thomas t

This time I must agree and change my mind. Jesus indeed talks about 5 husbands, I looked that up in Strong's dictionary. This means that, even using old style and strict interpretation standards, Jesus adds another dimension to a succession of men in women's lives. Nevertheless, the key problem remains. I simply need to reword it: what about after-divorce partners when these relationships are in the stage of becoming? What is the church's stance to this one? When they stay liberal on after-divorce dating.... they shouldn't be tough on gays. no, now I'm saying [see bolded statement above your quote]... because this would be discrimination on gays. In case there was no adultery during the first wedlock. I appreciate your kind words, though.. absolutely, here we agree! Edit: Concerning Sodom's bias... certainly it was rape. Rape is never good.

Well this was my interpretation of Gen. 17:4, when men are mentioned as opposed to women. Women are not mentioned at all. So I thought there might have been this anti-woman bias. I might have been wrong on this one

when you make an accusation or any remark to the detriment of a person, please show more than just experience. Then please document it. Like in court: the one who accuses should substanbiate their stance. Not the accused person. The accuser. I'm neutral to whether or not it is helpful for a church to throw divorcees out. I know remarried people staying in the same church for decades - despite being remarried. They live in peace with former spouses. No claims with regard to adultery. If they would be thrown out now, it would be tragic to say the least. It's not bogus, see Tristen's remark who sees "caveats" (plural form) for the ban on remarriage. Remarriage is widely accepted, I guess. I mean without adultery as the reason for the first one. Even you seem to be admitting this in your own words! I'm citing you here... " its seems that a large portion of churches out there today do accept those who are in adultery. lots of pastors are even quick to remarry someone who is by biblical standards not supposed to remarry. " Here we disagree. You don't have to adopt a liberal stance. Not attacking someone's sexuality doesn't mean you have a positive attitude towards it. no, they are our No.1 victims. We have - even in this thread - posts equating rape and gay marriage .... + posts calling them ill without backing things up (although it's an accusation) + posts calling them filthy... We need to take care not to become a focus of homophobic statements. Say anything against gays... noone will protest in conservative Christian circles. Regardless of how derogatory a statement may be.... anything goes. They say if you're sincere... anything goes. We have no cleaners that occupy themselves with exposing all the homophobia we see every day among Christians.

... some friends of mine were funny and visited a local fair in women's clothes. Everyone had a great laugh. They did that every once a year. Hi choir loft: I'm no pro-sin individual, please stay on the subject level. The topic of the thread: non-discrimination. God shows no partiality, Bible says. Thomas

