Amen.

 

Over generalizations do not win you gold ribbons for historical accuracy or context; let alone objectivity in analysis. Presuming your attempting it.

Overgeneralizations? Not at all, the Old Testament is full of pure hatred, perversions and abominations. I could post a million pieces of evidence here to support this. Death to those who work on Saturdays, death to homosexuals, etc. etc. 

I didn't talk about people but ideologies... 

 

To old and to lame..... as the OT and NT were not the sole reasons for exclusion of homosexuality as an anathema. Developing dogma..which incidentally eliminated and continues to eliminate, much of what the atheist would promote to the contrary and yet deny....is there as well..... as for pure hatred? An over generalisation whether you wish to admit it or not.

 

My personal objections aside...did I not admit that the cultural development and acceptance will not be determined by the people? And that rights civil and humanitarian, must still be examined and acknowledged. Those who love freedom and the Constitution can deal with the traditional versus the change. Nor am I alone.

 

Unless of course, you perceive me to be a feigned, intellectual old fraud; who merely spews nonsense according to a party line. You wont be the first. Unwilling to recognise the historic and culture development and continuing enlargement of acceptance of homosexuality as it has developed. What was once accepted in one place once and later was not in another is the history of societal development, enlightened expressionism, modifications of theological dogmatic expressions and a developement of civil liberties.  And the ongoing attempts to secularise the world community.

Which is not new.

 

But if you think I'm a fraud then say so....have the guts to do so.....don't hide behind the admonitions of others.

 

The bl...homosexuality was admired or accepted in many contextual eras, over many periods, in many locations, for many reasons. Which may or may not have changed. Such was the case of the intent of the op insofar as the development of Christianity-Judaism-Islam et.al until recently. To either a greater or lesser degree...theology specific.

 

Whether I approve of it is immaterial...it ntl is a historic reality.

 

So either I'm an old fraud....or I'm an objective, as possible, historian trained to know it....and admit to it's development.

 

You choose.

 

Personally I don't give a rats ass damn. I'm to old to worry about wannabe critics.

 

 

But you choose...declare me a fraud and gawdamn be done... or go away wtih your overgenalizations and inabilities to to recognise objectivism versus subjectivism. Your not a historian. You might be one day but ya damn sure aint one now.

The right/wrong debate leaves me cold when it comes to sexuality between consending adults.

Punishment for any sexual acts between adults is also ludicrous, not only according to western values but also according to values of nations of the far east.

You repeat the word fraud way too much. I wonder why???

I never even implied you were a fraud, what kind of rhetoric is that?

The debate is not objectivism vs subjectivism here. The debate is about homophobia and christianity, while it should be homophobia and the 3 main monotheistic religions (Jews, Christians and muslims) which have something in common: The Old Testament.

The Old Testament, undeniably and undoubtedly, is full of direct hatred against homosexuality. That doesn't mean an atheist cannot be homophobic as well, BUT it surely means that homophobia is clearly promoted by all 3 Abrahamic religions.

On the contrary, the old religions of Europe (Roman & Greek) were tolerant and embraced free human sexuality like ...orgies . which revived in the 60s with the hippy movement

So, the bottom line is this: The old religions of Europe were much closer to liberal and open-minded ideologies than abrahamic religions, which were imported from the Middle East.

If you hate homosexuality, you hate homosexuals too, there is no other way. You can't love homosexuals while hating on homosexuality 

Moreover, there is a passage saying that homosexuals must be  killed.... There is no room for alternative interpretations here. The Old Testament is clear and the Old Testament is part of ALL 3 main monotheistic religions!

 

You're wrong Titan. I'm a believer in Christianity, and quite grounded in it. Our example is to love as Christ loved. Just because we know the consequences of other people's actions (Or even attitudes), doesn't mean that we WANT that consequence to follow. The problem with citing the Old Testament as a hate mongering book is that it is based on preserving Israel so it will produce the Messiah so he could save all of Mankind. (That's Jesus to us, the Believers). Hence why so many harsh rules were enforced.

Christianity does not really reject the Old Testament which remains as part of the new religion. The New Testament improves on the Old one, but does accept it as ...prehistory. 

Then you are an exception to the rule... All those who hate homosexuality, hate homosexuals too, either with or without showing it... 

This is a pure contradiction. Mosaic laws were quite clear and ruthless. You cannot honour them by.... rejecting them! 

 

Well now that's a convenient way to unfairly condemn Christianity.

The Old Testament's laws were put into place so that the Jewish people could produce the Messiah (Which is Jesus). Jesus paid honor and accepted the Old Covenant because it was and still is God's Word. It doesn't mean we ought to run around wiping out cities and stoning people for not keeping the law. The point of Jesus accepting the Old Covenant was God's Word simply only applies to recognizing it as God's Word. That's it.

