Anti-Semitism In France!

Ron Cusano · February 15, 2007

Tommy, You happen to be wrong on this. I have no problem with homosexuals, alcoholics, drug addicts, blacks, my newspaper boy, the supermarket clery, or you! We are all just people and imperfect! I have a relative who is a lesbian. I love her, but I do not love her lifestyle. There is no prejudice involved, at least coming from me.

I don't know what the other practices are that you are referring to, but please bear one thing in mind. Under the Old Testament dispensation where the Law of Moses was in effect, things were a lot different. With the coming of the Messiah, Jesus, and the dispensation of the New Testament, the essence of the Law of God was changed from an outward, physical thing to an inward adherence to godly principals as detailed by the teaching of Jesus and the writers of the New testament. You also need to understand that the Old Covenant laws were for Israel, and not the nations.

Where do you draw the line, there are a number of things in the bible that are considerred wrong, that today we would laugh at if laws were created to make them illegal. (An earlier post by T_O_M gave some examples) There has yet to be any discusion about why those things are not being put forward by Christians as requireing the legal system to support them
I ask then is the opposition to homosexual relationships really based on the bible or is it based on an individual with prejudice using the bible to prove their argument and at the same time being able to deflect any implication of prejudice.

What it comes down is you do not approve of homosexuals and rather than admitting to your prejudice you hide behind the bible. All the talk about love thy neighbour and such is really just a facade coverring a dislike for those who are different in some ways.

People tend to fear what they don't understand and they also dislike what they fear. This causes a prejudice based on ignorance but it's easy to get over it. We also tend to believe unfounded statements about those we dislike because it justifies our hatred. The easiest way to get over prejudice is to commit to learning about those groups in society that we don't understand. If an individual decides to truly understand those who are different from them they soon discover that they are really not that different after all. If an individuall decides to do this everytime they feel a sense of dislike for another group they will soon discover that they have a changed perspective. Soon they no longer fear diversity but rather they see the value it brings to the world and hatred is extinguished.

They say if you want to change the world but you feel you can't have an impact simply change the they way you percieve the world. Because the world is define by each of us based on our percetion of it by changing your perspective you have changed the world.

Don't let hate rule you take control and choose to believe in the good in all people.

Just a thought

lisah25 · February 15, 2007

With all due respect, I don't think you are understanding what I am trying to get across. What you or I think or feel about abortion and same sex marriage is unimportant. What is important is what God says about them. And God says they are evil and an abomination, and like all sin, hurts society.

You and I will have to disagree about this. I don't see how all sin hurts society, and for that matter wonder about the sins no one seems to be pushing for laws against.

As Bible believing Christians we are obligated to oppose evil and abominations where ever we find them. Christians have a voice in creating laws, and those laws should be in accordance with the Word of God. As Peter said. "we ought to obey God rather than men"!

Again, we'll have to disagree. I don't believe we are obligated to support laws that make others live as though they believe as we do. That's WAYYY to close to a theocracy.

We are not talking about creating laws to force Godly living on all people, we are talking about laws that would officially condon and encourage acts of evil. I don't know how to make it any plainer than that.

And I don't know how to make my points any clearer, so I guess we're done with this line of debate. I'll be gone most of the weekend anyway, visiting my wonderful 5 YO niece. So have a great weekend!

Ron Cusano · February 15, 2007

You too! Enjoy your weekend!

You and I will have to disagree about this. I don't see how all sin hurts society, and for that matter wonder about the sins no one seems to be pushing for laws against.
Again, we'll have to disagree. I don't believe we are obligated to support laws that make others live as though they believe as we do. That's WAYYY to close to a theocracy.

And I don't know how to make my points any clearer, so I guess we're done with this line of debate. I'll be gone most of the weekend anyway, visiting my wonderful 5 YO niece. So have a great weekend!

green · February 15, 2007

Does the law have the right to ban people from stealing? Murder? Rape? Selling drugs to your kids? Putting porn shops on your block? The purpose of the law is to ban wrong doing, and Christians with a biblical foundation, understand gay marriage and abortion to be wrong doing. So as a matter of conscience, we have an obligation to support laws to that effect. Every law forces someone to do or not do something, and it is based upon someones standard of right and wrong. The other choice is to not have laws against anything. Would you like to live in a world like that?

Theft, murder, rape, and selling drugs to your children are activities which harm other people and disrupt the fabric of society. This is why such activities are condemned by religions and by secular humanists alike. It is generally agreed upon by all of us who are informed by the western culture that sexual relations/marriage between a child and an adult is deeply damaging to the child and is, therefore, wrong. (There are cultures where young girls are still routinely married off to adult men.)

A civil marriage between two loving adult members of the same sex in no way harms you or me, Cusano, and so I fail to see the connection which you are attempting to make between this and rape or murder or whatever.

I believe that one of the functions of all religions has been to help mankind deal with this issue of how to arrive at and maintain social order. Certainly the Ten Commandments are all about that.

As we know, during the period when the Bible was being written people had slaves. The Book contains much information on the care and treatment of your personal slave collection. Not only is this information no longer applicable today, we now believe that owning other people is horribly immoral.

During biblical times people had no understanding that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice but an issue of genetics. Yes, the latest scientific research indicates that homosexuals are born that way, and just as civilized people are no longer comfortable treating other folk who are born with different attributes as though they are lesser in value and thus merit fewer rights, so this recognition and respect must extend to homosexuals.

No religious rights are trampled by allowing homosexuals to have the right to a civil marriage. And the argument that this opens the door to polygamy or folks wanting to marry their pets is specious. No one is born with the built in desire to mate with a dog or to have multiple wives.

Ron Cusano · February 15, 2007

Bible believing Christians believe that abortion and same sex marriage do harm the fabric of our society because we view them as immoral. And certainly abortion does harm the unborn child.

And yes the Old Testament does talk about owning slaves, but the understanding of a slave biblically is somewhat different that our understanding. Back in those times a person became a slave for a specific period of time to work off a debt, after which there were free to leave or remain as they chose. With the coming of the New Covenant, it was understood that all are equal in Messiah and there is not longer bond or free.

There are some who feel that homosexuality is genetic and other very reputable doctors who dispute that, nevertheless, homosexuals have a choice weather or not to practice homosexuality. I am a recovered alcoholic and have not touched alcohol in over 25 years. It is now understood that alcoholism has a very strong genetic factor, and yet I still have the choice weather to consume alcohol or not. The sin is in the practice of homosexuality regardless of the cause. You say the no one is born with a desire to mate with a dog or have multiple wives. They are perversions as is homosexuality.

I believe that the 10 Commandments which are only part of the 213 commandments of the Mosaic Law, were far more that to maintain "social order"! They were a model of what it would take to live a perfect sin-free life, which no one was ever able to do, except Jesus the Messiah. It's purpose was to point out the futility of trying to become sinless by our own works, and to point the way to the atoneing death of the Messiah in our place, to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Theft, murder, rape, and selling drugs to your children are activities which harm other people and disrupt the fabric of society. This is why such activities are condemned by religions and by secular humanists alike. It is generally agreed upon by all of us who are informed by the western culture that sexual relations/marriage between a child and an adult is deeply damaging to the child and is, therefore, wrong. (There are cultures where young girls are still routinely married off to adult men.)
A civil marriage between two loving adult members of the same sex in no way harms you or me, Cusano, and so I fail to see the connection which you are attempting to make between this and rape or murder or whatever.

I believe that one of the functions of all religions has been to help mankind deal with this issue of how to arrive at and maintain social order. Certainly the Ten Commandments are all about that.

As we know, during the period when the Bible was being written people had slaves. The Book contains much information on the care and treatment of your personal slave collection. Not only is this information no longer applicable today, we now believe that owning other people is horribly immoral.

During biblical times people had no understanding that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice but an issue of genetics. Yes, the latest scientific research indicates that homosexuals are born that way, and just as civilized people are no longer comfortable treating other folk who are born with different attributes as though they are lesser in value and thus merit fewer rights, so this recognition and respect must extend to homosexuals.

No religious rights are trampled by allowing homosexuals to have the right to a civil marriage. And the argument that this opens the door to polygamy or folks wanting to marry their pets is specious. No one is born with the built in desire to mate with a dog or to have multiple wives.

ousooner · February 15, 2007

I guess I will chime in here. I differentiate abortion and same sex marriage. While as a bible believing Christian, I believe that homosexuality is wrong, I disagree with Ron that it is harmful to society though. As he has stated, God gives us free will and if 2 consenting adults want that particular lifestyle, it should be up to them. Abortion is a different story to me. To me, pro-choice is a mis-labeled term, as the baby has no choice in the matter and I think that is wrong. The debate I guess is when does life begin and is not a religious matter to me. My father who is agnostic at best is also against abortion for the same reason. I don't understand how anyone can look at a sonogram (especially the new 3 and 4 dimensional ones) and not see that as a life regardless if they could survive outside the womb. I do see that as harm to society, but not because of my religious beliefs. I see the baby the same as someone on life support, they may not be able to sustain life without help (be it machines or the mother's womb), but it is alive non the less.

anonemouse · February 15, 2007

I don't understand how anyone can look at a sonogram (especially the new 3 and 4 dimensional ones) and not see that as a life regardless if they could survive outside the womb.

I'll try to figure out how to best state my beliefs about abortion. I think we should differentiate between "a life" and something that is actually "living" or "sentient". I don't deny that a fetus is a life. I don't think very many people really do. But I don't consider a nonviable fetus to be sentient. It has the potential to become a living, sentient being, but at the point of a legal abortion, it isn't yet. To me, a fetus isn't sentient until it is of the age where it has the ability to live outside the womb. At that point, it becomes a living, breathing person, with all the rights bestowed upon it as everyone else.

Does that mean I think the decision to have an abortion should be easy for every woman out there? No. I think abortion is a decision that should be weighed carefully, because you can't go back and unabort your fetus. Do I think that women should be able to have an abortion up until the point where they are in labor? No. I think they should be limited to a specific time period in early pregnancy, unless the fetus is already deceased or is certainly dying or if the mother is in grave danger of dying.

Tired_Old_Man · February 15, 2007

I had a free minute (or a few) so I thought I would read up on this, my favorite thread. I have a lot of respect for almost everyone who has posted in this thread, but I am sad to admit that I do not have much respect for Ron, the person who started this thread because I see many of his posts as double talk.

However, Ron, if you are reading this, I can say that if you would admit that you want to live in a Christian Theocracy, I will admit I was wrong for not respecting you (in my heart). If you answer yes (you want to live in a Christian Theocracy), the case is closed. If you answer no (you do not want to live in a Christian Theocracy), then what do you think the outcome of an 80% to 90% Christian nation voting for Representatives who will uphold Christians values will lead to?

If you answer no and an 80% to 90% Christian nation voting for Representatives who will uphold Christians values will not lead to Christian Theocracy, I will assume that you are either a hypocrite or totally unaware of the consequences of you actions. Since I believe that you are an intelligent person, I can assume you will figure out which choice I would assume.

I would also assume that you would believe that a Christian Theocracy would be much more benevolent than a Muslim Theocracy, but that is another post for another time.

BTW, my time is up.

Thank you to all the well wishers. Tina is getting better and hopefully will be able to visit her mother next week.

ousooner · February 15, 2007

I'll try to figure out how to best state my beliefs about abortion. I think we should differentiate between "a life" and something that is actually "living" or "sentient". I don't deny that a fetus is a life. I don't think very many people really do. But I don't consider a nonviable fetus to be sentient. It has the potential to become a living, sentient being, but at the point of a legal abortion, it isn't yet. To me, a fetus isn't sentient until it is of the age where it has the ability to live outside the womb. At that point, it becomes a living, breathing person, with all the rights bestowed upon it as everyone else.
Does that mean I think the decision to have an abortion should be easy for every woman out there? No. I think abortion is a decision that should be weighed carefully, because you can't go back and unabort your fetus. Do I think that women should be able to have an abortion up until the point where they are in labor? No. I think they should be limited to a specific time period in early pregnancy, unless the fetus is already deceased or is certainly dying or if the mother is in grave danger of dying.

And that's where the debate comes in. I just wanted to point out that for me, this is not a religious issue although it is consistent with them. For example, I have a cousin who is recuperating from an illness. He is expected to make a full recovery, but ti was touch and go for a while. He was hooked up to machines (for breathing) for almost a week. By the same definition, his life was not viable because he couldn't have survived on his own without the machines. I see unborn babies in the same light. Just different viewpoints I guess.

anonemouse · February 15, 2007

Just different viewpoints I guess.

Yes. We can agree to disagree, with no condescension on either side. That's why I like you!

Ron Cusano · February 15, 2007

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but I would argue that God created the institution of marriage, with a man and a women, for procreation, and condoning same sex marriage tears down the very fabric of our society - the tradational, man & women family. It is also a moral affront to long held social values. The first chapter of the Book of Romans paints a vivid picture of a society that embraces same sex unions. You destroy the family and you destroy society.

