"LGBT RIGHTS"

[Jhana]

All false religion uses a little truth. Didn't Satan use a little truth in the garden. he always includes a little truth and then distorts it.

Let me tell you, any person who makes their life's work to teach people how to be utterly selfless is a worthy model for morality in my eyes. Jesus said 'you shall know them by their fruits', and it is clearly obvious that ones like the ones above are highly revered moral characters for whom millions of people have gained wisdom and a knowledge of what it is to help the world and do things for the sakes of other people.

I have hindu friends and muslim friends and even some buddhist friends, and christian friends, and I generally find the most caring people I know from all of those are the hindu girls. That says something to me.

Not that christianity is immoral or that hinduism is the ultimate truth, certainly not, but it definitely makes a person think, whenever a person from a religion often regarded as a complete heretical waste of time is actually a profoundly thoughtful, compassionate person. Again 'ye shall know them by their fruits'

 

[mustaphadrink]

As you have not seen the files on my computer you are in no place to say that I am not subject to a barrage of lies. I know I am because for two years I ran a support group for those with an unwanted same sex attraction so I found out the truth from the horses mouth so to speak.

There are may christian social researchers and christian organisations that are dedicated to finding out what homosexuals are saying; what ex homosexuals are saying; what so called scientific organisations are saying; where homosexual bigotry is rearing its ugly head and how; and what sort of things that homosexual bigots are doing to force law abiding citizens to bow the knee to homosexual dogma.

Now, I know some of the people involved. In fact I have worked with some of them and I can vouch for their integrity and honesty. If all these people all say the same thing and can produce evidence for what they say, I have no reason not to believe them. The consensus is very clear. The homosexual radicals will leave no stone unturned to silence any dissent to their agenda. Most of what the homosexual radicals say are lies. The homosexuals are trying to take ground that is not theirs to take and the christians are defending ground that is theirs to defend.

Just one small example. One of these researchers has written a book about homosexuality. His information was sourced from over 700 places both secular and christian. At his book launch which was by invitation only a homosexual rent-a-mob invaded the launch banging drums, blowing whistles and shouting obscenities. They claimed the book was all lies. Had they read it? No. So tell me how they could know if it was lies or the truth.

Having watched the battle for some time now, I can honestly say that the christians are not forcing anyone to change their own decisions. What they are doing is refusing to be bullied into accepting the homosexual agenda which demands that everyone support their lies.

 

[Reformedjason]

Jesus died for the elect. If gays are part of the elect they will come to christ and turn from the homo mess

 

[Jhana]

We've already been through this Jhana. You appear to be having difficulty processing and retaining information.

Morality is not subjective. It is objective and the reason it is objective is because objective reality really exists. We speak of the metaphysical in objective terms for both the material reality and the supernatural.

Murder, for example, is immoral. Whether it's legal or illegal or considered moral (as it has in many different cultures throughout human history into antiquity) or immoral by a people group's culture doesn't change the fact that murder is objectively immoral.

It is a true statement that murder is immoral no matter whether or not a people group accept that it is immoral.

The post modern revisionist relativist pluralistic definition of morality that liberals now posit is that morality is purely subjective to culture and arose as a result of linguistic markers during the process of human evolution. It's not difficult to see that this is a ridiculous false assertion.

In that definition, a witch doctor selling occult curses in Africa to make people sick is exactly as moral as a Christian pastor praying to God for one of his parishioners to be healed if each people group view their respective activity as moral.

Nonsense. The occult is a power emanating from the devil and selling curses to make someone sick is immoral and evil. The people group that believes this is moral are merely deceived.

That contrasts not compares to the pastor praying to God for his parishioner to be healed. Moral belief is not subjective to each person. Rather Jhana, people align or fail to align with the truth to the extent that they do.

I've already refuted your false assertion that just because a people pass a law that equates to the law being objectively moral (e.g. right), even though you just argued that is impossible for a law to be objectively moral, and therefore it is immoral (e.g. wrong) to break any law passed whatsoever.

I don't want to go in endless circles with you because you can't accept the truth and simply rewind and continue making the same false assertions repeatedly.

The truth is that business laws are rescinded regularly for many reasons and one of those reasons is because people come to realize they passed laws that were immoral! That's why immoral Jim Crow laws were repealed. That's why laws that once allowed manufactures to put heroin in cough syrup were repealed. That's why laws that allowed employers to work little children eighteen hours a day in sweat shops as prisoners were repealed. And that's why I'm arguing against persecuting moral people because they refuse to surrender their human rights (which no law can rightfully take) and their Constitutional rights (by the perverse perverting them).

The people that passed a great many immoral laws thought they were moral at the time they passed them. So were they once moral and then became immoral? No. They were always immoral and the people finally repealed them aligning themselves better with objective morality.

What you liberals want to do is go backwards and pass immoral laws to allow the immoral to exercise tyranny against the moral.

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying any of the things you are saying that I'm saying. That's a very bad habit you have of fabricating statements and projecting them at other people claiming they are saying them when they obviously are not.

What I've been saying is that creating a new legal environment (which has not existed before Jhana in this nation) that allows immoral people to persecute moral people depriving moral people of their human right to a moral freedom of conscience and their traditional Constitutional right to freedom of religion toward morality for refusing to participate in and facilitate objective immoral activities is tyrannical, evil, and immoral and that people, like you, who support doing that are engaging in tyranny, evil, and immorality against them.