Hi Simple Jeff, I am not quibbling sin. I'm talking about human rape victims raped by humans. Hi Cletus, Speaking from my experience (which is contrary to Simple Jeff's) ... many churches keep their remarried divorcees (without adultery being involved in the first marriage) ... but throw their gays out. This is showing favoritism/ partiality. You're free to bow out of this. You say homosexuality's sin and many say Bible is utterly clear about this matter. I think you do, too. If this is right, noone needs Thomas t explaining them what's utterly clear to start with. acceptable is not the same as loveable. If you don't love it, let go. But it's a matter of not attacking them - let's keep the peace. No, I'm not calling names. ---- Hi Tristen, thanks for agreeing . Actually, sincerity doesn't blot out an insult. Many men very sincerely think that woman are just there to provide sex and for cooking and house cleaning purposes. Yet it is anti-woman bias. These men also call women [enter smear word here ...]. All the while being totally sincere. Just as an example for someone speaking in all sincerity AND being guilty of group related bias simultaneously. You should back it up if you say so. We're going round in circles, here. EDIT: you go on saying "in this case, any “testing in the field” is irrelevant – since the “testing” hasn’t ruled out the possibility that homosexual desire [..]" ... there has been testing as you say. Testing is never irrelevant. Any human should document any claims that gays were ill by the facts generated by testing (or other science)... or repeal this derogatory statement. bullying. . Why is that bullying. Labelling unsubstanciated accusations / derogatory remarks as scornful... is not bullying. It's criticism. Let me give you an hypothetic example: someone leaves his excrements on the pulpit. Now you want this: "There is no onus to back up any claim unless requested. But if a claim is left without rational support, it remains an Unsupported Assertion (a logic fallacy) - which no one is required to take seriously – and which you have the right to point out. So if you take issue with it, you have every rational right to demand they back it up before moving forward in the conversation. " To stay in the picture... as long as noone protests with regard to the excrements on the pulpit... it's ok? No. If you do this you should absolutely be quick to explain why this had to be necessary... and clean the place up. Don't let others do your work. Don't make them ask you to clean this up. I'm speaking in extremes to simplify here. no, it's staying on the subject level. He could have been sincere. It's describing behaviour, not the author. If you say criticising bahavior means criticizing the person... you would never be able to criticize an action because you would be getting personal. There is a difference between getting personal and staying on the level of singular actions. here we disagree. As with the misogynist who really thinks that women are just there to be [xxxxxx] doesn't always have to have bad motives either. It's just his way of thinking. It's hostile though. He's guilty of group related enmity. here you start the conversation. But there you say gay couples are always sinners. That's where I see favoritism. For remarried divorcees you suddenly start to talk about caveats and so on. There are none (using old style, strict Bible interpretation). lol, no. I'm neutral on that one, too. Just saying please treat all groups equally. when it comes to gays, Christians just don't stop. They rant and rant and rant and rant... when does that stop? Even in this thread we saw rantings such as gays being filthy. How often does a gay have to hear "you are sinful!". --- ... Simple Jeff, please talk to Firm about this (please note the above quote). Talk to Tristen, too. He sees caveats (plural!) made by Jesus, please read his post. Hi Firm, in my opinion, if you condemn the former group, condemn the latter, too. Even if there might have been some different handling for both groups in ancient Israel-... we aren't living under the old law, any more. ---- It does. We are called to not judge the person. 1 cor 5, for instance, isn't talking about mental illness. You won't find that expression in the entire Bible. This verse doesn't mention 'personality trait'. ---- Hi Willa, if you say gays provide victims the way rapists do... please provide the evidence for that accusation. If you can't deliver - you've made a generic statement on all gays... please repeal the accusation. Hi Omegaman, 1 Cor 5 is about not having contact with someone. Matthew 18, however, is about keeping the contact to persons that you consider being sinful... big difference. no. If you want the criticism concerning personality traits*.... check if your church has applied the same mesure to other groups, too. Such as remarried divorcees. This isn't complicating things. I want the same set of rules appled to every group. No favoritism. * if you want to define homosexuality as not being a personality trait of some... then let's consider long-term close relationships that occur in the LGBT community, too. Long-term close relationships belong to the personal sphere, I think. Regards, Thomas

Hi Mike, I'm not God. Sodom was guilty of anti-woman bias, since Sodom's women didn't show up and aren't mentioned in the entire story. The Sodomites wanted to rape. All men of one town wanted to commit rape. I don't see this occur today. Sometimes we see "only" 20 men attempting rape, today, even in Germany. Which is crime. This being said.... God can't discriminate in a sense of committing human rights abuse. Human rights are rights to claim against states and non-government (human) entities. But not God. This thread is about humans discriminating against humans. I want to remain neutral on this. I want to leave it open whether or not we see perversion in the churches. Regards, Thomas

Hi Willa, equating gays and rapists is not fair. Rapes have victims. You know that. So please... Thomas

