Evangelical Alliance Backs Civil Partnership Bill

PDN

I am delighted that the Evangelical Alliance Ireland has given their backing to the Civil Partnership Bill currently going through the legislative process: http://www.christian.org.uk/news/evangelical-alliance-ireland-backs-civil-partnership-bill/

There has been a rather unpleasant right-wing campaign against the bill, so I applaud the leaders of EAI for having the courage to present a more principled and thoughtful stance.

Puck

Sean Mullan, the General Director of EAI, has given a very well reasoned statement for their support over here: http://voxconversation.blogspot.com .

homer911

I like this comment:

Evangelical Christians should be the foremost advocates of freedom of conscience and religious liberty. It is the essence of the Christian faith that it is freely chosen, never imposed. It is a tragedy of church history that the church ever thought it could use the power of the state to impose Christianity on people. With that power now almost completely gone we live in different times.

Graces7

Sad to hear that.

And to read approval of it from such sources

Upholding the standards of Jesus never means approving what we know is sin.

Makes some choices easier though.

Re Church membership etc.

And this is politics not faith. ie doing exactly what the comment in the previous post accuses others of.

homer911 wrote: »

I like this comment:

PDN

Graces7 wrote: »

Sad to hear that.

And to read approval of it from such sources

Upholding the standards of Jesus never means approving what we know is sin.

Makes some choices easier though.

Re Church membership etc.

And this is politics not faith. ie doing exactly what the comment in the previous post accuses others of.

Nobody is approving of sinful behaviour. What the EAI has done is to recognise that we do not have the right to enforce our moral standards on unbelievers. To do so is not a Christian position, but is rather the principle behind the imposition of Sharia law by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Nodin

PDN wrote: »

I am delighted that the Evangelical Alliance Ireland has given their backing to the Civil Partnership Bill currently going through the legislative process: http://www.christian.org.uk/news/evangelical-alliance-ireland-backs-civil-partnership-bill/

There has been a rather unpleasant right-wing campaign against the bill, so I applaud the leaders of EAI for having the courage to present a more principled and thoughtful stance.

Well done all concerned. Never easy to bear the flak thats reserved for those perceived to be breaking ranks.

Graces7

That is casuistry.

And spiritually vacuous.

Teaching and example are not "enforcing"... By supporting same sex unions you are per se approving sinful behaviour.

It would have behoved and graced to stay out of the situation.

That is not a Christian act and there is no valid comparioson with Sharia law. REALLY!


See John 8

Jesus did not enforce. But He called sin, sin.

So must we.

PDN wrote: »

Nobody is approving of sinful behaviour. What the EAI has done is to recognise that we do not have the right to enforce our moral standards on unbelievers. To do so is not a Christian position, but is rather the principle behind the imposition of Sharia law by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Puck

Nobody is denying any sinfulness, these couples will be together either way.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Nobody is approving of sinful behaviour.

In the link they say they are "supporting" the legislation. I would have thought the most logical stance for them to take based on the premise that do not have a right to force christian morals on non-christians, would be for them to not have an opinion on it either way and leave it as a matter for the state to deal with.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

What the EAI has done is to recognise that we do not have the right to enforce our moral standards on unbelievers.

Which has nothing to do with approving or disapproving of this bill.

To do so is not a Christian position.

Again, nothing to do with approving or disapproving of this bill. It is NOT unchristian to disapprove of this bill. It is NOT unchristian to approve of this bill. Its what the motivations are behind such approval or disapproval that will define if its Christian or not. I think they have presented their position very poorly, not in a 'I don't agree with the bill' way, but rather, they've given the impression that the Christian thing to do is support it. Presumtuous and haughty is what they seem IMO.

Puck wrote: »

Nobody is denying any sinfulness, these couples will be together either way.

TBH, thats not good reasoning. Reminds me of the reasoning of parents who let their children sh@g their boyfriends/girlfriends under their own roof saying, 'Well they'll do it anyway'.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In the link they say they are "supporting" the legislation. I would have thought the most logical stance for them to take based on the premise that do not have a right to force christian morals on non-christians, would be for them to not have an opinion on it either way and leave it as a matter for the state to deal with.

Tim, sometimes I think you just argue for the sake of it.

The fact is that the EAI should not just remain silent because there are those who claim to represent Christianity that have been opposing the Bill. If the rest of us just keep quiet then we allow those right-wingers to pretend that they represent us.