Jhana, when you stand before Jesus and have to give an account for persecuting God's people for not violating their moral conscience and God's standard of holiness which is an extension of God's own character; you'll finally understand.

Until then, you're just going to go in circles and it's starting to get boring correcting you over and over again because your view of the world is tragically flawed to both your detriment and theirs.

Obviously murder is wrong, but here is a very simple, very easy demonstration of how morality is subjective once it gets to intricate moral premises and details. A very easy demonstration.

You believe that what is discrimination in my eyes, is in fact a moral right in yours. You assert moral absolutes because of your religion, and belief in God. You assert that the absolute must be absolute and thus any attempt to make it relative, is absolutely wrong, again, due to the nature of your belief in God.

People on this thread, who come under your religious heading 'christian', disagree with you. Thus, either you are the only one correct on these particular moral matters, or the ideals of this intricate morality are subjective to personal belief.

There are, of course, general universal consensus on rights and wrongs. For instance, to premeditatively murder someone is wrong. To kidnap is wrong. To abuse another person is wrong.

In fact all decent moral premises can start with 'people are equal'. If I don't like to suffer, then they won't like to suffer. Etc etc.

However, on that basis, I would say 'if I wouldn't like to be oppressed, then they wouldn't like to be oppressed'. And my real point is, on that basis for morality, neither the baker, in his decision to be discriminatory, nor the homosexual couple in their refusal to just simply go to another shop, was being morally correct.

Neither had empathy.

This is an argument of principles of law, AgeOfKNowledge, and which law is more important or more relevant - your precise interpretation of christian law (as opposed to the other christians on this thread who disagree with you), or the secular law of the country.

It isn't about morality, not really.

If we're going to say 'who's being moral and who's not', well, that's subjective to what you see 'morality' as being in a fundamental level, but I would say neither of them were moral about the situation.

 

[mustaphadrink]

You are not being subject to a barrage of lies, any more than you subject them to a barrage of assaults, since both views are a matter of perspectives. It may be said that the christian focus on homosexuality in today's society is a social christian movement intimately incensed to try to force 'them' into changing their own decisions on your word

As you have not seen the files on my computer you are in no place to say that I am not subject to a barrage of lies. I know I am because for two years I ran a support group for those with an unwanted same sex attraction so I found out the truth from the horses mouth so to speak.

There are may christian social researchers and christian organisations that are dedicated to finding out what homosexuals are saying; what ex homosexuals are saying; what so called scientific organisations are saying; where homosexual bigotry is rearing its ugly head and how; and what sort of things that homosexual bigots are doing to force law abiding citizens to bow the knee to homosexual dogma.

Now, I know some of the people involved. In fact I have worked with some of them and I can vouch for their integrity and honesty. If all these people all say the same thing and can produce evidence for what they say, I have no reason not to believe them. The consensus is very clear. The homosexual radicals will leave no stone unturned to silence any dissent to their agenda. Most of what the homosexual radicals say are lies. The homosexuals are trying to take ground that is not theirs to take and the christians are defending ground that is theirs to defend.

Just one small example. One of these researchers has written a book about homosexuality. His information was sourced from over 700 places both secular and christian. At his book launch which was by invitation only a homosexual rent-a-mob invaded the launch banging drums, blowing whistles and shouting obscenities. They claimed the book was all lies. Had they read it? No. So tell me how they could know if it was lies or the truth.

Having watched the battle for some time now, I can honestly say that the christians are not forcing anyone to change their own decisions. What they are doing is refusing to be bullied into accepting the homosexual agenda which demands that everyone support their lies.

 

[Jhana]

The best basis for morality is the one Jesus gave us. 'Have compassion for others as though yourself'. 'Treat others as you would be treated'.

There's a word for that; empathy. The deeper the empathy, the deeper the understanding of this instruction. The person with the deepest empathetic compassion will be the one that does what Jesus asks to the fullest.

If I was the baker and someone came to my shop, I would put myself in their shoes (hence why i've been playing devil's advocate all day here). I'd imagine that as a gay couple these people have been through whatever hatred and oppression of their lives, they're gay openly, which can't be easy, they're coming at a happy time and they've chosen a shop to get their cake designed in and they get refused and openly told it's because the shopkeepers inherently, for all intents and purposes finds their lifestyle disgusting or immoral or perverse. I'd feel really offended and hurt by that.

And if I were the shopkeeper, I'd see that this couple were happy and I'd bake them a cake. It isn't like I'm going to change their decisions anytime soon. I don't have the power to do that. If I oppress them, what good will come from it? What good could possibly come from it? What would I be giving them? How would I be doing anything decent?

And likewise again, if I were the couple, after the shopkeepers refusal, I might realize, not everybody is ready for this, and not everybody agrees with this, and I can't really expect people to agree with it because it's not in their nature, they don't see it to be right, and although perhaps I might have been initially offended, I certainly wouldn't stay so. Again, there are loads of other shops. I'd feel a slight pity for the owner as I left the shop, in fact.

And there, the situation caused no big issue, because there was empathy in the interaction.

 

[Jhana]

As for the shopkeeper, I can put myself in their shoes under the context of their refusal, and say' I am devoutly religious and I believe homosexuality should not be condoned. I feel that giving this cake to them would be to condone their behavior, thus I refuse to bake it'

And while I can understand that view, I certainly don't find that in that decision, the shopkeeper has tried to have any empathy for these people. Perhaps he or she has done. Perhaps I'm completely wrong and the shopkeeper agonized over the decision. Certainly I'd imagine the shopkeeper had to weigh up the pros and cons. What if I agree? What will people think? what will God think? Is it right? Is it wrong?

