Prop. 8 judge to religious believers: "It's not about you"

[phkrause]

Thanks for your advice, Gregory. But I think the evidence is that you didn't read or understand what I was saying. Again, I was talking about gay people who are vocal in their pushing of the gay agenda on the church. I know you don't fit that qualification, so I don't see how you drew the conclusion that I was referring to you. I'm sorry you felt that I was talking about you. I wasn't and you had no legitimate reason to think I was.

Excellent points John, what you mentioned above is what I thought you said and meant. Not really sure what was so hard to understand. Seemed pretty plan and straight forward to me. And just so there's no miss understanding! This is my opinion. :)

[John317]

Thank you, pk. I really appreciate that. I was beginning to wonder if maybe the keys of my computer are putting out letters different from what I intend. You know the feeling? lol

[phkrause]

No problem, I have no problem coming to the defense of those that are pretty much up front and pretty much don't attack others even as they are being attack.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Christians beat and kill gay people based on what the Bible says to be done to gay people.

Can you give documented evidence for this statement? Who is the Christian that beat and killed gay people?

[Dr. Shane]

Religion has been misused throughout much of history and rightly deserves a lot of the anger many hold against it. Of course as students of the Bible, we know that the religion which in which one man tries to force another man's conscience is not from God. God wants man to obey Him due to love and not forced compliance.

[cardw]

Religion has been misused throughout much of history and rightly deserves a lot of the anger many hold against it.

[Dr. Shane]

We have discussed the theocracy of Israel before. God can read the heart, people cannot. Thus a theocracy with a direct line to God is going to behave differently than a church guided by the written word. Religious liberty was not a treasured idea in the theocracy of Israel like it is in God's church today.

[cardw]

We have discussed the theocracy of Israel before. God can read the heart, people cannot. Thus a theocracy with a direct line to God is going to behave differently than a church guided by the written word. Religious liberty was not a treasured idea in the theocracy of Israel like it is in God's church today.

Basically a theocracy behaves badly. There is no getting around that. What it means is that it is made up by men, not an all knowing intelligent god.

When I observe the difficultly in making the god of the OT look "good" it becomes apparent that it is difficult because it's nonsense and it is always difficult to make sense out of nonsense.

[Dr. Shane]

When I observe the difficultly in making the god of the OT look "good" it becomes apparent that it is difficult because it's nonsense and it is always difficult to make sense out of nonsense.

But you have an axe to grind with religion. The reason it is hard for you to see good in the God of the Old Testament has more to do with you than with Him. As I study the Bible, I see the same loving God in the Old Testament as I see in the New Testament. I see the same Commandments of God in the New Testament as I see in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is Jesus concealed and the New Testament is Jesus revealed. Both have the same God and the same gospel.

Why did God command Israel of old to destroy entire nations? We know the answer to that because it has been revealed in Patriarchs and Prophets. Some reject the answer and they are free to do but I find the answer consistent with His love. I avoid quoting it here because I don't want to side track this thread.

This thread is about protecting religious liberty against the threats of the gay rights movement.

[doug yowell]

I stand on my statement,cardw. Your "more righteous than they" contempt for Christianity has rendered your judgment impervious to the factual truth. Were Christianity as evil as you claim you would have been dead long ago.It is not secularism that holds Christianity in check it's Christianity that holds Christianity in check. Christianity settled and developed this country and created the constitutional framework under which secularism is allowed to flourish.It was Protestant Christianity that determined NOT to follow the example of it's Roman Catholic predessor by establishing a theocratic state,allowing the comments that you so freely and fearlessly express here today.But what does that matter to you? Your obvious hatred of the Scriptures allows you to create your own reality and substitute distortions for facts. Nothing you've posted is a fair representation of either what Christianity teaches,practices, or allows.And venting does not create truth.

[John317]

I should have been clearer in my question. I was asking about evidence of any Christians in today's world who killed or beat up gay people. As far as I know, the gay people who've been beaten up or killed were victims of non-Christians.

I see a difference between "religion" and "Christians." I don't blame Christianity and the Bible for crimes committed against gays.

When pastors and others teach against homosexuality, they need to be very careful to distinguish between condemnation of sin and mistreatment of gay people. That's extremely important, because young people in particular can get the impression from parents or pastors that it is OK to mistreat gay people.

It is difficult to get past this order to do violence against homosexuals in the Bible....

