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

[Cecilie1200]

And for future reference for those of you who can't get it through your thick heads:

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.

Oh, here we go. The leftist "Jesus' ministry was about being nice to people" rant. It's like you dimwits have never even bothered to listen to Christianity or read the Bible. You just make up whatever you like at the moment and try to shoehorn it into other people's religions.

 

[aris2chat]

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

Paul and others back then did not know being gay was not a choice but something they are born as.
It is not about strange sexual or abusive acts, but about a loving relationship between two people.
When a gay couple wants to marry it is not because they desire to have sex outside of marriage.
Homosexuality is not about abnormal sex involved in ritual temple practices. It is not about rape or abuse. It is not about soldier like the greeks that mated with younger soldiers while in training or on campaign to enforce bonds and to ease tension of not having wives with them.
Being homosexual is the way god made them. They should have the right to marry the person they love.



Paul was making up his own rules, not those of the bible or Jesus.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Paul and others back then did not know being gay was not a choice but something they are born as.
It is not about strange sexual or abusive acts, but about a loving relationship between two people.
When a gay couple wants to marry it is not because they desire to have sex outside of marriage.
Homosexuality is not about abnormal sex involved in ritual temple practices. It is not about rape or abuse. It is not about soldier like the greeks that mated with younger soldiers while in training or on campaign to enforce bonds and to ease tension of not having wives with them.
Being homosexual is the way god made them. They should have the right to marry the person they love.



Paul was making up his own rules, not those of the bible or Jesus.

Let me teach - yet again - a lesson about REAL tolerance. See if you can wrap your brain around this simple concept.

If you don't want to believe that Paul's teachings are a legitimate part of Christian doctrine, then DON'T BELIEVE IT. Cut it right out of your copy of the Bible, if you even have one. But stop telling other people that THEY can't believe it and that THEY have to change their religion to conform to your personal belief that Paul is illegitimate.

Oh, and Paul's rules ARE "of the Bible", because they're IN the Bible. Deal with it. Tolerate it. Mind your own freaking business.

 

[aris2chat]

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

Paul and others back then did not know being gay was not a choice but something they are born as.
It is not about strange sexual or abusive acts, but about a loving relationship between two people.
When a gay couple wants to marry it is not because they desire to have sex outside of marriage.
Homosexuality is not about abnormal sex involved in ritual temple practices. It is not about rape or abuse. It is not about soldier like the greeks that mated with younger soldiers while in training or on campaign to enforce bonds and to ease tension of not having wives with them.
Being homosexual is the way god made them. They should have the right to marry the person they love.



Paul was making up his own rules, not those of the bible or Jesus.

Let me teach - yet again - a lesson about REAL tolerance. See if you can wrap your brain around this simple concept.

If you don't want to believe that Paul's teachings are a legitimate part of Christian doctrine, then DON'T BELIEVE IT. Cut it right out of your copy of the Bible, if you even have one. But stop telling other people that THEY can't believe it and that THEY have to change their religion to conform to your personal belief that Paul is illegitimate.

Oh, and Paul's rules ARE "of the Bible", because they're IN the Bible. Deal with it. Tolerate it. Mind your own freaking business.

This is about committing a hate crime against a group because of your prejudice against gays. Would you tell people to not provide a service or shun people because of color or nationality? Because of some deformity or birth defect? Because of the language they speak? Gays are born gay, it is not a choice, so why do you want to permit discrimination against them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Paul and others back then did not know being gay was not a choice but something they are born as.
It is not about strange sexual or abusive acts, but about a loving relationship between two people.
When a gay couple wants to marry it is not because they desire to have sex outside of marriage.
Homosexuality is not about abnormal sex involved in ritual temple practices. It is not about rape or abuse. It is not about soldier like the greeks that mated with younger soldiers while in training or on campaign to enforce bonds and to ease tension of not having wives with them.
Being homosexual is the way god made them. They should have the right to marry the person they love.



Paul was making up his own rules, not those of the bible or Jesus.

Let me teach - yet again - a lesson about REAL tolerance. See if you can wrap your brain around this simple concept.

If you don't want to believe that Paul's teachings are a legitimate part of Christian doctrine, then DON'T BELIEVE IT. Cut it right out of your copy of the Bible, if you even have one. But stop telling other people that THEY can't believe it and that THEY have to change their religion to conform to your personal belief that Paul is illegitimate.

Oh, and Paul's rules ARE "of the Bible", because they're IN the Bible. Deal with it. Tolerate it. Mind your own freaking business.

This is about committing a hate crime against a group because of your prejudice against gays. Would you tell people to not provide a service or shun people because of color or nationality? Because of some deformity or birth defect? Because of the language they speak? Gays are born gay, it is not a choice, so why do you want to permit discrimination against them?

Hate crime? WHAT "hate crime"? Choosing not to associate with someone is now a "hate crime"?

As it happens, I don't generally "tell people" to do anything. It's not really any of my business how people choose to conduct their own lives. Maybe you should give that a try.

 

[aris2chat]

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

Paul and others back then did not know being gay was not a choice but something they are born as.
It is not about strange sexual or abusive acts, but about a loving relationship between two people.
When a gay couple wants to marry it is not because they desire to have sex outside of marriage.
Homosexuality is not about abnormal sex involved in ritual temple practices. It is not about rape or abuse. It is not about soldier like the greeks that mated with younger soldiers while in training or on campaign to enforce bonds and to ease tension of not having wives with them.
Being homosexual is the way god made them. They should have the right to marry the person they love.



Paul was making up his own rules, not those of the bible or Jesus.

Let me teach - yet again - a lesson about REAL tolerance. See if you can wrap your brain around this simple concept.

If you don't want to believe that Paul's teachings are a legitimate part of Christian doctrine, then DON'T BELIEVE IT. Cut it right out of your copy of the Bible, if you even have one. But stop telling other people that THEY can't believe it and that THEY have to change their religion to conform to your personal belief that Paul is illegitimate.

Oh, and Paul's rules ARE "of the Bible", because they're IN the Bible. Deal with it. Tolerate it. Mind your own freaking business.

You can personally think what you want but when you sanction the discrimination of someone that is a crime. It should not matter if someone was a prostitute, thief, or someone with a disease, refusing to sell to them is a crime.
There are certain legal exemptions for rapists and pedophiles that they can't live in certain area close to a school.
Not to serve someone in a store or restaurant because of being gay is not legal. Perhaps a priest that is asked to officiate the marriage might be able to refuse but everyone else cannot. To sell or provide a service to someone who is gay is bigotry and not acceptable as it is viewed as a hate crime.
Are you still permitted to stone homosexuals or anyone else? Why is it permissible for you to reject them for any reason?

We see it as a crime for muslims to kill christians and jews in the west even if some claim the quran tells them to. We don't permit hate crimes from other groups. Why should we permit it for you?

 

[boilermaker55]

There is enough space for us all. I still dont understand how you feel you are being unduly attacked.

It seems you quite don't understand the argument. Christianity is not hated by all, it is trying to make everyone else bow to the beliefs of Christianity.

And since when have I forced you to bow down to the beliefs of Christianity? Do I look like a Muslim to you? But right now, I feel like I, and members of my faith are being unduly attacked for standing up for our religious beliefs.

This time, yes, this town is big enough for the both of us.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is enough space for us all. I still dont understand how you feel you are being unduly attacked.

It seems you quite don't understand the argument. Christianity is not hated by all, it is trying to make everyone else bow to the beliefs of Christianity.

And since when have I forced you to bow down to the beliefs of Christianity? Do I look like a Muslim to you? But right now, I feel like I, and members of my faith are being unduly attacked for standing up for our religious beliefs.

This time, yes, this town is big enough for the both of us.

So, how many times have I pointed out to you in this thread, what the examples were? Go back and read.

 

[boilermaker55]

Read everyone of them and I dont see any persecution in any way.

There is enough space for us all. I still dont understand how you feel you are being unduly attacked.

It seems you quite don't understand the argument. Christianity is not hated by all, it is trying to make everyone else bow to the beliefs of Christianity.

And since when have I forced you to bow down to the beliefs of Christianity? Do I look like a Muslim to you? But right now, I feel like I, and members of my faith are being unduly attacked for standing up for our religious beliefs.

This time, yes, this town is big enough for the both of us.

So, how many times have I pointed out to you in this thread, what the examples were? Go back and read.

 

[aris2chat]

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

Paul and others back then did not know being gay was not a choice but something they are born as.
It is not about strange sexual or abusive acts, but about a loving relationship between two people.
When a gay couple wants to marry it is not because they desire to have sex outside of marriage.
Homosexuality is not about abnormal sex involved in ritual temple practices. It is not about rape or abuse. It is not about soldier like the greeks that mated with younger soldiers while in training or on campaign to enforce bonds and to ease tension of not having wives with them.
Being homosexual is the way god made them. They should have the right to marry the person they love.