No, it's right. I shouldn't give these people a cake. I shouldn't associate myself with a gay wedding, because God wouldn't be pleased with that.

I can understand the viewpoint. I just don't inherently think that to bake the cake (if I were the shopkeeper) would be such a condemnable act. For me, it's food. That's all. It's making food for two people and selling these people food, as has been the custom of people who make food for thousands of years.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're all backwards and making false assertions, as usual, Jhana.

The entire legal system IS a body of legislated morality (and immorality as the case is when that legislated morality is immoral) that aligns with or against what is empirically moral to the extent (or lack of extent) that it does.

Every law springs from a system of values and beliefs. Every law is an instance of legislating morality.

When the Founding Fathers drafted our original Constitution, they did so on the basis of competing belief systems, competing assertions of right and wrong, which they endeavored to build into the Constitution. One or more of those belief systems permitted slavery, others did not. No side in the slavery debate at the Constitutional convention argued that they were not legislating morality because they knew they were. The question wasn't if they were legislating morality but rather were they legislating morality correctly.

We outlawed slavery, theft, murder, fraud, rape, and so forth precisely because they are immoral and we wanted them stopped, or at least radically curtailed. We proposed, passed, and enforced these morals-based laws specifically toward that end.

But bad laws that do not align with what is really moral can and are passed the world over and the results are always tragic to real people when that happens. Always.

And that's what you liberals have done. You have legislated your morality (which is objectively immoral) in the legal code and are now using it to severely oppress and persecute people who are objectively moral. You are discriminating against and persecuting moral people by denying them their human right to a moral conscience and their Constitutional right to a freedom of religion toward morality by throwing them in PRISON as a life long FELON, BANKRUPTING them AND their families, and DESTROYING their business because they refused to facilitate and participate in your immoral activities and you are using the legal system (which is a code of morality) to do it.

It's called tyranny Jhana and there is no moral defense for tyranny. The classical image of tyranny is one in which a person or group of people seize the reigns of political power and legislate immoral laws to oppress, persecute, and deny people their natural moral human rights.

For Christians, we seek freedom from the immoral tyranny of the state that people like you have begun to inflict on us in the U.S. but also the freedom to uphold the moral laws of the state as God’s people. So while we cannot in good conscience participate in evil we certainly can purpose to follow all moral laws.

If you wish to spend your life severely persecuting us for that, and it looks like you do, we will endure your evil, immoral, wrongful persecution knowing that at the end this age the book of life will be opened and our names found within for eternity.

The question you should be asking yourself Jhana is if after a life spent legislating immorality as law upon moral people tyrannically: will your name will be?

 

[Jhana]

You're all backwards and making false assertions, as usual, Jhana.

The entire legal system IS a body of legislated morality (and immorality as the case is when that legislated morality is immoral) that aligns with or against what is empirically moral to the extent (or lack of extent) that it does.

Every law springs from a system of values and beliefs. Every law is an instance of legislating morality.

When the Founding Fathers drafted our original Constitution, they did so on the basis of competing belief systems, competing assertions of right and wrong, which they endeavored to build into the Constitution. One or more of those belief systems permitted slavery, others did not. No side in the slavery debate at the Constitutional convention argued that they were not legislating morality because they knew they were. The question wasn't if they were legislating morality but rather were they legislating morality correctly.

We outlawed slavery, theft, murder, fraud, rape, and so forth precisely because they are immoral and we wanted them stopped, or at least radically curtailed. We proposed, passed, and enforced these morals-based laws specifically toward that end.

But bad laws that do not align with what is really moral can and are passed the world over and the results are always tragic to real people when that happens. Always.

And that's what you liberals have done. You have legislated your morality (which is objectively immoral) in the legal code and are now using it to severely oppress and persecute people who are objectively moral. You are discriminating against and persecuting moral people by denying them their human right to a moral conscience and their Constitutional right to a freedom of religion toward morality by throwing them in PRISON as a life long FELON, BANKRUPTING them AND their families, and DESTROYING their business because they refused to facilitate and participate in your immoral activities and you are using the legal system (which is a code of morality) to do it.

It's called tyranny Jhana and there is no moral defense for tyranny. The classical image of tyranny is one in which a person or group of people seize the reigns of political power and legislate immoral laws to oppress, persecute, and deny people their natural moral human rights.

For Christians, we seek freedom from the immoral tyranny of the state that people like you have begun to inflict on us in the U.S. but also the freedom to uphold the moral laws of the state as God’s people. So while we cannot in good conscience participate in evil we certainly can purpose to follow all moral laws.

If you wish to spend your life severely persecuting us for that, and it looks like you do, we will endure your evil, immoral, wrongful persecution knowing that at the end this age the book of life will be opened and our names found within for eternity.

The question you should be asking yourself Jhana is if after a life spent legislating immorality as law upon moral people tyrannically: will your name will be?

I don't institute laws, AgeOfKnowledge. I don't even vote. Political candidates have the same funding sources generally, so you're just voting for a false choice. I don't actively engage in the institution of laws, I only follow the ones that exist.

