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
Homosexuality vs. Mildew
Options
Comments
-
sGhost Buster wrote: »Hi lited in red is the very crux of the problem. It isnt clear. The word "interpretation" has been to subject of many postings here. If it was all so clear there would be no need of theologans, biblical scholars and regular Joe Soaps spending time interpreting parts of the bible.
Not so. People pushing an agenda will ignore what is clear, or try to convince others that it is not clear. After all we have a Creationism thread in which people present different interpretations of the scientific evidence. Does that prove that there is no clear evidence for evolution?
You are also comitting a rather basic logical fallacy which takes the following form:
1. Some parts of the Bible are not immediately clear.
2. The passages concerning homosexual behaviour are part of the Bible.
3. Therefore the passages concerning homosexuality are not clear.
Do you see the problem with that? If not, let's try the same logic where we substitute other properties:
1. Some human beings are racists.
2. Ghost Buster is a human being.
3. Therefore Ghost Buster is a racist.
Not good logic! :eek:0 -
LookingFor wrote: »Well, I didn't start the thread. But there are homosexual christians who would I'm sure appreciate you not discouraging the discussion of their relationship with their religion, or critical discourse of the treatment of homosexuality within their religion. These things are 'christian issues' I think. These discussions aren't welcome in the LGB forum, AFAIK, and probably rightfully so, since they are more specifically about one religion.
Topics on this forum wax and wane. Sometimes they reoccur with tiresome regularity. I would think that the frustration sometimes shown here is that we keep having the same discussion on homosexuality with the same net result: frustration for all.0 -
PDN, I'm wondering if there is a standard within Pentecostalism with regards to, say, sexually active unmarried couples or practising homosexuals who are also members of the church? Is it a matter between them and God? Or is there a Corinthians response?0
-
To be honest, the interpretations suggested earlier in this thread show little evidence of 'exhaustive deliberation' at all. I have offered some reasons, for example, why the interpretation of Romans 1 didn't hold water. I would love to hear some theologically literate responses to that - rather than just "Oh well, other people say different things".
You were given their theological response to Romans 1. The first time you misrepresented it and the second time you ignored it because it was, in your opinion, "agenda driven"
Which is fair enough, but it is a bit silly to complain it hasn't been put forward.
Christians have always argued with other Christians about the "correct" way to interpret passages of the Bible, so I'm not particularly surprised you object to these interpretations. Creationists object to your interpretations of passages throughout the Bible, Catholics object to Protestants, Protestants to Catholics. All make the call from authority of hermeneutics All dismiss the other as "agenda driven"
This is nothing new, and I think any of the Christians or non-Christians debating with you who seem to be shocked or upset by this need to take chill pill.
But you could at least correctly represent the actual arguments being put forward by liberal Christians in how they approach homosexuality, even if you still want to dismiss them as agenda driven.0 -
I believe a homosexual (I presume you're using the word in its popular sense of someone who feels a certain orientation) can be pleasing to God provided they don't act engage in homosexual acts.
So why does god make people homosexual if he doesn't want them to do homosexual things ?
Or is homosexuality a result of 'the fall'/satan/sin ?
If you believe that homosexual acts are not pleasing to god then are you against people performing homosexual acts ?
Would you be opposed to legislation outlawing such acts ?
Or would you rather try and educate homosexuals about the folly of their ways and hope to persuade them to stop committing such acts ?
Or something else entirely ?No, I disagree with that. The site is probably correct that the most common forms of homosexual behaviour in the First Century were paedophilia, temple prostitution and the rape of slaves. They were the forms, amazingly enough, that were most accepted by society!
Depends what society your talking about. Homosexual acts in Greece, especially in Spartan society among soldiers was very common. Especially when you consider the soldiers were not allowed to live with their wives but had to share barracks with other soldiers.One of the things we see in the New Testament is that when Old Testament laws or ceremonies were no longer applicable then that was usually explicitly stated. This happens with regard to circumcision, dietary laws, temple sacrifices, sabbath observance etc.
Explicitly stated eh ?
Like these from Leviticus.
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric
Don't cut your hair nor shave.
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed.
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die.
If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death.
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death.
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed.
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people"
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death.
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake.
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God.
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.
Or these from Deuteronomy;
Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)
If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)
Where does the NT explicitly state these are not applicable ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »PDN, I'm wondering if there is a standard within Pentecostalism with regards to, say, sexually active unmarried couples or practising homosexuals who are also members of the church? Is it a matter between them and God? Or is there a Corinthians response?
