Discrimination Against Gays - What Would You Base That On?

[nickm727]

No homosexuality should be allowed in the churches. period. 

Its adultry. its wrong on all levels scientific and moralistic, and should not be accepted as it is something a young impressionable mind can intake as acceptable  

[Scott Free]

A problem with accurately identifying homosexuals is the fact only 12% are the obvious effeminate type. A larger stereotyped group are overly masculine "bears". Identifying a sexually deviant person is near impossible without proof. In the Spirit of Jesus Christ we are to be kind and accepting of non Christians without judgement. It is only when they want to join the church does it become your personal business to shun them away. I agree the churches should be more exclusive and elitist. When you join there should be a feeling of accomplished, like you are a member of a special group. 

[Billiards Ball]

4 hours ago, thomas t said:

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 Thomas,

Are you using a paraphrase Bible? NKJV has for a typical example, "Like a heathen and a tax collector." 1 and 2 Corinthians deal in large part with a parallel issue. The man sleeping with his stepmother was asked to leave the church, so that Satan could buffet him. He repented and important passages in 2 Corinthians deal with forgiving the repentant brother, helping him to be restored and to feel FULLY assured and forgiven. But first, Paul insists he be made to leave in 1 Cor. Why? Because this kind of sin being tolerated by church leadership/the whole church could destroy the whole church.

Atheists being made to leave an Internet forum has nothing to do with a person who is a member of a church, who says they are born again, who is deeply in unrepentant, heinous sin. Matthew 18 is to go to the BROTHER, not an atheist.

The Bible mentions homosexuality 18 times, not one mention is laudable or praiseworthy by any stretch of the imagination. I hear your love for gay people clearly, I do not hear the desire to speak truth to them. Truth without love becomes legalism. Love without truth becomes bad doctrine.

The truth is 1 Corinthians says some of US WERE (formerly) homosexual but now have been washed. Saved and struggling with homosexual desires? Let's pitch in to help. Saved and saying "God made me gay, I don't want to change, I just want to be accepted," and there needs to be some long talks including discerning whether the person is saved. Unsaved? Let them stay in the church around believers! Saved? They need to go out for a while. 

Try to understand the following:

1) Every word in the Bible is important for doctrine. Don't use paraphrase Bibles without a very, very good reason.

2) Your OP starts "discriminate against gays?" but the Bible has many passages in both testaments speaking about discernment, judging, discipline and not being corrupted. I personally love being a part of a super-diverse church with tons of unbelievers in attendance, and many salvations, constantly! What a blessing! But we cannot have BELIEVERS in the church flaunting sin that could destroy their bodies, souls and the church.

3) Don't mistake me for unsympathetic or not empathetic. I'm a Jew and am still hated by Jews after many years for trusting in Christ. I know much more about discrimination and the pain of rejection than most people. But people I love especially, and I love believers, are NOT to simply sin and sin and sin and tear down a church and cause the kind of confusion you are experiencing.

4) Let the scriptures guide your opinions, so that you take any current culture with a grain of salt.

[thomas t]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

How can an idea ever be tested (and backed up) if it can't even be proposed without the accusation of “bigot!!!”.

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).

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

freedom of thought and expression.

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.

Quote

Are Christians really obligated to give everyone access to our homes who wants to come in – because only letting trusted people into our homes and around our children is discrimination?

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.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I never claimed Amnesty was ridiculous. I claimed that characterising the church's freedom to discriminate who they associate with as a human rights issue, is ridiculous. Even if a church prohibits homosexuals attending their services, no one is being deprived of anything fundamental to their humanity.

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".

1 hour ago, Billiards Ball said:

Love without truth becomes bad doctrine.

I don't discuss doctrine with them when I meet them.

1 hour ago, Billiards Ball said:

They need to go out for a while. 

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).

Edited June 1, 2019 by thomas t
corrections

[Billiards Ball]

32 minutes ago, thomas t said:

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).

They need to go out until they are repentant. You would want to find a church to ask that has gone through this phase of expulsion and reacceptance.