The Civil Partnership Bill is about the granting of certain legal rights, including taxation and inheritance rights, to homosexual couples as well as to heterosexual couples. The issue is not one of whether homosexuality is sinful or not, but of whether homosexuals should be afforded the same human rights as others in a secular society.

That, for me and for others, is a Christian issue, and we see it as right that the EAI should state that fact.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Tim, sometimes I think you just argue for the sake of it.

How strange.

I, too, have had the same feeling.

:eek:

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Tim, sometimes I think you just argue for the sake of it.

In this instance I think he has a point.

The fact is that the EAI should not just remain silent because there are those who claim to represent Christianity that have been opposing the Bill.

But they are claiming to representation also, and are simply taking the opposite view.

If the rest of us just keep quiet then we allow those right-wingers to pretend that they represent us.

Idiots and those who desire to diss Christianity will continue to hold up nutters as representative of us. I'm not represented by any of them.

The Civil Partnership Bill is about the granting of certain legal rights, including taxation and inheritance rights, to homosexual couples as well as to heterosexual couples. The issue is not one of whether homosexuality is sinful or not, but of whether homosexuals should be afforded the same human rights as others in a secular society.

Well some Christians may see it as encouraging the practice more by being apathetic. If this is the case, it is wholly Christian to disapprove. If 'I hate gays' is their motive, then it is unchristian.

That, for me and for others, is a Christian issue, and we see it as right that the EAI should state that fact.

It may well be, I simply frown on the presumptions they make about it being unchristian to disapprove the bill.

Puck

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, thats not good reasoning. Reminds me of the reasoning of parents who let their children sh@g their boyfriends/girlfriends under their own roof saying, 'Well they'll do it anyway'.

The difference of course being that parents have authority over their children and a responsibility to exercise that authority to enforce if necessary good patterns of behaviour.

I do not need my faith to be validated by any government by having them give preferential treatment to my way of life. The church survived for a long time without state support.

JimiTime

Puck wrote: »

The difference of course being that parents have authority over their children and a responsibility to exercise that authority to enforce if necessary good patterns of behaviour.

Principal stays the same though.

I do not need my faith to be validated by any government by having them give preferential treatment to my way of life. The church survived for a long time without state support.

Indeed, but thats not whats happening here. We have a group claiming to represent a group of Christians saying that the Christian thing to do is 'Support' this bill, which is quite plainly wrong! That is not to say that that it is 'unchristian', but they have gotten ahead of theirselves with this dogmatic approach. As I said, there are Christians on both sides who will have christian motives behind their reasonings. I see no courage, and little wisdom in their approach. Sure they have reasons, but so do the other side. Just because its out of the ordinary, and flys in the face of those most people consider fundy nuts, does not make it brave or indeed smart IMO.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Tim, sometimes I think you just argue for the sake of it.

The fact is that the EAI should not just remain silent because there are those who claim to represent Christianity that have been opposing the Bill. If the rest of us just keep quiet then we allow those right-wingers to pretend that they represent us.

The Civil Partnership Bill is about the granting of certain legal rights, including taxation and inheritance rights, to homosexual couples as well as to heterosexual couples. The issue is not one of whether homosexuality is sinful or not, but of whether homosexuals should be afforded the same human rights as others in a secular society.

That, for me and for others, is a Christian issue, and we see it as right that the EAI should state that fact.

You actually didn't even deal with my point there. I pointed out a contradiction between what you say and what you said and you just ignored it.

You wonder do I argue for the sake of it.
I wonder do you just ignore contradictions for the sake of it.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You actually didn't even deal with my point there. I pointed out a contradiction between what you say and what you said and you just ignored it.

You wonder do I argue for the sake of it.
I wonder do you just ignore contradictions for the sake of it.

There was no contradiction. EAI support legislation that grants certain legal rights to homosexual couples that have hitherto been denied. That does not equate to supporting sin in any shape or form. Please try to concentrate.

Puck

JimiTime wrote: »

Principal stays the same though.


Indeed, but thats not whats happening here. We have a group claiming to represent a group of Christians saying that the Christian thing to do is 'Support' this bill, which is quite plainly wrong! That is not to say that that it is 'unchristian', but they have gotten ahead of theirselves with this dogmatic approach. As I said, there are Christians on both sides who will have christian motives behind their reasonings. I see no courage, and little wisdom in their approach. Sure they have reasons, but so do the other side. Just because its out of the ordinary, and flys in the face of those most people consider fundy nuts, does not make it brave or indeed smart IMO.

