Tolerance and Bigotry: What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

[TemplarKormac]

It seems to me that you both have subscribed to a religion other than Christianity; one of hate and ignorance.

Read Romans 14:13.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you intend to follow your faith you should probably learn what acceptance means and to love your fellow man.

"Your faith"

Are you really a Christian or masquerading as one?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I never once said that at all. That really went over your head completely.

Yes you did. You implied that since the Bible hardly ever addresses homosexuality, that somehow God didn't think it was an issue. This reasoning allowed you to say that because of such, that amounted to permission by God to be homosexual.

Do you really take me for a fool?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's funny because that's what I should be saying to you.

I'm not the one trying to use the Bible as a weapon. You're using it to justify sin.

 

[Andylusion]

I have never said that religious people running private business should be forced to service gay couples.

Ok, well... that right there, is the primary focus of this discussion.

The gaystapo, is saying that we must serve gays. We're telling them that we're not going to. That's the whole point of this discussion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The infraction Lake is guilty of here is of eisegesis. Or essentially reading into the Bible what isn't there in order to support an agenda. And lake avenue chose to cut and run. Perhaps he should come back here and finish what he started.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Romans 1:18-32

B. Argument to be analyzed:

1. This is the Jewish Paul looking across the Mediterranean at life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture. Homosexuality is not the focus of his condemnation, but just one item on a list... Paul's explanation for all this is that they have refused to acknowledge God, and therefore God has given them up to their own wicked desires...
2. Paul is speaking to those who violate their sexual orientation, those that go against their natural desire. But a homosexual's natural desire is for the same sex. Therefore this verse doesn't speak of them. In fact, if you encourage a 'constitutional homosexual' to become heterosexual you are violating this passage."

C. Analysis:

1. First observation: This is about God being mad ("For the wrath of God [orge] is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men..."
2. Second observation: There is a specific progression that leads to this "orgy" of anger.
   1. "They "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (v18)
   2. "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator." (v25)
   3. "God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity..." (v24)
   4. They "exchanged the natural [sexual] function for that which is unnatural" (v26)
   5. They encourage others to do the same (v32)
   6. Therefore, the wrath of God rightly falls on them (v18), they are worthy of death (v32), they are without excuse (v20).

D. Condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament:

This text is a crystal clear condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul right in the middle of his most brilliant discourse on general revelation (i.e., he's not speaking to a localized aberration of pedophilia or temple prostitution of "Mediterranean life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture")!

1. Here are the specific words Paul uses to describe this behavior:
   1. An impurity and dishonoring to the body (v24)
   2. A degrading passion that's unnatural (v29)
   3. An indecent act and an error (v27)
   4. Not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v28)
2. There's only one way this can be missed: if you're in total rebellion.
   1. According to Paul, homosexual behavior is evidence of active, persistent rebellion against God.
   2. According to v32, it's rooted in direct, willful, aggressive rebellion against God--true of any "Christian" defending his homosexuality.
3. "But I'm seeking God." No, according to Paul you're rejecting Him and instead are obeying your deeper rebellion.
4. God's conclusion: there's "no excuse" (2 verses).

