Discrimination Against Gays - What Would You Base That On?

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 6/1/2019 at 2:16 AM, thomas t said:

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?

No end? Hopefully not. There are principles, goals in mind. Jesus said:

 15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector

That may be the basis of Paul's instruction to the Corinthians, about ejecting those who claim to be brothers. It is not hope that they are kicked out, it is in hope that they repent, and can be welcomed back. The person needs to hear what you are saying, and if they can accept it, then they can embrace it, and repent, and on the basis, we treat them like the father did with his prodigal son, we welcome them with open arms, we celebrate their return.

In that 1 Cor passage, it already says as much  Earlier in the passage, Paul wrote, and gave us some background and so possible outcome if sin is not dealt with:

   1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

      3For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

      6Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?7Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened.

So, not only was it said, that the root of that passages, was sexual immorality, but that there is a danger of infecting the body of Christ, the church, if sin is tolerated. Church discipline is designed to get sin out of the church, in the hopes that the sinner will repent and be restored, but also to prevent those in the church from being emboldened of temped to sin also. There is also that very interesting part, that I do not pretend to know exactly what is meant:

"I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

I will leave it to others to decide exactly what that means, but it seems clear, that whatever it means, it is what SHOULD be done.

Now, a question for you thomas:

Since you seem to be challenging these things, that myself and others have pointed out, come from the Bible, not of ourselves, I you suggesting that to be a non discriminatory church, that we should just ignore the Bible, disobey it, and just act as though everything is okay when people among us choose to live in sin?

Now, just so we do not go down the path of confusing identity/personality with action/lifestyle, they are distinct. It is not based on victim-hood or not, consensual experience or not, it is about sin, or not. Discrimination against sinners because they are sinners, is not proper. Discrimination against unrepentant sinners is commanded. It is possible for a person who idendifies as a homosexual, not abstain from sex, just as heterosexuals are also commanded not of engage in sex, outside of what God has ordained. 

You seem to have an agenda, to have something go a certain way that you do not happen to agree with, perhaps I am misreading that. What is clear though, is that you keep trying to complicate things, which are very simple. The desire to eliminate discrimination, is not always a bad thing, most often it is good. However, not all discrimination is bad or should we, in the cause of being open minded, just get rid of all jails, and not hold crimes against people, who have a nature where they see themselves as thieves, murderers etc. Isn't that really the same principle?

Shunning, is something we tend to associate with certain sects, like the Amish, but it is quite scriptural.

[Guest PinkBelt]

Any church that makes someone unwelcome is not a real church. 

[thomas t]

Hi Simple Jeff,

I am not quibbling sin. I'm talking about human rape victims raped by humans.

Hi Cletus,

15 hours ago, Cletus said:

can we cite sources gays are being discriminated?  where are the sources?

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.

15 hours ago, Cletus said:

honestly i do not really want to waste more time on this subject than already.  nothing will come of this thread, no good.  

You're free to bow out of this.

15 hours ago, Cletus said:

you are not loving your neighbor.  you are enjoying Gods blessing and letting your neighbor go to hell because you wont open your mouth.  [...] just imagine what its going to sound and smell like as they burn forever in hell. 

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.

15 hours ago, Cletus said:

something to be accepted in society thats not acceptable

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.

15 hours ago, Cletus said:

the tactic here is to say hey you... you there telling the truth that its sin... you are hateful and a bigot.  and thats whats really happening in this thread to a point.  

No, I'm not calling names.

----

Hi Tristen,

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

Are you saying I have the capacity to mouth an insult? – Absolutely I can.

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.

 

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

With regards to “mental illness” – are you seriously suggesting no human has any right to define any behaviour as “mental illness”?

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.

 

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

You change people’s minds through safe, rational arguments – not bullying.

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.

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

It is an Adhominem attack because of what it insinuates against about the author. Describing comments as “homophobic” insinuates that the author is bigoted –

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.

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

Whether or not something is “hostile” depends on the motive of the author

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.

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

But that would be a conversation over whether or not remarried divorcees are unrepentant sinners. It has nothing to do with church discrimination against homosexuality (which I suspect is your primary agenda).

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).

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

It depends if they agree with your interpretation that all married divorcees are committing a sin

lol, no. I'm neutral on that one, too. Just saying please treat all groups equally.

 

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

Therefore, Christians have every rational right to declare

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!".

 

---

11 hours ago, Firm Foundation said:

If they want to accept divorce and remarried couples but not homosexuals, that is their right.  I don't see both as equally sinful, and many others don't either. 

...

16 hours ago, simplejeff said:

In the few true assemblies I've seen, heard of, or been in,  remarried couple (marrying a divorced woman),  when it is plainly sinful according to Scripture,

are required to repent of their sin (likewise anyone at all living in ongoing sin, including greediness or being effeminate or being in a false gospel church/belief)

OR leave the assembly until they do.

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.

----

11 hours ago, Firm Foundation said:

so it really doesn't make much difference if we label it a mental illness or not. 

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.

 

11 hours ago, Firm Foundation said:

According to 1 Corinthians 6:9,10, being effeminate, a personality trait [...]

This verse doesn't mention 'personality trait'.

----

11 hours ago, Willa said:

That you think there are no victims means nothing.

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.

8 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I you suggesting that to be a non discriminatory church, that we should just ignore the Bible, disobey it, and just act as though everything is okay when people among us choose to live in sin?