It didn't come across that way to me to be honest. You make them sound like some self-appointed Evangelical Pope issuing doctrine on how Christians should behave. This is a tricky situation and something no Christian should make a rash decision on (there I go telling Christians how to behave!); they took some time to think and reached a decision, then they explained that decision and their reasons for making it, which of course come from their faith.

Graces7

Tim, for once I agree with you; and well argued also JimiTime.

This has nothing to do with any Church - period.

Actually, you are not the first church to try this kind of thing; to find itself swamped then by homosexuals who think they have found a champion

Is it not the work of a Church to preach the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and biring souls to Him?

Is that not needful more than ever before in these times?

Graces7

Not so in the last sentence, but from a wrong involvement with secular politics....

See Jesus and His words; which they have avoided.

Sharia law? Have they any real idea what that involves?

Puck wrote: »

It didn't come across that way to me to be honest. You make them sound like some self-appointed Evangelical Pope issuing doctrine on how Christians should behave. This is a tricky situation and something no Christian should make a rash decision on (there I go telling Christians how to behave!); they took some time to think and reached a decision, then they explained that decision and their reasons for making it, which of course come from their faith.

Graces7

Of course this supports sin!

PDN wrote: »

There was no contradiction. EAI support legislation that grants certain legal rights to homosexual couples that have hitherto been denied. That does not equate to supporting sin in any shape or form. Please try to concentrate.

Graces7

Exactly so; this involvement is distinctly disedifying.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In the link they say they are "supporting" the legislation. I would have thought the most logical stance for them to take based on the premise that do not have a right to force christian morals on non-christians, would be for them to not have an opinion on it either way and leave it as a matter for the state to deal with.

Graces7

Amen.

JimiTime wrote: »

Principal stays the same though.


Indeed, but thats not whats happening here. We have a group claiming to represent a group of Christians saying that the Christian thing to do is 'Support' this bill, which is quite plainly wrong! That is not to say that that it is 'unchristian', but they have gotten ahead of theirselves with this dogmatic approach. As I said, there are Christians on both sides who will have christian motives behind their reasonings. I see no courage, and little wisdom in their approach. Sure they have reasons, but so do the other side. Just because its out of the ordinary, and flys in the face of those most people consider fundy nuts, does not make it brave or indeed smart IMO.

PDN

Graces7 wrote: »

Of course this supports sin!

No, it doesn't support sin, it supports equality of human rights to all, whether we think they are sinners or not.

And, historically speaking, Evangelicals have good reason to support equal human rights for all, because we ourselves have a history of being treated as second-class citizens by the Irish State due its patronage of the Roman Catholic Church. We know what it feels like to have our weddings not recognised by the State, to have our children force-fed Catholicism in schools, to be denied insurance on our buildings, for our families in hospital to be denied pastoral visits out of normal visiting hours yet watching the priest come and go when he pleases, for us to be subjected to planning restrictions by local Councils which aren't applied to the Catholic Church etc. Some of our older members remember being ostracised by their communities because they converted to Evangelicalism.

Our experience is that it is better to live in a truly secular society rather than one in which people use the legislation of the State to force their religious views upon others, or to treat people differently because they don't share their views. If we ourselves expect equal rights, then we should respect, and actively support, the equal rights of others with whom we disagree.

It is not the business of the Church to sit quietly in the corner and only raise it's head when 'spiritual things' are being discussed. That is the kind of attitude that allowed the bulk of the churches in Nazi Germany to sit on their hands and look dumb while six million Jews (and smaller numbers of gypsies, homosexuals, communists, Jehovahs Witnesses and Pentecostals) went to the gas chambers.

If others are trying to interfere with the legal rights of Muslims or Hindus in Ireland, then I would expect EAI to make a statement about that too. Not because they support false religious practices, but because in a free society we should not sit back passively and appear to support by our silence those who deny rights to others.

If I was in Switzerland I would expect church leaders there to speak out against the ban on minnarets too. Because a State that will use that kind of blunt instrument against Muslims will not have any qualms about using it against the rest of us also.

