News and Politics Forum

I'm all about being concise but you guys are asking some pretty big questions.  Your questions are tied to the whole the Bible and really require an understanding of Adam and Eve to Jesus on the cross... If you really want the answer you have to read what Guy and Buho post. They've answered you in as concise a manner as I can think.

The short of it is that there is no reason to be against shellfish but there is plenty of cause to be against homosexuality.  That said, the vast majority of Christians aren't standing around with signs that say "God hates fags!"  and it's probably not a very Biblical behavior to engage in anyway.  However, Christians also can't say something is ok when we don't believe it is.  If we are asked to pass a law giving rights to homosexuals we can't in good conscience agree with it.  If asked what we think about homosexuality, we can't in good conscience say that it's ok.

T wrote:

I have a problem with them telling you WHO you can sleep with though.

In a moral or legal sense?

I'll also comment on, since it keeps coming up, the people who wear signs and yell things at gay events.  From a practical aspect these events are an easy target.  You have a bunch of naughty people in one place that are doing something that are easy to point to and say "that's wrong!".  It's the same thing as protesting an abortion clinic or right to life rally.

On top of this, homosexuality is an easy target because most people don't struggle with it.  You won't catch these people protesting anger, lazyness, lack of love or whatever because they know they are guilty of it.

T wrote:

In a moral or legal sense?

I have a problem with judging someone based on their sexual preference.

I think you mean something different.  I think you mean that judging people to be generally inferior or worthy of contempt solely because they are sexually attracted to the same sex is undesirable, and people who disown family members and friends for that reason (possibly the subject of the film?) unjustly injure people.  I agree.

We do daily judge people on heighth, hair color, beauty, fitness, apparent wealth and bunches of other traits that may not do them complete justice.

If I told you that I would refrain from judging someone based on a sexual preference for children, I would expect to be banned.  Lots of preferences are fair game for judging people.  To single out homosexuality as the sole thing we can't judge people on seems like an over-reaction to the sort of stupidity you saw in the film.

I know plenty of homosexuals who function as and are normal, perfectly tolerable people.  The lavender sequin bedazzled lisping swish who so identifies himself with giving strangers on the turnpike blowjobs that he has to join a parade about it does invite a certain level of judgment that he is not ideally positioned to persuasively protest.

T wrote:

In a moral or legal sense?

I have a problem with judging someone based on their sexual preference. If that's what YOU believe fine.....but I don't care to have judgment passed based solely on who I decide to sleep with. And yes, I know it's a flawed argument and it raises other arguments, but I never said I had a rock solid belief system.

Do you mean judging them into Hell or just judging in general?  I'll defer to Matt on the general judging.

If it's the former, I have a problem with it too.  Gay people don't get the express train to Hell and I think you'll find most Christians understand this.

Edit - I see you meant the latter.

People suck.  Christian or not.  The problem with Christianity is that we have a lot of fakers and even the people who are true believers aren't exempt from acting like turds.  On behalf of Christendom... sorry

Last edited by Jesus Is My Pilot (07-23-2008 08:58 PM)

Zuk wrote:

(Apparently syphilis didn't make Fred stronger)

LOL!  Q.E.D.

JIMP wrote:

the vast majority of Christians aren't standing around with signs that say "God hates fags!"

And a good thing, too.  That's actually theologically incorrect.  God hates homosexual actions, not the homosexuals themselves.  But yeah, even if that were theologically correct (which it isn't), where's the love in shouting that?  That's wrong on two levels.  JIMP is right in that we cannot endorse homosexual behavior (because God does not), but we can still love the homosexual.... Er, in a platonic way.

T wrote:

And yes, I know it's a flawed argument and it raises other arguments, but I never said I had a rock solid belief system.

Refreshingly up-front! 

Zuk wrote:

I know plenty of homosexuals who function as and are normal, perfectly tolerable people.

+1  I'll only add an exception:  the ones I know seem to recognize the unique position they are in to tell homosexual jokes and poke fun at their own position.    Reminds me of Seinfeld:

Seinfeld:  "I need to talk to you about my dentist.  I think he's converted to Judaism just for the jokes."
Priest:  "And this offends you as a Jewish person?"
Seinfeld:  "No, it offends me as a comedian!"

JIMP wrote:

Do you mean judging them into Hell or just judging in general?

Point of information:  The former is impossible (although we can try and offend people in the process).  God does the judging.