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

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by thomas t
see EDIT line above within the text

[Firm Foundation]

What is being effeminate if not a personality trait?  There is a difference between a double married heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.  Jesus recognized 5 marriages by the woman at the well, but homosexuals will never be recognized as married by God, but as fornicators.  We should follow all Biblical guidelines, but that is for each church to decide.

[choir loft]

On 6/2/2019 at 9:32 AM, thomas t said:

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.

-----

Regards, Thomas

The typical response for pro-sin individuals is to quote Luke 6 or Matthew 7 out of context - the verse which loosely quotes Jesus as saying not to judge another person.  

The purpose of this exercise is a non-Biblical attempt to disqualify discussions which identify sin and how it separates us from God's good grace as well as how it invites divine wrath.  Over and over again pro-sin arguments refuse to consider the context of Luke 6 or Matthew 7 as a whole.   In both instances the reference is made TO believers ABOUT OTHER believers.  

Believers are judged differently by God from non-believers.    For instance, God does not hear any prayer of the sinner except the prayer of repentance.

Since God judges believers differently (*), we are cautioned to judge other believers upon the same standard with which God judges us.   We are to be cautious when judging other believers, but we are to be bold when warning sinners.   Notice I wrote the word bold?  Believers are also COMMANDED to warn sinners of impending doom.   Theologically, this is called Ezekiel's commission.

When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die, and thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way; that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at thine hand. 

Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it, and he turn not from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul.  - Ezekiel 33:8-9  

WARNING is not judgment.  Telling another person or persons that their actions will result in destruction is not tantamount to performance of that destruction.  

Believers do not have authority to judge - to execute physical acts of restraint, imprisonment or removal of personal goods and finances from a sinner.

Believers ARE REQUIRED to warn.

If a sinner rejects a warning and suffers the second death, then the onus is upon them not the warner.  Neither is God to be held accountable since He has provided an escape from the Lake of Fire which the sinner has rejected.

Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, sinners have been busily engaged in perverting the Word of God with the same enthusiasm as they pervert their own flesh.   In America today they also seek to make others twice as fit for hell as they are themselves.  It is a form of social sexual and spiritual hypocrisy, since they promote their perversions upon others even as they seek to justify their own.

Finally, the religious argument opposed to the gay life style is deliberately obfuscated by its legality according to American civil law.  

Being legal doesn't make a thing right.  

Until the end of the 19th century it was perfectly legal in America to enslave another man and to execute mass murder of Native-Americans without legal redress, fine, imprisonment or legal restraint of any kind.  The popularity of these heinous acts has changed, but it was never acceptable in God's eyes.  

"If an American is concerned only about his nation, he will not be concerned about the peoples of Asia, Africa, or South America. Is this not why nations engage in the madness of war without the slightest sense of penitence? Is this not why the murder of a citizen of your own nation is a crime, but the murder of citizens of another nation in war is an act of heroic virtue? " - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Why is mass murder ok when Americans do it abroad, but not ok when we kill our own people in our schools and on our streets?   Does the reader not see the hypocrisy in this contrast between human legalism and God's Law?  The sinner always justifies his own wickedness.

Bottom line is that if one chooses to follow Christ and God's holy Law, then personal desires and passions must be sacrificed.  This is why Jesus said we must become a living sacrifice unto God.   If one is not willing to sacrifice one's personal desires and to follow Christ then that person has judged himself.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

(*) "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross...." - 1 Peter 2:24

God's judgment of believers has fallen upon Christ instead of them.  It is a substitutionary judgment.  Those who do not accept Christ, do not accept God's judgment upon Christ.  Therefore, God's judgement remains upon sinners - unbelievers.

Edited June 4, 2019 by choir loft
verse quotation

[thomas t]

1 hour ago, Firm Foundation said:

What is being effeminate if not a personality trait?  There is a difference between a double married heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple.  Jesus recognized 5 marriages by the woman at the well, but homosexuals will never be recognized as married by God, but as fornicators.  We should follow all Biblical guidelines, but that is for each church to decide.

... 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:

1 hour ago, choir loft said:

pro-sin individuals

I'm no pro-sin individual, please stay on the subject level.

1 hour ago, choir loft said:

The purpose of this exercise is a non-Biblical attempt to disqualify discussions which identify sin

The topic of the thread: non-discrimination. God shows no partiality, Bible says.

Thomas

[Firm Foundation]

2 minutes ago, thomas t said:

... 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

Cross dressing is a sin.  God makes distinctions with sin.  There are sins unto death and ones that are not.  There are greater and lesser sins.  There are willful or presumptuous sins and sins made without meaning to.  All are not equal.

[thomas t]

1 hour ago, Cletus said:

you have not accepted someone elses word before and wanted something cited, you wanted a source. so your experience matters and others do not?

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.

1 hour ago, Cletus said:

if you can not provide this the whole premise of this thread is bogus,

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.   "

1 hour ago, Cletus said:

if we do not tell them the truth which is homosexuality is a sin, its an abomination, and one day if you dont repent you will be in hell for eternity... we are accepting it.  by accepting it we communicate its ok. 

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.

1 hour ago, Cletus said:

So please, put the victim card back in the deck. 

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.

Edited June 4, 2019 by thomas t
wrong word + added a sentence

[Billiards Ball]

Perhaps the mods will close this topic? "Sodom was guilty of anti-women bias" was a bit much for me to read.

I don't see any willingness to learn from others on either side of this debate.

[thomas t]

5 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

"Sodom was guilty of anti-women bias"

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