The Liberal Gun Club Forum

eelj wrote:McCain is running again?

Yeah, I know. It took me a couple questions before I realized the gaggle doesn't have that guy herman cain, who supposedly won the recent debate. This video is a good three and a half years old.

FrontSight wrote:As many here know, I’m a Christian and I do believe homosexuality to be a sin according to The Bible. With that said, Christians have blown (no pun intended) this issue horribly, and have become judgmental and intolerant. The teachings of Christ were teachings of tolerance, not hate and judgment. The Bible and history teaches us that human beings are uniquely UNQUALIFIED to judge other humans, simple as that. This is why, when Christ was on the Earth, he gave but ONE commandment; that we love one another…

John 13:34-35
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Now think about this…if Christ is God incarnate…that’s a HUGELY significant event. And according to The Bible, while incarnate, God gave but ONE commandment, one the Church all too often forgets.

Fundamental Christians have driven this issue in a completely NON-BIBLICAL manner, which leads these guys to propose a position that is not in line with what they proclaim as their faith. The sin of a homosexual is NO DIFFERENT from any sin I have in my life. If you’re to stick to strict (Fundamental) Biblical teaching, then you wouldn’t allow ANYONE to serve who is a willful and habitual sinner in any category. That includes those who are prideful, boastful, arrogant, etc. There is no “this sin is worse than that sin”, that’s humanism talking, not the teaching of Christ.

Clearly it has been demonstrated time and time and time again that homosexuals are just as capable of service with no more interruption to unit cohesiveness than normal anomalies that pop up whenever humans are forced to interact with each other.

These supposed “Fundamental Christians” make a mockery of Jesus by placing themselves on some self proclaimed higher moral ground. I would openly welcome homosexuals to serve right alongside the rest of us sinners. I know my Bible quite well, and while it talks of homosexuality as a sin, I’m not aware of anything in The Bible that says that THAT particular sin is unforgivable by God.

I’m sure I’ll take some heat for my comments, because I have the audacity to call homosexuality a sin. But I am a Christian and I am a sinner, just like homosexuals; there is NOTHING at all different about my sins and that of a homosexual. If I’m worthy of forgiveness, there is nothing in The Bible that says my sins are okay or forgivable, and those of a homosexual are somehow worse of unforgiveable.

There are a LOT of great churches out there and a lot of great Christians. It’s the nut jobs that give Christianity a bad name. Just like everything else, people tend to focus on the things that divide us rather than that which makes us similar. Christians have far more in common with those on this forum than many would like to admit. I’m saddened that mainstream Christianity has managed to bungle this issue so incredibly badly. When reading The Bible, often you can substitute the Pharisee’s with modern day church leadership because they so often get it wrong.

Persecuting gays is not the message of Christ. Keeping gays out of the military doesn’t make us stronger, it makes us weaker. Persecuting gays does not advance the agenda of Christ, quite the opposite, it’s clearly the work of the Devil to dilute the message of Christ and discredit the Church; and it’s working.

Some of the finest human beings I know are gay and the idea that someone would call them 'sinners' because they were born with a DNA code switched differently than the other 95% of the population is tantamount to saying someone is inferior because they were born female or with a different skin color.

I appreciate that you at least recognize the hypocrisy of christian homophobes, but I think I can probably speak for most of the forum in saying that I'd appreciate that if you think gays are 'sinners' that you keep it to yourself.

Not that I really want to get into the whole "God" debate, but I would like to point one thing out:

Christianity is a "lifestyle choice".

Homosexuality is not.

Ultravox wrote:Not that I really want to get into the whole "God" debate, but I would like to point one thing out:

Christianity is a "lifestyle choice".

Homosexuality is not.

+100
Judge by the quality of the individual, not some antiquated viewpoint based on dogma and religious fairy tales.

Love&A.45 wrote:but I think I can probably speak for most of the forum in saying that I'd appreciate that if you think gays are 'sinners' that you keep it to yourself.

