• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Desmond Tutu Would Prefer Hell Over A Homophobic Heaven

TacticalEvilDan said:
Calling something sin is definitely a theological question. The rest of it is not. Furthermore, it would seem to me that someone whose relationship with god is not healthy (or at least not as healthy) is just the kind of someone a church would welcome with open arms, since that's exactly the kind of person Jesus would have tried to embrace and heal, no?
Click to expand...


that's one way of looking at it yes... but it isn't the only school of thought, and both sides can present their own theological backing, which makes for a complicated discussion.


Without getting into all that (a doctoral level theological dissertation), I'm just pointing out that it isn't simply a matter of being personally judgmental, but also of theological issues.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Sin isn't a matter for men to judge, repentance or no repentance. I thought the Bible was pretty clear about that.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is a matter for men to judge. Otherwise Jesus would not have died for us. You have not read the Bible then as it is clear we are to avoid sin and sinners.
 
I can't seem to find a link to the details of the bishop's remarks, but let me say that I think his position is likely a smidge more complex than is being made out here.

Desmond Tutu's remarks need to be seen through the lens of his fight against apartheid and the injustice black people suffered from decades of South African law. I would guess that Tutu's eyes are not focused solely on marriage rights, but on worldwide discrimination including the death penalty for homosexuality in some places.

In principle I agree with the statements he has been quoted with that have been made widely available. If, however, he approves of homosexuality (which is different from merely not being homophobic), my stance would differ from his. But again, he has seen the depths of injustice inflicted on a powerless minority, so I am willing to give him some latitude for extending his feelings toward genuine persecution of homosexuals.
 
ChuckBerry said:
I can't seem to find a link to the details of the bishop's remarks, but let me say that I think his position is likely a smidge more complex than is being made out here.

Desmond Tutu's remarks need to be seen through the lens of his fight against apartheid and the injustice black people suffered from decades of South African law. I would guess that Tutu's eyes are not focused solely on marriage rights, but on worldwide discrimination including the death penalty for homosexuality in some places.

In principle I agree with the statements he has been quoted with that have been made widely available. If, however, he approves of homosexuality (which is different from merely not being homophobic), my stance would differ from his. But again, he has seen the depths of injustice inflicted on a powerless minority, so I am willing to give him some latitude for extending his feelings toward genuine persecution of homosexuals.
Click to expand...


A thoughtful and well-considered reply
 
ChuckBerry said:
I can't seem to find a link to the details of the bishop's remarks, but let me say that I think his position is likely a smidge more complex than is being made out here.

Desmond Tutu's remarks need to be seen through the lens of his fight against apartheid and the injustice black people suffered from decades of South African law. I would guess that Tutu's eyes are not focused solely on marriage rights, but on worldwide discrimination including the death penalty for homosexuality in some places.

In principle I agree with the statements he has been quoted with that have been made widely available. If, however, he approves of homosexuality (which is different from merely not being homophobic), my stance would differ from his. But again, he has seen the depths of injustice inflicted on a powerless minority, so I am willing to give him some latitude for extending his feelings toward genuine persecution of homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Here are some of his remarks and an explanation of their context: Desmond Tutu: 'I would not worship a God who is homophobic' - Africa - World - The Independent
 
ChuckBerry said:
I can't seem to find a link to the details of the bishop's remarks, but let me say that I think his position is likely a smidge more complex than is being made out here.

Desmond Tutu's remarks need to be seen through the lens of his fight against apartheid and the injustice black people suffered from decades of South African law. I would guess that Tutu's eyes are not focused solely on marriage rights, but on worldwide discrimination including the death penalty for homosexuality in some places.

In principle I agree with the statements he has been quoted with that have been made widely available. If, however, he approves of homosexuality (which is different from merely not being homophobic), my stance would differ from his. But again, he has seen the depths of injustice inflicted on a powerless minority, so I am willing to give him some latitude for extending his feelings toward genuine persecution of homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Well said. I agree with the highlighted part 100%.
 
Black Manta said:
That is not what you said...

Those which don't aren't Christian churches. - TacticalEvilDan

You are confusing sinner with unrepentant sinner.
Click to expand...

Nope, because I also said, "Sin isn't a matter for men to judge, repentance or no repentance."

If you're going to try to score points by quoting me back to myself, at least read what I say. I stand by my words.
 
Black Manta said:
We are not Jesus. We try to emulate, but we are not him.
Click to expand...

Yep, which is why any church that has a policy of turning away sinners it believes is unrepentant is not a Christian church. I suppose one or two could be turned away in error and it could be chalked up to human fallibility, but consistently turning them away? No, that's not Christian

Black Manta said:
We are by your standards to accept devil worshipers. No, it is just stupid.
Click to expand...

So long as they don't disrupt the service, I can't think of a reason in the world why you'd turn them away.
 
Goshin said:
that's one way of looking at it yes... but it isn't the only school of thought, and both sides can present their own theological backing, which makes for a complicated discussion.


Without getting into all that (a doctoral level theological dissertation), I'm just pointing out that it isn't simply a matter of being personally judgmental, but also of theological issues.
Click to expand...

Given the openness with which Jesus embraced the more obvious sinners, I don't see how it's either complex or a theological issue, but if you think another setting (or a thesis :mrgreen:) would be a more appropriate setting, that's cool.
 
Black Manta said:
It most certainly is a matter for men to judge. Otherwise Jesus would not have died for us. You have not read the Bible then as it is clear we are to avoid sin and sinners.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. The Bible makes it extraordinarily clear that judgement in matters of sin is reserved for god exclusively.
 
ChuckBerry said:
I can't seem to find a link to the details of the bishop's remarks, but let me say that I think his position is likely a smidge more complex than is being made out here.

Desmond Tutu's remarks need to be seen through the lens of his fight against apartheid and the injustice black people suffered from decades of South African law. I would guess that Tutu's eyes are not focused solely on marriage rights, but on worldwide discrimination including the death penalty for homosexuality in some places.

In principle I agree with the statements he has been quoted with that have been made widely available. If, however, he approves of homosexuality (which is different from merely not being homophobic), my stance would differ from his. But again, he has seen the depths of injustice inflicted on a powerless minority, so I am willing to give him some latitude for extending his feelings toward genuine persecution of homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Life is always more complex than we make it out to be in mere conversation. Well put.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You are mistaken. The Bible makes it extraordinarily clear that judgement in matters of sin is reserved for god exclusively.
Click to expand...



It depends on what you mean by "judge".

God judges who gets into heaven, not I.
God "judges" in the sense of giving blessings or punishment in life for who did this or that, not I.
However, if I (or whoever) points out that "The bible says that is a sin," that is not judgment. I'm not pulling this out of my pocket, this is Biblical stuff.

As for whether X-person-who-does-Y is welcome in The Church of Z, as I mentioned there are some differing schools of thought on that... one of which Black Manta is talking about, where there is emphasis on the Biblical injunctions to "suffer not such a one among you", "light has no fellowship with darkness", and so on. There's another side which promotes more engagement and some of what you're saying is similar to what that side says, about Jesus' hanging out with sinners, "the son of man has come to save that which is lost", and so on.

I'm just pointing out that there are different viewpoints on this, that both sides have theological arguments, and that "judging" isn't really the issue here.
 
Black Manta said:
No he's not. He is preaching a biblical lie. Saying oh I would rather be with unrepentant sinners is wrong from a Christian perspective according to our holy book.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, not fact.

BTW, if God doesn't like gays, he should not create people to be homosexual.
 
apdst said:
Feeling superior this evening?
Click to expand...

Why should tonight be any different than any other night? :2razz:

Seriously, there's quite a bit written about this and there is a really good documentary on it, too. If you're interested and have Netflix, I can PM it to you.
 
If god is a bigot, creates people gay, and then punishes them for being the way he made them, then god is an evil sadist and the universe is an awful place. If god creates people, creates them flawed, and then punishes them for being flawed, then god is an evil sadist and the universe is an awful place. If god knows everything, and sets up tests for us, then he already knows whether or not we will pass, and has essentially decided already what will happen, because he creates us and creates us a certain way, and then punishes us for failing tests that he designed us to fail and already knew whether or not we would fail before decided to test us, then god is an evil sadist and the universe is an awful place.

An omniscient creator who judges and punishes us for being the way he made us means that there is absolutely no change for free will. At all. None. Zilch. The entire notion of "sin" and judgment is inherently flawed and unworthy of being the basis for any discussions of morality. Causing needless pain and suffering in people is immoral. Discriminating against and hurting gays because of... whatever... is wrong. End of discussion. No one should give a crap what some ancient book says about it. Especially one that employs such obvious logical fallacies and contradictions to justify its backwards and ignorant positions.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Nope, because I also said, "Sin isn't a matter for men to judge, repentance or no repentance."
Click to expand...

#1 I am not trying to score anything.
#2 What you also said has nothing to do with your original statement.

TacticalEvilDan said:
If you're going to try to score points by quoting me back to myself, at least read what I say. I stand by my words.
Click to expand...

Now instead of defending something that did not need defending. You might want to respond to my point.
 
