"Yes, we are still friends."
Yeah... about that.
"I think you should be treated as a second-class citizen, but we can still be buddies, right?"
Ehhh..
"Yes, we are still friends."
Yeah... about that.
To answer the OP's question, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" is fundamental to Christian doctrine. Christians believe that human beings began as innocent, basically good creatures but have been corrupted over time by their own gravitation to sin, of which homosexuality (and really, all sexual behavior that is not procreative heterosexual coupling within a church-recognized marriage) is one.
Anyway, in the time where Christianity came into being, "homosexuality" as a marker of identity, rather than behavior, simply did not exist.
An absolutely terrifying lack of critical thinking here. Straight up frightening.
Hey GAF, my wife's a Christian and I'm not. Does that blow your mind?
Serious question.
I've pointed out before that if you showed post-surgery Micheal Jackson photos to a young child, without them knowing about pre-surgery Micheal Jackson photos, they would undoubtedly believe that Micheal Jackson was Caucasian.
With that in mind, Mormonism used to believe that Africans were cursed with the mark of Cain. They've since shed that belief, but lets say they didn't. Or if you can't get over that, lets make up a new religion that actively holds the belief that black features are the remnants of the sin of Cain.
Would it be acceptable to then disagree with being African in appearance? Bleaching your skin and getting some cosmetic surgery might be expensive, though you could always use a Church program to secure funding. It seems to me no more unreasonable than expecting a life of celibacy from gays. Would that be just fine and dandy for someone to disagree with? If not, what makes disagreeing with homosexuality different? People say that they don't dislike the person, but the "lifestyle" (whatever that means). Similarly people born with African features wouldn't be condemned for having those genes, but would be disliked for choosing to not cosmetically alter those genetic features? Is this fair?
Super easy when you aren't Christian. Just like holding the idea that African features aren't the sinful mark of Cain is easy when you aren't a Mormon from the time before they shed that belief.
Please take this strawman and burn it someplace else. That's a bullshit question.
Michael Jackson suffered a disease called Vitiligo. He dyed his skin so that he would have blotches of white and black skin as a performer. He also had major surgery performed on his body so that he didn't feel self-conscious about his appearance.
He did it so people could talk about his ability to perform and not about his skin color.
That has nothing to do with Mormonism and the mark of Cain.
Why is that a problem? If Christians are not going to shun their homosexual friends, why is it okay for the homosexual friend to shun their Christian friends for their beliefs?
I feel like there is a reversal that is happening for the role where Homosexual use to be the ones afraid of coming out of the closet. Now, anyone with a religious belief against homosexuality are the ones that are going to be the ones afraid of stating their religion because they don't want to step on the homosexual community's toes.
I think both sides should respect each other in this case. Just agree and don't engage in heated debates because neither ideals are going away.
Please read the rest of the post. I know he didn't do that to look white. But the fact is that he did look white as a result of bleaching his skin and the facial surgeries.
That has nothing to do with Mormonism and the mark of Cain. The mark of Cain/Curse of Ham has been manipulated and twisted by multiple congregations so much that it's original meaning is lost.
The point being, if Mormons or some other religion believed Black features were the Mark of Cain would I then have to tolerate them believing that all Blacks should get the same cosmetic work MJ had done? Or would that be disgusting? Because I find that disgusting, but I also find the notion of disagreeing with homosexuality similarly disgusting.
I'm going to just assume you let anger (and good that you got angry, because such religious beliefs WOULD be disgusting) make you completely miss the point of my post. Since the reason why MJ got the work done has literally no bearing on my post.
Though many on this forum have expressed that they would like to do exactly that.
If you shed relationships based on different perceptions of morality, you're going to live in a echo chamber really fast.
Please read the rest of the post.
or lets make up a new religion that actively holds the belief that black features are the remnants of the sin of Cain.
Please take this strawman and burn it someplace else. That's a bullshit question.
Michael Jackson suffered a disease called Vitiligo. He dyed his skin so that he wouldn't have blotches of white and black skin as a performer. He also had major surgery performed on his body so that he didn't feel self-conscious about his appearance.
He did it so people could talk about his ability to perform and not about his skin color.
That has nothing to do with Mormonism and the mark of Cain. The mark of Cain/Curse of Ham has been manipulated and twisted by multiple congregations so much that it's original meaning is lost.
If you shed relationships based on different perceptions of morality, you're going to live in a echo chamber really fast.
No, after you.
A new religion made up in 2015 for this thought exercise.
But I suppose just getting mad over the example used is easier to do than actually engaging in the thought exercise. I'll simply save my responses for someone willing to engage.