So much for freedom of speech eh?

Love&A.45 wrote:

FrontSight wrote:As many here know, I’m a Christian and I do believe homosexuality to be a sin according to The Bible. With that said, Christians have blown (no pun intended) this issue horribly, and have become judgmental and intolerant. The teachings of Christ were teachings of tolerance, not hate and judgment. The Bible and history teaches us that human beings are uniquely UNQUALIFIED to judge other humans, simple as that. This is why, when Christ was on the Earth, he gave but ONE commandment; that we love one another…

John 13:34-35
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Now think about this…if Christ is God incarnate…that’s a HUGELY significant event. And according to The Bible, while incarnate, God gave but ONE commandment, one the Church all too often forgets.

Fundamental Christians have driven this issue in a completely NON-BIBLICAL manner, which leads these guys to propose a position that is not in line with what they proclaim as their faith. The sin of a homosexual is NO DIFFERENT from any sin I have in my life. If you’re to stick to strict (Fundamental) Biblical teaching, then you wouldn’t allow ANYONE to serve who is a willful and habitual sinner in any category. That includes those who are prideful, boastful, arrogant, etc. There is no “this sin is worse than that sin”, that’s humanism talking, not the teaching of Christ.

Clearly it has been demonstrated time and time and time again that homosexuals are just as capable of service with no more interruption to unit cohesiveness than normal anomalies that pop up whenever humans are forced to interact with each other.

These supposed “Fundamental Christians” make a mockery of Jesus by placing themselves on some self proclaimed higher moral ground. I would openly welcome homosexuals to serve right alongside the rest of us sinners. I know my Bible quite well, and while it talks of homosexuality as a sin, I’m not aware of anything in The Bible that says that THAT particular sin is unforgivable by God.

I’m sure I’ll take some heat for my comments, because I have the audacity to call homosexuality a sin. But I am a Christian and I am a sinner, just like homosexuals; there is NOTHING at all different about my sins and that of a homosexual. If I’m worthy of forgiveness, there is nothing in The Bible that says my sins are okay or forgivable, and those of a homosexual are somehow worse of unforgiveable.

There are a LOT of great churches out there and a lot of great Christians. It’s the nut jobs that give Christianity a bad name. Just like everything else, people tend to focus on the things that divide us rather than that which makes us similar. Christians have far more in common with those on this forum than many would like to admit. I’m saddened that mainstream Christianity has managed to bungle this issue so incredibly badly. When reading The Bible, often you can substitute the Pharisee’s with modern day church leadership because they so often get it wrong.

Persecuting gays is not the message of Christ. Keeping gays out of the military doesn’t make us stronger, it makes us weaker. Persecuting gays does not advance the agenda of Christ, quite the opposite, it’s clearly the work of the Devil to dilute the message of Christ and discredit the Church; and it’s working.

Some of the finest human beings I know are gay and the idea that someone would call them 'sinners' because they were born with a DNA code switched differently than the other 95% of the population is tantamount to saying someone is inferior because they were born female or with a different skin color.

I appreciate that you at least recognize the hypocrisy of christian homophobes, but I think I can probably speak for most of the forum in saying that I'd appreciate that if you think gays are 'sinners' that you keep it to yourself.

for the First Amendment, keep the Church and State separate, and you can believe in the flying spaghetti monster, for all I care.

In eight years of parochial school early in life I learned that most religous philosophy seems to be one-half no brainers and the other half invented to dignify prejudice and hatred. "God said it not me" syndrome.

ABNinfantryman wrote:

Love&A.45 wrote:but I think I can probably speak for most of the forum in saying that I'd appreciate that if you think gays are 'sinners' that you keep it to yourself.

So much for freedom of speech eh?

Well, it's really like me calling someone an idiot for having Smith as his last name. I gots da freedom to do that, but why be a jackass?

AdAstra wrote:Well, it's really like me calling someone an idiot for having Smith as his last name. I gots da freedom to do that, but why be a jackass?

