• 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!

Conservative Christians should reexamine their views on homosexuality.

waitasec

Veteran Member
The truth is that God is the greatest slaveholder of all. He expects complete obedience.
not to mention an insecure god who wants to rule with the manipulation of tyranny
God isn't likely to change his view on homosexuality simply because people have become ignorant. The genreal trend today is not toward God's righteousness but towards degradation.
so the emancipation proclamation, was an act of ignorance and degradation in the eyes of your god?
guess so if he, "is the greatest slaveholder of all" :eek:
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
The truth is that God is the greatest slaveholder of all. He expects complete obedience.

God isn't likely to change his view on homosexuality simply because people have become ignorant. The genreal trend today is not toward God's righteousness but towards degradation.

Why would you worship a slave owning hate mongering god? He's not deserving of worship.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Why would you worship a slave owning hate mongering god? He's not deserving of worship.

good question!
maybe those who believe such a thing are afraid to question such a being. and with good reason, since they believe in it...
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
With the context of the ancient day. Society has grown and departed from the times when everybody owned slaves.
By the same token, society has grown and departed (or is in the process of it, anyhow) from the times when condemnation of homosexuality was considered acceptable.

The slavery laws in Torah are not so bad. No getting beaten for no reason and being taken care of, then freed after a bit of time.
... being beaten to death, provided it took you a few days to die... sounds like paradise on Earth, really. :rolleyes:

So... you think that good treatment of slaves makes slavery okay? Questions of treatment of the slave aside, you see no moral problem with the very idea of owning another human being?
 

Mudcat

Galactic Hitchhiker
The article concludes with "opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own." I would go further by saying that if the Bible condemns homosexuality, those authors defended their own values, not God's values.
Hi Agnostic75,

Though your thread is now protracted a bit. I will take a shot at the OP and your request that Conservative Christians should reexamine their vies on homosexuality.

Bold mine. I am assuming that you are specifically addressing conservative Christian "opponents of gay marriage". The bolded statement is a faulty paradigm.

The fact that gay marriage is condemned by CC's is because the Bible condemns homosexual behavior as sin and also institutes that marriage is between a man and a woman. In this sense CC's are trying to be consistent with Biblical values.

The bolded statement seems to assert that the Bible actually has a set of values that would support homosexual behavior and same sex marriage.

Would you be willing to make that case for me?

or rather, would be willing to agree with me that the Bible does not in any way establish values that institute the acceptability of homosexual behavior or same sex marriage?

Respectfully,

Mudcat
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Hi Agnostic75,

Though your thread is now protracted a bit. I will take a shot at the OP and your request that Conservative Christians should reexamine their vies on homosexuality.

Bold mine. I am assuming that you are specifically addressing conservative Christian "opponents of gay marriage". The bolded statement is a faulty paradigm.

The fact that gay marriage is condemned by CC's is because the Bible condemns homosexual behavior as sin and also institutes that marriage is between a man and a woman. In this sense CC's are trying to be consistent with Biblical values.

The bolded statement seems to assert that the Bible actually has a set of values that would support homosexual behavior and same sex marriage.

Would you be willing to make that case for me?

or rather, would be willing to agree with me that the Bible does not in any way establish values that institute the acceptability of homosexual behavior or same sex marriage?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

yes indeed it does...
the golden rule.
it's no ones business...especially if we are talking about 2 consenting adults...

:)
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
One probably doesn't need to have sermons condemning homosexuality when the head of your religion (aka the Pope) regularly calls homosexuals "intrinsically disordered", and views their secular, civilly recognized relationships as a greater threat than destruction of the environment.
I was with you on the intrinsically disordered bit but I haven't the foggiest idea where you got this part from "greater threat than destruction of the environment".
 

waitasec

Veteran Member

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
i just did a quick google search with "greater threat than destruction of the environment" and added "pope" and "homosexuality"...
and got this...

The Pope, Homosexuality and the Environment | TheTheologiansCafe on Xanga

Pope Accused of Stoking Homophobia After Speech - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

That's great and all but I can't say I rely too much on media to interpret what Rome or the Pope says is correct. However, all he was really saying is that human ecology is more important then the enviroment. You don't have to be religious to agree with that.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
That's great and all but I can't say I rely too much on media to interpret what Rome or the Pope says is correct. However, all he was really saying is that human ecology is more important then the enviroment. You don't have to be religious to agree with that.

i think it's more of a matter of respecting both equally...
our ecology does depend on the environment ultimately, where else are we to be tested? :rolleyes:

if we adhere to the popes principles, there would be too many cooks in the kitchen...each cook thinking they were the chosen cook...it provokes a sense of arrogance, imo.

lets us make our own meal... after all, we know our individual tastes... :D
 

blackout

Violet.
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

I do not recal Jesus ever speaking a single word about homosexuality.

It must have been very high up on his list of priorities.
 

Mudcat

Galactic Hitchhiker
yes indeed it does...
the golden rule.
it's no ones business...especially if we are talking about 2 consenting adults...:)
I think you have to dodge the corpus of scripture that actually deals with those behaviors to come up with the notion that GR in the Biblical context approves of homosexuality and ss marriage.

Interesting prooftext though.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
I think you have to dodge the corpus of scripture that actually deals with those behaviors to come up with the notion that GR in the Biblical context approves of homosexuality and ss marriage.

Interesting prooftext though.

i'm not sure i know what you mean...jesus never said a word about homosexuality but he did mention the GR
so why not be one who promotes peace instead of strife?
 

Mudcat

Galactic Hitchhiker
i'm not sure i know what you mean...jesus never said a word about homosexuality but he did mention the GR
so why not be one who promotes peace instead of strife?
My initial response was to the charge that Bible has a set of values that is permissive to homosexual behavior and does not advocate SS marriage.

In specific I said:
Mudcat said:
The bolded statement seems to assert that the Bible actually has a set of values that would support homosexual behavior and same sex marriage.

Would you be willing to make that case for me?
You then presented your case that the Bible asserts such:
waitasec said:
yes indeed it does...
the golden rule.
it's no ones business...especially if we are talking about 2 consenting adults...
I then say that you are proof texting and ignoring the fact that Bible is actually unfavorable to both.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Let me try to address your claim that the GR advocates homosexual behavior and SS marriage.

The rule in specific, per Christ, from the Amplified Bible:
Mat 7:12 So then, whatever you desire that others would do to and for you, even so do also to and for them, for this is (sums up) the Law and the Prophets.
The rule itself, has little to know meaning unless grounded in some ethical system. Thus Christs referral to this being somewhat of a summary of the intent of the Law and Prophets.

The reason I say it has little meaning is that without some background of ethics, the rule is entirely relative to oneself.

In abstract cases the GR could meet with unfavorable results.

A self masochist, would be vindicated in masochism of others.

A person might wish to be killed, ergo they are vindicated in killing others.

Surely you can see the difficulty.

After your citation of the Golden Rule, you then suggest that whatever 2 consenting adults agree upon is fine. This, however, is a distortion of the Golden Rule and removes any actual ethical scenario beyond that which two people agree on.

This scenario suffers the same issue and seems quite apart from the teachings of the Bible.

Regards,

Mudcat
 
Last edited:

waitasec

Veteran Member
thank you for clarifying...

Let me try to address your claim that the GR advocates homosexual behavior and SS marriage.

Mat 7:12 So then, whatever you desire that others would do to and for you, even so do also to and for them, for this is (sums up) the Law and the Prophets.

The rule in specific, per Christ, from the Amplified Bible:
The rule itself, has little to know meaning unless grounded in some ethical system. Thus Christs referral to this being somewhat of a summary of the intent of the Law and Prophets.

here in matthew 7 we see why we should treat others with the GR
7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

and the preceding verses say:
1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

and also here in luke chapter 6 (NIV) jesus says this about the GR and he goes a little deeper as to why a believer should follow the GR:

30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

(i just wanted to point out that the context for these two passages is the sermon on the mount)

as far as the intent of the law which is found in leviticus 19.
the chapter starts with:
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.

so here we see the intent was to gather a people to live with the understanding of solidarity in order to with stand the conflicting tribes...
and the GR is mentioned here in vs 18
“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

i highlighted the interesting part for me...among your people...this is a contrast to what jesus says about the sinners in luke...even they do this, what would set you (the believers) apart...you love "sinners" (even though i disagree that homosexuality is a sin, this still applies in a very deep way as to how believers are to treat those of the world)...not by controlling them and infringing on their freedoms but by treating them as one would treat another believer...
and jesus also goes on and says:

luke 6
37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you.

it's interesting to note that in all 3 of these passages believers are told to not judge others but treat others like they want to be treated...


i would also like to add that in the matthew version of the sermon seems to be more of an exclusive jewish backdrop while the sermon in luke seems to be inclusive of all people... 2 different audiences 2 different places and 2 different times...based on one story edited to fit the social climate of the day

The reason I say it has little meaning is that without some background of ethics, the rule is entirely relative to oneself.

In abstract cases the GR could meet with unfavorable results.

A self masochist, would be vindicated in masochism of others.
no because that would be infringing on personal rights of the offended
and once the masochist inflicts pain on another (who hasn't given their consent) it is now sadistic behavior...

A person might wish to be killed, ergo they are vindicated in killing others.
no, that person would be a murderer...

we have laws against such things...

Surely you can see the difficulty.
no, not at all...it is because we happen to live in a society that values the principles of solidarity...what you are suggesting is that the golden rule supports anarchy...if not taken in the right context...but i think if we apply rationality and logic we can come up with a solution that would be more on the terms jesus lays out in luke 6 so very clearly...

After your citation of the Golden Rule, you then suggest that whatever 2 consenting adults agree upon is fine. This, however, is a distortion of the Golden Rule and removes any actual ethical scenario beyond that which two people agree on.
This scenario suffers the same issue and seems quite apart from the teachings of the Bible
i'm not sure how though..can you please clarify...
 
Last edited:

Mudcat

Galactic Hitchhiker
apologies... that was a bit snarky.

edit-

I will try to frame a better response a bit later.
 
Last edited:
Top