The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Christians are supposed to be the hands and feet of Christ, to reach out to sinners with his love. Instead we treat the ones Christ loves as bitter enemies. We build impregnable fortresses from which we banish all who are different and regard them as a besieging army. We are so loud in our contention against homosexuals that we've drowned out the quiet voice of our Lord saying to love them and invite them in.

And for that we should be ashamed.

 

[Syriusly]

No, you're saying that.

I'm saying there is no Christian doctrine prohibition of mixed race marriage. There is a Christian doctrine prohibition of homosexuality.
I can't make it any plainer.

There is no Christian doctrine prohibiting female homosexuality- it doesn't exist other than through the VERY strained rationalization of a line by Paul.

And yes- there were Christians who very much claimed that God was against mixed race marriages- and provided citations from the Bible.

Just goes to you show you- whatever the belief- there are Christians who will find a quotation from the bible to support it.

Yes, there are people who have used the bible to push their personal biases. Kerry and Obama have used the bible to push bigger government. However, the bible is very precise and clear regarding homosexuality. It's condemned and you know it.

The Bible barely mentions homosexuality.

Leviticus does- the same chapter that forbids you from eating pork and shrimp- and from cutting your beard- you follow all of those instructions?

If not we can move to the New Testament.

In the New Testament- Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality- or condemn it once.

Adultery yes- often. Divorce- yes- Jesus specifically calls divorce and remarriage a sin- unless the wife(and only the wife) commits adultery.

Jesus also tells his followers to follow the 10 Commandments(no mention of homosexuality there) and tells his followers his two greatest commandments(still no mention of homosexuality).

So where does the New Testament refer to homosexuality? 2 places-



1 Corinthians 6:9-1021st Century King James Version (KJ21)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.


So male homosexuals are condemned as are drunkards and idolators.

Does the church forbid alcoholics from marriage? Do you refuse to serve Hindu's since they are 'idolators'?

Romans
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.


27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.

Wait- God gave them up unto vile affections?

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not fitting,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity. They are whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affections, implacable, unmerciful.

32 And knowing the judgment of God, that those who commit such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but have pleasure in those who do them.

Do you think that people who are disobedient to their parents are worthy of death?

So yes- there are two brief references to male homosexuals in the NT- no explicit references to female homosexuality.

However- there is explicit condemnation for divorce and remarriage.

You are therefore busy trying to pass laws to forbid people from marrying twice- and of course condemn Newt Gingrich for his sinful marriage?

Jesus Christ said marriage is a male and female in Matthew chapter 19. Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi who believed the Scriptures. Make your case that Jesus approved of homosexuality and homo marriage.

This is the problem with amateur Bible exegesis which entails many common errors one of which you are demonstrating now. You insert an absolute quality where none exists. You presume that if Jesus describes the ideal that a man and a woman should marry that he's condemning everything outside of it. You put your own spin on his words that cannot be justified. In fact nowhere in the Bible is same sex marriage expressly forbidden, no matter how hard you try to hammer that square peg into a round hole.

Applying literary licence to the Bible is contempt for the Bible, an unwillingness to understand what it's really teaching.

Very well put.

 

[Syriusly]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Christians are supposed to be the hands and feet of Christ, to reach out to sinners with his love. Instead we treat the ones Christ loves as bitter enemies. We build impregnable fortresses from which we banish all who are different and regard them as a besieging army. We are so loud in our contention against homosexuals that we've drowned out the quiet voice of our Lord saying to love them and invite them in.

And for that we should be ashamed.

And by 'we' - you mean some Christians.

I know many Christians who do reach out to sinners, and do really attempt to love their neighbors and their 'enemies'.

 

[Flash Farley]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Christians are supposed to be the hands and feet of Christ, to reach out to sinners with his love. Instead we treat the ones Christ loves as bitter enemies. We build impregnable fortresses from which we banish all who are different and regard them as a besieging army. We are so loud in our contention against homosexuals that we've drowned out the quiet voice of our Lord saying to love them and invite them in.

And for that we should be ashamed.

Oh, bullcrap. It's perfectly okay for Christians to believe marriage is a male and female and that homosexual marriage is wrong. Jesus Christ would tell the homosexual the same thing he told others, "Go, and sin no more."

