Christian compassion or: 'It shook the foundation of your hatred'

philologos

Split from this thread

Boston wrote: »

It shook the foundation of your hatred.

Interestingly, Christians aren't meant to hate homosexuals at all. We are just told not to engage in such a lifestyle if we are truly to pick up our cross and follow Christ.

What part of "We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:10) do people not understand.

I have done horrible things, no doubt other Christians have done too, prior to accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour and even after!

However what part of the Gospel encourages us to hate you, would you mind providing passages, more importantly what part of the Gospel encourages us to hate ourselves, which is what the consequence of what you are arguing is.

If we hate someone because they have sinned, by turn we must also hate ourselves for what we have done.

However, if we hate ourselves, how can we possibly live out the Gospel as you shall love your neighbour as yourself. But, if I hate myself, how can I love others as I love myself?

Your accusation doesn't make sense Boston.

Boston

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly, Christians aren't meant to hate homosexuals at all. We are just told not to engage in such a lifestyle if we are truly to pick up our cross and follow Christ.

What part of "We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:10) do people not understand.

I have done horrible things, no doubt other Christians have done too, prior to accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour and even after!

However what part of the Gospel encourages us to hate you, would you mind providing passages, more importantly what part of the Gospel encourages us to hate ourselves, which is what the consequence of what you are arguing is.

If we hate someone because they have sinned, by turn we must also hate ourselves for what we have done.

However, if we hate ourselves, how can we possibly live out the Gospel as you shall love your neighbour as yourself. But, if I hate myself, how can I love others as I love myself?

Your accusation doesn't make sense Boston.

Hey, I'm not the one responsible for your twisted miss interpretation of the good lords word. The bible is a book of hate and vengeance, it teaches us that we must smite those who would trespass against us and cast them down into the the fire pits of damnation. Now your reformist sect may teach you that Christianity is all about love, but here in the catholic church me know the true path to salvation.

philologos

Boston wrote: »

Hey, I'm not the only responsible for your twisted miss interpretation of the good lords word. The bible is a book of hate and vengeance, it teaches us that we must smite those who would trespass against and cast time down into the the fire pits of damnation. Now your reformist sect may teach you that Christianity is all about love, but here in the catholic church me know the true path the salvation.

How is it misinterpretation Boston? You didn't deal with my question at all. Jesus taught us to follow his principles, He elaborated them one by one to us in the Gospels. Boston, seriously find the passages that indicate that Jesus did not say that we all needed salvation, actually where in the Bible did Jesus say that we should hate people for their iniquities. The entire purpose of Christianity is to liberate people from the slavery of sin, how on earth are you meant to do that if you are commanded to hate people. The only way one can be liberated from the slavery of sin is if they have been forgiven, and not only been forgiven but forgive others.

When you were reading through the Bible you obviously missed out the following:
"I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6)

"Therefore I tell you, her sins, which were many have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven loves little". (Luke 7:47-48)

"For if you forgive others their tresspasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your tresspasses" (Matthew 6:14-16)

I am actually committing a sin myself if I get in fury at you or hate you for what you do for anger is the same as murder under the Laws of Christ (Matthew 5:21-22). Also I am commanded not to hate one of the people he has come to save:

Matthew 18:10 "Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you in heaven, their angels continually see the face of the Father in heaven".

He then continues in parable that we should be seeking the lost.

Now Boston, these are sins, and these sins are the same as homosexuality in God's eyes, whether or not Christians put more attention on some things than others is a matter we will have to review.

Yes, it is true that eternal damnation will come if you do not accept Christ, and yes it is true, that He is the way the truth and the life, but we are encouraged not to hate, but rather to bring people to Christ out of compassion. Whether or not this happens in practise is another thing, and I have failed at this at times too, but we must at least try to reach this standard.

As for the Reformed vs Catholic Church, that argument is irrelevant, if the Catholic Church have not taught you these things from the Gospel, then it has failed you. Paul said that there is only one Gospel, and he was right, there is only one, and there is only one message the Christian message:

Galatians 1:8 "As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed."

But please Boston, do not provoke people by insisting that they hate you when their message clearly advises them not to. You seem to think that Christianity causes this, but one cannot possibly accept this message and hate homosexuals.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the role of women, the Bible is rather clear that women are a strong part of the story

And yet women were expected to be completely subservient to their husbands and were subject to much harsher punishments.

As for the "minor" issue of women in the ministry, I think it's a pretty big slap on the face to consider women unfit to serve god as one of his priests.

The truth is, women and men were not even close to equal, a mistake that society is still correcting

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

And yet women were expected to be completely subservient to their husbands and were subject to much harsher punishments.

As for the "minor" issue of women in the ministry, I think it's a pretty big slap on the face to consider women unfit to serve god as one of his priests.

The truth is, women and men were not even close to equal, a mistake that society is still correcting

MatthewVII, firstly to establish this, a minor issue between Christian denominations. I didn't mean that it was a minor issue for the Roman Catholic church to deal with. I'm personally an Anglican so said issue doesn't affect me in the slightest.

As for women being subservient to their husbands, that is true, in Christianity the husband is seen as being the head of the household.

Husbands are explicitly warned in the Christian scriptures not to abuse their wives, and if they do it is a sin just as much as any other. I think quoting from Ephesians is apt to explain this:

In relation to wives:

Ephesians 5:22-24 "Wives be subjct to the husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be in everything to their husbands."

In relation to husbands:

Ephesians 5:25-28 "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up to her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendour, without a spot of wrinkle or anything of the kind - yes so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way , husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies".

Which part of that rings true for your original statement? I'm just confused in that respect. There is more in 1 Corinthians 7 concerning marriage and conjugal rights, but I will leave that for you to find for yourself.

Edit: If Fanny Craddock or PDN are reading, it would be great to split this as a new thread for discussion as not to ruin the current one on homosexuality that we are having.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

Which part of that rings true for your original statement? I'm just confused in that respect. There is more in 1 Corinthians 7 concerning marriage and conjugal rights, but I will leave that for you to find for yourself.

Well I stated two things, one that women were subservient, which you agreed with, and two that they were subject to harsher punishments. Although, respectfully, I don't have your command of quotations, when I first went through the bible I seem to remember laws about how to deal with women if they do certain things, such as disobey their husbands or stay out late etc.

Love =/= Rights

On the matter of straying off topic, this tangent merely reflects how the church's views are hard to accept in a changing society

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

On the matter of straying off topic, this tangent merely reflects how the church's views are hard to accept in a changing society

Again, we don't have to accept changing society, God's message is far removed from that of "changing society". If we take your point seriously, it's as if you are contending that we should get a pen, and stroke out the lines of the Bible which we don't like? See then we are conforming to what people want, rather than what God want's.

The following was said in the Bible concerning God and wealth:

Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth".

I wonder does the same apply for God and society, and maybe the Christians including myself need to think about this more. Can one really serve God and conform to my society. I'm pretty convinced not. God's message is far removed from the desires of men.

1 Thessalonians 2:4 "but just as we have been approved by Go to be entrusted with the message of the Gospel, even so we speak, not to please mortals, but to please God who tests our hearts".

See, this isn't the same as atheistic systems of ethics, whereby there is no consequence for altering or changing. We cannot cross out lines in the Gospel. God has given it to us, because He trusts us. The law which he has provided for Christians is just and right.