Or if you can't get over that, lets make up a new religion that actively holds the belief that black features are the remnants of the sin of Cain.
Would it be acceptable to then disagree with being African in appearance? Bleaching your skin and getting some cosmetic surgery might be expensive, though you could always use a Church program to secure funding. It seems to me no more unreasonable than expecting a life of celibacy from gays. Would that be just fine and dandy for someone to disagree with? If not, what makes disagreeing with homosexuality different? People say that they don't dislike the person, but the "lifestyle" (whatever that means). Similarly people born with African features wouldn't be condemned for having those genes, but would be disliked for choosing to not cosmetically alter those genetic features? Is this fair?
Indeed, the mark of Cain and curse of Ham HAVE been twisted and used to justify hatred against another group of people while maintaining a mystical yet ultimately illusory moral high ground.
This sounds remarkably similar to how scripture is twisted, purposely truncated, and read out of context to justify the condemnation of homosexuality.
Soon just as the mark of Cain and curse of Ham were "redacted" so will the misconstrued passages against homosexuality be "redacted" - and people will actually follow the spirit of their religion.
An absolutely terrifying lack of critical thinking here. Straight up frightening.
Hey GAF, my wife's a Christian and I'm not. Does that blow your mind?
It's amazing how many people who believe in the Bible don't actually read it.
Strawmen aren't worth engaging. You asked a question about a strawman, and I'm expressing my anger over a strawman that was used.
This:
is more like attempting to justify a worldview that there are people who would gain widespread support for a Christian denomination that supports one very specific Old Testament ideal and use black skin to justify their existence.
What about this strawman should I care about? It is fundamentally un-Christian.
I think I might be okay with that echo chamber. I have shed relationships based on how people discriminate against others.
Just excusing it as part of your religious beliefs isn't sufficient for me to overlook it. People who still vocally oppose same-sex marriage or homosexuality in-general, I'm not sure if I can relate to them as friends anymore.
You're being too kind with "different perceptions of morality". We're talking about people who want to deny people their basic right to marry, and to stigmatize a group of people as being wrong, and will no doubt have their children following the leader(if only for a little while, to be optimistic) with such outdated manner of thinking. This is shitty behavior, dangerous behavior, which makes it difficult for a whole lot of people to feel comfortable with who they are, and to feel safe in their surroundings.
If we aren't family, I'm not down to try and tolerate that shit, not anymore.
This is very common. I would say they get told what the bible "says" from their parents, and just run with it, never actually doing any kind of research themselves.
I'm not going to disagree with this, but I'd argue that condemnatory Christian responses towards gay people haven't historically reflected this perspective.
I'm against people smoking. I am still friends with people who smoke. Why? Because its not the sole defining aspect of their character.
You're being too kind with "different perceptions of morality". We're talking about people who want to deny people their basic right to marry, and to stigmatize a group of people as being wrong, and will no doubt have their children following the leader(if only for a little while, to be optimistic) with such outdated manner of thinking. This is shitty behavior, dangerous behavior, which makes it difficult for a whole lot of people to feel comfortable with who they are, and to feel safe in their surroundings.
If we aren't family, I'm not down to try and tolerate that shit, not anymore.
This is a pretty glaring false equivalence and another attempt at "both sides are the same" rhetoric.
No, there is no reversal in play: there is a huge difference between misled Christians being indoctrinated to disapprove/judge/condemn/hate the sin of another persons existence and people rallying up and saying its no longer okay to be so judgmental and hateful.
Religion cannot be used to justify hatred and no one should be forced to tolerate hatred because their oppressors claim some mystical magical moral high ground. It's like saying segregationists are oppressed because its not socially acceptable to be openly racist any more.
Is the right to a catholic wedding a basic human right though? I'm not against gay marriage at all, but even as a straight guy, I don't believe a catholic wedding is one of my basic rights.
My group of friends is about 50% evangelical christian and the other 50% is atheist. We disagree on a ton of things. One half thinks the other half is 'lost' (read: will go to hell). One half thinks the other half is indoctrinated. Both halves think the other half has some truly fucked up moral values. We're all fully aware of the differences. That doesn't stop us from being great friends, helping each other out whenever we can and having a great time together. Because both halves recognize the other half means well, even though they're misguided. And we treat each other with respect.
This makes no sense. You have no problem with homosexuals but have a problem with the lifestyle. You just said that lifestyle is used interchangeably with homosexual. So translating your sentence I get:
You have no problem with homosexuals, but have a problem with the homosexual.
It makes plenty of sense. also, "thinking something is a sin" and "I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE" are not quite the same thing.