If we treat them like heathen or unbelievers or whatever term, we wouldn't link with them in church to do ministry together, offer them elder's or deacon's roles, etc., right? We would witness to them only. Note also Matthew 18 is about escalating a situation response, over time, reasonably.

[choir loft]

6 hours ago, thomas t said:

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

There are two discussions going on here.  One is of God's law and the other is of human preference.  Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden they have been incompatible.   To this day those who love sin have been blind to the Law of God.

Your comment to me read;

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.

I made my point simply and clearly.  Here it is again for those who missed it.

Expressions of a sexual nature are inappropriate anywhere in public.  It's even uglier when it's done during a worship service.   The action conveys only one meaning.  The meaning isn't about conveyance of love of one person for another, it's about abject disrespect of others who are present for other matters - namely worship.  It is disgusting inappropriate and offensive in that it is nothing more than an overt attempt to be in-your-face about a life style that is forbidden in the sight of God.  It is a specific example of gay hypocrisy because they demand respect of others even as they refuse to give it to others.

DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.

Disrespect by gays leads directly to disrespect OF gays.  The road goes both ways, dear reader.

Are righteous people now expected to approve of anything a person does simply because they claim to be gay?  God forbid.  What of the things of God?  Don't they matter at all?  Apparently not if one is gay.   Is God now expected to roll over and approve of all gay sin and wickedness even as He judges other sins?   If the reader believes this, he or she is doing themselves a disservice, disrespecting God and those who worship and follow Him.  

Gays seek to make others more fit for hell than they are themselves.

re: gay hypocrisy

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

In the book of Acts, the apostles of Jesus Christ went about preaching the good news (gospel) of God's willingness to forgive and grant immortal life to those who repent of their sins.  Nearly everywhere they went they were accused of fomenting riot.   Keeping the peace, in terms of censorship of God's message to sinners is the same as pronouncing a death sentence.  In some cases this ultimate punishment of preachers was indeed carried out.   Do you recommend this form of censorship?

Peace with the world is NOT the same as peace with God.   Love of God is NOT the same as gay love.  In point of fact, gay love denies God's love in that they love pleasure rather than God or God's law. (2 Tim 3:4)  Political correctness is toxic - every time and every place it raises its ugly head.

Only dead fish swim with the stream.   

You are certainly NOT sorry.  You accuse of generalizing even as specific examples are denied efficacy.  Lack of evidence isn't the issue.  The issue is suppression of evidence.

I need to back up a statement with your kind of evidence?  Do you now assume to dictate legal parameters for a discussion about matters which are arguably anti-Biblical and demonic in nature?  That plow won't scour. 

Over and over again we see examples of gay hypocrisy even on these pages.  The gay life style is forbidden by the general context of the Bible.   If I quoted every verse of scripture in the Bible that condemns it, some scoffer would pronounce a verdict against it or censor it or seek ways to justify sin.  Gays claim over and over again that they are persecuted.  They do not admit to persecuting those that deny the righteousness of their life style.   Just because a thing is legal doesn't mean it's right.

The issue here is a particular form of popular sin.   Other sins also popular with Americans is military invasion of nations that haven't assaulted us.  It's popular to use drones to bomb and kill and destroy non-combatants and to use the force of arms to extend our commercial influence over other nations.  Americans have an ocean of blood on their hands, but nobody seems to be concerned about that particularly heinous form of sin.  No indeed.  Instead we chatter endlessly about the right of gays to infringe upon the rights of those who are not.   There is no such right.

What is being defended here is sin against God.  It is demonic and leads to the Second Death.

If a follower of God tries to warn of this destiny, why is it considered to be offensive?   It is offensive only to the person who hates God and loves sin.   Sin is justified in the eyes of the sinner.

God's attempts to persuade sinners to abandon their life style fall on deaf ears when the warning itself is judged to be inappropriate.    Those who try to silence the warners may themselves be found fighting and working against God and subject to His justice as well.    One who aids in the abetting of a crime is as guilty as the one who performs the crime. This is true in every court of mankind as well as in heaven.