That is in no way an equal analogy. He said there was no difference between his sin and the sin of homosexuals and that they were no less capable of serving in the military and should not be treated the way they have been. There was no malice or ill will anywhere in his post in reference to gays, which is a far cry from a derogative term meant to humiliate and demean. If you're non-believers, as seems to be the case for quite a few, what's it matter to you if he believes them to be sinners (like himself) since sin has no meaning or bearing in your life? As for being a jackass, I'm seeing plenty of it in this thread in the treatment of FrontSight based on his religious beliefs.

"If you're non-believers, as seems to be the case for quite a few, what's it matter to you if he believes them to be sinners (like himself) since sin has no meaning or bearing in your life?"

It affects everyone. If enough people think his way we'll be back to white only lunch counters for starters. They used the same arguments.

ABNinfantryman wrote:

AdAstra wrote:Well, it's really like me calling someone an idiot for having Smith as his last name. I gots da freedom to do that, but why be a jackass?

That is in no way an equal analogy. He said there was no difference between his sin and the sin of homosexuals and that they were no less capable of serving in the military and should not be treated the way they have been. There was no malice or ill will anywhere in his post in reference to gays, which is a far cry from a derogative term meant to humiliate and demean.

The point is that FS said the sin of the homosexual is for being a homosexual. He then equated that to his sins, which he chose to commit, intentionally.
Is that an equal and fair comparison? Of course not. And when he said homosexuals are sinners, you think he has no malice or ill will towards them?

"Yeah you're a sinner, i.e morally corrupt and a wrongdoer simply because you're a homosexual, even though you don't have a choice in that and you're not hurting anyone else, but no offense intended and anyway, I'm also a sinner because I choose to rob people, choose to be unfaithful to my wife and I choose to beat my kids, so we're really the same and we should be treated the same."

ABNinfantryman wrote: If you're non-believers, as seems to be the case for quite a few, what's it matter to you if he believes them to be sinners (like himself) since sin has no meaning or bearing in your life?

As I've stated before, religiots can believe whatever they want, just keep their moral judgements out of the non-religious public domain and mostly, just keep it out of my face. Again, if I believe all people with a certain surname are idiots, I have the right to believe that, but stating that it is RIGHT to believe that baseless, illogical and extremely subjective belief for everyone to see and hear is just being a jackass to those who KNOW otherwise.

ABNinfantryman wrote: As for being a jackass, I'm seeing plenty of it in this thread in the treatment of FrontSight based on his religious beliefs.

That's the lot of the religiot, always being persecuted for their beliefs. I'd have some sympathy, but unfortunately some religious beliefs deserve persecution and ridicule. This is one of those. Ask him, or any other religious person who believes likewise, and they will tell you that homosexuality a sin simply (and only) because their god says so.

Full disclosure - believer for 40 years, now totally atheist.

No, what you think the Bible says and what was actually going on when that was said/done/commanded deserves a lot study. The best stuff I've encountered is the Catholics understanding of the exegesis of the Bible, that is what the writers were reacting to when they wrote it, and why. Without that exegesis, there's a lot of mistakes in understanding what exactly was being said and why. Another common mistake made especially be the so called 'Biblical' sects is the equivalence of the new and old testament. Total crap, if you are a Christian, nothing in the old testament binds you, even if you were born a Jew.

So it's totally acceptable to say gay people are capable of being Christian, can be 'saved' and can live virtuous lives. But really living up to a simple directive like 'love one another' is really only for someone with very special metal makeup, although they may be gay. Ultimately, for any believer, what's important is your own communion with God, your own conscience, because only you are capable of judging your own actions. No one else can.

Even with simple directives, very few people even begin to study seriously what is being asked. A few monks - Christian and Buddhist I've met might qualify. A couple of Franciscans. (Dominicans and Jesuits ). I know one Imam that might. The Amish try very hard and come close sometimes.