Paul's square on right that we don't do this to please men, we do this for the glory of God, because He has provided us the mercy to do so. If you look to the scripture I gave earlier to Boston, God desires mercy not sacrifice, the more we are forgiven the more we will love. These things which I follow are not popular, I'm quite aware of that by now. That's irrelevant though, Jesus makes it clear that to take up His cross, we have to deny ourselves and follow Him.

Matthew 16:24 "Then Jesus told His disciples, 'If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up ther cross and follow me'"

Also, if we deny God's will to be favourable to others, we will be denied by God:

Matthew 10:23 "Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven."

The Scripture isn't as easy as saying "get up with the times", because for me the will of my Father is the "times". Some people don't appreciate that, but then again not all will.

MatthewVII

Then religion is sure to die, as beliefs that are obvious to an enlightened society (equality of women, acceptance of homosexuality etc.) are not enshrined in the bible, as society progresses one must gain greater acceptance than the other, and I can't see the bible winning.

If religion wants to remain relevant and applicable, it needs to change. Change doesn't necessarily mean compromising it's morals, it just means accepting that certain truths are undeniable.

Nodin

wrote:

It shook the foundation of your hatred

What did?

philologos

Religion is due to die because we don't conform to society?

Then you would be missing the whole point of Christianity, the entire point of the Gospel and of the ministry of Jesus Christ is that we are meant to be free from slavery to sin, not dive right back in or pull a few chains here to make ourselves "alright" with a certain issue. It's not as simple.

If changing the Bible is what you mean by "enlightened", I would quite frankly prefer to take up my cross and follow Christ instead, and let my light shine before others.

As for equality to women, how is this not the case? Just because women have a different role to play doesn't mean that they aren't equal to men. It's about as absurd in my mind as someone saying that a mother plays the exact same role as a father.

Anyhow, for a bit of thought on it:

Galatians 3:28 "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus".

See if the issue of homosexuality wasn't as clear in the Biblical record as it is I would be quite open to reviewing the way that we as Christians do things. Infact, we fall short in what God has called us to do, this is the same for me.

This is something that popped up in my head when I was doing a Bible Study with the Christian Union at my university a while ago. Verses that just pop out:

Phillippians 3:15-16 "Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. Only let us hold fast to what we have attained."

Had we not attained the teachings on homosexuality from Moses firstly, and then from Paul, we would be perfectly free to discuss that. However it is put forward, and we have the choice to deny Christ, and conform to what is merely popular, or to take up Christ and to follow what God has planned for us. As I say, I find the second to be far superior to the first.

Also the Bible isn't in it "to win" or be popular. The Bible is in it to reveal to us divine truth, acceptance or rejection is entirely up to you. I have accepted it because it rings true in my life, time and time again.

MatthewVII

The teachings of the bible are based on a society which bears no resemblance to our own. It makes sense that the teachings of the church be shaped to be more applicable, much as the austere teachings of the old testament were relaxed somewhat in the new testament, ie as times changed, religion changed. I don't see why religion shouldn't be like life itself, constantly growing and adapting to better reflect the needs of its followers, and compromise- people need to change, but not so much that it distorts their perceptions of what is obviously right and wrong in a mature society.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

Then religion is sure to die, as beliefs that are obvious to an enlightened society (equality of women, acceptance of homosexuality etc.) are not enshrined in the bible, as society progresses one must gain greater acceptance than the other, and I can't see the bible winning.

If religion wants to remain relevant and applicable, it needs to change. Change doesn't necessarily mean compromising it's morals, it just means accepting that certain truths are undeniable.

Most of the enlightened moral principles come from Christianity too. If you throw out everything just to get rid of the few bits that annoy you, then we're in trouble. Exploitation of the poor has always marred humanity, but now we see it being justified in popular discourse on the grounds of economic growth and other capitalist justifications.

Capitalism is the religion of our "enlightened" age.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote:

If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.

(The Brothers Karamazov)

Fanny Cradock

MatthewVII wrote: »

I don't see why religion shouldn't be like life itself, constantly growing and adapting to better reflect the needs of its followers, and compromise

That's because we place different validity on the words than you. Christians believe that the bible is God inspired and immutable, whereas you believe it's merely a construct of man and some sort of societal prop. Give the Christian opinion of the bible, any alterations that reflect changes in society wouldn't really fit in to the immutability of the text. That the Middle East of 2000 years ago has little resemblance to modern Ireland is, to a large degree, undeniable. However, despite 2000 years passing, Christianity and the bible still manages to remain relevant to countless people.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

The teachings of the bible are based on a society

No, they are based on the opinions of God.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I don't see why religion shouldn't be like life itself, constantly growing and adapting to better reflect the needs of its followers, and compromise.

I agree in the sense that styles of worship such as Catholic mass no longer meet the needs of this generation. That is why you see much more enthusiastic participation in evangelical churches. But the fundamental principles of faith and the ethics that reflect God's will cannot change. Otherwise you would have to admit to be worshipping not a real God, but a God of your imagination.

Fanny Cradock

Húrin wrote: »

Capitalism is the religion of our "enlightened" age.
(The Brothers Karamazov)

As cool a quote as it is, I believe that it auld Dosser never wrote it!

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

But the fundamental principles of faith and the ethics that reflect God's will cannot change. Otherwise you would have to admit to be worshipping not a real God, but a God of your imagination.

That's the thing, the fundamentals wouldn't change. All the core principles would remain intact, the only thing that would change would be the fine print, statutes etc which have no bearing on the spirit of the law but affect greatly its execution and exclusion that comes from that execution

Mrmoe

Jakkass wrote: »

Split from this thread



Interestingly, Christians aren't meant to hate homosexuals at all. We are just told not to engage in such a lifestyle if we are truly to pick up our cross and follow Christ.
.

I think this is the correct way to approach this issue. I consider myself an atheist. I do not care what people do as long as they are consenting adults but that does not mean that I agree with everything that they do. Homosexuality should be tolerated but you can not force someone to accept it. A lot of people believe homosexuality is a sin. That is their belief and they are entitled to have it as long as they do not cause physical harm to another person.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Most of the enlightened moral principles come from Christianity too.

Nonsense. There are no moral principles which originated with christianity. Effective and decent moral codes had existed for centuries, if not millennia, before Jesus re-delivered a small subset of them amongst much else which was less than helpful.

Also, far from "the government being upon his shoulders", almost none of our modern laws are derived from christianity, or even judaism, and none of our modern, stable, secular forms of government are based upon anything which does anything more than tip its hat at religion.

Húrin wrote: »

Exploitation of the poor has always marred humanity, but now we see it being justified in popular discourse on the grounds of economic growth and other capitalist justifications.

If you examine political systems around the world, you'll find that low levels of state-funded social services and wide economic disparity occurs most often with authoritarian governments run by conservative political groupings very often with religious or religious-style backing or control (USA, Saudi, North Korea). Good social services and low levels of economic disparity, on the other hand, are far more common in the secular states where religion is sidelined or irrelevant (Denmark, Holland, Sweden).

And, if you'll allow me to descend into personal opinion, Dostoyevsky was a tedious, hypergraphic, moralizing bore. Chekhov's a far better writer, and a far wiser and more perceptive commentator on the human condition, as well as being, occasionally, very, very funny.

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

The teachings of the bible are based on a society which bears no resemblance to our own. It makes sense that the teachings of the church be shaped to be more applicable, much as the austere teachings of the old testament were relaxed somewhat in the new testament, ie as times changed, religion changed. I don't see why religion shouldn't be like life itself, constantly growing and adapting to better reflect the needs of its followers, and compromise- people need to change, but not so much that it distorts their perceptions of what is obviously right and wrong in a mature society.

The New Testament isn't a case of conforming to society. The society of Jesus' time vilified and hated him, just as much as there are people who vilify and hate the teachings of Christianity on earth today (not explictly saying that is anyone here).

For the purposes of explaining the role of Biblical Law in Christianity, I will refer to a famous document in Anglicanism, and give you the link to it. I think many of the posters of other denominations will agree that this is the generally accepted view of Christianity on the Old Testament and the laws that bear onto us today.

These are the Articles of Religion:
http://ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=14

"The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man.
Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men,
nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral."

There are three types of Law in the Law of Moses or the Torah.
1) Ritual or Ceremonial - concerning giving up sacrifices and festivals such as Yom Kippur, Passover etc, to distinguish the people of Israel from other nations.
2) Civil - laws of the State of Israel at the time of Moses.
3) Moral - the rights and wrongs, the things we should be doing and the things that we should not be doing.

If I may quote PDN, from a helpful discussion I had in the past with him concerning Sin in Christianity, which I started when I was concerned about how I should follow God. Thanks again for that actually PDN.
http://www-srv-4.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055341686

PDN wrote: »

I think that the primary factors in determining if something is sinful or not are
a) Does it displease God?
b) Does it harm others?
c) Does it harm myself?

Some sins, such as worshipping idols, would seem to be more a case of simply displeasing God.
Others, such as theft or adultery obviously hurt other people.
Others, such as viewing pornography, hurt yourself more than anyone else by eroding your own appreciation of the value and uniqueness of the gift of sexuality within marriage (although it could also be argued that you are helping sustain an industry that exploits others).

The relationship of the Old Testament to the New is always interesting, but allows room for debate. I do, believe, however, that we can follow a coherent pattern for reading the Old Testament in the light of the New. I teach our church people to ask the following questions about any Old Testament law or commandment:

1. Is it repeated and reinforced in the New Testament? (idolatry)
2. Is it abrogated in the New Testament? (circumcision, keeping the sabbath)
3. Is it clearly ceremonial rather than moral? (not eating shellfish)
4. Does it refer to a no longer existent cultural practice? (building a little wall round your roof to stop sunbathers rolling off - hardly applies in Ireland)
5. Is there an underlying principle that can be updated to our culture? (the command to help your neighbour when his donkey falls over can still apply to helping him when his car breaks down).

The reason for upholding the Moral beyond the Ceremonial and the Civil is as follows.

1. Civil law was intended for the Torah bound State of Israel, there is no such state anymore, and we as Christians don't rule a country except for perhaps the Vatican but Paul has told us that we are both bound to the law of the State (except in cases of denial of religious freedom), and the law of God.

2. Ceremonial law was intended for Jews to separate them from foreign nations, and to develop them so that they may have been the means for our salvation and a blessing until the Gentiles (Genesis 12, also elaborated upon in Galatians). Sacrificial law especially has been fulfilled, as Jesus is the means of our atonement not through blood sacrifice. As I mentioned previously God seeks mercy not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6).

3. Moral law concerns how we treat our neighbour and our deeds to one another, these are the laws that bind Christians, because God has deemed them to be the means by which we should interact with eachother. Jeremiah tells us in his prophesy that the New Covenant will be distinct from the Old Covenant:

Jeremiah 31:31-34 "The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt - a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. But this covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. No longer shall they say "Know the LORD" for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquities and remember their sin no more".

Húrin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As cool a quote as it is, I believe that it auld Dosser never wrote it!

I don't mean the quote 'Capitalism is the religion of our "enlightened" age.', I mean the one in the quote box. The other quote was originally written by me a few minutes ago on this board.

MatthewVII

Mrmoe wrote:

I think this is the correct way to approach this issue. I consider myself an atheist. I do not care what people do as long as they are consenting adults but that does not mean that I agree with everything that they do. Homosexuality should be tolerated but you can not force someone to accept it. A lot of people believe homosexuality is a sin. That is their belief and they are entitled to have it as long as they do not cause physical harm to another person.

That's the religious equivalent of someone saying to their gay friend "I don't mind you being gay, just don't do anything gay near me because I think it's wrong"

The church believes that homosexuality is wrong. This means that any homosexual who wishes to be happy must turn away from god, which doesn't strike me as a particularly christian way of doing things

Fanny Cradock

Húrin wrote: »

I don't mean the quote 'Capitalism is the religion of our "enlightened" age.', I mean the one in the quote box. The other quote was originally written by me a few minutes ago on this board.

Sorry, I'm referring to the "if God is dead... " quote. The forum doesn't allow quotes of quotes.

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

That's the religious equivalent of someone saying to their gay friend "I don't mind you being gay, just don't do anything gay near me because I think it's wrong"

The church believes that homosexuality is wrong. This means that any homosexual who wishes to be happy must turn away from god, which doesn't strike me as a particularly christian way of doing things

Since when did sex become equivalent to happiness?

I guess that's where we differ, I see spiritual fulfillment as the path to happiness.

As for homosexuals having to turn away from God, of course not, they have a choice, to follow God's teachings or to reject them. Nobody in a church (or at least ones I have attended), are going to tell someone to get out of a church because of their orientation.

I see this as nonsense that the Church merely by upholding what God has commanded us are forcing homosexuals out of the church, as that is quite honestly ficticious.

The Christian way of doing things, that you are talking about, means that you serve God by following God's commandment. I've heard no other "Christian way". This is made clear by Jesus Himself. The first commandment, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and soul and might" (based on Torah teaching Deuteronomy 6), and the second is like it, "you shall love your neighbour as yourself" (based on Torah teaching Leviticus 19).

I regard homosexuals to be my equal in the fullest sense of the word, but if I am to follow Christ, and not man, I am to say that I consider a homosexual lifestyle to be sinful, only due to the beliefs outlined for us as Christians. Nothing more, nothing less, not out of hostility but out of compassion.

Heterosexual Christians have very similar guidelines to follow, such as honouring marriage, and not engaging in sexual relationships until it is bound by marriage under God.

MatthewVII

heterosexuals are allowed a life of fulfilment both sexually and spiritually under christianity.

homosexuals are allowed a life of spiritual fulfilment but no sexual fulfilment

This makes them unequal in the eyes of god and denies them a life of true happiness.

Jakkass wrote:

I regard homosexuals to be my equal in the fullest sense of the word, but if I am to follow Christ, and not man, I am to say that I consider a homosexual lifestyle to be sinful, only due to the beliefs outlined for us as Christians. Nothing more, nothing less, not out of hostility but out of compassion.

I hope homosexuals everywhere are thankful that you're compassionate enough to believe their way of life sinful and wrong

Fanny Cradock

OK guys, this thread was created because it was developing away from the other thread on homosexuality and Christianity. One rebuttal from JA if he wishes, but then that's it. Lets not have two concurrent threads running.

philologos

MatthewVII wrote: »

1) heterosexuals are allowed a life of fulfilment both sexually and spiritually under christianity.

2) homosexuals are allowed a life of spiritual fulfilment but no sexual fulfilment

3) This makes them unequal in the eyes of god and denies them a life of true happiness.

4) I hope homosexuals everywhere are thankful that you're compassionate enough to believe their way of life sinful and wrong

Right let's split this quote up into four and discuss it:

1) What scriptural basis do you have to suggest that this is true? If I read your posts correctly, you claim to be an atheist? Therefore, what business is it of yours in the teachings that Christians hold to?

2) Incorrect. If one is to pick up their cross, follow Jesus Christ, and not the will of society (as it is clear that one cannot serve both God and society, but if one serves God they serve society in turn), and just to note that is a big if, they can fulfil themselves sexually through a marriage, but there is a limitation on who that can be with. If you are a Christian, you accept certain ground rules, and that the moral teachings of God do have authority over your life.

In Christianity, there are several limitations, not only on those who wish to engage in homosexuality, but those who wish to commit acts of incest, beastiality, and other innappropriate acts, such as taking ones sister as a sexual rival, or having had sexual relationships with both a mother, and her daughter.

3) No it doesn't the same regulations apply to all Christians, likewise heterosexuals also have to consider their sexual behaviour, so that it isn't indecent or innappropriate, and of course in the correct context.

4) I'm compassionate enough, to stand up for true Christianity, instead of compromising it by external teachings. God has made me a custodian of his Gospel, and as such I have no right to compromise what is not mine. I want to lead people to spiritual truth, not to spiritual falsehood.

Indeed Fanny Craddock, that's fine. I hope it stays open to discuss the subject of Christian compassion, and the need to resist the hatred of others.

MatthewVII

Looks like homosexuality will always be the alpha and omega of this thread no matter how you split it.

Fanny Cradock

Maybe! But there is no sense in having multiple threads discussing the same topic. If anyone wants to discuss homosexuality and Christianity in detail, please take it to the other thread.

For purposes of clarity, there has been a slight name change to the thread title. Let's discuss Christian compassion in it's broadest sense.

Cheers

philologos

Thanks for that that makes it much clearer, if I can just pose a question:

In the description of how we should act to one another according to the Biblical narrative, does it seem more a message of compassion, or a message of hatred? And be entirely honest in a general sense though, not in relation to one thing in specific. Try to be as broad as possible in the Christian issues you raise.

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

That's the thing, the fundamentals wouldn't change. All the core principles would remain intact, the only thing that would change would be the fine print, statutes etc which have no bearing on the spirit of the law but affect greatly its execution and exclusion that comes from that execution

Sorry, but as an atheist, what understanding do you think you actually have in telling people how their church should work? You don't even understand the beliefs of Christianity. This is so arrogant. Besides how do you know that this ideal church you are trying to describe does not exist already? There are churches other than the Catholic Church.

PDN

MatthewVII wrote: »

heterosexuals are allowed a life of fulfilment both sexually and spiritually under christianity.

homosexuals are allowed a life of spiritual fulfilment but no sexual fulfilment

This makes them unequal in the eyes of god and denies them a life of true happiness.

This is just a variation of the "God made me this way argument".

Without implying any moral equivalency - what about paedophiles, those who are into bestiality, those who want to indulge in threesomes, or those who want to sleep with a different woman each night?

They are allowed spiritual but not sexual fulfillment. This makes them unequal in the eyes of god and denies them a life of true happiness.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly, Christians aren't meant to hate homosexuals at all. We are just told not to engage in such a lifestyle if we are truly to pick up our cross and follow Christ.

The assertion that you hate the sin not the sinner ultimately falls down when dealing with something like homosexuality, where the person and the sin are so entwined, both physically and mentally, that it is hard to separate.

If you hate who a person is (and while sexual orientation isn't the whole, it is certainly a part) there is really no difference between that and hating them.

Christian compassion rings some what hollow because it ultimately is focused on what is based for the person based on your narrow religious interpretation, not what is actually best for the person.

Despite mountains of evidence that repressing homosexual orientation leads to depression and suicide, Christians hold stubbornly to the idea that what is best for the homosexual is to embrace their religion and repress sexual desire for basically the persons entire life.

While there is no doubt genuine compassion held by many Christians who mean well when preaching their version of reality to people, this goes only to a certain point because ultimately you guys don't seem prepared to reject your own beliefs when it is clear that they are, basically, wrong and harmful.

So it is compassion only within a narrow framework that you are prepared to allow yourselves to operate in.

It is a bit like holding to the belief that medicine X is the correct medicine. You go to a hospital and see people suffering, you feel genuinely sorry for them so you want to help. You give them medicine X, but instead of helping them it increases their suffering. For some reason you refuse to change your original position on the benefits of medicine X and you keep giving it to people, despite it making things worse. Occasionally someone does actually appear to improve, so you go "Ah ah, I knew I was right about medicine X"

This is how I sometimes view the Christian claim to compassion and desire to help. You guys are prepared to help only up to the limits of your own religious beliefs. You will hold to your own religious beliefs despite being faced with the reality they they don't actually help.

One has to question how compassionate that really is. One has to question how compassionate a Christian is towards homosexuals when they are still a Christian.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The assertion that you hate the sin not the sinner ultimately falls down when dealing with something like homosexuality, where the person and the sin are so entwined, both physically and mentally, that it is hard to separate.

If you hate who a person is (and while sexual orientation isn't the whole, it is certainly a part) there is really no difference between that and hating them.

Christian compassion rings some what hollow because it ultimately is focused on what is based for the person based on your narrow religious interpretation, not what is actually best for the person.

Despite mountains of evidence that repressing homosexual orientation leads to depression and suicide, Christians hold stubbornly to the idea that what is best for the homosexual is to embrace their religion and repress sexual desire for basically the persons entire life.

While there is no doubt genuine compassion held by many Christians who mean well when preaching their version of reality to people, this goes only to a certain point because ultimately you guys don't seem prepared to reject your own beliefs when it is clear that they are, basically, wrong and harmful.

So it is compassion only within a narrow framework that you are prepared to allow yourselves to operate in.

It is a bit like holding to the belief that medicine X is the correct medicine. You go to a hospital and see people suffering, you feel genuinely sorry for them so you want to help. You give them medicine X, but instead of helping them it increases their suffering. For some reason you refuse to change your original position on the benefits of medicine X and you keep giving it to people, despite it making things worse. Occasionally someone does actually appear to improve, so you go "Ah ah, I knew I was right about medicine X"

This is how I sometimes view the Christian claim to compassion and desire to help. You guys are prepared to help only up to the limits of your own religious beliefs. You will hold to your own religious beliefs despite being faced with the reality they they don't actually help.

One has to question how compassionate that really is. One has to question how compassionate a Christian is towards homosexuals when they are still a Christian.

Nonsense.

The Christian objection is not to orientation, but rather to homosexual acts.

I know men who appear to have a compulsive desire to sleep around and commit adultery. I feel sorry for them, and am sure that they would be much happier if they were content with their wives. However, my compassion for them does not mean approving of their actions. It is perfectly possible to love the sinner while calling the sin for what it is.

Such men, if they are to be part of the Church, need to learn to control their impulses - even if that makes them feel 'repressed'. If they choose to live outside of the Church then they are free to sleep with as many women as they want providing both parties are consenting adults.

Mrmoe

MatthewVII wrote: »

That's the religious equivalent of someone saying to their gay friend "I don't mind you being gay, just don't do anything gay near me because I think it's wrong"

The church believes that homosexuality is wrong. This means that any homosexual who wishes to be happy must turn away from god, which doesn't strike me as a particularly christian way of doing things

You are incorrect. You must turn away from the church. You do not have to turn away from God. The church (whichever one, there are lots of them) is not God.

Boston

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense.

The Christian objection is not to orientation, but rather to homosexual acts.

I know men who appear to have a compulsive desire to sleep around and commit adultery. I feel sorry for them, and am sure that they would be much happier if they were content with their wives. However, my compassion for them does not mean approving of their actions. It is perfectly possible to love the sinner while calling the sin for what it is.