Each church and denomination has their own way of doing things.
In my own denomination, people, upon becoming members of the church, agree to adhere to certain doctrines and to certain standards of behaviour. So the procedure for deaing with someone who is involved in sexual immorality would be the same as dealing with someone who denied the Trinity, who was caught shop-lifting, or who was heard making racist comments.
1. A pastor would speak with them privately, and, if they expressed repentance and a desire not to repeat the action, then they remain as members. After all, all of us mess up from time to time, and the church should be a place of healing and forgiveness. However, if they were involved in some kind of ministry in the church (eg teaching, being an usher, playing a musical instrument) we might ask then to step aside from that for a limited period to sort themselves out.
2. If they refused to express repentance, or if they were continuing in a pattern of behaviour, then 2 or 3 other leaders would meet with them, and again they would be asked to change their ways.
3. If that failed to produce a change of heart then they would eventually have their membership terminated. They would, by the way, still be able to attend church services and events (unless there was an issue with them being predators) - but would lose their voting privileges and would not be able to serve in any of the ministries of the church.
All of the above is done, as far as is possible, in private communications with the person concerned. No public announcements are made to the church (no 'scarlet letters' - a la Nathaniel Hawthorne). There is also a process of appeal. So anyone who feels they have been dealt with unfairly by local leaders or pastors can appeal to their district pastor or bishop.
Exceptions would occur to the above process if someone was suspected of something criminal such as murder, assault or rape - and particularly any allegation of child abuse. There the procedure would be to remove them from the church immediately to protect others, to inform the Gardai (in any case where child abuse is alleged), and then to ask questions later. Thankfully we've never had to deal with any such situations here in Ireland.
Actually things rarely if ever get to stage 3 (removing somebody's membership). I've only had to do that twice in the last 15 years (both for good old fashioned heterosexual adultery). Most people wanting to live an immoral lifestyle recognise that their behaviour is incompatible with their church membership and so resign it themselves.0 -
But, if it weren't for the Bible I would probably view homosexual acts as I view prunes - not my thing, but not immoral.
...
I believe that there is an inherent sense of right and wrong in our hearts - but our sinfulness has, to a greater or lesser degree, distorted our morality.
So would you say that the fact that you don't have an inherent sense in your heart that homosexuality is immoral is a result of this distortion? That if you were closer to god's standard you would view homosexuality as immoral in the same way you view murder as immoral?0 -
So would you say that the fact that you don't have an inherent sense in your heart that homosexuality is immoral is a result of this distortion? That if you were closer to god's standard you would view homosexuality as immoral in the same way you view murder as immoral?
Yes, I think that my own sinful nature distorts my view of morality. I believe that there is an objective standard of morality (God's) and that relying purely on our subjective feelings about right and wrong can get us in all kinds of trouble. I'm sure, for example, that the killer of Theo van Gogh felt that what he was doing was morally OK, as did many slave owners in the 18th Century.
The Bible actually describes some of the darkest periods in Israel's history as being when subjective standards of morality were followed. "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6)
Your wording is somewhat ambiguous - accidentally, I'm sure. I certainly would not treat homosexuality as equivalent with murder - nor, I believe, does God. If I was closer to God's standard then I would probably see homosexual acts as immoral in the same way I say heterosexual acts outside of marriage as immoral.That if you were closer to god's standard you would view homosexuality as immoral in the same way you view murder as immoral?0 -
Yes, I think that my own sinful nature distorts my view of morality. I believe that there is an objective standard of morality (God's) and that relying purely on our subjective feelings about right and wrong can get us in all kinds of trouble. I'm sure, for example, that the killer of Theo van Gogh felt that what he was doing was morally OK, as did many slave owners in the 18th Century.
The Bible actually describes some of the darkest periods in Israel's history as being when subjective standards of morality were followed. "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6)
Your wording is somewhat ambiguous - accidentally, I'm sure. I certainly would not treat homosexuality as equivalent with murder - nor, I believe, does God. If I was closer to God's standard then I would probably see homosexual acts as immoral in the same way I say heterosexual acts outside of marriage as immoral.
With things like murder, rape, theft, adultery etc the reason for viewing such things as wrong is immediately apparent, ie they harm other people. Why do you suppose homosexuality and sex outside marriage should be viewed as immoral, or is it enough that god's standard says they are immoral and there doesn't necessarily have to be a reason behind it?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Come on Sam, you should have known the answer to this before you even wrote it. There is a reason behind it, God does everything for a reason, even if the reason isn't immediately clear to us.
