Judgement Day: May 21st, 2011

[EPW]

So this is Christian humility?

[Nikolai]

What? To point out our stand point?

[EPW]

Going back to the homosexuality question, how do you liberals get around 1 Cor. 6:9-10? Its even more unequivocal than John 1:27.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"

[Imran Siddiqui]

This would be where it is helpful to read the Bible (and especially the letters of Paul) in the context of their era and purpose.

[The Mad Monk]

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"

Who is absolutely pure of all that? We have all failed, dead in sin. That is why we need Christ.

None of us will inherit the Kingdom of God by our own merit.

[Boris Godunov]

How is thinking that homosexuality is caused by sin, being anti-gay people?

"Caused by sin?" Or is itself a sin? I've never heard anyone refer to it as the former, and I'm willing to bet the mainstream interpretation is the latter. At any rate, it's certainly anti-gay to proclaim that gayness is a sin, isn't it? Or are Christians not anti-sin?

it is no more anti-gay people then other standard Christian thoughts are anti-human.

What an obfuscation. If engaging in homosexual acts is equated to things like theft, adultery, lying, etc., that is clearly setting homosexual relationships as something sinful. Now you try and tell a gay person that should be tolerant of someone else equating their relationships to such acts, and see how we feel. You pretend to be gay-friendly but appear to have zero empathy for gay people here.

Your thinking is too simplistic because you don't understand them or try to. Just like someone who says 'all those who believe in homeopathy are idiots'. I can disagree with homeopathy, I can wish it goes away, and I can argue it goes away. But when I call everyone who believes in it idiots... and consider them so, then I dehumanize them and act wrongly.

JM

Flagrant hypocrisy. So Camping and the millions upon millions of Christians who think like him aren't thinking anything wrong when they express an attitude that homosexuality is a moral evil, but if I say that such attitudes would ideally be treated as fringe, marginal thinking, and *I'm* the one dehumanizing others? That's rich. What Camping and the like believe is hateful bigotry, no matter how gussied up it is by Biblical verses. I didn't label them evil, deviant monsters like they do me, I only said that this particular attitude of theirs deserves to be scorned.

I'm severely disappointed in you, JM.

[DinoDoc]

Going back to the homosexuality question, how do you liberals get around 1 Cor. 6:9-10? Its even more unequivocal than John 1:27.

Homosexual is an inaccurate translation. If Paul was going to refer to homosexual behavior he would have used the Greek word paiderasste.

[Boris Godunov]

Interesting the idea of a culturally settled issue.

For one I don't hear daily the scorn and ridicule against homosexuals. In fact, the crowds I tend to associate most strongly with are affirming and supportive. So for me at least, the matter is in fact quite culturally settled.

Oh, so it's anecdotal evidence that we're going by?

Tell me, what other minority has had, within the past ten years, have had 41 states single them out in their constitutions for unequal treatment? Or have had states actually pass laws declaring them unfit to adopt children? Or can be legally fired for their status in most states? Are the slew of suicides based on incidents of anti-gay bullying imaginary? Just how "settled" is the status of a group that just this past year it has been deemed acceptable that they might be soldiers for their country, but yet still have to rely on the graciousness of the majority to grant them what the Supreme Court has already once said was a basic human right?

I guess as someone who actually has to deal with the consequences of such backwards thinking, I might be a little more sensitive and aware of these issues, so forgive me if I seem a bit brittle.

What isn't settled but appears to be a much more prevalent occurrence is the desire to belittle organized religion for any of a myriad of reasons. Even a tepid defense of religion seems to brand you as insensitive, bigot, or otherwise intellectually inferior.

Oh yes, the practitioners of organized religion are sooooooooooo put upon in this country. That must be why virtually all public-office seekers have to wear their faiths on their sleeves. Forgive me AGAIN for not realizing how tough it must be to be one of the, what, 80% religious people in this country?

Come on, don't try the religious martyr tack with me. You sound more like BK all the time.

But hey, here's an idea: when religion stops causing grief for people who want no part of it, then those people won't need to criticize religion. It's not as if it's a fight we asked for. But when religion is used as a cudgel against us, it is utterly absurd to expect us to tie a hand behind our backs when it's poisoning the debate. Religious beliefs are like any other and get no free passes.

[Jon Miller]

You are right, the interpretation of homosexuality being caused by the existence of sin in this world is my own interpretation. In my defense of Christianity, I should go another route.

Sin and righteousness and the like are complicated things. They aren't the simple "Thou shall not" that everyone seems to wish they were. This causes some to say that there is no right or wrong, no separation from the Creator, but this is also obviously wrong! Just because a desk is a complicated thing, made with a mind blowing number of atoms, doesn't mean that I can't understand what a desk is... and with enough study understand that something is made of wood (and the shared properties this imparts). I think that people are ridiculous in demanding that all right/wrong can be described in a cheat sheet or that right/wrong does not exist.

Unfortunately there are no explicit homosexuals in the Bible, and definitely nothing like today. We can look at David, which is preChrist! to gain some insight though.

