Aspects of Sexuality and opposing World Views (18 and older)

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but as far as I can tell Christians are no longer under Mosaic law, nor is there any mandate to institute Mosaic law. Those who make these claims need to justify them Biblically.

Nonetheless, Christians believe that the OT is and was the 'Word' of God and do use it selectively to justify their beliefs and actions in different situations over the history of Christianity, as in the south justifying slavery before and during the Civil War. Christ did say, he came to fulfill the law and not end it.

It should be noted that much of Christianity and Islam use an ancient concept of Natural Law to justify their beliefs concerning homosexuality and masturbation, and use OT scripture to support it.

[seer]

Nonetheless, Christians believe that the OT is and was the 'Word' of God and do use it selectively to justify their beliefs and actions in different situations over the history of Christianity, as in the south justifying slavery before and during the Civil War. Christ did say, he came to fulfill the law and not end it.

Yes, and you also believe that Moses was a prophet of God. So? If some in the Baha'i faith used the teaching of prophet Moses to justify slavery would you still paint with such a broad brush? And remember Shuny, it was primarily Christians in both England and the US that populated the Abolition movement, using N.T. principles.

It should be noted that much of Christianity and Islam use an ancient concept of Natural Law to justify their beliefs concerning homosexuality and masturbation, and use OT scripture to support it.

I said nothing about "natural law." My belief that homosexuality is wrong comes from scripture - but we agree on that point, that homosexuality is wrong.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, and you also believe that Moses was a prophet of God. So? If some in the Baha'i faith used the teaching of prophet Moses to justify slavery would you still paint with such a broad brush? And remember Shuny, it was primarily Christians in both England and the US that populated the Abolition movement, using N.T. principles.

NT principles still endorse slavery, and yes the OT and NT were used to justify slavery up to the 1800s. Yes, Moses, Christ, and Mohammud are prophets of God to the Baha'i Faith, but ancient religions are no longer able to deal with the modern world. The scripture provides insufficient guidance for the modern world,

I said nothing about "natural law." My belief that homosexuality is wrong comes from scripture - but we agree on that point, that homosexuality is wrong.

I did not say you said anything about Natural Law. Your own claims of what you believe and think are just that your anecdotal claims. The ancient view of Natural Law is what is used to justify the views of homosexuality, and masturbation in the Roman Church, Orthodox Church, Islam and many other churches.

Again, again and again my evidence and citation have nothing to do with your own personal anecdotal claims, but the facts of history and beliefs of religion and why violence against homosexuals is common in Christianity and Islam based on an ancient world view.

[seer]

NT principles still endorse slavery, and yes the OT and NT were used to justify slavery up to the 1800s. Yes, Moses, Christ, and Mohammud are prophets of God to the Baha'i Faith, but ancient religions are no longer able to deal with the modern world. The scripture provides insufficient guidance for the modern world.

Ok, then you believe that those prophets of God endorsed slavery, and what would be wrong with accepting slavery - God did through His prophets.

I did not say you said anything about Natural Law. Your own claims of what you believe and think are just that your anecdotal claims. The ancient view of Natural Law is what is used to justify the views of homosexuality, and masturbation in the Roman Church, Orthodox Church, Islam and many other churches.

But all of them believe that homosexuality is wrong - just like you. So what is your point?

Again, again and again my evidence and citation have nothing to do with your own personal anecdotal claims, but the facts of history and beliefs of religion and why violence against homosexuals is common in Christianity and Islam based on an ancient world view.

I don't understand - you have this modern "religious" yet you still believe that homosexuality is wrong, in fact that homosexuals need to remain celibate. And again Shuny, your claim that violence against homosexuals is common in Christianity is just false - you have provided nothing but a couple of "anecdotal" references. These do not make them "common" by any definition.

[shunyadragon]

Ok, then you believe that those prophets of God endorsed slavery, and what would be wrong with accepting slavery - God did through His prophets.

I believe in progressive revelation as the Baha'i Faith teaches. The Baha'i Faith is the first to consider all forms of slavery and indentured servatude as against the law of God. Previous religions dealt with the world at the time they were revealed, and the needs of the time. For the modern world the scripture of the ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam are insufficient to deal with the modern world. Issues like science, and slavery and indentured servitude do not have sufficient guidance for today's world. As I said before one of the foundation principles in Christianity and Islam to deal with the modern world is an ancient view of Natural Law, which fails to provide a modern view that relates to our modern world.

But all of them believe that homosexuality is wrong - just like you. So what is your point?

I have made my points clear in previous posts. One of the significance problems is the manner a religion and the scripture deals with relationships with those who believe differently. Old world views still have the option of violence as described in their culture, traditions and scripture. Those outside the fold are considered evil, which is how the Book of Revelation describes the black and white conflict with evil. This is a problem in both the Bible and the Koran.

I don't understand - you have this modern "religious" yet you still believe that homosexuality is wrong, in fact that homosexuals need to remain celibate. And again Shuny, your claim that violence against homosexuals is common in Christianity is just false - you have provided nothing but a couple of "anecdotal" references. These do not make them "common" by any definition.

