Anti gay fundamentalists clueless???

[IglooDame]

If you care about society and all of its members, you won't want them to destroy themselves. If you have a brother that you love, would you want them to destroy themselves by taking drugs?

Oh, and you are quite right Smidlee. When correcting our fellow man, we must first make sure that such correction is motivated by love and compassion, not Hate. Love the Sinner, hate the sin.

I care about society and all of its members, yes. I don't want them to destroy themselves, or each other. In fact, I want all of its members to have the best medical care available, top-grade education, and other kinds of wonderful stuff. However, I'm not willing to legislate according to what I want.

I would not want my brother to destroy himself by taking drugs. I might slap him around, break into his house and steal the drugs, or tell his wife/family about it. I'm pretty sure it is a bad idea to allow me or anyone else legally to slap drug-users around and break into their houses to take the drugs. Thus, I'd say your metaphors and comparisons aren't adequate to the argument.

I sure as hell wouldn't be telling my brother (or society) that he needs to lay off the premarital sex and masturbation or he's going to hell.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Then do you really care unless your willing to do everything possible to protect the person you care about? Sure, one person doing drugs isn't going to harm society, but it will harm a family, and legalizing it will harm many familys, who are powerless under the law to do anything to stop it. Is that what you want?

 

[carlosMM]

But when a Christian harms someone because he's a sinner, he's going against the teachings of Christ. That is not true Christianity, it's psuedo-Christianity.

Which is true of 99,9% of all done in the name of Christ, also by you (referring to your posts here on CFC).

(And incidentally, the most oft quoted incident of Christian warfare is the Crusades - which was for the most part a response to Muslim atrocities)

False - plain and simple FALSE!

 

[carlosMM]

classical hero:

care to show us how it is possible that

a) man was created in GOd's image?
b) how then man does not have a choice on sexuality (only on whether he acts on it or not)?
c) how then homosexuality thus can be a sin?
d) and where it is labelled as such by Jesus?

I hzate to quote myself ehre, but can any of the anti-gay guys here be bothered to try and answer these?

 

[jonatas]

as a historical side note:

(And incidentally, the most oft quoted incident of Christian warfare is the Crusades - which was for the most part a response to Muslim atrocities)

.

the period of Islamic rule over Iberia in the Middle Ages is considered a "golden age" of prosperity, learning, technology and tolerance by many... in fact Cordoba was the strongest power in Europe for a good part of the middle ages...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Strongest power in Europe? The Caliphate of Cordoba lasted from the middle of the 8th C to the early 11th. During that time Europe was dominated politically and militarily by Francia and her successors.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I hzate to quote myself ehre, but can any of the anti-gay guys here be bothered to try and answer these?

And how are we supposed to answer it? Your questions are loaded good sir.

 

[jonatas]

Strongest power in Europe? The Caliphate of Cordoba lasted from the middle of the 8th C to the early 11th. During that time Europe was dominated politically and militarily by Francia and her successors.

indeed, i think it can be argued, for it's time period.... let me explain... you are quite right by pointing out the Caliphate lasted from the 8th C to 11th... i should have qualified "middle ages" by saying "early middle ages" perhaps.... certainly i'm not talking about the "high middle ages", which is not my interest, all the good stuff happens before....

the rise of the Cordoba Caliphate concided with the loss of Byzantine and Abbasid power... what had been essentially decentralized in Iberia became centralized under Cordoba and control was established over trade, cities grew rich, and the Caliphate's influence expanded.... Islamic Iberia became essentially a strong independent kingdom and also an important part of the trade network linking the middle and near east, north africa, the indian ocean and also christian iberia and southern france... essentially, a vital point in world trade

Cordoba pressured the Christian kingdoms and the Fatimids, expanding into Northern Africa... i do indeed believe that at its height, in the 900's it could be considered the "most powerful" kingdom in europe.... i don't mean it was controlling the rest of europe, i mean if you relatively compared the power of kingdoms and their wealth and influence, Cordoba's claim would certainly be considerable.... certainly i seriously doubt there was any city in christian europe which could compete with the splendor and opulence of Cordoba at the time.... this period of Iberia's history could well be considered a golden age, and is famous for its diffusion of knowledge and technology, which was passed on to Christian kingdoms... in addition to wealth and tolerance, where the three religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) co-existed and produced an amazing and brilliant society.... the Islamic culture in Iberia passed on many ideas to the Occitan troubadors of Southern France (another wealthy, cultured and tolerant society, tragically destroyed by the Albigensian Crusade) , who essentially created much of the ideal of courtly society and became the true artistic flowering of the middle ages in my opinion, which had some of its deepest roots in Islamic Iberia...

of course, the amazing thing is that the Cordoba Caliphate collapsed so quickly, and the centralized power was broken up into many small states.... the Christian Iberians, who were growing, took advantage of this and quickly began seriously reconquering Iberia

but my short answer is yes, for its time period, Cordoba was the most glorius kingdom in Europe....

i have a feeling that somehow i should have posted this in the history forum....