I don't have an opinion on whether homosexuality is inherently immoral enough to be illegal or not illegal, I just observe and assume the viewpoints of either side depending on what side you're coming from. I only try to show two sides to the argument because Jesus tells me to put myself in other peoples' shoes. If I understand perspectives and all the ways they differ, I understand things much clearer than anybody with a narrow mind ever can.

I don't align with a political party, I simply view and undertake the viewpoints of people who do, so that I can understand both sides of the argument and lie in the middle in any given arbitration, taking into account the extreme, and the moderate.

If you come from a place so closed minded that I feel I need to show you some of the other end of the spectrum, then I will do so. But I am not situated where you situate me. As Jesus says on the matter; 'be passers by'

If you argue in a certain manner, I'll endeavor to match your arguments in a manner that you might understand, in a context that's relevant to the way you speak, in your 'vernacular'. If you're talking about law, and want to logic by law, I'll speak in law.

All I'm after is for you to see the other side of the coin instead of coming from one absolute that is esoteric to you and then basing your whole worldview round it then trying to force it on the world.

I think I've shown to a satisfactory degree that it is not so black and white as you continue to repetitively and rather-closed-mindedly assert, over, and over, and over.

I'm not here to institute God's laws, nor to force anything, only to understand them and live by them in my actions and intents myself. If someone else would like to join me, then they can be my guest. If they don't, then that's also their right. I have no stance on what other people must and must not do, only what I know God to have shown me to be beneficial to my own life.

I haven't set my heart in this world. I don't choose sides, only assimilate them.

If empathy and love are roads to peace then I'll empathize with the most hated and reviled. And if compassion conquers all things then I'll try my best to have it towards the most disagreeable people.

One thing that I certainly have witnessed in this world is that homosexual people do not seem to listen too much to the people who constantly criticize them for being so, and so I deduced that maybe a new tact and approach may suit the cause of curbing homosexuality, other than criticism and exclusion.

I have also observed that in the past dictators and tyrannic religions have attempted to incite force of law against homosexuals for their behaviours, to no avail. These people have always existed and evidence suggests they always will.

Another thing I have noticed is that the christians think of themselves as being bearers of light and shining beacons of peace and hope and morality, and yet many homosexual people feel that christians remove their hope, crush their spirits and drain their lights.

I've also witnessed that the two are at enmity with each other, neither seeking to understand the other, only to condemn one another and judge one another and hate one another.

I've noticed that christians speak about forgiveness, being long-suffering, patient and kind towards people who may even be enemies, christians who say 'rejoice in persecution' to the homosexuals but don't rejoice in their own persecution when their time for persecution has come.

Tell me if I am wrong.

 

[Kerry]

I don't institute laws, AgeOfKnowledge. I don't even vote. Political candidates have the same funding sources generally, so you're just voting for a false choice. I don't actively engage in the institution of laws, I only follow the ones that exist.

I don't have an opinion on whether homosexuality is inherently immoral enough to be illegal or not illegal, I just observe and assume the viewpoints of either side depending on what side you're coming from. I only try to show two sides to the argument because Jesus tells me to put myself in other peoples' shoes. If I understand perspectives and all the ways they differ, I understand things much clearer than anybody with a narrow mind ever can.

I don't align with a political party, I simply view and undertake the viewpoints of people who do, so that I can understand both sides of the argument and lie in the middle in any given arbitration, taking into account the extreme, and the moderate.

If you come from a place so closed minded that I feel I need to show you some of the other end of the spectrum, then I will do so. But I am not situated where you situate me. As Jesus says on the matter; 'be passers by'

If you argue in a certain manner, I'll endeavor to match your arguments in a manner that you might understand, in a context that's relevant to the way you speak, in your 'vernacular'. If you're talking about law, and want to logic by law, I'll speak in law.

All I'm after is for you to see the other side of the coin instead of coming from one absolute that is esoteric to you and then basing your whole worldview round it then trying to force it on the world.

I think I've shown to a satisfactory degree that it is not so black and white as you continue to repetitively and rather-closed-mindedly assert, over, and over, and over.

I'm not here to institute God's laws, nor to force anything, only to understand them and live by them in my actions and intents myself. If someone else would like to join me, then they can be my guest. If they don't, then that's also their right. I have no stance on what other people must and must not do, only what I know God to have shown me to be beneficial to my own life.

I haven't set my heart in this world. I don't choose sides, only assimilate them.

If empathy and love are roads to peace then I'll empathize with the most hated and reviled. And if compassion conquers all things then I'll try my best to have it towards the most disagreeable people.

One thing that I certainly have witnessed in this world is that homosexual people do not seem to listen too much to the people who constantly criticize them for being so, and so I deduced that maybe a new tact and approach may suit the cause of curbing homosexuality, other than criticism and exclusion.

I have also observed that in the past dictators and tyrannic religions have attempted to incite force of law against homosexuals for their behaviours, to no avail. These people have always existed and evidence suggests they always will.

Another thing I have noticed is that the christians think of themselves as being bearers of light and shining beacons of peace and hope and morality, and yet many homosexual people feel that christians remove their hope, crush their spirits and drain their lights.

I've also witnessed that the two are at enmity with each other, neither seeking to understand the other, only to condemn one another and judge one another and hate one another.

I've noticed that christians speak about forgiveness, being long-suffering, patient and kind towards people who may even be enemies, christians who say 'rejoice in persecution' to the homosexuals but don't rejoice in their own persecution when their time for persecution has come.

Tell me if I am wrong.

WRONG. is that good enough.

