Compelled to change?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The Klu Klux Klan used scripture to discriminate racially and we are doing the same with sexuality!!

The Ku Klux Klan may have "used" scripture (just as Hitler did and others before him), but that doesn't mean that even a cursory reading of the scriptures they attempted to bend to their cause doesn't reveal their deceptions for what they were. Racism is denunciated in the New Testament - actually, any of the distinctions in power relationships between men and women, masters and slaves etc. (and historically it has been Christians who opposed slavery and racism based upon their faith and their understanding of scripture):

Galations 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

(That is such a beautiful scripture btw)

In the case of the homosexual discussion, there are scriptures naming it as unnatural and cause for concern in both the Old and the New Testaments. So it is not quite honest to draw parallels between the two cases and thereby borrow outrage from one to support the other. The Bible has a lot to say about sexuality, and sexual ethics. The Biblical view is not the modern acceptance of everything as ok, and it never was.

That's not to say there aren't real issues to discuss. I'm just pointing out the Biblical position.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What is wrong with fruit? Is not fruit, fruit? Is not sex, sex? Why the mandate by God to not do something other than because he said so? Is there not an element of faith in doing as God says even if you may not understand why? Must we have the mind of God to understand what he says to do. If so, would we not be God ourselves? WHODEY

RESPONSE--

B ...[text shortened]... x Klan used scripture to discriminate racially and we are doing the same with sexuality!!

As a Christian, does scripture tell you to discriminate against adulterers? How about against liars? How about against drunks? No, in fact, it does not. There is a difference between condemning people because of their sin and convicting people to change while pointing out their sin. One is done in love and the other is done to put another down. Granted, many condemn and have condemned as you say as where others convict as Christ did. In fact, Chirst only condemned the religious leaders of his day due to their hypocrisy, not the average sinner who did not know any better.

Originally posted by whodey
As a Christian, does scripture tell you to discriminate against adulterers? How about against liars? How about against drunks? No, in fact, it does not. There is a difference between condemning people because of their sin and convicting people to change while pointing out their sin. One is done in love and the other is done to put another down. Granted, ...[text shortened]... s leaders of his day due to their hypocrisy, not the average sinner who did not know any better.

Then why do you discriminate against homosexuals?

What part of the following is done out of love?
"...if those in question were church leaders or people in positions of influence or church members, then perhaps I would be inclined to remove them or ask them to step down"

Would you be inclined to do the same with people eat too much, drink too much, etc?

As far as that goes, do you ever eat too much, drink too much or are ever guilty of any other sin? Perhaps you should remove yourself.

I wonder what Jesus would say about your hypocrisy.

Originally posted by t0lkien
[b]There is an emphasis on what is natural.

Yes, I agree with this. And the implication of verse 26 is that women had sex with women, and that was unnatural. The meaning is emphasized by the "even" i.e. it is especially unnatural for women to do so (presumably as opposed to men). I believe this emphasis is clearer in the Greek, which is why Tyn ...[text shortened]... hread clear). I understand the point you are making though, and am not ignoring it 🙂[/b]

We could debate the specifics, but I doubt much would come of it. Your interpretation may very well be correct, but I have to question the certainty of it. Especially since it seems to run contrary to some of the overarching themes in the message that Jesus brought. With that said, I'm not sure any human is fit to judge.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Then why do you discriminate against homosexuals?

What part of the following is done out of love?
[b]"...if those in question were church leaders or people in positions of influence or church members, then perhaps I would be inclined to remove them or ask them to step down"

Would you be inclined to do the same with people eat too much, drink t ...[text shortened]... in? Perhaps you should remove yourself.

I wonder what Jesus would say about your hypocrisy.[/b]

2 Timothy 3:14 "But continue in the things which you learned and have been assured of knowing of whom you have learned them. And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

As a Christian, I have, at times, been corrected in other matters. However, had I not humbled myself and admitted my errors pointed out according to scripture, I should have been dealt with accordingly. Again, it is a matter of what you agree to when joining a church. Does the church in question ask you to adhere to the teachings of scripture or not? If they do and you agree with thier interpretations, then you should be held accountable according to what you have previously agreed to in terms of what you agree scripture says. However, if they do not require you to adhere to scripture as a source of reproof and correction, then I do not see how anyone could demand you be held accountable. The question would then be, held accountable to what? I happen to think that being held accountable for your actions is a good thing and not a bad thing. At least, it has been in my own life.