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

I do believe that sex acts of the kind described in that passage are sinful and morally wrong, but when we take the context into account, we realize that God is not telling modern societies to kill homosexuals any more than it's saying society should kill disrespectful, rebellious children. Those laws comes out of a period of time when Israel was a theocracy emerging from generations of slavery.

I believe the same God who inspired Lev. 18: 22 and 20: 13 told the woman caught in adultery that He didn't condemn her but to "go and sin no more." That shows His attitude towards all sinners, including gays. He wants gays to be saved, not destroyed. So while our message as Christians has to be that the practice of those sins is wrong, we also have to be clear that we love the people themselves.

[doug yowell]

I don't believe in a secret gay agenda. Couples want the same protection that is afforded to heterosexual spouses without the extra expense of lawyers. They want thier relationship to be legally recognized. As it stands now a couple who has been together for years can be denied entrance to their partners death bed because they are not next of kin. I believe the "secret agenda" fears are to appeal to the emotional aspect of this debate.

There have been no secret agenda accusations from me. I think the same sex marriage movement has been forthright in their agenda.I've repeated this time and again here. Their goals have a clear purpose;to normalize homosexual sex, and ostracize those who resist. Ignoring their history of intimidation, lies, and legal punishments is believing their lies and supporting their policies. Have you forgotten what they done to that evil organization,The Boy Scouts,for merely not allowing openly gay counselors? Were they content to abide by the Supreme Court's decision that BSA had the Constitutional right to prohibit OPENLY GAY leaders? Now BSA is subject to numerous lawsuits attempting to punish them for their principled stand.And you contend that all they want is legal access to their loved ones? How many more examples does one need to demonstrate the lengths the Gay Rights activists will go to punish those who oppose them? The fact that gay marriage is an issue at all and that some SDA's are supporting it shows just how far and how fast we have fallen from God's grace not how much closer we are to establishing true righteousness in this country.

[Guest]

I stand on my statement,cardw. Your "more righteous than they" contempt for Christianity has rendered your judgment impervious to the factual truth. Were Christianity as evil as you claim you would have been dead long ago.It is not secularism that holds Christianity in check it's Christianity that holds Christianity in check. Christianity settled and developed this country and created the constitutional framework under which secularism is allowed to flourish.It was Protestant Christianity that determined NOT to follow the example of it's Roman Catholic predessor by establishing a theocratic state,allowing the comments that you so freely and fearlessly express here today.But what does that matter to you? Your obvious hatred of the Scriptures allows you to create your own reality and substitute distortions for facts. Nothing you've posted is a fair representation of either what Christianity teaches,practices, or allows.And venting does not create truth.

Amen Doug, you have hit the nail squarely upon it's head.

[John317]

[GreatLakesGramma]

In context, the quote generalized that those most vocal were filled with hatred for everyone who did not agree with them and want to force out of spite.

As a sweeping gneralizaton that applied to me as I am very vocal in posting here. If you believe that I am filled with hate and spite, you can certainly send me a private missage and tell me so.

But, sweeping generalizations of that type do serve no one well, no matter whom they apply to. You weould better serve the cause you support by not making them and so would the person who first posted that comment. Comments such as those tend to destroy your effectiveness in presenting your message.

The context in which I made the comment, as a response to Sivart, made it pretty plain I was referring to gay activists, the most vocal and obviously hostile ones. They are in the minority, and some gay persons, including my son, do not appreciate their representation of the group as a whole. He does not like people thinking he is that way, as he is not. He just wants to quietly live his own life as he sees fit, and leave everyone else in peace to do the same.

There was no reason for you to assume I was referring to you, or anyone else on this forum.

[doug yowell]

[

Excellent points John, what you mentioned above is what I thought you said and meant. Not really sure what was so hard to understand. Seemed pretty plan and straight forward to me. And just so there's no miss understanding! This is my opinion.

I second pk's conclusion and amend it by saying that a generalization is quite useful when one understands that it is a generalization.Your position has been clearly stated before so I knew exactly what you meant.

[John317]

The context in which I made the comment, as a response to Sivart, made it pretty plain I was referring to gay activists, the most vocal and obviously hostile ones. They are in the minority, and some gay persons, including my son, do not appreciate their representation of the group as a whole. He does not like people thinking he is that way, as he is not. He just wants to quietly live his own life as he sees fit, and leave everyone else in peace to do the same.

There was no reason for you to assume I was referring to you, or anyone else on this forum.

