Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Dear God! how hard is it for you to realize that tolerance is not some liberal, modernist, wishy-washy PC ideal but one of the healthier, hardheaded and more pragmatic approaches to the real world.
Not my denominations idea btw just how I see the world.

Tolerance of sin is not a virtue. I'm sure you don't tolerate what you regard as crimes. You don't even seem to keen to tolerate Christians like myself.

In other words, you tolerate anything that doesn't conflict with your life. Which rules out God and His word.

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

tommy2bad

georgieporgy wrote: »

if a person called a spade a spade would he be accused of being obsessed with gardening?

Definitely, unless he called it a bloody shovel then he's a toolist.;)



Now back to the matter in hand, Wolfsbane;

You don't even seem to keen to tolerate Christians like myself.

Ah but I do tolerate you and other as daft, even Mormons. Toleration isn't agreement, its agreeing to differ. As to tolerating sin not being a virtue, I think that applies to yourself first: motes in eyes and planks an all that.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad said:

Well why didn't you say so?

I did. From my opening post:
NOTE: The subject she addresses is homosexuality, but all she says applies to every sort of sinner!

OK lets see how that works then. Do we declare all who sin excommunicated?

Yes, if they refuse to repent of their sin:
1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

Of course, one cannot excommunicate the heathen, since they are not members of the Church in the first place. God deals with them.

Do we decide who and who is not Christian

Only as far as their doctrine and practice permit it. They might be heathens in their heart and pretend to be the best of Christians.

rather than the usual thing of deciding what is and is not Christian?

The Church does both. We can say Mormonism is not Christian - that's a 'what'. But we can also say a Mormon is not a Christian, based on his espousal of Mormon doctrine - that's a 'who'.

By all means declare your tenants and rules but if someone says they dont agree then tell them not in my church you don't. Going around crying heretic or apostate or sinner isn't helping anyone.

The Church is called to clearly identify what is and what is not Christian doctrine and practice - especially in the face of the claims to be Christian from those plainly in conflict with basic Christian doctrine and practice.

It isn't helping anyone to muddy the water of truth. That's what the liberals and modernists are doing.

******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Now back to the matter in hand, Wolfsbane;
Ah but I do tolerate you and other as daft, even Mormons. Toleration isn't agreement, its agreeing to differ. As to tolerating sin not being a virtue, I think that applies to yourself first: motes in eyes and planks an all that.

I'm sorry then, I must have read too much into your comment: Hate those bible thumping American born again losers.

It does indeed apply to myself first. To walk with Christ I must be intolerant with any sinful thought, never mind the word or deed that would arise from it.

******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

philologos

Excommunication is a strange term to use. I would simply say that if one is going to accept God one must also accept that His ways are best. Rejecting his ways and living instead for ourselves also to some degree means rejecting God. That applies to every sin, that's why as Christians we're on a journey to try and reject sin and glorify God fully in every single thing that we do.

I agree with wolfsbane in this respect. Living for Jesus does mean forsaking our own selfish desires and focusing on Him.

tommy2bad

Wolfsbane;
I'm sorry then, I must have read too much into your comment: Hate those bible thumping American born again losers.

Indeed, hyperbole can be a weapon of self destruction.

philologos;
Rejecting his ways and living instead for ourselves also to some degree means rejecting God.

Cant disagree, of course I'm going to anyway just to be contrary
Rejecting God has to be more than just disagreeing with what someone else tell you the scriptures mean. I can read it myself and come to my own conclusions, no?
Hope you see the irony in a protestant objecting to this one.
Isn't the whole point of being right with God being in a relationship with Him, not just personally but the whole church. Relationships change, the way I treat my children changes as they grow and become adults. Is it not possible for what God commands to also change? In fact it the most used explanation for the inconsistency in the bible.
Some on will come along with the chapter and verse (I hope) I cant recall it now, that specifically describes the laws and rules this way?
Dose the restriction on women priests still hold? Are the CoE now not a Christian denomination? Or are their specific things that can never change and things that can change? How about Papal infallibility? (rhetorical question, lets not go their)
My point is that somehow we are left with living in the world now with an instruction manual written for 2000 years ago, a bit like trying to run Win7 with an old 3.1 manual, lots still applies but so much is missing.

lmaopml

No God never changes Tommy. Them's the rules....there are good things and bad things.

There are no entirely 'good' people or entirely 'bad' people imo though, and all sins are bad, everybody has a struggle, the Catholic, Protestant, Gay, Straight, Mother, Father etc. etc. person are no different in sin, except in how they express their relationship or no with Christ, and how much that means.... the biggest rule of all is to love God and your neighbour as yourself, no matter whom, no matter their choices, no matter what, most likely they are aware of the rules themselves too and are hurting and doing their best - and the best example imo is to live a Christian life with a smile ear to ear ( but not a freaky one :P) that actually shows Christ inside.

Wolfe is right though - as much as the Gay person who feels shyte or indignant about being aware that the action is contrary to God - they are no different to me who is contrary every single day of the week numerous times over. They are my brother and sister - we all have something, there aint nobody special or especially without sin.

Sonics2k

I'm sorry, did I just see wolfsbane claim that Homosexuality is the same as Paedophilia, and wasn't red carded for that outrageous and disgusting comment?

Benny_Cake

lmaopml wrote: »

No God never changes Tommy. Them's the rules....there are good things and bad things.

There are no entirely 'good' people or entirely 'bad' people imo though, and all sins are bad, everybody has a struggle, the Catholic, Protestant, Gay, Straight, Mother, Father etc. etc. person are no different in sin, except in how they express their relationship or no with Christ, and how much that means.... the biggest rule of all is to love God and your neighbour as yourself, no matter whom, no matter their choices, no matter what, most likely they are aware of the rules themselves too and are hurting and doing their best - and the best example imo is to live a Christian life with a smile ear to ear ( but not a freaky one :P) that actually shows Christ inside.

Wolfe is right though - as much as the Gay person who feels shyte or indignant about being aware that the action is contrary to God - they are no different to me who is contrary every single day of the week numerous times over. They are my brother and sister - we all have something, there aint nobody special or especially without sin.

I can respect where your coming from, and there isn't a whole lot to disagree with in your post. OK, maybe a little!

I think the reason that the debate over homosexuality is so intense is because most people have come to accept that it's something that a person doesn't choose. Now one can argue that being homosexual isn't the problem, just homosexual acts, but the problem is that a person's sexual orientation is something inbuilt, it will be close to impossible for them to be a whole, complete person if something which is so natural and intrinsic to them can never find expression.

Now I haven't mentioned scripture yet. Phil is right in one sense - it is part of human nature to look for loopholes that we can use to justify our wrongdoing. I'm sure I do it all the time. My knowledge of scripture is limited compared to most of the posters here. I'm not a biblical literalist and I try to read the Bible with what it would have meant to the audience at the time in mind - and it's no less inspiring and challenging as a result. I also don't believe that science and scripture have to clash. As such I truly believe that it would be possible for a gay person in a committed relationship to be a genuine follower of Christ.

philologos

I feel a discussion on women in ministry deserves a new topic if you want to discuss it.

As for the CofE, and other Anglican churches, I believe there are huge difficulties in the Anglican communion right now. I believe that in many churches the Gospel is being compromised.

There isn't enough emphasis on Scripture in many churches, and on personal acceptance of Jesus, which means laying down our sinful nature and living and speaking for Jesus in our daily lives. It's a challenge, but it's clearly what we've been called to do.

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm sorry, did I just see wolfsbane claim that Homosexuality is the same as Paedophilia, and wasn't red carded for that outrageous and disgusting comment?

I don't think you did, I looked back through the thread and saw no such claim. However, if you think you did then use the Reported Post button.

But other posters saw you induldging in backseat modding you weren't yellow carded. Next time please address any questions about modding via PM. Understood?

tommy2bad

philologos;
There isn't enough emphasis on Scripture in many churches, and on personal acceptance of Jesus, which means laying down our sinful nature and living and speaking for Jesus in our daily lives. It's a challenge, but it's clearly what we've been called to do.