Your understanding is your problem. NO, violence against homosexuals is common today and in the history of Christianity. Historically in Christian nations homosexuality was punishable by imprisonment and the death sentence, and it is the common standard in many predominantly Christian nations TODAY. The prevalence of these laws in predominantly Christian nations in history and today is not anecdotal. The other references i have provided are not anecdotal, they are specific and very real and only represent the tip of the iceberg. They are most definitely common by any definition.

[seer]

I believe in progressive revelation as the Baha'i Faith teaches. The Baha'i Faith is the first to consider all forms of slavery and indentured servatude as against the law of God. Previous religions dealt with the world at the time they were revealed, and the needs of the time. For the modern world the scripture of the ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam are insufficient to deal with the modern world. Issues like science, and slavery and indentured servitude do not have sufficient guidance for today's world. As I said before one of the foundation principles in Christianity and Islam to deal with the modern world is an ancient view of Natural Law, which fails to provide a modern view that relates to our modern world.

This is nonsense Shuny, either you believe that Moses and Muhammad were prophets of God or not. And Moses at least allowed slavery and Muhammad endorced it. So how could it be against the "law of God." If they were speaking for God. Second, there is nothing in scripture about "natural law" so please stop bringing that silliness up. Third, if men just practiced two moral injunctions in the N.T. - the love of ones neighbor and the golden rule we would have heaven on earth - so that relates quite well to our modern world.

I have made my points clear in previous posts. One of the significance problems is the manner a religion and the scripture deals with relationships with those who believe differently. Old world views still have the option of violence as described in their culture, traditions and scripture. Those outside the fold are considered evil, which is how the Book of Revelation describes the black and white conflict with evil. This is a problem in both the Bible and the Koran.

Again, did not Christ teach us how to treat our neighbor? And was not "neighbor" all inclusive? And yes the book of Revelation describes the day when Christ will return and evil will be removed - so? Those events are completely in the hands of God - not ours.

Your understanding is your problem. NO, violence against homosexuals is common today and in the history of Christianity. Historically in Christian nations homosexuality was punishable by imprisonment and the death sentence, and it is the common standard in many predominantly Christian nations TODAY. The prevalence of these laws in predominantly Christian nations in history and today is not anecdotal. The other references i have provided are not anecdotal, they are specific and very real and only represent the tip of the iceberg. They are most definitely common by any definition.

If that is the case - what would be wrong with that? But like I said, you are painting with a broad brush.

[Cerebrum123]

I have made my points clear in previous posts. One of the significance problems is the manner a religion and the scripture deals with relationships with those who believe differently. Old world views still have the option of violence as described in their culture, traditions and scripture. Those outside the fold are considered evil, which is how the Book of Revelation describes the black and white conflict with evil. This is a problem in both the Bible and the Koran.

This is downright FALSE as far as the Bible is concerned. The Koran however DOES condone violence against ALL non-Muslims, unless you are a Christian or Jew, in which case you can pay something called "jizyah", which is basically the same as Mafia "protection" money. Even in the OT the Israelites were told to be kind to foriegners(if they were peaceful anyway), and other things that were far ahead of their day as far as human rights go, including on issues like slavery. Mohammed however cursed the Jews, and said that the "day of judgement" wouldn't come until the Muslims killed the Jews, and that the rocks and trees would even rat out the Jews position to the Muslim jihadis(except for one tree that was somehow Jewish...). Also, as far as those who aren't Christian, they are viewed as FALLEN, which is similar to evil, but not quite the same(although they are linked). They are considered deceived, and that we as Christians have a duty to dispel that deception, and show them "the way, the truth, and the life".

[shunyadragon]

This is nonsense Shuny, either you believe that Moses and Muhammad were prophets of God or not. And Moses at least allowed slavery and Muhammad endorced it.

Both the Bible and the Koran allow and endorse slavery. I have answered your question already and you continue repeating yourself like a broken 78. Read the concept of progressive revelation.

If you hold the view you spout above, then is slavery moral and ethical today?????

So how could it be against the "law of God." If they were speaking for God. Second, there is nothing in scripture about "natural law" so please stop bringing that silliness up. Third, if men just practiced two moral injunctions in the N.T. - the love of ones neighbor and the golden rule we would have heaven on earth - so that relates quite well to our modern world.

By referring to Natural Law I am referring to the theological view of most Christian Churches as a foundation of their beliefs and some doctrines concerning Natural Law. Stop your silliness and do your homework, as to what is the theological basis for Natural Law in Christianity and Islam.

Again, did not Christ teach us how to treat our neighbor? And was not "neighbor" all inclusive? And yes the book of Revelation describes the day when Christ will return and evil will be removed - so? Those events are completely in the hands of God - not ours.

Again, again, and again, I am not referring to your own anecdotal argument I am referring to the facts and citations of Christianity in history and the world today. and how the Bible was interpreted

If that is the case - what would be wrong with that? But like I said, you are painting with a broad brush.