E. Does this apply to all homosexuals?

1. 1. What if one's "natural" desire is for the same sex (co-called constitutional homosexuality)?
2. There are five different reasons this is a bad argument. The first four are good; the fifth is unassailable.
   1. The court is still out on scientific evidence.
   2. The "genetic" argument is a non-argument because it commits the naturalistic fallacy, i.e., you can't get an "ought" from an "is."
      1. Many laws exist to keep you from doing what comes naturally.
      2. Paul is addressing this on a moral level, not a physiological level.
   3. This interpretation introduces a whole new concept that is entirely foreign to the text.
      1. If Paul did not understand genuine homosexuality, then how can one say that he excepted constitutional homosexuals when he wrote they "exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural"? This argument, therefore, self-destructs.
      2. Paul would also note that some men burned unnaturally towards women, & vice versa if his interest was only in violating whatever sexual orientation one was born with.
   4. Creates another problem: if all who have a desire for the same sex do so "naturally," then who does this verse apply to? If everybody is only following their "natural" sexual desires, then to whom is Paul speaking?
   5. None of these previous arguments are even needed because Paul was not unclear about what he meant by "natural."
      1. 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another..."
         1. "Function" v 26&27 kreesis, is used only these two times in NT but is frequently used in other literature of the time.
         2. According to Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (BAG), A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (University of Chicago Press), the definitive Greek language standard reference work, the word means "use, relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse."
      2. Paul is not talking about natural desires here in this instance, but natural functions.
         1. "Natural" is not determined by what you want sexually, but by how you function sexually.
            1. The body was built to function a specific way.
            2. Men were not built to function sexually with men.
         2. Natural desires go with natural functions. The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex for the unnatural function is what Paul calls a degrading passion.
         3. Jesus clarified the natural, normal relationship:
            1. Matthew 19:4-5 "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].'?"
            2. The desire is unnatural because it abandons the natural function.
               1. Extramarital heterosexual sex is wrong because it exploits a natural function in an immoral way.
               2. Homosexuality is worse because it's an immoral act based on the perversion of a natural function.

Stand to Reason Romans 1 on Homosexuality

 

[NYcarbineer]

You aren't being involved in SSM.

No, but religious people running private businesses are. Something you fail to grasp.

.

Running a business is not a religious exercise; it's a business exercise.

 

[Bfgrn]

Eh... perhaps the OP is too long? Or am I simply being the fat jobless twinkie eating man that I am by even bringing it up?

No, just a flaming pile of horse shit...

Liberals just need to embrace the right's bigotry, discrimination and demeaning of gays and stop calling it bigotry, discrimination and demeaning of gays and now call it "religious freedom"



Paradox of Tolerance

Burning a cross on someone else’s front lawn is not something many liberals would defend as civil disobedience. No matter how sincerely a Klansman holds his beliefs, they are no license to terrorize others.

We are often intolerant of intolerance—with good cause. Tolerance without limits would self-destruct. As Karl Popper explained:

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.​

 

[Seawytch]

I responded directly to a claim made by the OP. I guess he was deflecting from his own thread? Sure, okay.

I have you on ignore Seawytch. Mainly because I don't consider talking points as rational arguments. Make one, and I'll gladly address you.

Translation: Seawytch has spanked TemplarKormac too many times.

 

[Seawytch]

Don't quote the Bible. You only use it as a weapon. The Bible shouldn't be weaponized or a tool for ideological warfare.

Says the man that wants to use it as justification for discrimination...just like racists and anti miscegenationists did.

 

[hazlnut]

I'm a huge fan of George Takei, and I follow him on Facebook, Takei makes no bones about the fact that he's flaming gay and has a husband/partner named Brad. Hikaru Sulu was and is still one of my favorite characters in the original Star Trek (aside from Spock, Kirk and Chekov). But sometimes he can be quite provocative and downright hostile to people who express dissenting views of homosexuality (namely Memories Pizza), and as a result, I must sometimes roll my eyes and scroll past some of his inflammatory discussion topics (most of the time he is absolutely brilliant with puns and therefore a constant source of hilarity), but one of his topics tonight in particular compelled me to write this thread, of which can be seen here.

It's funny though, there is this far reaching cry in America for religious tolerance of homosexuality, or otherwise face inevitable demise for their intransigence. I hear how the religious (mainly the Christian religion) should have to change their values and precepts in order to be more inclusive to homosexuals, yet what I see in today's far left social liberal are words of hate and bigotry towards Christians and people of faith. In other words, the same hatred, intolerance, and bigotry that those same people claim come from those of faith.

