• 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!

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens[W:165; 667]

It's not a strawman, tessa. They are saying that homosexuality really isn't spoken about all that much in the NT, so it must not really be a big deal. That's like saying that since "freedom of speech" is only mentioned once in the Bill of Rights it must mean that the Founders really didn't mean that people should have it. It's okay to take it away since it was only mentioned once. No biggie.
 
Josie said:
Well, then why aren't Christians pushing for adultery, lying, coveting your neighbor's wife to be illegal?
Click to expand...

I'm not pushing for homosexuality or any of those things to be illegal.

People have the right to save or damn their souls.

It's just sad knowing that more and more souls will not be entering Heaven, imho.
 
Josie said:
Well, then why aren't Christians pushing for adultery, lying, coveting your neighbor's wife to be illegal?
Click to expand...

Josie your taking two things not related an trying to mesh them together...breaking the law and vows is a totally different issue...and you know that...and umm how do you make them illegal anyway...and whats the punishement...men can no longer marry women ?
 
Wake said:
Yet when more and more support is given to things like this on homosexual matters, well...

...familiarity breeds consent.

The more our young ones are familiar with it, the more they will support it.

How will that help in bringing more souls to salvation?
Click to expand...


....The phrase is "familiarity breeds contempt"
 
Wake said:
I'm not pushing for homosexuality or any of those things to be illegal.

People have the right to save or damn their souls.

It's just sad knowing that more and more souls will not be entering Heaven, imho.
Click to expand...

But that's not because sin is legal.....
 
Josie said:
It's not a strawman, tessa. They are saying that homosexuality really isn't spoken about all that much in the NT, so it must not really be a big deal. That's like saying that since "freedom of speech" is only mentioned once in the Bill of Rights it must mean that the Founders really didn't mean that people should have it. It's okay to take it away since it was only mentioned once. No biggie.
Click to expand...


If you read the article, it's technically never mentioned at all.
 
Somerville said:
(1) FIRST: Why is an openly religious speaker with a religious agenda speaking in a public high school?

(2) SECOND: "pansy" is a common slur against gays so calling those who walk out of an anti-gay speech is just multiplying the hatred.

(3) THIRD: Dan Savage has apologised for using the term "pansy-assed" - Would you?

(4) Fourth: When you use the phrase "sanctity of marriage" you are whistling for the dogs, who understand what you are implying even if you did not go so far as to openly "start insulting homosexuals and homosexuality"
Click to expand...

(1) Is that completely forbidden? No religious ideas can be expressed by a guest speaker?

(2) What's the multiplication rate of hatred when a gay man uses it on Christians?

(3) This is a hypothetical. I wouldn't be an ass when conveying my opinion. Huzzah.

(4) Would you clarify?
 
tessaesque said:
If you read the article, it's technically never mentioned at all.
Click to expand...

Let's go with your interpretation that it's never mentioned at all in the NT. If it's not mentioned, it's not a sin. Right?
 
Josie said:
Let's go with your interpretation that it's never mentioned at all in the NT. If it's not mentioned, it's not a sin. Right?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, unless you're going back to your child molestation thing.
Technically speaking, homosexuality isn't even mentioned in the OLD TESTAMENT, as there is no direct translation from any Greek or Aramaic word used in the original texts to the word we now know as "homosexuality".

So then we have words that translated to "sexual perversion" and (loosely) "sodomite". But sodomite is a relatively modern word, and was largely based on interpretations of the story of Sodom. So let's go with "sexual perversion". That isn't defined. Perversions would have been assumed. At the time of Constantine's Council of Nicea, and in the first years of christian missionary work, sex in and of itself was a defilement of one's body and a sure path away from salvation. It wasn't until several decades after christianity began to spread that sexual rules were loosened. And even then, you were only allowed to have sex with your married partner for the purpose of procreating.

Now, there are several reasons for the sexual restrictions and eventually loosening of the rules. Original christianity would not have survived into the modern age without some level of compromise on what was originally intended to be a solely ascetic lifestyle. In a way, it was similar to expansion of buddhism from a monk-only religious experience to a process of enlightenment available to any interested in following Buddha's teachings.

...your move?
 
tessaesque said:
I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, unless you're going back to your child molestation thing.
Click to expand...

Well, you keep saying that it's not even mentioned. So....... finish the thought. What's the conclusion based on your interpretation that it's not mentioned?

tessaesque said:
Technically speaking, homosexuality isn't even mentioned in the OLD TESTAMENT, as there is no direct translation from any Greek or Aramaic word used in the original texts to the word we now know as "homosexuality".

So then we have words that translated to "sexual perversion" and (loosely) "sodomite". But sodomite is a relatively modern word, and was largely based on interpretations of the story of Sodom. So let's go with "sexual perversion". That isn't defined. Perversions would have been assumed. At the time of Constantine's Council of Nicea, and in the first years of christian missionary work, sex in and of itself was a defilement of one's body and a sure path away from salvation. It wasn't until several decades after christianity began to spread that sexual rules were loosened. And even then, you were only allowed to have sex with your married partner for the purpose of procreating.

Now, there are several reasons for the sexual restrictions and eventually loosening of the rules. Original christianity would not have survived into the modern age without some level of compromise on what was originally intended to be a solely ascetic lifestyle. In a way, it was similar to expansion of buddhism from a monk-only religious experience to a process of enlightenment available to any interested in following Buddha's teachings.

...your move?
Click to expand...

So if it's never mentioned in Scripture, why do you agree with Savage's Bible-bashing? That makes no sense.
 
I'm gonna go take a bubble bath with my Harlequin novel. Be back later.... :)
 
Josie said:
Well, you keep saying that it's not even mentioned. So....... finish the thought. What's the conclusion based on your interpretation that it's not mentioned?