Such men, if they are to be part of the Church, need to learn to control their impulses - even if that makes them feel 'repressed'. If they choose to live outside of the Church then they are free to sleep with as many women as they want providing both parties are consenting adults.

Those actions hurt other people, they destroy life's and break up families. What is with you people? Every time homosexuality is mentioned you mention some other immorality is the same breath. Damnation by association. Maybe every time I mentioned Christianity I should also bring up child abuse and the pope being a nazi?

I personally have no problem Christians, just as I have no problem with schizophrenics and recreational drug users.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It is perfectly possible to love the sinner while calling the sin for what it is.

But "what is" homosexuality PDN? Harmful? Damaging? Immoral? Wrong? Incompatible with Christianity?

The Christian desire to hang on to the out of date and simply incorrect belief that homosexual life is some how bad and wrong simply because of their own personal religious beliefs, is ultimately incompatible with the idea of compassion towards homosexuals.

Their quality of life suffers so you can remain happy about your choice of religion. That is not, ultimately, compassion.

Ultimately compassion must involve the possibility of change on your side. You can be Christian. Or you can be compassionate. You can't be both. It is incompatible with Christianity

PDN wrote: »

Such men, if they are to be part of the Church, need to learn to control their impulses - even if that makes them feel 'repressed'.

Even if that is harmful to them. Even if it leads to depression, misery, guilty and suicide?

Again, where is the compassion in that?

PDN wrote: »

If they choose to live outside of the Church then they are free to sleep with as many women as they want providing both parties are consenting adults.

If they choose to live outside of the Church the Church still tells them they are immoral and destined to end up hell.

Zombrex

Boston wrote: »

Every time homosexuality is mentioned you mention some other immorality is the same breath.

And when you point this out the response is always "I was not equating the two things, you are imagining things" :rolleyes:

I've lost count of the times PDN has mentioned infidelity ...

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

But "what is" homosexuality PDN? Harmful? Damaging? Immoral? Wrong? Incompatible with Christianity?

This might be useful for you and Boston, to know that sins are not just involving harming others.

Is it displeasing to God? Does it harm yourself? Does it harm others?

Wicknight wrote: »

The Christian desire to hang on to the out of date and simply incorrect belief that homosexual life is some how bad and wrong simply because of their own personal religious beliefs, is ultimately incompatible with the idea of compassion towards homosexuals.

"Out of date" is wholly irrelevant. We are custodians of the Gospel (1 Thessalonians 2:4 quoted near the start of this whole argument), we don't have a right to change what is explicitly mentioned to be sinful. As I say, sins range from me cursing you, to dishonouring my parents, these are all one and the same.

We are compassionate to homosexuals because we want them to come to Christ like everyone else. What use would it be to despise a homosexual when despising in itself is a sin?

One can disagree with ones morals and yet still be compassionate towards them and care surely.

Wicknight wrote: »

Their quality of life suffers so you can remain happy about your choice of religion. That is not, ultimately, compassion.

How does it? How do I affect the quality of life of homosexuals by holding my beliefs? I really don't think that works somehow.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ultimately compassion must involve the possibility of change on your side.

It's ring a ring a rosey in this argument. Christians have no authority to change the Gospel. You almost seem to suggest that we should get a pen and cross out lines of the Bible. That isn't how it works. Either God is right or society is right, and given the state of society right now, I'm going to side with God.

Wicknight wrote: »

Even if that is harmful to them. Even if it leads to depression, misery, guilty and suicide?

Why should they have guilt if we all have indeed sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:10)? I've sinned, you've sinned, we are all sinners. However the Bible says that God will hold all accountable for their sins with the risk of damnation? How can we restore our position, and put ourselves right with God in the final days? Accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and accept His offer of mercy to you? Do you think Jesus is going to reject a homosexual purely for who they are? Definitely not, anyone can pick up the cross and follow Christ.

The question is this: Are people willing to change and respect the will of God rather than have God conform for the purposes of humanity? As for being destined to end up in hell, no nobody is destined to end up in hell, they have the option of accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Boston wrote: »

Those actions hurt other people, they destroy life's and break up families. What is with you people? Every time homosexuality is mentioned you mention some other immorality is the same breath. Damnation by association. Maybe every time I mentioned Christianity I should also bring up child abuse and the pope being a nazi?

I personally have no problem Christians, just as I have no problem with schizophrenics and recreational drug users.

Again read what I said to Wicknight concerning sin.

What is it with us the Christians? We want to follow God with all our heart and soul and might and mean it. You have the choice to as well, and it's a free invitation no matter of skin, creed, colour, race or sexual orientation actually. You just have to be willing to change to conform to the will of the Father.

As for Christianity and child abuse and being a Nazi. They are all sins, and they are how we have fallen short of God. Do you not understand yet, all mortals have sinned and have fallen short of God. No Christian claims to be perfect, indeed Paul didn't even:

Phillippians 3:12-14 "Not that I have already obtained this, or have I already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus made me His own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies ahead and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on towards the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus".

Now Paul was a murderer, but He accepted Christ Jesus in faith, and God worked through Him. God has a plan for everyones life whether they are homosexuals, prostitutes, adulterers, murderers, thieves, liars, etc, the list goes on.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

And when you point this out the response is always "I was not equating the two things, you are imagining things" :rolleyes:

I've lost count of the times PDN has mentioned infidelity ...

I clearly stated in the post itself that mentioning the two things together did not imply any moral equivalence between them.

The reason why I mention them together, as you well know, is in order to make the following variations of the same point:
1. NonChristians argue that action A must be OK because it is 'natural'.
2. However action B, which both Christians & nonChristians agree is not OK, is also 'natural'.
3. Therefore something being 'natural' does not necessarily make it OK.

1. NonChristians argue that action A must be OK because refraining from it is 'not being true to myself'.
2. However refraining from action B, which both Christians & nonChristians agree is not OK, is also 'not being true to myself'.
3. Therefore simply because refraining from something is 'not being true to myself' does not necessarily make it OK.

1. NonChristians argue that action A must be OK because 'God loves everbody'.
2. However those committing action B, which both Christians & nonChristians agree is not OK, are also people whom God loves.
3. Therefore the fact that God loves everbody does not necessarily make all their actions OK.

Now, nobody has offered any effective defence against this point which effectively skewers these rather childish arguments. Paedophilia etc. effectively serve as action B in the above arguments. If somebody cannot see that the point of mentioning action B is a logical device which does not imply any moral equivalency between action A and action B then they would be better off trying to master joined up writing instead of trying to debate with adults.

As it is we keep getting variations of the same stupid argument advanced, and, when the above rebuttal is presented, the same moronic whining about how people are equating homosexuality with action B.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This might be useful for you and Boston, to know that sins are not just involving harming others.

Is it displeasing to God? Does it harm yourself? Does it harm others?

I'm perfectly aware of that fact Jakkass, it is in fact central to my point.

On the one hand a Christian may claim compassion to a homosexual, while on the other hand embracing the opinion of God has to what does or does not please him (sin) and that this is some how more important.

Those two stances lead to something ultimately incompatable. It is not in the best interests of a homosexual to lead the life you believe pleases God. So why does your "compassion" for the homosexual lead you to God's side in the matter rather than the homosexual?

Jakkass wrote: »

"Out of date" is wholly irrelevant.

Not really.

