Discrimination Against Gays - What Would You Base That On?

[Billiards Ball]

16 hours ago, thomas t said:

I just can't understand how these "gay love is love"-folks can cause division. Are they so strong using their rationale... or are conservatives so weak believing their own standpoint? It's an opinion gays have, ok. But why are conservatives behaving as if they are almost exploding (I'm speaking in extremes, though) when they hear that. Who are the ones getting aggressive? Who is throwing the first stone? Who is causing strife? Is the gay the problem... or Christians behaving like highly flammable liquids.

Sometimes Christians get sued, yes. For discrimination, exactly. Every society has rules, I think it's unfair when Christians want special treatment.

Same pattern with discussions between us and nonbelievers here on Worthy. These escalate quick. Then people say, it was them who were the ones causing strive. My impression is, Christians first argue clumsily at times. Later they get frustrated and nervous ... and even later aggressive (my impression). Jesus never was nervous when someone came and presented a standpoint that was provocative. He was angry with the religious, only.

It would be heaven if some fellow brothers and sisters would calm down a bit, relax and let Jesus do.

 

If you apply Galatians 5 or 2 Thess 3:6 to one group, such as gays, then you need to apply this to everyone who differs a bit from old style sexual life, including divorcees seeking dates with new partners. The divorcees outnumber the gays at church by far (my impression). You can't single out one group and treat them as your favorites.

"Relax and let Jesus" is very appropriate for many things--sometimes we overemphasize our actions over God's lovely sovereignty. However, that is no reason to be disobedient to scripture.

It's not "gay people cause division". It's "people causing division get expelled from church, fractious people get expelled from church and people in flagrant, abiding sin--who also claim to be believers--get expelled." Stop focusing on only gays and discrimination and understand I've been in churches that expelled straight believers for living together outside of wedlock, etc. also.

Jesus was "not angry only with the religious". He was very angry, for an example, with paedophiles, saying it would be better for them to drown horribly at sea. Someone is a member of your church, you are the pastor, and they say God accepts free love between men and women and tender, young children. Is it then time to "relax and let Jesus"?

[thomas t]

Hi Billiards,

5 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

Someone is a member of your church, you are the pastor, and they say God accepts free love between men and women and tender, young children. Is it then time to "relax and let Jesus"

No of course not if someone said so and claims to be a Christian. It's our duty to speak up... Child abuse is causing human victims.

When it comes to group related enmity from within the churches, homophobia is not the only problem in churches. Here we agree. In my opinion violence against children including a what I would call sexual connotation can occur in churches and we need to take a stance.

I've seen racism occuring, too. Or misogynism. However, here on Worthy I've seen only one racist remark in the course of one year. Homophobic remarks are much more wide spread, here. Gays are our No. 1 enemy, in my opinion ... and there is absolutely noone exposing homophobic remarks so far here on Worthy.

Group related enmity is dangerous, though. It's against the peace, and it is even a topic in 1 kings 12:10-15 (my interpretation). In my view, it was group related enmity - in this case ethnically motivated violence - that caused division in Israel (see same passage).

8 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

and understand I've been in churches that expelled straight believers for living together outside of wedlock, etc. also.

I do. But these churches seem to be outnumbered by more liberal ones, I would suggest.

Regards,

Thomas

[Billiards Ball]

26 minutes ago, thomas t said:

Hi Billiards,

No of course not if someone said so and claims to be a Christian. It's our duty to speak up... Child abuse is causing human victims.

When it comes to group related enmity from within the churches, homophobia is not the only problem in churches. Here we agree. In my opinion violence against children including a what I would call sexual connotation can occur in churches and we need to take a stance.

I've seen racism occuring, too. Or misogynism. However, here on Worthy I've seen only one racist remark in the course of one year. Homophobic remarks are much more wide spread, here. Gays are our No. 1 enemy, in my opinion ... and there is absolutely noone exposing homophobic remarks so far here on Worthy.

Group related enmity is dangerous, though. It's against the peace, and it is even a topic in 1 kings 12:10-15 (my interpretation). In my view, it was group related enmity - in this case ethnically motivated violence - that caused division in Israel (see same passage).

I do. But these churches seem to be outnumbered by more liberal ones, I would suggest.

Regards,

Thomas

Is a Christian at Worthy preaching group enmity? I think people are trying to preach truth and love as best they can. The truth is, homosexuality is not God's design for people, and homosexuals have mostly been abused and abandoned into it.