One wonders, how does it feel for them to become the very thing they're fighting against? Doesn't tolerance work both ways? It stands to reason that if you want tolerance, you must give it in same while taking care not to be what you condemn; as Friedrich Nietzsche put it, "fight not with monsters, lest you become a monster, for if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

If you fight so much and so hard, and with too much zealousness against a perceived evil (in this case, intolerance and bigotry), you risk becoming the same evil you were fighting against in the first place (intolerant and bigoted). This is what the LGBT activists and hordes of pro gay rights liberals have done and are doing. Preaching against intolerance and bigotry whilst being intolerant and bigoted.

Am I saying there aren't bigots? Not at all, there are. There are bigots all over the place! Am I saying that all gay people are this way? Heck no. In fact, I've seen a few examples of gay people standing up for people of faith. Am I am saying that all pro gay rights liberals are this way? Well, I'd be lying if I said no.

But this is ludicrous. The only target of this outrage in America thus far is Christianity. Not one Muslim has been sued or called out by the LGBT community for discriminating or contending that homosexuality is a sin against Allah. Nope. Just Christianity. As far as I can tell, and from what I've read, Muslims treat homosexuals a hundred times, no, a million times more harshly than any Christian today would. Christians think homosexuality is a sin that can be forgiven by God. Muslims think homosexuality is unforgivable, and is a sin punishable by death. But why just Christianity?

I also note the lack of concern some self proclaimed gay rights activists hold for homosexual people in the Middle East. When other gay people around the world are subject to the same, if not worse treatment that they condemn Christians for committing against gays in America, the silence is quite damning. To fight for gay rights in my mind, is to fight for the rights of gay individuals everywhere on Earth, not just here in America. Those who do only focus on gays here in America should realize their advocacy rings hollow. The focus is myopic.

Christianity is often condemned for its behavior during The Crusades, for forcing the conversion of unwitting Muslims and rightly so, though we have grown out of exercising such forms of barbarity; but now, I see a crusade of a different sort. And it's being waged by the extreme fringe of the LGBT crowd this time around. "Make your religion accept us, or be damned!" Their vanguard, consisting of the far left and left wage the war of identity against the opposition, hurling words like "intolerant" and "bigoted" like fire and pitch across the sociopolitical battlefield, landing squarely where it doesn't belong.

Yeah, what's up with Religion.

Christians were tolerant of slavery and segregation, but Homosexuality and interracial marriage....a big no.

Hmmmmm?

And why don't they stone women anymore, you know, like it says in their bible?


They just pick and choose who they'll tolerate and what bible rules they'll follow...like they're making it up as they go.

Or...

Or...


Or maybe they're just using the bible to justify their own fears and insecurities.

 

[Mac1958]

There is plenty of hate, intolerance and narcissism on both ends of the spectrum now.

Neither end has either the honesty or the modesty to just look in the mirror for a moment.

What a nasty country we have become.

.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Would you like us to ruin the economy by rounding them all up? You guys won't even let us issue a national ID to everyone.

Illegals? Simultaneously end all welfare entitlements, including food stamps. Those empty jobs that "Americans won't do" would be filled right quick.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I responded directly to a claim made by the OP. I guess he was deflecting from his own thread? Sure, okay.

I have you on ignore Seawytch. Mainly because I don't consider talking points as rational arguments. Make one, and I'll gladly address you.

Translation: Seawytch has spanked TemplarKormac too many times.

What's hilarious is that TK fancies himself being a lawyer someday. You don't win many cases putting the opposition on ignore just because you don't like their arguments.

 

[JoeB131]

What's hilarious is that TK fancies himself being a lawyer someday. You don't win many cases putting the opposition on ignore just because you don't like their arguments.

True enough. The problem is, he likes to spew endlessly, but rarely makes a good counter-argument.

 

[aris2chat]

A gay couple that want to commit to each other are assholes? You would refuse to provide a serve because of sexuality makes you the asshole. It is a prejudice, a form of hate crime.

I really don't care what you think is a 'form of hate'. Can I just make up that what you are saying on this forum, I consider to be a form of hate crime against me?

Grow up.

As for the rest.... well... the gay people that respect my beliefs and cause me no problem, such as those where I work, I don't think they qualify.

