Discrimination Against Gays - What Would You Base That On?

[thomas t]

15 minutes ago, dr3032 said:

This is a matter of psychology or "personality," which is something subject to change and definitely NOT set in stone or biology.

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.

15 minutes ago, dr3032 said:

If that was how people thought, then everything they do or believe would be okay, because it's just "how they are".

No, if there are victims, they come into play, too.

15 minutes ago, dr3032 said:

Whoops, I kissed this other guy, my bad, that's just how I am.

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.

15 minutes ago, dr3032 said:

is just giving permission to the lifestyle

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

Edited May 29, 2019 by thomas t
clarity

[dr3032]

2 minutes ago, thomas t said:

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.

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 anythingt more than a simple lifestyle that can be changed like a T-shirt.

Regards,

Thomas

I did. There is no gay gene. There is absolutely ZERO proof that being gay has anything to do with your DNA or anything else that occurs naturally at birth. I also disagree with the notion that genetics/biology determines a person's personality. Nobody is just naturally born angry, adulterous, or murderous. Just as nobody is born gay. Nothing in the blood makes it so, other than sin. It is a matter of personality, or malleable factors. I can't become a person of African descent, and neither can I will my nose to grow longer... But I can stop being angry.

I wouldn't define it as "love". I'd call it what it is, it is confusion.

Saying it isn't a lifestyle also doesn't make it so. This vice versa argument works for your point here. It can be changed with prayer and repentance, the same as any other sin.

[thomas t]

10 minutes ago, dr3032 said:

I did [prove it].

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.

10 minutes ago, dr3032 said:

Saying it isn't a lifestyle also doesn't make it so. This vice versa argument works for your point here.

You're the one opting for discrimination, though.... and calls for discrimination should be substantiated properly.

 

10 minutes ago, dr3032 said:

I'd call it what it is, it is confusion.

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?

Edited May 29, 2019 by thomas t
spelling

[Tristen]

Hi Thomas,

I think the problem you are having is that you are trying to restrict an opposing definition of terms. You don't want to discuss whether or not homosexuality is a sin, but you are defining homosexuality as a part of someone's central "identity", "personality" or "lifestyle" - i.e. insinuating that homosexual practice is not necessarily a sin. I don't think that's a fair-minded approach. Whether or not homosexuality is a sin is a fundamental premise to the discussion about discrimination. How we deal with someone is largely dependant on the context - i.e. whether or not the person is actively pursuing, and justifying, behaviours that the Bible explicitly characterises as sins determines our response.

All sinners should be welcomed in the congregation. That is where they need to be. But if they are prioritising carnal desires over God's explicit will (as stated in scripture), then they are disqualified to serve in any position of example in the church. They should be accepted and loved, but they are not behaving like Jesus is their Lord, and so should not be placed in any position of responsibility or authority.

[other one]

11 hours ago, thomas t said:

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

The Bible is very clear that anyone who is doing homosexual sex will not be allowed to enter heaven....  if you or anyone else to give then the idea it's ok, I see it as being part of their destruction.  If you love them as Jesus tells us you will make sure they understand that it is not ok.   Accepting them as members is telling them it is ok

[frienduff thaylorde]

8 minutes ago, other one said:

The Bible is very clear that anyone who is doing homosexual sex will not be allowed to enter heaven....  if you or anyone else to give then the idea it's ok, I see it as being part of their destruction.  If you love them as Jesus tells us you will make sure they understand that it is not ok.   Accepting them as members is telling them it is ok

THANK YOU my friend of the buffalo for loving those in error And correcting them , rather than hating them and not saying anything .

Any man who loves folks enough to correct them ,  IS FOLLOWING JESUS and not men .    The church could learn a lot from what you jus said .    TRULY IT COULD .

ENOUGH with the seeker friendly gospel ,  IT DONT WORK .  

[frienduff thaylorde]

7 hours ago, thomas t said:

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?

Man ,   can we please put down the new approach that don't work . 

How serious was paul , james , jude or any about anyone who called themselves a believer if they were in sin .   

This approach that many do today and have been doing for a while now ,  ITS NOT WORKING .