Then we're getting into euthyphro dilemma territory again. Did god say that homosexuality is immoral because it is or is it immoral because he decided it would be....0 -
Then we're getting into euthyphro dilemma territory again. Did god say that homosexuality is immoral because it is or is it immoral because he decided it would be....
Agreed, though to avoid going down that road it is not that relevant to the question at hand, whether PDN believes there is a reason why homosexuality is immoral. I think we can all agree that we are often told to do things without been given the reason why, and this doesn't mean that no reason exists.
The issue is more what did God actually tell us, rather than what was the reason behind it. Christians like PDN interpret the passages as saying that God was telling us not to commit homosexual acts, where as other Christians like the ones mentioned above, interpret it more specifically as God telling heterosexuals not to commit sexual acts with same sex partners out of lust as this leads to depraved body and mind (God warning about the dangers of STDs perhaps)
The point that I think some Christians, perhaps ignorant of homosexuality, are missing is that a modern homosexual Christian doesn't look at Romans 1 and see himself or his own sexual desires. He is not a married heterosexual man running off to have orgies with other men out of some lustful desire to experiment, as was common in Roman times.
I should also point out, in case anyone things I'm a gay Christian, I'm playing devils advocate here as a straight atheist. Personally I would love for Christianity to clearly condemn homosexuals, as I think that would make a lot of people, gay and straight, realise Christianity is nonsense and leave the religion. The reality, despite PDN protests, is that it doesn't, or at least doesn't within the context that it is real and the truth from God0 -
With things like murder, rape, theft, adultery etc the reason for viewing such things as wrong is immediately apparent, ie they harm other people. Why do you suppose homosexuality and sex outside marriage should be viewed as immoral, or is it enough that god's standard says they are immoral and there doesn't necessarily have to be a reason behind it?
I think it boils down to how you view sex.
Some see sex as simply a way of gratifying a biological urge. God has little or no place in such a viewpoint.
Others, often influenced by the likes of St Augustine, see sex as something dirty, but unfortunately necessary in order to continue the species. In this viewpoint God doesn't really like us having sex (which does beg the question as to why He didn't cut it out altogether and let us reproduce asexually) and is much happier when we do it dutifully to have children, but don't enjoy it too much.
Others see sex as an act of giving and receiving that enhances a long term loving relationship.
However, I see sex as the consummation of a covenant relationship between a man and a woman which is the closest you can get on earth to the relationship between Christ and the Church. Marriage, by my definition, is more than just a long term relationship that can be terminated by mutual consent or by the order of a judge. Marriage, for me, is where a couple bind themselves exclusively together for life, are prepared to die for each other, and are henceforth so joined together that their separate identities are joined together as "one flesh".
So, my view of sexual morality is based on my estimation of sex as a wonderful gift from God that is infinitely precious and should be enjoyed and savoured to the utmost.
To cheapen the gift of sex by taking it outside its rightful context of marriage is, in my opinion, like pissing on a Picasso, like tattooing Shakespeare on your buttocks to peep out over a whale-tale thong, or plastering HP sauce all over an exquisitely prepared Filet Mignon steak.0 -
Marriage, by my definition, is more than just a long term relationship that can be terminated by mutual consent or by the order of a judge. Marriage, for me, is where a couple bind themselves exclusively together for life, are prepared to die for each other, and are henceforth so joined together that their separate identities are joined together as "one flesh".
You agree though (I hope) that many homosexual couples have this desire to bind themselves together as well, and are blocked, at least in having this commitment recognized by fellow Christians, by various interpretations of the Bible that include that God only wants men and women to marry each other?0 -
You agree though (I hope) that many homosexual couples have this desire to bind themselves together as well, and are blocked, at least in having this commitment recognized by fellow Christians, by various interpretations of the Bible that include that God only wants men and women to marry each other?
I would allow that such people may hypothetically exist, but personally I've never met someone who expressed a desire that their relationship with their same-sex lover would be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church.
For example, have you ever heard of anyone, professing Christian or otherwise, who said "I want have a same-sex wedding and both me and my partner believe that we should refrain from any sexual activity until our wedding night?" No, me neither.
What we get is same-sex couples saying is, "We want the same rights as heterosexual couples." Which generally seems to mean the following:
a) The right to hook up with someone at a pub or a nightclub and, either on the first date or in a short space of time, engage in casual sex.
b) The right to hold a marriage in a church even though they ignore the church's teaching entirely in sexual matters.
c) The right to wear a white dress, even though everyone in the wedding would wet themselves laughing at the idea of the bride being virginal.
d) The right to recite wedding vows to each other while all the while saying, "Sure, I don't reallly mean all this stuff, if it all goes wrong I can always get divorced."
e) The right to terminate the marriage and divorce if either of the partners "fall out of love" with each other.
And, given such a devalued concept of marriage, same-sex couples may well be given those same rights.
But it ain't nowhere near the Christian concept of what marriage is.0 -
I would allow that such people may hypothetically exist, but personally I've never met someone who expressed a desire that their relationship with their same-sex lover would be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church.
For example, have you ever heard of anyone, professing Christian or otherwise, who said "I want to have a same-sex wedding and both me and my partner believe that we should refrain from any sexual activity until our wedding night?" No, me neither.
A long-standing friend became an ordained priest in the Church of England recently. He has been in a monogamous same-sex relationship for over 30 years. When civil partnerships were introduced in England, he and his partner decided to enter into one, largely for tax reasons. My friend checked with his bishop about this, and his bishop apparently told my friend that, up to the civil partnership coming into effect, the bishop's view was that a "don't ask, don't tell" policy should apply to personal relationships of priests under his charge, but once the civil partnership was there, my friend would have to undertake not to have sexual relations with his partner, but simply to tell everyone that the civil partnership was to avoid inheritance tax.
So would this be a case of "I want to have a same-sex wedding and both me and my partner believe that we should refrain from any sexual activity after our wedding night"?0 -
I would allow that such people may hypothetically exist, but personally I've never met someone who expressed a desire that their relationship with their same-sex lover would be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church.
Well that isn't that surprising nor particularly relevant. The acceptance that they can hypothetically exist is good enough, given that they seem to (see below)For example, have you ever heard of anyone, professing Christian or otherwise, who said "I want have a same-sex wedding and both me and my partner believe that we should refrain from any sexual activity until our wedding night?" No, me neither.
Again that you have personally never met anyone who said this isn't surprising nor particularly relevant.
Groups such as these contain gay Christians who preach just that
http://www.whosoever.org
http://www.gaychristian.net
For example, from whosoever.org
http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/livin2gether.htmlNot only does living together offer the "temptation" but it expects that the couple would have had sex. However, the question here is, when does the marriage take place? The "Holy Union" is simply the final public act of the covenant. The covenant between the couple and God should have taken place long before they ever move in together. Our counsel to couples is not to meet and simply move in together, but rather date for a period of time until they are sure what their relationship is about.
...
Marriage is a covenant between the couple and God, the Rite or Sacrament of Marriage is the public act in which the community joins and acknowledges that covenant.
...
Likewise with couples, they are in covenant when they recognize God in their relationship and the love they share is a gift from God. Yes, I would frown on sexual relationships prior to that recognition. However, with that recognition and commitment to one another comes the covenant.
And that was only a 5 second Google search.But it ain't nowhere near the Christian concept of what marriage is.
True, but you are looking at the wider gay community.
Not all gays are Christians, what some of them call for (for example recognition of their marriage by the State, or to have casual homosexual sex legalized) is some what irrelevant to the issue at hand. Gay people who don't want to be Christians is not the issue.
We should be careful not to fall into the same logical fallacy you gave out to Ghost Buster about
1. Some gays call for the right to do unChristian things, devaluing marriage as they go
2. Some Christians are gay
3. Therefore gay Christians are calling for the right to do unChristian things, devaluing marriage as they go.0 -
A long-standing friend became an ordained priest in the Church of England recently. He has been in a monogamous same-sex relationship for over 30 years. When civil partnerships were introduced in England, he and his partner decided to enter into one, largely for tax reasons. My friend checked with his bishop about this, and his bishop apparently told my friend that, up to the civil partnership coming into effect, the bishop's view was that a "don't ask, don't tell" policy should apply to personal relationships of priests under his charge, but once the civil partnership was there, my friend would have to undertake not to have sexual relations with his partner, but simply to tell everyone that the civil partnership was to avoid inheritance tax.
So would this be a case of "I want to have a same-sex wedding and both me and my partner believe that we should refrain from any sexual activity after our wedding night"?
No, but it does rather neatly illustrate what happens when churches choose to ignore biblical teaching.
Over 25 years ago when I was in theological training (at a nonconformist College) a male colleague of mine was propositioned by an Anglican priest who served as chaplain at the hospital where we were visiting terminally ill patients. Our tutor confronted the priest who responded by saying, "But my Bishop said it was OK so long as I confined my sexual contacts to other clergymen."0 -
And that was only a 5 second Google search.