Hi Tristen, let's discuss offence first. You can offend, Jesus is crystalclear about that in Mt 5:21-26. If you do, you are to be held liable for it (verse 22). An offence is a comment on the person of another human that is derogatory. If there is a truth that is effectively a derogatory judgement passed on others.... let Jesus do it when he comes. He is the judge... not you. before you said " “I think it is a homophobic act to call them mentally ill... when you can't back this up.” How can an idea ever be tested (and backed up) if it can't even be proposed without the accusation of “bigot!!!”." That's what I was referring to. Today it has been tested as a matter of fact. It is a futile exercise to ask what would happen if it had not been tested yet. -- with regard to discrimination... In this manner - if this were to be right - you would justify any remark that's racist, homophobic, antisemitic, misogynist, xenophobic... and many more. Racism for instance should be a no-go. That's how we shold view all group related enmity. Including homophobia. It can be a human rights issue as soon as discrimination is involved. Now you're saying... if they let them in while banning gays... then you show partiality against gays, in my opinion. Churches are liberal when it comes to the one group, all the while jumping to old style Bible interpretation when it comes to the other group... which is showing partiality. If their values include what you call 'strict interpretation' of Bible verses for sexual matters... they should apply the same set of values to all groups without making exceptions for a few favorites. What Bible calls favoritism or partiality is called discrimination by modern society. We should take this seriously. Same rules applied to everyone, this is what I want, I don't want Christians to "compromise Christian values in order to accommodate people with contrary values.", as you say. Similarly, when it comes to hiring they shouldn't show favoritism, saying that gays are unqualified by default whereas remarried divorcees are not... Churches do have the right to attach importance to qualification. Regards, Thomas Edit: Saying that someone behaves in an inappropriate manner when he declares gays to be mentally ill, without backing things up (in a moment when there has been testing in the field, already) isn't an ad hominem attack on the author. It is criticizing the author on the subject level, since I'm not referring to him personally. Just his actions. My standpoint is, the moment you post something detrimental to others... the onus is on you to back things up. It's not the other way round. If you fail to back derogatory statements up, it is hostile behavior against the accused people. It comes across as saying: "you can accuse them of whatever you want, if noone takes issue it's ok!"

Gandalf helped me a lot. But he revised only one third of the page (He only corrected the first three articles). Could anyone of you do the rest, please? This would be of great help. I promise: I went through the rest, and I think it must be ok. I mean almost. Thomas

Hi Nick, You didn't back this up. (answering you late) Hi Choir Loft Christians are called to not judge the person. Omegaman cited 1 cor 5, but this is how Christians should behave among themselves. In my opinion, disrespect of gays is forbidden. Claiming that gays fail to be respectful of others and claiming "gay wickedness" is generalizing again. I stay neutral on the aspect of sin. generalizing. I find these statements are disrespectful of gays and lesbians. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Romans 12:18 no, I'm against any form of censorship. Noone hinders you from backing your assertions up. Please don't provide cheap excuses for not backing things up. No, I asked you to back things up. Please stay on the subject level. The topic of the thread is discrimination against gays. Non-discrimination is anything but demonic. To my knowledge, gays do not persecute Christians. You didn't show that persecution by gays is true. So I consider this to be an unsupported allegation. I stay with my opinion that accusing somebody of something without providing the evidence for it .... is disrespectful behavior. Look, you already have posted homophobic allegations in abundance, I think. I won't go through your last paragraphs as qouted above just to point out some further scornful remarks. Keep peace with them, just the way Bible says. ----- Hi Tristen, Well... you render it socially acceptable to make such a claim, in my view. According to you, there is no back-up needed to document such a claim, if I get you right. It's like someone stating that women are not mature enough to be granted the right to go to university. This used to be a big discussion 120 years ago. Now, if you want to be returning to this prejudice of old to come up with these ideas agian, please provide scriptural and/or scientific evidence to back your point up. When an idea is as old as 120 years... there must theoretically be something you could potentially come up with. If you just say women are immature... it's being anti-woman biassed, in my opinion. Even if you hide your assertion as promoting a new idea... Concerning potential biological origins of homosexuality... I assume there has been testing in the field because the topic is nothing new. But you are free to prove me wrong. persecution can adopt many ways. As an example, hypothetically speaking though, I don't want to be barred entrance to my job life in the secular world just for being a Christian. Likewise, gay people shouldn't be barred from churches solely on grounds of being gay. If they don't qualify - as is the case with your imam who doesn't have Biblical knowledge - then they can't assume a job, that's true. So we both agree that we are discussing human rights now, Tristen . Of course, groups have the right to religous freedom. My point is: There seems to be two types of churches. Consider a church that accepts a husband married for the second time to a divorced lady - without claiming any form of adultary to be the reason for the divorce .... but living in peace with the former spouses. The moment this church bans gays... they show partiality, in my opinion. For the detriment of gays. Here it is discrimination against gays and lesbians in place. Billiards Ball says he has a church that would throw out a married couple after ten years of peaceful marriage... if one of the spouses is married for the second time and there was no sex outside wedlock during the first marriage. This is how I understand poster Billiards Ball. In this case... then yes... sexual rules seem to play a great role there. In this case I would advice gay and lesbian couples to seek a more liberal church. But this church really can rightly claim religious freedom when they ban gays and lesbians. You shouln neither offend nor call names. Well but let's agree to disagree here? I never did any of this. I was focussing on behaviour. Not on persons. Jesus will judge persons. Regards, Thomas