Nodin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In the link they say they are "supporting" the legislation. I would have thought the most logical stance for them to take based on the premise that do not have a right to force christian morals on non-christians, would be for them to not have an opinion on it either way and leave it as a matter for the state to deal with.

Evangelical Christians should be the foremost advocates of freedom of conscience and religious liberty.

My bold and underline.

Graces7

So all this is is, as I said to someone last night, a "knee jerk" reaction against the wrongs done by RC.. nothing to do with Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Only Son of the Living God, Who Alone is the Way, Truth and Life.

Who Alone we are all called to proclaim. Whose ways alone are Life.

Thank you for affirming that, PDN.

The heart of Jesus must ache to see such anger and bitterness.

Can you justify your stance, from Jesus?

No of course not.

Because you have drifted far from Him now.

This thread has been an education. Thank you


Many Catholics and others, eg Brother Roger, Protestant founder of Taize, Catholic Nuns, many of whome were executed for their protection of Jewish children and adults, certainly did not as you so crudely and unjustly put it "sit on their hands and look dumb" while the Nazis did their evil.

There was little they could do by making grand statements; instead they found ways to rescue and shelter and save.

Similarly today, many fine Christians of all traditions work to feed the hungry, to work quietly among drug addicts and AIDs sufferers, in the Name of Christ.. giving their entire lives to this work, simply for the love of Jesus.

Not judging; simply serving.

And never wavering from the teachings of Jesus; or reacting in anger and bitterness against wrongs done to them.

As Jesus did and does through us.

PDN wrote: »

No, it doesn't support sin, it supports equality of human rights to all, whether we think they are sinners or not.

And, historically speaking, Evangelicals have good reason to support equal human rights for all, because we ourselves have a history of being treated as second-class citizens by the Irish State due its patronage of the Roman Catholic Church. We know what it feels like to have our weddings not recognised by the State, to have our children force-fed Catholicism in schools, to be denied insurance on our buildings, for our families in hospital to be denied pastoral visits out of normal visiting hours yet watching the priest come and go when he pleases, for us to be subjected to planning restrictions by local Councils which aren't applied to the Catholic Church etc. Some of our older members remember being ostracised by their communities because they converted to Evangelicalism.

Our experience is that it is better to live in a truly secular society rather than one in which people use the legislation of the State to force their religious views upon others, or to treat people differently because they don't share their views. If we ourselves expect equal rights, then we should respect, and actively support, the equal rights of others with whom we disagree.

It is not the business of the Church to sit quietly in the corner and only raise it's head when 'spiritual things' are being discussed. That is the kind of attitude that allowed the bulk of the churches in Nazi Germany to sit on their hands and look dumb while six million Jews (and smaller numbers of gypsies, homosexuals, communists, Jehovahs Witnesses and Pentecostals) went to the gas chambers.

If others are trying to interfere with the legal rights of Muslims or Hindus in Ireland, then I would expect EAI to make a statement about that too. Not because they support false religious practices, but because in a free society we should not sit back passively and appear to support by our silence those who deny rights to others.

If I was in Switzerland I would expect church leaders there to speak out against the ban on minnarets too. Because a State that will use that kind of blunt instrument against Muslims will not have any qualms about using it against the rest of us also.

Graces7

Where does Jesus say that please?

Nodin wrote: »

My bold and underline.

JacquesD'Ladd

I for one am sick of hearing about perverts and their 'needs'. And before anyone upbraids me on my language, where I come from this is still classified as perversion - thank you very much. Now get off the stage.

PDN

Graces7 wrote: »

So all this is is, as I said to someone last night, a "knee jerk" reaction against the wrongs done by RC.. nothing to do with Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Only Son of the Living God, Who Alone is the Way, Truth and Life.

Who Alone we are all called to proclaim. Whose ways alone are Life.

Thank you for affirming that, PDN.

Your pop psychology has failed you. There is no kneejerk reaction. There is, rather, a thoughtful acknowledgement that religious intolerance is wrong. Denying human rights to all, even those with whom we disagree, is wrong.

When we deny equality to others then we endorse the actions of those who would deny equality to us.

And I agree that the ways of Jesus alone are life - and those ways include the Golden Rule.

The heart of Jesus must ache to see such anger and bitterness.

I am not angry or bitter - but I think you are being judgemental.

I am committed to a secular society where people of all religions and none have exactly the same human rights. I don't think that makes the heart of Jesus ache at all.

By the way, you sound very like a previous poster, sorella. Are you the same person registered?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

No, it doesn't support sin, it supports equality of human rights to all, whether we think they are sinners or not.

And, historically speaking, Evangelicals have good reason to support equal human rights for all, because we ourselves have a history of being treated as second-class citizens by the Irish State due its patronage of the Roman Catholic Church. We know what it feels like to have our weddings not recognised by the State, to have our children force-fed Catholicism in schools, to be denied insurance on our buildings, for our families in hospital to be denied pastoral visits out of normal visiting hours yet watching the priest come and go when he pleases, for us to be subjected to planning restrictions by local Councils which aren't applied to the Catholic Church etc. Some of our older members remember being ostracised by their communities because they converted to Evangelicalism.

Our experience is that it is better to live in a truly secular society rather than one in which people use the legislation of the State to force their religious views upon others, or to treat people differently because they don't share their views. If we ourselves expect equal rights, then we should respect, and actively support, the equal rights of others with whom we disagree.

It is not the business of the Church to sit quietly in the corner and only raise it's head when 'spiritual things' are being discussed. That is the kind of attitude that allowed the bulk of the churches in Nazi Germany to sit on their hands and look dumb while six million Jews (and smaller numbers of gypsies, homosexuals, communists, Jehovahs Witnesses and Pentecostals) went to the gas chambers.

If others are trying to interfere with the legal rights of Muslims or Hindus in Ireland, then I would expect EAI to make a statement about that too. Not because they support false religious practices, but because in a free society we should not sit back passively and appear to support by our silence those who deny rights to others.

If I was in Switzerland I would expect church leaders there to speak out against the ban on minnarets too. Because a State that will use that kind of blunt instrument against Muslims will not have any qualms about using it against the rest of us also.

A very well reasoned response. However, if you had said that the above is 'the Christian' position, I would take exception. Would you agree that one can disagree with this bill and still be consistant with Christ?

Graces7

But you are yourself being totally intolerant here.

And again, where does Jesus say this? And where does He speak of a secular society?

The Kingdom of heaven is His and ours.

He does not anywhere, in fact the contrary is true.

Golden Rule?

PDN wrote: »

Your pop psychology has failed you. There is no kneejerk reaction. There is, rather, a thoughtful acknowledgement that religious intolerance is wrong. Denying human rights to all, even those with whom we disagree, is wrong.

When we deny equality to others then we endorse the actions of those who would deny equality to us.

And I agree that the ways of Jesus alone are life - and those ways include the Golden Rule.

I am not angry or bitter - but I think you are being judgemental.

I am committed to a secular society where people of all religions and none have exactly the same human rights. I don't think that makes the heart of Jesus ache at all.

By the way, you sound very like a previous poster, sorella. Are you the same person registered?

Graces7

Nice question....

JimiTime wrote: »

A very well reasoned response. However, if you had said that the above is 'the Christian' position, I would take exception. Would you agree that one can disagree with this bill and still be consistant with Christ?

Graces7

PDN; you see "human rights" as Christian?

Including homosexual unions that are sin?

By your own admission? Sin I mean. Freedom to sin?

I once heard a pastor, I think an Anglican, giving advice to man on a radio help line; the man was sexually ambivalent and did not know what side to be on at a party.

The pastor told him to try men and women and enjoy himself.

OF COURSE what has happened here in Ireland is wrong... But this response is based on that rather than on the teachings of Jesus.

There can be few here who have not been hurt by what you have suffered. But some choose then the way of Jesus in gentleness and simplicity.

PDN

Graces7 wrote: »

But you are yourself being totally intolerant here.

Really? Please explain how I am being intolerant.

And, before I answer your questions, can you please answer my question? Are you the same person who used to post here under the name sorella?

Nodin

Graces7 wrote: »

Where does Jesus say that please?

No idea. I thought it was inferred. Then again, it might be in the same place where he talks about communion and confession.

Graces7 wrote: »

So all this is is, as I said to someone last night, a "knee jerk" reaction against the wrongs done by RC

Moves towards civil partnership have been afoot in a number of countries for many, many years - a great deal of them where catholicism would be a minority faith.

philologos

I cannot help but think that the Evangelical Alliance have done the right thing this time.

First of all, supporting the rights of gay couples to form unions is not explicitly condoning sexual activity between two of the same gender (I personally believe that this is immoral according to Christianity). It is possible that people can be in relationships without doing this.