Paul was making up his own rules, not those of the bible or Jesus.

Let me teach - yet again - a lesson about REAL tolerance. See if you can wrap your brain around this simple concept.

If you don't want to believe that Paul's teachings are a legitimate part of Christian doctrine, then DON'T BELIEVE IT. Cut it right out of your copy of the Bible, if you even have one. But stop telling other people that THEY can't believe it and that THEY have to change their religion to conform to your personal belief that Paul is illegitimate.

Oh, and Paul's rules ARE "of the Bible", because they're IN the Bible. Deal with it. Tolerate it. Mind your own freaking business.

This is about committing a hate crime against a group because of your prejudice against gays. Would you tell people to not provide a service or shun people because of color or nationality? Because of some deformity or birth defect? Because of the language they speak? Gays are born gay, it is not a choice, so why do you want to permit discrimination against them?

Hate crime? WHAT "hate crime"? Choosing not to associate with someone is now a "hate crime"?

As it happens, I don't generally "tell people" to do anything. It's not really any of my business how people choose to conduct their own lives. Maybe you should give that a try.

You don't have to invite them to your birthday party but you cannot refuse to serve in business.

> If a gay person came into that bakery and wanted to buy muffins, should they have been refused?<
>If the gay person wanted to buy a dozen carnation for a gift, should they have been refused?<
Why is a wedding cake or floral arrangement any different? Do you think they should ask what religion someone is when they order a wedding cake and then refuse because they might be jewish or muslim? Should you refuse to prove arrangements for a hindu wedding?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Read everyone of them and I dont see any persecution in any way.

There is enough space for us all. I still dont understand how you feel you are being unduly attacked.

It seems you quite don't understand the argument. Christianity is not hated by all, it is trying to make everyone else bow to the beliefs of Christianity.

And since when have I forced you to bow down to the beliefs of Christianity? Do I look like a Muslim to you? But right now, I feel like I, and members of my faith are being unduly attacked for standing up for our religious beliefs.

This time, yes, this town is big enough for the both of us.

So, how many times have I pointed out to you in this thread, what the examples were? Go back and read.

Liar. There are 39 pages to this thread. Try harder.

 

[boilermaker55]

I knew that was what would happen. When someone tries having a serious posting with you and they don't comply. You turn to insults.
Just a typical fucked up republican.
Take your crybaby shit and tell it to someone who will cry with you. All you do is bitch and moan.

Read everyone of them and I dont see any persecution in any way.

There is enough space for us all. I still dont understand how you feel you are being unduly attacked.

It seems you quite don't understand the argument. Christianity is not hated by all, it is trying to make everyone else bow to the beliefs of Christianity.

And since when have I forced you to bow down to the beliefs of Christianity? Do I look like a Muslim to you? But right now, I feel like I, and members of my faith are being unduly attacked for standing up for our religious beliefs.

This time, yes, this town is big enough for the both of us.

So, how many times have I pointed out to you in this thread, what the examples were? Go back and read.

Liar. There are 39 pages to this thread. Try harder.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Oh, here we go. The leftist "Jesus' ministry was about being nice to people" rant. It's like you dimwits have never even bothered to listen to Christianity or read the Bible. You just make up whatever you like at the moment and try to shoehorn it into other people's religions.

Apparently when Jesus called the leaders white washed tombs, clean on the outside, but full of dead men's bones, he was 'being nice'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Paul and others back then did not know being gay was not a choice but something they are born as.
It is not about strange sexual or abusive acts, but about a loving relationship between two people.
When a gay couple wants to marry it is not because they desire to have sex outside of marriage.
Homosexuality is not about abnormal sex involved in ritual temple practices. It is not about rape or abuse. It is not about soldier like the greeks that mated with younger soldiers while in training or on campaign to enforce bonds and to ease tension of not having wives with them.
Being homosexual is the way god made them. They should have the right to marry the person they love.



Paul was making up his own rules, not those of the bible or Jesus.

Let me teach - yet again - a lesson about REAL tolerance. See if you can wrap your brain around this simple concept.

If you don't want to believe that Paul's teachings are a legitimate part of Christian doctrine, then DON'T BELIEVE IT. Cut it right out of your copy of the Bible, if you even have one. But stop telling other people that THEY can't believe it and that THEY have to change their religion to conform to your personal belief that Paul is illegitimate.

