Anti-gay Christians are merely bigots

[Voyager]

@TennisMenace

But you are right, I do not believe it is a Christian’s role to “judge or condemn” non believers regarding sin from the Holy Bible. On the other hand, a Christian should not be criticized for not supporting legislation that promotes “sin” according to their belief system. Doesn’t this make sense?

How about legislation that does not promote a behavior but simply permits it? Allowing SSM will not increase the amount of sinful to you sex (some wag will be along to say it will decrease it) and clearly does not force anyone to participate.
Now, in line with the theme of the thread, legislation permits or even promotes all kinds of sin. Think about opposite sex domestic partner rights. Was there the same kind of religious opposition to those that there is to SSM? I’m sure you can come up with tons more.
Please think about why a certain segment of the religious community gets more bent out of shape about SSM than about other, far more prevalent, sin.

In conclusion, I respect a non believers right to believe as they see fit according to what they believe is right or wrong. My question is simply this though - does a non believer allow for me, and other believers, that same respect, or will we be subject to ridicule and mockery just because our beliefs are “archaic, different, or irrelevant” to them?
TM

Beliefs about god usually do get respect. There might be mockery about beliefs which are clearly counterfactual, such as creationism. Personal choices about sexuality, even religiously based, won’t be mocked. Maybe people will feel sad for someone who feels he or she can’t follow his heart, or is guilt-ridden by feelings they should not feel guilty about.
However the mockery might start when someone tries to impose their morality on others who do not share their assumptions at all.

[jayjay]

@TennisMenace

In conclusion, I respect a non believers right to believe as they see fit according to what they believe is right or wrong. My question is simply this though - does a non believer allow for me, and other believers, that same respect, or will we be subject to ridicule and mockery just because our beliefs are “archaic, different, or irrelevant” to them?

In the same way that people with religious objections to racial equality and gender equality are ridiculed and mocked, so will those who object to equality of sexual orientation. I don’t have any power over whether it happens or not. I’m not necessarily going to try to make it a new orthodoxy. But people of actual good will are going to recognize bigotry and hate when they see it.

“Don’t legitimize something that will make us look like retrograde Nazis” is not a compelling argument for preventing equality.

In other words, you have every right in the world to believe whatever the hell you want. What you don’t have is the right to make everyone else treat you like your opinion is correct.

[TennisMenace]

Greetings Voyager,

“Beliefs about god usually do get respect. There might be mockery about beliefs which are clearly counterfactual, such as creationism. Personal choices about sexuality, even religiously based, won’t be mocked. Maybe people will feel sad for someone who feels he or she can’t follow his heart, or is guilt-ridden by feelings they should not feel guilty about.
However the mockery might start when someone tries to impose their morality on others who do not share their assumptions at all.”

Thanks for this response. :). I may be safe from ridicule if this standard is correct. (Said while looking over shoulder)

FYI, sci-fi is one of my favorite genres, especially anything to do with outer space. Battle star Galactica may be my all time favorite TV series, with Babylon 5, all the Star Treks, 100, Stargate Universe, Stargate Atlantis, and of course Stargate SG-1.

I Can never get enough.

TM

[Voyager]

@TennisMenace

Greetings Voyager,

“Beliefs about god usually do get respect. There might be mockery about beliefs which are clearly counterfactual, such as creationism. Personal choices about sexuality, even religiously based, won’t be mocked. Maybe people will feel sad for someone who feels he or she can’t follow his heart, or is guilt-ridden by feelings they should not feel guilty about.
However the mockery might start when someone tries to impose their morality on others who do not share their assumptions at all.”

Thanks for this response. :). I may be safe from ridicule if this standard is correct. (Said while looking over shoulder)

FYI, sci-fi is one of my favorite genres, especially anything to do with outer space. Battle star Galactica may be my all time favorite TV series, with Babylon 5, all the Star Treks, 100, Stargate Universe, Stargate Atlantis, and of course Stargate SG-1.

I Can never get enough.

TM

I forgot to welcome you to the Dope, so welcome!
My name is not based on that show, but on a starship in a novel I’m writing.
And I’ve got somewhere over 6,000 sf books and magazines.

[wolfpup]

@TennisMenace

Now, I do not believe it is my standing to admonish someone who is NOT a believer in Christ. They have not put themselves under the authority of the Scriptures as I have, so why would I use a book that means nothing to someone for the purpose of showing them right from wrong? That is absurd.