The latter is a little more complex.  To judge means to divide, or discern.  There is one kind of judging, like discerning between short and tall.  Zuk elucidated this in his most recent post in different words.  There is another judging, a moral judging, picking apart someone's faults and confronting them with it in a manner to take them down, particularly when you are guilty of the same.  This is condemned in Matthew 7 ("first remove the plank from your eye before pointing out the speck in their eye").

JIMP wrote:

People suck.  Christian or not.

+1.  Christiains are a bunch of hypocrites.  It's true.  Every time I fail to meet God's standard (which is every day), I become a hypocrite.  I've said a lot of things I shouldn't have.

Raoul Duke wrote:

Buho wrote:

Raoul Duke wrote:

Why do so many Christians use the OT, particularly Leviticus, as reason for their belief that God sees homosexuality as an "abomination" while many parts of that same book are largely disregarded?

Already answered by others, and myself in this post.  Let me know where I can perform the atonement for sin by animal sacrifice (most of Leviticus).  Last I heard, the temple was flattened in 70 AD and the Muslims currently have control of the site.

Can you humor me?  I am a simple guy; I don't see where you address [this].  They don't become upset at people who have contact with menstruating women, who plant multiple crops in fields, eat shellfish or wear clothing of mixed fibers.

I actually answered your question in stealth and in brief in the quote above.  Christians are to follow all of God's laws.  The ones you mention are some of God's laws.  Other laws of God include animal sacrifice.  Why did you not include that one?  There is a reason why Christians don't sacrifice animals:  because there is nowhere to sacrifice them.  Other reasons include Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice, once and for all (the trash analogy I used earlier).  This is a brief glimpse into the reasons why Christians do not feel obligated to follow all of Leviticus.  As you can see, it's complicated.  I hope you don't see it as evasive; the reasons are grounded firmly in core Christian theology.

Regarding wearing rayon and cotton blend clothing, this one is particularly convicting for me, personally.  It is right next to the #2 greatest commandment:  love your neighbor as you love yourself.  By right next to I mean:

Lev 19:18 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Lev 19:19 " 'Keep my decrees.
      " 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
      " 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
      " 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'"

Its proximity makes me wary of dismissing it easily.  I have extreme trouble fathoming how wearing a silk and polyester shirt does harm to my relationship to God or my relationship to others (the greatest two commandments).  I haven't completed a full study on this verse yet but I am concerned with loving God with every fiber of my being, and that includes obeying Him.  Whatever the case, if I sin, I thank God Jesus has me covered. 

Most people ignore this law simply because they have no clue it even exists.  It's really small, mentioned only once in the Bible.  The same goes with many, many others.

The homosexuality question really is an open-and-shut case.  If you are interested in obeying God, you cannot engage in homosexual acts, for reasons stated a few pages ago.  It violates the sanctity of marriage and the created order, to name two.  Further, it is destructive to both homosexual parties both physically and mentally.  It is not a good thing.

By the way, legalism -- focusing your attention on following every jot and tittle of God's law to the fault of forgetting to love God -- is a sin in of itself.  That's why it's a lot easier to focus on God's greatest two commandments, which sums up all the laws and gets to the spirit of the law, not the letter.

If you want my opinion, I think those people holding signs aren't very effective.  They only work if the homosexual is bothered by bucking God.  Most could care less.  That's why I don't push it.  I was saved as a sinner.  Only after I was saved did God start changing me.  If God saves the homosexual, God, in his infinite, tender love, will gently work in the homosexual to turn from his old, sinful desires.  That's a kind of work I (or any protester) can't do:  an inward work.

I think that Christians, if they choose to vote, should vote on issues that effect them directly. Issues that will glorify God. Has attacking homosexuality/abortion glorified God and elevated Christians? It has given the opposition a platform on which to attack, and that which gives the enemy power is evil. Why spend time on such issues if more pressing ones are at hand?
Heres the problem: A minority of people within our religion, not that I support that term [religion]but I use it here for abbreviation, have attempted to co-opt it and use it to justify there own personal hate and vendetta's. That has made us all look bad. It is time that Christians stand up and preach Christ like love, through which people are saved.

Last edited by Thundersnow (07-23-2008 10:25 PM)

zukiphile wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

I think that Christians, if they choose to vote, should vote on issues that effect them directly.

You can care about people and behave as if you do, or you can do the above, but they are choices and not complimentary.