There are a lot of gay people who share your son's feelings about this. As happens a lot, a vocal minority can make people think everyone in a certain category is the same way.

I completely agree with you that you gave Gregory Matthews no reason to think you were talking about him specifically. It seemed like a fairly simple thing to see that this was the case. The language was unmistakable as far as I'm concerned.

[cardw]

I stand on my statement,cardw. Your "more righteous than they" contempt for Christianity has rendered your judgment impervious to the factual truth. Were Christianity as evil as you claim you would have been dead long ago.It is not secularism that holds Christianity in check it's Christianity that holds Christianity in check. Christianity settled and developed this country and created the constitutional framework under which secularism is allowed to flourish.It was Protestant Christianity that determined NOT to follow the example of it's Roman Catholic predessor by establishing a theocratic state,allowing the comments that you so freely and fearlessly express here today.But what does that matter to you? Your obvious hatred of the Scriptures allows you to create your own reality and substitute distortions for facts. Nothing you've posted is a fair representation of either what Christianity teaches,practices, or allows.And venting does not create truth.

The difference between your statements and mine. I provide evidence. You vent and rewrite history.

You don't address my points but instead accuse me of "more righteous than they" without a shred of evidence.

The fact is the god of the OT ordered the Israelites to kill gay people. A man laying with another man or woman laying with another woman is not an "offense" that causes harm to anyone as far as I can tell. It certainly does not warrant a death penalty at any time in history.

Playing the theocracy card is not an argument. You have no rational reason to prove that most of the things god ordered people killed for, other than murder, deserved a death penalty in the OT.

You simply provide more evidence of the lack of any factual basis for Christian claims of a superior truth. Triumphal announcements don't constitute evidence or reason.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

When I observe the difficultly in making the god of the OT look "good" it becomes apparent that it is difficult because it's nonsense and it is always difficult to make sense out of nonsense.

But you have an axe to grind with religion. The reason it is hard for you to see good in the God of the Old Testament has more to do with you than with Him.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Shane

This thread is about protecting religious liberty against the threats of the gay rights movement.

There are no threats to religious liberty other than the ones Christians make up in their own fearful world view which is based, by the way, on the threatening and violent god of the OT.

Basically what I hear is that if gay people want to have the freedom to marry then they are threatening Christianity. I don't see it.

If Christians want to restrict their freedom to do this then Christians are protecting society. I don't see it.

No one has shown how gay people being married causes harm to anyone.

Cardw....

If I may jump in here with a calmer head.....

Shane isn't talking about gay people being married causes harm....directly....What he is saying is that married gay people become an especially singled out people becoming protected.

And they are protected in this way- If a gay couple specifically wants to rent out a church to get married in, and the church does NOT allow gays to be married in the church because that religion forbids the inclusion of Gays, AND this couple sues due to discrimination, then yes, there is a religious liberty componet that is lost.

Or howabout an employer, being christian, who feels that providing healthcare insurance for an employee who is gay, is favoring a class of people, and violates his conscious in promoting the gay lifestyle....

I can see where religious liberty is becoming a bit more restricted...can't you? And, while I have defended the rights of gays in the hospital and see where some sort of "marriage" can be useful, I agree with Shane that a "civil union" with most of the rights of marriage might be of use...and not infringe upon religious liberty as much....

Just my thoughts...not trying to pick a bone as an attempt to clarify viewpoints...

[cardw]

I should have been clearer in my question. I was asking about evidence of any Christians in today's world who killed or beat up gay people. As far as I know, the gay people who've been beaten up or killed were victims of non-Christians.

I see a difference between "religion" and "Christians." I don't blame Christianity and the Bible for crimes committed against gays.

When pastors and others teach against homosexuality, they need to be very careful to distinguish between condemnation of sin and mistreatment of gay people. That's extremely important, because young people in particular can get the impression from parents or pastors that it is OK to mistreat gay people.

[John317]

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Originally Posted By: John3:17

I do believe that sex acts of the kind described in that passage are sinful and morally wrong, but when we take the context into account, we realize that God is not telling modern societies to kill homosexuals any more than it's saying society should kill disrespectful, rebellious children. Those laws comes out of a period of time when Israel was a theocracy emerging from generations of slavery.

Originally Posted By: cardw

There is no rationale in this statement. You make no sense.

I find the Bible evidence overwhelming that God views homosexuality as wrong-- contrary to His will and His character. I believe the Bible is God's self-revelation to us about what He is like.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Just because something happened a long time ago doesn't justify it.

This is true. I'm not saying condemning homosexual practices is right simply because it happened a long time ago.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Just because Israel is emerging from slavery has nothing to do with the justice of instituting a death penalty for all kinds of crazy stuff.

Do you think it was crazy of God to command the people to keep His commandments, including the Sabbath?

Since you don't evidently even believe in God's existence, and that the Bible is a fiction, it is rather difficult for us to communicate with each other about this subject.

I consider the historical context, which is that God was founding and establishing a nation, or a people, for the purpose of saving the world through the Messiah. An essential part of that foundation was a knowledge of His holy character and standards. He can't have the kind of relationship with people that He wants to have if they're living outside of His will. Sin are behaviors and ways of thinking and doing that are outside His will, and the practice of homosexuality is one of those sins.

Originally Posted By: John317

I believe the same God who inspired Lev. 18: 22 and 20: 13 told the woman caught in adultery that He didn't condemn her but to "go and sin no more." That shows His attitude towards all sinners, including gays. He wants gays to be saved, not destroyed. So while our message as Christians has to be that the practice of those sins is wrong, we also have to be clear that we love the people themselves.

Originally Posted By: cardw

This is not evidence that this god is a loving god. It is evidence that this god has multiple personalities. This is a crazy god.

Are you saying that in your judgment, the Bible portrays Jesus Christ as crazy?

Personally I view the people who rebelled against God as the crazy ones. It's insane to hate and rebel against one's creator, the One who gives us life.

[Dr. Shane]

howabout an employer, being christian, who feels that providing healthcare insurance for an employee who is gay, is favoring a class of people, and violates his conscious in promoting the gay lifestyle....

I don't think most religious employers would exclude a gay employee from health-care benefits. However the employer may agree to pay for 75% or 100% of the employee's spouses benefits and not want to do that for the partner of a gay employee. (As an SDA I would have no problem giving a gay employee's partner the same benefits as my heterosexual employees' spouses - however a Catholic or Muslim employer may feel differently.)

[aldona]

Quote:

Basically what I hear is that if gay people want to have the freedom to marry then they are threatening Christianity. I don't see it.

If Christians want to restrict their freedom to do this then Christians are protecting society. I don't see it.

No one has shown how gay people being married causes harm to anyone.

Thank you. I'm probably going to get flamed by my fellow believers, but I'm with you on this one.

If a same-sex couple wants to live together in a stable relationship and label it with the name "marriage", how does that harm my marriage? How is that in any way relevant to how I live my life with my husband? What am I supposed to be afraid of?

Should I perhaps be afraid that they might live up to the ideals of mutual love and fidelity better than we Christians do?

Would they put us to shame, in a society where the divorce rate is equal between Christian couples and non-believers?

...in a society where hardly a week goes by without some famous figure known for their Christianity and their loud proclamation of "family values" is discovered to have a pregnant mistress or a habit of soliciting extra-marital sex in public toilets?

...in a society where celebrities marry with great fanfare and millions of dollars' worth of waste, only to divorce a few months or a year later?

...in a society where half of the "lonely hearts" ads in the local newspaper start with the word "married"?

...in a society where people who vowed to love and honor one another for life treat each other with disrespect and violence?

These problems are more widespread and more common than gay people wanting to get married, and if Christians really cared about protecting the sanctity of marriage, they would get at least the same amount of air time that gay marriage rights do. Instead...not a word.

In my work I get to know a large variety of people from all walks of life, sometimes getting to know the details of their private life in quite a lot of detail.

I am constantly meeting same-sex couples whose devotion to one another, and the stability of their relationship, would put many Christian marriages to shame. And there is a complete lack of the "headship/ domination" power play that is seen so often in Christian marriages ("I'm the head here, you have to be submissive, but we have to role-play it carefully so it looks like all smiles and roses.")

I have tried very hard to get my head around how on earth their existence is supposed to undermine my own marriage in some way. I'm just not getting it.

AJ

[Dr. Shane]

I have tried very hard to get my head around how on earth their existence is supposed to undermine my own marriage in some way. I'm just not getting it.

AJ

I never understood where evangelical Christians were coming from on that either. I even read Dr. Dobson's book "Marriage Under Fire" but didn't quite follow him. To his credit, he is also against no-fault divorce.

The Adventist concern is that the gay-rights agenda threatens religious liberty. Numerous examples have been given here so it should be hard to get one's head around that.