Discrimination Against Gays - What Would You Base That On?

[Billiards Ball]

4 minutes ago, thomas t said:

Well this was my interpretation of Gen. 17:4, when men are mentioned as opposed to women. Women are not mentioned at all. So I thought there might have been this anti-woman bias.

I might have been wrong on this one

It's wrong to add "bias" to a text not explaining any given bias. One of the first questions of hermeneutics is "what does the text say/what does the text not say"? This is likely the single most important question in dealing with challenging doctrines and bad doctrine.

The text DOES tell us their bias in Sodom--daughters were specifically refused in the text, "men" (male angels) were specifically demanded. Their bias was homosexual sodomy and battery. While Sodom was also accused of being unkind to their poor, again, the Bible mentions homosexuality 18 times--no mention is any way laudable, appropriate or acceptable.

We can do a tremendous disservice as the church by tackling rightest causes--like abortion--while ignoring things like gay rights. A secular government can allow gay marriage. Gay people should never be discriminated against. Gay people have, in America, the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A church is not governed by secular authority, however. Homosexuals are welcomed in my church--we see their salvation some times, too. We see other persons already born again, already saved, who struggle with homosexual and other illicit desires.

It is not "discrimination" to go through steps of church judgment--when people claim to be born again but are in abiding sin--Jesus said "a little leaven goes through the whole loaf", remember?

It is not discrimination to say, "gay persons cannot be appointed as elders or deacons", etc. Nor is it discrimination to say elders are males only, apostles/deacons/etc. can be female or male.

I again recommend you research the successful, life-changing experiences at churches who use Matthew 18 properly.

I appreciate your desire to promote to us to love gays, honor them, cherish them, welcome them in the churches. That's GREAT. It is less appreciated when you say, "Following Bible texts regarding specific lifestyles and specific church judgment is discrimination".

[thomas t]

5 hours ago, Firm Foundation said:

Jesus recognized 5 marriages by the woman at the well

This time I must agree and change my mind. Jesus indeed talks about 5 husbands, I looked that up in Strong's dictionary. This means that, even using old style and strict interpretation standards, Jesus adds another dimension to a succession of men in women's lives.

Nevertheless, the key problem remains. I simply need to reword it: what about after-divorce partners when these relationships are in the stage of becoming? What is the church's stance to this one? When they stay liberal on after-divorce dating.... they shouldn't be tough on gays.

53 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

"Following Bible texts regarding specific lifestyles and specific church judgment is discrimination".

no, now I'm saying [see bolded statement above your quote]... because this would be discrimination on gays. In case there was no adultery during the first wedlock.

I appreciate your kind words, though..

53 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

. A secular government can allow gay marriage. Gay people should never be discriminated against. Gay people have, in America, the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

absolutely, here we agree!

Edit: Concerning Sodom's bias... certainly it was rape. Rape is never good.

Edited June 4, 2019 by thomas t
see Edit line

[Billiards Ball]

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

This time I must agree and change my mind. Jesus indeed talks about 5 husbands, I looked that up in Strong's dictionary. This means that, even using old style and strict interpretation standards, Jesus adds another dimension to a succession of men in women's lives.

Nevertheless, the key problem remains. I simply need to reword it: what about after-divorce partners when these relationships are in the stage of becoming? What is the church's stance to this one? When they stay liberal on after-divorce dating.... they shouldn't be tough on gays.

no, now I'm saying [see bolded statement above your quote]... because this would be discrimination on gays. In case there was no adultery during the first wedlock.

I appreciate your kind words, though..

absolutely, here we agree!

Edit: Concerning Sodom's bias... certainly it was rape. Rape is never good.

Hi Thomas, who do these scriptures apply to?

2 Thess 3:6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

Titus 3:10 If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. 

Galatians 5 ⁷ You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? ⁸ That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. ⁹ “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.”¹⁰ I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 

Etc. While not every passage applies to homosexuals, it is plain that people committing certain sins are asked to leave fellowship (or we are asked to stop fellowshiping with them). More examples could be given.

 

[Firm Foundation]

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

This time I must agree and change my mind. Jesus indeed talks about 5 husbands, I looked that up in Strong's dictionary. This means that, even using old style and strict interpretation standards, Jesus adds another dimension to a succession of men in women's lives.

Nevertheless, the key problem remains. I simply need to reword it: what about after-divorce partners when these relationships are in the stage of becoming? What is the church's stance to this one? When they stay liberal on after-divorce dating.... they shouldn't be tough on gays.

no, now I'm saying [see bolded statement above your quote]... because this would be discrimination on gays. In case there was no adultery during the first wedlock.

I appreciate your kind words, though..

absolutely, here we agree!

Edit: Concerning Sodom's bias... certainly it was rape. Rape is never good.

No church should condone after divorce dating.

[thomas t]

2 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

Hi Thomas, who do these scriptures apply to?

2 Thess 3:6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

Titus 3:10 If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them. 