Paschendale said:
If god is a bigot, creates people gay, and then punishes them for being the way he made them, then god is an evil sadist and the universe is an awful place. If god creates people, creates them flawed, and then punishes them for being flawed, then god is an evil sadist and the universe is an awful place. If god knows everything, and sets up tests for us, then he already knows whether or not we will pass, and has essentially decided already what will happen, because he creates us and creates us a certain way, and then punishes us for failing tests that he designed us to fail and already knew whether or not we would fail before decided to test us, then god is an evil sadist and the universe is an awful place.

An omniscient creator who judges and punishes us for being the way he made us means that there is absolutely no change for free will. At all. None. Zilch. The entire notion of "sin" and judgment is inherently flawed and unworthy of being the basis for any discussions of morality. Causing needless pain and suffering in people is immoral. Discriminating against and hurting gays because of... whatever... is wrong. End of discussion. No one should give a crap what some ancient book says about it. Especially one that employs such obvious logical fallacies and contradictions to justify its backwards and ignorant positions.
Click to expand...

Here is another scenario. God creates people and people choose to be gay and choose to reject god. Some will repent and all will be judged by God. Including you Paschendale.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yep, which is why any church that has a policy of turning away sinners it believes is unrepentant is not a Christian church. I suppose one or two could be turned away in error and it could be chalked up to human fallibility, but consistently turning them away? No, that's not Christian
Click to expand...

You are going to sit in judgement of the church without really understanding the motive and claim they are judging?

Pot meet kettle.

TacticalEvilDan said:
So long as they don't disrupt the service, I can't think of a reason in the world why you'd turn them away.
Click to expand...

Because you don't follow the scripture...

Revelation 2:16-18: 16 ‘So turn away from your sins! If you don’t, I will come to you soon. I will fight against those people with the sword that comes out of my mouth.

2 John 1:10 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting

Romans 16:1717 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

It's pretty clear.
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
You are mistaken. The Bible makes it extraordinarily clear that judgement in matters of sin is reserved for god exclusively.
Click to expand...

No. Absolutely wrong. The Bible says no such thing.

Matthew 7:1-5 “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

It means for example if you are an adulterer you cannot sit there and claim someone else is and not be judged for it as well. It is saying you must clear your own sin before judging someone else. This is because you will be judged accordingly.
 
Scrabaholic said:
That is your opinion, not fact.

BTW, if God doesn't like gays, he should not create people to be homosexual.
Click to expand...

It is a fact according to the Bible, end of story. You can wish it was different, but that is all it will be. It is a sin as all other sexual immorality is. Please feel free to point out where in the Bible it says sodomy or men lying with men is acceptable in the eyes of God?

I can show you plenty that say the exact opposite.
 
Last edited:
Black Manta said:
It is a fact according to the Bible, end of story. You can wish it was different, but that is all it will be. It is a sin as all other sexual immorality is. Please feel free to point out where in the Bible it says sodomy or men lying with men is acceptable in the eyes of God?

I can show you plenty that say the exact opposite.
Click to expand...




There are no facts in the Bible. It is a work of fiction composed by men in which they express their intolerance,their misogyny, their homophobia,their violent thoughts.

If you like reading books that are full of fear, hatred, and man's inhumanity to other men, it's a fine book for you.




"Man has created God in his own image: Intolerant, sexist, homophobic, and violent." ~ Marie



"All the meanness, all the revenge,All the selfishness,all the cruelty,all the infamy of which the human heart is capable, grew, blossomed, and bore fruit in this one word --Hell."~ Robert Green Ingersoll.
 
shrubnose said:
There are no facts in the Bible. It is a work of fiction composed by men in which they express their intolerance,their misogyny, their homophobia,their violent thoughts.

If you like reading books that are full of fear, hatred, and man's inhumanity to other men, it's a fine book for you.




"Man has created God in his own image: Intolerant, sexist, homophobic, and violent." ~ Marie



"All the meanness, all the revenge,All the selfishness,all the cruelty,all the infamy of which the human heart is capable, grew, blossomed, and bore fruit in this one word --Hell."~ Robert Green Ingersoll.
Click to expand...

wrong....the bible speaks of many people.

and unearth text have been found which speaks of people who lived, David, Solomon....Ramses II, and the cedars of Lebanon.

please don't post things which are based only on what you want to believe is true.
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong....the bible speaks of many people.

and unearth text have been found which speaks of people who lived, David, Solomon....Ramses II, and the cedars of Lebanon.

please don't post things which are based only on what you want to believe is true.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




If you have any reliable proof that anything that I have posted is not correct, let's see it.

By the way, the Bible is not a reliable source, it's a work of fiction composed by fallible men with an ax to grind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom