Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[chappy]

Jasong, my philosophical differences with you have been evident (to me at least) for some time, but rarely am I privileged with such a concrete example of opposite world view as your last post. Where to begin?

Most important, and I don't think you meant to be offensive--but you were, in your last paragraph you make the claim that the homosexuality debate is a distraction. I submit to you that you either need to rephrase that statement to something like "certain people exploit other people's irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals to further their own political/social agendas," or you are so completely wrong that I don't have time or the will to respond correctly. In short, it is not a distraction to anyone who is homosexual. It is a daily reminder that a large population of motivated fear mongerers see them as second class citizens at best.

I shouldn't need to list the couple very public recent acts of violence against gay people, but even if I did they would be outweighed by the constant and often unseen social pressures against gays--even to the point of being able to casually dismiss them as "a distraction."

On a different point, if these are the end times then bring them on. Your God is bringing punishment on us by making us live longer, better lives. Giving us access to powers and abilities that when that ancient text that Christians deify and mangle to fit their every whim was written would have been reserved for the gods alone.

Humans are no better and no worse than they ever have been.

PS: Satan was YHWH's servant in the OT, and in the NT until the creeping influence of Zoroastrianism finally rooted out most Jewish and Christian thinking until Polycarp got a hold of it in 180 CE (St. Polycarp was especially fond of Satan as a tool to remove Marcionite influence from textual criticism.) So your modernist take on the Manicheanist heresy is common but no less textually wrong.

[kladner]

Jasong: Rather than the Old Testament being the law, Christ is the law. So Christians have a direct link to God if they have any problems.

So if the Old Testament is dismissed, where in the New Testament is Jesus quoted condemning homosexuality? I remember things like "Love your neighbor as yourself. On this hangs the Law and the prophets." (more or less, from memory.) Then there are, "Let him without sin cast the first stone," and "Judge not lest you be judged."

As Chappy noted, the books now seen as the bible have been through so many translations, edits, and reinterpretations that "original" material is hard to discern. Further, much of what we see today is filtered through, and interpreted by Paul, who took on a mantle of authority with a much harsher tone than that which is reported for Jesus.

And if the OT prohibitions are overridden, how can you arrive at, " And obviously, when a man lusts after another man, he's not seeking God's will."?

I don't wish to be offensive either, but your allusions to your own proclivities suggests to me that you are projecting your own discomfort with yourself onto other matters and other people. "First cast out the plank from your eye, and then you will see to cast out the chip from your brother's eye."

Chappy: In short, it is not a distraction to anyone who is homosexual. It is a daily reminder that a large population of motivated fear mongerers see them as second class citizens at best.

And at the worst, we have US evangelicals collaborating with and encouraging foreign governments to enact laws to imprison people for homosexuality (Nigeria), or to execute them (Uganda).

You are entitled to believe any mythology which suits you. But these books are human productions, driven by human intentions. There have been so many disputes among humans as to what these meanings should be that the traces of a hypothetical deity are obliterated by human hand prints.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by kladner

So if the Old Testament is dismissed, where in the New Testament is Jesus quoted condemning homosexuality? I remember things like "Love your neighbor as yourself. On this hangs the Law and the prophets." (more or less, from memory.) Then there are, "Let him without sin cast the first stone," and "Judge not lest you be judged."

The Old Testament law isn't dismissed, it is fulfilled. The Old Testament law was needed because people didn't have a direct route to God. New Testament isn't new law, it's a new paradigm, the ability to access God directly, at any moment. As for the "Judge not, lest you be judged." I don't judge myself as being better than homosexuals, I have a porn addiction that would make Hugh Hefner back away slowly. Christianity is like one beggar telling another beggar where to find food.

And if the OT prohibitions are overridden, how can you arrive at, " And obviously, when a man lusts after another man, he's not seeking God's will."?

Again, the law isn't abolished, it's fulfilled. Jesus IS the law.

I don't wish to be offensive either, but your allusions to your own proclivities suggests to me that you are projecting your own discomfort with yourself onto other matters and other people. "First cast out the plank from your eye, and then you will see to cast out the chip from your brother's eye."

I'm not an expert on that particular verse by any means, but my own bad experiences are the reason I consider it so important to warn people. I'm like a reformed gang member trying to save inner-city kids from gangs.

And at the worst, we have US evangelicals collaborating with and encouraging foreign governments to enact laws to imprison people for homosexuality (Nigeria), or to execute them (Uganda).

Anybody can claim to be a Christian. I could claim to be a jelly donut and it wouldn't make it more true no matter how many times I repeated it.

You are entitled to believe any mythology which suits you. But these books are human productions, driven by human intentions. There have been so many disputes among humans as to what these meanings should be that the traces of a hypothetical deity are obliterated by human hand prints.

Well, I find it easier to believe in an intelligent being than some undefined process which started life in some unkown way and doesn't give a damn about anybody or anything.

I originally became a Christian, not because I started out with faith, but because I played Devil's advocate with the alternatives. My conclusion was that either Christ is Lord or all roads lead to hell. And I allow for a very liberal definition of hell in this case. I'm not saying scientists are wrong, I'm saying there's no reason to give a damn about anything if they're right. Life either has meaning or it doesn't. If I believe in Jesus and He isn't real, then there's no loss because life wasn't meaningful to begin with. But if Christ IS real and I choose to believe the scientists, then I lose big. If you think about it, that's 2 binary possibilities, so 4 possible outcomes if we oversimplify it. If there's no God, it doesn't matter what we believe(or more accurately, have faith in). But if there is a God, it's worth it to attempt a Hail Mary(football reference, not Catholic reference) to cling to Him.

I'm making a choice based on limited knowledge, just like anyone else.