It's a shame your 5 second google search wasn't followed by a 20 second reading of the link. Because that's all the time it took to see that the link you cite: http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/livin2gether.html actually teaches the opposite of what you're saying.
The guy is teaching that an informal recognition that God is in a homosexual relationship is sufficient to warrant living together and having sex together, with no formal marriage ceremony yet having taken place.
Again, it's a watering down of Christian teaching and terminology where the word 'covenant' (which in Scripture is a lifelong binding relationship) is turned into "Let's live together for a while and test the water to see if this will last".
You're obviously learning from the Creationism thread how to do a quick google, link to websites that actually contradict the point you're trying to make, and then cite them as evidence because you either didn't read them properly or else don't understand them.0 -
The guy is teaching that an informal recognition that God is in a homosexual relationship is sufficient to warrant living together and having sex together, with no formal marriage ceremony yet having taken place.
Yes? And?
That isn't relevant to the issue, which was your implied assertion that gays don't want to live their lives based on Christian teaching.
This is a point about when exactly a marriage is recognized by God, when the couple "informally" commit to each other in the presence of God, or when they have the "formal" ceremony with the rest of the community. It is an issue of interpretation of doctrine, rather than intent.
The intent is not to have sexual relations with each other until married. The issue discussed in this response was simply the pastor clarifying that he is not actually teaching (in his view) sex before marriage, but sex before formal marriage ceremonies. (you can see from his other articles he doesn't put much weight in community "formal" ceremonies, which often have little to do with God)
If you make your commitment 1 year previous to when you stand up in the church (the average time it takes to organised a wedding) then that is when you married, according to this pastor. I've seen plenty of heterosexual Christians teach the same thing, that the ceremony in the church or on the beach or hillside is something for the community, it is not your commitment to God (unless you are Catholic), that the marriage starts at the moment you commit to God.
If you disagree fair enough, but that isn't an issue for this thread, nor is it a sign that gay Christians are not committed to the Christian idea of marriage (ie a covenant to God)Again, it's a watering down of Christian teaching and terminology where the word 'covenant' (which in Scripture is a lifelong binding relationship) is turned into "Let's live together for a while and test the water to see if this will last".
I'm not quite sure what your agenda here is PDN, but you seem insistant on misrepresenting everything that is put to you in relation to this topic.
I agree entirely with you that the pastor is saying that actual "marriage" takes place when the couple commit to each other in the eyes of God, which can be before the formal community ceremony.
If you object to that interpretation fair enough, but how you go from that to the idea that this pastor is telling them ah sure just try it out and see what happens, is beyond me. Why do you bothered to "quote" that sentence when what the pastor said is nothing like it.
What the pastor actually said was
"However, with that recognition and commitment to one another comes the covenant. Living together is the next logical step to test the relationship and make sure of a life long commitment."
Here are similar posts by the same pastor writes again on what he is talking about
http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/wedlock.html"You say that you love each other. Have you made a commitment to each other? Have you promised to be with each other?
Wedlock or marriage that the Bible speaks is about making a covenant or promise to God, yourselves and your community. In other words you commit yourselves and your relationship to God.
If you have proclaimed to the community you are a couple, made your commitment to each other, and you understand that it is God that blesses you both and is at the center of this relationship then you commit NO SIN in being intimate.
I might add that "Holy Unions", "Commitment Ceremonies" and "Heterosexual Marriage" are all formal proclamations of the aforementioned. As a witness to your community you might at some point want to consider some sort of ceremony. Depending on where in the country or world you are there are Gay Churches or Gay Friendly churches that will perform such a ceremony"
http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/letter83.shtml"Marriage in today's sense is less about two people who love each other deeply and are committed to living in a way that will enhance that love. Rather, it is about tax breaks, exemptions, property and legitimate (read: legal) sex. I wonder which scenario God is more concerned about?
We live in a world where marriage vows are usually not worth the paper on which they are written. Yet the idea of a covenant is the total investment of those involved. I wonder if God is more concerned about promises and covenants that call on people to go deeper in their relationship than simply dogma and church rules. Finally, I wonder, from a spiritual perspective, if a God who by biblical definition is both male and female is really concerned about the gender identity of a couple who are willing to live in covenant with each other."
The pastor is not saying live together, have sex, see how it goes and if you like it then get married. That is a completely fabrication of the position.
What the pastor was saying in the original piece is that once you are married at the point of the covenant with God, and once you are married the next logical step is to live together, which involves having sex.