So if it's never mentioned in Scripture, why do you agree with Savage's Bible-bashing? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The ill-informed, or those who believe blindly without researching, believe the bible mentions homosexuality. That being the case, it is hypocritical for them to harp on homosexuality while ignoring other laws contained in the book, or put excessive emphasis on homosexuality over other laws clearly stated.

On that point, I certainly agree with him.
 
Josie said:
It's not hypocrisy because he was quoting the Old Testament which Christians are no longer under. Christians don't follow the OT law.
Click to expand...

There are several passages in the NT that make it quite clear that at least parts of the Old Covenant still apply

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?” (John7:19)

Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation, but correct me if I am.
 
Josie said:
Well, you keep saying that it's not even mentioned. So....... finish the thought. What's the conclusion based on your interpretation that it's not mentioned?



So if it's never mentioned in Scripture, why do you agree with Savage's Bible-bashing? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

It all depends upon the manner in which many who call themselves 'Christian' interpret what they read. The argument as noted in the Westar linked piece is over interpretation of the original Greek text. So today many people are arguing over interpretations of interpretations of interpretations.

The Westar essay does not say "there is no mention of homosexuality in the New Testament", the phrase used was "what we have learned to call ‘sexual orientation’.”

Josie, which version of the Bible have you read during your life, or have you read more than one version? Have you read the New Testament in the ancient Greek version?
 
Everyone that is against gay marriage I know never mentions it has anything to do with religion.....i dont know why such an emphasis on religion as being the culprit...
 
tessaesque said:
The ill-informed, or those who believe blindly without researching, believe the bible mentions homosexuality. That being the case, it is hypocritical for them to harp on homosexuality while ignoring other laws contained in the book, or put excessive emphasis on homosexuality over other laws clearly stated.

On that point, I certainly agree with him.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that there's an unbalanced emphasis on homosexuality. That's part of my point.
 
Somerville said:
It all depends upon the manner in which many who call themselves 'Christian' interpret what they read. The argument as noted in the Westar linked piece is over interpretation of the original Greek text. So today many people are arguing over interpretations of interpretations of interpretations.

The Westar essay does not say "there is no mention of homosexuality in the New Testament", the phrase used was "what we have learned to call ‘sexual orientation’.”

Josie, which version of the Bible have you read during your life, or have you read more than one version? Have you read the New Testament in the ancient Greek version?
Click to expand...

Several translations. I never learned Greek.
 
Somerville said:
Good! not every American who names their self - Christian, holds that view. Their are too many who do advocate the measures I noted. The problem we have is the reality of far too many of the 'polite' xians refusing to speak up in protest of the actions and words of their fellow religionists who do promote the idea of biblical punishment for the sinners.
Click to expand...

Your view of Christians are distorted. I cannot think of a single Christian in my life who would force castration on gays. Lol. Seriously. Most of us would be fine with civil unions, some of us support gay marriage, and some would want neither.

As to "religionists who do promote the idea of biblical punishment for the sinners" I almost think you are just making **** up. What punishments for what sin?
 
cAPSLOCK said:
Your view of Christians are distorted. I cannot think of a single Christian in my life who would force castration on gays. Lol. Seriously. Most of us would be fine with civil unions, some of us support gay marriage, and some would want neither.

As to "religionists who do promote the idea of biblical punishment for the sinners" I almost think you are just making **** up. What punishments for what sin?
Click to expand...

I dont know why everyone keeps targeting christians as the bad guys...their influence politically and other ways have diminished greatly in 20 yrs...
Its like people believe if they could obliterate religion everyone will want to give them what they want...I think they are wrong...
Im not a religious guy...I was raised a catholic but spent more time going to church at a soda shop playing pinball and lieing to my parents...none of my beliefs are predicated on christian teachings or beliefs...especially when it comes to gay marriage.
 
lpast said:
I dont know why everyone keeps targeting christians as the bad guys...their influence politically and other ways have diminished greatly in 20 yrs...
Its like people believe if they could obliterate religion everyone will want to give them what they want...I think they are wrong...
Im not a religious guy...I was raised a catholic but spent more time going to church at a soda shop playing pinball and lieing to my parents...none of my beliefs are predicated on christian teachings or beliefs...especially when it comes to gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but that's just you. Plenty of people base their anti gay marriage opinion on the Bible.
 
Flippinfunky said:
Sorry but if those "kids" cant handle "pansy ass", they're going to have a real hard time in life as adults, and as journalists.
Click to expand...

Who says they can't handle it? In fact I think they handled the lead up to the name calling absolutely perfectly.
 
Josie said:
It's not a strawman, tessa. They are saying that homosexuality really isn't spoken about all that much in the NT, so it must not really be a big deal. That's like saying that since "freedom of speech" is only mentioned once in the Bill of Rights it must mean that the Founders really didn't mean that people should have it. It's okay to take it away since it was only mentioned once. No biggie.
Click to expand...

Josie, when Christians call homosexuality a sin specifically because the Bible says it is a sin... and it turns out that the Bible doesn't say that at all (In the NT, which according to you and many others is the only Bible Christians accept), then moving the goalposts to another topic, like child molestation, is a strawman.

The bottom line is that when Christians call homosexuality a sin because their Bible says it is, they are misstating the contents of their own Bible. Doesn't mean they have to "like" homosexual behavior; doesn't mean they have to agree with it. They just cannot legitimately state that it's a recognized sin in the Bible. It isn't.
 
lpast said:
Everyone that is against gay marriage I know never mentions it has anything to do with religion.....i dont know why such an emphasis on religion as being the culprit...
Click to expand...

I've never met anyone who, when you cut through all their bullcrap, you find out it's all about the bible.

Atheist Libertarians who are against the freedom to marry are either hypocrites or liars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom