Homophobia: The New Closeted Homosexual

Originally posted by Stigma
@ Parmaniac, thanks for a a great post 👆 ( I cannot quote you for some reason, huh.)

I especially liked how you brought up data from German surveys that further collaborate Pew Research study and CNN poll.

Indeed, majority of Muslism are homophobic. 👆

The way you presented your argument is not sound biblical hermeneutics. You argue that homosexuality was only a sin directed at Israel as part of the law/covenant God made with Israel. That begs the question...why condemn homosexuality in the first place if it was to be acceptable after Christ's crucifixion?

Other things were forbidden under the law too. Murder, idolatry, covetousness, etc. Are those sins no longer applicable? Are the ten commandments no longer applicable? Of course not. Homosexuality is still a sin today. Paul even rebukes it in Romans.

Christians are commanded to love their neighbors, but not their sins. A Christians job is to love, yet still be firm with the truth of God's Word. That is completely different from being mean and bigoted...the way conservative Christians are viewed now.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The way you presented your argument is not sound biblical hermeneutics. You argue that homosexuality was only a sin directed at Israel as part of the law/covenant God made with Israel. That begs the question...why condemn homosexuality in the first place if it was to be acceptable after Christ's crucifixion?

Other things were forbidden under the law too. Murder, idolatry, covetousness, etc. Are those sins no longer applicable? Are the ten commandments no longer applicable? Of course not. Homosexuality is still a sin today. Paul even rebukes it in Romans.

Christians are commanded to love their neighbors, but not their sins. A Christians job is to love, yet still be firm with the truth of God's Word. That is completely different from being mean and bigoted...the way conservative Christians are viewed now.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The way you presented your argument is not sound biblical hermeneutics.

But as you discover later, we agree on actually everything. 👆

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You argue that homosexuality was only a sin directed at Israel as a part of the law/covenant God made with Israel.

I dispute the idea that Christians are obliged to be violent or kill homosexuals as some would like to say basing it on a limited view of Leviticus.

I personally think homosexuality is a sin (as Christianity teaches) but we are all sinners in various ways.

Like you say we love people, but sin, in all its various forms, is unacceptable to us and through moral struggle and good deeds, we need to become perfect. (as Jesus says in Mathew 5:43 -48) 👆

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
That begs the question... why condemn homosexuality in the first place if it was to be acceptable after Christ's crucifixion?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Other things were forbidden under the law too. Murder, idolatry, covetousness, etc. Are those sins no longer applicable?
Are the ten commandments no longer applicable?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Homosexuality is still a sin today. Paul even rebukes it in Romans.

But it’s not punishable by death as well as Christians are not to be violent towards sinners. Like Jesus aid, love them, but do not accept sin. 👆

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Christians are commanded to love their neighbors, but not their sins. A Christians job is to love, yet still be firm with the truth of God's Word. That is completely different from being mean and bigoted...the way conservative Christians are viewed now.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Presumably you would still hold that the moral precepts of the Old Law, i.e. Thou shalt not kill/commit adultery etc., are eternally and universally valid because they, as Paul notes, reflect the natural law which is written on human hearts Rms 1. (The natural law being the moral duties which follow from being a human being).

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Of course the Mosaic Law was also a civic law to govern the life of Israel, as you note, and so it dictated penalties for transgressions which no longer hold true because Israel has passed away and Christ himself has taken its place as the arc of salvation and body of the people of God.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
However, if something is morally wrong then it can be criminalised: we could make adultery illegal if we wanted to. Presumably you would be open, given what Christian teaching confirms and reveals about the nature of man, to criminising homosexual activity at least in principle?

Jesus teaches: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things.” Matthew 22:21

I would like to have sinners revoke their ways rather through faith.

* 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.' -- full quote.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
just because you don't agree with the logic or have a belief in god makes it about as barbaric as you ignorant.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
It's basically "I don't believe in God" or "I don't like these laws", therefore they're barbaric.