Secondly, there is the recognition that Christianity is meant to be an independent force in the State, they aren't meant to be the same. Yes, we can convince people that Christian values are more logical, but there is no need to coerce people through the arm of the State to share our values.

Thirdly, there is the recognition that people have to be convinced, and that people will embrace Christianity more positively if it isn't coerced, but rather chosen.

Finally, this is exactly the approach that Jesus would have used, not to judge others while disagreeing with them, but rather promoting Christian living so that people will adopt it.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

I cannot help but think that the Evangelical Alliance have done the right thing this time.

A fair opinion to have, but do you think its THE christian position?

First of all, supporting the rights of gay couples to form unions is not explicitly condoning sexual activity between two of the same gender (I personally believe that this is immoral according to Christianity).

In some quarters it is considered giving legitimacy to homosexual activity, and goes against Christian principals. If it is considered such, then supporting this bill would be distictly UNchristian. I have no issue with someone taking the stand that supporting this bill is the right thing to do. However, to call it THE christian thing to do? I'd say they should take their heads out of their @rses. Brave?? What a joke! They are no different from those they SAY they are different from.

Secondly, there is the recognition that Christianity is meant to be an independent force in the State, they aren't meant to be the same. Yes, we can convince people that Christian values are more logical, but there is no need to coerce people through the arm of the State to share our values.

And the point in telling followers to 'support' the state in its convictions?

Thirdly, there is the recognition that people have to be convinced, and that people will embrace Christianity more positively if it isn't coerced, but rather chosen.

And disapproving this bill is 'Coercing' is it? People have a right to make up their own minds wihout being called UNchristian for doing so, be it approving or disapproving this bill!

Finally, this is exactly the approach that Jesus would have used, not to judge others while disagreeing with them, but rather promoting Christian living so that people will adopt it.

Presume much? The question I asked PDN I'll ask yourself also, Can one be consistant with Christ and disapprove of this bill?

Puck

How can a Christian think that something is the right thing to do and not think that same thing is the Christian thing to do? Is Christianity not right? Is our God not the source of all things good? Are we not called to worship him in everything we do? I think that picking litter up is the Christian thing to do, I think that smiling and saying good morning to a stranger is the Christian thing to do (although I don't do it nearly often enough because I'm a zombie in the mornings). I think that supporting equal rights for people regardless of whether they share my morality or religion is the right thing to do and therefore the Christian thing to do. I would love for all people in this country to live lives honouring God and following His ways but that should come about by changed hearts not by legislation. This doesn't mean that I think supporting the bill is always, in every case, the Christian thing to do nor do I think that opposing the bill for whatever reason is necessarily unchristian - it depends on the reasoning. I could support the bill to actively encourage homosexual and extramarital unions, which would be unchristian, or I could oppose the bill because for homophobic or other hateful reasons, which would also be unchristian.

To be honest I can see valid points on both sides, and I think it is down to the individual Christian to decide what the Christian thing is. Disagreements over this should be more like civil disagreements around the family dinner table, rather than shots across the battlefield.

rant_and_rave

PDN wrote: »

Tim, sometimes I think you just argue for the sake of it.

The fact is that the EAI should not just remain silent because there are those who claim to represent Christianity that have been opposing the Bill. If the rest of us just keep quiet then we allow those right-wingers to pretend that they represent us.

The Civil Partnership Bill is about the granting of certain legal rights, including taxation and inheritance rights, to homosexual couples as well as to heterosexual couples. The issue is not one of whether homosexuality is sinful or not, but of whether homosexuals should be afforded the same human rights as others in a secular society.

That, for me and for others, is a Christian issue, and we see it as right that the EAI should state that fact.

I hate to point out the blindingly obvious but countries with overwhelmingly mono-theistic populations are never secular and invariably incorporate aspects of the dominant religion in the legislature of the state, the USA, and Britain being prime examples. Was 1950s Britain morally conservative? Yes. Is abortion available in Northern Ireland. No. Have most Christian American states banned same sex marriage. Yes.

There is a direct relationship between religious practice and secularism. Religion is dying in Britain. Alaistair Campbell - "We don't so God". Britain is a more secular country than Ireland because there are fewer Christians. It's as simple as that.