The Arabian tribes living 4000 years ago could some what be excused for embracing a religion that taught that homosexuality was wrong because it disgusted their god. They had no idea about biology or evolution, why they instinctively viewed homosexuality as inherently disgusting (which is basically just an evolutionary way to stop you wasting time on men when you should be passing your genetic material on to women)

You guys have less of an excuse for embracing a religion that teaches this.

Jakkass wrote: »

We are custodians of the Gospel (1 Thessalonians 2:4 quoted near the start of this whole argument), we don't have a right to change what is explicitly mentioned to be sinful.

True, but you do have the right to not follow it.

Jakkass wrote: »

One can disagree with ones morals and yet still be compassionate towards them and care surely.

Being compassionate involves being flexible on your own opinion. It is not simply a one way street. If you find that Christianity is failing people you should drop Christianity, not the other way around.

Jakkass wrote: »

How does it? How do I affect the quality of life of homosexuals by holding my beliefs? I really don't think that works somehow.

Because you tell people (this is a public forum) that God does not want them to live homosexual lives.

The idea that they can simply choose not to be Christians is a misnomer. If they didn't believe in the first place then it isn't an issue. The issue is those who do believe that what they feel is wrong, who do believe you when you say that homosexual life is a sin and displeasing to God.

I would be so happy if every gay person simply rejected Christianity as nonsense. The problem arises because an awful lot, for what ever reason, don't.

And that is before one factors in how Christians act towards homosexuals, such as in the way they vote.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's ring a ring a rosey in this argument. Christians have no authority to change the Gospel.

You, as a person, have the ability to reject the Gospel.

Jakkass wrote: »

You almost seem to suggest that we should get a pen and cross out lines of the Bible. That isn't how it works. Either God is right or society is right, and given the state of society right now, I'm going to side with God.

I know you are going to side with God. That is why the claim of compassion rings hollow. Your religion, your personal faith and dogma, is more important to you than the quality of life of a homosexual man or woman. That is the opposite of compassion.

The only way to help people is to focus on the reality of a situation at hand. If one comes at a situation with a perceived dogma of how things should be, that is ultimately doomed to failure and more often than not increased harm.

A classic example of this is condoms for teens. The dogmatic argument is that if you give teens condoms it will only encourage them to have sex. If you don't, and instead teach them about abstinence, you will decrease the problems associated with sex.

Bear in mind this isn't exclusively a religious argument (nor am I claiming it is your position). I know plenty of atheists who have made it as well.

The point that is ignored is that it isn't true.

The position should be dropped if it does not map to reality.

Another example is the idea that the death plenty reduces crime. The logic is that the risk of losing ones life is too create for a criminal to risk, so they wont commit a crime that has the death plenty. Therefore if we introduce this crime will decrease.

The problem? That isn't true either.

Neither of these assertions are religious in nature, but they are both dogmas that people hold with the pretense of wanting to help the issue at hand but which are ultimately doomed because they do not map to reality.

They are beliefs that reality should match the preconceived notions going into an issue. It hardly ever does.

To actually be interested in helping people, in real compassion, a person must be prepared to leave their dogma at the door. It is your dogma, it doesn't necessarily relate to reality and the assumption that it does is counter productive and harmful.

This applies to religion as much as anything else. If you come into a situation with the belief that your religion is true and correct and that reality must bend around this pre-conceived notion you are not good to anyone.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why should they have guilt if we all have indeed sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:10)?

Because your religion tells them what they have done is immoral. That produces guilt. What do you think guilt is?

Jakkass wrote: »

The question is this: Are people willing to change and respect the will of God rather than have God conform for the purposes of humanity?

That shouldn't be the question at all.

The question should be "Does Christianity help people, does Christianity improve the lives of homosexuals?"

Not some of the time. Not if you aren't a homosexual so therefore it should if you are.

This question shouldn't be asked in the context of well it is true to begin with so of course it does. It should be asked without it being a pre-conceived dogma.

Does Christianity help homosexuals?

The answer is no. It tells them their natural desires are wrong and that they shouldn't do them, despite them not causing any harm beyond the dogma that it displeases God. It tells them that to be moral they must reject their homosexuality and embrace a life counter to how they desire to live.

None of this is helpful, any more than saying "Don't give condoms to teens" is helpful.

It adheres to the dogma certainly, and if someone already holds the position that it must be true irrespective of reality, then they will always believe that it is for the best. But reality continues on, being reality not dogma.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

As it is we keep getting variations of the same stupid argument advanced, and, when the above rebuttal is presented, the same moronic whining about how people are equating homosexuality with action B.

Yes but you are doing exactly the same thing that you dismiss as a "stupid argument"

Because having an affair is following one's personal desire to have sex, and having an affair is immoral, doesn't mean that following ones' personal desire to have sex is immoral. Do you agree?

You compare homosexuality with infidelity (more than once) as a way of saying that if men can manage not to cheat on their wives (boo! hiss!) then surely a homosexual can manage not have have homosexual sex.

The point you ignore (on purpose it seems) is that those two things don't equate to each other. The man already has a wife. The reason he doesn't have affairs is because that harms his wife. That reason doesn't equate to a single homosexual because he doesn't have anyone to harm.

You are trying to equate homosexuality with selfishness, a desire to have sex at the expense of others. You are doing that because you know no one here is going to try and argue that infidelity is moral.

Not only is it totally untrue and unfair comparison, but it is a totally mean spirited and disgusting comparison because you know perfectly well that a man having an affair on his wife is nothing like a gay couple having sex.

You shame yourself sir :mad:

Boston

How can you repent something which you do not feel is a sin? You believe it a god who supposedly teaches that for me to love another man is wrong, is a sin. Your god teaches that love is a sin. Something beautiful is wrong. That, and that's all the reason needed, is why you believe in a hateful god.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

Sorry, but as an atheist, what understanding do you think you actually have in telling people how their church should work? You don't even understand the beliefs of Christianity. This is so arrogant. Besides how do you know that this ideal church you are trying to describe does not exist already? There are churches other than the Catholic Church.

As an atheist who was brought up a Christian I think myself sufficiently qualified in the rights and wrongs of scripture, seeing the wrongs and rejecting them as unacceptable. What is arrogant is constantly claiming the moral high ground because you adhere to a code which is unhealthy in a modern society.

Obviously, my experience extends only to the Catholic Church in which I was brought up in, and which forms the vast majority of faith in Ireland. To claim otherwise would be arrogant.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Because having an affair is following one's personal desire to have sex, and having an affair is immoral, doesn't mean that following ones' personal desire to have sex is immoral. Do you agree?

Yes, of course I agree. My personal desire to have sex with my wife is not immoral.

You compare homosexuality with infidelity (more than once) as a way of saying that if men can manage not to cheat on their wives (boo! hiss!) then surely a homosexual can manage not have have homosexual sex.

No, I think you're indulging in a slight misrepresentation there. My point is that heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, do not have to indulge every urge they might have. That does not equate to repression nor to somehow being untrue to ourselves.

The point you ignore (on purpose it seems) is that those two things don't equate to each other. The man already has a wife. The reason he doesn't have affairs is because that harms his wife. That reason doesn't equate to a single homosexual because he doesn't have anyone to harm.

No, I don't think that is true. I could easily be unfaithful to my wife without her finding out. What she wouldn't know wouldn't harm her. However, it would harm myself as it would make me the kind of person I would despise.

You are trying to equate homosexuality with selfishness, a desire to have sex at the expense of others. You are doing that because you know no one here is going to try and argue that infidelity is moral.

