Baptists do regarding homosexuality.

I an very glad you have brought up these points. You named two different denominations, that both view homosexuality differently. Why? You say because they interpret the Bible differently. That is a nice surface solution, but one has to ask why do they interpret the Bible differently? Because of their already formed prejudices.

The Bible is not black and white. There is a lot of leeway in it, where one can read basically anything they want. Since that is so, how can one blame the Bible as being the motivation for any group? It really doesn't make sense, because as you admit, people can interpret it differently.

They all have the same basic Bible, but they choose to read it differently. Why? Because they have their own prejudices, and that is what I have been saying all along. The motivation for these people is not the Bible. It is their already formed ideas that they read into the Bible.

And if we look at the history of homosexuality, one can see that it has been opposed by many different societies, by both the religious and nonreligious, etc. So the opposition to homosexuality must be deeper than just a verse or two in the Bible.

As for the polls you have mentioned, they really don't show much as is. Conservatives in general are more opposed to abortion, homosexuality, etc. It is not the Christian aspect that is driving them to these ideas, because you can also find conservative Christians who have little or no problem with homosexuality, abortion, or the like. And since conservatives in general (be it religious or not, Christian or not) oppose those things as well, it may be safer to conclude that it is the conservative mindset, and not a Christian mindset, that is the problem there.

Please pay better attention to what I write. In my previous post, I said:

"You and I know that many if not most conservative Christians are sometimes inconsistent, but in their minds, they have good reasons for their inconsistencies, and in their minds, God partly uses the Bible to communicate with humans, including what the Bible teaches about homosexuality."

I used the word "partly," not "just" as used.

Doesn't make a real big difference in the end whether you use partly or just. I believe it is still just as much of a crock either way. Conservative Christians are not relying mostly even on the Bible. If they did, their beliefs would be quite different.

Nevertheless, it shows that the Bible alone is sufficient evidence for conservative Christians regarding some issues, which suggests that the Bible must at least be "partly" important to conservative Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality. Surely the vast majority of conservative Christians believe that the Bible opposes homosexuality. If that is true, it would be absurd for anyone to claim that the Bible is not an important part of their opposition to homosexuality.

As a practical matter, if you debate conservative Christians who oppose homosexuality, and merely use your "personal prejudice" argument, you will not get anywhere.

History clearly shows that religious beliefs have always had great significance regarding the lifestyles of the majority of people in the world.

Not at all. You are mixing apples and oranges here, and it simply doesn't work. We will start with the idea of creationism.

Creationism and the young earth idea were the prevalent ideas throughout much of history. We can find creation stories in all types of cultures. For the most part, these creation stories were metaphorical, and were used to explain an uncertainty.

It has only been in the recent past that the idea of evolution really began to grow and become accepted. However, it had a long way to go in order to correct the misinformation that people previously had. Today, one can see that the idea of creationism is being quickly replaced by evolution, and that is simply because people are becoming more well informed as science is able to explain more and more.

So what we are talking about is an idea that has lasted thousands of years (creationism) and an idea that has really only been around in scientific thought for some two centuries (evolution), and even then, it hasn't been until much more recently that it really has taken form because of additional scientific discoveries.

Creationism was the accepted idea, and to introduce a new idea, it does take some time. However, as we are seeing, evolution is taking over, and even the Catholic Church states that evolution is correct (they also believe that creationism can go hand in hand with it, but the key is that a conservative denomination even accepts evolution). Even now in schools, evolution is taught as fact.

This is completely different from the idea of homosexuality. Homosexuality was not an idea that is present in the Bible because the idea of sexual orientation did not exist. However, now since people understand the idea of sexual orientation, and have given a name to those men who would lie with another men as with a woman, what the Bible says has been edited in the minds of those who dislike homosexuals.

If one really looks at it though, one has to really search the Bible to find anything about gay men. There are only two verses in the OT, and they are in part of the Law. So, for a Christian to use those verses, they first have to contradict another one of their beliefs, that Jesus got rid of the law. And at the same time, they have to contradict that contradiction by saying that the law does not apply. So basically, you have conservative Christians who have decided to contradict their own beliefs, just so they can oppose homosexuality (which isn't mentioned in the verses).

This has nothing to do with the Bible, because if it did, these conservative Christians wouldn't have to be jumping through so many loops in order to defend they idea. And when we see that others have the same prejudices, regardless of religious beliefs, it is more logical to assume that there is something else going on. Because if others can hate homosexuals just as much as Christians (I'm really not interested in hearing about your polls again, because they really aren't proving anything as I have shown above), then it can't be just a Christian idea. It is logical to assume that it goes beyond religion and into something else.

I have argued that it is because homosexuals are a minority, and thus are seen differently. They have been persecuted by various different people throughout history because of this. It is logical to assume that Conservative Christians are doing the same thing not because they can make their Bible condemn it, but because they see homosexuals as different. And really, that type of attitude is much more prevalent.

In fact, history shows us that minorities are persecuted. And it also shows that some Christians will justify it with the Bible, even though the Bible is not clear on the issue, or even necessarily supports their position. At the same time, we see different people of different religions and ideas doing the same thing. Justifying their actions and beliefs by rationalizing it. That is all that Conservative Christians are doing here. Their actions are not based on the Bible.

As for using my argument against conservative Christians, that proves absolutely nothing. Many won't believe evolution either if explained to them in a logical and rational means. Your point is moot.

Finally, as for what history shows about religions beliefs having a significant impact. No. History does not show that. It shows that people can manipulate and justify their ideas by using scripture, or other ideas. There is a difference.

 

[fallingblood]

Please quote some New Testament Scriptures, and some scholarly sources, that agree with you.

Matthew 5:17 begins a section in which Jesus specifically says that his followers must follow the law to the letter. That should be enough.

A Christian website at Which Old Testament Laws Apply to Christians Today? | Grace Communion International is just one of many Internet sources that explains some Christians' perspectives regarding Old Testament laws.

I can read Matthew though, and Matthew 5, starting at verse 17, is quite clear: 8 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I really don't know how it could be clearer. Except by saying: “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew, again, is quite clear on this.

Consider the following from the article:

Here is the problem. I can find nearly any denomination that will end up supporting some belief. That really proves nothing. And really, I'm just not interested in Christian organizations that will twist and try to jam Biblical ideas into their preconceived notions. Because, that really is what it is.

 

[fallingblood]

Prejudices can be twofold. For example, a religious writer can personally oppose a practice for secular reasons, and "also" believe that God opposes it. Multiple motives regarding many issues are not uncommon in society.

Then why are you trying to pinpoint the Christian motive on the Bible?

If God did not inpsire any Bible writer to write about homosexuality, it is quite obvious that what the Bible says about homosexuality was not inspired by God. Theoretically, a religious book can be partly inspired by God, but not completely inspired by God.

How do you propose that Christians try to find out which parts of the Bible God inspired and preserved, and which parts he did not inspire and preserve?

You start the sentence with if. In order for that idea to have any worth, you would have to show that it is not inspired. If we take the idea that the Bible is inspired, but only inspired in certain areas, as you have done, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to claim a section is or is not inspired. Personally, I don't believe it is inspired. My argument was simply to show how your idea was wrong in the first place.

My argument is that a book can be inspired, even though it has errors in it. Being inspired does not mean that it is infallible. It doesn't mean that it is error free. It doesn't even mean that it was dictated by God or some supernatural being. Inspired, as the dictionary defines it: 1 of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse; 2 fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something, esp. to do something creative.

So, theoretically, something could be completely inspired. It does not have to be just partly inspired. Because again, being inspired does not mean it will be free from errors.

 

[fallingblood]

That is in scripture. And if one wants to follow it then that is fine. But the Law is not binding anymore. But homosexuality is still forbidden in the NT

No it's not. The only verses forbidding homosexuality are in the OT.

 

[MoonWater]

That is in scripture. And if one wants to follow it then that is fine. But the Law is not binding anymore. But homosexuality is still forbidden in the NT

Umm... not really...

The thing is the bible doesn't even condemn homosexuality when you look at it in it's original language. This is because the original language had no actual word for homosexual. The words that were translated into "homosexual" in various passages are either add-ins or better translated as "male prostitute" or "temple prostitute". The only part of the bible that could truly be seen to condemn homosexuality is the phrase "though shalt not lie with man as with woman" and that is in the old testament in leviticus so at most it really only applies to jews because of their covenant. And even then it's really only condemning male on male sex for jews, not necessarily marriage.

 

[waitasec]

That is in scripture. And if one wants to follow it then that is fine. But the Law is not binding anymore. But homosexuality is still forbidden in the NT

and so was beating your slave/servant....

 

[JacobEzra.]

and so was beating your slave/servant....

And what does that have to do with the Catholic Churchs teaching?

 

[waitasec]

And what does that have to do with the Catholic Churchs teaching?

oh i see, so the gospel of luke isn't a part of catholic teaching...:sarcastic
yeah i was just kidding.

 

[Vendetta]

Yeah why stop at christians why not muslims? You get a boulder to your face in Saudi Arabia for being a "fruit cake." By the way fruit cake wasn't meant to be offensive just a common slogan used to slander gays hence the quotation marks

 

[JacobEzra.]

oh i see, so the gospel of luke isn't a part of catholic teaching...:sarcastic
yeah i was just kidding.

I ment, what is the treatment of slaves have to do with our times? The Catholic Churchs teachings say racism and slavery is a grave sin

 

[Vendetta]

I ment, what is the treatment of slaves have to do with our times? The Catholic Churchs teachings say racism and slavery is a grave sin

Hmmm yeah was this the same position Catholics took when they enslaved my ancestors? Or when they silently supported Hitler during the holocaust? Or is this a modern point of view?

 

[Father Heathen]

I ment, what is the treatment of slaves have to do with our times? The Catholic Churchs teachings say racism and slavery is a grave sin

Whereas the bible condoned it. The bible even gave instructions on how to sell ones own daughter into sexual slavery.