Galatians 5 ⁷ You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? ⁸ That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. ⁹ “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.”¹⁰ I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 

Etc. While not every passage applies to homosexuals, it is plain that people committing certain sins are asked to leave fellowship (or we are asked to stop fellowshiping with them). More examples could be given.

 

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.

[appy]

Most church's, particularly in the u.s have a statement of faith/belief posted somewhere and if not it can be asked for. If someone wants to become a member of a given church, they often are required to sign an agreement regarding that church's faith and belief's. So such person is NOT ignorant of the facts of what is taught. If one does not agree with any given church's statement of belief's, they are free to take themselves somewhere else. If one is not a member per se, then that person is a guest and really does not have a say in what can and can not be taught in a church in which he/she is a guest.

This can be likened to visiting someone's home and after entering their home telling the owner what he/she can or can not do in their own home. First of all, its not your home; it is their home. And it is their right to tell you to leave. They have the right to do as they see fit in their own home. In the same way a pastor of any given church has the right to teach his congregation as he see's fit. And if you do not like his sermon's, don't go there; it is that simple.

There are church's these days that have belief's that line up with yours. So why is that you feel the need to force a church that does not agree with you to change their policy? It is extremely sinful to force someone else to do something or agree with something that he/she feels in their heart is wrong.  That is causing that person to sin, for he/she thinks it is wrong.

[simplejeff]

1 hour ago, thomas t said:

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.

Remember that in heaven there are no homosexuals at all.

It doesn't matter what Scripture someone applies,   there's no homosexuals at all in heaven.

It doesn't matter if a church "singles out" one group or another - there's still no homosexuals in heaven at all.

[Tristen]

14 hours ago, thomas t said:

Hi Tristen,

thanks for agreeing . ...

Hey Thomas,

“thanks for agreeing ;). ”

You mean “thanks for agreeing” that you were confusing insult with offence – your welcome.

 

“Actually, sincerity doesn't blot out an insult”

Motives are of paramount importance. If a person makes a sincere statement, then you can respond with rational argument; respectfully try to convince them of your own position – i.e. why you think they are wrong. If they are just trying to insult, then they are being irrational; emotive; insincere etc. In the case of pure insult, rational argument is a waste of time.

 

“Many men very sincerely think that woman are just there to provide sex and for cooking and house cleaning purposes. Yet it is anti-woman bias. These men also call women [enter smear word here ...]. All the while being totally sincere. Just as an example for someone speaking in all sincerity AND being guilty of group related bias simultaneously”

We might have to start using specific examples. Because this statement sounds to me like new-wave-feminist propaganda. I don't know any man that thinks like this. Some men talk a big game to make a public showing, but everyone with any life experience knows that there are insecure men who feel the need to 'talk themselves up'. I've met a few narcissists who think everyone exists to serve them (and a few teenagers who do the same). Apart from that, this analogy seem largely mythological.

 

“You should back it up if you say so. We're going round in circles, here”

We're not really “going round in circles”. What's happening is I'm providing arguments, and you are responding by ignoring my arguments and restating the same thing over and over.

You don't get to change the rules of conversation – just because you don't like what was said. Most conversations are filled with unsupported assertions. When an unsupported claim is made, either A) everyone agrees (or no one cares enough to bother disagreeing) and the conversation moves on, or B) someone asks for further clarification. That's just how conversation works.

I think you were correct in asking for clarification (back up/support). I think you were wrong to try and shame the author by characterising the comment as homophobic (an intentionally derogatory label - for which you also provided no support).

 

“EDIT: you go on saying "in this case, any “testing in the field” is irrelevant – since the “testing” hasn’t ruled out the possibility that homosexual desire [..]" ... there has been testing as you say. Testing is never irrelevant.”

The “testing” is irrelevant to your argument because it doesn't provide the conclusion your argument requires. The testing has not ruled out “mental illness”, therefore mental illness remains a logical possibility – and therefore a valid point of contention/discussion (and therefore not necessarily sourced in homophobic sentiment).

 

“Any human should document any claims that gays were ill by the facts generated by testing (or other science)... or repeal this derogatory statement”

I have no problem with you asking for support (which I have stated many, many times in this thread). I don't think we have the right to demand someone “repeal” anything they've said, but we do have the right to dismiss any unsupported assertion as empty fallacy.

 

“bullying.:blow-up: . Why is that bullying. Labelling unsubstanciated accusations / derogatory remarks as scornful... is not bullying”

Unless you label them with further “unsubstanciated accusations / derogatory remarks” (like "homophobic")- with the intent of shaming the author into repealing the statement, or exiting the discussion.

 

“Let me give you an hypothetic example: someone leaves his excrements on the pulpit. Now you want this:

"There is no onus to back up any claim unless requested. But if a claim is left without rational support, it remains an Unsupported Assertion (a logic fallacy) - which no one is required to take seriously – and which you have the right to point out. So if you take issue with it, you have every rational right to demand they back it up before moving forward in the conversation. "To stay in the picture... as long as noone protests with regard to the excrements on the pulpit... it's ok? No. If you do this you should absolutely be quick to explain why this had to be necessary... and clean the place up. Don't let others do your work. Don't make them ask you to clean this up.