It's not group enmity to preach in a church, "Homosexuality is not God's will for you. Come and grow and learn and be cleansed."

[thomas t]

1 hour ago, Billiards Ball said:

I think people are trying to preach truth and love as best they can.

ok, you do the best you can. Well intended doesn't necessarily mean good. Some just feel threatened by the new wave of theology made by gays... and just don't pay attention to how they react, in my opinion.

Others feel uncomfortable and don't seem to be always able to express their feelings in a peaceful manner.

 

Good behaviour is more than the absence of bad intentions.

 

Others just copy common anti-gay clichés.

1 hour ago, Billiards Ball said:

and homosexuals have mostly been abused and abandoned into [homosexuality].

even if this were to be true, sexuality is a personal trait and needs to be taken seriously.

However, painting lesbians to be primarily laden with psychlogical problems undermines their credibility, in my opinion. Could you back this up, please? 

Thank you,

Thomas

[Tristen]

7 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Tristen,

insults can offend. ...

Hey Thomas,

“insults can offend”

Only if the insulted person lets them. But the insulted person doesn't have to take offence. It is in the power of the one being insulted to not take offence.

 

“ ok, let's switch to FGM - female genital mutilation. Since it is well documented, you can ask me to bring sources, if you want. In countries where people mutilate girls, their parents are very sincere. "Only a mutilated girl" can get adult or pure or religious or able to get married or able to integrate specific groups ... they say.

This is a "good" example for hostile sincerity or sincere enmity towards other humans, girls in this case”

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with characterising a behaviour as “mental illness”. I think you are still failing to distinguish between actions and ideas. Just because you choose to interpret something as hostile, doesn't mean that the author's intention was hostile. If the interpreter is so sensitive that they can't consider a potentially sincere claim without being offended, then they are being just as emotive and irrational as the person whose intent is to offend. There is little point to rational argument with either – because neither is interested in trying to see the issue from the other's perspective.

 

“Tristen please, you were asking me a question and I had to repeat myself in answering that question”

I provided a bunch of arguments explaining why a claim of “mental illness” does not warrant a deviation from normal conversation protocol – i.e. claims don't need to be automatically supported at the instant the claim is made, though we have the right to subsequently request support for any claims made. And your response was to simply repeat, “You should back it up”. So you didn't deal with the arguments.

 

“Getting labelled menally ill means your credibility is under attack”

Or it could mean that the person making the claim sincerely considers you to be suffering from a psychological disease.

 

“If the label mentally ill was to be socially acceptable for lesbians... their detractors could sweep anything they say aside calling them mentally ill. This would be the same as bullying someone out of a discussion”

Right – it would be an Adhominem attack. Anyone who dismisses an argument without consideration of the argument is engaging in technically irrational behaviour. But that's not what happened here. That is just another irrelevant analogy you like to use to muddy the conversation.

 

“These are minor tactics used by anti-gay prpaganda”

I think you live in an alternate reality. Like you, I've heard a lot of nasty things said against homosexuals, but I've never heard an argument from a homosexual be arbitrarily dismissed on the basis that their homosexuality disqualifies them from commenting. I've seen men's opinions dismissed – solely because they are men who disagree with the prevailing narrative. And I've seen white people's opinions dismissed when they disagree with the popular narrative. But I've never heard anyone say to a homosexual, 'your opinion is irrelevant because your are homosexual'.

 

“So I stay with my opinion, it is not a valid point of discussion - this is particularly true when this topic has been around for some 120 years and scientists couldn't find anything that could potentially substanciate these claims”

Actually, for about 70 of those years (pre-1973), homosexuality was formally considered a mental disorder. Since the concept of mental illness itself is somewhat fluid, it is a perfectly “valid point of discussion”. But either way, that's not up to you to decide. People have the right to make claims – whatever claims they think are “a valid point of discussion”, and you have the right to ask them to provide support for their claims. And then you have a discussion.

 

“Jesus places offences ("ideas") in the same categories as murdering ("actions"), Matthew 5”

No He didn't. He just said it wasn't just wrong to do wrong things, but also to think about doing wrong things. He didn't say they were the same, just that both were wrong.

 

“yeah, that's the one exception. I thought I made it clear that I was talking about divorcees who don't claim adultery. I could have been clearer. OK.”

“Sexual immorality” (Gk. pornea) is broader than just “adultery”. But that's not the point. The point was that we don't just take a single comment of scripture as the final word on any matter. We have to consider the comments within the context of the full counsel of God.

You are claiming discrimination on the basis of comparing a disputed sin against an overt, uncontested sin. There are several uncontested sins you could have considered; E.g.

- Intemperate sins: drunkards, angry people, violent people etc.

- Idolatrous sins: Cults (false religions), pagans, atheists etc.

- Sexual sins: Singles having sex, Married people having sex with a non-spouse, homosexuality etc.

Now, using your remarried divorcee argument, you could have complained about discrimination against any of these groups of sinners. Or, you could have concluded (in my opinion more correctly) that, when it comes to positions of example in the church, Christians reasonably discriminate in favour of those who share our values (i.e. against unrepentant sinners).

But that was not your agenda. You disagree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. And you want us to disagree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. So instead of comparing like to like, you take a debatable sin (which different churches treat differently), and you compare how we treat the debatable sin to how we treat the overt sin - all so you can cry “DISCRIMINATION!!!” and “human rights!!!”.

 

“Here I feel the need to repeat myself again. I've said it so often, why is that not clear: if you apply liberal Bible interpretation to remarried divorcees, I mean the ones not claiming adultery, then you should not apply strict Bible interpretation to lesbians”

I don't think it's a matter of “strict” versus “liberal” interpretations. If you are familiar with what the rest of scripture teaches about marriage and divorce, the issue is not so straight forward. For example, Paul teaches that we are free from obligation if an unbelieving spouse leaves us (1 Cor 7:15). And that raises further questions about whether the rules apply to pre-conversion marriages (i.e. marriages that were not faith commitments before God). When we convert to Christianity, “all things become new” (2 Cor 5:17). God gave us marriage because “it is not good that man should be alone” (Gen 2:8), and “He who finds a wife finds a good thing, And obtains favor from the Lord” (Pr 18:22). So the message is counter-intuitive - marriage is a good thing that should be sought – except where it isn't and shouldn't. Even if getting married is a sin for the divorcee (and new spouse), does God expect the new couple to divorce (which He hates – Mal 2:16), or does He forgive the sin and expect the new couple to remain faithful to their covenant vows?

I'm not stating an opinion on any of these questions, but with regards to homosexuality, there is none of this complexity. All scriptures on the issue agree that homosexual desire and practice is sin. So we can't be as dogmatic about the sin of remarried divorcees, as we can about the sin of homosexuality.

 

I said, “carnal desires are not intrinsic to a persons identity or value” and you said, “I want to ask you to back up this assertion with regard to sexuality/ sexual desires”

Sure (even though you never supported your assertions that homosexuality is part of our identity). I'm going to assume you are already familiar with scriptures describing homosexuality as sin – so I won't list them unless you feel you need them.

Given the premise that homosexuality is sin, theologically, it would be unjust for God to judge and punish us for something He placed in us. But the Bible is clear that A) God is perfectly just/righteous (Deut 32:4), and B) God is not the source of our sin (Jms 1:13-18). Before we were corrupted by sin, we were “very good” (Gen 1:31) - i.e. without corruption; including the corruption of sinful desires. Corruption entered the creation through human sin (Rm 8:20-21). It is not from God – and therefore not part of our intrinsic design or makeup.

 

“* Edit.. now I fear that you accuse me of bullying when I say a derogatory statement against LGBT belongs to anti-gay propaganda, if it's not backed up. You have to be able to criticize a derogatory AND unsubstanciated standpoint as being anti-gay, racist, anti-women or whatever. That's not bullying”

If someone makes a comment you don't like, you have 2 rational options, and 1 bullying option.

The first rational option is to ask the commenter to provide rational support for their assertion.

The second rational option is for you to provide an argument as to why you think the comment is problematic.

Both of these options encourage discussion.

The bullying option is to attempt to shame the person out of the conversation by simply labelling the comment as bigoted in some respect.

 

“It's cleaning the discussion board. If you were not allowed to do so using this kind of vocabulary, Worthy is under threat of getting snowed under with homophobic remarks”

I don't know what you are presuming to do when you say “cleaning the discussion board”. There are 2 good options, and 1 bullying option. I think choosing one of the good options accomplishes a better outcome.

[Billiards Ball]

37 minutes ago, thomas t said:

ok, you do the best you can. Well intended doesn't necessarily mean good. Some just feel threatened by the new wave of theology made by gays... and just don't pay attention to how they react, in my opinion.