Christians are to be watchmen also, warning their fellow man of the consequences of doing evil. I know that it is hard for a carnal mind to understand spiritual things, for we war not with flesh and blood. But one day I am going to stand before God and give account of my life and do not want Him to say why didn't you tell them my truth. Secondly according to Gods word those that condone homosexuality or another sin, are more guilty than those who act on it. so to say I am a Christian yet I condone homo's, is an act of abomination to God and your salvation hangs in the balance. I wert that you were hot or cold because if you ride the fence or are luke warm, I will spew you out of my mouth. Take heed.

 

[Jhana]

WRONG.is that good enough.

Christians are to be watchmen also, warning their fellow man of the consequences of doing evil. I know that it is hard for a carnal mind to understand spiritual things, for we war not with flesh and blood. But one day I am going to stand before God and give account of my life and do not want Him to say why didn't you tell them my truth. Secondly according to Gods word those that condone homosexuality or another sin, are more guilty than those who act on it. so to say I am a Christian yet I condone homo's, is an act of abomination to God and your salvation hangs in the balance. I wert that you were hot or cold because if you ride the fence or are luke warm, I will spew you out of my mouth. Take heed.

There is much more to coldness and hotness than impartiality, adn in fact it has nothing to do with impartiality at all. God is impartial, that is what he says.

The Laodicians were rich, and said 'I am in need of nothing else', and didn't realize that they were in need of everything, Kerry. They needed the 'gold' refined by fire, that they may be truly rich, and the white coverings, to be properly clothed and eye salve to take all the blindness out of their eyes.

None of which are literal of course, but there is a meaning. They had forgotten the things that made them, came back to focus on the world and all its entrapments and lost the things which made them hot or cold.

Lukewarmness is nothing to do with impartiality. It is to do with indifference. There is a difference.

Being impartial is taking no side, but knowing and investing in the whole. Striving to understand. Being all things to all people.

Indifference is simply not caring either way. Not having interest, not investing, not having concern, not having empathy.

Indifference is different than impartiality.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

First of all abstention is a vote. It's a vote to abstain and in political theory is asserted to be as potentially powerful as casting a vote. You cannot hide behind abstention with me so don't even try.

Back to repeating myself. As stated, OUR discussion isn't about homosexuality being illegal or legal. Rather, OUR discussion is about leveraging government to severely punish and persecute every moral American with prison and bankruptcy who owns or works in a business that refuses to participate in the propagation of homosexuality when ordered by homosexuals to do so.

That is tyranny. That is immoral. That is evil. That is wrong. That is a violation of their natural human rights. That is a violation of their Constitutional rights (even if liberals are able to pervert the Constitution to the point they can inflict such injury which the Constitution was originally designed to prevent).

And invoking a heretical book of Gnosticism that teaches many things which are contrary to the Jesus of the canonical Gospels in no way lets you off the hook for doing wrong or failing to do right.

You will be judged on what you did wrong and also what you failed to do right. There is no escape from standing before Him and giving an account. If you think you can argue for the severe persecution of godly people and then claim it's not your fault while you do nothing to prevent it, you're under a strong delusion. You will be judged for that.

Your philosophy of "assimilation" is the opposite of what Christ taught. What Jesus Christ said exactly is:

"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men" -Matthew 5:13.

Jesus said to be the salt and light of the world not to assimilate with the world like Lot almost did in Sodom. If the futurists are right, I can see you assimilating with whatever others decide and taking the mark of the beast and joining the kingdom of the anti-Christ!

Finally, you've stated that "...Christians speak about forgiveness, being long-suffering, patient and kind towards people who may even be enemies, Christians who say 'rejoice in persecution' to the homosexuals but don't rejoice in their own persecution when their time for persecution has come."

^ What a cop out. You defended the evil victimization of moral people by the immoral, then tried to wash your hands like Pontus Pilate at the execution of Jesus, invoked the persecution of the immoral to "justify" the persecution of the moral (as if either are right), and finally blamed the moral victims for resisting evil!

Let's talk about what persecution is from a Biblical perspective (not to be confused with the heretical Gnosticism you invoked or your faulty best thinking).

Persecution is aggressive and injurious behavior (e.g. terror) carried out in a hostile, antagonistic spirit, normally by a group set against the backdrop of the Bible’s dramatic portrayal of Satan’s great enmity against God and his people.

It is concretely expressed in the antagonism of the wicked (described as the children of the devil, John 8:44) toward the righteous (the children of God, Rev 12:17).

Because persecution is inevitable for the truly righteous (Phil 1:29; 2 Tim 3:12), in part because of people like yourself, the people of God are exhorted to respond positively. But you obviously have no idea what this means.

Christians are supposed to resist evil to the point they can no longer and then stand against it afterwards. It is in the standing against evil that Christians commit themselves to God (1 Pet 4:19), rejoice because of the great eschatological reward awaiting them (Mt 5:12), demonstrate patience (1 Cor 4:12) and perseverance (Heb 10:36), and pray for those who inflict persecution upon them (Mt 5:44) as but one of many strategies to disempower the evil immoral persecution that evil immoral people wrongfully inflict on them.

The persecution of God's own people is a serious topic Jhana. Little godly children going to go to bed hungry while their fathers languish in violent prisons and their mother's bankrupt for NOTHING more than they refused to facilitate the activities of sexually immoral people who never needed their participation in a marketplace full of other options.

There is no justification for that tyranny and the immoral people who engage in and support it will be punished by no less than God if they don't repent of it.

