Magic Magnum said That's honestly the way I'd prefer Christians to interpret the Bible.However, that still means the Bible is claiming Homosexuality is sin,May it also say "Die for them" or not, if it's calling the sexuality a sin, then the Bible is inf act being Homophobic.

Disagreement is not necessarily fear/hatred/bigotry. But I can hardly blame anyone for interpreting it that way, and the only explanation to the contrary involves like a 45 minute walk through the books of Corinthians and some heavy references to the 'old law,' so..... well, sparknotes version, the keystone piece I guess, if I assumed that guildees only had patience for one verse at a time, is "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive. Essentially -- well not a 'condemnation of,' but a 'deviation from' the idea that Christian salvation is coming from an adherence to a book of laws.

You know what a town in Missouri did to get rid of WBC?

Simple -- they made sure to park in every legal space in the entire town. WBC couldn't park and weren't about to either park very far away and thus not have their escape vehicle ready on standby and they weren't going to risk being towed by parking illegally (cause the cops were in on it.)

Problem solved, constitutional rights not violated.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
It depends on what you say homophobic means. If you say it's being discriminatory, then no, because of already mentioned reasons.

You're discriminating just on the fact you're saying their sexuality is a sin and evil, but your sexuality isn't.

mdk said
Disagreement is not necessarily fear/hatred/bigotry. But I can hardly blame anyone for interpreting it that way, and the only explanation to the contrary involves like a 45 minute walk through the books of Corinthians and some heavy references to the 'old law,' so..... well, sparknotes version, the keystone piece I guess, if I assumed that guildees only had patience for one verse at a time, is "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive. Essentially -- well not a 'condemnation of,' but a 'deviation from' the idea that Christian salvation is coming from an adherence to a book of laws.

So basically you're saying Homosexuality is a sin because it's not constructive?
If so then in what sense? If it's in creation of a child, I feel the need to point out we're in a world where both Gay Marriages and Abortions are rising yet we still have tons of children in orphanages without parents even. So we're not on any kind of shortage of children.

HeySeuss said
You know what a town in Missouri did to get rid of WBC?Simple -- they made sure to park in every legal space in the entire town. WBC couldn't park and weren't about to either park very far away and thus not have their escape vehicle ready on standby and they weren't going to risk being towed by parking illegally (cause the cops were in on it.) Problem solved, constitutional rights not violated.

That's amazing! XD

Magic Magnum said
You're discriminating just on the fact you're saying their sexuality is a sin and evil, but your sexuality isn't.

That's semantics whoring. When you do anything in your mind, like internalizing decisions, and excersizing judgement between right and wrong, it's discriminating. So basically you are giving the appearance of wanting to police our thoughts by saying we can't judge between right and wrong.

As one man once said, you don't have to accept everything about a person's lifestyle in order to love them, conversely, if you don't approve somebody's lifestyle, that doesn't mean you hate or fear them.

Protagonist said
As one man once said, you don't have to accept everything about a person's lifestyle in order to love them, conversely, if you don't approve somebody's lifestyle, that doesn't mean you hate or fear them.

True. Also, just because you're internally discerning about something in your mind, doesn't mean that you are doing so out of prejudice or spite.

It may not be out of spite or prejudice, and it may very well be just what you think.

But if you go around saying Homosexuality is a sin, but your's isn't it's Discrimination.
It may be with decent intentions, but you're still treating something they are born with as if it is something bad and be forgiven for.
It's like me saying "I think being black is a sin. I keep it in my head, and I still love black people. But being Black is a sin".

Magic Magnum said
It may not be out of spite or prejudice, and it may very well be just what you think.But if you go around saying Homosexuality is a sin, but your's isn't it's Discrimination.It may be with decent intentions, but you're still treating something they are born with as if it is something bad and be forgiven for. It's like me saying "I think being black is a sin. I keep it in my head, and I still love black people. But being Black is a sin".

Okay then, my response is "So what"? Should we forsake our own conscience and religious beliefs just because it hurts someone's feelings? If you think so, then you may as well support Orwellian Thought Police.

Magic Magnum said So basically you're saying Homosexuality is a sin because it's not constructive?If so then in what sense? If it's in creation of a child, I feel the need to point out we're in a world where both Gay Marriages and Abortions are rising yet we still have tons of children in orphanages without parents even. So we're not on any kind of shortage of children.

Not at all. What I mean is that there isn't any justification for the hate. "All things are permissible." That doesn't make it smart or godly or whatever, but there's no sense in hating over it. Especially when hatred contradicts the two greatest commandments. Especially with Jesus' routinely-expressed opinions about people who judge other people.

Think what you want, but be prepared to be disagreed with and even insulted for it. The first amendment isn't there to protect us from butthurt.