I agree. I have said in these discussions, and I will say again, that Christians (born-again, or otherwise) are free to believe what they like, just as long as they don’t try to impose their beliefs on everyone else. So while I disagree with your beliefs about gays, I support your stated position of not meddling in other people’s lives about matters that don’t concern you. I think it’s reasonable and enlightened.

@TennisMenace

On the other hand, a Christian should not be criticized for not supporting legislation that promotes “sin” according to their belief system. Doesn’t this make sense?

No, it does not, and it’s really sad and unfortunate that you just contradicted all that reasonableness you stated above. Laws don’t “promote” your aforementioned “fornication” or adultery or anything else you find so offensive. It’s not illegal to covet your neighbor’s wife, or flirt with her, or to engage in adultery, or have sex outside of marriage. In a civilized secular society there just are no laws banning those things. Just as there should be no laws banning gay relationships or curtailing the rights of all free and blameless human beings to participate in the institution of marriage and enjoy its legal and emotional benefits.

What you describe as “not supporting legislation” is really code for actively lobbying for laws that ban the things you don’t agree with, thereby imposing your religiously inspired beliefs on everyone, of all faiths and no faith alike, and curtailing their civil rights and undercutting their human dignity. And thereby making a mockery of the alleged open-minded righteousness in your first statement.

[TokyoBayer]

@TennisMenace

In conclusion, I respect a non believers right to believe as they see fit according to what they believe is right or wrong. My question is simply this though - does a non believer allow for me, and other believers, that same respect, or will we be subject to ridicule and mockery just because our beliefs are “archaic, different, or irrelevant” to them?

The problem is not that you hold what I consider archaic beliefs. I’m sure many of my beliefs are abhorrent to you. The issue is that unlike, say, many Orthodox Jews who believe their rules only pertain to them, many Christians hold that their beliefs are universal.

While you are claiming that you personally don’t have the right to “rebuke” those who are not followers, your fellows made damn sure that laws were enacted to prohibit equality for people you claim your god also made. The evidence that homosexuality is not a “lifestyle” or a choice, but rather something innate is overwhelming, but the vocal Christians ignore that to concentrate on their reading of a book written thousands of years ago for an entirely different culture and people.

Where were the calls for understanding before the courts rules in favor of equality and progress, undoing the evil which Christianity and imposed? It only now, that you lost, that suddenly we hear pleas for religious tolerance. Not before you imposed legal intolerance on others.

[lalaith]

@TennisMenace

On the other hand, a Christian should not be criticized for not supporting legislation that promotes “sin” according to their belief system. Doesn’t this make sense?

I frickin’ hate smoking ---- and that’s putting it mildly. I don’t oppose smoking being legal.

The problem isn’t that a segment of Christians are ‘not supporting legislation that promotes “sin” according to their belief system,’ it’s that you actively try to shove legislation down other people’s throats that’s based on your religion.

There’s a fight here locally about liquor sales on Sunday. Why is it that liquor sales are currently illegal on Sunday? You Christians and your blue laws. Which was why when I was a child many stores couldn’t be open on Sundays. Because it was your Christian Sabbath and according to your religion people shouldn’t work on the Sabbath ---- and you forced that religious rule on others through the force of law.

If you truly are simply ‘not supporting legislation that promotes “sin” according to their belief system,’ then don’t support it. But that doesn’t mean that you can oppose it.

For homosexual marriage, as you didn’t support it, you wouldn’t have been out there campaigning for it. But you’d tolerate (I said tolerate, not like, you don’t have to like it) other people doing it as they don’t share your religious beliefs.

It’s like me with smoking. I hate it. But others can do it.

[lalaith]

@TokyoBayer

Where were the calls for understanding before the courts rules in favor of equality and progress, undoing the evil which Christianity and imposed? It only now, that you lost, that suddenly we hear pleas for religious tolerance. Not before you imposed legal intolerance on others.

The Christian right reaction has really reminded me of the smoker’s reactions. When it became clear that laws were going to be passed restricting (not banning, but restricting) smoking, suddenly the smokers were making calls for politeness and restraint. When the smokers had their own way and could smoke everywhere it wasn’t a fire hazard – in other words, when they had the power — they showed zero politeness and restraint. (In my life I’ve never had a smoker ask me if they could light up.) Once it was clear they were losing, all of a sudden it’s there’s no need to pass laws, this can be handled another way.

