Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Evangelical Alliance Backs Civil Partnership Bill

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #33
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #35
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #38
    Puck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    rant_and_rave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 69 ✭✭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?


  • Options
    #40
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Puck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭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?".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #44
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #47
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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."


  • Options
    #49
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #50
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Again that isn't really what I asked

    Lets go over what you asked, and see why you you don't think I've answered.

    Do I think Jesus would WANT this?

    I don't think Jesus would be concerned about it, (Which is what I already said) It'd be a bit like someone who knows a comet is going to hit the earth, and someone asking, 'Will it be blue or green?' Its insignificant.

    Like if he was asked A or B?

    I personally don't think he'd be forced into such an A or B scenario, but 'Let the dead bury their dead' would 'probably' be the 'style' of answer if pressed. Again, its only my reasonings, and I don't presume to know. I just think his attitude would be to let these people get on with what they are doing, and concern yourself with what is truly important.


  • Options
    #53
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Lets go over what you asked, and see why you you don't think I've answered.

    Do I think Jesus would WANT this?

    I don't think Jesus would be concerned about it, (Which is what I already said) It'd be a bit like someone who knows a comet is going to hit the earth, and someone asking, 'Will it be blue or green?' Its insignificant.

    Whether Jesus is concerned about it isn't the same as whether he would want it though is it?.

    Jesus may not have been say concerned that for 300 years slavery existed in the Americas because 300 years is a drop in the ocean compared to salvation and eternity and Jesus' concern was salvation and what is truly important (the salvation of mankind I assume you mean) as you put it.

    But that doesn't mean he wouldn't have an opinion on the matter if asked, nor that he wouldn't want abolition, does it?

    I think if you asked Jesus does he want slave owners to beat slaves most Christians would believe he would say no (without getting into the whole does Christianity support or oppose slavery debate), rather than saying that this isn't important and he has no opinion on the matter.

    I'm not following what the difference here is. Why would Jesus not express an opinion on this matter simply because it falls into the category as not specifically what he was all about?


  • Options
    #54
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Whether Jesus is concerned about it isn't the same as whether he would want it though is it?.

    It is. I'm sure you can think of scenario's whereby one neither wants or doesn't want something. It is insignificant. Let the wolves govern the wolves, and the shepherd govern the sheep IMO.


  • Options
    #55
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    It is. I'm sure you can think of scenario's whereby one neither wants or doesn't want something. It is insignificant. Let the wolves govern the wolves, and the shepherd govern the sheep IMO.

    :confused:

    You don't think Jesus, or Christians, should concern themselves about what happens to the "wolves"?

    What are your feelings about the abolitionist movement, or say charity workers in non-Christian countries?


  • Options
    #56
    Puck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭Puck


    JimiTime wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry, I'm, at a loss then as to how to explain this point any clearer to you if you don't see how I, speaking as a Christian (who thinks God is the source of all good and that Christianity is right and that even "secular" acts can be the Christian thing to do) do not mean exactly the same thing when I say "I think this is the Christian thing to do" as when I say "I think this is the right thing to do".


  • Options
    #57
    Puck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭Puck


    JimiTime wrote: »
    It is. I'm sure you can think of scenario's whereby one neither wants or doesn't want something. It is insignificant. Let the wolves govern the wolves, and the shepherd govern the sheep IMO.

    Should we not pursue justice and freedom for all people, even if those people choose to live freely as non-Christians in ways that we disagree with?


Advertisement