Edit: That, incidentally, is why I laugh off the works of A. Wyatt Mann. I can laugh off the worst his kind have to say about me -- so long as US law stays strong and stops his kind every time they start mailing anthrax to synagogues and stuff.

-post deleted-

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Okay then, my response is "So what"? Should we forsake our own conscience and religious beliefs just because it hurts someone's feelings? If you think so, then you may as well support Orwellian Thought Police.

Absolutely not.
The world need's people to grow thicker skin, and be less afraid to say what they truly think.

Note: This is not me agreeing with your opinion on the issue. Just that you have a right to express it.

However, that goes two ways.
And regardless, you saying Heterosexuality > Homosexuality is still discrimination.
Just because it's founded on religious beliefs doesn't change that fact.

mdk said
Not at all. What I mean is that there isn't any justification for the hate. "All things are permissible." That doesn't make it smart or godly or whatever, but there's no sense in hating over it. Especially when hatred contradicts the two greatest commandments. Especially with Jesus' routinely-expressed opinions about people who judge other people.

So to clarify, are you saying being Homosexual isn't smart. But there's no point in hating it either?

This discrimination game is just sub-concious, or uninformed semantics play.

I personally think a few distinctions need to be made.

Are we talking about the people with those sexual orientations, the actions of those who identify with either orientation or the ideas that are the orientations?

Also, once that distinguishment is made, in what meaning of the word are we using "discrimination" (and the related words)? What do we mean when we use it? Are we comparing the items and saying one is better than the other? Are we simply saying they are different but equal? Perhaps the word is even being used in another meaning?

Finally, once those two distinctions are made, what is really being debated here, using the prior distinctions to figure this out?

As an outside observer, I'm confused over where some of the civil debate has headed, so I'm asking for these distinctions for my sake and the debate's sake.

Ichthys said
I personally think a few distinctions need to be made.Are we talking about with those sexual orientations, of those who identify with either orientation or that are the orientations?Also, once that distinguishment is made, in what meaning of the word are we using "discrimination" (and the related words)? What do we mean when we use it? Are we comparing the items and saying one is better than the other? Are we simply saying they are different but equal? Perhaps the word is even being used in another meaning?Finally, once those two distinctions are made, what is really being debated here, using the prior distinctions to figure this out?As an outside observer, I'm confused over where some of the civil debate has headed, so I'm asking for these distinctions for my sake and the debate's sake.

I think that what I mean is that one "item" is different, and flawed in the specified way of being "homosexual" but that the "item" is equal to the other flawed, but heterosexual item. It's like, I believe that homosexuals have a different sin than I do, but I don't believe that I"m better than they are, even though my sexuality is what I consider better than their's. Sexuality is important, but it's not an indicator of who is better than whom.

Magic Magnum said So to clarify, are you saying being Homosexual isn't smart. But there's no point in hating it either?

What I'm saying is that old-testament laws were given for reasons (good reasons, at least, when they were given). Like 'clean' or 'unclean' foods, not all of those reasons endured the several-thousands-of-years since their institution. To cling to the laws in absence of reason is -- not 'in my interpretation,' but in actual written fact -- *missing* *the* *point*. Jesus said so numerous times on numerous occasions. Homophobia is not consistent with what the Christian Bible actually says. This isn't the first time it's been read wrong and it won't be the last, but right now, it's almost certainly the ugliest.

Ichthys said
I personally think a few distinctions need to be made.Are we talking about with those sexual orientations, of those who identify with either orientation or that are the orientations?Also, once that distinguishment is made, in what meaning of the word are we using "discrimination" (and the related words)? What do we mean when we use it? Are we comparing the items and saying one is better than the other? Are we simply saying they are different but equal? Perhaps the word is even being used in another meaning?Finally, once those two distinctions are made, what is really being debated here, using the prior distinctions to figure this out?As an outside observer, I'm confused over where some of the civil debate has headed, so I'm asking for these distinctions for my sake and the debate's sake.

Good catch.

And to answer the questions.

1. In this specific case, those with the sexual orientation themselves.

2. Discrimination meaning you view one as better than the other.
ActRaiserTheReturned may argue Heterosexual's and Homosexual's are equal sinners simply by having sin (which depending on how you interpret the Bible would be true), but in the specific case of Homosexuality he seems to be stating that there is an ultimately better sexuality.

mdk said
What I'm saying is that old-testament laws were given for reasons (good reasons, at least, when they were given). Like 'clean' or 'unclean' foods, not all of those reasons endured the several-thousands-of-years since their institution. To cling to the laws in absence of reason is -- not 'in my interpretation,' but in actual written fact -- *missing* *the* *point*. Jesus said so numerous times on numerous occasions. Homophobia is not consistent with what the Christian Bible This isn't the first time it's been read wrong and it won't be the last, but right now, it's almost certainly the ugliest.