 

[9thIDdoc]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Christians are supposed to be the hands and feet of Christ, to reach out to sinners with his love. Instead we treat the ones Christ loves as bitter enemies. We build impregnable fortresses from which we banish all who are different and regard them as a besieging army. We are so loud in our contention against homosexuals that we've drowned out the quiet voice of our Lord saying to love them and invite them in.

And for that we should be ashamed.

What part of "I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like." did you not understand?

 

[Skylar]

According to God himself.

As all the myriad of religions, interpretations and denominations demonstrate....that can be a bit more difficult to glean than you may think. Even within Christianity, there is far from universal consensus.

Christians used to kill gays, citing 'According to God himself'. Either God changed his mind, they're wrong, or you are. None of which bodes well for the 'according to god' theory. As it demonstrates, at best, that God's will is difficult to glean.

See above for all the different interpretations possible. Interpreting around things you don't want to do is also very Christian. As all the cheese burgers and unkilled adulterers demonstrate.

People must interpret the book. And its in the interpreting that disagreements are found.

God doesn't come down to break ties and tell you whose interpretations are right.

God expects us to obey his will and his commandments, and some are so painfully straight forward that it can be construed as defiance to "reinterpret" them. God comes to break all the ties when it comes time to judge all of mankind in the end.

And until then......its up to us to decide who got it right and who didn't. You assume that your right. Just as all religious people do. But clearly some of you are wrong. Its quite possible that all of you are.

Buddhism has the Buddhavacana, Christianity the Bible, Islam the Qur'an, and Judaism with the Masoretic Texts; just to name a few. Each of these faiths have a book or texts which give directions on how one must worship and practice their respective faiths. While there are different iterations of these texts, the goal remains the same: glorification, worship, and obedience of and to the deity.

And as all the sects and disagreements among those religions and between them demonstrates......there is clearly profound disagreement on the nature of god and the meaning of the books. Or even which books are to be used.

The synthesis of religion is a two way street. With interpretations of the books influencing the people. And the people influencing the interpretations of the book. As the people change, so too do their interpretations.

Which is why Pennsylvania is no longer quoting Leviticus as their law on homosexuality.

According to some, the Founders weren't Christians and were "Deists." That argument is used when others contend America was founded as a Christian nation.

When Pennsylvania quotes Leviticus verses word for word as their law, its hard to argue for a lack of religious motivation in that law.

So, why are we now attributing them to Christianity? I argue that the Founders were perverting the scriptures, just as the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians are today (yes, in my mind they are twisting the scriptures around to appease the public conscience, or the individual's).

So the founders got it wrong.....but you got it right? Based on your interpretations of the Bible.

You're kinda demonstrating my point here. And that's limiting ourselves to one faith in a very similar cultural and historical tradition as your own, using essentially identical text. if we venture even slightly outside this, things get even muddier. And when we start working between religions, muddier still.

All with no Leviathan. Just us.

God is unchanging, immutable. His will never changed. The people changed, and departed from his will in the process.

Unless the Founder were wrong in which case you could be right. See how hopelessly subjective this is? As there is no one to say who got it right and who didn't. Or if anyone did.

You assume you got it right. But you could be wrong, just as the founders were wrong. Or both of you got it wrong and someone else got it right. Or so far no one has.

With each group believing they were right using a nearly identical process as you are using now. If they are wrong and they're using virtually the same process than you do, then your process is wildly unreliable at best. And provably false at worse.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just go with 'unreliable'.

Actually, if we are all reading the same Bible, I contend those verses would hold the same meaning to everyone. If the Bible says in no uncertain terms "marriage is between one man and one woman" then such an assertion isn't up for debate.

All the different interpretations, priorities and conclusions contradict your contention. As one need only prioritize another passage to interpret around what you believe is sacrosanct.

For example....why aren't modern Christians killing gays as the Bible commands? 'Him shall ye kill' is pretty straight forward. Yet you've found other passages elsewhere that you believe override the clear language of the Bible and relieve of the obligation to follow a very clear commandment.

And anyone can do that. Based on whatever they choose to believe. That's the synthesis of religion.

 

[Syriusly]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Essentially everyone wants to be married where they are welcome.

No one is forcing any church or mosque or temple to marry anyone- and they will not be doing so.