I don't institute laws, AgeOfKnowledge. I don't even vote. Political candidates have the same funding sources generally, so you're just voting for a false choice. I don't actively engage in the institution of laws, I only follow the ones that exist.

I don't have an opinion on whether homosexuality is inherently immoral enough to be illegal or not illegal, I just observe and assume the viewpoints of either side depending on what side you're coming from. I only try to show two sides to the argument because Jesus tells me to put myself in other peoples' shoes. If I understand perspectives and all the ways they differ, I understand things much clearer than anybody with a narrow mind ever can.

I don't align with a political party, I simply view and undertake the viewpoints of people who do, so that I can understand both sides of the argument and lie in the middle in any given arbitration, taking into account the extreme, and the moderate.

If you come from a place so closed minded that I feel I need to show you some of the other end of the spectrum, then I will do so. But I am not situated where you situate me. As Jesus says on the matter; 'be passers by'

If you argue in a certain manner, I'll endeavor to match your arguments in a manner that you might understand, in a context that's relevant to the way you speak, in your 'vernacular'. If you're talking about law, and want to logic by law, I'll speak in law.

All I'm after is for you to see the other side of the coin instead of coming from one absolute that is esoteric to you and then basing your whole worldview round it then trying to force it on the world.

I think I've shown to a satisfactory degree that it is not so black and white as you continue to repetitively and rather-closed-mindedly assert, over, and over, and over.

I'm not here to institute God's laws, nor to force anything, only to understand them and live by them in my actions and intents myself. If someone else would like to join me, then they can be my guest. If they don't, then that's also their right. I have no stance on what other people must and must not do, only what I know God to have shown me to be beneficial to my own life.

I haven't set my heart in this world. I don't choose sides, only assimilate them.

If empathy and love are roads to peace then I'll empathize with the most hated and reviled. And if compassion conquers all things then I'll try my best to have it towards the most disagreeable people.

One thing that I certainly have witnessed in this world is that homosexual people do not seem to listen too much to the people who constantly criticize them for being so, and so I deduced that maybe a new tact and approach may suit the cause of curbing homosexuality, other than criticism and exclusion.

I have also observed that in the past dictators and tyrannic religions have attempted to incite force of law against homosexuals for their behaviours, to no avail. These people have always existed and evidence suggests they always will.

Another thing I have noticed is that the christians think of themselves as being bearers of light and shining beacons of peace and hope and morality, and yet many homosexual people feel that christians remove their hope, crush their spirits and drain their lights.

I've also witnessed that the two are at enmity with each other, neither seeking to understand the other, only to condemn one another and judge one another and hate one another.

I've noticed that christians speak about forgiveness, being long-suffering, patient and kind towards people who may even be enemies, christians who say 'rejoice in persecution' to the homosexuals but don't rejoice in their own persecution when their time for persecution has come.

Tell me if I am wrong.

 

[Jhana]

First of all abstention is a vote. It's a vote to abstain and in political theory is asserted to be as potentially powerful as casting a vote. You cannot hide behind abstention with me so don't even try.

Back to repeating myself. As stated, OUR discussion isn't about homosexuality being illegal or legal. Rather, OUR discussion is about leveraging government to severely punish and persecute every moral American with prison and bankruptcy who owns or works in a business that refuses to participate in the propagation of homosexuality when ordered by homosexuals to do so.

That is tyranny. That is immoral. That is evil. That is wrong. That is a violation of their natural human rights. That is a violation of their Constitutional rights (even if liberals are able to pervert the Constitution to the point they can inflict such injury which the Constitution was originally designed to prevent).

And invoking a heretical book of Gnosticism that teaches many things which are contrary to the Jesus of the canonical Gospels in no way lets you off the hook for doing wrong or failing to do right.

You will be judged on what you did wrong and also what you failed to do right. There is no escape from standing before Him and giving an account. If you think you can argue for the severe persecution of godly people and then claim it's not your fault while you do nothing to prevent it, you're under a strong delusion. You will be judged for that.

Your philosophy of "assimilation" is the opposite of what Christ taught. What Jesus Christ said exactly is:

"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men" -Matthew 5:13.

Jesus said to be the salt and light of the world not to assimilate with the world like Lot almost did in Sodom. If the futurists are right, I can see you assimilating with whatever others decide and taking the mark of the beast and joining the kingdom of the anti-Christ!

Finally, you've stated that "...Christians speak about forgiveness, being long-suffering, patient and kind towards people who may even be enemies, Christians who say 'rejoice in persecution' to the homosexuals but don't rejoice in their own persecution when their time for persecution has come."

^ What a cop out. You defended the evil victimization of moral people by the immoral, then tried to wash your hands like Pontus Pilate at the execution of Jesus, invoked the persecution of the immoral to "justify" the persecution of the moral (as if either are right), and finally blamed the moral victims for resisting evil!

Let's talk about what persecution is from a Biblical perspective (not to be confused with the heretical Gnosticism you invoked or your faulty best thinking).

Persecution is aggressive and injurious behavior (e.g. terror) carried out in a hostile, antagonistic spirit, normally by a group set against the backdrop of the Bible’s dramatic portrayal of Satan’s great enmity against God and his people.

It is concretely expressed in the antagonism of the wicked (described as the children of the devil, John 8:44) toward the righteous (the children of God, Rev 12:17).