I believe in God/greater power, at least I think that's more likely than just randomness

Condemning consenting adults to death due to their sexuality is barbaric, doesn't matter if it's from 5,000 years ago or today

Seems you're getting touchy for no reason though, it's not like I'm saying everything in the Torah/Bible/Qur'an is barbaric.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The difficulty with these questions is that contrasting values which have emerged in modernity, with all its different presuppositions about Personhood, Nature, Individualism etc., etc., with those arrived at in a very different context is actually a very laborious task. If one isn't willing to do the work to unpick and understand intellectual history then fine but their views are, as a consequence, probably no more than ill thought out opinion.

I think what modern people don't like to admit is that the philosophical and cultural understanding which produced an aversion to sodomy in the ancient and medieval worlds (Ancient Greece and Rome also held to this aversion, though to differing degrees) is actually quite robust and not simplistic bigotry inspired by arbitrary religious judgments.

We can go "different times, different people", but it's still condemning consenting adults to death. Why I called the practice "barbarism".

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe in God/greater power, at least I think that's more likely than just randomness

Condemning consenting adults to death due to their sexuality is barbaric, doesn't matter if it's from 5,000 years ago or today

Seems you're getting touchy for no reason though, it's not like I'm saying everything in the Torah/Bible/Qur'an is barbaric.

I'm not getting touchy, just pointing out the ignorance of such a generic statement.

Polls

Since PEW is already well known here let me add some other countries

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

American muslims "tend" to be far more moderate in their beliefs but in other countries that isn't true. It's a backward religion that even if only the minority are "extreme" there are more muslims then the population of the USA.

Originally posted by Stigma
👆

It seems Rob is oblivious to historical and cultural context of the Bible, and in general, any in-depth study of religion.

He is not beyond using idiotic stereotypes as tenets in his posts, though 👆

Look at your anger, all because you were wrong.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Well I'll just chop it up to your lack of knowledge on the subject. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Agree to disagree.

Once again, this is a cop out. First you come say you don't care what they are called, but then you say "we shouldn't call them this because we'll alienate them" even though no sane rational human being would suddenly get pissed off that you label something radical Islam.

So you either feel these people are crazy or that they are so uneducated they really can't tell what words like "radical" mean. Then you try to chastise me for "not understanding the culture".

Originally posted by Robtard
We can go "different times, different people", but it's still condemning consenting adults to death. Why I called the practice "barbarism".

Ah, that word 'consenting' is where the difficulty lies. If an act is objectively bad by some standard then that one, two or an infinite number of people agree to participate in it does not make it ok.

Indeed, one might think permitting certain acts on the basis of mutual-consent is one definition of moral barbarism: it appears to neglect, or even reject, an objective moral truth which people, at least historically, have regarded the recognition and respect of to be the basis of civilisation. (Obviously we can dispute the content of what is true but that's a different thing from relativism which, in turn, is a different thing from moral apathy.)

I guess one might argue that most forms of relativism are ultimately based on a presupposition of objectivity, i.e. the objective principle that people should allowed to discern what is right 'for them' so perhaps only moral apathy is really the antithesis to civilisation and therefore barbaric. Depends how you want to play it I spose...

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I'm not getting touchy, just pointing out the ignorance of such a generic statement.

Not to pick a fight, but you do get touchy whenever someone critics anything about Judaism.

I think condemning gays to death is barbaric, I honestly don't believe you support the practice either. But let us just agree to disagree here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not to pick a fight, but you do get touchy whenever someone critics anything about Judaism.

I think condemning gays to death is barbaric, I honestly don't believe you support the practice either. But let us just agree to disagree here.

I don't get touchy when it comes to Judaism, I get touchy when it comes to ignorance. It could be Christianity, Islam, my penis size, etc.

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at your anger, all because you were wrong.

Rob, you'd be wise to know by now that your old tactics of "subtle" trolling and baiting are not working at all. Step up your game, because you look silly 👆

Originally posted by Robtard
Not to pick a fight, but you do get touchy whenever someone critics anything about Judaism.

I think condemning gays to death is barbaric, I honestly don't believe you support the practice either. But let us just agree to disagree here.

It's not for me to advise but I'd just ignore insults/swipes from folks and stick, where possible, to whatever actual content they bring to the table.

Also, it seems to me that its worth remembering that the ancients didn't have a concept of 'gays'. People who did things like sodomy etc., were not qualitatively different in the ancient world-view but rather they were people the same as everyone else who did what was considered to be profoundly unnatural.

I think it is harder for us to grasp because we have a very different, often unstated, understanding of how the movements of the will inform our identity which is in large part because confidence in knowable essences went out with Ockham and Kant. It's worth reading Ken Dover's book: Greek Homosexuality, it was reprinted recently.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Ah, that word 'consenting' is where the difficulty lies. If an act is objectively bad by some standard then that one, two or an infinite number of people agree to participate in it does not make it ok.

Indeed, one might think permitting certain acts on the basis of mutual-consent is one definition of moral barbarism: it appears to neglect, or even reject, an objective moral truth which people, at least historically, have regarded the recognition and respect of to be the basis of civilisation. (Obviously we can dispute the content of what is true but that's a different thing from relativism which, in turn, is a different thing from moral apathy.)

I guess one might argue that most forms of relativism are ultimately based on a presupposition of objectivity, i.e. the objective principle that people should allowed to discern what is right 'for them' so perhaps only moral apathy is really the antithesis to civilisation and therefore barbaric. Depends how you want to play it I spose...

True, but when is sex between adults "objectively bad"? We're literally just going back to the scripture and saying man+woman parts = good, man+man parts = bad

Historically, homosexuality has thrived as it has wilted. There have been several cultures where it wasn't a bad thing, periods of Greece and Rome as you mentioned, even remember reading that in one of Japan's historical periods man-love was actually viewed as greater. Also think the Incas (at least for a period) didn't view homosexuality as something different than heterosexuality, it was all just sex.

No real disagreement I think (if I read you correctly), but "what is right for them" needs to also respect the humanity of others.

Originally posted by Stigma
Look at your sound refutation of my points... oh, wait, there is none 🙄

Rob, you'd be wise to know by now that your old tactics of "subtle" trolling and baiting are not working at all. Step up your game, because you look silly 👆

If you're talking about the garbled quote mess on the other page it was just that, a mess. You used non sequiturs, strawmen and a nice little "no you!". Shape up, learn how to quote and reply on the direct topic, don't try and move the goalpost because you're stuck.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It's not for me to advise but I'd just ignore insults/swipes from folks and stick, where possible, to whatever actual content they bring to the table.

Also, it seems to me that its worth remembering that the ancients didn't have a concept of 'gays'. People who did things like sodomy etc., were not qualitatively different in the ancient world-view but rather they were people the same as everyone else who did what was considered to be profoundly unnatural.

I think it is harder for us to grasp because we have a very different, often unstated, understanding of how the movements of the will inform our identity which is in large part because confidence in knowable essences went out with Ockham and Kant. It's worth reading Ken Dover's book: Greek Homosexuality, it was reprinted recently.

Can't disagree; good advice.

Wouldn't that make them "different" in a similar way how many (usually bigots) view homosexuals today? Seems like two sides to the same coin to me, thb.

Not sure I'll ever check that book out, but thanks for the input.

Originally posted by Stigma
Look at your sound refutation of my points... oh, wait, there is none 🙄

Rob, you'd be wise to know by now that your old tactics of "subtle" trolling and baiting are not working at all. Step up your game, because you look silly 👆

I'm not able to quote your longer posts for some reason, so I'll use this one.

I apologize for misrepresenting your explanation of Old Testament laws and customs. It turns out that we do agree, more or less. Currently, homosexuals have an agenda to edit Scriptures to remove the sin nature of homosexuality. The Queen James Bible is one example of this. I had read the links you provided some time ago. Those sites tend to justify homosexuality as not being sinful, but rather they propose that homosexuality is not a sin, but a misunderstanding of context. I assumed you held the same position, hence my rebuttal. Agaim, I apologize for the misunderstanding.