• 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!

Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discrimination?

Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

I think you missed the point I was making entirely, but I don't respond to chopped up posts like that, most especially when they destroy the context of the post, so I'll just agree to disagree. I am quite secure in my own convictions on this subject.

You context wasn't "destroyed" in anyway that just silly. My post would be the same to you whether I separated your post or not, it was only so you know what I'm answering. There was a poster on the other board that always made claims like that as soon as he couldn't defend his posts. If you like I can report my exact same answers without separating your pot and I bet you still dodge it. I didn't misse your point at all I just simply proved there's no support for it. You can be as secure in fear tactics if you like but that won't change that what you stated has very little to no support. When gays start trying to create laws that infringe on my rights or hider my religion or religious freedoms let me know.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

You context wasn't "destroyed" in anyway that just silly. My post would be the same to you whether I separated your post or not, it was only so you know what I'm answering. There was a poster on the other board that always made claims like that as soon as he couldn't defend his posts. If you like I can report my exact same answers without separating your pot and I bet you still dodge it. I didn't misse your point at all I just simply proved there's no support for it. You can be as secure in fear tactics if you like but that won't change that what you stated has very little to no support. When gays start trying to create laws that infringe on my rights or hider my religion or religious freedoms let me know.

Ah, once my opponent goes pure ad hominem I know I won the argument. Do have a nice afternoon and evening Layla. We'll probably meet again on another topic on another day.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Do you really feel the need to attack the Bible to justify homosexual sin?

But to answer the question, the Bible we have today has various transcription errors, or rearrangement of words, or dots and tittle issues, but nothing major to the point that the fundamental truths of the Bible have been compromised. We know this because we have the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls (like the 'Great Isaiah Scroll' dated to about 150 BC) and other manuscript evidence that gives us good confidence of the divine inspiration of the scriptures.


For instance, ALL FOUR GOSPELS and various epistles verify the resurrection of Christ. That's preponderance of the evidence.

And many were written well after the Crucifixion were they not?
Many translation as well?
And there is a world of discussion or differing opinions on many verses in the bible. Is that not correct?

And I was not attacking the Bible.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Ah, once my opponent goes pure ad hominem I know I won the argument. Do have a nice afternoon and evening Layla. We'll probably meet again on another topic on another day.

That's what I thought run away in defeat. I'm sure we will and you'll make up excuses again when your post gets it ass handed to itself.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Most Christian people want to be Christian without being harassed for it or being discriminated against for it. They do not wish to have to accept or embrace values they in good conscience cannot accept or participate in. That doesn't mean they are denying anybody else the right to accept or embrace different values.

Substitute 'Christian' for 'racist' and 'gay' for 'black'. Try it and see if it's okay.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

And many were written well after the Crucifixion were they not?

As opposed to before the crucifixion?

FYI here's how scores of scholars date the Gospels and New Testament - all within the probable lifetimes of the traditional authors.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

Many translation as well?

All confirm the resurrection.

And there is a world of discussion or differing opinions on many verses in the bible. Is that not correct?

And I was not attacking the Bible.

Yeah, you are attacking the Bible.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Substitute 'Christian' for 'racist' and 'gay' for 'black'. Try it and see if it's okay.

The sentence specified what Christians want. The one immediately preceding it, which you chose to omit--was that on purpose or was that a dishonest intent to change the subject?--used identical language except it specified what gay people want. Do you disagree with what I said they want? (I am pretty sure that most racists and most black people want pretty much the same thing though.)
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

As opposed to before the crucifixion?

FYI here's how scores of scholars date the Gospels and New Testament - all within the probable lifetimes of the traditional authors.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books



All confirm the resurrection.



Yeah, you are attacking the Bible.

Then why do the books of mark, Matthew, Luke and John have different tones and biases in them?
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

I don't know how you would do that in the sentence you quoted. The sentence specified what Christians want and what gays want. Do you disagree with what I said they want? (I am pretty sure that most racists and most black people want pretty much the same thing though.)

You said that Christians should be left alone and not be forced to participate in gay activities, or be discriminated against for discriminating against gays. So if they have a business, they should be able to deny service to people that offend their Christian values. And gays are offensive to them.

Now that I've extrapolated your sentence, you can apply the substitution of racists and blacks.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

As opposed to before the crucifixion?

FYI here's how scores of scholars date the Gospels and New Testament - all within the probable lifetimes of the traditional authors.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books



All confirm the resurrection.