Consider the story of David and Bathsheba.

He saw her, lusted after her, required her to come to him, made her pregnant, lied, tried to hide it, and then sent instructions that her husband be killed.

Obviously these were sinful things, things which are much more described as sin in the Bible than homosexual actions.

And in the story, David faced consequences. But it doesn't end there.

No, David continued being God's friend. Did David end his relationship with Bathsheba? No... in fact, she was the mother of Solomon (the next king), so must still have been a favorite.

The Bible is full of people who do terrible things or even just not right things. Many detractors from Christianity point to this as the Bible portraying these things as good. No! Rather it shows that God works with people where they are at, in the culture they live in.

The key question is not 'will you not sin'. Rather the key question is 'will you follow Christ's leading in your life'. And when you do you should change to become a better person, in the way that Christ leads you to be.

Churches are full of fornicators, adulterers, and all types of sinners. They should be full of homosexuals as well. Whether homosexual actions are a sin or not. We are all sinners, we become righteous by following Christ.

JM
(And I do think that homosexual activities are sinful for a heterosexual. My interpretation is in light of my understanding of what we know about nature/science, though, where there is pretty obviously biological homosexuality.)

[Boris Godunov]

OK, that's a lot of irrelevant stuff, because here's the core issue that's the object of discussion:

Churches are full of fornicators, adulterers, and all types of sinners. They should be full of homosexuals as well.

No. You cannot equate homosexuals with adulterers and the like and expect us to go, "OK, well that's fine." Just, no. The notion that "we're all sinners, so it's just saying that homosexuals are sinners like everyone else" doesn't cut it. That would be no different than saying, "black people are inferior to white people, even though they should be entitled to equal rights, etc." If someone believes that, then there's a problem with what they believe, simple as that.

Gay people have their lives invested in relationships that you are calling inferior and sinful if you follow this line of thinking. The David story fails as an analogy, unless you're saying lying, adultery and murder are equivalent to homosexuality? Or homosexual relationships can't exist without them? If Bathsheba had been unmarried and he had courted her, married her and then knocked her up, then it wouldn't be sinful, right? It wasn't the relationship itself that was the problem, it was all those horrible things you enumerated.

Tell someone that their relationship with the person they love itself is a sin, and they've every right to tell you to go **** yourself, no matter how nicely it's said. Blithely denigrating someone's relationship isn't mitigated by saying, "oh, it's just a sin like any other..."

As for the Biblical understanding of homosexuality, does anyone really think that if you went back in time to Paul and the authors of Leviticus and explained the modern understanding of it, they'd actually go, "Oh, well then, that's different!" That's of course ignoring the issue of the supposedly divinely-inspired authors of the Biblical books somehow not being inspired enough to get this particular issue right, considering the devastating impact it has had on so many people. "They didn't know any better" doesn't really wash for a work that is supposed to be Divine Revelation, after all.

[Boris Godunov]

Thanks

Oh you're very welcome!

[Boris Godunov]

(And I do think that homosexual activities are sinful for a heterosexual. My interpretation is in light of my understanding of what we know about nature/science, though, where there is pretty obviously biological homosexuality.)

Er, what about bisexuals? The modern understanding of nature/science is that sexuality is a rather fluid, complicated thing and that it's not really a binary hetero/homo thing. What if the Kinsey scale is more accurate? Is there a certain point on the scale where it becomes a sin, but if you're more towards the middle, it's all good? And would the same apply for heterosexual activities for homosexuals?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Oh, so it's anecdotal evidence that we're going by?

Well if you want empirical evidence go for latest polls showing a majority now are Okey dokey with gay marriage.

Tell me, what other minority has had, within the past ten years, have had 41 states single them out in their constitutions for unequal treatment? Or have had states actually pass laws declaring them unfit to adopt children? Or can be legally fired for their status in most states?

Why do you purposely choose to confound legal and cultural issues? Sure you can state that law is a codification of societal morals, but it is a severly lagging indicator due to the slow pace of democracy. But it was you who decided that the issue was around culturally unsettled issues. The cultural progress continues and the trajectory is such that gay rights advancement will continue with increasing less resistance.

Are the slew of suicides based on incidents of anti-gay bullying imaginary?

And I am accused of anecdotal arguementation.

Just how "settled" is the status of a group that just this past year it has been deemed acceptable that they might be soldiers for their country, but yet still have to rely on the graciousness of the majority to grant them what the Supreme Court has already once said was a basic human right?

Gracious me. A settled legal issue no less. Wow even the lagging cultural lindicators seem to be catching up.

I guess as someone who actually has to deal with the consequences of such backwards thinking, I might be a little more sensitive and aware of these issues, so forgive me if I seem a bit brittle.

Not brittle, so much as myopic and self absorbed.

Oh yes, the practitioners of organized religion are sooooooooooo put upon in this country. That must be why virtually all public-office seekers have to wear their faiths on their sleeves. Forgive me AGAIN for not realizing how tough it must be to be one of the, what, 80% religious people in this country?

