Why Do Christians Hate Gays?

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 140
#31
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5

.
ethang5,

SALIXES QUOTE : "The book of Leviticus states that "it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman."

YOUR QUOTE IN RESPONSE: "Is this about who they are or what they do?"

No, it is about what our Jesus, as the Hebrew God incarnate, wants His creation to perform against all homosexuals in the following verse:

"If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Get it? Huh?

.
#32
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes

What is it about homosexuality that classifies it "along with all forms of sexual immorality".
Are you inferring somehow that homosexuality is immoral?
And, if so, apart from out of sheer ignorance, what reason do you have for making such an erroneous judgment?


If you have already discounted me as ignorant, and consider this view erroneous, why should I answer your question?


As I said, sexual immorality is a symptom of idolatry. Idolatry naturally leads to delusion as it is a rejection of the The Truth.
#33
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
No, it is about what our Jesus,...
My Jesus isn't your jesus.

..as the Hebrew God incarnate,
God is not Hebrew.

..wants His creation to perform against all homosexuals
Untrue. Jesus did not perform it. And He is God. It was an edict to Hebrews at a certain time under certain conditions.

See, I told you that your jesus is not my Jesus.

Get it? Huh?
You may if you read more slowly. Reading comprehension can be improved.
#34
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@Salixes
I love my children but I  don't like everything they do, so by your reckoning, I hate my kids which is total nonsense. It's true that some Christians hate others but their hatred is not sanctioned by God even if someone cherry-picks certain scripture verses without considering the whole counsel of God.


I also notice in virtually all your posts you rely heavily on an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

#35
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5



ethang5,

Uh, maybe you need to be banned once again so you can take that time to bone up upon the scriptures, so as not to be so bible ignorant all the time in front of the membership, yes? Don't you realize that they are watching you make Satanic statements? Huh?

To save you from a LOT OF EMBARRASSMENT this time, by not addressing your other misgivings regarding the Bible in your post #33, I will just bring forth your standout quote of God not being Hebrew!!!!! LOL!!! OMG!!!!!  Did you really proffer this ungodly statement, really???! You were just kidding us, correct?!!!



YOUR UNFORTUNATE QUOTE IN POST #33: "God is not Hebrew."

This is what can happen to pseudo-christians like you, in that they think they know the Bible, when in fact, they do not, and then make fools of themselves in front of the membership by making one of the most ignorant and ungodly statements a pseudo-christians like you could ever make!



1. The God of the Old Testament is Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, and in the Old and New Testaments as Jesus being Yahweh God incarnate.

2. JESUS STATED: "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28) Jesus is the God of the Hebrews when He will judge the twelve tribes of Israel, and as part and parcel of the Triune Doctrine.

3. JESUS STATED: “He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) Jesus was ONLY interested in people of his Jewish heritage, and especially as Yahweh being the Hebrew God, and not the God of other religions!

4. “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the HOUSE OF ISREAL and with the HOUSE OF JUDAH not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband unto them,” saith the Lord. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the HOUSE OF ISRAEL: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, AND WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)   This is self-explanatory, or do you need further explanation from me, in the fact that our God Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost IS FOR THE HEBREWS ONLY???!  

5.   "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is Jesus, "The King of the Jews" (Matthew 27:37) Obviously this is an appropriate term for Jesus because as shown in the passages herewith. To say otherwise, is Devil Speak which you are good at!



Ethang5, do you want to try and go against the scriptures herein, and continue to speak for Satan and posit that our Jesus, as explained within the Trinity Doctrine, is not HEBREW? LOL!  If so, I have other biblical axioms to prove this point, therefore adjust yourself to further Bible Slapping by the Brother D!

 Your major problem here at DEBATEART is the fact that it is truly hard for you to accept that your bible ignorance will not go unanswered within this forum! See what happens when you hang out with equally bible ignorant pseudo-christians all the time, where you don't get the truth except by Individuals like myself to show it to you, and at your expense all the time?


In my ever growing collection of your blatant bible ignorant statements, this one will certainly be at the top of the list!


.






#36
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
LOL!,

this topic reminds me of another poster who has been banned from this site. 