Yeah, you are attacking the Bible.

No I am not.
Is that because we disagree on gays rights. Possibly? Don't know & don't care. I know my intent for the original post, you do not.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

No. There is a definite difference between (for example) attending a Union meeting in which one of the other members is also a member of NAMBLA, and attending a NAMBLA meeting. In the latter, the sin (pedophilia) defines the event. In the first, it does not.

We are talking about catering, not merely attending. The activity of catering to an event and attending an event are two different things. Also, it depends on the nature of the activity that one engages in when one attends an event that will determine how one is implicated.

That is everybody. We are all sinners. Christians are expected to (among other things) not celebrate that.

Indeed we are all sinners. And as that is the case, we should give up arrogance and condescension, and in great humility ask that the Almighty God be merciful on us so that we will not be victimized by temptation, and that we be delivered from the effects of evil.


It is, although in this discussion we have drawn a distinction between "event" and "activity" that was not originally present. The activity would be the event in the original usage - the celebration of homosexuality (or, if you will, the celebration of lying, or adultery, etc). I wouldn't cater any event for AshleyMadison.Com because they are organizationally built around adultery. That doesn't mean I can't feed an adulterer in my restaurant.

I get what you are saying - and it's a very good argument. But it is built around a flawed assumption. It isn't "I don't want to be around sinners" or, "I don't want to feed people who are engaged in sin". It's "I can't participate in it, by partaking, encouraging, enabling, what-have-you". When the event is about it or fundamentally characterized by it, then participation in the event becomes participation in it.

No, that is not the assumption. The assumption in this case is that your activity is limited to catering. As a result of that, your participation is based on feeding people who are celebrating or encouraging sinful activity. As a result of that, strictly speaking, by feeding people engaged in such celebrating and encouraging, you are also partaking in the celebration and encouraging. But if you view that activity in such strict terms, then it is also the case that if you feed someone at any event who is engaging in sinful activity at the event, regardless of whether the event is centered on such sinful activity, you are also facilitating it as well because the energy that the person is using to engage in the activity is coming from food that you have supplied. Now that is in the very strict sense, and that is indeed a way in which we become implicated in mundane affairs. Therefore it is advised that persons who are very very serious about spiritual realization should live in a secluded place like a monastery where people are only engaged in activity centered around spiritual realization, and indeed that is why such places exist. Either that or they should go to the forest, because otherwise, at every step, when one is interacting with people who are engaging in mundane affairs, if one is not very careful, he can also become implicated in mundane activity.

So what you termed was an assumption was actually a conclusion drawn from the observation that you want to avoid one instance based on the notion of not being implicated in sinful activity, but are perfectly fine with another instance in which you would be implicated in sinful activity. As such, one could conclude that the underlying motive is actually an aversion to an activity, which you actually have, although you may not want to admit it. I am not saying that to be derogatory, but that is simply the way it is. The only way one could not have such aversions and attachments is that one would have had to have totally transcended the influence of mundane things. Otherwise, that is the way the mundane mind works, some things it likes, some things it is repulsed by, and different people have different things that they are attracted to and repulsed by. Someone who has transcended the influence of the mundane mind does not experience this. Rather he sees everything as being the result of the various energies of the Supreme Lord and that all of these energies are ultimately under the control of the Supreme Lord. It is just that some will properly use the energy in the service and glorification of the Lord and some will misuse the energy for their own self aggrandizement.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

You said that Christians should be left alone and not be forced to participate in gay activities, or be discriminated against for discriminating against gays. So if they have a business, they should be able to deny service to people that offend their Christian values. And gays are offensive to them.

Now that I've extrapolated your sentence, you can apply the substitution of racists and blacks.

I didn't say gays are offensive to them. That is the problem with the whole debate. Those who are prejudiced and/or bigoted against the Christians absolutely refuse to see the argument for what it is and can't seem to keep from dishonestly mischaracterizing what the issue is.

You may like to go to nudie bars. I don't and won't but that doesn't mean you are offensive to me. You may like to go to prize fights. I don't and won't but that doesn't mean you are offensive to me.

But I can easily say that most Christian people want to be Christian without being harassed for it or being discriminated against for it. They do not wish to have to accept or embrace values they in good conscience cannot accept or participate in. That doesn't mean they are denying anybody else the right to accept or embrace different values.

Also I can easily say that most gay people want to be gay without being harassed for it or being discriminated against for it. They do not wish to have to accept or embrace values they in good conscience cannot accept or participate in. That doesn't mean they are denying anybody else the right to accept or embrace different values.

And I can easily say that most black people want to be black without being harassed for it or being discriminated against for it. They do not wish to have to accept or embrace values they in good conscience cannot accept or participate in. That doesn't mean they are denying anybody else the right to accept or embrace different values.

And I think I can say that even most racists want to be racist without being harassed for it or being discriminated against for it. They do not wish to have to accept or embrace values they in good conscience cannot accept or participate in. That doesn't mean they are denying anybody else the right to accept or embrace different values.

Sure there are a few militant Christians who get in your face and/or engage in activities that neither you nor I condone. There are also a few gay people, blacks, and racists who do that too. But those I believe are in a distinct minority. Put the 'most' in front of the sentence and you are not talking about those few.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Then why do the books of mark, Matthew, Luke and John have different tones and biases in them?

They're different people and they're speaking to different audiences.

As for bias, I only see people reporting what they saw and heard.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

No I am not.
Is that because we disagree on gays rights. Possibly? Don't know & don't care. I know my intent for the original post, you do not.

OK, fine.

I asked 5,000 questions myself when I first started studying it. The key is to take the knowledge learned to heart.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

They're different people and they're speaking to different audiences.

As for bias, I only see people reporting what they saw and heard.

All of the accounts were written by different people at different times giving their own perspective.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

OK, fine.

I asked 5,000 questions myself when I first started studying it. The key is to take the knowledge learned to heart.
Oh I had accepted Jesus a long time ago.
And i make mistakes, as every man/woman does.
I also do not believe that my God, would put millions on the earth to suffer.
And that goes to my earlier point of being created in his image.
On that we differ.
And I will not, nor will you be the judge of that.
You would be aware of the most common things that Jesus spoke about.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

All of the accounts were written by different people at different times giving their own perspective.

That's true, and they all verify the resurrection.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Oh I had accepted Jesus a long time ago.
And i make mistakes, as every man/woman does.
I also do not believe that my God, would put millions on the earth to suffer.
And that goes to my earlier point of being created in his image.
On that we differ.
And I will not, nor will you be the judge of that.
You would be aware of the most common things that Jesus spoke about.

I'm glad you have Christ as your Savior.

And I agree on a common point in the faith - that all people need to repent of their sins or perish (Luke 13:3).
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Is it wise for Islam to link it's future to opposing gay rights?

Opposition to homosexuality is a recruiting line of Islam and one of their condemnations of the West. Doesn't seem to be hurting the growth of Islam whatsoever. A counter argument could be made that yielding to equality of gays could make Christianity seem less important and less inviting to people. There is no basis to believe opposition to gay rights hurts Christian more than it helps it in terms of members and evangelizing. Religion isn't like politics.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Instead of trying to break out each individual part, I'm going to try in this reply to focus on what I see as the central nuggets of your argument. If I skip over something that you would rather I have addressed, please let me know and I'll circle back around to it.

if you feed someone at any event who is engaging in sinful activity at the event, regardless of whether the event is centered on such sinful activity, you are also facilitating it as well because the energy that the person is using to engage in the activity is coming from food that you have supplied.

No. There is a distinct difference between serving sinners (which we all do) and serving sin. It's not the food (I would equally not wish to serve as a wedding photographer, or as a wedding planner), it's the event (the activity, as we called it at the beginning, though for precision of language we have chosen to more narrowly define it). It's the meaning, the purpose.


As an example: You are a young, clever fellow; let us say that you develop websites for a living. Rob comes to you. Rob seems a decent sort, and he wants a website that he can use to sell merchandise centered around an online joke website involving funny pictures of cats that we shall call funnycat.com. You develop the site, you get paid, Rob is happy.

A few months later, Rob comes back to you. Man, that site worked out really well, and he wants you to build another. Fantastic - repeat customers and more business. What is the site for? Well, you see, the problem is that whites in our area suffer from lack of race consciousness - they let inferior races walk all over them, pollute their schools, waste their public funds, take their jobs, etc. So we are hoping to set up a similar idea - merchandise sold around an online site dedicated to the local chapter of the KKK, of which I am the Grand Kreasurer (no idea if that is a rank, I was going for "treasurer", but with the klans' stupid little K-name-convention thingy). The focus of the site is that we want to appeal to young males the most - hopefully, if we can capture them when they are still impressionable, we can save them from the bad influences of their jew teachers and their n*****-loving parents. So, you'll have us up and running in no time, right?

