American Muslims Are Now More Accepting Of Homosexuality Than White Evangelicals

[sun rise]

Are you saying that as a non-christian you get to define christianity to be a religion ?

But first you have to define who is a true Christian and who is a false Christian ?

Before you can define a Christian. To be anything that you said.

You would have to define between what is a true Christian and what is a false Christian?

I was responding with a quote to an earlier post asserting that I could apply the same standard to any religion, specifically Christianity. I was not asserting that was my opinion because it's not.

 

[sun rise]

The Quran says almost nothing on homosexuality though.

The legalistic aspects of the sharia are based on Quran, hadith, Roman and Persian law, etc. It started to emerge in the 8th C with jurists like Shafii. This is the period of classical Islam.

There are numerous different approaches to the legalistic aspects of sharia which have come up with many different views on many different issues.

"What the prophet commands" as you put it is not quite as straight forward and clear cut as you think it is.

[Also your tabloid understanding of 'taqiyya' doesn't have much connection to reality]

And people toss around the word "sharia" as if it had a particular application ignoring aspects such as how Muslims should pray, for example.

 

[shmogie]

The Quran says almost nothing on homosexuality though.

The legalistic aspects of the sharia are based on Quran, hadith, Roman and Persian law, etc. It started to emerge in the 8th C with jurists like Shafii. This is the period of classical Islam.

There are numerous different approaches to the legalistic aspects of sharia which have come up with many different views on many different issues.

"What the prophet commands" as you put it is not quite as straight forward and clear cut as you think it is.

[Also your tabloid understanding of 'taqiyya' doesn't have much connection to reality]

Really ? Taqiyya is a method of mis truth or misdirection used by the believer when he feels threatened because of his faith or aspects of his faith or to defend others of the faith., That is my definition, please give me the correct definition if I am wrong. You quickly slid over the acts and statements of the "prophet" and others in the hadith(s), it is not silent on the subject at all, as you seem to imply.

 

[shmogie]

I know!
It's amazing what news sources will try to pull.

wonderful counter arguments, steeped in wisdom, deep thought and knowledge. Like two jackasses braying at each other. The classic tactic of someone who is unable to muster a cogent defense of their position, so they come up with a big bad word that covers their inadequacy, and then they pat each other on the back. Like Jeff Davis when he flee';s, "we sure beat the hell out of those union forces"

 

[shmogie]

And people toss around the word "sharia" as if it had a particular application ignoring aspects such as how Muslims should pray, for example.

moslems toss the word around a lot more than Infidels, maybe you should specifically address them on this issue

 

[leibowde84]

What is it a race to the bottom?

What do you mean by this? Bottom of what?

 

[oldbadger]

Well, what is wrong with the last sentence ? I wouldn't care for it either. Does that make me a hater ? Or, how about this, I wouldn't go to a homosexual wedding, does that make me a hater ?

Hater? I don't suppose so.
Prejudiced? Probably.

Please CITE the website you were talking about. Just like the the extremists in the homosexual community (the gaystopo) there are certain alt. right groups who try and screen their looniness and hate by posing ad Christians. I would like to see that website.

Absolutely not. If you go searching around then you'll probably come across two web-sites (at least) which are as bigoted and hateful as I have claimed.

If you have trouble with internet searches ask any 7 year old kid to help you.

 

[leibowde84]

Does being gay make you somebody?

Who made that claim? Being gay doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else.

 

[shmogie]

Hater? I don't suppose so.
Prejudiced? Probably.


Absolutely not. If you go searching around then you'll probably come across two web-sites (at least) which are as bigoted and hateful as I have claimed.

If you have trouble with internet searches ask any 7 year old kid to help you.

Cute. Prejudiced ? Hmmmm, what does that mean ? Do you mean "pre judging" ? what have I "pre judged " ? I don't like to see men kissing mean, or women kissing women i.e. full kisses on the mouth. I find it a little repulsive. How is that "pre judging" ? I had to attend an autopsy many years ago, I found it very repulsive, what was I judging then ? I wouldn't attend a homosexual marriage, because I am bound not to by my faith. How is that pre judging , other than judging that I shouldn';t attend homosexual marriages because of my faith ?

 

[leibowde84]

Cute. Prejudiced ? Hmmmm, what does that mean ? Do you mean "pre judging" ? what have I "pre judged " ? I don't like to see men kissing mean, or women kissing women i.e. full kisses on the mouth. I find it a little repulsive. How is that "pre judging" ? I had to attend an autopsy many years ago, I found it very repulsive, what was I judging then ? I wouldn't attend a homosexual marriage, because I am bound not to by my faith. How is that pre judging , other than judging that I shouldn';t attend homosexual marriages because of my faith ?

Prejudice is not "pre-judging". Prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. I would say that, unless you have already been to a same-sex wedding and there is some logical reason why you would refuse to go to another one based on that experience, you are prejudiced for saying that you would not go to a same-sex wedding.

Have you ever been to a same-sex wedding?

Can you give me an example of what you mean by the "gaystapo"? I've never come into contact with any homosexual trying to harm me physically or turn me gay, so I really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Stanyon]

This was interesting to learn:
American Muslims Are Now More Accepting Of Homosexuality Than White Evangelicals
Muslims 'accept homosexuality more than evangelical Christians'

So when are these American apostates going to admit what they are and embrace the Shaitan?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you were to take two homosexualls and put them all by themselves.

And you take a man and a woman and put them by themselves.

Say in about 50 yrs you go and see who has populated, you find the homosexualls are still just two people, no population there.

And you go to the man and woman, you would find that they have populated.

So what advantage does being a homosexual have ?

So when God said go and populate the earth
Who was God talking to ? Man and woman or two homosexualls ?

So what advantage does a man and a woman have ?

Whoah! That's deep, man.

Let's follow that clever logic a little further: what if the man and woman fundamentally couldn't stand the sight of each other, so deep is their loathing? What if one of them is infertile (lots of people are).

Or, let's consider inbreeding! Because, if you start with just one man and one woman, their offspring can only possibly breed with their own brothers and sisters, and the problems inherent with such inbreeding are very well known indeed!

On that last point, the author of Genesis was probably cleverer than you, since he definitively does NOT say that Cain married one of his sisters -- so whoever became his "wife" was most certainly not the offspring of Adam and Eve, his parents. (The author of Genesis, it would seem, recognized the problem if inbreeding, even if you don't.) So --- where did she come from?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So when are these American apostates going to admit what they are and embrace the Shaitan?

What are you, a Wahabi?

 

[Faithofchristian]

I have a 'post-it' note here that's signed by god upon which he states that such behavior is in fact acceptable. You wouldn't defy god's word or call him a liar, would you?

Whoah! That's deep, man.

Let's follow that clever logic a little further: what if the man and woman fundamentally couldn't stand the sight of each other, so deep is their loathing? What if one of them is infertile (lots of people are).

Or, let's consider inbreeding! Because, if you start with just one man and one woman, their offspring can only possibly breed with their own brothers and sisters, and the problems inherent with such inbreeding are very well known indeed!

On that last point, the author of Genesis was probably cleverer than you, since he definitively does NOT say that Cain married one of his sisters -- so whoever became his "wife" was most certainly not the offspring of Adam and Eve, his parents. (The author of Genesis, it would seem, recognized the problem if inbreeding, even if you don't.) So --- where did she come from?

First of all, it's proven enough that were here from two people.

And as for.Cain, Cain never married his sister, all because Adam and Eve never had any daughters to begin with.

This you are absolutely right about.

 

[Grandliseur]

Christ Jesus also said, judge not by the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
John 7:24.

Therefore if person is doing what they are revealing there is no judgeing them by the appearance or falsely.
If a person that judge another and then is found in doing the same, then that person will be judge by the same judge that he did.

I have the right to judge another if I want to associate myself with them.

Even God told Joshua when they cross over the river Jordan to judge those people on the other side of Jordan.

This means to judge them whether or not if you want to be associated with them.

When I meet a woman, I judge her whether or not I want to be with her.
When I meet someone I judge them whether I want to be in Association with them.
But if I judge a person, to say your going to hell, then I over step the boundaries, only God has that right to judge whether a person is going to hell or not.

There is nothing wrong in judgeing a person whether or not you want to be in Association with them.

You are right, but here the question of course is the way the word 'judge' is used. Thus, when Jesus clearly judged the religious leaders and also told us to beware that we judge - it is clear that his use of the word judge was as in condemning someone, and that we ourselves would get the same judgment for the same offense if we committed it.

 

[Grandliseur]

Judging those "on the outside" has been a favorite pastime of many Christians for quite a while now. In fact, it has been so long a tradition it may as well have consideration as an addition to Olympic sport.
. . .
But judging those on the outside? Now that's easy... nothing easier. All those sinners and deniers and infidels. Scum of the Earth, right?
. . .

I see you have an open mind on Christian behavior! Ha.

I do not belong to any denomination or church on this earth. I never had a problem when I did belong with this issue.
I began to see that their dogma was off; they didn't like that, and I didn't want to sit like a statue during their coming together without being able to say anything, I also didn't want to cause fiction; so, I left.

 

[Grandliseur]

I have a 'post-it' note here that's signed by god upon which he states that such behavior is in fact acceptable. You wouldn't defy god's word or call him a liar, would you?

I hope it's not a counterfeit. Of course, you could always get Thor from the movie to sign it. That might put you at ease.
I'll have a beer while you see to those details.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Homosexuality is a sin, because ancients believed Semen was sacred, so 'wasting semen' was considered a sin, this is why Catholics teach that masturbating is a Sin.

Magus,

As always, you bring an interesting perspective. Have you considered that homosexuality and masturbation (along with all other sex-related sins) are considered sinful because--within an orthodox and traditional Judeo-Christian context--God created sex acts to occur, and be enjoyed, only within the very narrow confines, sanctity, and protection of a formal marriage between a man and woman? (You know the scriptures well enough that I dont' need to cite all the supporting verses for this traditional interpretation, and more recent efforts at reinterpretation are outside the scope of this exchange.)

A Catholic doctrine of Sacred Semen is an interesting concept, but--if you really look into the issue--I think you will find ideas of lust and selfishness and a sex act outside its God-dictated context as more compelling reasons for the prohibition on masturbation. (And if you want to argue that these ideas were mapped on later, please clearly cite your sources and clearly identify and separate out your personal analysis. Your input is always intriguing, always adds flavor, but your arguments are often so esoteric (albeit fascinating) that it is hard to sift out your personal conjecture from source material.).

Do Catholics proscribe female masturbation? (I don't know...but if they do, how does the Sacred Semen idea apply?)

Leviticus 20:13 - If a MAN (masculine) , it didn't say anything about Lesbians.

True. If you flip ahead a few pages to Romans 1:26-27, you'll find more on the issue:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."

Here it uses "shameful lusts," not "sin," but the tone and meaning are pretty clear. Could you argue that this first sentence is referring to bestiality? Sure, if you disconnect it from the second sentence and look at it out of context. That second sentence uses clear language tying them together, however ("In the same way," "men also abandoned...). Both sentences have all the appearances of talking about the same thing--homosexual sex.

 

[Father Heathen]

I hope it's not a counterfeit. Of course, you could always get Thor from the movie to sign it. That might put you at ease.
I'll have a beer while you see to those details.

Let's get him to sign your bible, first.

 

[shmogie]

Prejudice is not "pre-judging". Prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. I would say that, unless you have already been to a same-sex wedding and there is some logical reason why you would refuse to go to another one based on that experience, you are prejudiced for saying that you would not go to a same-sex wedding.

Have you ever been to a same-sex wedding?

Can you give me an example of what you mean by the "gaystapo"? I've never come into contact with any homosexual trying to harm me physically or turn me gay, so I really have no idea what you are talking about.

So, in other words, prejudice is pre judging and forming an opinion based upon that judgement. I have already said I will not go to a homosexual wedding because of religious conviction. This is based upon a judgement made by Paul, almost 2,000 years ago. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman only, anything else is religiously illegitimate. I am just following instructions.

As to the gaystopo , this is a generalized term referring to particularly abusive and/or viloent homosexuals or their supporters. An example of their activities from a couple of years ago will suffice, A reporter returning to Chicago stopped in a pizza restaurant in a small town. Seeing a cross on the wall, the reporter asked the woman in attendance if she was a Christian. The woman said yes. The reporter asked if the woman would serve homosexuals, she said she would. She was then asked if she would cater a homosexual wedding. The woman said her religion would prohibit her from doing so. This was a small family owned business that did not cater. The reporter wrote an article on the conversation in a Chicago paper. The restaurant was inundated with hate phone calls and death threats. Homosexuals arrived to harass customers and block the entrance to the restaurant. A chicago lesbian attempted to recruit others to help her burn down the business. THIS is the gaystopo at work, completely documented