Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff considers homosexuality to be immoral

OK, I'm not attacking anybody's religious beleifs per se. All I'm saying is that if you think homosexuality is wrong, then I think you are a bigot. See earlier posts for my logic on this (which nobody has directly refuted).

 

Good post, MM. Before we go any further, can you explain exactly why you think homosexuality is wrong? That would help with context. Thanks.

Now on the rest of your points:

Fine, but that's not what the words literally say. The Rabbinical consensus is that the stories are there to provide insight into the law, not the other way around.

Um... excuse me, but if this is trivial, than "thou shalt not lie with a man as you lie with a woman, for that is an abomination," is trivial too. You cannot pick and choose what is trivial or not if you beleive the Bible is the word of God. If you don't, then you are no longer compelled to beleive that homosexuality is wrong.

So which is it? Are you a literalist or not?

Sorry, but you revealed your approach to your religion when you said, "more importantly..i find Jesus' teachings to be true." If that is your main criterion for the formation of your beleifs (that something seems true to you), then you have to say that "homosexuality is wrong" seems true to you on face. If it just seems true, than you are biased against homosexuality even before you take religious teachings into account. Otherwise, you have to defend the inerrency of the Bible.

This "smart guy" cites the exact misinterpretation of Isaiah that I referenced earlier as his proof that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. He also says that the gospels prove the existance of the devine Jesus. Unfortunately, when subject to standard historical scrutiny, they do not.

I can understand why this guy beleives that the Torah is the word of God (he refers to the argument that it was transfered to us exactly as it was originally given to the Jews). But I have no idea why this "Jew" beleives in Jesus. Maybe one of his college buddies scared him with stories about hell and whatnot. I don't know. Either way, I doubt this guy has really studied the original Hebrew with any degree of accuracy.

This is a very good question and one that I have asked Rabbis myself. They claim that certain laws cannot be enforced the same way as they once were due to limitations of the times (it has something to do with the idea that we are not as righteous as our ancestors or some such bs).

Remember, the written law is not the entirety of the Torah. It is only half. The oral law (which is now also written down) is the other half, and is just as important.

Given the correct circumstances, however, I do think that Orthodox Jews beleive that the laws are to be followed as written.

This is all only tangentially relevant, but relevant nonetheless. God gave Jews a set of laws. Who are the Christians to say the laws no longer apply? Who is Jesus to say that?

 

A dictionary definition of the word bigot indicates it is all about intolerance. You can think something is wrong, but not be intolerant of them being (in your opinion) wrong. I think people who voted for Bush are wrong, but I don't persecute them for it. I'm sure if you ask Max, he will say that cheating on your wife is wrong. That doesn't mean he want's to brand offenders.

This is why I think you are incorrect. I think with issues like this, saying it is wrong is so often associated with being actively against it or persecuting it that it is difficult to separate the two. I don't know MadMax, but based on what I can glean from these boards, I can't see him walking around all day with a burning desire to 'do something about the queers'.

 

'Rabbinical consensus' is not something that would sway a Christian and actually might detract from the validity of such an argument. The primary theme of the Old Testament viewed from the New Testament is that rigid legalism is misguided. This, therefore, would be among the fundamental points of contention between the Christians and Rabbis and a location of a major ideological split.

 

The question is, why do they think homosexuality is wrong?

These Christians are using the text of the Bible to say that they are compelled to think that way. And I say, "how very disingenuous."

If you agree with every word, every letter of the Bible, fine. But be prepared to defend every word, every letter, not just the ones that speak to you. Oh, and you better have a damm good reason for beleiving that the Bible is the truth (and I have never heard a good one from anybody, so I'm not holding my breath).

Otherwise, saying "homosexuality is wrong" is exactly the same as saying "being black is wrong."

You don't have to beleive that homosexuality is wrong to beleive in God or even Jesus. All you have to do is say homosexuality is not immoral, and I will stop calling you a bigot.

 

You're looking or logic where there isn't any. And I don't mean that as an insult. I mean I believe I'm going to be reincarnated, and if I'm really bad as a Dallas Mavericks fan. There is no empiracal proof of God other than faith itself as such there are bound to be different interpretations of all sorts of things.

MM, can tell you his understanding of Christianity and that might not make any sense to you at all. That doesn't deny his belief but means that you don't share his faith.

 

Umm... how can it be misguided? It's the word of God!

Also, I'm sick of people saying, "the primary theme of..." when they talk about Jesus/Christianity. There is no "primary theme." There is only interpretation of the words in front of you. There is no heirarchy of what teachings are more central unless you are projecting your own values onto the text, which is entirely contradictory to the idea of following a perscribed religion.

 

I completely agree. Religion and faith are irrational. You ultimately choose what you have faith in, and therefore you necessarily choose to beleive that homosexuality is immoral based on your own faith, not any rational process.

That is why those who beleive that homosexuality is wrong are all bigots to some degree, and most are hypocrites as well (if they claim that they are compelled to beleive as such).

Somehow, humans were endowed with the ability to reason. Some people knowingly choose not to utilize that ability when forming their basic philosophies on life. That is not, however, an excuse for bigotry.