Remove the bit in blue and I agree, Define the bit in red and we all agree.
I have trouble with terms like 'sinful nature' gets too close to complete depravity and worse, implies dualism.
I know I brought them up but lets not do another women priests or papal infallibility thread oh and scriptural interpretation should be buried too but its at the heart of this discussion. Not so much how this time but what and when.

gawker

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have my doubts about much of the 'nature' claims of modern homosexuality. But whether it is by nature or not doesn't change the sinfulness of accepting it.

And I've heard the same claims from paedophiles - 'That's who I am', 'God made me this way', etc. Certainly they err further in that they impose on non-consenting people - but the principle of their sexuality being OK because God made them that way is just the same.

This seems like a clear attempt to compare homoexuality and paedophilia to be honest, PDN. Sure, it could be a coincidence but this is a card often played against gay people.

PDN

gawker wrote: »

This seems like a clear attempt to compare homoexuality and paedophilia to be honest, PDN. Sure, it could be a coincidence but this is a card often played against gay people.

Go and look up reductio ad absurdum on Wikipedia, then move to the bottom of the class.

Wolfsbane used a perfectly understandable logical device to demonstrate how illogical is to claim that an action must be morally OK if it comes naturally to us. He took an example that is so wicked that none of us would call it moral (paedophilia) and demonstrated that there are those who say they are 'born that way'.

Reductio as absurdum only works as a logical device when you are not equating the two things. You are using an extreme example to demonstrate the bad logic that sounds plausible to some people (usually those incapable of thinking analytically) when used to justify something less extreme.

It really depresses me when reductio ad absurdum is used in a debate and someone cries out "Ah, you're equating homosexuality with paedophilia!" I can't decide if this is a dishonest tactic to obscure the logical point made, or whether our education system really is churning out people who can't think clearly.

Here's another example of the same kind of thing.

Person A: "You'll enjoy lemon juice poured over your potatoes because lemon juice is yellow."
Person B: "Not necessarily, urine is yellow - but I wouldn't like that poured over my potatoes."
Person A: "So you're equating lemon juice with urine?"
Person B: "Beam me up, Scotty!"

Zombrex

gawker wrote: »

This seems like a clear attempt to compare homoexuality and paedophilia to be honest, PDN. Sure, it could be a coincidence but this is a card often played against gay people.

It is not comparing the two, it is pointing out that the excuses for homosexual behavior (I was born this way, it is natural, i can't help it, it is not a choice, I can't change who I am) have no baring on the morality of homosexual actions. This fact is demonstrated by replacing homosexuality with something that is considered immoral by all (in this example pedophile) and highlighting that if you applied all the same excuses that still wouldn't make pedophile actions moral.

Or to put it another way, take a sentence such as

I was born a homosexual, I cannot change that it is who I am it is not a choice therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong.


and simply replace the word "homosexual" with "pedophile"

I was born a pedophile, I cannot change that, it is who I am, it is not a choice therefore pedophilia cannot be wrong.

Now, is pedophilia considered morally acceptable because of any of those reasons? No, of course not. Being born a pedophile has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't moral to have sexual relations with children.

So why would it make homosexuality moral? In reality it has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is or isn't moral, any more than it does with pedophilia.

Lets try another

Homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature, it is found in other species, you cannot then say that it is wrong.

Infanticide is naturally occurring in nature, it is found in other species, you cannot then say that it is wrong.

Does that mean infanticide is therefore moral? Nope, how wide spread infanticide is in nature is irrelevant to the question of whether it is moral. Thus it must also be irrelevant to the question of the morality of homosexuality.

This is a very common method of highlighting the weakness of an argument in support of something. Any argument for the morality of homosexuality that would also require that pedophile, murder, arson, child battery, infanticide etc etc also be considered moral is obviously flawed.