Acceptance of same sex relationships is not an indication of increased tolerance. It's a sigh that people don't care and these same people would probably vote for acceptance of polygamy as well. Would people here feel that polygamy is acceptable?

JimiTime

Puck wrote: »

How can a Christian think that something is the right thing to do and not think that same thing is the Christian thing to do?

By accepting that they have an OPINION, and that simply because they think its the christian thing to do, does not mean someone holding a different opinion is being UNchristian. By calling something THE christian thing to do, you isolate those Christians who don't see it that way but have reasoned in a christian manner also. Doing what you feel is the right thing is the christian thing to do. Telling others who have used christian reasonings, but reach a different conclusion that your position is THE christian position is the issue I am raising here.

This doesn't mean that I think supporting the bill is always, in every case, the Christian thing to do nor do I think that opposing the bill for whatever reason is necessarily unchristian - it depends on the reasoning.

Precisely my point.

To be honest I can see valid points on both sides, and I think it is down to the individual Christian to decide what the Christian thing is.

Agree 100%. I think these 'representative' groups should think about that too before making such pronouncements.

Puck

Do you then see that if I, speaking as a Christian, said "I think X is the right thing to do" it is exactly the same for me as saying "I think X is the Christian thing to do?".

JimiTime

Puck wrote: »

Do you then see that if I, speaking as a Christian, said "I think X is the right thing to do" it is exactly the same for me as saying "I think X is the Christian thing to do?".

Nope, not at all. The Christian thing to do is reason things through using Christian values and Christs advices. The DEED is the outcome. So calling what you THINK is the right thing to do, THE christian thing to do, is getting ahead of yourself. Your motives is what makes your position Christian, not the ends. So to call the outcome of your reasoning, THE christian position, is presumtuous and haughty.

The Christian thing to do is to do what you think is right using christs values and teachings: Yes

To tell others that your conclusions are THE christian position: No. They should be encouraged to use the same processes that you did, i.e do what you think is right using christs values and teachings.

What you are encouraging, is someone becoming the fisherman in the village who hands out the catch. Whereas, passing on the lessons of fishing is what should be encouraged.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Can one be consistant with Christ and disapprove of this bill?

Do you think Jesus would want it to be illegal for homosexual couples to form civil partnerships?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In the link they say they are "supporting" the legislation. I would have thought the most logical stance for them to take based on the premise that do not have a right to force christian morals on non-christians, would be for them to not have an opinion on it either way and leave it as a matter for the state to deal with.

Why?

They clearly have the opinion that the State should not enforce a religious position, and thus they support this bill. That does not mean they support the actions that this bill allow, simply that they support the right to choose to partake in these actions if they wish.

It is like the old "I don't agree with anything you said but I'll die to defend your right to say it"

Staying quiet on the issue would be like saying they have no opinion over whether all members of society should be able to partake in civil unions, when they clearly do have an opinion on that.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think Jesus would want it to be illegal for homosexual couples to form civil partnerships?

I personally don't think he'd give a toss about local politics, but I'm happy in the knowledge that such a statement is only my opinion. What I think should be done has absolutely no bearing on the points being made though. If I was trying to impart MY 'wisdoms', and call them THE christian position, then they'd be relevant.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I personally don't think he'd give a toss about local politics

Really? You don't think he would care about civil rights and discrimination because they are "local" politics? Isn't all politics local when you get down to it?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Really? You don't think he would care about civil rights and discrimination because they are "local" politics? Isn't all politics local when you get down to it?

Again, only my opinion, but no, I don't think he'd be concerned with such things. His wisdoms have had the knock on effect of causing positive change, but I would consider that a symptom of his wisdom rather than a purpose.

I'm sure if asked, he would have a wise advice, but I honestly don't think he'd be too concerned with the nuances of the stupidity of man and thier governance of themselves. He didn't seem too concerned about Rome and its governance the last time, but rather he concerned himself with something of far greater importance.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you think Jesus would want it to be illegal for homosexual couples to form civil partnerships?

Perhaps Luke 20:25 is appropriate.

"And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps Luke 20:25 is appropriate.

"And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."

That isn't what I asked though.

Do you or Jimi think Jesus would want this? Like if he was asked A or B?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't what I asked though.

Do you or Jimi think Jesus would want this? Like if he was asked A or B?

I personally don't think he'd be forced into such an A or B scenario.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I personally don't think he'd be forced into such an A or B scenario.

Again that isn't really what I asked