Discrimination Against Gays - What Would You Base That On?

[Willa]

There are people who flaunt their sin such as taking part in a gay pride parade.  That would be like having people from the congregation taking part in a rapist pride parade.   Some people's identity may be that they are serial rapists.  It is one thing to go through counseling to help overcome sin and quite another to boast about sin or choosing to make it a part of our identity.   Our churches should be open to all.  Membership should be limited to people who are repentant and have turned to Christ as their Lord and Master.  That means that our identity is with Christ and not with sin.

[Blood Bought 1953]

On 6/1/2019 at 8:42 AM, Billiards Ball said:

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.

 

Another typical post written by a Jew—- brilliant.And the courage you had to find to “ come out” in the world  you were living in is beyond my comprehension. What an honor to have people like you in our fellowship .I’m sure your life since your conversion has been a difficult one, but I’m also sure that you know that you have been blessed by God.May God open the eyes of your relatives and friends that they may be blessed as you are!

[thomas t]

Hi Tristen,

let's discuss offence first.

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

I can't “offend” anyone. People can only choose to be offended (or not). [...]

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.

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).

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

If society can't discuss issues that some might find offensive, then how can we address uncomfortable truths?

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.

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

There has been a lot of “testing” on this issue (which I previously stated explicitly).

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...

 

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

It should be “socially acceptable” to make any claim you hold sincerely.

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.

 

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't think getting a job in a Christian church is a "human right".

It can be a human rights issue as soon as discrimination is involved. Now you're saying...

 

10 hours ago, Tristen said:

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 seem stuck on this one example of remarried divorcees.

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!"

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by thomas t
see edit

[thomas t]

3 hours ago, Willa said:

gay pride parade.  That would be like having people from the congregation taking part in a rapist pride parade.  

Hi Willa,

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

Thomas

[Mike Mclees]

Question to Thomas. In the days of Abraham Lot chose to live and reside in Sodom. God came to Abraham and said he was going to destroy Sodom for its love of perverted lifestyles. For Abrahams sake He gave opportunity for lot and his family  to leave Sodom before His judgment. With help of Gods angels Lot and his family  left Sodom. Do you think God was discriminating against the people of Sodom when He destroyed it and all its inhabitants.

How would you think God sees perversion today  within the halls of His church, excuses them when he didn't excuse Sodom  

It is often said that God never changes but is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

A Fair question 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Mike Mclees

[thomas t]

Hi Mike,

I'm not God.

3 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

he didn't excuse Sodom

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....

3 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

Do you think God was discriminating against the people of Sodom

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.

3 hours ago, Mike Mclees said:

perversion today  within the halls of His church,

I want to remain neutral on this. I want to leave it open whether or not we see perversion in the churches.

Regards,

Thomas

 

[simplejeff]

On 5/29/2019 at 2:32 AM, thomas t said:

......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.

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.

Quite obviously,  as also there are no perverts of any kind/ no gays/ in heaven,  they are not permitted in the assembly either,  period.  (unless they repent and are cleansed of their sins and become a new (clean) creation in Christ Jesus by His Blood and His Grace as written clearly in all Scripture)

 

[simplejeff]

11 hours ago, thomas t said:

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

< shrugs >   why quibble sinfully ?   Perverts are 'victims' of hasatan and/or of demons and of the sinful nature just like murderers, liars, and idolators are ....

There's no "pass" for being such a so-called 'victim' -   sin is sin, and the penalty is death.

[Mike Mclees]

4 hours ago, thomas t said:

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

 

How do you know that there were no women just because none were mentioned. That is no evidence they were not there. Lot and his family lived there and lot was married to a women. anti women bias you couldn't know because you were not there. No offense but your belief here is very week. You said God could not have bias still he destroyed Sodom for their perversions. Women or no. There is a judgment day just a little while from now. This world will be judged for its godlessness and its perversions It's all going to burn. Our government leaders and supreme court committed a grievous sin when they made gay marriage a law of the land. You said  God does not have bias you are wrong. He as a church that believes in Him and lives like they believe. Scripture tells us his Bride will escape Gods wrath. Just saying.   

[Tristen]

16 hours ago, thomas t said:

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)”

I don’t think these verses are as “crystalclear” about the issue as you think. Are you saying I have the capacity to mouth an insult? – Absolutely I can. But whether or not the insulted person takes offense is entirely in their control.

 

“An offence is a  comment on the person of another human that is derogatory”

You are confusing insult with offense. And you are presuming to know the motives of the author.