Nevertheless, the premises are just as flawed. The Fact is Christians don't hate homosexuals. I am not even sure they dislike them. 

I am a Christian and I like, I might even add, love homosexuals. I find the constant rhetoric from those who are anti-Christians staggering. There is, at least from my perception, a stronger anti-Christian flavour than anti-homosexual flavour. In fact, it seems most of the arguments and discussions arise from people wanting to have a go at Christians for their beliefs rather than Christians having a go at homosexuals. Why is it that some people just want everyone else to agree with them? 

Arguments against Christian's beliefs in this particular topic are also often flawed because people don't understand theology, or hermeneutics, or interpretational methodology. For instance, it is absurd to attempt to mock someone's belief when they don't seem to understand the difference between literal language and hyperbole or between statute law and poetry or between narrative and commentary. The Bible is full of many kinds of genre so it is ridiculous to use it in exactly the same manner throughout. Interestingly, it tends to be the Christian who attempts to use it properly while the anti-Christian often (not always) chooses to interpret it and use it literally. 

Another important aspect of understanding the Christian's position is theology. This requires a proper understanding not only of God, but also of God's character. Anti-Christian sentiment tends to begin with a critical spirit in relation to God which implies bias. It is an absurdity to try and put God under a microscope or to attempt to judge him by human standards. To attempt to do so - assumes that God really is not God in the first place. Once you start there - you can only ever confirm your presumption. 

Knowing theology also helps in the notion of contextuality. Who was the OT written to? Why was it written to them at that time? What has changed since that time? Does that change anything, and if so, what and why? The OT law for example was written to the people of Israel, in the context initially of the wilderness as they were leaving Egypt and moreover as they were entering into a new land which they would conquer and then settle. It was not written to Christians in that same sense. It is true that Christians spiritually leave Egypt, (slavery to sin) and enter into a new way of living (redemption) and attempt to live in the way that God wants them to. Yet, the express statutes to Israel in the OT have now had an intervening event between that time and Pentecost, namely the advent of Christ.  The question is how has Christ's advent changed anything and if so, what, and why? We know for instance, that Peter had a vision revealing that in Christ and because of his death, that the OT laws in relation to food had changed. We know from the book of Hebrews that the OT law in relation to the Sabbath had now been fulfilled in Christ. 

These are just two and there are many others. Christians live on this side of Pentecost. It is incorrect to say that they must live according to the matters prior to that time just because some people who do not understand how to read a book or theology must do so in "one way only". 

Christians don't hate people. Or perhaps they should not hate people.  Christians do hate sin. Whatever that sin might be. The thing about sin is - who gets to define what it is? Obviously the world would love to define what sin is and what sin is not. The Christian however does not hold to that view. For the Christian sin is defined by God as "falling short of his standards". And if you have not figured it out yet, Christians all know and acknowledge that they sin. So if we applied the standard "hate the sin, but love the sinner" to Christians, it is helpful. 

After all what does it mean to love? I take the view that to love God and to love others is to simply to "keep God's commandments". Hence when I don't do this - or I sin, then I do not show love to them.  I would endeavour to tell the truth to them and to warn them of dangers. I would want the very best for them - in accordance with the way that I understand things. 

If the Opening poster is correct - then all Christians hate all things. This is clearly absurd. 


#37
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
Do you know what sodomy is?

Butt sex and blowjobs.

So you are saying tgat every time you have had sex you were doing so with the intent of getting a chick pregnant?
Topic's author
#38
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Mopac
We are talking here about homosexuality.
You have changed the subject completely and are talking about sexual immorality.
Are you going to correctly address the question?
#39
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Butt sex and blowjobs.
Yes and no. It's more so "completion" orally or anally.

So you are saying that every time you have had sex you were doing so with the intent of getting a chick pregnant?
All acts of coitus with insemination implicate pregnancy particularly among pubescent, adolescent, and adult partners (exceptions being the prepubescent, infertile and sterile.) Every time one has sex one knowingly risks pregnancy.