Yes- there have been business's which rent out their facilities for weddings who have refused to provide that service to homosexual couples.

If I were the one refused- I would probably just shrug and go on- but then again- as a white heterosexual man- I haven't really ever encountered any blatant discrimination based upon my race, gender or sexual orientation.

But if my wife or daughter were refused service- I would be glad to drop a dime on the business that refused to provide their service to my loved ones.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Christians are supposed to be the hands and feet of Christ, to reach out to sinners with his love. Instead we treat the ones Christ loves as bitter enemies. We build impregnable fortresses from which we banish all who are different and regard them as a besieging army. We are so loud in our contention against homosexuals that we've drowned out the quiet voice of our Lord saying to love them and invite them in.

And for that we should be ashamed.

Oh, bullcrap. It's perfectly okay for Christians to believe marriage is a male and female and that homosexual marriage is wrong. Jesus Christ would tell the homosexual the same thing he told others, "Go, and sin no more."

Lying is a sin but that doesn't stop you...

 

[Seawytch]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Yeah...why on earth would people want to practice their faith with family and loved ones how stupid, right?

 

[Syriusly]

The will of God according to who?

According to God himself.
.

There are 3 major branches of Christianity- with some additional offshoots.
Within the Protestant branch there are hundreds of different off shoots.

And all of them distinguish themselves from other branches because they disagree about what God says.

To announce that you understand what God wants- when there are millions of people out there that also belief that Jesus is their savior and disagree with you about what God wants is quite abit of hubris.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Essentially everyone wants to be married where they are welcome.

No one is forcing any church or mosque or temple to marry anyone- and they will not be doing so.

Yes- there have been business's which rent out their facilities for weddings who have refused to provide that service to homosexual couples.

If I were the one refused- I would probably just shrug and go on- but then again- as a white heterosexual man- I haven't really ever encountered any blatant discrimination based upon my race, gender or sexual orientation.

But if my wife or daughter were refused service- I would be glad to drop a dime on the business that refused to provide their service to my loved ones.

Having a right to marry does not give anyone the right to force anyone to preform a service.

 

[Flash Farley]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Essentially everyone wants to be married where they are welcome.

No one is forcing any church or mosque or temple to marry anyone- and they will not be doing so.

Yes- there have been business's which rent out their facilities for weddings who have refused to provide that service to homosexual couples.

If I were the one refused- I would probably just shrug and go on- but then again- as a white heterosexual man- I haven't really ever encountered any blatant discrimination based upon my race, gender or sexual orientation.

But if my wife or daughter were refused service- I would be glad to drop a dime on the business that refused to provide their service to my loved ones.

I disagree. The goal is submission, not equality or rights. The lezbos could have chosen a bakery that would accommodate them, but chose the Christian. Homos most definitely will be demanding Christian churches marry them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Essentially everyone wants to be married where they are welcome.

No one is forcing any church or mosque or temple to marry anyone- and they will not be doing so.

Yes- there have been business's which rent out their facilities for weddings who have refused to provide that service to homosexual couples.

If I were the one refused- I would probably just shrug and go on- but then again- as a white heterosexual man- I haven't really ever encountered any blatant discrimination based upon my race, gender or sexual orientation.

But if my wife or daughter were refused service- I would be glad to drop a dime on the business that refused to provide their service to my loved ones.

I disagree. The goal is submission, not equality or rights. The lezbos could have chosen a bakery that would accommodate them, but chose the Christian. Homos most definitely will be demanding Christian churches marry them.

Well gee, they didn't know that until one of them tried to order a cake and the owner starting calling them sinners, quoting Leviticus, and then broke the law by refusing to do his job and treat them as equals...

 

[Skylar]

The will of God according to who?

According to God himself.
.

There are 3 major branches of Christianity- with some additional offshoots.
Within the Protestant branch there are hundreds of different off shoots.

And all of them distinguish themselves from other branches because they disagree about what God says.

To announce that you understand what God wants- when there are millions of people out there that also belief that Jesus is their savior and disagree with you about what God wants is quite abit of hubris.

Its a demonstration. As most of the religious say the same thing. And they can't all be right. Most conceptions of God are mutually exclusive. It can't be Jesus and a Greek Pantheon of gods for example. Its one or the other. Which means that if one of these mutually exclusive faiths is right, then all the others are wrong.