I started out in life a 7th day Adventist, went through several Protestant sects and detoured through Catholicism, read the Koran twice in translation, studyed Buddhism and Hinduism, even read the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the Avesta if you are into Zoroastrianism. I ended up a Happy Atheist, no longer concerned about this stuff. What I am concerned about is what I do, and why, and I find I don't need religion to tell me what's right, I can judge that for myself. But I do think understanding religion and it's teaching is beneficial, and if you must have an external conscience it's the ready made solution. You could do worse.

ABNinfantryman wrote:

Love&A.45 wrote:but I think I can probably speak for most of the forum in saying that I'd appreciate that if you think gays are 'sinners' that you keep it to yourself.

So much for freedom of speech eh?

I never said he CAN'T say it, I said It would be appreciated if he kept it to himself as many here may find it an offensive concept.

Though I frequently disagree with FrontSight's point of view I've also found that for the most part he's a reasonable person and can accept constructive criticism on statements he's made that may be deemed untoward by many forum members if the criticism is presented in a non-derogatory manner. Or in other words, he's conscientious of other people's sentiments if he says something that may have offended others instead of acting like the victim.

Maybe you should take a page out of his book on concept.

"what you think the Bible says and what was actually going on when that was said/done/commanded deserves a lot study."

I recently learned that there were dozens of "books according to" that didn't make it into the Bible. That little factoid coulda saved me years of trauma if it was mentioned up front.

Antiquus wrote: No, what you think the Bible says and what was actually going on when that was said/done/commanded deserves a lot study.

One of the fundamental problems of religion - they are made by the people, for the people. Not only do believers have to interpret what the old people wrote, but the old people also had to interpret what they think the deities taught. I can shape any religion into what I want it to be, and many people have done just that, e.g. Anglicans vs Catholics, Mormons, Adventists, Witnesses, cults, etc. This highlights the fact that religions are not infallible, that religious practice is not what's important, it's the personal manifestation of one's actions based on belief that is important, and this is something that is best kept to oneself.

Antiquus wrote: But I do think understanding religion and it's teaching is sometimes beneficial, and if you must have an external conscience it's the ready made solution. Sometimes you could do worse.

FIFY.

ABNinfantryman wrote:

Love&A.45 wrote:but I think I can probably speak for most of the forum in saying that I'd appreciate that if you think gays are 'sinners' that you keep it to yourself.

So much for freedom of speech eh?

No freedom of speech on a private website.

The banning of that fucktard project should make that obvious.

KVoimakas wrote:

ABNinfantryman wrote:

Love&A.45 wrote:but I think I can probably speak for most of the forum in saying that I'd appreciate that if you think gays are 'sinners' that you keep it to yourself.

So much for freedom of speech eh?

No freedom of speech on a private website.

The banning of that fucktard project should make that obvious.

Project got banned because he posted pornography, not for his opinions.

If *any* gun website *tries* to allow freedom of speech, its this one.

FS has said many times that he is a Christian. Many Christians consider homosexuality a sin based on a few verses in the bible. To attack him for that seems a bit knee-jerky to me. If you are an atheist, what do you care what any Christian feels is a 'sin'? That is their problem. And I agree with ABI, FS presented it in about the nicest, most even handed way that one can say such a thing. I can understand the reaction to some extent but he didn't say 'all homosexuals are evil' or 'homosexuals disgust me', he simply pointed out that, according to his religious text, homosexuality is a sin. In fairness, lets remember that he also added:

With that said, Christians have blown (no pun intended) this issue horribly, and have become judgmental and intolerant. The teachings of Christ were teachings of tolerance, not hate and judgment. The Bible and history teaches us that human beings are uniquely UNQUALIFIED to judge other humans, simple as that.

I wish that more Christians were like FS, the world would be a better place. HOWEVER, I completely get what you guys are saying. BUT, I say that instead of knee-jerk vitriol we can address this in two different ways:

1. FS, I understand that you feel that your religion says that homosexuality is a sin (aka wrong). But many people also use the bible to say that it endorsed slavery and the 2nd class status of black people. Most feel that homosexuality, like skin color, is not a choice. So to be labeled as something 'lesser' because of something you have no control over comes off to many as a very uncool thing to do; regardless of what your particular spiritual beliefs dictate.