So the Christian right reaction has been deja vu. When they had the power, there was no compromise, no tolerance. Make it illegal. Amendments against it. Civil unions can’t be equivalent to marriage. No to adoption. No to benefits. No to spousal rights. Not an ounce of compromise from the Christian right. Now they’ve lost the fight — a fight they made happen with their complete lack of tolerance and compromise — and now they’re suddenly supporters of civil unions and want understanding and tolerance.

There’s a phrase they should be familiar with:

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.

[TennisMenace]

@jayjay

In the same way that people with religious objections to racial equality and gender equality are ridiculed and mocked, so will those who object to equality of sexual orientation.

In other words, you have every right in the world to believe whatever the hell you want. What you don’t have is the right to make everyone else treat you like your opinion is correct.

I don’t expect everyone else to treat me like my opinion is correct. I didn’t even come close to insinuating that. I know that My opinion is just that…my opinion. Like I said, you don’t even have to agree with it if it is not yours. I have zero desire to “force” anyone to believe as I do, but I do enjoy sharing my beliefs and listening to others share theirs.

I realize the Declaration of Independence, while not binding law, talks about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I agree with these words. I have no problem with gays wanting to marry gays if that is what “makes them happy” just as I’m sure gays have no problem with heterosexuals marrying heterosexuals knowing this is what “makes them happy.”

The issue I brought up that has been commented on is why I don’t PROMOTE legislation to allow for these rights for gays if I understand this is merely their way to pursue their happiness just as I pursue mine.

Honestly, the only answer I have for that is this- because I do not believe the God of the holy bible supports this choice, I feel I cannot. I feel like I would be going against Him. I may be reading too much into this, but for now, this is where I am at.

Now, I don’t know if what I said in the above paragraph makes any sense nor do I expect you to agree with it, but I am doing my best to be transparent here and explain my rationale for my “inaction.”

Let me add this again- I’m not saying I’m right, I’m saying, I follow my conscience and my interpretation of the scriptures in order to try to incorporate them into my everyday walk through life.

TM

[TennisMenace]

@lalaith

The Christian right reaction has really reminded me of the smoker’s reactions. When it became clear that laws were going to be passed restricting (not banning, but restricting) smoking, suddenly the smokers were making calls for politeness and restraint. When the smokers had their own way and could smoke everywhere it wasn’t a fire hazard – in other words, when they had the power — they showed zero politeness and restraint. (In my life I’ve never had a smoker ask me if they could light up.) Once it was clear they were losing, all of a sudden it’s there’s no need to pass laws, this can be handled another way.

So the Christian right reaction has been deja vu. When they had the power, there was no compromise, no tolerance. Make it illegal. Amendments against it. Civil unions can’t be equivalent to marriage. No to adoption. No to benefits. No to spousal rights. Not an ounce of compromise from the Christian right. Now they’ve lost the fight — a fight they made happen with their complete lack of tolerance and compromise — and now they’re suddenly supporters of civil unions and want understanding and tolerance.

There’s a phrase they should be familiar with:

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.

I agree with much of what you said here lalaith. Let me add this- the Christian Right have frustrated me probably as much as you. I have had my run ins with the CR because I too have not supported everything they stand for. So many are “haters” and like someone said VERY JUDGMENTAL, that they make a bad name for all Christians who are much more moderate and try to represent Christianity through love and good deeds, rather than Bible thumping and intolerance.

[TennisMenace]

@wolfpup

I agree. I have said in these discussions, and I will say again, that Christians (born-again, or otherwise) are free to believe what they like, just as long as they don’t try to impose their beliefs on everyone else. So while I disagree with your beliefs about gays, I support your stated position of not meddling in other people’s lives about matters that don’t concern you. I think it’s reasonable and enlightened.

TM: thanks, and greetings wolf pup.
No, it does not, and it’s really sad and unfortunate that you just contradicted all that reasonableness you stated above. Laws don’t “promote” your aforementioned “fornication” or adultery or anything else you find so offensive. It’s not illegal to covet your neighbor’s wife, or flirt with her, or to engage in adultery, or have sex outside of marriage. In a civilized secular society there just are no laws banning those things. Just as there should be no laws banning gay relationships or curtailing the rights of all free and blameless human beings to participate in the institution of marriage and enjoy its legal and emotional benefits.