People need to get straight why they think homosexuality is moral (which to me is blindingly simply, it is a freely chosen consensual choice to be in a homosexual relationship which can be done in a healthy safe manner, so why would it be immoral) and base their reasoning of such first principles. The answer is actually far simpler than a lot of people make out. Huge problems arise when people try and marry Christianity with homosexuality, personally I think this is ridiculous. Homosexuality is demonstrably not a bad thing, to me Christianity proclaiming it is the equivalent of proclaiming the Sun goes around the Earth. You don't try and marry modern understanding with such an idea, you simple say the people who came up with the idea have no idea what they are talking about and reject it. Simples.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

Remove the bit in blue and I agree, Define the bit in red and we all agree.
I have trouble with terms like 'sinful nature' gets too close to complete depravity and worse, implies dualism.
I know I brought them up but lets not do another women priests or papal infallibility thread oh and scriptural interpretation should be buried too but its at the heart of this discussion. Not so much how this time but what and when.

Remove the bit in blue? - You mean my main point. I guess I should ask why do you disagree with what is in blue.

The bit in red is a statement of reality. It's not dualistic at all. Human nature is inclined towards sin. I believe in total depravity. We've rejected God and sinned against Him, we need to be saved from sin.

The doctrine understands the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation.

Biblically speaking, it's true to suggest that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

Cant disagree, of course I'm going to anyway just to be contrary
Rejecting God has to be more than just disagreeing with what someone else tell you the scriptures mean. I can read it myself and come to my own conclusions, no?
Hope you see the irony in a protestant objecting to this one.

There's no irony at all. Reformed Christianity doesn't suggest that everyone is right, or that every interpretation is equally valid. If we are to believe that God exists, and that there is objective truth, we must also agree that there is objective truth about Him, no matter how difficult we find it.

To say that every opinion about Christianity is true, is a form of postmodernism. I wouldn't suggest that all.

For example.
If proposition A is the belief that Jesus Christ is Lord.
And proposition B is the belief that Jesus Christ is not Lord.
It is very easy to see that both positions cannot be objectively true as B is really proposition not A.

If God is real there's something true out there independent of opinion. If as Christianity describes, that we will be brought before Jesus in judgement then we'll find out what is true and what is false. I don't believe the Bible is so unclear that we can't understand it though.

gawker

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not comparing the two, it is pointing out that the excuses for homosexual behavior (I was born this way, it is natural, i can't help it, it is not a choice, I can't change who I am) have no baring on the morality of homosexual actions. This fact is demonstrated by replacing homosexuality with something that is considered immoral by all (in this example pedophile) and highlighting that if you applied all the same excuses that still wouldn't make pedophile actions moral.

Or to put it another way, take a sentence such as

I was born a homosexual, I cannot change that it is who I am it is not a choice therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong.


and simply replace the word "homosexual" with "pedophile"

I was born a pedophile, I cannot change that, it is who I am, it is not a choice therefore pedophilia cannot be wrong.

Now, is pedophilia considered morally acceptable because of any of those reasons? No, of course not. Being born a pedophile has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't moral to have sexual relations with children.

So why would it make homosexuality moral? In reality it has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is or isn't moral, any more than it does with pedophilia.

Lets try another

Homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature, it is found in other species, you cannot then say that it is wrong.

Infanticide is naturally occurring in nature, it is found in other species, you cannot then say that it is wrong.

Does that mean infanticide is therefore moral? Nope, how wide spread infanticide is in nature is irrelevant to the question of whether it is moral. Thus it must also be irrelevant to the question of the morality of homosexuality.

This is a very common method of highlighting the weakness of an argument in support of something. Any argument for the morality of homosexuality that would also require that pedophile, murder, arson, child battery, infanticide etc etc also be considered moral is obviously flawed.

People need to get straight why they think homosexuality is moral (which to me is blindingly simply, it is a freely chosen consensual choice to be in a homosexual relationship which can be done in a healthy safe manner, so why would it be immoral) and base their reasoning of such first principles. The answer is actually far simpler than a lot of people make out. Huge problems arise when people try and marry Christianity with homosexuality, personally I think this is ridiculous. Homosexuality is demonstrably not a bad thing, to me Christianity proclaiming it is the equivalent of proclaiming the Sun goes around the Earth. You don't try and marry modern understanding with such an idea, you simple say the people who came up with the idea have no idea what they are talking about and reject it. Simples.