2. On a slightly different angle, I find it odd that people use the Bible to call homosexuality a sin. Outside of the writings of Paul - who was the man responsible for establishing many of the teachings of the church - the passages that most people refer to that speak against homosexuality are in Leviticus. But they are buried in a couple of chapters that sit in the middle of a bunch of bizarre rules that no one in their right mind (except maybe certain sects of Judaism) follow. For example, after a woman ceases her menstrual period she is to:

Then on the eighth day she shall take for herself two turtledoves or two young pigeons and bring them in to the priest, to the doorway of the tent of meeting.

The priest shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. So the priest shall make atonement on her behalf before the LORD because of her impure discharge.'

But no one does this? Why? Its in the Bible? The bible says that God laid out these laws to Moses but we get to pick that homosexuality is a sin but not offering a burnt offering after menstruation is ok. Why?

There is also quite a bit of backstabbing a competing god, Molech. Yahweh really didn't like Molech. Obviously, Molech isn't much of a problem nowadays but he was so important as to cause Yahweh to opine: "'Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones. "

Of course, there are the well cited verses about mixing fabrics and how to sow seeds and the like.

My point is that there are so many oddball things that bible requires of its people - some of which were good laws for hygienic reasons in a nomadic people 2,000 years ago but which obviously have little bearing on modern society. Among the requirements is that people shun homosexuality. Not just shun it but: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. " So, why not go ahead and follow through? You can't have it both ways... you can't say homosexuality is a sin, as God said, but we are not going to exact the punishment that God instructed.

In other words, I think that what Jesus actually said is, for the most part, pretty decent stuff. If Christians clung to that they would be better off. But they also cling to parts of a much older religion (Judaism) that I think adds very little to Christianity and in fact, in many cases, is contradictory to the teachings of Jesus. The schism between the old Testament god who is envious, punitive and vindictive and the new testament god who is forgiving and kind is so great that its hard to believe the Christians feel they are the same entity.

I guess what I am saying is that I think its hard to use the bible to justify saying that homosexuality is wrong (aka a sin).

mark wrote:Project got banned because he posted pornography, not for his opinions.

Hey, I wasn't saying otherwise. Personally, I would've booted his ass a long time before hand. You guys were much more tolerant. But it does bring up something interesting: posting porn would be included by some under 'free speech' and the first amendment. We don't have freedom of speech on a private website. We all exist here on Mark's sufferance.

Great post Mark, usually I try to refrain from discussing religion on public forums, especially where I enjoy talking about my firearms hobby. I am a Christian, I was called the Catholic Church at age 40 after basically giving up on religion. When a person finds their place in life spiritually, it feels very good, even intoxicating. I think this is what inspires some Christians to be so judgmental, which is ironic because it shows their lack of knowledge in the teachings of Christ and gives Christians in general a bad rap.

I have learned so much since my conversion; one of the most important things is; the only sin that need concern me is my own sin. I will never have to answer to any sins except those on my slate. Therefore, I believe for me to judge someone else’s actions or lifestyles is in itself sinful, I don't have any authority due to my Baptism to judge anyone, that's Gods job.

The way I view the issue of homosexuality is that Christ was all about Love. Love is Love, and if that means that the people who Love each other are of the same sex, so be it, I can't see God holding that against them. After all Christ said he was giving a new commandment and that was to Love each other.

Of course my views are certainly liberal in regards to the greater Mother Church and I have to be careful who I express them to, but I feel blessed to be able to think for myself and not to simply go with the flow, it's just a gut feeling and anytime I have mistrusted my gut I have been wrong.
I feel very sorry for the plight of the gay community and all the bullshit they must endure in the pursuit of Love and I pity those who feel righteous in persecuting them.
Let the ones with no sin cast the first stone.....