I fail to see how they are mutually exclusive. I find that politics and religion are at times at odds. Voting on issues that have no bearing on the Christians life are pointless. It is not my place to decide what is best for another. I have read/heard both schools of thought on this, and this is where I stand. More in line with Ronald Siders thought.

Thundersnow wrote:

Has attacking homosexuality/abortion glorified God and elevated Christians?

I don't think self elevation is the proper purpose behind opposing abortion.

That is not meant as self elevation, but rather holding Christians themselves to a standard higher than mans (Gods).

They are God's people, therefore I have concern for them. To clarify: I do not not care about others (I work with people everyday, seven days a week), I find that politics may be at odds with Christian life. I am still unsure on this issue as I have not researched it as thoroughly as I would like. There are a few schools of thought on this. Should I care about two groups of atheist killing each other? Not sure (yet).

Buho wrote:

I actually answered your question in stealth and in brief in the quote above.  Christians are to follow all of God's laws.  The ones you mention are some of God's laws.

Laws that while I've no proof, the people I mention - who so fervently believe homosexuality to be an abomination to The Lord - ignore, or are not as upset about.  They spew lines from Leviticus and ignore the ones re: slaves, textiles, shellfish and yes animal sacrifice.  You seem focused on this being noplace sacrifice them. 

My understanding is that Jesus' sacrifice did away with that need prior to the sacking of the temple. 

It doesn't explain the inherent hypocrisy in quoting a book of the Bible as immutable proof of something while ignoring other bits of that same book.

I don't see you as being evasive; I'm definitely focusing in on one specific point - and my reasoning most likely does not apply to you - I just find people who pick and choose those things they wish to consider sinful and worthy of scorn to be a distasteful lot. 

I grew up Catholic - attended Jesuit schools but am by no means a Biblical scholar.  That said I do understand what you're getting at - I'm mostly addressing the aforementioned types who enjoy so much to condemn others when it is my understanding that is best left to God Himself.   

Of course a few of those signs I saw did include Catholics in the list of those they see as headed down the highway to hell. 

Lovely people.

I don't mean to be personally insulting.  The majority of my family and most of my best friends are devout Christians.  Its a solid philosophy for a successful life.  All credit where credit is due.

It also has the largest population of self righteous, judgmental hypocrites, who refuse to acknowledge inconsistencies between their own doctrine and practices.  Yet they still try to rationalize around it.....

I had another thought.  Christians are not born-again into a legal system like what the Jews had 2000 years ago.  They are born-again into a relationship.  Maybe a legal system should be in place, or some kind of discipleship program that instructs all believers in the obscure laws of God?  I dunno.  What do you think?  (As I said, most don't even know about these laws.)  But as I said, I study and I still am not clear that these odd laws should be followed.  If I don't follow them, in order to be called a hypocrite, it must be established that these laws should be followed, which I haven't seen a case for yet here.

Christians (and Muslims as mentioned) have a set of morals.  Certain things are right and wrong.  Most of the rest of the world is nowhere as rigorous in their morality.  If you compare a Christian and an agnostic, the Christian will make known that certain things should and should not be done, whereas the agnostic won't see a problem with this.  Since the Christian has set the bar so high, he is apt to stumble as a hypocrite much more often than the agnostic. 


It's a political cartoon, but it can be applied to devout Christians and most everyone else.

EDIT:  Sorry, I keep blending the two groups that were distinguished earlier here.  The serious, devout, born-again, Christ-following Christians, and the Christians-in-name-only.  Both claim a moral standard, but only the former seriously attempt to live by it.  It's the latter that are derided here.

Last edited by Buho (07-24-2008 01:46 PM)

That is an absolutely AWESOME cartoon, thank you.  It very succinctly communicates what has always been one of my pet peeves/themes.

If you compare a Christian and an agnostic, the Christian will make known that certain things should and should not be done, whereas the agnostic won't see a problem with this.

You'd be surprised.  I'm agnostic, and I'm pretty much the only person I know who seems to understand/accept the Catholic Church's position on matters like birth control.  That includes most nominal Catholics.

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (07-24-2008 01:47 PM)

zukiphile wrote:

Buho wrote:

If you compare a Christian and an agnostic, the Christian will make known that certain things should and should not be done, ...

Would you include liberal yankee presbys and episcos in that group?

LOL!  Wow, throw in redneck otaku cinematographer hipster moms while you're at it.  I have no idea what a liberal yankee Presyterian is.  I picked generic groups to illustrate, and I used the formal definition of "Christian", not the political one.