This post is a good example of something I was talking about earlier. Some people are so desperate for their opponents to be MONSTERS, that they'll do their best to find that one thing they can twist so the dogpile can start - even if they actually agree on a lot of things.
previously I said
1. don't oppose gay marriage
2. don't think others sexuality is any of my business, its between you and god
3. don't think the "sin" of homosexuality is any big deal
However you've decided to latch onto that "sin" part and try your best into twisting it into "i have a problem with gay people".
Sexuality is a significantly more core aspect of someone than smoking. To me it is no different than being against someone not altering their racial appearance via surgery.
No, I asked you to define what "lifestyle" meant and you said it means "homosexual."
You said something to the effect of not having problem with gays, but having a problem with the lifestyle. Which means your sentence no longer makes sense, because it becomes "I have no problem with gays, but I have a problem with gays." Because in this case you said "gay" and "lifestyle" are synonyms. I don't mean it doesn't make sense morally, I mean that it isn't an understandable English sentence.
Sexuality is a significantly more core aspect of someone than smoking. To me it is no different than being against someone not altering their racial appearance via surgery.
Are you seriously trying to play this ridiculous word game?
goodbye.
Someone's sexuality has little bearing on my judgment of their overall character.
I'm against people smoking. I am still friends with people who smoke. Why? Because its not the sole defining aspect of their character.
Are you seriously trying to play this ridiculous word game?
goodbye.
I'm against people smoking. I am still friends with people who smoke. Why? Because its not the sole defining aspect of their character.
Smoking is a choice. Being gay isn't. It's not complicated.
Great post, Mumei, and I would add something else; not only has this not historically been the response, but one could make a fairly reasonable assumption that the only reason that anti-gay rhetoric has become increasingly softened is that it is no longer socially acceptable to be so condemnatory. It's a bit like a jerk who starts acting nicer once the boss shows up; it's hard to have faith that their suddenly agreeable nature is sincere. Maybe it is -- that's possible -- but it's easy to understand why some would be skeptical.
Great post, Mumei, and I would add something else; not only has this not historically been the response, but one could make a fairly easy assumption that the only reason that anti-gay rhetoric has become increasingly softened is that it is no longer socially acceptable to be so condemnatory. It's a bit like a jerk who starts acting nicer once the boss shows up; it's hard to have faith that their suddenly acquiescent nature is sincere. Maybe it is -- that's possible -- but it's easy to understand why some would be unconvinced.
Is the right to a catholic wedding a basic human right though? I'm not against gay marriage at all, but even as a straight guy, I don't believe a catholic wedding is one of my basic rights.
Isn't a bit hard to tell whether it's A causing B or whether it's the same thing that causes wider society to change - afterall, it isn't just within Christianity where views have softened, isn't it? I mean, Christianity (and most religions) lag behind the rest of society, but there are all manner of issues that most Christians don't care about anymore that their parents, or their parents, or their parents would have cared about.
How else do you convince people that appeal to the "fire and brimstone" part of the OT to congregate?
What hate is there in the OP image?
If someone is Christian and has a homosexual friend that they like very much, there is no hate. I'm not talking about how every Christian acts. I'm talking about the relationships where Christians won't impose their beliefs in a friendship.
Will the homosexual person end friendships because they don't believe in homosexuality? That's what this Christian in the OP image is speaking out against.
1. What Strawman did I use? I never said why MJ got the surgery, only that he looked white as a result.
2. I never said this though exercise religion was Christian. I'm saying would people defend that religion?
To me there is no difference between disagreeing with homosexuality and that hypothetical religions' disagreement with not altering African features through surgery and skin bleach.
I was talking with a friend on facebook and a girl I know who are both really, really deeply entrenched in their beliefs. The way they basically explained it to me was that they didn't see marriage for love in general as the correct way to go about it, and marriage is essentially for the complete bond of man and woman, or something like that.
Needless to say, I wholeheartedly disagree with them. It just became... sorta easier to understand after hearing them explain it though, I guess? Their belief system primarily comes from the bible, so even if they accept that homosexuals are allowed to marry now, I guess they'll always see it as lesser. On top of that they felt that even if there were people who legitimately considered themselves homosexual, they should still marry the opposite sex, and "you can have a deep friendship with whatever sex you are instead" or something like that.
Whatever.
Fucking no.
He seems to be trying to understand what you mean. It's very hard not to have a semantic discussion when the core issue is that he doesn't understand the language you're using.
When you say you object to the "lifestyle," can you explain what you mean? If the word is interchangeable with the word "gay," then how is that different than saying you object to homosexuality? These are honest questions. I'm trying to understand your position.
This is quite a leap.