Living together tests the marriage, as it does every marriage, but the goal is ensuring a life long commitment. The goal isn't "testing out the water" :rolleyes:You're obviously learning from the Creationism thread how to do a quick google, link to websites that actually contradict the point you're trying to make, and then cite them as evidence because you either didn't read them properly or else don't understand them.
Indeed :rolleyes:
And you are obviously learning the fine art of "quoting" things what were never said in an effort to misrepresent the persons position.
Why you insist on doing this I'm not sure. I can't quite figure out your agenda here, but this is like the 4th time you have been given a piece of text from a gay Christian and repeated it back completely differently to how it was actually said (someone ironically consider you pride yourself on understanding the authors "meaning")
I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt but it is making me seriously question the usefulness of continuing presenting this position to you since you seem insistent on misrepresenting it to others.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes? And?
That isn't relevant to the issue, which was your implied assertion that gays don't want to live their lives based on Christian teaching.
This is a point about when exactly a marriage is recognized by God, when the couple "informally" commit to each other in the presence of God, or when they have the "formal" ceremony with the rest of the community. It is an issue of interpretation of doctrine, rather than intent.
Nonsense. A couple (hetero or homo) saying "Do you want to shag (and we'll pray together first so it's in the sight of God)?" does not mean that they are living based on Christian teaching.
I don't have an agenda other than that I originally responded to a post that gave some dodgy attemps at exegesis.I'm not quite sure what your agenda here is PDN, but you seem insistant on misrepresenting everything that is put to you in relation to this topic.
Since then I have simply responded to direct questions directed to me by other posters, and you (as usual) have chosen to pick a argument with my views and have selectively, and not very successfully, tried to google stuff to support yourself.
The thread is asking questions about Christian attitudes to homosexuality - so I hardly see that there is an 'agenda' in myself or any other Christian sharing what our attitudes are.
The only one who appears to be pursuing an agenda is a certain atheist who keeps trying to tell Christians what he thinks the Christian position should be.If you object to that interpretation fair enough, but how you go from that to the idea that this pastor is telling them ah sure just try it out and see what happens, is beyond me. Why do you bothered to "quote" that sentence when what the pastor said is nothing like it.
What the pastor actually said was
"However, with that recognition and commitment to one another comes the covenant. Living together is the next logical step to test the relationship and make sure of a life long commitment."
I'm not going to entertain your silly semantics where you redefine the English language to suit yourself. If you cannot see from that quote that this guy thinks testing the relationship and discovering if it is life long comes after the covenant (when the covenant is itself a life long commitment in Scripture) then there's little point in having any discussion with you.What the pastor was saying in the original piece is that once you are married the next logical step is to live together, which involves having sex. This tests the marriage, as it does every marriage, but the goal is ensuring a life long commitment. The goal isn't "trying out the water"
How is this any different to a heterosexual couple?
It's no different to a heterosexual couple making a private non-binding agreement and pretending that it constitutes a marriage. But Christian marriage it ain't.
You really take the biscuit!I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt but it is making me seriously question the usefulness of continuing presenting this position to you since you seem insistent on misrepresenting it to others.
I have stated my views when asked to do so by other posters. You feel a compulsion to argue with the views of Christians - we get that.
You would argue that black was white if it gave you an excuse to kick up a fuss in this forum. We get that.
But don't try to pin the blame on me for any ensuing frustration caused by your antics.0 -
A couple (hetero or homo) saying "Do you want to shag (and we'll pray together first so it's in the sight of God)?" does not mean that they are living based on Christian teaching.
Are you freaking serious?
I agree entirely, it certainly doesn't. But then that is nothing like what was discussed.
What is actually being discussed is a gay couple, who have not slept together and are not living together, saying "Will you marry me" to each other and both proclaiming "Yes" to each other and to God, and then considering themselves in the eyes of God to be married before a formal marriage ceremony.
No where is anyone asking anyone else "do you want to shag" :rolleyes:
You seem insistent on trying to portray gay people, even gay Christians, as only interested in finding an easy way to getting sex.
You rail against the portrait of Christians such as yourself as being homophobic, so why have such derogatory attitudes to gay people to such extend that gay Chrisitans are discussing the ins and outs of a committed marriage recognized by God and you assume they are just trying to find a way to have sex?I don't have an agenda other than that I originally responded to a post that gave some dodgy attemps at exegesis.
I'm not sure what Biblical exegensis has to do with you consistently and consistently misrepresenting the position of gay Christians, often with quotes they never said.The only one who appears to be pursuing an agenda is a certain atheist who keeps trying to tell Christians what he thinks the Christian position should be.