Wearing faith on their sleeves. Oh really. Other than to state they are a member of a given faith anything beyond that ususally is fodder for speculation that a candidate is unhinged, out of touch, or incapable of making a rational decision.

Unlike the gay agenda issues which have the proper cultural trajectory, attacks on people who are truely public with their faith is becoming all the more common. Heck they even get referred to as a Ben Kenobi it would seem.

But hey, here's an idea: when religion stops causing grief for people who want no part of it, then those people won't need to criticize religion.

Stereotype much. How bout you replace the words religion with the words "black people", "brown people", "gays", or any other cultural group and re-read the hateful screed. Hate is a terrible thing. If all you can do is envision yourself a victim then rationalizing along this line of thought becomes rather easy.

[SlowwHand]

Way to rock and fire, Ogie.

[Boris Godunov]

Well if you want empirical evidence go for latest polls showing a majority now are Okey dokey with gay marriage.

What percentage of people are still opposed to interracial marriage, or interreligious marriage, Ogie? In fact, just how many people's marriages are subject to public opinion polls, much less public votes? In fact, just how many culturally settled issues are subject to public opinion polls like gay marriage is at all, Ogie? It is utterly asinine to assert it's a settled issue when it's controversial enough to require polling, isn't it?

Why do you purposely choose to confound legal and cultural issues? Sure you can state that law is a codification of societal morals, but it is a severly lagging indicator due to the slow pace of democracy. But it was you who decided that the issue was around culturally unsettled issues. The cultural progress continues and the trajectory is such that gay rights advancement will continue with increasing less resistance.

Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that 41 states have passed constitutional marriage bans and that gay people have been, unlike any other minority, targeted by laws is culturally irrelevant? Give me a ****ing break. What a convenient and dishonest dividing line to have! "Oh, that's just LAWS being passed, that's not culture." Uh-huh.

And I am accused of anecdotal arguementation.

Uh, considering I specifically posted that as a response to your use of anecdotal information, I thought would be obvious that it was "anecdote for anecdote." Mea culpa for not realizing you weren't that bright.

Gracious me. A settled legal issue no less. Wow even the lagging cultural lindicators seem to be catching up.

Supreme Court right = marriage, you dolt. Not serving in the military, which the SCOTUS has never weighed in on.

Not brittle, so much as myopic and self absorbed.

So I have to be straight for my viewpoint on this to be considered valid? Good to know: you will only consider heterosexual objections to anti-gay attitudes! Yeah, I guess it is myopic and self-absorbed for a gay person to complain about anti-gay attitudes. I'll be sure to sit back and wait for a straight person to come along and give me a nod that my opinion is valid.

By the way, I've no interest in serving in the military or in getting married at this point, so the notion that my motivation is selfish is pretty stupid (not to mention that this is certainly not the only issue on which I have socially liberal views, now is it?).

Wearing faith on their sleeves. Oh really. Other than to state they are a member of a given faith anything beyond that ususally is fodder for speculation that a candidate is unhinged, out of touch, or incapable of making a rational decision.

Are you out of your mind? When is this ever a problem for a candidate? Sarah Palin attended a church where people talked in tongues, and the media didn't give a ****. But Barack Obama is accused of not being Christian enough on a regular basis. There's a National Prayer Breakfast where politicians go to kiss clergy butt regularly. Republican candidates are constantly trying to out-God each other to appeal to their voters. I've yet to see any high profile case where being too religious was a problem. Nobody mocked Huckabee because he's an Evangelical--on the contrary, many believed that had he run he'd have been the front runner in the GOP primary. The notion that there's some sort of oppression of religious people in this country is a laughable lie.

Unlike the gay agenda issues which have the proper cultural trajectory, attacks on people who are truely public with their faith is becoming all the more common. Heck they even get referred to as a Ben Kenobi it would seem.

Ah, "gay agenda," there's the tell. What's the "gay agenda," Ogie? Using that phrase is a pretty good indicator of where the person using it is coming from. At any rate, there is no issue in America of being too publicly religious. And you even don't grasp the comparison to BK, because it wasn't for being too religious, it was for having a persecution complex and being disingenuous.

Stereotype much. How bout you replace the words religion with the words "black people", "brown people", "gays", or any other cultural group and re-read the hateful screed. Hate is a terrible thing. If all you can do is envision yourself a victim then rationalizing along this line of thought becomes rather easy.

I can't imagine how you'd be so stupid as to not grasp the fact that it's not being religious that is the problem. Plenty of religions don't make a point of it to attack gay people. Plenty of religious people keep their faiths out of politics. You'll never hear me badmouth a devout Quaker. The issue is that a good number of people use a religious argument to advocate public policy that targets homosexuals. The moment they use their religious dogma to justify this, it's fair game for criticism. There's not any doctrine to being black, brown or gay that leads someone to being bigoted. I seriously do not see how you're so dense that you cannot get that "little" difference that makes your comparison fail.