Top Anti-Gay Group Attempts Public Meeting Over LGBT Rights

[Caecuser]

Why are these acts sinful?

They are sinful because God, the source of all Goodness, as commanded us in His moral law, not to perform them.

Nowadays most countries aren't run by His Laws - attempting to change our current laws (or keep them) to His laws simply for the sake of them being His laws is just wrong to me.

[The Tovian Way]

They are sinful because God, the source of all Goodness, as commanded us in His moral law, not to perform them.

I disagree. The same god had us kill men that worked on Sunday.

The Jewish Sabbath was Saturday (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) not Sunday.
And this was commanded in the societal law of the Jewish state. It is no longer operable.
The moral law is eternal, and not one word of it shall ever pass away.

[Menassa]

Hmm..I always thought that the old laws were abolished when Jesus came..Besides the Bible says nothing about homosexuality anyways.

13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Sure, a lot of Christians argue that these old laws were "nailed" to the Cross. That doesn't change the fact that the supposedly benevolent, omniscient God commanded this shit in the first place. You don't really get a do-over for that shit, especially if you're supposed to know everything.

Yes you do, if you look at the The Law at the time period it was, it was necessary for the children of Israel to not practice homosexuality... but when the children of Israel stopped being (Hebrews 8:13) the Law agaisnst homosexuality was a mere anachronism.

[Natair]

This viewpoint of one sexuality being completely legitimate and the other being heinous is odd to me. There is functionally no difference between the two when they are used for pleasure (despite basic anatomical differences, they are essentially the same thing; sexual acts) and heterosexual sex can be performed without the intention or requirement of creating new life.

There just doesn't seem to be any reason to make one morally illegal and the other be fine. Especially considering both are consensual (when they are actually consensual).

There need not be a functional difference. God has created sexuality, and He has rights to determine how it may be properly used. God, as the source of all Goodness, has set down that certain sex acts are permitted and blessed, and all others are sinful.
Your claim is that the agents involved are irrelevant; but the commandment of God is precisely otherwise, that the agents, and the situation, are in fact highly relevant to the morality of the case.

... I could say "screw that", but it would be in very poor taste. And I hate double meanings.

Nobody is telling me what I'm gonna do except ME.

I will take the law and such into account when making these decisions, but not a book written hundreds of years ago. That's like only using the original edition of the dictionary and refusing to recognize any words that came into existence after that time.

[Old Tyrannia]

Strange, I was under the impression that American liberals believed in freedom of speech. It appears that some of them don't, however, at least not when the speakers are espousing a view they disagree with.

As far as the group in question go, I don't necessarily agree with their point of view. However, I would not like to live in a society where they were not free to express it.

[Menassa]

I disagree. The same god had us kill men that worked on Sunday.

The Jewish Sabbath was Saturday (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) not Sunday.
And this was commanded in the societal law of the Jewish state. It is no longer operable.
The moral law is eternal, and not one word of it shall ever pass away.

The Jewish Sabbath is no longer Saturday?

[Liriena]

It does indeed make sense. God values our free will, because only a freely chosen act can possibly have moral consequences. This includes the consequences of these freely chosen actions, and so, by our own sinful acts, creation remains fallen.

He values our free will enough to constantly cheat by having us being born with certain defects or inclinations, or within a certain sociocultural context, that severely condition our behaviour?

You may call it that. I call it the epitome of mercy and love. Were we not to learn to value God more than anything else, we could not become the kind of people capable of experiencing God in His full glory, which is heaven, and we would consign ourselves to the hell of being forever separated from God by our own choice. Since God desires our good, He calls us to learn to value Him above all, that we may become this kind of being.

That's cognitive dissonance right there. There is nothing merciful or loving about demanding absolute, unquestionable love and submission in exchange for not suffering for all eternity.

He enables it only in the sense that He does not prevent it. He does not prevent it because this fallen creation is a consequence of human sin, of men's own free choices, and He values our free will too highly to deprive us of it.

So, he punishes the children for the sins of the fathers, and lets his entire creation rot, because this is all the fault of an original sin that he himself enabled?