What you describe as “not supporting legislation” is really code for actively lobbying for laws that ban the things you don’t agree with, thereby imposing your religiously inspired beliefs on everyone, of all faiths and no faith alike, and curtailing their civil rights and undercutting their human dignity. And thereby making a mockery of the alleged open-minded righteousness in your first statement.

Wolf pup,
I think I addressed this to jay, so I don’t want to be redundant here. Just wanted to say hi and hope to continue this discussion and many more here.

TM

[TennisMenace]

@TokyoBayer

The problem is not that you hold what I consider archaic beliefs. I’m sure many of my beliefs are abhorrent to you. The issue is that unlike, say, many Orthodox Jews who believe their rules only pertain to them, many Christians hold that their beliefs are universal.

Where were the calls for understanding before the courts rules in favor of equality and progress, undoing the evil which Christianity and imposed? It only now, that you lost, that suddenly we hear pleas for religious tolerance. Not before you imposed legal intolerance on others.

Greetings TokyoBayer,

Yes, some Christians do believe their beliefs should be universal which makes little sense to me. As I read the Tanakh (First Testament), it appeared to me God was just interested in legislating His laws and will to his family, the Jewish people, not to the goyim (no believers).

I do believe God encourages his followers to go into the world and share the good news, but share does not mean beat over the head or stiff arm someone into submission. There is one big religion that scares me in that regard- believe as I do or die- and I wonder about the future regarding this religion.

As for only now hearing pleas for tolerance, you make a good point. I can’t argue with you on that. Personally, I have always tried to be tolerant, but I know it isn’t always that way with other believers.

TM

[kaylasdad99]

Welcome to the Dope, TennisMenace. You appear to be catching some of the splashover from the responses directed toward some of the parties who are STILL refusing to concede that they lost their battle to maintain a monopolistic hold on the institution of secular marriage. Since you just got here, it’s probably premature for anyone to assert that you are one of those parties.

For clarification, would it be accurate (or fair) to suggest that until the debate over SSM was decided by SCOTUS, you, personally, sat it out (the debate, that is)?

[TennisMenace]

@kaylasdad99

Welcome to the Dope, TennisMenace. You appear to be catching some of the splashover from the responses directed toward some of the parties who are STILL refusing to concede that they lost their battle to maintain a monopolistic hold on the institution of secular marriage. Since you just got here, it’s probably premature for anyone to assert that you are one of those parties.

For clarification, would it be accurate (or fair) to suggest that until the debate over SSM was decided by SCOTUS, you, personally, sat it out (the debate, that is)?

Greetings kaylasdad,

I got in late on this debate, but the people have been very civil toward me. The title of the debate bothered me because I believe it is not accurate to stereotype all people with one brush stroke. (I would have been here earlier Had I received an activation code email.)

I guess it is difficult to totally sit out because I do vote for presidents, who do nominate the Supreme Court judges, who ultimately make their ruling on matters such as these. So, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “sat out.” Regarding the debate, I know I did not actively support SSM but never had a problem with Civil Union. I struggled with the marriage part based on my interpretation of scripture in Genesis (between a man and a woman) and based upon how I believed God felt on the matter. imhope this answers your question.

Actually, it would be fairer to say that I didn’t lose anything because like I previously said, I was not a participant in this battle. I stated one reason why I was not involved and have never been involved. in addition, I try to live my life as an Ambassador for Jesus Christ. I try to major in the majors, and minor in the minors. What was important to Him is important to me. He strongly urged his followers to love even your “enemy” and to do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Christ reached out to all people, including sinners, and while being concerned about ones physical needs, He was more concerned about their souls. This is pretty much my attitude. I have a passion for sharing the gospel but don’t have a passion for marching in front of abortion clinics or marching for Gay marriage.

Ok, let me have it.
TM

[lalaith]

@TennisMenace

Greetings kaylasdad,
I guess it is difficult to totally sit out because I do vote for presidents, who do nominate the Supreme Court judges, who ultimately make their ruling on matters such as these. So, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “sat out.” Regarding the debate, I know I did not actively support SSM but never had a problem with Civil Union. I struggled with the marriage part based on my interpretation of scripture in Genesis (between a man and a woman) and based upon how I believed God felt on the matter. imhope this answers your question.
TM

Unless you’re a single issue candidate, I wouldn’t call voting for President opposing it.