I guess I will chime in here. I differentiate abortion and same sex marriage. While as a bible believing Christian, I believe that homosexuality is wrong, I disagree with Ron that it is harmful to society though. As he has stated, God gives us free will and if 2 consenting adults want that particular lifestyle, it should be up to them. Abortion is a different story to me. To me, pro-choice is a mis-labeled term, as the baby has no choice in the matter and I think that is wrong. The debate I guess is when does life begin and is not a religious matter to me. My father who is agnostic at best is also against abortion for the same reason. I don't understand how anyone can look at a sonogram (especially the new 3 and 4 dimensional ones) and not see that as a life regardless if they could survive outside the womb. I do see that as harm to society, but not because of my religious beliefs. I see the baby the same as someone on life support, they may not be able to sustain life without help (be it machines or the mother's womb), but it is alive non the less.

anonemouse · February 15, 2007

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but I would argue that God created the institution of marriage, with a man and a women, for procreation, and condoning same sex marriage tears down the very fabric of our society - the tradational, man & women family. It is also a moral affront to long held social values. The first chapter of the Book of Romans paints a vivid picture of a society that embraces same sex unions. You destroy the family and you destroy society.

But what if you don't believe in God or if you believe in a different deity? There isn't a problem then. What makes your beliefs more important and worthy of being made into laws than the beliefs of other people?

Ron Cusano · February 15, 2007

I don't know about a Christian Theocracy but I would live to live in a world that was base fully upon Christian teaching and values, and adhered to by all willingly. Our forefathers came here to escape religious theocracy if you8 remember.

God didn't force me to believe and I don't have the right to force anyone else to believe, but that does not mean that I can't and won't do all that I personally can to work toward that end. And that means supporting laws that I think support my beliefs. I am sorry that you don't have rspect for me, but I am sharing what I believe in a manner that i hope you will come to understand.

I had a free minute (or a few) so I thought I would read up on this, my favorite thread. I have a lot of respect for almost everyone who has posted in this thread, but I am sad to admit that I do not have much respect for Ron, the person who started this thread because I see many of his posts as double talk.
However, Ron, if you are reading this, I can say that if you would admit that you want to live in a Christian Theocracy, I will admit I was wrong for not respecting you (in my heart). If you answer yes (you want to live in a Christian Theocracy), the case is closed. If you answer no (you do not want to live in a Christian Theocracy), then what do you think the outcome of an 80% to 90% Christian nation voting for Representatives who will uphold Christians values will lead to?

If you answer no and an 80% to 90% Christian nation voting for Representatives who will uphold Christians values will not lead to Christian Theocracy, I will assume that you are either a hypocrite or totally unaware of the consequences of you actions. Since I believe that you are an intelligent person, I can assume you will figure out which choice I would assume.

I would also assume that you would believe that a Christian Theocracy would be much more benevolent than a Muslim Theocracy, but that is another post for another time.

BTW, my time is up.

Thank you to all the well wishers. Tina is getting better and hopefully will be able to visit her mother next week.

ousooner · February 15, 2007

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but I would argue that God created the institution of marriage, with a man and a women, for procreation, and condoning same sex marriage tears down the very fabric of our society - the tradational, man & women family. It is also a moral affront to long held social values. The first chapter of the Book of Romans paints a vivid picture of a society that embraces same sex unions. You destroy the family and you destroy society.

Ron - never once did I say I embraced them or condoned them. I stated it was against my beleif system. I only stated that what two consenting adults do is not my business and according to my beleifs will have to answer for their actions, as we all will.

By the way Ron, you never mentioned anything about the comment I made about your racist statements earlier. I feel that is more harmfull to society than same sex marraiges. Your thoughts?

Ron Cusano · February 15, 2007

From my vantage point, my beliefs are right. You of course can disagree, but that is why I would think my beliefs are the only correct ones. If you are an athiest, a Mormon, a Buddist, or whatever, I am sure you would think your beliefs were right also. I am convinced that the God of the Bible is the only real deity, so my belief system comes from that understanding. I could not consider laws based upon what I consider false gods or false spiritual beliefs of equal worth. It's a matter of personal perspective.

But what if you don't believe in God or if you believe in a different deity? There isn't a problem then. What makes your beliefs more important and worthy of being made into laws than the beliefs of other people?