It is not God's mess, it is our own. We are the ones who mired ourselves in sin, such that even now we rebel and rail against the good in preference for our sins, further miring ourselves and drawing us further away from God. And He does not demand that we take responsibility and clean the mess ourselves; He has done that on His own, in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This sacrifice enables us, through His grace, to begin to choose God and reform our lives, to be an active partner in our own salvation.

So, rather than actually do something concrete and definitive, he left it all in the hands of a young Middle-Eastern Jew of dubious existence, and hoped for the best?

[Natair]

Strange, I was under the impression that American liberals believed in freedom of speech. It appears that some of them don't, however, at least not when the speakers are espousing a view they disagree with.

As far as the group in question go, I don't necessarily agree with their point of view. However, I would not like to live in a society where they were not free to express it.

I do believe in it, and these people HAVE to be allowed to speak. That doesn't mean we have to like or appreciate what they say. Hell, we don't even have to listen.

[Haflin]

That man is certainly using his power to aid in tyranny of majority. I guess he used it in a good way XD.

That man is using his power to protect people's rights. The fact that the majority is not composed of bigots is antecedent.

Sorry if I offended it was not my intention, But I would say that they are tyranny of majority (sorry if I may be using that phrase incorrectly.) I would also like to say that I never stated the majority was full of or composed of bigots. I was merely suggesting they were using the democratic process to suppress a generally unsupported group.

[The Tovian Way]

They are sinful because God, the source of all Goodness, as commanded us in His moral law, not to perform them.

Nowadays most countries aren't run by His Laws - attempting to change our current laws (or keep them) to His laws simply for the sake of them being His laws is just wrong to me.

Indeed they are not, and under the New Covenant, the dietary and social laws are no longer operable. The punishment for committing homosexual sex acts is within this law, and is abolished.
The moral law, however, is eternal, and will never pass away. The prohibition against homosexual sex acts is within this law, and remains.

Unfortunately, I have to leave for today. If anyone has any further questions for me, please do send me a telegram and I will try to address them to the best of my ability when I have time.

[Menassa]

I disagree. The same god had us kill men that worked on Sunday.

[...]
The moral law is eternal, and not one word of it shall ever pass away.

My friend, that's like going to a restraint and picking what you want off of the menu.

You want the law against homosexuality,
mixing threads? That Law is gone.

[Resora]

Sure, a lot of Christians argue that these old laws were "nailed" to the Cross. That doesn't change the fact that the supposedly benevolent, omniscient God commanded this shit in the first place. You don't really get a do-over for that shit, especially if you're supposed to know everything.

Yes you do, if you look at the The Law at the time period it was, it was necessary for the children of Israel to not practice homosexuality... but when the children of Israel stopped being (Hebrews 8:13) the Law agaisnst homosexuality was a mere anachronism.

Why on earth would it be "necessary" to not practice homosexuality?

[Menassa]

Yes you do, if you look at the The Law at the time period it was, it was necessary for the children of Israel to not practice homosexuality... but when the children of Israel stopped being (Hebrews 8:13) the Law agaisnst homosexuality was a mere anachronism.

Why on earth would it be "necessary" to not practice homosexuality?

In the interests of Procreation?

[The Truth and Light]

Strange, I was under the impression that American liberals believed in freedom of speech. It appears that some of them don't, however, at least not when the speakers are espousing a view they disagree with.

As far as the group in question go, I don't necessarily agree with their point of view. However, I would not like to live in a society where they were not free to express it.

If you were under the impression that American liberals believed in freedom of speech, you were correct. That's why we're dissenting to what we believe is inappropriate behavior.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean right-wingers get an echo-chamber where they can say whatever they want without backlash. It means when you say hateful, bigoted, homophobic, potentially dangerous things, other citizens are allowed to tell you that your behavior is unacceptable.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. It's freedom to be criticized.

[Natair]

Why on earth would it be "necessary" to not practice homosexuality?

In the interests of Procreation?

Because the world is in DESPERATE need of more people, right?