KVoimakas wrote:

mark wrote:Project got banned because he posted pornography, not for his opinions.

Hey, I wasn't saying otherwise. Personally, I would've booted his ass a long time before hand. You guys were much more tolerant. But it does bring up something interesting: posting porn would be included by some under 'free speech' and the first amendment. We don't have freedom of speech on a private website. We all exist here on Mark's sufferance.

Obscenity laws vs. 1st amendment is an entirely different board.

And we exist here on the sufferance of the community. The community typically decides, I sometimes try to act in the community's best interest. Not trying to be a nitpicking twit but there are big distinctions in little terms. This isn't 'my' playground. Its the playground of the members.

mark wrote: FS has said many times that he is a Christian. Many Christians consider homosexuality a sin based on a few verses in the bible. To attack him for that seems a bit knee-jerky to me. If you are an atheist, what do you care what any Christian feels is a 'sin'? That is their problem.

Well, I was trying to stay out of this debate, but now I can't.

As an atheist why do I care what Christians consider a sin? Well, how about the fact that Christians are trying to make their beliefs into laws that affect me and my friends?

What laws? Well, right now in MN they are trying to make an amendment to our constitution to ban gay marriage. How about all the Christians that are passing laws banning abortions?

Need I go on?

What Christians believe influences what they do. And I'm fine with that, until it starts to influence what people who don't believe do.

America is NOT a Christian nation. It was NOT founded by Christians. It is NOT based on Christian beliefs.

Ultravox wrote:

mark wrote: FS has said many times that he is a Christian. Many Christians consider homosexuality a sin based on a few verses in the bible. To attack him for that seems a bit knee-jerky to me. If you are an atheist, what do you care what any Christian feels is a 'sin'? That is their problem.

Well, I was trying to stay out of this debate, but now I can't.

As an atheist why do I care what Christians consider a sin? Well, how about the fact that Christians are trying to make their beliefs into laws that affect me and my friends?

What laws? Well, right now in MN they are trying to make an amendment to our constitution to ban gay marriage. How about all the Christians that are passing laws banning abortions?

Need I go on?

What Christians believe influences what they do. And I'm fine with that, until it starts to influence what people who don't believe do.

America is NOT a Christian nation. It was NOT founded by Christians. It is NOT based on Christian beliefs.

I agree with you, but in the context of FS's post, where he is arguing against what you are talking about, I don't think its an issue. So, its his opinion, based on his understanding of his religious text but he agrees with everyone that people that share that opinion are wrong to pass judgement on others.

FrontSight wrote:As many here know, I’m a Christian and I do believe homosexuality to be a sin according to The Bible.

I'm no Bible scholar, but when the Bible speaks of homosexuality being "an abomination", the word "abomination" does not mean sinful; it means unclean. Eating dog shit is unclean--an abomination--but it's not a sin to eat dog shit.

Doesn't the Bible also speak of eating shellfish as an "abomination"? Standards of what is unclean and what isn't vary according to cultures and historical contexts.

Sounds like the diff between regulate from 1776 vs now.


Life Is A Highway - I'm on Tapatalk

Van wrote:

FrontSight wrote:As many here know, I’m a Christian and I do believe homosexuality to be a sin according to The Bible.

I'm no Bible scholar, but when the Bible speaks of homosexuality being "an abomination", the word "abomination" does not mean sinful; it means unclean. Eating dog shit is unclean--an abomination--but it's not a sin to eat dog shit.

Doesn't the Bible also speak of eating shellfish as an "abomination"? Standards of what is unclean and what isn't vary according to cultures and historical contexts.

I wish we had an actual historian here to chime in on this because in the past I have heard arguments on this subject and homosexuality has even been encouraged during certain migratory periods in ancient Jewish history. It kept the population under control. Once any ancient civilization was established with a homeland to defend the emphasis was changed to high birth rates, you got to have a lot of soldiers to expand your borders.