I take your point. However, I do think if you are going to draw similarities between things (in this case, being Biblically immoral) then you should draw fair comparisons. I do not think acting on paedophilia and acting on homosexuality are comparable. The poster could have said "If somebody covets something, that's a natural instinct but that is no excuse." However, they chose paedophilia as an example and I guess it's up to the reader if that was just a chance winner from all the possible examples they could have used or not.

Morbert

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Whatever the laudable aim regarding kindness and understanding, sodomy or other homosexual acts cannot be condoned any more than any other sexually immoral act, unpopular as it may be to say so, this also includes heterosexual sex outside the sanctity of marriage. Just because someone is born with the urge to carry out to certain acts, it does not make the acts ok.

Therein lies the rub. Mainstream Christian theology maintains that Homosexual commitment, not just sex, is illegitimate. While people are free to pull the "God doesn't have to explain Himself" card, much of Christian morality resonates with the overall narrative of God saving us from ourselves. Even opposition to sex outside of marriage fits their narrative. But the refusal to acknowledge homosexual bonds sticks out like a sore thumb, as an arbitrary rule, or a rule reflecting the ignorance of people thousands of years ago.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

Remove the bit in blue? - You mean my main point. I guess I should ask why do you disagree with what is in blue.

The bit in red is a statement of reality. It's not dualistic at all. Human nature is inclined towards sin. I believe in total depravity. We've rejected God and sinned against Him, we need to be saved from sin.

Biblically speaking, it's true to suggest that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

I don't think their is a lack of emphasis in most churches, scripture is read every Sunday and taught in faith preparation. I think some Christians use the bible as a tool to bash other Christians each claiming to be more biblical than the other.
I reject TULIP Calvinism as heresy, total depravity isn't even scriptural. We disagree. See how if we could define scripture exactly then we would all agree?
I guess irony is lost on you then.
By no means do I say each and every interpretation is right but as to which one is right or more right? You claim the bible is the last word on whats right and others say we have to use the bible in the light of tradition, Me I'l settle for we all do our best and trust in the mercy of God.

philologos

Scripture is read certainly. But people aren't equipped as individuals to read the Bible for themselves, and to live on the basis of God's word. There are a number of churches and ministries that do this, but IMO they are few and far between. I'm more concerned in people understanding the Gospel of Jesus than anything else.

Total depravity is clearly Biblical. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), and our hearts are inclined towards evil (Genesis 6). Man will have a perpetual struggle against sin (Romans 7) until the final day when we meet Jesus Himself.

I don't believe that Scripture is as hugely ambiguous as you make out. I think for the most part, most Christians can agree with 90%+ of Biblical issues. On this forum I've seen this in the past with the discussion threads on Mark's Gospel, which I hope to start again soon.

My point still applies. Truth exists external to the mind. Even if I am wrong, or you are wrong, if God is real, He is right. The Bible IMO is God's inspired word, and I'm confident of its truth and its authority in respect to Christianity. Others may disagree, but ultimately something is true.

tommy2bad

but ultimately something is true.

This is true.
May I add, something is beauty, something is just, something is love.

lmaopml

Just to add a little brevity to our words...and to add the depth of love too!

People may wonder why Christians think so highly of Christ; it's so simple, but overlooked so very often, in the dreary days of health when tomorrow always comes, and nothing is quite so real as life.....indeed, not Buddha who escaped the world as a goal, and who's deciples seek the same thing, or for that matter those who believe in nature and praise it, or those who believe in some caste system where there are levels, and the rich are good and the poor are bad. Or those who believe in nothing.

Anybody claiming higher spirituality that doesn't resonate with being right here for eachother like my God, well they pale. Well you've got to get to know him first, and not just turn your head either. Although it's allowed - how precious, and he still loves, right to the last breath.