But for those who sue a bakery for not providing service for something that directly violates their faith values.... Yeah, that would qualify.

There is no Biblical law against serving homosexuals in one's business.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you, a pagan, over what the Bible says.

I'm not here to argue the merits. I'm just standing for my faith. If you disagree with my faith, fine, but that's not going to stop me from practicing it.

To shun people for what they are genetically. For denying them the right to love and commit to each other. This was not what Jesus did or taught. It is the same as rejecting someone for the color of their skin or where they were born.

Genetically, I am predisposed to want to sleep with every attractive women I meet.

The Bible says that sleeping with any woman that I am not married to, is a sin.

To deny our sinful nature, and reject doing evil, is EXACTLY what Jesus taught.

Wanting to marry is not about sleeping with every person someone is attracted to. It is about a (gay) couple making a commitment to each other.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I will not follow any law that requires me to violate my faith. Guess you'll be paying taxes for my room and board?

Works for me. Jail is a good place for people who refuse to obey the law.

So be it.

Romans 13:1-7 doesn't apply to you it seems...

Ahh, perhaps verses 8-10 don't apply to you then.

"8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments "You shall not commit adultery,""You shall not murder,""You shall not steal,""You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are all summed up in this one command: "Love thy neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is fulfillment of the law.

Well, for those of you who say "love is love" the why do you use your "love" to do harm to others? Remember, Love does no harm to a neighbor. But here you are, harming your neighbors with your own version of hatred and bigotry towards Christians who stand up for their beliefs.

Don't quote the Bible. You only use it as a weapon. The Bible shouldn't be weaponized or a tool for ideological warfare.

>>Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is fulfillment of the law.<<

than why don't you love gays? why refuse them the rights and services of everyone else?
Even murders are allowed to marry in jail, even someone like mendez, bundy or manson....well almost.

Who made you arbiter of what is and isn't love? Where was I when this election was held?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I really don't care what you think is a 'form of hate'. Can I just make up that what you are saying on this forum, I consider to be a form of hate crime against me?

Grow up.

As for the rest.... well... the gay people that respect my beliefs and cause me no problem, such as those where I work, I don't think they qualify.

But for those who sue a bakery for not providing service for something that directly violates their faith values.... Yeah, that would qualify.

There is no Biblical law against serving homosexuals in one's business.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you, a pagan, over what the Bible says.

I'm not here to argue the merits. I'm just standing for my faith. If you disagree with my faith, fine, but that's not going to stop me from practicing it.

To shun people for what they are genetically. For denying them the right to love and commit to each other. This was not what Jesus did or taught. It is the same as rejecting someone for the color of their skin or where they were born.

Genetically, I am predisposed to want to sleep with every attractive women I meet.

The Bible says that sleeping with any woman that I am not married to, is a sin.

To deny our sinful nature, and reject doing evil, is EXACTLY what Jesus taught.

Wanting to marry is not about sleeping with every person someone is attracted to. It is about a (gay) couple making a commitment to each other.

And who's stopping them from doing that? Why is my agreeing to equate their relationship with someone else's necessary for them to make a commitment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no Biblical law against serving homosexuals in one's business.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you, a pagan, over what the Bible says.

I'm not here to argue the merits. I'm just standing for my faith. If you disagree with my faith, fine, but that's not going to stop me from practicing it.

To shun people for what they are genetically. For denying them the right to love and commit to each other. This was not what Jesus did or taught. It is the same as rejecting someone for the color of their skin or where they were born.

Genetically, I am predisposed to want to sleep with every attractive women I meet.

The Bible says that sleeping with any woman that I am not married to, is a sin.

To deny our sinful nature, and reject doing evil, is EXACTLY what Jesus taught.

Wanting to marry is not about sleeping with every person someone is attracted to. It is about a (gay) couple making a commitment to each other.

And who's stopping them from doing that? Why is my agreeing to equate their relationship with someone else's necessary for them to make a commitment?

Why is it necessary for you to keep same sex marriage illegal in order for you to disagree with it?