Hi Tristen, Is that a new idea for you? Did you know, a scientist died 115 years ago introduced homosexuality as an illness (the corresponding German article is more clear in this respect). So I think this topic must have been tested and discussed already. Maybe some 120 years ago, it might have been some vaild basis for discussion. Today, pathologisation of gays/lesbians is homophobic, I think. Let me tell you something out of my personal life: In the last forums where I used to be a member in (jesus.de), people started to call me mentally ill, this went on for months. They didn't like my personal behavior, but they didn't seem to be able to refute my position on the subject level, so they chose to discuss me as a person in that way. This is how I interpret the situation in that forum. In my opinion, labelling those who hold uncomportable views as "mentally ill" is tyranny, (since you were using that word). Consider I would think you are a pig. Do I have the right to express my opinion. No. This would be offensive. Freedom of expression isn't unlimited. Homes is one thing, public places is another. Churches are meant to be open for the public. We Christians want to reach the public. So we shouldn't throw one group out. Amnesty introduced discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation as a human rights issue on that occasion. Employers don't have the right to only employ straight people, for instance. They would get sued for discrimination. Likewise, when churches hire straight people only, I see discrimination occuring, too. Homophobia can be compared to racism, which is a human rights issue, too. When you ban any Canadian from your church, it is being racist, too. Similarly, when you throw gay people out solely on grounds of their sexuality, it is of course a human rights issue (discrimination). We all have a responsibility with regard to our human rights. Christians are the first to claim human rights when their brothers and sisters are being persecuted. I'm not saying, any discrimination is wrong, though. Discrimination of people not willing to pay enough is common practice in business. Hi BB, no I use a good Bible that tries its best to be as accurate as possible, which means that they try their best to use a literal translation (it's a German one). But to me, "heathen" means "secular people". I don't discuss doctrine with them when I meet them. how long? (note that above I asked a similar question to Omega...). Yes the Bible speaks about judging, but for me it is mainly a part of discerning actions. Jesus will judge persons. I'm having the same debate with Omegaman (same link).

