I am perplexed by fundamentalist christians that are always targeting gay people. They want to pass all sorts of laws restricting rights and privileges that everyone else has. What frustrates me the most is that they seem to be tunnel-visioned on gays. There are many things in the christian bible that they could talk about. I bet you there are more adulterers in the US than gay people and adultery is a ten commandments topic. What about honoring your parents? Can we focus on that for a while? This gay marriage thing being a religious idea only? I know of several religions that encourage gay people to find partners to marry including Unity, Unitarian Universalists and the Quakers.
I believe that gay people are the target because the christian religion, or its higher ups, have nothing else to target? They have lost the battle with alcohol and porn, they used to say black people couldn't marry white people but can't do that anymore. They try to stop drugs but you can't pass any more laws about that. Ok I'm being a bit out there, but really, Christianity has been losing its control over its flock for decades, if not centuries. Every sociologist and psychology person can easily see that when someone or some group sees its former control waning they will do anything to regain it. It's a desparate act. These fundamentalist christians have to find something to rally the troops.....wha-laa!.....gay people. A marginalized group in our over masculinized, sports culture that many people feel uncomfortable with. From history, the Nazi's for example, we know that hate is an excellent way to mobilize a group.
Isn't it blatantly unconstitutional to forbid the marriage of two people? In Virginia they want to outlaw any 'marraige like' contracts between two people of the same sex, doesn't that seem unconstitutional? The sodomy laws that Chief Justice Souter condemned was obviously directed at gay men. The 14th amendments says no state shall pass a law abridging the rights of its citizens. The only people saying I cannot marry another guy is christians? Right there we have a church-state conflict.
Ok, let me have it!
Why are gay people a Christian target?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Colorado127
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 4:39 pm
Post #41
No, I proved that. You have yet to prove that what you are preaching are God's tenants.This is your opinion.
You are one of those "Judge not!" babblers:It also begs the question, "who is going to judge the fruits?" Again, I submit that this is in God's purview, not ours. I'm not saying we can't have opinions, but I would suggest we need to acknowledge that our opinions are just that, opinions, and do not necessarily reflect God's thoughts on the matter. As it is written, "God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts."
click here:
http://img183.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img183& ... g006ai.jpg
if image is removed.
I have no doubt you believe the intentions of the unbelievers are honorable. However, I don't beleive your intentions are honorable since you sound like a deciever who is willing to COMPROMISE away the word of God to fulfill your lusts.I don't believe most unbelievers expect this, nor do most believers who disagree with your viewpoint. What I expect is for you to respect my right to have my own relationship with God, without having to cowtow to your particular viewpoint. I am responsible to my own master and not to you. Unbelievers, I think, expect to be free to make their own choices as well. You are free to disagree with those choices, and to not make them yourself.
Click here:
http://img183.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img183& ... implea.jpg
if image is removed.
You appraoch has allowed the abortionists and homosexuals to get a foothold into society. I am not dumb enough to follow your example.I would suggest your approach has the potential to produce much worse fruit than the approach I would take.
Post #42
You have not yet proven your god exists and, if it so exists, the intolerance you spout is it's word.Shamgar wrote:No, I proved that. You have yet to prove that what you are preaching are God's tenants.This is your opinion.
Do you consider yourself to be a "True Christian" (TM)
many consider ad hominems to be a sign of intellectual impoverishmentShamgar wrote: You are one of those "Judge not!" babblers:
So what are you dumb enough to do?Shamgar wrote: I am not dumb enough to follow your example.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20853
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
- Contact:
Post #43
From all your posts, I do not get the impression that you are here for honest debate. Rather, your posts have the characteristic marks of flame baits. The purpose of this forum is for civil and respectful debates. If you are not able to abide by this principle, I would ask you to seek other forums to express your views. If you continue to post disrespectful posts, we will have to take stricter moderating actions. If you have not done so, please review the rules and the consequences of rule violations. If you have any questions on proper behavior, please PM me personally.Shamgar wrote: You appraoch has allowed the abortionists and homosexuals to get a foothold into society. I am not dumb enough to follow your example.
Please move away from discussions about posters and only stick to the topic.bernee51 wrote: So what are you dumb enough to do?
Post #44
Hmmm. It seems to me you are mis-characterizing those who disagree with you. I am not trying to compromise the Word, let alone doing so to fulfill my lusts.Quote:
I don't believe most unbelievers expect this, nor do most believers who disagree with your viewpoint. What I expect is for you to respect my right to have my own relationship with God, without having to cowtow to your particular viewpoint. I am responsible to my own master and not to you. Unbelievers, I think, expect to be free to make their own choices as well. You are free to disagree with those choices, and to not make them yourself.