Because persecution is inevitable for the truly righteous (Phil 1:29; 2 Tim 3:12), in part because of people like yourself, the people of God are exhorted to respond positively. But you obviously have no idea what this means.

Christians are supposed to resist evil to the point they can no longer and then stand against it afterwards. It is in the standing against evil that Christians commit themselves to God (1 Pet 4:19), rejoice because of the great eschatological reward awaiting them (Mt 5:12), demonstrate patience (1 Cor 4:12) and perseverance (Heb 10:36), and pray for those who inflict persecution upon them (Mt 5:44) as but one of many strategies to disempower the evil immoral persecution that evil immoral people wrongfully inflict on them.

The persecution of God's own people is a serious topic Jhana. Little godly children going to go to bed hungry while their fathers languish in violent prisons and their mother's bankrupt for NOTHING more than they refused to facilitate the activities of sexually immoral people who never needed their participation in a marketplace full of other options.

There is no justification for that tyranny and the immoral people who engage in and support it will be punished by no less than God if they don't repent of it.

You keep telling me how it is and what I'll be punished for and I keep showing you that certainty isn't the same as clarity. If you only understand your own opinion then you don't understand very much at all.

I see your view. Since I read it, and take it on board. I have clarity of both sides. What I do not have is certainty that either can be labelled as either 'good' or 'bad', or 'one thing' or the 'other thing'. That is only a matter of opinion.

I have stated observations, perceptions, perspectives, laws, a view from each side. I haven't stated any certainty of opinion.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You keep telling me how it is and what I'll be punished for and I keep showing you that certainty isn't the same as clarity. If you only understand your own opinion then you don't understand very much at all.

I see your view. Since I read it, and take it on board. I have clarity of both sides. What I do not have is certainty that either can be labeled as either 'good' or 'bad', or 'one thing' or the 'other thing'. That is only a matter of opinion.

I have stated observations, perceptions, perspectives, laws, a view from each side. I haven't stated any certainty of opinion.

The law of non-contradiction is well established. Your denial of absolute truth is self-defeating.

 

[Jhana]

The law of non-contradiction is well established. Your denial of absolute truth is self-defeating.

Two people are asked 'what is a dog like?' Neither has ever seen a dog. The first sees an animal barking and asks the owner 'what animal is this?' And the owner says 'it is a dog'. The second sees an animal whimpering and says 'what is this?' And the owner says 'a dog'. The two get together and argue. 'A dog does not bark! That is the truth!' .. 'A dog does bark! It does not whimper, that is the truth!' These two are against one another. They walk around with opinions of the dog, and they are butting heads.

A third man comes along and says 'fellows, what are you arguing for? Don't you see that a dog both barks and whimpers?'

They know what they think to be true. Absolutes, which they are certain of, each of them, so they care nothing for each others' perspectives, only what they think they know.

It's the same as you taking the absolute view that a particular person in a situation is wrong, based on what you have come to know in your life. You reduce and define and base your premises on what you have come to know. You see sides, a right and a wrong, a condemnable and an uncondemnable.

I look at you as simply one part of what the dog does. I look at the homosexual argument, as another part of what the dog does. And so I understand the two parts of what the dog does.

I don't have to choose which part of the dog is real or valid based on the distinction you make that one part of the dog is better thant he other, and on which you view the entire dog. I only need to see the whole dog to see the whole dog. An argument over whether the dog's bark is better, or its whimper is better, is something I can leave for you to decide for yourself.

For me, the whole dog has imperfections, and the leg is not better than the head, nor the tail better than the teeth. It is a dog, and that's all it is.

 

[Jhana]

This is to say, that every person on earth has imperfections, has done wrongs. For me to condemn one, is to condemn another, and also myself. I only understand the whole dog, because with understanding comes the ability to see through this 'we' and 'they', 'leg' vs 'tail'.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Here's a better example than your nonsensical dog analogy which you wrongly believe translates to both sides being right even though only the moral side really is.

Your daughter becomes a Christian and begins to design cakes for special events. Two homosexuals come in and say they want her to prepare a cake for their immoral abomination. She tells them she can't because to do so would violate her moral conscience and she simply cannot facilitate or participate in an immoral act.

Instead of going to another cake designer, they appeal to the government to imprison and fine her. The government obliges and places your daughter in a prison full of violent female felons who rape her repeatedly infecting her with the HIV virus in the process.

When she finishes out her sentence and comes home she is faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars in government fines and court costs that do not wash in bankruptcy court and will ensure she lives in poverty for what remains of her life.

Homosexuals have imprisoned your daughter, murdered your daughter, and ensured she remains poor for the rest of what remains of her life for no other reason than she is a moral person who would not violate her conscience and design a cake for their immoral event.

You, her mother, tell her that you can see both sides of the issue and that Christians are supposed to rejoice in persecution.

Two people are asked 'what is a dog like?' Neither has ever seen a dog. The first sees an animal barking and asks the owner 'what animal is this?' And the owner says 'it is a dog'. The second sees an animal whimpering and says 'what is this?' And the owner says 'a dog'. The two get together and argue. 'A dog does not bark! That is the truth!' .. 'A dog does bark! It does not whimper, that is the truth!' These two are against one another. They walk around with opinions of the dog, and they are butting heads.

A third man comes along and says 'fellows, what are you arguing for? Don't you see that a dog both barks and whimpers?'

They know what they think to be true. Absolutes, which they are certain of, each of them, so they care nothing for each others' perspectives, only what they think they know.