...Rob was a hater the entire time you were working for him. He hated non-whites when you first met, he hated non-whites when you were helping him with funnycat.com, he hated non-whites when he came back to you.

But there sure does seem to be a bit of a difference between him asking you for help on the first site, and him asking you for help on the second...

The difference is one of meaning. For the first site, Rob's hate is irrelevant to the purpose of the site. For the second, it is central.

So what you termed was an assumption was actually a conclusion drawn from the observation that you want to avoid one instance based on the notion of not being implicated in sinful activity, but are perfectly fine with another instance in which you would be implicated in sinful activity.

Thus, this is incorrect - and is why I have already told you that I would equally not cater a Swingers' party, an AshleyMadison.Com event, or a convention on How To Lie To Your Spouse Without Getting Caught. At the point at which the event becomes about the activity/sin in question, I can no longer participate in the event in good conscience, because at that point, I am (to use your verbiage) implicated.

As such, one could conclude that the underlying motive is actually an aversion to an activity, which you actually have, although you may not want to admit it. I am not saying that to be derogatory, but that is simply the way it is.

I understand that you find that easiest to understand, but in fact you are seeking to create a universal rule from something that you find plausible.

You are also (here, specifically) incorrect. My little sister is a lesbian. Not attending her wedding would not only be an extremely painful experience, but could deeply damage - if not cause me to lose - a relationship that I cherish deeply for life.

I would agree there are plenty of folks on my side whose reactions are, to varying degrees, being fed by a poorly-thought out aversion. When you see Christians try to say that "well, for them" there is a difference between (say) adultery and homosexuality, you'll probably find it there.

But there are plenty of folks on your side whose reactions are, to varying degrees, being fed by aversion to Christianity, and certainly at least to Christianity when it is practiced by Conservatives. That doesn't mean that you are taking your position because of an aversion to Christianity any more than it means that I am taking my position because of an aversion to homosexuals.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

MildSteel said:
Now that is in the very strict sense, and that is indeed a way in which we become implicated in mundane affairs. Therefore it is advised that persons who are very very serious about spiritual realization should live in a secluded place like a monastery where people are only engaged in activity centered around spiritual realization, and indeed that is why such places exist.

This is not a central point, but I did want to note that that is not correct, and I would recommend you re-visit your Augustine.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Three things:

1. There's no evidence God created gayness in individuals. Along with the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, decay and sin entered the human race. Genetic / hormonal abnormalities, such as some theorize occur during pregnancy in the womb, influence homosexuality.

Homosexuality Might Develop in the Womb Due to Epigenetic Changes - SciTech Daily

2. Regarding evil in creation. Assume you're God. How would you create man with free will and at the same time not allow him to do evil?

How would you do that, JANFU?

3. I believe God created life and after that micro-evolution, etc., occurred. As far as modern man, there's zero conclusive DNA evidence identifying any known hominid as man's immediate direct line ancestor.

i see that even the hardcore homophobes are admitting homosexuality is inborn now

which makes it all the more senseless - "hey, you were given a strong and persistent desire to do something, just don't ever act on it or you'll be tortured for all eternity!"
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Is it wise for Islam to link it's future to opposing gay rights?

Opposition to homosexuality is a recruiting line of Islam and one of their condemnations of the West. Doesn't seem to be hurting the growth of Islam whatsoever. A counter argument could be made that yielding to equality of gays could make Christianity seem less important and less inviting to people. There is no basis to believe opposition to gay rights hurts Christian more than it helps it in terms of members and evangelizing. Religion isn't like politics.

Well it's not as of yet. It took christianity 1700 years to reach that point, so maybe islam will by the year 2400

And yeah it does hurt christianity, for the same reason you mention - recruitment is down. Young people have left the church in droves, in large part (though often not the only reason) because of homophobia
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

i see that even the hardcore homophobes are admitting homosexuality is inborn now

which makes it all the more senseless - "hey, you were given a strong and persistent desire to do something, just don't ever act on it or you'll be tortured for all eternity!"

Go ahead and do whatever you want, Chromium, and see how that works out for you in the end.
 
Re: Is it wise for Christians to link the survival of Christianity to gay discriminat

Go ahead and do whatever you want, Chromium, and see how that works out for you.

i take this as a sign since we may do what we want that you will stop crawling into S&S to condemn everyone
 
Back
Top Bottom