[Xyzzy]

If I believe in Jesus and He isn't real, then there's no loss because life wasn't meaningful to begin with. But if Christ IS real and I choose to believe the scientists, then I lose big. If you think about it, that's 2 binary possibilities, so 4 possible outcomes if we oversimplify it. If there's no God, it doesn't matter what we believe(or more accurately, have faith in). But if there is a God, it's worth it to attempt a Hail Mary(football reference, not Catholic reference) to cling to Him.

So the only reason you are a Christian to avoid Hell?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by kladner

where in the New Testament is Jesus quoted condemning homosexuality?

Jason,

This is an important point that you have so far evaded. You are clear about the foundations of your belief, but you haven't yet shown that those foundations really condemn homosexuality. Are you sure they do?

[Xyzzy]

NSFW if you work someplace lame:

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...&postcount=227

Top row. Number 4.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

NSFW if you work someplace lame:

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...&postcount=227

Top row. Number 4.

Muchas Gracias for that! LOLOL!

[kladner]

I intentionally said same-sex marriage, rather than gay marriage. I suppose a better term would be domestic partnership.

Backtracking: Domestic Partnership is not recognized under DOMA for purposes of (possible) tax benefits, nor for federal pension survivor benefits. These are the basis of at least federal lawsuit charging violation of "equal protection" under law.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by wblipp

This is an important point that you have so far evaded. You are clear about the foundations of your belief, but you haven't yet shown that those foundations really condemn homosexuality. Are you sure they do?

Here are a few spots that would seem to support his point.

Old Testament

Before they could lie down to sleep, all the men -- both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom -- surrounded the house.They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!" Lot went outside to them, shutting the door behind him. He said, "No, my brothers! Don't act so wickedly! (Genesis 19:4-7 NET)

New Testament view on the same situation.

So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7 NET)

and if God also condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by reducing them to ashes, thereby condemning them to catastrophic destruction, and making them an example to other ungodly people in the future; and if He rescued the righteous man Lot, who had become very disturbed by unrestrained wickedness [of the people there in Sodom]. (For, being a righteous man living among them, Lot’s righteous spirit was very disturbed every day by the wickedness he heard and saw), (2 Peter 2:6-8 AUV-NT)

Old Testament law ~400 years after the Sodom incident.

You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion. (Leviticus 18:22-23 NET)

No daughter of Israel is to let herself be used as a loose woman for a strange god, and no son of Israel is to give himself to a man. (Deuteronomy 23:17 BBE)

They were enjoying themselves when all of a sudden some sexual perverts from the town surrounded the house and started beating on the door. They said to the old man, "Bring out that man that came home with you! We want to have sex with him!" But the old man went outside and said to them, "No, my friends! Please! Don't do such an evil, immoral thing! This man is my guest. (Judges 19:22-23 GNB)

And Juda did evil in the sight of the Lord, and provoked him above all that their fathers had done, in their sins which they committed. For they also built them altars, and statues, and groves, upon every high hill, and under every green tree: There were also the effeminate in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the people, whom the Lord had destroyed before the face of the children of Israel. (1 Kings 14:22-24 DRB)

The look on your faces shows that you are sinful as Sodom, and you don't try to hide it. You are in for trouble, and you have brought it all on yourselves. (Isaiah 3:9 CEV)

Another New Testament view on such things.

Therefore God abandoned them to impurity, letting them follow the cravings of their hearts, till they dishonored their own bodies; For they had substituted a lie for the truth about God, and had reverenced and worshiped created things more than the Creator, who is to be praised for ever. Amen. That, I say, is why God abandoned them to degrading passions. Even the women among them perverted the natural use of their bodies to the unnatural; While the men, disregarding that for which women were intended by nature, were consumed with passion for one another. Men indulged in vile practices with men, and incurred in their own persons the inevitable penalty for their perverseness. Then, as they would not keep God before their minds, God abandoned them to depraved thoughts, so that they did all kinds of shameful things. They reveled in every form of wickedness, evil, greed, vice. Their lives were full of envy, murder, quarreling, treachery, malice. They became back-biters, slanderers, impious, insolent, boastful. They devised new sins. They disobeyed their parents. They were undiscerning, untrustworthy, without natural affection or pity. Well aware of God's decree, that those who do such things deserve to die, not only are they guilty of them themselves, but they even applaud those who do them. (Romans 1:24-32 TCNT)

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Jasong, I think your new avatar is the most priceless piece of art on this forum. No superlative is too much for it. I suspect that you are not responsible for it, but I hope it survives as a beautiful piece of art next to your valuable contributions here. In any case I hope you can smile about it too.

Who ever the mod is that changed it violated this: http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6400 at least in my point of view. Mocking someone like this is not kind.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Who ever the mod is that changed it violated this: http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6400 at least in my point of view. Mocking someone like this is not kind.

Perhaps, but I hope it can be seen it a bit differently, especially by jasong himself.

The discussion in this thread has the potential to be incredibly inflammatory and upsetting for some people, whether they are themselves gay or not, and whether they take the bible literally or not. I believe jasong himself knows that too and has for that reason been quite wary of writing down his ideas until very recently. Despite the strong potential for hurt feelings, the discussion is nevertheless taking place on a reasonably civil level which is a tribute to everyone involved, including jasong. Nevertheless, a piece of humour is always helpful if everyone can laugh about it. It relieves the tensions and helps stop the discussion degenerating despite everyone's good intentions. I believe that is the thinking behind the new avatar and what the supermod in question had in mind. The question, of course, is whether jasong can smile about it too despite it being a joke at his expense. If not, and if jasong is upset by it, then it is indeed a violation of the ethic of reciprocity. But I believe jasong is stronger than that: he's endured far worse on this forum in the past and he's still going strong.