It's the same as you taking the absolute view that a particular person in a situation is wrong, based on what you have come to know in your life. You reduce and define and base your premises on what you have come to know. You see sides, a right and a wrong, a condemnable and an uncondemnable.

I look at you as simply one part of what the dog does. I look at the homosexual argument, as another part of what the dog does. And so I understand the two parts of what the dog does.

I don't have to choose which part of the dog is real or valid based on the distinction you make that one part of the dog is better thant he other, and on which you view the entire dog. I only need to see the whole dog to see the whole dog. An argument over whether the dog's bark is better, or its whimper is better, is something I can leave for you to decide for yourself.

For me, the whole dog has imperfections, and the leg is not better than the head, nor the tail better than the teeth. It is a dog, and that's all it is.

 

[RedTent]

I think this post has some basic misunderstandings. But first, I would like to point out that in the spiritual world, in God's eyes, immorality is something that has to do with our very center in Christ. In marriage we are to become one, and that is male and female coming together sexually to represent many things. They were together in the first place, when a part of Adam was separated and made into a helper for him in Eve. It is a huge denial of that to try to make two of the same sex come together, and it is of prime importance. If there was something physical missing in a baby having to do with this, it is a serious malformation. It does not mean that God loves them less, it means they are seriously ill.

We are to be the bride of Christ in the same way, true to only Christ and accept the Holy Spirit within us. We are to die to self and become alive in Christ.

It is usually not so that babies are born preferring their own sex. In these last days demons have been let loose, and even our churches are not accepting the boundaries of behavior as right that scripture gives us. Often the churches say not to listen to these boundaries, only to the Holy Spirit, as if the Holy Spirit isn't given to us to understand the boundaries. Usually it is learned behavior, learned through the acceptance of the behavior in the world around them. Even a new born baby who understands nothing of a TV program has those words imprinted in his mind. God gave babies the ability to absorb what is around them at a deep level, they are learning and they have much to learn.

Also, scripture tells us not to let the people in our churches who are determined to be immoral. So the bible is teaching discrimination of individuals because of their behavior.

'LGBT rights' is a big deal at the moment - and it's no secret that Hollywood has a gender to promote not just homosexuality, but sexual immorality in general.

As Christians, the only stance to hold is to with 100% authenticity and sincerity love everyone, regardless of their sexual proclivities.

Jesus taught to LOVE people, but to love someone doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with them, or that you're willing to approve of or participate in their lifestyle.

It's become a buzz word within the LGBT community to equate disagreement with homosexuality as a form of discrimination.

Discrimination is the devaluing of a human being. But the value of a human being has 0% to do with their sexual preference.

A heterosexual has no more value than a homosexual. Their value has nothing to do with sexual preference.

As human beings we're born with all kinds of desires. Some good, others bad. Some of our desires are selfishness - you see this in children who don't care about certain toys until another child wants to play with it. Sometimes we have desires to lie, hate, steal, put down others etc. These are all desires that we're to varying degrees born with, but our value, our worth isn't affected or influenced in any way by these tendencies.

Likewise, heterosexuals are born with desires towards people of the opposite gender, and those desires should be, as the writer of proverbs says; not awoken until the right time (marriage). When married they should be directed towards your spouse.

So we all have desires that are sinful, and we all make mistakes - but our identity has NOTHING to do with these desires. These desires don't define us.

Likewise, even if homosexual desire is something a child is born with, they aren't define by it. Just as a heterosexual can come to the cross, and place his evil desires before the feet of Jesus, and ask for forgiveness, reconciliation, and for Gods Spirit to do a miraculous work - so too can the homosexual.

Disagreeing with homosexuality isn't discrimination, it's not unloving - it's a moral stance. It has nothing to do with the value of a person, but the actions that person commits.

Jess loves people who have homosexual desires, he died for them. He values them so much, his blood was shed for them. Gods own blood. But he hates the sin. Loves the sinner, and hates the sins they commit.

The same is true of all forms of sexual immorality, and the same is true of lies, theft, witchcraft - which is what i would equate homosexuality too.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Tell me if I am wrong.

OK I will. You are wrong. The average homosexual radical is not trying to be understood. His one purpose in life is to destroy that which is of God and promote that which is of Satan.

Because Satan is the father of lies and homosexuality is premised on a lie, those that are trying to promote that lie to gain acceptance are doing the work of Satan as the bible is clear you cannot serve two masters. Either you serve God or you serve Satan. There is no in between.

God has set out a plan. The church and the family, and both are related to each other and a reflection of each other. The church is supposed to reproduce itself with new converts and the family reproduces itself with new babies.

Homosexuality is a distortion of God’s creation and plan, which is why we have to “resist evil” and “fight the good fight”, the same as I would if my own family was being attacked by a satanic entity.

No matter what anyone says, the homosexual radical will accuse you of being judgemental because at the core of their being is an emotional dysfunction fed by rejection that reads everything as opposition unless you agree with everything they say. I noticed in my work with them that all of them had a problem with anger.

People can say negative things about me but it is like water off a ducks back because I had rejection and was delivered from it and I had an encounter with the fatherhood of God so I am very secure in myself and who I am in God.

Some people take that as arrogance which probably means that they are very insecure and cannot handle people who are not.

 

[Tintin]

I don't understand homosexuals but I feel for those who struggle with their sexuality, I really do. That said, there's no love lost between me and radical homosexuals. Like I mentioned before, they act like toddlers but much worse.