If they're all using more or less the same process, then *at best*, the process is almost always wrong.

At best.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Essentially everyone wants to be married where they are welcome.

No one is forcing any church or mosque or temple to marry anyone- and they will not be doing so.

Yes- there have been business's which rent out their facilities for weddings who have refused to provide that service to homosexual couples.

If I were the one refused- I would probably just shrug and go on- but then again- as a white heterosexual man- I haven't really ever encountered any blatant discrimination based upon my race, gender or sexual orientation.

But if my wife or daughter were refused service- I would be glad to drop a dime on the business that refused to provide their service to my loved ones.

Having a right to marry does not give anyone the right to force anyone to preform a service.

The Slavery argument died, in the Supreme Court, six decades ago. You are being paid to provide a service, to all comers, so do that and we'll all get along like happy clams...

 

[TemplarKormac]

To announce that you understand what God wants- when there are millions of people out there that also belief that Jesus is their savior and disagree with you about what God wants is quite abit of hubris.

I know what God wants, simply because he makes it clear what he wants in plain text. Don't think for a minute that I assume to know the absolute will of God. The marriage between one man and woman is his stated will.

 

[FA_Q2]

First, and most important, gay marriages DOES NOT stand on 'its own merits' because extending marriage rights to gays has nothing to do with the merits of gay marriage.

*facepalm*

It's one thing to commit a fallacy by accident. It's another thing to articulate the textbook definition of a given fallacy, and choose to use it as your argument, all logic be damned.

What you are saying is the very definition of the slippery slope fallacy. You can't even deny that you're using a slippery slope argument. It would seem that you are rejecting the fallacious nature of the slippery slope argument. Which would mean that you've abandoned rationality for insanity.

Did you mean to quote another statement because my statement above has nothing to do with a slippery slope and everything to do with the fact that rights do not need to be justified but rather the restriction of rights need to be justified.

Further, I have not posted a single 'slippery slope' argument anywhere. What I have posted is the fact that all logic used to eliminate the restrictions on gay marriage equally apply to both incestuous marriage and plural marriages. That is not a case of this will lead to that but a case of them being the same.

Further, I am supporting all of the above - not arguing against it as is the general purpose of a slippery slope argument. in your haste to avoid actually dealing with the points you have tried to use a logical fallacy that simply does not follow.

Lastly, the identification of a logical fallacy does not, in and of itself, invalidate an argument. If you really understood logical fallacies then you would understand that and assessed the actual points I have made.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

To announce that you understand what God wants- when there are millions of people out there that also belief that Jesus is their savior and disagree with you about what God wants is quite abit of hubris.

I know what God wants, simply because he makes it clear what he wants in plain text. Don't think for a minute that I assume to know the absolute will of God.

You know only what man thinks God wants. No one but God knows what God wants, and it ain't in no damn book.

 

[Seawytch]

I personally have no problem with gays getting married anywhere they like. But it is wrong to say that Christians have put gays into any quandary. Christians have as much right to their beliefs as do gays. Why wouldn't gays want to get married where they are welcomed instead of where they aren't? I suspect they wouldn't have much of a welcome in a mosque either.

Essentially everyone wants to be married where they are welcome.

No one is forcing any church or mosque or temple to marry anyone- and they will not be doing so.

Yes- there have been business's which rent out their facilities for weddings who have refused to provide that service to homosexual couples.

If I were the one refused- I would probably just shrug and go on- but then again- as a white heterosexual man- I haven't really ever encountered any blatant discrimination based upon my race, gender or sexual orientation.

But if my wife or daughter were refused service- I would be glad to drop a dime on the business that refused to provide their service to my loved ones.

Having a right to marry does not give anyone the right to force anyone to preform a service.

Who said it did?

The government can't force a church...its congregation can.

New study finds a greater church acceptance of gays and lesbians Pew Research Center

 

[TemplarKormac]

Christians used to kill gays, citing 'According to God himself'.

Well, they weren't doing it according to God's will nor what he stated in the Bible. The Crusaders didn't either. They cherrypicked what they wanted and used those things to carry out acts of barbarity. Just as people are today.