Originally posted by whodey
2 Timothy 3:14 "But continue in the things which you learned and have been assured of knowing of whom you have learned them. And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction i e for your actions is a good thing and not a bad thing. At least, it has been in my own life.

You seem ready to deal with homosexuals rather harshly. Perhaps you wouldn't throw them under the bus, but you seem more than willing to throw them off the bus.

Why do you ignore the question of gluttony? Do you have a different standard for those who are guilty of gluttony? Is it because it is a sin of which you are guilty? Is that a log in your eye?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem ready to deal with homosexuals rather harshly. Perhaps you wouldn't throw them under the bus, but you seem more than willing to throw them off the bus.

Why do you ignore the question of gluttony? Do you have a different standard for those who are guilty of gluttony? Is it because it is a sin of which you are guilty? Is that a log in your eye?

Throw homosexuals off the bus? I am talking about members of a church and/or leaders in a church. I am not talking about those who choose to attend church. Also, I am talking about people who should have made a previous agreement in terms of their membership/leadership. For example, if you get on a bus and agree to a code of conduct and then violate that agreement than yes, its time to get off the bus. However, if no agreement has been made in terms of code of conduct then no, you can't be thrown off the bus.

As for my own sins, I would tell you if thought you were a priest. Just kidding. I see no reason to go over what I have done wrong in my life. In fact, if I say I have no sin then the Bible would call me a liar. What I need to do, as everyone else needs to do, is recognize their sin, repent of their sin, and start a new. This can only be done if you are held accountable for your sins. You must do it and/or others can help you do it.

Originally posted by whodey
Throw homosexuals off the bus? I am talking about members of a church and/or leaders in a church. I am not talking about those who choose to attend church. Also, I am talking about people who should have made a previous agreement in terms of their membership/leadership. For example, if you get on a bus and agree to a code of conduct and then violate that ne if you are held accountable for your sins. You must do it and/or others can help you do it.

I get it. They'd only have to ride in the back of the bus.

Can you not understand that such a mission statement is rooted in bigotry? Or would the mission statement preclude membership and/or leadership to all those who sin? Keep in mind that this would include those who are gluttons, are covetous, lie etc. It's hard to imagine a church with no overweight members.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I get it. They'd only have to ride in the back of the bus.

Can you not understand that such a mission statement is rooted in bigotry? Or would the mission statement preclude membership and/or leadership to all those who sin? Keep in mind that this would include those who are gluttons, are covetous, lie etc. It's hard to imagine a church with no overweight members.

If you call bigotry asking someone to step down who is openly and unrepentantly an alcoholic, adulterer, theif, etc, etc, and perhaps is even teaching others to do as they do then yes, I am 100% a bigot.

Originally posted by whodey
If you call bigotry asking someone to step down who is openly and unrepentantly an alcoholic, adulterer, theif, etc, etc, and perhaps is even teaching others to do as they do then yes, I am 100% a bigot.

Do you include those who partake in gluttony in your list of those judged unworthy of membership or leadership?

Originally posted by whodey
As a Christian, does scripture tell you to discriminate against adulterers? How about against liars? How about against drunks? No, in fact, it does not. There is a difference between condemning people because of their sin and convicting people to change while pointing out their sin. One is done in love and the other is done to put another down. Granted, ...[text shortened]... s leaders of his day due to their hypocrisy, not the average sinner who did not know any better.

The church discriminates against homosexuals on no other basis than their sexuality. It's not because they can't be a leader or because they are hurting others or are incompetent or dangerous. It's simply on a sexuality basis. In terms of law it is illegal in the Uk (for example) to discriminate agianst someone on the basis of gender , race , age , disability etc etc.

There is a big difference between discrimination based on behaviour (the law says we can sack someone for being drunk at work) and discrimination based on who you are (skin colour , sexual orientation , age etc). The essence of the problem here is the church's failure to recognise homosexuality as a basic orientation of a person's identity (which is what science is beginning to show)

Originally posted by t0lkien
The Ku Klux Klan may have "used" scripture (just as Hitler did and others before him), but that doesn't mean that even a cursory reading of the scriptures they attempted to bend to their cause doesn't reveal their deceptions for what they were. Racism is denunciated in the New Testament - actually, any of the distinctions in power relationships between men a ...[text shortened]... to say there aren't real issues to discuss. I'm just pointing out the Biblical position.

