Prejudice based on dogma, how would Christians come of age?

Again Scott Thong replied. And again based on personal dogma. It is amazing the measure of blind faith partaken by this young boy. I am not that free like him to bang dogmas down on people, therefore I will put it point to point. I always refrain from using Bible verses up to this, but I choose to do so to inform Scott Thong this prejudice is over. This is in no way renouncing my faith, for I am a Christian by principle, as opposed to Scott Thong a Christian by culture.

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/more-comments-to-yukis-comments/

"Besides, it depends on one’s own interpretation to decide that the Bible verses quoted in the Wikipedia link mean that the Earth does not orbit the Sun or rotate on its axis. What earth do the passages mean? The whole planet, or the soil and rock that remain firmly attached to the planet by gravity?

I’d rather we didn’t get into science and the Bible, as the issue is whether or not God’s laws permit homosexuality (theology). Even if science is brought in to say that homosexuality is inborn, that influences not whether is is right by God. Sin and geentic defects are inborn too."

The Galileo issues, as everyone knows, did happen. I just have to quote from NASA, and purposefully, a site that even tells children that fact: http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level2/galileo.html. Everybody that has the time can google it up, go on, any reference to Galileo also points to the ignorance of the old church myth.

The argument which he still do not see, is that the uproar at those times were equivalent to today's uproar on homosexuality. He says now that it is based on 'interpretation' openly. I believe years from now, we would say the same things with homosexuality, as we said with blacks, marriage, divorce, slavery etc etc. We can see here, Scott Thong has a problem with science, history contradicting his dogma and blind faith.

"I dare deny this. By raising the issue of Nicea, I hope you are not invoking the Da Vinci Code arguments! That would be a total noob move."

It has nothing to do with a fictional movie. The facts of what happened was twisted too by the writer. There are of literally tons of resources about Nicea in the Net and in books. Just check out the word NICEA. You can even read about some of it here: http://jbrooks2.tripod.com/Greatest_Collosal_Fraud_On_Earth.html. There are tons of research on the date that the removal of 60 over books happened, if you google the common date 4th July 325AD! We can see here, Scott Thong has a problem with theology, history contradicting his dogma and blind faith.

"If God’s revealed will in the Bible is for sexual relations to happen ONLY in marriage, ONLY between husband (man) and wife (woman), and marriage is ONLY between man and woman… Ergo, homosexual relations are out of the picture. There’s my main point of personal conviction."

Everyone who reads Genesis would know God ONLY mentioned he created MAN and WOMAN. Reality? There are hermaphrodites. Is it not God's Word? Surely if God created MAN and WOMAN, then all the biologies would point to me only two sexual dictations. Then why are there people inflicted with XXY or XYY syndrome? Go and study on what is Klinefelter and Turner syndrome. Check your realities again. If sexuality is already so vague, dare you say MAN and WOMAN again? Okay, just say I eat my own reality and agree with Scott, there are also other kinds of marriages if you condemn homosexual marriages (which again, the Bible says nothing about same-sex marriage. In fact, I do not like to quote Bible verses, but since he remarked I do not have references, here I go)

The bible opposes marriage (Matthew 19:9-121 Corinthians 7:1-2I Corinthians 7:7-9Revelation 14:1-5).

The Bible's support for different forms of marriages (Genesis 2:24, nuclear; Genesis 38:6-10, levirate; Genesis 16 man, wife, slave; Genesis 21 - man, wife, concubines; Numbers 31:1-18, soldier and female prisoner of war - rape; Deuteronomy 22:28-29, male rapist and his victim; Exodus 21:4, male and female slave)"

Disgusted yet? And again, as we can see there, Scott Thong stills pick verses and place them into his own interpretation or being taught by Christian fundamentalist that forever works hard to convince values onto others like Scott Thong.

Are homosexuals sinning every day? Straight out, I would have to say yes.

Are heterosexuals sinning everyday? Straight out, Scott Thong would say yes; which shows the reality of orientation not equals to bad behaviour, but he will carry on to attack homosexuals and ignore heterosexual sins. Scott Thong has a problem with science, history contradicting his dogma and blind faith.

"You say my research is bad, I offendedly retort that yours is bad. Where does it get us? Nowhere.
Read the Bible like a child, seeing the words plainly and simply. The passages saying that homsexuality is bad seem to say that, well, homosexuality is bad!"

Okay. I am sure you can also read the Bible like a child plainly and simply, so if you can tell your mother and sisters, also sisters in the church and your girlfriend to do these things I will agree with you:

Tell them to shut up in church:

1 Corinthians chapter 14:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Tell them to always wear a veil:

1 Corinthians 11:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

Tell them to shut up, forget all the feminist thingy, stop wearing spaghetti straps and costume jewelry and most importantly, shut up again:

1 Timothy chapter 2:
Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Can you do it? It is all in the New Testament as God says so!
Scott Thong now has problem with his dogma and blind faith contradicting his heterosexual lifestyle.

"YukiChoe already stressed: We already know that homosexuality are sometimes inborn and sometimes socially constructed. I will not deny this. But there needs to be a separation between homosexuality that is socially constructed, and homosexuality that is not. There are grown straight men who like experimenting, surely everyone know of this. Be logical."

"Scott Thong replied: And here it is that the truth is revealed.
No man, straight or gay or adult or young, should be ‘experimenting’ with anyone - male or female. The Biblical command is to reserve all type of sexual behaviour (and according to Jesus, even sexual thoughts) to one’s marriage partner."

As you can see how Christian fundies work. A part of what I said is totally taken out to justify his bigotry.; And I would ask Scott Thong, does that mean if the person is BORN a homosexual, it is okay? Scott Thong now has problem with his use of people's statement, then partially contradicting his own words.

"The heart is what counts - because in the end, the only thing separating two straight guy buddies going bowling from two gay partners is that the two gay partners have sexual acts together, or are thinking of it, or have the intention."

Scott Thong has finally admitted why he hates homosexuals, it is because of his disgust on 'two gay partners have sexual acts together, or are thinking of it, or have the intention.'. As we can see again and again, the bigotry exists mostly on men, and less on homosexual women, again , proof of Scott Thong's own own discrimination. Scott Thong now has problem with not only dogma and blind faith, but also has admitted he do not like two guys expressing their sexual love.

"YukiChoe asked: What is so sinful about one that has sexual and romantic thoughts about the same gender? The mind and the heart? Good. God judges us on that. So what is so wrong about homosexuals’ mind and heart?"

He has yet to answer to my question, but his reply is strange:

"Christ also does not mention aborting fetuses, taking drugs, smoking, drinking till drunk, racist behaviour, gender bias (He supports me!). So are these things also permissible?
What can be learnt is what Christ inferred by His example. In particular, what He DOESN’T mention bears note. Homosexuality was a major, death-punishment sin in Jewish culture. If Jesus condoned it, wouldn’t He have said something about it? Or Paul after that, when Paul spoke against other laws like circumcism?"

Anyone noticed what he writes here and before, contradicts himself? Scott Thong now has a problem with contradicting himself.

"4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”"

Scott went on to say that Christ contradicts himself (refer to previous comments).

"8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”"

Scott went on to say that those in Malaysia, men or women who gets a second shot at marriage is committing adultery because God says so. Those who are getting their second marriage be warned.

"And look at what the disciples said in verse 10. If you can’t stick to the rules God laid down, don’t let yourself get into a situation where you’ll easily break the rules (e.g. giving in to homosexual tendencies)!
And besides, one can argue that homosexuality was SO TABOO in Jewish culture, it wasn’t even a question that Jesus had to address - everyone knew it was bad, just like murder and prostitution. Jesus focused on the more gray areas, like whether non-Jews can be saved."

Giving in to homosexual tendencies? Everything that Scott comments, ends up slapping him on the face. I would ask him, what about heterosexual tendencies and Scott will still not answer my question and goes on with his speech based on prejudice. Homosexuality (lets just say I agree with him for awhile) if it WAS a taboo in Jewish culture, that's that. Different circumstances from different times. Some of what he is writing here is actually agreeing with me. Wow.

"Then use the word ‘catamites’, which refer to the Graceo-Roman tradition of older men taking in younger males as proteges, and often, lovers."

I cannot belief this! He finally understands that it is all prostitution back in the Roman days! Nothing to do with same sex attraction. Some of the old men are called qadesh, by the way. Sometimes the priest himself will partake on the pagan worship. You can study about it in some sites if you check it out in the net. Scott Thong has finally realised, a bit, of what I am trying to say.

"So should women be allowed to speak in church or not? Doesn’t that go against our modern understanding of equality and fairness? Just like how the church’s views about homosexuality are out of date compared to the reality of the world?
(But honestly, homosexuality was around at the time of the early church - it is by no means a new conflict.)
The bottom line is this: If God says it, I will obey it. So my personal feelings are that women who are shown to be good leaders should be allowed to be pastors. Why not, I say? Especially when the men are lacking in churches.
But if God made His will known, I would submit to Him. Who am I to question God’s wisdom and decision-making ability? I sacrifice my own stubborn, self-assured rightness on the altar."

I will complimentary laud Scott for this, and for his courage and honesty in stating that all his views are only of personal conviction, not God's order. This comment is neutral based and marked by his explaination to his own feelings. This is the most sensible comment of the lot.

"In my discussion, the point is not whether homosexuality harms people. It is whether it is Biblically correct. It is whether it hurts God. If I blaspheme God’s name in a soundproof room, it doesn’t hurt anyone… Except God."

At last, some neutral ground to dialogue on. Okay Scott, I will refer to you on this. You must understand as you said, that it depends on a person's convictions. I can tell you now, two contrasting points. One, for some LGTs, having relationships is something beautiful. You need to respect that, because no one is trespassing on your safe place, but you are on others. Two, we are hurting God everyday, even by having this discussion. You need to acknowledge that, as I will in the end of this post.

(The next three points are of neutral grounds, therefore I shall not put any of my thoughts in them, I will only put my weight when one party is attacking another, Scott was not doing any abshing, so I must commend him again of his admission that it is only by what he feels and his convictions that he thinks this way.)

"At the very least, referring back to Matthew 19 above, God did not intend to have homosexuality from the beginning. Therefore, it is the result of sin and stubborn hearts, just as divorce is."

Scott, I will talk directly at you again. You are losing some of your dogmas, but having a bit of it here again. Whether God intend or do not intend to have homosexuality as a beginning will always be in question. It is not for us to judge. I hope you understand this.

I could say I’m AFFIRMingthe church’s view that homosexuality is nonChristian, no?
Put it plain and simple. If God says it, I will follow it. Honestly. If the Bible says homosexuality is okay, I’ll accept it. That will gel well with my humanist view of homosexuality.
And on a side note, but based on the same principle, if global warming and evolution are proven, I’ll accept. And even if God, Jesus and the Bible are disproven… I’ll sadly accept it and move on with my life.

Okay. I feel comfortable talking to you directly now, Scott. LGTs will always be in a defensive mode because fundamentalists will always be attacking them. You see, you may be affirming the general Christian consensus, but the LGTs are not condemning you for it. They are only in battle mode after remarks like the ones you made in your last post, because you not only affirm your views, you are condemning people, for example in your last post:

"Perry promising to stay by his partner De Blieck when the latter was diagnosed with HIV? And how does a real Christian justify the free sex that led to getting HIV? How does Perry reconcile the fact that De Blieck must have been having fun on the side?"

"Sirs, you are a disgrace and embarassment to the Christian faith and all the holiness that Christ stands for. Can you seriously, honestly face up to God Himself on that final day and tell Him that you are righteous and sinless?"

Paul and the Apostles warned us about you, for your kind have been around since the very start of Christianity. There are many names for you, Antinomianist being one of them, but all of them have the same traits: You use God’s grace as an excuse, a twisted parody of a license to live in sin."

It is never your intention, but sometimes prejudice gets the better of us. I used to be a zealot and a bigot to. Just to share:

As a transsexual female, I was proud that I do not ply my living on the streets. I looked down on the street workers and feel dirty and disgusting when I am with them. I can imagine in my mind how many men used them every night. I said to myself, me, a Christian, would never do such disgusting thing, and all these hookers will die an early death if they do not just get a proper job.

The irony is, I was having problems with my job because of the discrimination and bigotry of either the management or the co-workers. When I lost my job, I did not end up in the streets. But to fend for my car and my room, I had to advertise myself as an escort. It is not something I choose to do, but rather, forced to. It is true what is said in the Bible, "the proud shall be humbled". But God gave me a lesson I will never forget. Not to judge. Just like the Bible says; the measure I used to judge those who are entertaining men, is used against me. It is a humiliating experience, but I know God will forgive me and lift me up again.

"Not to equate you with a cult or anything, but there was this Ahnsahnghong member who could quote Scripture and debate and attack mainstream church practices amazingly well. He too told me that my thinking was tainted by prejudice and church brainwashing, and that I interpreted Scripture wrongly."

You are at least on par with that level of learning and conviction. And just like that guy, I have to say that your arguments are well thought out.
I recognize your conviction that homosexuality is not condemned by the New Testament. However, I do not hold that opinion, for various reasons that seem convincing to me."

Everybody is different. You must recognize that and move on in life. People always want what validates their own sense of self. I even told this very sentence to Edmund.

"I do not believe that I am influenced or brainwashed by any church or teaching… Honestly, I am a very free mind and wild card. No belief gets into my skull without debating the guards and winning first."

You already are set with a belief system since young, so some beliefs are even easier to digest into your skull. You must think about it.

"It was surprising to know that you have had experience with Edmund Smith. It would explain a lot of the remarks you have made about him."

I used to be one of those people who believed in Edmund. But once I realised he is doing somethings behind everybody's back, and shares his own brand of science about LGTs, it made me realise he is a liability. It started with that really, and the fact that he seems to impose his own beliefs upon others. I stress again, he is right in a way, it can help some confused straights resolve their issues, but for those who are born homosexual, they feel he is a liar. Not everyone has 'trigger issues' on homosexuality.

For example I give you two sentences:

a) As a transsexual female, because of my feminity and long legs, I was raped.

(Implies the rape incurred BECAUSE the person is gender identified a woman.)

b) Because of my feminity and long legs, I was raped. I became a transsexual female.

(Implies the rape happened, and BECAUSE of that the person is gender identified as a woman)

Edmund would push the latter case as EQUAL to the former case, and states that everyone is like this and like that BECAUSE something drastic happened in their lives. How would the people in the first group feel, let alone having to share to a person who do not even wish to understand because of dogma, about the rape that had happened? That was exactly the shoddy treatment I had, along with many others. I have friends who are homosexual with super parents, but to have Edmund insult him by saying his homosexuality comes because of issues with his father.

Edmund will do well with two kinds of people, those who would willing to be celibate and those who were not homosexual to begin with. Edmund himself, mind you, in his testimony he is only aware of his 'homosexuality' at 13. Most orientations, hetero or homo, is grasped by a peron by 6-7. I realised the mirror do not reflect my sexual identity at age 6. The rest of my experiences with him, had been shared here and other posts.

I hope you learn yourself of the complex issues in regards to sexual identity and sexual orientation, not attending meets by a person that is not qualified to even give his own terms to justify his own brand of science. If someone wants to change his orientation, get him a qualified psychiatrist. I can find one if you want. Edmund's methods are highly questionable.

"But still, I sincerely believe that we should strive for a righteous lifestyle, erring on the side of caution."

Everybody sins, regardless of their orientation, race, gender, nationality. Separate the orientation and sin, please Scott.

"And in conclusion, let me restate why this series of posts even exists: I firmly believe that Christians who follow God’s word cannot commend homosexuality, although homsexuals themselves must be accepted with love. The setting up of a church that says homosexual behaviour is right by God is unBiblical and untrue to God’s Word. This is my personal belief, and I think it is soundly grounded."

My post exist because of Rev Ou Yang. I am studying on him. His links with MCC which has affiliations with the Mormon Church worries me more. Do you think orgies will be performed in a church? Do not be naive please. Homosexuals just want a place to praise and worship the Lord. You want to deny them that? Please. We should be more vary that the Christian beliefs is mixed up with the Mormon beliefs there. Some investigation into MCC is needed.

As I said, we may argue on the merits on culture, but principles of Christianity is sound. Homosexuality, is more than a culture now. It is just part of life. Your beliefs would always be your beliefs, but please do not judge other people and impose your views on others. Other than that, I wish you all the best in your future undertakings and thanks for the discussion. Hope it open your eyes more, as it has opend mine. God bless and take care.