 

First, I never said that I thought homosexuality was wrong. Secondly, I didn't write the dictionary, I can only read it. And while I can call you an effete polka-dotted platypus, but that doesn't mean that it is true.
[rquoter]

big•ot - [big-uht]
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

[/rquoter]

Based on the dictionary definition, I see a far more bigoted approach from you, in that you can't accept that people have different opinions, and feel the need to call them names. I don’t wish to put words in people’s mouths but it seems to me that rhester and MadMax and the like can say that they believes that a specific action is wrong without confronting or attacking with the people who perform that action. That is called tolerance. You, on the other hand, can't seem to brook any sort of differing opinion. That it called bigotry.

Again, I’m not making this stuff up. It’s all application of things written by people far wiser than you, me, and everybody else who posts here put together. Perhaps I have made a logical error. If so please point it out.

I, of all people, appreciate how easy it is to get worked up on the BBS, but I am not trying to pick a fight with you, just discuss the situation rationally. I think it would be more productive if we try not to get our hackles up.

 

If the meaning was was clear, then the same book would not have spawned the inumerable different religions and sects of these religions.

As I understand it, based on what Max has already written, it seems that he has an understanding that would have technical concerns with your applying anything from the Old Testement without filtering it through the New Testament. Since the Rabbis don't do this, what they say is not automatically relevant to Christianity, but I will leave that technical argument to him.

 

I didn't mean to imply that you are one of those bigots who beleive homosexuality is wrong. I'm not sure why you are defending them, but that's another question entirely.

To the question at hand, whether or not rhester and MM are bigots for thinking that homosexuality is wrong, let me first offer an alternate definition of the word in question:

From Merriam-Webster

": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

This is a much better definition, I think, because it allows for degrees of bigotry. One does not have to act on their prejudices to be prejudiced, right?

That brings me to the problem of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" loophole that you referenced. I find that line of thinking highly problematic, specifically because it still alows people to equate acts of homosexuality with murder/stealing/etc.

You own your actions. If you murder somebody, then you are a murderer, which is a terrible thing to be. If you have sex with somebody of the same sex, then you are a homosexual, but is that the same as being a murderer? NO!

Basically, you are using the "you are intollerant of intollerance" argument. I have no problem with being intollerant of intollerance. Do you?

 

I agree, but I don't believe that saying you believe that something is wrong and being intolerant of it is the same thing. The root of intolerance is 'tolerance' not approval.

The litmus test for me for tolerance is reconciling yourself to people that do things that you don't approve of. If you think homosexuality is OK, doesn’t that fall inside the scope of ‘his or her own opinions and prejudices’ and is it therefore outside the scope of ‘tolerance’ or ‘intolerance’? Nobody who has come out against homosexuality here has argued for imprisoning them or forcing them to change or anything like that. They don't agree with the practice, but they don't feel the need to fix them or kill them.

That is also why I am defending them. I think the people in this thread are striking with differing degrees of success a very difficult balance between human compassion/understanding and clearly defined religious beliefs. It is the type of ideological balance that I wish all Christians would able to reach. The world would be a much better place.

At the same time I do appreciate your zeal in defending people who have been traditionally persecuted, but as I have gotten older perhaps I view human nature a bit more circumspectly? I also have no doubt in my mind that Max is a good person, a better person than I am based on what he has consistently posted on this BBS, and I have trouble believing that he would advocate anything hurtful to anybody. And I think so highly of him that his vouching to the character of rhester is enough to make me accept he's a good and kind person too, even if his posts often rub me the wrong way.

Personally I see a very real difference between the beliefs and positions expressed here, and those of someone like the people of Westboro Baptist Church. In my mind, that is intolerance.

 

Let me stop you here. I said earlier in this thread this is a subject I wrestle with. I'm not sure if homosexuality is a sin or not.

As for the rest...your approach to this is far more religious than mine. You don't share my faith. That's fine.

 

Let me just say one thing more...you haven't read the NT. Or if you have, you've completely forgotten or missed it. As I said...read Hebrews...read Romans...to understand the relationship of the old law to Christianity. You don't have to agree with what you read...in fact i'm sure you won't...that's ok...it's just a sharing of perspective.

But I find it very disingenuous for you to be on here attacking "these Christians" and Christianity in general when you have what appears to me to be absolutely zero understanding of it.

 

LOL @ this thread.

 

sin is sin. that's the only point he's trying to make. look at the message as a whole instead of focusing on that.

 

so all sins are equal?

if you were to commit sin, would you rather kill than be gay?

 

I am guessing you want someone to ask why...

 

in the real world a sin is not a sin. murder is worse than stealing. the foundation of the message being made is that being gay is a sin, which not everyone believes (i certainly dont). the "well, we are all sinners" excuse is pretty weak in this respect.

if you want to believe that it is a sin to be gay that is your business, but some people here are speaking in absolutes and trying to project their own interpretations of the message of jesus onto others, and i think that is very wrong.

its ridiculous to me to compare being gay with cheating on your spouse or killing someone. in the real world not all "sins" are the same. can you tell the 11 year old girl who was molested by her father that what her dad did was just as "sinful" as two gay guys being together?

who is the bigger "sinner", the gay man or the person who cheats on their spouse or hits their kids?