Others feel uncomfortable and don't seem to be always able to express their feelings in a peaceful manner.

 

Good behaviour is more than the absence of bad intentions.

 

Others just copy common anti-gay clichés.

even if this were to be true, sexuality is a personal trait and needs to be taken seriously.

However, painting lesbians to be primarily laden with psychlogical problems undermines their credibility, in my opinion. Could you back this up, please? 

Thank you,

Thomas

Thomas, you are talking but not listening, in my opinion--to the scriptures. I'm NOT sharing what I'm sharing because "new gay theology is threatening". Many years ago, before there was a new gay theology, the Bible said homosexuals aren't going to Heaven. So we need to parse two groups:

1) Unsaved persons, homosexuals, asexual or straight or anywhere on the sexual rainbow--love, unconditional acceptance, witnessing, church attendance is lovely

2) Saved persons or those claiming to be saved persons with sexual deviance--repentance or reproof, in extreme, rare cases, church expulsion

Both stances are biblical.

I'd like for you to address the Bible rather than constantly reframe my statements as stating or implying I have psychological or moral or theological problems. I care about what the Bible says.

Regarding imprinting, it seems the overwhelming number of gay persons--not bisexual or experimenting, but people who have been hardened as homosexuals and are firm in homosexual desire--were abused sexually while young and/or have a dysfunctional relationship with the same sex parent--I've been trying to find the citation again lately, but I remember a secular psychologist who treated 300 homosexual men, and recorded that 298 had one marker or both. Since hearing that, it transformed my ministry--when people at church say, "My friend is struggling with homosexual desires," and I say "same parent dysfunction or early imprinting" they say, "Yes, really, it's not my friend, it's me." I've witnessed to many people and see this pattern in homosexuals each time, too.

[Mike Mclees]

 

Thomas please read all of this

You say you are neutral but there is no neutral or middle ground. If you are a believer in Christ then you say you believe God and His word

If you hold to some lose ideal about homosexuality to justify that life stile  then You are not of Christ and cannot be unless you repent.  

What is a reprobate mind?

 

by Matt Slick
1/10/2018

A reprobate mind is a mind that is given over to sinful passions and ungodly desires. It is another way of describing a person who is set on satisfying the flesh and not on the Spirit of God. It is a person who rejects God and does what is self-serving instead of what God desires. Therefore, someone who is reprobate is under the condemnation of God. Such a person does not attend church, does not care about the things of God, does not read the word, and does not pray. They are judged by God and are under condemnation, so they have no conviction of their sin or desire for God.

The term "reprobate mind" is found in the King James Version in Romans 1:28 and is rendered differently in different translations.

• "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient," (Romans 1:28, KJV).
• "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper," (Romans 1:28, NASB).
• "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done," (Romans 1:28, ESV).

The Greek word for reprobate, depraved, debased is ἀδόκιμος adókimos.  It means...

• "Unapproved, unworthy, spurious, worthless. In a pass. sense meaning disapproved, rejected, cast away."1
• "ἀδόκιμοςa, ον; ἄτοποςa, ον: pertaining to not being in accordance with what is right, appropriate, or fitting—‘not fitting, what should not be done, bad."2

The Greek word for reprobate occurs 8 times in the New Testament but is translated into the English using various words.

1. Romans 1:28, "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
2. 1 Corinthians 9:27, "but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified."
3. 2 Corinthians 13:5, Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?"
4. 2 Corinthians 13:6, But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test."
5. 2 Corinthians 13:7, Now we pray to God that you do no wrong; not that we ourselves may appear approved, but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear unapproved."
6. 2 Timothy 3:8, Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith."
7. Titus 1:16, "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed."
8. Hebrews 6:8, "but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned."

As you can see, there is a variety of meanings in the English for what reprobation is. But generally, the word means to test and find lacking.

• "In Rom. 1:28, at the end of a passage documenting human ungodliness (vv 18–27), Paul uses a wordplay to sum up his indictment. Since humanity tested and rejected (ou dokimázō, lit “not accept as proved” the knowledge of God, God gave them over to an adókimos mind, i.e., a way of thinking that, having been tested and found wanting, is rejected as base and worthless."3
• REPROBATE—that which is rejected on account of its own worthlessness (Jer. 6:30; Heb. 6:8; Gr. adokimos, “rejected”). This word is also used with reference to persons cast away or rejected because they have failed to make use of opportunities offered them (1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor. 13:5–7)."4

Can Christians be of reprobate mind?