I'm speaking in extremes to simplify here.”

Respectfully, I think you are "speaking" nonsense. Do you seriously not understand the difference between actions and ideas? If the excretor didn't explain his actions, I would expect someone to ask for clarification; e.g. “Why did you do that?”.
 

“But there you say gay couples are always sinners. That's where I see favoritism. 

For remarried divorcees you suddenly start to talk about caveats and so on. There are none (using old style, strict Bible interpretation)”

Well, I don't really know what “old style, strict Bible interpretation” means. I'd be surprised if an “old style, strict Bible” didn't have the words “whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality ...” (Matt 5:32).

So there is an explicit exception in the very statement you are hanging your argument on. Now show me a verse of scripture making any specific exception for homosexual practice.
 

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

You can “lol” all you want (i.e. Appeal to Ridicule fallacy), but you are not “neutral”. You are either demanding that all Christians agree with your definition of this one sin (which is debated in Christianity), or else you are saying Christians have no right to make a distinction between unrepentant sinners and faithful believers.

We are under no obligation to “treat all groups equally”. Under the right of religious freedom, we are free to distinguish between Christians (who share our values) and others (who choose to reject our values and continue in their sin). If someone don't share Christian values, then they are not one of us, and we are not obligated to pretend they are one of us, and we are not obligated to treat them as though they were one of us. They are welcome in church, but they are not part of our fellowship; our eternal family. Outsiders don't get to tell us who is entitled to work in our family business. We determine who is, and who is not, qualified to fulfil those roles in the church. Shared values is a perfectly legitimate qualification standard for a values-based organisation.

 

“when it comes to gays, Christians just don't stop. They rant and rant and rant and rant... when does that stop? Even in this thread we saw rantings such as gays being filthy”

Have I done this? Christianity is a large, eclectic group. We have different ideas, different experiences, different approaches. The internet and media has a tendency to amplify the worst aspects of any group as typical. I can only be reasonably expected to answer for myself.

 

“How often does a gay have to hear "you are sinful!"”

What is “a gay”? You mean a human with homosexual desires? Biblically, carnal desires are not intrinsic to a persons identity or value.

Homosexual practice is an explicit, unequivocal sin according to the Bible. All humans are corrupted by sin and deserved God's condemnation. Nevertheless, He has provided us all a path to pardon – to save us from that corruption. Christians are obligated to spread the truth of God's pardon to any who will hear it – to convince the world of our moral bankruptcy and need for salvation. The knowledge that we are lost in sin is first step to finding salvation, and eternal peace with God.

 

 

[thomas t]

9 hours ago, appy said:

It is extremely sinful to force someone else to do something or agree with something that he/she feels in their heart is wrong.

Hi Appy.

I deeply understand what wou're saying. I was asking what you would base banning gays on. BTW I'm not forcing anybody.

So now, you gave a sincere answer (I hope I'm placing this in the right context...): because you and maybe others at your church feel that it would be wrong to let them in.

Feelings.

 

I hope you won't take offence if I compare it to a story from the women's rights movement: back then, many mothers felt that their daughters should be tidy. Boys could play in the mud. Feelings.

Now mothers tend to say: boys should have fun, but girls, too. Now girls and boys are having fun playing outside getting dirty sometimes (Tell me if you want me to back this up).

Feminists keep asking what it is that makes people feel that way or another. Why do people deep in their hearts feel that women should be responsible for the cleaning in the house, for instance. Where does that feeling come from. And how do women feel when someone tells them they should tidy up more. How do lesbians feel when accepted church people feel that they are filthy (as could be seen in this thread)?

Regards,

Thomas

 

 

[thomas t]

Hi Tristen,

insults can offend.

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

We might have to start using specific examples [for being sincere AND hostile]

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.

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

What's happening is I'm providing arguments, and you are responding by ignoring my arguments and restating the same thing over and over.

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

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

characterising the comment as homophobic (an intentionally derogatory label - for which you also provided no support). 

Bolded mine, I should be more clear, ok. Getting labelled menally ill means your credibility is under attack. 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. These are minor tactics used by anti-gay prpaganda, I would say.* 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.

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

Do you seriously not understand the difference between actions and ideas?

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

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

I would expect someone to ask for clarification

(getting back to the original topic:) Here on Worthy, we don't have cleaners. I mean people responding to homophobic remarks such as gays were filthy, gay culture and rape can be equated and so on (examples from this thread).

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

the words “whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality ...” (Matt 5:32).

So there is an explicit exception in the very statement you are hanging your argument on.

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.

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

You can “lol” all you want (i.e. Appeal to Ridicule fallacy)

no I was just laughing.

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

If someone don't share Christian values, then they are not one of us,

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.

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

Biblically, carnal desires are not intrinsic to a persons identity or value.

this time, I want to ask you to back up this assertion with regard to sexuality/ sexual desires.

Regards,

Thomas

* 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. 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.

Edited June 5, 2019 by thomas t
see Edit