No broad brush, Just going by the facts of history and the doctrines of the churches, and the their actions in history.

[seer]

Both the Bible and the Koran allow and endorse slavery. I have answered your question already and you continue repeating yourself like a broken 78. Read the concept of progressive revelation.

If you hold the view you spout above, then is slavery moral and ethical today?????

No the question is, was it ethical in the time Moses and Muhammad?

By referring to Natural Law I am referring to the theological view of most Christian Churches as a foundation of their beliefs and some doctrines concerning Natural Law. Stop your silliness and do your homework, as to what is the theological basis for Natural Law in Christianity and Islam.

"Natural law" is not a concept found in scripture - period, God's law is found in scripture. I deal with scripture.

Again, again, and again, I am not referring to your own anecdotal argument I am referring to the facts and citations of Christianity in history and the world today. and how the Bible was interpreted.

Listen you are speaking of those in power, whether in the Church or through the State and the laws and practices they enforced. But these men are not the majority of believers and never have been. There is not ONE bit of evidence that the majority of believers over time felt it was their right or call to harm gays. And these so called "Christian" nations also had laws against fornication, idolatry, adultery, blasphemy, etc… Homosexuality was not singled out.

And like I said, there is nothing inherent to N.T. teaching that would lead one to believe that it would be right to harm gays. Or idolaters, or adulterers or fornicators for that manner. Just the opposite.

[shunyadragon]

No the question is, was it ethical in the time Moses and Muhammad?

Did not answer the question, waiting . . .

"Natural law" is not a concept found in scripture - period, God's law is found in scripture. I deal with scripture.

Again, again, and again. I am not dealing with your personal anecdotal view as to what you deal with or not. I am dealing with the world view as the topic of the thread proposed.

Listen you are speaking of those in power, whether in the Church or through the State and the laws and practices they enforced. But these men are not the majority of believers and never have been. There is not ONE bit of evidence that the majority of believers over time felt it was their right or call to harm gays. And these so called "Christian" nations also had laws against fornication, idolatry, adultery, blasphemy, etc… Homosexuality was not singled out.

Yes, in Christian nations homosexuals were singled out in history by laws that punished them with imprisonment and death. In recent times these laws have been changed in many nations as governments became more secular, but the laws remain in many nations.

And like I said, there is nothing inherent to N.T. teaching that would lead one to believe that it would be right to harm gays. Or idolaters, or adulterers or fornicators for that manner. Just the opposite.[/QUOTE]

[Thersites]

Yes, in Christian nations homosexuals were singled out in history by laws that punished them with imprisonment and death. In recent times these laws have been changed in many nations as governments became more secular, but the laws remain in many nations.

Show me. Let's have some concrete historical examples.

[shunyadragon]

Show me. Let's have some concrete historical examples.

I just gave examples, the history of the Laws of Christian nations, and I previously gave a very specific modern example of Uganda and why the laws were passed.

You can simply follow the example of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth through history. They all had strict laws against homosexuality with at least prison punishments. As the empire broke up and the governments became more secular these laws have been progressively repealed, but in recent years some have returned like Uganda.

[Thersites]

I just gave examples, the history of the Laws of Christian nations, and I previously gave a very specific modern example of Uganda and why the laws were passed.

You can simply follow the example of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth through history. They all had strict laws against homosexuality with at least prison punishments. As the empire broke up and the governments became more secular these laws have been progressively repealed, but in recent years some have returned like Uganda.

I'm looking for a source, not just an assertion.

The Ugandan example is an example of a recent, proposed law, not a long-standing legal precedent

[shunyadragon]

I'm looking for a source, not just an assertion.

The Ugandan example is an example of a recent, proposed law, not a long-standing legal precedent

It is currently the law. It has a long standing president with the laws of the commonwealth in history. It would be nice if you did your own homework and not have to be spoon fed. Here is summary of the US laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were historically universal. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex[citation needed], many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes as well, sometimes even acts between married persons.
Through the 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexual mores led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining fourteen states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia).

© source where applicable

[Thersites]

It is currently the law. It has a long standing president with the laws of the commonwealth in history. It would be nice if you did your own homework and not have to be spoon fed. Here is summary of the US laws.

If you're going to make an assertion, I expect you to be able to demonstrate it. Besides, if you don't provide actual sources, then I have no way of knowing that you actually know what you're talking about. For example, the Mitt Romney case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

Sodomy laws in the United States, which outlawed a variety of sexual acts, were historically universal. While they often targeted sexual acts between persons of the same sex[citation needed], many statutes employed definitions broad enough to outlaw certain sexual acts between persons of different sexes as well, sometimes even acts between married persons.
Through the 20th century, the gradual liberalization of American sexual mores led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states. During this time, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining fourteen states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia).

© source where applicable

That's still just America (a modern country of questionable Christian pedigree), and it says nothing about the enforcement of these laws, which are extremely hard to enforce anyway.