It is time to repent of sin, to take up our crosses whatever form they may be, and to follow Jesus Christ unto righteous living.

Christians are called to deny themselves, their passions and their appetites and their sins and to follow Christ.

Gays are not exempt simply because they insist upon it.

That which saves in the Kingdom of God is trust in God and obedience to His ordinances.   Human love does not save.

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

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by choir loft

[Tristen]

15 hours ago, thomas t said:

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). ...

Hey Thomas,

“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”

It was certainly “discussed”. But you'd have to show me how and where it was “tested”. I'd have to be able to assess the standard by which the conclusion (“mental illness” or not) was determined. I was recently studying the literature on the trans phenomena. Experts disagree whether or not it's a “mental illness”. So it seems to me, the determination of what constitutes a “mental illness” is somewhat subjective. My impression is that the standard of “mental illness” can depend on the ideological philosophy of the researcher, rather than any objective measure.

 

“Maybe some 120 years ago, it might have been some vaild basis for discussion. Today, pathologisation of gays/lesbians is homophobic, I think”

In reality, the biological origin of homosexuality is not understood. A genetic origin has been investigated extensively without any result. There is a lot of literature reporting correlations between homosexual desire and certain life experiences. But we still don't know. So it is still legitimate to entertain multiple possibilities; including the possibility that it may be sourced in “mental illness”. What if it is “mental illness”, but we are not even allowed to talk about it – let alone develop treatments?

Note: I am not defending the claim homosexuality is a “mental illness”. But I think it is dangerous to dismiss ideas purely on the basis of ideology. What if people who need treatment are being denied treatment – because we are not even allowed to discuss the possibility.

 

“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.”

The way you describe it, they were reverting to Adhominem attacks. If someone refuses to engage in rational discussion, you perfectly within your right to point out their fallacy and accuse them of being technically irrational.

Note that labelling someone “homophobic” because they dare to have a different opinion to you is also an example of  Adhominem fallacy.

 

“In my opinion, labelling those who hold uncomportable views as "mentally ill" is tyranny, (since you were using that word)”

The “tyranny” is in bullying people out of the conversation by characterising them as bigots just because they have a different opinion to you (i.e. in the application of Adhominem fallacy). Stating an unpopular opinion is not tyranny – i.e. the position may make people “uncomfortable” or even angry, but there is no coercion in the mere expression of an opinion.

 

“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”

I think you have every right to express any opinion you hold. It's up to me if I get offended or not. And I have the right to challenge the logic of your opinion.

But if you label people with different opinions as bigots or homophobes – you are doing exactly the same thing. You might as well be calling the person a “pig”.

 

“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”

But if you choose who gets to come into your house – it's discrimination - you are depriving people of their human rights. That is the absurdity of equating any discrimination with the deprivation of human rights.

Churches are not public entities. They are private – and have the right to open or close their doors to whomever they choose.

I think most churches welcome sinners through their doors, but there are reasonable limits to their participation and access.

 

“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”

It technically is “discrimination”. The question is whether or not the discrimination is reasonable, or is it someone being deprived of their fundamental humanity.

One of the main purposes a religious organisation exists is to promote a specific belief and value set. Should a Christian church be forced to hire a Muslim cleric as a preacher – i.e. someone who will try and convert the congregation to Islam? If not - “DISCRIMINATION!!!”, “ISLAMOPHOBE!!!”. I think that's absurd. So the reasonable question becomes, where do we draw the line? I personally think an organisation existing solely for the purpose of promoting a specific value set, has every reasonable right to limit who they place into positions of example within the organisation - i.e. to those who share those values. Any attempt to coerce them to do otherwise is an infringement of their right to religious freedom.

 

“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”

Right – and by “persecuted” we mean being killed, imprisoned, physically or legally threatened because of our Christian faith. We don't mean having our feelings hurt because we were excluded from a group that we disagree with anyway.

 

[thomas t]

Hi Nick,

On 6/1/2019 at 2:00 PM, nickm727 said:

its wrong on all levels scientific

You didn't back this up.

(answering you late)

Hi Choir Loft

22 hours ago, choir loft said:

Disrespect by gays leads directly to disrespect OF gays.  The road goes both ways, dear reader.

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.

22 hours ago, choir loft said:

It is a specific example of gay hypocrisy because they demand respect of others even as they refuse to give it to others.

[...]

gay sin and wickedness

Claiming that gays fail to be respectful of others and claiming "gay wickedness" is generalizing again. I stay neutral on the aspect of sin.

22 hours ago, choir loft said:

Gays seek to make others more fit for hell than they are themselves.

generalizing. I find these statements are disrespectful of gays and lesbians.

22 hours ago, choir loft said:

Peace with the world is NOT the same as peace with God.

 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

Romans 12:18

22 hours ago, choir loft said:

  Do you recommend this form of censorship?

no, I'm against any form of censorship.

22 hours ago, choir loft said:

The issue is suppression of evidence.

Noone hinders you from backing your assertions up. Please don't provide cheap excuses for not backing things up.

22 hours ago, choir loft said:

Do you now assume to dictate legal parameters for a discussion

No, I asked you to back things up. Please stay on the subject level.

22 hours ago, choir loft said:

a discussion about matters which are arguably [...] demonic in nature.

[...]

The issue here is a particular form of popular sin.  

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.

22 hours ago, choir loft said:

If a follower of God tries to warn of this destiny, why is it considered to be offensive?   It is offensive only to the person who hates God and loves sin.   Sin is justified in the eyes of the sinner.

God's attempts to persuade sinners to abandon their life style fall on deaf ears when the warning itself is judged to be inappropriate.    Those who try to silence the warners may themselves be found fighting and working against God and subject to His justice as well.    One who aids in the abetting of a crime is as guilty as the one who performs the crime. This is true in every court of mankind as well as in heaven.

It is time to repent of sin, to take up our crosses whatever form they may be, and to follow Jesus Christ unto righteous living.

Christians are called to deny themselves, their passions and their appetites and their sins and to follow Christ.

Gays are not exempt simply because they insist upon it.

That which saves in the Kingdom of God is trust in God and obedience to His ordinances.   Human love does not save.

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

 

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,

13 hours ago, Tristen said:

I am not defending the claim homosexuality is a “mental illness”

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.

13 hours ago, Tristen said:

Right – and by “persecuted” we mean being killed, imprisoned, physically or legally threatened because of our Christian faith. We don't mean having our feelings hurt because we were excluded from a group that we disagree with anyway.

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.

 

13 hours ago, Tristen said:

Any attempt to coerce them to do otherwise is an infringement of their right to religious freedom.

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.

13 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think you have every right to express any opinion you hold. It's up to me if I get offended or not.

You shouln neither offend nor call names. Well but let's agree to disagree here?

13 hours ago, Tristen said:

labelling someone “homophobic”

[...]

characterising them as bigots

[..]

if you label people with different opinions as bigots or homophobes – you are doing exactly the same thing.

I never did any of this. I was focussing on behaviour. Not on persons. Jesus will judge persons.

Regards, Thomas

Edited June 2, 2019 by thomas t
clarity

[JohnD]

On 5/29/2019 at 2:32 AM, 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

 

A lot of this comes from identifying who WE are by the Church Organization we subscribe to rather than being the Church Organism (of individuals) Christ made us into.

We develop rules and regulations and laws of human tradition rather than God's grace and we mistakenly believe we can win others to Christ with judgment rather than love.

What about the old Exodus International ministry? Before it fell into trouble of course. How could they have asked homosexuals to leave? They consisted of homosexual believers in

Jesus Christ.

Homosexuality is without a doubt sin.

So is adultery (hetersoexual or homosexual).

If you want to be technical, according to Isaiah 47:1-3 shameful nakedness is on display everywhere (AND in the Church services we attend)... which Leviticus 18:8 defines as adultery.

Matthew 5:27-30 condemns men as adulterers for looking at the adulteresses.

Are these sins okay and homosexuality alone worthy of expulsion?

Hate the sin but love the sinner!

Stop homosexual uprisings / attempts to take over... yes. This is true about all hostile sin take overs.

But asking gays to leave the Church is like the tragedy I once heard about a teen girl who succumbed to temptation and got pregnant. The Church she felt led to confess publicly her sins kicked her out of that congregation. How insane is that!

We are all only beggars who should tell others where we found bread!

Humility not arrogance!!!

Love people into the kingdom. Love conquers all. God is love. Love conquers all.

God save us from our pride!

Edited June 4, 2019 by JohnD

[Tristen]

11 hours ago, thomas t said:

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

Hey Thomas,

“Well... you render it socially acceptable to make such a claim, in my view”

It should be “socially acceptable” to make any claim you hold sincerely. Then it can be discussed, argued, debated; the facts can be presented for consideration and a conclusion might be reached; and a plan to move forward formulated.

 

“According to you, there is no back-up needed to document such a claim, if I get you right”

I have stated many times during this discussion that, if someone makes an assertion, you have every right to ask them to provide rational support for their claim. If they don't provide rational support, you are not obligated to consider their claim. I'm not sure how I could be clearer on that.

 

“Concerning potential biological origins of homosexuality... I assume there has been testing in the field because the topic is nothing new”

There has been a lot of “testing” on this issue (which I previously stated explicitly). To date, no biological origin of homosexuality has been discovered despite this extensive “testing”. That doesn't necessarily mean there is no biological basis for homosexuality, but it does mean there is currently no scientific basis for assuming there is a biological origin of homosexuality; and certainly no basis for obligating others to that assumption.

 

“But you are free to prove me wrong”

So you want me to “prove [you] wrong” by 'proving a negative', for a claim I didn't even make?

 

“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”

If the organisation is a values-based organisation (like a church), and your values are contrary to the values of the organisation where you are applying for a job, then you are not qualified to represent the organisation. I have no problem with a Muslim organisation not hiring Christians on the basis of a conflict of values.

 

“So we both agree that we are discussing human rights now, Tristen ;). Of course, groups have the right to religous freedom”

You are equivocating. I think freedom of religion is a "human right". I don't think getting a job in a Christian church is a "human right".

But according to you, churches don't have the right to determine who qualifies to represent them in positions of example within their own organisations. How is that “religious freedom”? You are claiming that the church must compromise Christian values in order to accommodate people with contrary values. And for what – so their feelings aren't hurt? You want us to invite people with counter-Christian values to infiltrate the church. Why should we be obligated to do that – unless there is an anti-Christian agenda; an agenda to undermine Christian values from inside the organisation.

 

“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”

You seem stuck on this one example of remarried divorcees. I'd say that this is, at best, a debatable example of sin. There are many learned views that would disagree with your strict interpretation of this one comment by Jesus. I haven't had a chance to consider it thoroughly – so not really sure where I stand on the issue as yet. But there are more explicit, uncontested, examples of sin that would undermine your claim of “discrimination”. For example, I would suggest that any single person engaging in unrepentant fornication would be considered disqualified for a position of example in most churches. Likewise, married people engaging in unrepentant adultery. Likewise, unrepentant idolaters such as practising Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc. The reasonable “discrimination” is not specifically against unrepentant homosexual practice, but against all unrepentant sinners.

 

“You shouln neither offend nor call names. Well but let's agree to disagree here?”

I can't “offend” anyone. People can only choose to be offended (or not). Since I can't read minds, I can't know what offends every individual. So I can't be reasonably held responsible for triggering offence in others. Some people find the truth offensive. If society can't discuss issues that some might find offensive, then how can we address uncomfortable truths?

I think I have a moral and intellectual responsibility to be sincere in my claims – i.e. not to say something for the specific purpose of offending. But ultimately, if someone is offended by my sincere expression, that is on them, not me.

 

“I never did any of this. I was focussing on behaviour. Not on persons. Jesus will judge persons”

As a matter of logical consistency, when you label someone's comment as homophobic, you are accusing the person of being homophobic. Did you justify your accusation that the comments are homophobic, or did you just let it sit as an unsupported Adhominem attack on the commenter?