 

[10Seven]

And how are we supposed to answer it? Your questions are loaded good sir.

They are clear and reasonable questions - which, presumably, you do not have the answer to at this time.

I assume it is because the anti- argument is based on unthinking predjudice.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Fine:

a) man was created in GOd's image?
b) how then man does not have a choice on sexuality (only on whether he acts on it or not)?
c) how then homosexuality thus can be a sin?
d) and where it is labelled as such by Jesus?

a). Because mankind was created in God's image. Jesus is part of the Trinity, and as such, is also Alpha and Omega.

b)-c). All being are attracted to all humans they find attractive, however, only man/women combinations are exceptable to God. If this wasn't so, there wouldn't be any passages in the Bible condemning it(in both old and new testaments). If we disobey God PERIOD, we are sinning.

d). Jesus as part of the Trinity of God, gave the law in the Old Testament, as well as choose Paul to be an apostle. Jesus also made it clear that the Old Testament was authoritivie, the statement, it is written comes to mind.

 

[10Seven]

... If this wasn't so, there wouldn't be any passages in the Bible condemning it(in both old and new testaments). If we disobey God PERIOD, we are sinning...

It is my impression that the Bible and testaments have little to say on homosexuality - but a few vague references.

 

[newfangle]

Indeed. I would go as far as saying that unless God has personal told someone of his disdain for homosexuality, there is no way we could know what he/she/it thinks of it.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

The Bible says that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It also says that God is the lawgiver. Toghether, that means that God is the law, just like any King.

 

[Taliesin]

b)-c). All being are attracted to all humans they find attractive, however, only man/women combinations are exceptable to God. If this wasn't so, there wouldn't be any passages in the Bible condemning it(in both old and new testaments). If we disobey God PERIOD, we are sinning.

Two questions immediately spring to mind.
1) Why would God create 5% of the population with the strange feature of finding nobody attractive except people with whom God forbids them to have a relationship?
2) Why aren't you campaigning against the evils of mixed crops and mixed-textile garments? Or perhaps our blasphemous society's shocking disregard for the Levitican dietary and sacrificial laws? Not only are these sins much more widespread than homosexuality, but you could save people from them without particularly hurting their feelings or destroying committed relationships.

 

[newfangle]

The Bible says that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It also says that God is the lawgiver. Toghether, that means that God is the law, just like any King.

If Christianity teaches anything, its that mankind is a sickening group of snivelling weasels without the intelligence to comprehend God's might. How, then, could one possibly trust the written word of the fallible creatures known as men?

In my diary, it clearly states that my word is the word of God. Could it not be held to the very same strigent standards you have outlined?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'd be scared of the thought of newfangle as God, if it weren't for the apparent inference from SoG's post that kings are the law. I thought we had agreed that inheritable autocracy was a bad idea by know.

 

[newfangle]

Ummm...yes?

 

[Elrohir]

I saw a girl - probably about 9 - saying:

"God despises homosexuals, and so do I"

It's pretty clear she didn't come up with this on her own, but probably from her parents.

So she was taught wrong.

The Bible doesn't teach that God despises gays. Quite the opposite, God loves every human being. But, as the saying goes, while he loves you as you are, he loves you too much to leave you as you are.

I think this is what most of it comes back to - after all, I don't think the Bible has anything to say about homosexuals - neither good nor bad - but a few references which might be conveniently interpreted as to be vaguely negative.

And, since anti-homosexuality is clearly against some very core tenets of Christianity - to badly paraphrase: Love thy neighbour and others to acceptance, etc - clearly the anti-homosexual position is anti-christian, in that it is un-christian.

Have you ever read Leviticus? Or Romans? The Bible has plenty to say about homosexuality.

The Bible does not say love thy neighbour to acceptance - if you really love someone, your not going to let them do whatever they want to no matter what. That's apathy, not love.

Also, to the reference earlier - someone else - justifying the Crusades as reaction to alledged Muslim attrocities: It is my impression that atrocities did take place, but the overwhelming evidence - that is, written records - seems to suggest economics as the reason.

I didn't say the Crusaders were perfect - they were human, and far from perfect - but they did have reasons to be ticked at Muslims.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I think I should point out that most of the laws in Leviticus were given by God to that particular time in Israel's history. Some of these laws weren't there for moral reasons, but for survival of the Israelites(The Eating of Pigs was prohibited for this reason, they didn't have the cooking abilities that we do now, among other reasons)

 

[Elrohir]

But God told Peter he could eat pigs, they had gained the neccessary knowledge to cook it correctly. But God did not tell Peter he could be gay.