I have no doubt you believe the intentions of the unbelievers are honorable. However, I don't beleive your intentions are honorable since you sound like a deciever who is willing to COMPROMISE away the word of God to fulfill your lusts.
Should believers serve on juries and 'judge others' in a legal setting? I think this is actually a good question. On the one hand, I believe the Bible is pretty clear that we should not judge our fellow believers with regards to judgments that are God's to make. This, I think, applies to believers as individuals.
When we judge in a legal setting, then we are really serving as part of the larger government. Paul would allow I think that all authorities are God-ordained, and that we should in general subject ourselves to these authorities. Yes, there is discussion of not following this authority under certain conditions, but I don't believe scripture says that we can disregard an authority simply because it does not follow a particularly Christian viewpoint. So, if we do serve on a jury, even for a 'non-Christian' government, we are judging in a different context than when we judge as individuals. We are also typically judging over matters that may have nothing to do with our relationship to God or our responsibilities to Him, but rather matters that have to do with the civil society, which again, may not be and need not be Christian.
I agree, if there is a perceived conflict between God's law and civil law, the believer must decide whether it is better to follow God or man. This is not always an easy choice. However, I think precedent from the Bible would indicate that if the believer follows God's law, he or she must be willing to accept the consequences from the civil authorities. Certainly Jesus, Paul, Peter, and many others did this. One could say that abolitionists and civil rights workers did the same.
Post #45
I'll assume that being "able to recognize snakes" is a metaphor, but I'm not sure. Please describe the difference between being able to decide who is not a Christian and being "able to recognize snakes."Shamgar wrote:I certainly don't and neither do you. However, Christ, John the Baptist and Paul, were all able to recognize snakes. . . so am I.mrmufin wrote:Sorry, Shamgar, but you don't get to decide who is a Christian and who is not.
If the phrase about "being able to recognize snakes" was not meant metaphorically, then... so what? I'd suspect that the vast majority of DC&R participants are also able to recognize snakes. And birds. And dogs. And elephants. And dolphins. And asses.
Well, it was a long shot, but I was hoping that maybe you'd see some inconsistency between that statement and many of the condescending, judgemental, inflammatory remarks that you've littered this forum with.Shamgar wrote:Okay, I did. Is something supposed to happen?mrmufin wrote:Read that sentence back to yourself a few times, nice and slow.Shamgar wrote:God determines the law, not man.
I was hoping maybe you would describe the mechanics of such discrimination, and perhaps give a few examples. Should homosexuals be denied employment opportunities? Should they be denied medical attention? Should they be flogged with blunt objects in public? Should they be burned on a stake? I'm truly curious as to the actual discriminatory treatments that you would put upon homosexuals.Shamgar wrote:Let's see . . . . . how about with discrimination?mrmufin wrote:Just outta curiousity, Shamgar, how should Christians treat homosexuals?
Regards,
mrmufin
Post #46
Following up on the Bible verses cited by Shamgar.Quote:
This is your opinion.
No, I proved that. You have yet to prove that what you are preaching are God's tenants.
Quote:
It also begs the question, "who is going to judge the fruits?" Again, I submit that this is in God's purview, not ours. I'm not saying we can't have opinions, but I would suggest we need to acknowledge that our opinions are just that, opinions, and do not necessarily reflect God's thoughts on the matter. As it is written, "God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts."
You are one of those "Judge not!" babblers:
I Cor. 6:1-7. Again, as I've noted concerning the verses you cited in the other thread, this verse applies to those who have been given civil authority to judge. Also, some of this seems to be, IMHO, prophetic and meant to apply to a future time (eg. judging angels).
John 7:24 applies to believers judging scripture, not other believers.
Post #47
Ask and you shall receive.mrmufin wrote:I'll assume that being "able to recognize snakes" is a metaphor, but I'm not sure. Please describe the difference between being able to decide who is not a Christian and being "able to recognize snakes."Shamgar wrote:I certainly don't and neither do you. However, Christ, John the Baptist and Paul, were all able to recognize snakes. . . so am I.mrmufin wrote:Sorry, Shamgar, but you don't get to decide who is a Christian and who is not.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
Now let's look at some righteous fruits:
Click here:
http://img183.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img183& ... 0008jt.jpg
if image is removed.