[jayjay]

TennisMenace, I apologize for the tone. As someone said just upthread, you got some splashover. I don’t really have an issue with you, personally. I have an issue with the Christian privilege that our society in the US is absolutely permeated with, but that isn’t anything aimed at you.

[TennisMenace]

@jayjay

TennisMenace, I apologize for the tone. As someone said just upthread, you got some splashover. I don’t really have an issue with you, personally. I have an issue with the Christian privilege that our society in the US is absolutely permeated with, but that isn’t anything aimed at you.

Jay,
Apology accepted, but honestly Jay, I was not offended by your post. You were merely letting me know how you feel, and I never took it personally.

Shalom,
TM

[TokyoBayer]

TM, I didn’t welcome you to the board yet. So welcome.

Some questions if you don’t mind.

If the issue were race instead of homosexuality, and people were using their Christian religious views to say another race were inferior or such, how would you feel?

Does that contradict what you feel your god would like?

You stated that it feel it’s your duty to call out other Christians who sin.

I believe it is my duty according to scripture (let me know if you want the cite) to reprove, correct, and admonish my fellow brother or sister who may be wayward in these matters.

How far does this responsibility entail?

Is it your duty to reprove any gay Christians?

Is it your duty to reprove any Christians who supports SSM?

Is being gay a “lifestyle” and hence a “choice” or is it innate?

Does it matter?

Some Christian churches are now saying that homosexuality is not a sin in and of itself, but acting on it is. What are your views?

Is it reasonable for different people to view the interpretation of the Bible differently?

If not, why is your view correct?

Is it reasonable for some Christians to believe that homosexuality is not a sin?

How does that affect your duty to reproach sinners?

More later.

[TennisMenace]

@TokyoBayer

TM, I didn’t welcome you to the board yet. So welcome.

Some questions if you don’t mind.

If the issue were race instead of homosexuality, and people were using their Christian religious views to say another race were inferior or such, how would you feel?

TM: I’m not aware of race being a moral choice, or that there is a right or wrong choice here.
You stated that it feel it’s your duty to call out other Christians who sin. How far does this responsibility entail?

TM: for example, I have had to admonish brothers in Christ regarding known adultery. I’m not out on a witch hunt, basically people in my circles.

Is it your duty to reprove any gay Christians?

TM: any gay Christians…no. People in my circle…perhaps.

Is it your duty to reprove any Christians who supports SSM?

TM: no because their decision to support SSM may be based on the law of the land, which I can understand.

Is being gay a “lifestyle” and hence a “choice” or is it innate?

TM: not sure

Does it matter?

TM: I don’t think so. This may be a not so good example, but here goes- I have had an “innate” desire to have sex (with women) at a very young age, and was active in my youthful days. Then, I became born again and committed to follow Christ in my mid 20s. I immediately stopped fornicating because I believe it was His will for me to do so…except in marriage. I went years without experiencing that pleasure I had desired for many years. I feel, if you believe it is Gods will, you should follow Him, not your own passions.

Some Christian churches are now saying that homosexuality is not a sin in and of itself, but acting on it is. What are your views?

TM: oh well. They have that choice. I don’t agree it is not a sin as previously mentioned, but that is me and they are them.

Is it reasonable for different people to view the interpretation of the Bible differently?

TM: yes. I guess that is why we have so many denominations. This is why dialog and research come in to play. We are all accountable for our decisions. As I have said several times here, my beliefs are my beliefs, don’t have to be yours. I believe I will stand before God on my merit and my choices alone.

If not, why is your view correct?

TM: maybe they are not…but they are mine.

Is it reasonable for some Christians to believe that homosexuality is not a sin?

TM: I don’t think so. The scriptures seem clear enough to me.

How does that affect your duty to reproach sinners?

TM: I’m not out there pointing fingers at people. Like I said, my circle of people that I touch. And again, I do not reproach non believers based on my standard because I know it is not their standard.

More later.

More later!!! Yikes!!! :eek:

TM

[TennisMenace]

Tokyobayer,

I reread your first question on race. Let me add, I believe God has made ALL humans in his image. Therefore ALL are equally important and ALL are loved by God. (God so loved the WORLD…) Thus, there is no better race, and anyone who thinks otherwise would have to support why they believe this erroneous thinking.

PS. I did not see an edit button so I was unable to edit my original answer.