Now you're totally misrepresenting me. I have not tried to equate homosexuality with selfishness at all.

Not only is it totally untrue and unfair comparison, but it is a totally mean spirited and disgusting comparison because you know perfectly well that a man having an affair on his wife is nothing like a gay couple having sex.

Why not respond to the arguments I actually made instead up making up this crap?

You shame yourself sir

And you shame your English teachers who, I am sure, taught you to read better than you are doing today.

MatthewVII

PDN wrote: »

No, I think you're indulging in a slight misrepresentation there. My point is that heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, do not have to indulge every urge they might have. That does not equate to repression nor to somehow being untrue to ourselves.

Chances are that all of a homosexual's urges will involve having sex with another person of the same gender. Chances are that at least a few of a heterosexual's urges will involve having sex with their spouse. You seem to equate a heterosexual man's urge to refrain from an affair with a homosexual man's urge to share an emotional connection with ANYONE. This is clearly unfair

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm perfectly aware of that fact Jakkass, it is in fact central to my point.

Right, but that doesn't make sense. Why should we dismiss sins that displease God, and sins that people do that hurt themselves?

Wicknight wrote: »

On the one hand a Christian may claim compassion to a homosexual, while on the other hand embracing the opinion of God has to what does or does not please him (sin) and that this is some how more important.

There's no claiming about it. I care that all people have the opportunity to follow Christ. If I have benefited immensely from the Gospel why wouldn't I want that for other people? I would be selfish if I wasn't going to tell people that God is for all, from those who are considered by society to be first to the ones who are considered by society to be last.

I want all people to embrace the walk with God, it's the most incredible thing that mankind has to experience. I embrace the position that God is right and that those who commit sins have fallen short of God's standard, and that it should be their aim to be as close as possible to said standard.

How is this any different? How does this stop me being compassionate? I want the best for people genuinely. I may just have a different opinion as to what is best.

Let me ask you a question Wicknight, parents disagree with the acts of their children, but in most cases their parents still love them and want what's best for them. The same is the case for God, and for God's people on earth in most cases.

Wicknight wrote: »

Those two stances lead to something ultimately incompatable. It is not in the best interests of a homosexual to lead the life you believe pleases God. So why does your "compassion" for the homosexual lead you to God's side in the matter rather than the homosexual?

No quite frankly they don't. It's not incompatible. Just because you disagree with me on what is best for these people doesn't mean that the intention is not good. My compassion for homosexuals leads me to God's side, because I believe that God has authority over all things, and I believe that beings who are spiritually fulfilled by God's presence and God's Spirit live better lives than not. That applies for everyone.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really.

The Arabian tribes living 4000 years ago could some what be excused for embracing a religion that taught that homosexuality was wrong because it disgusted their god. They had no idea about biology or evolution, why they instinctively viewed homosexuality as inherently disgusting (which is basically just an evolutionary way to stop you wasting time on men when you should be passing your genetic material on to women)

You guys have less of an excuse for embracing a religion that teaches this.

Less of an excuse? Interesting, I don't seek excuses. God has saved me and God has put me right with Him through faith, so that I may have another chance before the final judgement to put myself right before Him. As I say homosexuality is no more than any other sin, such as lying, lusting, being angry at another. We all fail at these, but the more we walk with God the more we learn on how to deal with such things.

I don't need an excuse, that's the point. If I have freedom of conscience to embrace what God has prescribed for me instead of what society may want me to do, that is my choice.

Wicknight wrote: »

True, but you do have the right to not follow it.

Yes, but I also have the right to choose it as I felt it was more accurate than the alternatives (including atheism) to how I have lived my life, and how it has been reflected in reality. I won't be rejecting Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

Being compassionate involves being flexible on your own opinion. It is not simply a one way street. If you find that Christianity is failing people you should drop Christianity, not the other way around.

Who told you that? Being compassionate means wanting the best for someone. I believe that accepting Jesus Christ with all your heart, and following Him, is the best thing for all humanity. As I say, I have benefited greatly from the Gospel and I want all humans on the face of the earth to benefit also. Is that really that bad a motive Wicknight?

Anyhow, when did I say I found that Christianity has failed people? Christianity has never failed people. Most of the people I know that follow Christ have led fulfilling lives and are a true inspiration to others. That includes some of the things my fellow Christians write here on the boards, they have assisted me greatly in coming to faith. When I started posting here about more than a year ago, I was only starting in the Christian faith.

Wicknight wrote: »

Because you tell people (this is a public forum) that God does not want them to live homosexual lives.

I really couldn't care whether or not this is a public forum, for a start. You speak as if I should be ashamed of my views, and no I won't be. I won't be ashamed that I want the best possible thing for mankind, that they may humbly follow the will of their Father in heaven. Quite simply put. What part of the Gospel that we follow is hateful?

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that they can simply choose not to be Christians is a misnomer. If they didn't believe in the first place then it isn't an issue. The issue is those who do believe that what they feel is wrong, who do believe you when you say that homosexual life is a sin and displeasing to God.

I would be so happy if every gay person simply rejected Christianity as nonsense. The problem arises because an awful lot, for what ever reason, don't.

And that is before one factors in how Christians act towards homosexuals, such as in the way they vote.

Let's deal with this then. How is it a misnomer? You've constantly told me that I can reject the Gospel. You know fine well that I don't intend to really, and you've suggested that I should be somehow ashamed at how the Messiah led me to lead my life. Christianity is an invitation to all people of all races, of all creeds, both genders, of all classes, and of all orientations. We just have ground rules, as do every religion, and as do every society.

How is it a problem that I have my own ethical beliefs? Your statement is just as devoid as saying that it is a problem that I see sex before marriage as wrong. I do, just because it's popular in society doesn't mean that it is right. Actually, it would indicate moreso that it could well be wrong. I believe that homosexual activity is wrong yes, just as much as I believe that promiscuity in heterosexual relationships is wrong. It's wrong because it isn't what God has intended for humanity. I'm still walking with God trying to learn what I need to reform in my life that doesn't conform in his Gospel. The difference between me and a few others in society, is that I will obey, and others won't. Many people I know even find my religious beliefs to be strange to them, but I have had no issue with anyone over them, even those of homosexual / bisexual orientation.

I would be so happy if every person on the face of the earth, including homosexuals, decided to come before Christ, and change their lives to fit God's will. I'm doubtful that it will happen, but heres to hoping.

Wicknight wrote: »

You, as a person, have the ability to reject the Gospel.

Yes, but you as a person, have the ability to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour and believe in Him.

That's just an example of how devoid your statement is, I can just say the flipside to you. I don't see anything wrong with the Gospel, infact I see a lot of things right with it. It's been an inspiration to my life, why would I depart it?

Wicknight wrote: »

I know you are going to side with God. That is why the claim of compassion rings hollow. Your religion, your personal faith and dogma, is more important to you than the quality of life of a homosexual man or woman. That is the opposite of compassion.

Of course I am going to side with God!

If God has become apparent in my life for the good and proper I will want the same for others. Infact everyone, I want it for everyone. I want people to be guided by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

You speak of quality of life, but I don't know why you think that because when I repented of my sins and turned away from them one by one (and this wasn't easy, infact very difficult) my quality of life improved immensely. I still have sins to turn away from, and it will be a life challenge to meet God's standard, but I want to strive for it, as Paul strived for the goal of Christ's Kingdom.

If I have recieved such benefits from the Gospel how isn't it compassionate to wish others have the same benefits I have had!