#40
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
That's not what he asked. Every time I get in my car and drive to work I risk a car accident. That doesn't mean I did so with the intent of getting into one.
#41
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
I didn't ask if you risked pregnancy every time you had sex I asked if you intended pregnancy every time you had sex. Your dodging of this question was neither cleverly done nor subtle.
#42
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
Homosexuality falls in the category of sexual immorality.
#43
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
@Discipulus_Didicit
That's not what he asked. Every time I get in my car and drive to work I risk a car accident. That doesn't mean I did so with the intent of getting into one.\
Inept analogy. And I'm well aware of what he asked.

I didn't ask if you risked pregnancy every time you had sex I asked if you intended pregnancy every time you had sex. Your dodging of this question was neither cleverly done nor subtle.
I did not dodge your question. Notice that I qualified my response by mentioning "coitus with insemination." So yes, if one were to engage coitus with insemination, then one would knowingly risk pregnancy. One would engage an act primarily intended for pregnancy. His not "wanting" to get her pregnant is moot if his actions inform the contrary.


Topic's author
#44
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Mopac
You made a statement but have not backed it up with any reasoning, nor evidence.
In fact, your statement contradicts the views of the laws and morals of most states and countries around the world.

Do you think that it is fair to make statements (and you have made three so far) without any qualification or justification and contradict facts and reason?
#45
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
Homosexuality is but one of many methods of achieving the same result.

And the Bible and associated religions are a completely separate issue. 

In so much as, the former is an inherent necessity and the latter is a contrived doctrine.

Contrived doctrine as in mythological nonsense probably.

Probably; in as much as one can neither prove nor disprove the unprovable.


Topic's author
#46
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Tradesecret
Thanks for your elaboration of my point.
In some ways, homosexuals have a lot to offer society because of their distinct nuances.
I think it a shame that there is still much hatred (dissent, opposition, by any other euphemism) coming from Christian Churches which continue to vilify homosexuals to the extent of denying the same status of anybody else. The Bible is full of condemnation of homosexuals and (many) Churches still follow such dictates. In general, Churches are way behind the times in terms of moral values and accepted social norms.

Perhaps when Churches can make a quantum leap and follow the rest of society they will be better off for not harboring those individuals who are truly hateful, bigotted and give Christianity a bad name.
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
The Fact is Christians don't hate homosexuals. I am not even sure they dislike them. 

You appear to be speaking for all Christians simply by stating it as "fact". 



The Bible is full of many kinds of genre so it is ridiculous to use it in exactly the same manner throughout. Interestingly, it tends to be the Christian who attempts to use it properly while the anti-Christian often (not always) chooses to interpret it and use it literally. 

That is nothing more than opinion. And for you to keep prefixing the word "Christian" with the word "anti" won't make your own interpretation of the scriptures any more credible than my own or anyone else's who have looked at and studied these scriptures, for over 40 years in my case.



Who ....?  Why....? What ?  if so, what and why?

Posing questions of your own on someone else' thread go nowhere near answering the question posed by the OP


The OT law for example was written to the people of Israel,[....................]  It was not written to Christians in that same sense.

It was not written for Christians at all. I have stated many times here, that, the early Christians lumbered themselves with the OT god and the OT scriptures when they adopted a religion that they had absolutely no understanding of. And now, the modern Christian has to try and explain away all these vile OT scriptures and explain away all the violence meted out by this OT god.

 They have to invent excuses, change words, and whole meanings of verses and downright lie, to protect,  shield and defend the actions of this self confessed violent, jealous god of war and murder.

  But as someone has already pointed out ; The Christian faith states that Jesus is god and god wrote "If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13).   This is not to mention that Jesus states that has not come to change the "law" Matthew 5:17. 


The thing about sin is - who gets to define what it is?
Ask a Christian, ask a Jew and ask a Muslim, they will all have their own different interpretations and versions  of what are deemed to be crimes against god and gods will.


 For the Christian sin is defined by God as "falling short of his standards". 

I am not sure if you are just trying to play down what the consequences are for a homosexual " falling short of his standards". Or if you are trying to simplify what crimes/sins against god and his will actually are. But god / also known to Christians as Jesus the Christ, makes the punishment for homosexuality a capital crime, does he not?


If the Opening poster is correct - then all Christians hate all things. This is clearly absurd.
Is rape and   murder just "falling short" of Gods standards?  Do you not see how ridiculous and "absurd" your statement is? 





















#48
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@drafterman
@Athias
Yes and no. It's more so "completion" orally or anally.

Okay so according to you the gays are behaving immorally if they jizz in each others butts/ears/mouths/whatever. What about pulling out?

It's immoral to get a vasectomy then?
Non sequitur.

Your claim is that sexual acts are immoral if they can't cause a pregnancy. A vasectomy is an operation that is done specifically with the intent of causing all future sex acts to have no chance of pregnancy. I cannot think of anything that could possibly be more relevant.
#49
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
Intent is a state of mind. Whose state of mind are you talking about, here? 
<br>

#50
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I will just bring forth your standout quote of God not being Hebrew!!!!! LOL!!! OMG!!!!!  Did you really proffer this ungodly statement, really???! You were just kidding us, correct?!!!
No. God really isn't Hebrew. You think God is ethnic? Really?

And what's with the all bold, caps and underlining? Why are you yelling Dee Dee?

Ethang5, do you want to try and go against the scriptures herein, and continue to speak for Satan and posit that our Jesus,
Nope. Your jesus is not my Jesus.

...as explained within the Trinity Doctrine, is not HEBREW? 
The trinity has nothing to do with being Hebrew. And I did not say Jesus wasn't Hebrew, your reading compression has caused you to stumble again.

In my ever growing collection of your blatant bible ignorant statements, this one will certainly be at the top of the list!
It isn't difficult for me to believe that you have an ever growing collection of blatant bible ignorant statements Dee Dee.
#51
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay so according to you the gays are behaving immorally if they jizz in each others butts/ears/mouths/whatever. What about pulling out?
Non sequitur.

Your claim is that sexual acts are immoral if they can't cause a pregnancy.
Where did I claim this? Quote me.


#52
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
Intent is a state of mind. Whose state of mind are you talking about, here? 
We're not having this discussion in a common law court room. And when used as a noun rather than an adjective, intent is not a state of mind. Intent or intentions or intended alludes to plans, goals, purposes, and design which is relevant and more pertinent to the context of our discussion.

#53
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
We're not having this discussion in a common law court room.
I never intended to suggest that we were.

And when used as a noun rather than an adjective, intent is not a state of mind. Intent or intentions or intended alludes to plans, goals, purposes, and design which is relevant and more pertinent to the context of our discussion.
Okay. Whose "plans, goals, purposes, and design" are we talking about here?
#54
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
I am filly capable of explaining the position I hold.

However, because you are dismissing me for not presenting evidence rather than asking me to explain, it is apparent that you have your mind made up and are not actually wanting to hear any rationale.



What did I say? Sexual immorality is a symptom of idolatry. It certainly is.


#55
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
Okay. Whose "plans, goals, purposes, and design" are we talking about here?
Homosexuals in juxtaposition to heterosexuals and vice versa.
#56
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
It isn't possible to show how these things are wrong to people who don't understand morality in the same way.


Do whatever you want so long as you are not hurting anyone is not moral to us. In fact, it is the type of thinking that comes from a moral system so alien to ours as to be utterly incompatible.




#57
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
Previously you said:

I did not dodge your question. Notice that I qualified my response by mentioning "coitus with insemination." So yes, if one were to engage coitus with insemination, then one would knowingly risk pregnancy. One would engage an act primarily intended for pregnancy. His not "wanting" to get her pregnant is moot if his actions inform the contrary.
In this example, whose "plans, goals, purposes, and design" are we talking about? The one engaging in coitus?
#58
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It isn't right to hate gays or anyone.

I would say that someone who thinks they are a homosexual is deceived. I don't accept that as being who someone truly is. When you make these behaviors a matter of personal identity, you are doing something perverse and demeaning.


I don't believe that homosexuality is an innate part of a person anymore than thievery is. No one is born a murderer or to be less extreme, an electrician. Our behavior is what manifests these things, not genetics or feelings.

#59
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@drafterman
Heterosexuals engage in coitus, so heterosexuals.
#60
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Athias
Okay, well I am a heterosexual that has engaged in coitus and I can say that I have done so without pregnancy being my plan, goal, or design.