No, Christians cannot be of reprobate mind because they are indwelt by God (John 14:23), and are born again (John 3:3-8; 2 Corinthians 5:17).  Because they are changed, Christians will seek the will of God.  But, this does not mean perfection. It means that Christian struggle against their sin, but they are not judged by God as to have a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28).

 

[thomas t]

4 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

I've been trying to find the citation again lately, but I remember a secular psychologist who treated 300 homosexual men, and recorded that 298 had one marker or both.

We had that story already. I opened up a whole thread on this, we went through this, already, so please ...

You couldn't back it up by sources... so I doubt it.

4 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

stating or implying I have psychological or moral or theological problems.

actually, I neither said nor implied you had one of these.

4 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

I'd like for you to address the Bible

sorry, I stay neutral on whether or not gay life is sin. There is a right to free speech. This entails the right of not disclosing one's opinion, too.

I wanted this debate to focus on discrimination only. Now that it is coming to a close, this is at least how I feel,... I won't breach my disclaimer of my op saying "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. "

-----

Hi Tristen,

this is leading to nowhere... I think our different standpoints have been made clear. Everything is said.

 

I stay with my opinion, that

* insults can harm somebody (or offend), they are intrinsically harmful (or offensive). EDIT

* Jesus placed insults -"the ideas" - in the same context as murder - the "actions" - in Matthew 5.

* remarriage after divorce is soething the Bible presents as straight forward (in strict interpretation).. if you disagree, go to this thread, please. Even if you present new arguments, here, talk to them.

* labelling them mentally ill without providing back-up shouldn't be considered socially acceptable and, if taken seriously, can undermine their credibility.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

You disagree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin.

No I stay neutral, please. As I said.

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

And you want us to disagree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin.

no. I am not programming minds...

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

Given the premise that homosexuality is sin, theologically, it would be unjust for God to judge and punish us for something He placed in us

Ok this is new arguments here. Thank you for your elaboration. In another thread this had been discussed with some other friendly guys.

 

I didn't attempt to shame anybody out of the discussion by labelling 1 argument as inacceptable if unsubstanciated. Here an Worthy anybody is free to join or leave any debate.

 

No I don't live in an alternate reality, that was getting personal.

In general, I very muchn appreciate your efforts here on Worthy.

Nevertheless - and without blaming you of something now - I would be pleased to come to close somehow here?

Thomas

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by thomas t
see EDIT

[thomas t]

1 hour ago, Mike Mclees said:

You say you are neutral

Hi Mike. I'm always neutral when it comes to judging persons.

 

This is particularly true at a moment when I don't see any reason to apply 1 Cor 5 to my environment.

Thomas

[Billiards Ball]

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

We had that story already. I opened up a whole thread on this, we went through this, already, so please ...

You couldn't back it up by sources... so I doubt it.

actually, I neither said nor implied you had one of these.

sorry, I stay neutral on whether or not gay life is sin. There is a right to free speech. This entails the right of not disclosing one's opinion, too.

I wanted this debate to focus on discrimination only. Now that it is coming to a close, this is at least how I feel,... I won't breach my disclaimer of my op saying "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. "

-----

Hi Tristen,

this is leading to nowhere... I think our different standpoints have been made clear. Everything is said.

 

I stay with my opinion, that

* Jesus placed insults -"the ideas" - in the same context as murder - the "actions" - in Matthew 5.

* remarriage after divorce is soething the Bible presents as straight forward (in strict interpretation).. if you disagree, go to this thread, please. Even if you present new arguments, here, talk to them.

* labelling them mentally ill without providing back-up shouldn't be considered socially acceptable and, if taken seriously, can undermine their credibility.

No I stay neutral, please. As I said.

no. I am not programming minds...

Ok this is new arguments here. Thank you for your elaboration. In another thread this had been discussed with some other friendly guys.

 

I didn't attempt to shame anybody out of the discussion by labelling 1 argument as inacceptable if unsubstanciated. Here an Worthy anybody is free to join or leave any debate.

 

No I don't live in an alternate reality, that was getting personal.

In general, I very muchn appreciate your efforts here on Worthy.

Nevertheless - and without blaming you of something now - I would be pleased to come to close somehow here?

Thomas

 

I have personally witnessed to thousands of people and my experience over several decades confirms the research. Please don't be so dismissive.