So if I'm understanding you right, it's that the rules in the old testament were only meant for their time and by today's day and age has lost it's need?

As for Jesus and Homophobia, may he have spoken against it or not. The Bible does support Homophobia, I listed several Bible quotes earlier showing so. So that part isn't a mis-reading. Most likely it seems to be a conflict between the Bible and Jesus.

Magic Magnum said So if I'm understanding you right, it's that the rules in the old testament were only meant for their time and by today's day and age has lost it's need?

I could give you a couple of sermons on this if you like. It's not an easy concept to grasp, or to explain. The law is not without its purpose, nor is it invalid, nor silly, or anything like that. But (as was taught by the prophets), the Law of Moses was 'fulfilled,' and a new covenant between God and man was made, one not written on stone tablets.

So what's in the 'new covenant,' well, a lot, obviously. It's a big book. But it can be (and was) summed up very, very succinctly. And now I'm certain that I've well-exceeded the bible quota for a single post, so I'll.... well, shit, I still have half a quote to deal with. Let's move on.

As for Jesus and Homophobia, may he have spoken against it or not.

No 'May or May Not,' he didn't, period. Scratch that -- he spoke famously about what sort of attributes a godly person ought to have, and 'hatred, bigotry, and discrimination' got left well and truly off the list. He actually comes down pretty heavily on the side of the persecuted -- not just in the sermon on the mount, but in all his ministries, that was a common theme (Tax collectors were despised, so he took them on as disciples). He did single out a group with modern implications -- the rich! -- not the gays. There it's not a matter for persecution or your newfangled '99% Hacktivism,' far from it. It's a personal journey, meant for one man.

The Bible does support Homophobia, I listed several Bible quotes earlier showing so. So that part isn't a mis-reading. Most likely it seems to be a conflict between the Bible and Jesus.

Now, the part nobody wants to hear.... Remember (you remember) the last time you got into an evolution debate with a staunch but maybe-not-so-well-prepared creationist? Of course you do. When the creationist said to you, "Science is conflicting with science" (let's face it -- he said it), what was your response? If you were a clever man, and you are, your response was that science cannot contradict science. At most, one discovery might necessitate deeper investigation in order to ascertain the truth, and to reconcile (and amend) the things we know with regards to the new information -- but never conficting, science doesn't do that.

So, what I'm bound now to say is... You need to dig deeeeeeeeeper. We're talking about theology now, which -- like etymology -- is a science of words. These words of course, the stakes are a bit higher, the scope is a bit wider, but we're dealing with a message and we can approach it scientifically. You have found a point which doesn't seem to fit! Put a dog-ear on that page and come at it with a rational, reasoning mind. Are there outside factors? Are these the words of God, or the words of god through men, or the words of men about god? You'll find those, and more. Poems. Songs. Commands, Rebukes.

The sober among you will note that I'm high on pills and bible right now. Betcha there's a verse or two about that, right? Heh. Well, my analogies sort of started taking on lives of their own. THE POINT WAS -- if you want to dig deeper, if you truly and actually want to dig deeper -- I'm down to play my part, and we can do a little Zen-Master-Pupil meditation (comes with bonus delight and righteousness. I'll never ask you to stop thinking for yourself, hell, I'll never STOP ASKING for you to think for yourself. But I can show you a thing or two on whatever path you want to follow, and when I stop being helpful you can kick me off the club, how's that?

Did I mention the pills. Shit's sake. Well, go on then. Wanna be a pilgrim for a bit? I'll be your spiritual mentor who's also apparently wasted.

I don't even know what it is that is being argued. This thread has run its course, not that it really had one. :p

It might be a more interesting argument to discuss the laws being put in place in Uganda or Russia's oppression of gays and see if anyone wants to justify those things, tough my guess is 'not likely' given that the Guild really isn't the place to find extremist psychos. I troll (off guild) for such psychos in other parts of IRC (off foonetic; I'm talking about much older networks that have populations dating back to the bad old days) to find the sort of argument I think a lot of people on here are hunting for, but that's me personally.

mdk said When the creationist said to you, "Science is conflicting with science" (let's face it -- he said it), what was your response? If you were a clever man, and you are, your response was that science contradict science. At most, one discovery might necessitate deeper investigation in order to ascertain the truth, and to reconcile (and amend) the things we know with regards to the new information -- but never , science doesn't do that.

I'd actually say that science is in the process of constantly correcting itself as more information comes in, which is precisely what science does and what it was designed to do. I find it very humbling in that respect, it gives you a lively awareness that you can easily be wrong. It'd be a very boring universe if we knew it all or even a lot.