Sure – it is wrong for a person to intentionally insult another person – for no other reason than to offend them. But here, someone claimed homosexuality to be a “mental illness”. Mental illnesses are real things. You are presuming that the person intended the comment as an insult, rather than an opinion. After studying the trans phenomena, I am leaning towards the conclusion that ‘being trans’ is a “mental illness”. I don’t mean that as an insult. I honestly think they have a treatable disease.

 

“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”

With regards to sin, God has already revealed His judgement to us. Homosexuality is not something God designed into humanity. It is a corruption of God’s design for relationships. Therefore, Christians have every rational right to declare what God has already explicitly determined to be sin.

With regards to “mental illness” – are you seriously suggesting no human has any right to define any behaviour as “mental illness”? Sure - it's not nice to consider, but that doesn't make it automatically untrue.

 

“Today it [a biological origin of homosexuality] 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”

But since no conclusion has been reached scientifically, you can’t rule out the possibility that “mental illness” is a potential source of homosexual desire. But if you try to bully that opinion out of the conversation, you are dismissing a potential truth – just to save feelings.

 

“In this manner - if this were to be right - you would justify any remark that's racist, homophobic, antisemitic, misogynist, xenophobic... and many more”

The reason such remarks are now frowned upon is because people had the courage to speak out against the immorality. They made their case and convinced society as a whole to reject the older ideas. It is the freedom to speak-our-minds that brought down these notions. So I am very libertarian when it comes to freedom of speech. You don’t achieve anything by pushing unpopular views out of the conversation. You change people’s minds through safe, rational arguments – not bullying.

 

“Racism for instance should be a no-go. That's how we shold view all group related enmity. Including homophobia”

I don’t think Christians should be intentionally nasty to anyone, but I don’t see these 2 issues as the same. Race is unequivocally biological in nature. Homosexuality is about desire and action. Desires and actions are moral issues – and therefore subject to moral judgements.

Even so, I’d rather have the chance to convince someone their racism is wrong, rather than have them retreat into some insular fringe group with no capacity to hear an alternative perspective.

 

“It can be a human rights issue as soon as discrimination is involved”

Human rights refer to those things fundamental to our humanity. None of us has the right to demand our preferred employer to hire us, despite our values being in direct conflict with the organisation. That is absurd.

 

“if they let [remarried divorcees] in while banning gays... then you show partiality against gays, in my opinion”

It depends if they agree with your interpretation that all married divorcees are committing a sin. If they see the issue differently to you, then they are making a distinction between the married faithful, and unrepentant sinners – which is a perfectly reasonable distinction given their position.

The Biblical concept of ‘not showing partiality’ is about not treating people as though they are less important than others. It has nothing to do with making a distinction between the faithful and unrepentant sinners.

 

“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.”

I don’t think it’s that simple. Jesus made one comment on one occasion that you are interpreting as a universal moral edict. Even in the passages relaying that comment, Jesus added caveats that warrant further investigation. But there are also other scriptures that also inform one’s opinion on the issue of remarried divorcees. When studying an issue in the Bible, we don’t just take a single verse as the final word. All of the Bible is God’s word. Therefore everything the Bible says about the issue should inform our conclusions.

On the issue of homosexuality, the Bible is unequivocal that God considers homosexual practice to be a moral sin. This is explicitly expressed several times in different contexts from multiple sources. There is no contrary position or mitigation expressed in scripture.

So one is a more clear-cut case of sin than the other.

 

“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...”

I think churches do apply the “same rules to everyone” – as in, unrepentant sinners are considered disqualified for positions of example in the church. I don’t think all churches automatically consider all remarried divorcees to be unrepentant sinners.

Your argument would be more cohesive if you were suggesting remarried divorcees should be excluded from positions in the church. 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).

 

“Churches do have the right to attach importance to qualification”

Surely shared values are an important “qualification” in a values-based organisation.

 

“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!"”

In this case, any “testing in the field” is irrelevant – since the “testing” hasn’t ruled out the possibility that homosexual desire is sourced in “mental illness”.

It is an Adhominem attack because of what it insinuates against about the author. Describing comments as “homophobic” insinuates that the author is bigoted – rather than just expressing a sincere opinion.

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.

Whether or not something is “hostile” depends on the motive of the author (which only God is qualified to determine). Sometimes the truth is “derogatory” – i.e. if you don’t want to hear it.