In the case of the homosexual discussion, there are scriptures naming it as unnatural and cause for concern in both the Old and the New Testaments. So it is not quite honest to draw parallels between the two cases and thereby borrow outrage from one to support the other. WHODEY

But in society there ARE direct parallels between the two. The church IS discriminating against people using scripture as a back up whilst running in the face of science.

As far as what is unnatural or not I have another question for you. Take a man who has male DNA and whiskers but has partially developed breasts and female genitals with an enlarged clitoris which could be interpreted or used as a penis.He has within his body testes that have not developed externally. He has periods occasionally but finds himself attracted to women mostly because his brain structure is masculine but it is also quite feminised because he is what would be considered "camp" so he also (understandably) confused. He/she has also received an abnormal dose of testosterone flooding in the womb which resulted in him having a maculine brain but female gentialia.

Such individuals and variations of this do exist and are more common than we think. What would you deem is the "natural" or scriptural thing for this person to do? Is he a man or a woman for a start? If he engages in sex with a woman with his clitoris he is surely "sinning" due to his male DNA. If he goes with a man what then? Does he have any choice? Is it his fault ? Is it a behaviour issue or a disability issue? Do you suggest surgery? Would it be natural then? What do you think God feels about him/her? Does God understand if the person does not see themselves as sinning because it was not their fault they were born this way? Is it likely that this person's sexual identity and brain structure will be affected beyond their control? Is God really going to mind if they find love with someone in whatever way they can?

Think carefully.

Originally posted by whodey
My point thus far is to examine sins we both can agree with as being sins. Doing harm to others you would not want done to you is an example. We both understand that. However, what of those sins we do not fully understand? For example, what of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit? Why was that bad? They certainly did not seem to know why other than being ...[text shortened]... wanting the best for me. I must then embrace what he has said is best for me accordingly.

I'll save you time: there are no things that we'll both agree are sins because I don't think sins exist (that's taking 'sin' as something like transgression of divine volition or divine law). And I don't know why you think the "golden rule" is so great. It has some utility in appealing to already held intuitions regarding reciprocity; but it is also false, generally.

First, you're bringing up points against gays adopting and whatnot, but my example I presented to you has nothing necessarily to do with such things. What's wrong again with the example I brought up? What's wrong inherently with homosexual acts?

You do say that homosexual acts are in contravention of God's intentions. If true, so what? I have here a wrench that is intended by its maker solely for wrenching; is it therefore morally wrong for it to be used as a hammer? Besides, if true, this only suggests that homosexual acts are sinful; it does not suggest that they are wrong because there is no necessary implicative relation between sinfulness and moral wrongness. So I don't understand why you think this bears on the matter: that your God frowns upon homosexual acts. Why does your God frown upon homosexual acts?

I understand your notion of faith as placing trust in the word of God. Through your own descriptions, I understand this not as your taking God's commands to be reason-giving in and of themselves, but rather that God is preserving through his commands the good reasons that are supposedly readily available to him and not available to you. After all, you say that you trust his judgments because he purportedly knows everything and you don't. You take this as his looking out for our interests during those times when our own faculties are inadequate for doing so. But get serious man. How can you place genuine trust in the word when the word is so perverse, so frustrating toward our intuitions? Or does it just not intuitively strike you as perverse to insist that gays stand in desert of death? Does it not intuitively strike you as perverse to sanction genocide?

Since you're so keen on the "golden rule", hypothetically do you think you as a gay person would appreciate others referring to your intimate acts of love as disgusting and abominable? Do you think you would appreciate being treated in some ways as an inferior, less privileged citizen based solely on your sexual orientation?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The sad fact is there is no reason to think this way. Science is starting to show that homosexuality is more akin to a biological phenomena thrust upon individuals by the nature of their brains rather than choice. The church is taking a long time to catch up just like it took a long time to partially embrace the idea of evolution. The Bible got it wron ...[text shortened]... omed to fail in the long term. The battle is not about sexuality it's about dogma versus truth.

Right, we actually agree on something for once. Who'd have thought?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Right, we actually agree on something for once. Who'd have thought?

Yippee! I knew there was something!! You see not all Christians accept scripture unthinkingly. I think God wants us to challenge these things and ask why or even update scripture (heresy??)