Wicknight wrote: »

The only way to help people is to focus on the reality of a situation at hand. If one comes at a situation with a perceived dogma of how things should be, that is ultimately doomed to failure and more often than not increased harm.

A classic example of this is condoms for teens. The dogmatic argument is that if you give teens condoms it will only encourage them to have sex. If you don't, and instead teach them about abstinence, you will decrease the problems associated with sex.

Bear in mind this isn't exclusively a religious argument (nor am I claiming it is your position). I know plenty of atheists who have made it as well.

The point that is ignored is that it isn't true.

The position should be dropped if it does not map to reality.

I actually agree with you slightly on this. I don't welcome encouraging teens to use condoms, or to have pre-marital sex for that matter.

However, I do realise that abstinence is hard to teach, it's hard for people to teach, and for it to resonate in the minds and opinions of people, that's why it is hard to teach. Many do stay abstinent though.

It shouldn't be dropped to compromise ones ethics if it is possible to.

Again you are saying that because something is popular in the Western world we should encourage it. That's like saying since we can't stop theft, we should just let them at it. It's really a devoid argument, why should we apply moral standards to somethings and not to others.

Wicknight wrote: »

Another example is the idea that the death plenty reduces crime. The logic is that the risk of losing ones life is too create for a criminal to risk, so they wont commit a crime that has the death plenty. Therefore if we introduce this crime will decrease.

The problem? That isn't true either.

Well I would agree with you there, as I believe that Jesus didn't condone the death penalty in the Bible. However, unless you are an anarchist, you will agree that the crime rate would be much higher if we didn't have jails.

Wicknight wrote: »

Neither of these assertions are religious in nature, but they are both dogmas that people hold with the pretense of wanting to help the issue at hand but which are ultimately doomed because they do not map to reality.

I don't think either of them are doomed, it could be more a case of weaning people off if they are sexually active already. Again, though since this is an issue of wider society and not one of the teachings of the church, I don't see this as a reason why teachings of the church on sexuality should be dismissed because it isn't the exact same as what happens in society. The point of Christianity is that we are meant to offer an alternative and to liberate the people from sin through Christ. Believe it or not, Christianity has transformed peoples lives, and you can't dismiss that as being true, or that it pertains to reality.

Wicknight wrote: »

To actually be interested in helping people, in real compassion, a person must be prepared to leave their dogma at the door. It is your dogma, it doesn't necessarily relate to reality and the assumption that it does is counter productive and harmful.

No not really. I've already explained my reason for encouraging God's will above all others. It's the best for humanity, and humanity should have nothing less than the best in my opinion. It's clear that many people who are lost, are merely ignoring the solution. My beliefs do relate to reality in the lives of many people, and many people serve testament to them being at work.

Wicknight wrote: »

This applies to religion as much as anything else. If you come into a situation with the belief that your religion is true and correct and that reality must bend around this pre-conceived notion you are not good to anyone.

Again, are you suggesting that we cross lines through the Bible? If so I don't have the authority to do that, or infact the will to do so, because I believe that God has our best intentions at heart, and reality has suggested such in the mental health of believers, being quite superior to unbelievers in terms of suicide rates etc.

Wicknight wrote: »

Because your religion tells them what they have done is immoral. That produces guilt. What do you think guilt is?

I've been guilty of quite a few things that I have done that have transgressed God's commandments. However when you have a Gospel of mercy, it's quite clear that there is a method that is prescribed for you to seek the correct side of the tracks. I've done a lot of things wrong in my life Wicknight, I'm nowhere near perfect. Nobody in humanity is (Romans 3:10). The problem is if we have transgressed God's command, by definition we are due the punishment of God if God indeed has authority over His creation and we must give an account of our lives before the Almighty.

This puts us into a predicament. We have been offered defence by Jesus Christ God's own son when we come before Him. You can either accept this or reject this. Many people have chosen to reject it, not quite so many have accepted it.

However the point is, that we are to seek mercy from eachother, and from God, and we are to forgive eachother as we have been forgiven. This hasn't affected me at all. I've been guilty of my actions, but then again, I know that I can put myself right with God's help. It's no different for homosexuals.

Wicknight wrote: »

That shouldn't be the question at all.

The question should be "Does Christianity help people, does Christianity improve the lives of homosexuals?"

Not some of the time. Not if you aren't a homosexual so therefore it should if you are.

Yes it should be the question, as if you respect the will of God, God will make your burden light. So yes, Christianity does help people if they are willing to accept it and seek God with all their heart. Likewise it does improve the quality of life for all people not just homosexuals.

Wicknight wrote: »

This question shouldn't be asked in the context of well it is true to begin with so of course it does. It should be asked without it being a pre-conceived dogma.

Yes you realise though, that what I am saying isn't preconcieved. If I have truly experienced that Christianity has improved my life since I began following it 2 years ago, and if I have truly found that Christianity has helped me that's quite a good empirical piece of evidence to suggest it has.

Wicknight wrote: »

It adheres to the dogma certainly, and if someone already holds the position that it must be true irrespective of reality, then they will always believe that it is for the best. But reality continues on, being reality not dogma.

Or how about this Wicknight, that Christianity is the reality, and that it is you that is mistaken? Interesting concept?

That's the motivation behind our message. We have experienced it to be true, we have seen it in others, it's right before your eyes that it has worked for people.

But this possibility doesn't really come into consideration? Could it be that you have preconcieved notions and a dogma of your own?

philologos

Boston wrote: »

How can you repent something which you do not feel is a sin? You believe it a god who supposedly teaches that for me to love another man is wrong, is a sin. Your god teaches that love is a sin. Something beautiful is wrong. That, and that's all the reason needed, is why you believe in a hateful god.

No, the scriptures don't teach anywhere that love is a sin. However they do teach that homosexual relations are, as well as lust.

Mind you you did think that I was twisting the Scripture earlier.

How about you read it indepth and see for yourself?

Boston

Jakkass wrote: »

No, the scriptures don't teach anywhere that love is a sin. However they do teach that homosexual relations are, as well as lust.

Mind you you did think that I was twisting the Scripture earlier.

How about you read it indepth and see for yourself?

Why would I read the words of sinful men? What truth could I find there?

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

No not really. I've already explained my reason for encouraging God's will above all others. It's the best for humanity, and humanity should have nothing less than the best in my opinion. It's clear that many people who are lost, are merely ignoring the solution. My beliefs do relate to reality in the lives of many people, and many people serve testament to them being at work.

I fail to see why god's will is the best for humanity, when one thinks of the division and conflict it creates. I fail to see why a system bent on making people suffer imposed guilt for the human condition should be the gold standard way of life for humanity.

philologos

Well for a start Boston, it would stop any assumptions, or accusations that aren't even grounded in Scripture.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I fail to see why god's will is the best for humanity, when one thinks of the division and conflict it creates. I fail to see why a system bent on making people suffer imposed guilt for the human condition should be the gold standard way of life for humanity.

What division has it caused? The words of Christ alone have caused division? No, rather the selfish ambitions of men have.

It's not guilt for the human condition, if humans weren't capable of transcending sin it wouldn't be sin in the first place. With God's help, and through loving Him, mankind can overcome sin through faith, and live a fulfilling life, sharing with others.

Fanny Cradock

Boston wrote: »

Why would I read the words of sinful men? What truth could I find there?

So you believe in sin, then? And this is your criterion for not reading the bible? Tell me, can you name any book that was written by someone without sin? Failing this, I can only advise that you avoid reading altogether, including internet forums.