Considering I don't think there is a single "Christian position" I'm going to assume that wasn't referring to me.
Yes odd that I don't think the guy means something he didn't say and which is contradicted in other pieces he writes at the same time on the same web site :rolleyes:I'm not going to entertain your silly semantics where you redefine the English language to suit yourself. If you cannot see from that quote that this guy thinks testing the relationship and discovering if it is life long comes after the covenant (when the covenant is itself a life long commitment in Scripture) then there's little point in having any discussion with you.
You assume he must mean that because you apparently have a rather distorted view of what gay people want.I have stated my views when asked to do so by other posters. You feel a compulsion to argue with the views of Christians - we get that.
Your views are not the issue. Your misrepresentation of other people's views is. If you disagree with these people that is fine, I don't really care.
But if you cannot simply discuss their argument vs your argument, and instead insist on twisting their argument into a straw man, then I think this should be pointed out.
Only someone with an agenda would take two gay Christians discussion the theological issue of when exactly a Christian marriage takes place and when exactly it is not a sin to sleep with each other and present it as gays trying to find loopholes to have sex, or as you so eloquently put it "Do you want to shag?".
It is quite disgusting.0 -
Ah. I see the problem. I said that there would be no need for the religious to interpret the bible. Perhaps that should read as 'no scope' for the religious to interpret the bible. Perhaps if the being upstairs had simple written.s
Not so. People pushing an agenda will ignore what is clear, or try to convince others that it is not clear. After all we have a Creationism thread in which people present different interpretations of the scientific evidence. Does that prove that there is no clear evidence for evolution?
You are also comitting a rather basic logical fallacy which takes the following form:
1. Some parts of the Bible are not immediately clear.
2. The passages concerning homosexual behaviour are part of the Bible.
3. Therefore the passages concerning homosexuality are not clear.
Do you see the problem with that? If not, let's try the same logic where we substitute other properties:
1. Some human beings are racists.
2. Ghost Buster is a human being.
3. Therefore Ghost Buster is a racist.
Not good logic! :eek:
"Two men having consentual adult sex is bad. I dont like it. Dont do it or else."
Not much room for manouvre there.0 -
Ghost Buster wrote: »Ah. I see the problem. I said that there would be no need for the religious to interpret the bible. Perhaps that should read as 'no scope' for the religious to interpret the bible. Perhaps if the being upstairs had simple written.
"Two men having consentual adult sex is bad. I dont like it. Dont do it or else."
Not much room for manouvre there.
He did. 'A man is not to lie with a man as with a woman'. Not much wiggle room tbh. This was given in the law as sexually immoral. Then reiterated in the NT when we were asked to continue to stay away from sexual immorality.0 -
He did. 'A man is not to lie with a man as with a woman'. Not much wiggle room tbh. This was given in the law as sexually immoral. Then reiterated in the NT when we were asked to continue to stay away from sexual immorality.
So nothing in the Christian bible then?
Where is the direct link between the OT quote and the NT quote?
Since just about any sex other than between a married couple for procreation is wrong perhaps the NT quote is referring to 'immoral' hethero sex.
Is there anything in the NT directly referring to the omnipotent beings issues with gay sex?
Oh but if its wriggle room then its biologicaly impossable for two men to lie together in the same way as a man and a woman. I not being intentionally vulgar but I think that qualifys as wriggle or 'interpretation' room.:cool:0 -
Ghost Buster wrote: »So nothing in the Christian bible then?
Where is the direct link between the OT quote and the NT quote?
Since just about any sex other than between a married couple for procreation is wrong perhaps the NT quote is referring to 'immoral' hethero sex.
Is there anything in the NT directly referring to the omnipotent beings issues with gay sex?
I think you need to brush up on what the Christian bible consists of. Anyway, where do you suppose it says that the only sex approved of in the bible is that between a married couple for the purposes of reproduction?Ghost Buster wrote: »Oh but if its wriggle room then its biologicaly impossable for two men to lie together in the same way as a man and a woman. I not being intentionally vulgar but I think that qualifys as wriggle or 'interpretation' room.:cool:
Not sure what the smiley is for. You've really just demonstrated that you can twist pretty much anything to your desired meaning, which says nothing about original intent.0 -
Ghost Buster wrote: »Oh but if its wriggle room then its biologicaly impossable for two men to lie together in the same way as a man and a woman. I not being intentionally vulgar but I think that qualifys as wriggle or 'interpretation' room.:cool:
Oh right, so thats what you mean by interpretation. Looking for anything you want and saying its valid. I'll leave you to it as I prefer honesty and integrity.0 -
Are you freaking serious?