Oh, and Paul's rules ARE "of the Bible", because they're IN the Bible. Deal with it. Tolerate it. Mind your own freaking business.

This is about committing a hate crime against a group because of your prejudice against gays. Would you tell people to not provide a service or shun people because of color or nationality? Because of some deformity or birth defect? Because of the language they speak? Gays are born gay, it is not a choice, so why do you want to permit discrimination against them?

Hate crime? WHAT "hate crime"? Choosing not to associate with someone is now a "hate crime"?

As it happens, I don't generally "tell people" to do anything. It's not really any of my business how people choose to conduct their own lives. Maybe you should give that a try.

You don't have to invite them to your birthday party but you cannot refuse to serve in business.

> If a gay person came into that bakery and wanted to buy muffins, should they have been refused?<
>If the gay person wanted to buy a dozen carnation for a gift, should they have been refused?<
Why is a wedding cake or floral arrangement any different? Do you think they should ask what religion someone is when they order a wedding cake and then refuse because they might be jewish or muslim? Should you refuse to prove arrangements for a hindu wedding?

Please stop telling me, "We made a law that you have to do THIS" as though it means something. The discussion is about what SHOULD be, and what's right and wrong. The only people who think the law dictates morality are those who are incapable of finding morality for themselves. And don't even get me started on "This is moral, because we said so."

Circular logic isn't really logic at all. Someone should have told you.

Every single one of your "conundrums" is an easy, obvious answer . . . except not to you. I find that very revealing.

 

[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.

Oh, here we go. The leftist "Jesus' ministry was about being nice to people" rant. It's like you dimwits have never even bothered to listen to Christianity or read the Bible. You just make up whatever you like at the moment and try to shoehorn it into other people's religions.

Apparently when Jesus called the leaders white washed tombs, clean on the outside, but full of dead men's bones, he was 'being nice'.

Christians are supposed to strive to be good. Leftists have no ability to differentiate between "good" and "nice". Kind of like the way they can't differentiate between "compassion" and "pity".

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

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

.

That predisposition is effectively countered by the predispositions of those attractive women, I'm guessing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I knew that was what would happen. When someone tries having a serious posting with you and they don't comply. You turn to insults.

That's how I reply to people who can't make their own arguments for themselves instead of spewing talking points. You want a serious response? Make a serious argument.

 

[Andylusion]

Nice! Now show me the one where it says that they should be legally barred from marriage.

Wow!

See TemplarKormac? This is why Matthew 7:6 says "do not throw your pearls to pigs".

After all those verses which clearly make the case, this is his answer?

See to the pagans, the Bible might say homosexuality is detestable, wicked, vile, offenders, immorality, perversion, ungodly and sinful, and might even say they "serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

And that's just the short list you posted.... yes it might say all that... but to this pagan.....

"Yeah yeah.... ok it does say that but...... where does it say they shouldn't marry?"

You tossed your pearls to the pig, and he snorted.

Apparently in Pagan world, we as Christians might believe that homosexuality is detestable, wicked, vile, offenders, immorality, perversion, ungodly and sinful..... but we should support same-sex marriage just the same.

Pagan logic at work.

This why you don't really see me spending tons of time trying to educate a pagan, on what the Bible says. He knows what the Bible says. He doesn't care. He's a pagan. If G-d himself engraved it on a stone tablet in this pagans back yard, he'd be the first to dance around the golden cow statue.

Oink oink. Pagan piggy.

 

[Andylusion]

[

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

.

That predisposition is effectively countered by the predispositions of those attractive women, I'm guessing.

I wouldn't know. I don't act on those natural impulses by choice. History suggests otherwise. American women are pretty darn easy.

 

[Andylusion]

I knew that was what would happen. When someone tries having a serious posting with you and they don't comply. You turn to insults.
Just a typical fucked up republican.
Take your crybaby shit and tell it to someone who will cry with you. All you do is bitch and moan.

Read everyone of them and I dont see any persecution in any way.

There is enough space for us all. I still dont understand how you feel you are being unduly attacked.

And since when have I forced you to bow down to the beliefs of Christianity? Do I look like a Muslim to you? But right now, I feel like I, and members of my faith are being unduly attacked for standing up for our religious beliefs.

This time, yes, this town is big enough for the both of us.

So, how many times have I pointed out to you in this thread, what the examples were? Go back and read.

Liar. There are 39 pages to this thread. Try harder.

You just proved him right, in the very post you claimed he was wrong. The irony is amazing.