Hello Choir Loft, Then don't allow for making out in the first place. If you say noone should be making out in service it's fine. many feminists are, too. Rightly so. + Sorry, that's generalizing. Let's keep the peace, please. In common law, it's legal? You didn't back No. 2 up. I think this is a homophobic statement. To me it comes across as saying "feel free to accuse these gays of something... no need to back it up!" Regards, Thomas ---- Hi Tzeph, thank you for your answer. Yeah, your replies are always thoughtful. Actually, we live now, noone knows what will be in 100 years . But I agree with you in that even Hitler can return, so please let's nip in the bud any forms of child abuse. There is always a power gap between a mother and son... which means that any sexual contact between these two can't be truely consensual. So I kindly stay with my opinion that there is a victim. Always. I wish you many debates with non-believers and good luck for it! Thomas Hi Mike, no I'm not defending anything gay. This is about nondiscrimination. Hi Tristen, well, youngsters need to be protected. When you don't permit them to drive at the age of 12, it is in their interest. Women-only courses is not discrimination as it is always possible for men to do the same. There is a right to citizenship for all. Every human being has the right to at least 1 citizenship in at least 1 state in the world. Amnesty is the biggest human rights organization. So I think they should be heard. What they say isn't ridiculous, in my opinion. Amnesty saved many Christians, I think. I once had the occasion to meet a brother-in-Christ (I mean that's what he said to be), saved by a Swedish amnesty group from Bautzen which was the No.1 political prison in former German Democratic Republic. Showing no partiality is a biblical principle. I think it is a homophobic act to call them mentally ill... when you can't back this up. Regards, Thomas Hi Omegaman, If you speak about sin... point given. But when it comes to applying 1 cor 5 to gays and lesbians... will there ever be an end to applying this verse as cited below? How many years should this be going on? 10 years? 20? no end? Regards, Thomas

Hi BB, in case of sin... 4) is wrong. Verse 17 says if unrepentant they should be treated like someone from this world. This means that they should be treated tolerantly and politely, and they should be invited for next service, too. This is true, even if here on Worthy atheists are made to leave the main sections. 3) is wrong, too, in my opinion - verse 17, in general, speaks about the church as a whole, not the church elder. ... answering a bit late. See you, Thomas

Hi Tzephanyahu, we agree in 99% of all spiritual things I am very happy for that. I most appreciate your discussions with unbelievers. We are not identical persons, it's just natural we disagree in 1 point (or more). (1) that's not identity. They could just take another wife. (2) there's a victim (the animal). So the case is different. There is always a victim with regard to cross-generations incest. That case is different again. Ask to leave all the people that sin without their identity being involved + the ones causing victims. Tzeph, I'm looking forward to debating further with you. Thomas Edit: One remark may be allowed re the abomination. For God certain things are an abomination, if you think homosexuality belongs to that category... would you ever consider to perhaps refrain from stating this opinion of yours? As a matter of respect towards other minorities?

It is. Nondiscrimination is a human right. "We all have the right to be treated equally, regardless of our race, ethnicity, nationality, class, caste, religion, belief, sex, language, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,health or other status. " amnesty says*. Thank you. Here we see a post claiming homosexuality was a mental disorder. The author didn't bother to back anything up in this regard. bolded mine. No, I'm neutral with regard to whether or not God made them gay. I think it is part of their identity, though... Nonetheless, I don't want to rule out that people can indeed make a choice. My keypoint is, the moment you promote inequality, you should be able to prove that it is possible to alter your sexual orientation through choices. .. in that case, yeah. If you consider it to be a sin. The Bible is 100% clear as to point out that we shouldn't pass a judgement on persons. * I don't support everything they say. However, they're right when it comes to nondiscrimination, I think.

That was a great help, Gandalf!