I agree entirely, it certainly doesn't. But then that is nothing like what was discussed.
What is actually being discussed is a gay couple, who have not slept together and are not living together, saying "Will you marry me" to each other and both proclaiming "Yes" to each other and to God, and then considering themselves in the eyes of God to be married before a formal marriage ceremony.
No where is anyone asking anyone else "do you want to shag" :rolleyes:
Hang on a minute.
Sam Vimes asked me a question about why I viewed sex outside of marriage (hetero or homo) as being immoral.
You weighed into a discussion where I was giving my views. So, in relation to my views, it is my definition of marriage that is important. And my definition of marriage is more than two saying "Will you marry me" and then pretending that constitutes marriage.
Now, if you want to discuss what you think constitutes marriage then feel free top post away in A&A or wherever and if anyone wants to engage with you in a bunch of meaningless semantics and blowing smoke then they'll get what they deserve. But please stop trying to hijack this thread with your nonsense.
That is a blatant falsehood.You seem insistent on trying to portray gay people, even gay Christians, as only interested in finding an easy way to getting sex.
That's the first time I've ever heard anyone other than a journalist from the Sun accuse somebody of 'railing' when they calmly state their opinion.You rail against the portrait of Christians such as yourself as being homophobic, so why have such derogatory attitudes to gay people to such extend that gay Chrisitans are discussing the ins and outs of a committed marriage recognized by God and you assume they are just trying to find a way to have sex?
There's not much point in me pointing out a balanced Christian view about homosexual sex if people like you are going to just openly lie about my views. It's no wonder you see people as homophobic if you take things they specifically said apply to both homsexuals and heterosexuals and then creatively repackage their words to make it sound as if they were only talking about gays.
I never said gay people are just trying to find a way to have sex. So please don't keep misrepresenting me in that way. I said that I have never heard of a gay person wanting to refrain from sex until after marriage. That remains true since the only counter you can provide to it is to redefine marriage to a point where it becomes a private little agreement between two people with no legal standing, no witnesses, and zero binding commitment since either party can bail out at either time and, if they so wish, contract another such 'marriage' the next morning. Sorry, but that is not what most of us refer to as 'marriage'. Try pulling that one with the immigration authorities and see if they'll give your 'wife' an Irish passport on the basis that you said "I do" at the bus-stop one evening. :rolleyes:
For God's sake stop this silliness!
Only a dishonest troll would take something I specifically stated applied both to homosexuals and heterosexuals and try to present it as if it refers solely to gays.Only someone with an agenda would take two gay Christians discussion the theological issue of when exactly a Christian marriage takes place and when exactly it is not a sin to sleep with each other and present it as gays trying to find loopholes to have sex, or as you so eloquently put it "Do you want to shag?".
My point is that two people (hetero or homo) whispering vows to each other in private with no legal standing and no witnesses is not a marriage. It doesn't matter what they say.
They could recite the entire Bible to each other. They can say, "Do you want to shag?" They could pledge undying love in the name of the FSM's noodly appendages. It is not a marriage.
Therefore, for you to try to redefine marriage in that Wicknightian way, and then to use it to butt into a conversation where I was answering a question from Sam Vimes about my views, is rudeness of the highest order.
It certainly is.It is quite disgusting.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »I think you need to brush up on what the Christian bible consists of. Anyway, where do you suppose it says that the only sex approved of in the bible is that between a married couple for the purposes of reproduction?
I was just responding to the example of clear 'god to creation communication' given to me. Perhaps there is a better example of gods issues with homosexuality in the NT?
I cant say, to be honest' what the exact lines in the bible are regarding sex but that certainly seem to be the line from the catholic church for one. Why would there be an issue with contraception for starters?0 -
Advertisement
-
Ghost Buster wrote: »So nothing in the Christian bible then?
Where is the direct link between the OT quote and the NT quote?
Since just about any sex other than between a married couple for procreation is wrong perhaps the NT quote is referring to 'immoral' hethero sex.
Is there anything in the NT directly referring to the omnipotent beings issues with gay sex?
That isn't really the argument some Christians make. The argument is that Lev 18 if a referring to a specific bunch of people within a specific context. It says to the Hebrews do not do like the pagan Egyptians and Canaanites did. And like all of the Bible there is debate over how the passage is actually translated
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm0
Advertisement