[Wisconsin9]

Strange, I was under the impression that American liberals believed in freedom of speech. It appears that some of them don't, however, at least not when the speakers are espousing a view they disagree with.

As far as the group in question go, I don't necessarily agree with their point of view. However, I would not like to live in a society where they were not free to express it.

Most of us do believe in freedom of speech. It's just that that includes the freedom to call your opponents out on being hateful bigots.

[Liriena]

Why are these acts sinful?

They are sinful because God, the source of all Goodness, as commanded us in His moral law, not to perform them.

Where has he commanded it?

Furthermore, I hereby repeat my previous question: Why is it not acceptable by (most modern) christian doctrine to execute LGBT people, yet it is perfectly fine to deny them other human rights?

[Lithosano]

That man is using his power to protect people's rights. The fact that the majority is not composed of bigots is antecedent.

Sorry if I offended it was not my intention, But I would say that they are tyranny of majority (sorry if I may be using that phrase incorrectly.) I would also like to say that I never stated the majority was full of or composed of bigots. I was merely suggesting they were using the democratic process to suppress a generally unsupported group.

You didn't offend. No one is being suppressed (although in this case the minority is calling for that), they can still have their meeting but the Senate isn't going to give them a platform to espouse their bigotry.

[Resora]

Why on earth would it be "necessary" to not practice homosexuality?

In the interests of Procreation?

Shouldn't they be offing childless couples then, to prevent wasting resources on people that aren't popping out babies?

And wouldn't restrictions on sexual behavior, like no premarital sex (on penalty of death), run contrary to promoting procreation?

[Menassa]

In the interests of Procreation?

Because the world is in DESPERATE need of more people, right?

You should probably take a good look at the conversation before making this claim.

In the interests of Procreation?

Shouldn't they be offing childless couples then, to prevent wasting resources on people that aren't popping out babies?

And wouldn't restrictions on sexual behavior, like no premarital sex (on penalty of death), run contrary to promoting procreation?

The answer could be given is that anything that continues into the 'age of grace' stays... adultery... no sexual relations before marriage... but things that needn't stay... ended.

I mean these could all be Christian answers.

[Lithosano]

Nowadays most countries aren't run by His Laws - attempting to change our current laws (or keep them) to His laws simply for the sake of them being His laws is just wrong to me.

Indeed they are not, and under the New Covenant, the dietary and social laws are no longer operable. The punishment for committing homosexual sex acts is within this law, and is abolished.
The moral law, however, is eternal, and will never pass away. The prohibition against homosexual sex acts is within this law, and remains.

Unfortunately, I have to leave for today. If anyone has any further questions for me, please do send me a telegram and I will try to address them to the best of my ability when I have time.

I read somewhere that the Hebrew word used when Leviticus talks about homosexuality was the word that also described breaking dietary and social laws, and that a different word is used to mean moral failures.

Menassa, confirm/deny?

[The Truth and Light]

Why are these acts sinful?

They are sinful because God, the source of all Goodness, as commanded us in His moral law, not to perform them.

You'd do well to learn the rhetorical conventions of the 21st Century, and begin to use them. If you do so, I'm sure your writing will sound much less like a cheap imitation of the KJB.

[Rocopurr]

Time to go to DC and stop this.

Friendly reminder: US laws aren't decided by what the Bible says. Seems The Tovian Way has forgotten that.

[Menassa]

Indeed they are not, and under the New Covenant, the dietary and social laws are no longer operable. The punishment for committing homosexual sex acts is within this law, and is abolished.
The moral law, however, is eternal, and will never pass away. The prohibition against homosexual sex acts is within this law, and remains.

Unfortunately, I have to leave for today. If anyone has any further questions for me, please do send me a telegram and I will try to address them to the best of my ability when I have time.

[...]

Menassa, confirm/deny?

Depends which English translation the person is using.

In the Hebrew, no, the words used are not the same... however a Catholic who's KJV only... that argument could be made.

[Pastor Visser]

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by Yahweh god due to homosexuality, the same thing will happen to people today if they do not repent and stop being gay.