OH I agree the churches that do it , SWELL so large in number ,   but they also swell in leaven .   If seeker friendly worked

HOW come they all falling away now .    Because it don't man .    this approach don't work .

We gotta tell all folks that enter our churches WHAT GOD says .   Don't let them feel comfortable in SIN .   Expose sin and  then POINT TO CHRIST as the CURE and SAVOIR .

Here lets give an example of real preaching from the bible ,   take a peek at peter ,  man straight up put the fear of GOD in them ,

ANd guess what , they was ,  OH WHAT MUS WE DO to be saved ,  and wow , PETER TOLD THEM all , REPENT and BELEIVE .   

THis hug folks to Christ does not work .   NOW , before you think I am against hugs . NO .   BUT ITS GOTTA be HUGS WITH BIBLE DOCTRINE .

Yall,  sin is sin and it cant be sugar coated to not offend .    Just preach bible doctrine and let whoever get convicted , be convicted .

This should not even be up for debate .   We have to see this as life and death serious .   if folks stay in sin and don't come to CHRIST ,  their end is death man .

And if anyone is preaching a JESUS that is sugar coating sin or not even speaking at all about sin ,  THEN they aint  preaching the JESUS of the bible .

Folks need to know THEY NEED a  savoir .  NOT one that's going to pat their back or make them rich , or etc .  THEY NEED TO KNOW they NEED A SAVOIR .

AND if men don't see themselves As they truly are ,  IN DIRE NEED to be saved , then in HEART they wont be coming to NO TRUE JESUS .

Maybe to todays image of him which saves none .    PREACH sound doctrine , LET GOD convict and POINT TO JESUS as the TOTAL SUM ANSWER .

[Omegaman 3.0]

17 hours ago, thomas t said:

If you lie, confess. Jesus will brush that sin away. And then you are clean again, no more a sinner. This is at least my own theology. Even if this happens 10 times a day, the outcome is always the same.

... but when it comes to sexual orientation... we are talking about a personality trait.

So... will Jesus brush personality traits away? If so, prove it please. This is what I'd love to tell you.

Prove it, please, before you say it's just to make them leave when they make their relationship apparent.

Moreover, a close relationship belongs to your life. Jesus sees relationships as parts of your body sometimes (see Zech 2:12). Jesus never speaks about a lie as having a part of your body. So, there is a difference, I'd conclude.

"If you lie, confess. Jesus will brush that sin away. And then you are clean again, no more a sinner. This is at least my own theology. Even if this happens 10 times a day, the outcome is always the same."

Well, spiritually speaking, yeah, the sins are washed away, removed, not credited to my account, not separating me from God, not preventing me from inheriting eternal life, etc. Temporally speaking, if I have stolen, then I am a thief, and that fact has not been erased, and I am still one who has sinned in  the world I am in, though I am no longer of this world, If I repent and confess, or I do not, I can still be sent to jail, fined, scorned, etc. because I did in fact, do such a thing, and that is just how it is. Christians are not sinless, hopefully they sin less. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Not only this, but I was a sinner, before I ever sinned. I would hold, that I was forgiven by God, spiritually, because I chose me before the foundation of the world, it just took thousands of years before the spiritual reality was manifested in the temporal reality. I sin, because I am a sinner, that is to say I did not become a sinner when I sinned, it is in my nature, just as it is in a bird's nature to fly, even before it is able. Psa 51:5, Eph 2:1-3, Gen 8:21, Pro 22:15, Rom 3:10-12, there are probably more, but those should serve to illustrate why I see us, as sinners, basically, because we all are, until we (Christians) are fully conformed to the image of God, Christ's likeness at His coming, when we shall be like Him. So yes, I am a sinner, a forgiven sinner, and even that is God's doing, not my own. It is the gift of God, so I cannot boast.

"... but when it comes to sexual orientation... we are talking about a personality trait."

You can call it whatever you like. Just because it is a trait, does not mean that we are not sinners. Like I said, we are all sinners. Heterosexuality then, in your terms is a trait. It was not chosen my most people it is just how they are, but they are also still sinners. Does a person become a heterosexual, when they first have a hetero relationship, I do not know, but I do not think so. However, while hetero-sexual people are sinners, they are not guilty of sinning in that fashion, untill the articipate in a way, outside of God;s design and intention. They do no need to repent and confess, something that they have not done. Same with homosexuals, child molestors, rapists, and for that matter, thieves, liars, and speeders. All these people are sinners, whether or not they sin, so we do not need to single homosexuals out, because we are no better. If a person is a homosexual as a "personality trait", so what. I can judge no one for having a trait of that sort, anymore than I can judge someone for their physical stature, or hair color etc. Behavior, on the other hand, is an entirly different matter. We judge behavior, because we can know behavior, unlike the heart, which only God can see. So, I do not think it is unreasonable, to excommunicate a practicing homosexual, who does not confess it as sin, and refuses to repent, to follow God's will. As long as we do not have a double standards, that recognizes also, that heterosexuals also need to be celibate, until the marry a person of opposite gender.

"So... will Jesus brush personality traits away? If so, prove it please. This is what I'd love to tell you."

Sometimes perhaps, but I cannot guarantee it. However, it is of no relevance. We are not required to change our traits, we are expected to obey God, to submit to His will. There is nothing unreasonable about that expectation. He OWNS us, by virtue of His creating us. He purchased us additionally, so we are indebted again. He saved us from eternal damnation (those who are believers) and gave us eternal life! Should that alone, be enough to expect us to be on our best behavior?

"Moreover, a close relationship belongs to your life. Jesus sees relationships as parts of your body sometimes (see Zech 2:12). Jesus never speaks about a lie as having a part of your body. So, there is a difference, I'd conclude."

I do not think I would conclude that. Where does the Bible say, that homosexuality (specifically) is a part of your body, I seriously doubt that it is. Perhaps if could be, but no more than other behaviors of sin, as I said, we are all sinners. Can a child molester not claim "I was made this way, I did not chose to be like this!" ? I think that claim is just as legitimate. However, we require of them, that they behave certain ways, even if that goes against what they feel is natural for them. If homosexuality, was a function of a trait inherit in us from birth (if that is what your position is), then I doubt there would be the statistical correlation between homosexual "orientation" and/or behavior, and being raised in a fatherless home. The urge may not be chosen, but the behavior is, every time the urge is followed.

What is the case, is that we need to yield to God, not to our flesh, no matter how we feel or are wired". It may not be easy, but it is NOT complicated. We have two choices, obedience, or sin. As Christians, we also have this:

No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. 1 Cor 10:13

Now, go, and sin no more!

[missmuffet]

22 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi all,

yesterday, a fellow poster said homosexuals can be asked to leave at church.

In my view, sexuality is part of the identity of a person. It belongs to them. Asking them to leave just for entertaining a same sex relationship would mean condemning the person - not the act, I think.

Moreover, this would stand in sharp contrast to the treatment of remarried couples (marrying a divorced woman). From all I know from churches, they never get asked to leave church.

 

Disclaimer: In this thread I will be discussing discrimination only - as opposed to the question whether or not it is sin to live in a same sex relationship. I want to keep the thread as focussed as possible. Let's discuss discrimination at churches.

 

Regards,

Thomas

 

I don't think a person who is gay should be asked to leave a Church. But they will have to accept scripture that says being gay is a sin. 

[Billiards Ball]

23 hours ago, thomas t said:

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

 

(Assuming I understand your example above) a person who is committing sexual sin (living together out of wedlock) who then gets married IS repentant of sin (living together out of wedlock). Why would they come under church judgment for getting married?

And as I wrote above, while that couple was living together they should have come under church judgment. Following Matthew 18:

1) A church member confronts them (lovingly) about their sin

2) If unrepentant, they bring along a disinterested Christian party, to witness the re-engaged discussion

3) If unrepentant a church elder(s) is brought in for direction/discussion

4) If unrepentant, they are asked to leave the church

It seems you are a) in a church that is inconsistently practicing Matthew 18 b) in the world's culture that "gay is okay" when gay people need help and healing.