So you admit that God approved laws that require the killing of homosexuals or those who work on the Sabbath day.... 

Unfortunately, the deaths of thousands or even millions is nothing compared to the eternal agony and suffering of Hell. Without the Messiah who was brought forth from the Jewish people, the truth of the matter is the eternal destiny of everyone who has ever lived would be Hell.

The death of many people through seemingly unfair laws or even misunderstandings is preferable to the entirety of Mankind going to Hell.

A god who is all-loving and all-knowing, demands the death of homosexuals and those who work on a Sabbath day? I don't sense much love there. It sounds more like a Punisher. 

 

An all-KNOWING God would put the suffering and discomfort in front of people, even innocents ahead of them to avoid ETERNAL SUFFERING AND AGONY. God's not a quicker fixer upper. He's an Eternal God who plans to wipe out all Evil and ultimately even all suffering from the universe. If he wants to just get rid of Evil he'd have to kill everyone. So he's doing it the best way. We in our mortal understandings cannot fathom why he does things the way he does, but he does.

 

 

I found out that debating with anyone with their mindset on condemning my Faith is worthless anyway. So that's one thing you've said in this entire discussion that makes any sense to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is however historically accurate to describe their punishment in the very early Christian era viz the Code Theodosian. Death by fire. Like a witch or sorcerer etc.

It's all a misunderstanding, Nick.

 

 

You say homosexual acts between consenting adults is no ones business to judge but do you feel the same toward sexual sibling relations?

 

The reason we have advanced as a civilization is becuase we were able to provide checks and balances upon each other. In other words, we judged each other based on our idea of the ideal human future. This human future is founded on the idea that we were created for a purpose. 

 

This is why we were able to pass our "caveman" philosophy of "do what tho wilt" and advance toward "be mindful of your brother". By this decree we were bathed in civilization.

It depends on what type of cousin we are talking about.... If it's about first cousins, then it sounds like incest to me. If it is a third cousin, the blood connection is really distant. 

 

Ok I will attempt to explain my "ideal Human future" theory. It has nothing to do with race, its more of an ideology. People of one mind and understanding. The belief that we are unique beings, set apart from all other species, with a responsibility to advance loving relationships. This does not exclude diversity of thought but this diversity most be in the context of the aforementioned foundation. This is romanticism at its finest, but I feel we should work toward this goal.

 

I made this shift into marriage becuase this is were it inevitably leads too. Why do we have this modern-day issue? Its becuase homosexuals have a growing desire to get married. Sex clearly wasnt enough for them. In this sense, "be mindful of your brother". Marriage is an established instituion. Whether it be one man multiple woman, one woman multiple men, Male and Female relatives etc. Its all in the context of Male and Female relationships.

 

Perhaps I took this to the next level too soon.

 

I was of the mind that homosexual relationships were not controversial at all in abrahamic religions. There was no debate as to its "sinfulness". It would help if you provided a source for this controversy that seems to me to be very modern in my book.

 

The issue is not about acceptance. Can I go and join an all Female choir....No, becuase I am a male. This doesnt mean my gender is unacceptable. I cannot join an all Female college becuase I am a Male. Is that discrimination? No, becuase it is a unique, established institution.

 

Yes Institutions do change but the main reason that they do is because they begin to incorporate dehumanizing practices. ex...slavery was not always dehumanizing.

 

Im not concerned about sexual homo relations. Thats between them. Im just saying that you cant try and legitimize your relationship by creating some pseudo-philosophy in order to participate in an already defined institution. Your right the meaning of marriage is not universal. However, in the United States, it is culturally, historically, and traditionally defined between man and woman.

 

My point:

You cant hunt rabbits on a pool table just because its green.

 

Explanation:

Just because there is an institution of marriage does not mean everybody has the right to get married

 

But Sidney can you see that If I were to join this Female choir it automatically loses its unique nature. It is no longer a special insitution set aside for a specific purpose.

 

The exclusion of female doctors and black players had a dehumanizing element. It alluded that they were inferiority. If i am not allowed to join an all female choir that does not mean im inferior. Homosexuals are not inferior because they cant get married. Their exclusion from marriage has nothing to do with their humanity or equality. Just like my exclusion from female clubs and or institutions have nothing to do with my humanity or equality.

Since I have aligned myself with the Christians, the real problem that Christians have is not "homosexuality," but the relative decline of morality in the Western Society at large. "Gay marriage" issue has become a sticking point for Christians in general.  Liberals have gone too far.