Hi Tristen, I do, there are certain rules applied to judgement by man in general. You shouldn't judge a person. Judging activity yes, person no. I'm not trying to restrict definitions, btw. Whether you consider it sin or not, never judge a person. Also the question whether or not homosexuality is identity... can be resolved independently from answering if it's sin or not, in my opinion. Furthermore, you should be able to discuss human rights. If you oblige every participant in human rights discussions concerning homosexuality to disclose their stance on homosexuality itself... it gets very easy to divert a thread designed to discuss human rights. There are by far to many emotions involved im the topic of homosexuality... to rule out that you can still discuss the original topic when you want this to be a thread about homosexuality. No, it's about discrimination only. BTW; did you ever witness a clear debate about discrimination of LGBTQ people here on Worthy? (and same here, by Frienduff...) I hear that so often. Since you're evoking love... did you ever step in when it comes to homophobic remarks that can be read here on Worthy? Hi FRIENDUFF. Hi other one... Here we disagree. You don't have to adopt a liberal stance on homosexuality. Just be opposed to discrimination and open the doors of churches. If you say they'll be out anyway after death... then, according to you, Jesus simply won't count them in to begin with. But Jesus is the judge anyway. I would even go as far as to say it is wrong for a human to label homosexual activity as a sin. All the while being neutral on the subject (meaning that I'm not saying it is not a sin, either). I would simply refrain from morally evaluating sexual orientation. Hi Omegaman, Lesbians are called to leave, other sinners are not, this is where the discrimination lies. (bolded mine) Nonetheless it seems many Christians think otherwise... here we're reading of counselling. I was saying Bible says close relationships are. If a man passes a judgement on these, it's getting personal, we are asked to not do that. As to comparing child molesting and homosexuality... child molesting has victims and shouldn't take place. Regards, Thomas P.S. I couldn't be online yesterday. That's why I'm answering you only now

But you didn't cite neither scietific sources nor Bible in determining that being gay/lesbian is subject to change and hence a lifestyle - that you can change. I mean the real proof: Bible and/or science. Not just talk. You're the one opting for discrimination, though.... and calls for discrimination should be substantiated properly. Gays are confused, according to you. Let's apply the Golden Rule: would you like to be called confused? Because of your religion? If you don't.. so why call other people confused?

Hi Dr, well if you just want to speak your mind, do it. But if you want to go ahead and kick men out because of loving men... then you need to present more than opinions, I think. Then you need to prove your stance that homosexuality has nothing to do with biology. Justifying discrimination, as I see it, would require more than presumtion only. No, if there are victims, they come into play, too. It's not about kissing only. It's more, many gays and lesbians end up having long term love relationships. Every day the same guy or woman (same sex). Close relationships belong to you as a person. People say it's a lifestyle and just that. That doesn't make it a lifestyle. It's not about wearing shoes. If you want discrimination, please prove that it can't be anything more profound than a simple lifestyle subject to change. Like you change a T-shirt. Regards, Thomas

Hi all, I made a new homepage in English language, but I would like to have it read by a native speaker to see if the grammar is right. Can somone help me please? This would be very nice. I appreciate any help a lot. Thank you (and see you on Friday, I won't be there tomorrow). Best regards, Thomas

people say it's an action. That doesn't make it an action. It could be identity. I believe sexuality to be part of one's identity. I'm honestly not so much interested in the matter of homosexuality as such. I have strong feelings with regard to how Christians deal with that. I'm way more interested in the topic of potential homophobia as in homosexuality. let's make this two topics, please. Like this: Let's discuss topic No. 1. This thread is about No.1, please. Thomas

...I'm glad it is finally possible to discuss the topic of discrimination against LGBTQ people here on worthy! It's perfect. Last thread ended here. I think this is a great leap forward considering freedom of expression here on Worthy. Thomas

Hi Alan, well, these are the questions I don't want to discuss in this thread. Actually I do want to stay focussed on the topic of discrimination. You know there is free speech. This entails the opportunity to not state one's opinion, too, I guess. When you speak out against someone's identity... I don't believe the following to happen: judgement, I believe, can get too much; let's discuss actions - not identity. Regards, Thomas

Hi other one, when man passes a judgement on others just on grounds of their sexual orientation - including partnership - for me, this goes to far. Jesus can, man shoulnd't, in my opinion. Sexual orientation is part of our personal sphere, man should not pass a judgement based on personality, please. There are limits for judgement. Judge actions - not people (including their personality). Thomas

Hi BB, actually, it is when there are others who don't receive the same treatment: A husband who married a divorced lady living together with her... never gets banned from church (this is my impression, at least). If a church says we discipline for unrepentant sin ... they should make no exceptions. Otherwise it would be discriminating against LGBT people. Please: Never show partiality against gays and lesbians. Lets keep the peace with them. We need it. Regards, Thomas