So they took Jesus, 17 and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. 18There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. 19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. 21 So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.” 23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic.URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19&version=ESV#fen-ESV-26837d"]d[/URL But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, 24 so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says,
“They divided my garments among them,
and for my clothing they cast lots.”
So the soldiers did these things, 25 but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.


I know this movie is not exactly everybodies cup of tea exactly, but it does serve a purpose of sorts; like everything I suppose, it's very graphic and shocking too - to bring to life some things that characters on a screen can't do, or words either, or meditation, film has it's own purpose.



So this is 'The Passion' for anybody who has the stomach to look, and also to close their eyes, or help him. There was quite simply nobody like this, nobody who had the impact he did, his disciples were persecuted for centuries, his apostles were everything from beheaded to hung upside down - and still they believed. The same yesterday, today and tomorrow - Jesus.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xen0UfgK50&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Zombrex

gawker wrote: »

I take your point. However, I do think if you are going to draw similarities between things (in this case, being Biblically immoral) then you should draw fair comparisons. I do not think acting on paedophilia and acting on homosexuality are comparable.

The act isn't the point though. The point is that the root causes of pedophilia and homosexuality are similar. Pedophiles don't choose to be pedophiles, it is most likely part of their genetic make up and how they were raised. They also have little choice over it, it is their sexual orientation they cannot turn it off and just be heterosexual or homosexual.

Neither of these things make pedophilia moral.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Therein lies the rub. Mainstream Christian theology maintains that Homosexual commitment, not just sex, is illegitimate. While people are free to pull the "God doesn't have to explain Himself" card, much of Christian morality resonates with the overall narrative of God saving us from ourselves. Even opposition to sex outside of marriage fits their narrative. But the refusal to acknowledge homosexual bonds sticks out like a sore thumb, as an arbitrary rule, or a rule reflecting the ignorance of people thousands of years ago.

Exactly. Someone who is already a Christian can of course say that we as humans shouldn't decide what God should or shouldn't say about sex, but ultimately all believers decide if the god they believe in is something that makes sense and that is something they can believe would actually exist (an interesting example of this is the discussion on the other forum about how Christians believe the Muslim notion of God is irrational).

All believers judge God to varying degrees. The disconnect between how the Bible describes homosexuality and what homosexuality is actually like shows an ignorance of the topic that I think many in the modern world, even Christians, find difficult to reconcile, again as if the Bible make a claim about physics that turned out to be wrong.

It raises the serious question of whether this is actually the word of an all knowing and understanding God, or just ignorant priests and lords of the time.

Sonics2k

I've heard the words 'God is Love' used many times. And since I was a child, was taught that God created mankind, is an infallible being, so therefore cannot make mistakes.

If this is the case, then why would God make some people (and animals) homosexual, if he also planned on sending them to Hell. Why would a supposed all loving creature purposefully make life worse for some.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338

Why would God, choose to deny love and happiness to people. And more importantly, who are you to deny the same thing to consenting adults. Does it have any impact on you or your life, no, it really really does not.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

Therein lies the rub. Mainstream Christian theology maintains that Homosexual commitment, not just sex, is illegitimate.

No, I think you're quite wrong there.

If you take away the sex then surely "homosexual commitment" simply means a non-sexual commitment between two people of the same gender? The love between a father and a son for example.

Or are you trying to say something else?

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

I've heard the words 'God is Love' used many times. And since I was a child, was taught that God created mankind, is an infallible being, so therefore cannot make mistakes.

If this is the case, then why would God make some people (and animals) homosexual, if he also planned on sending them to Hell. Why would a supposed all loving creature purposefully make life worse for some.

I think you are confused as to what Christians mean in saying that God created us.

Most Christians would not believe that God created each individual and pre-determined their genetic or biological characteristics. I have a big nose - not because God planned for me to have a large conk, but because my mother chose to marry a guy with a similar nasal capacity.

It would appear, for example, that some people have a stronger propensity to alcoholism than others. As with sexual attraction the evidence is not conclusive as to whether this is down to nature or nurture. But it actually makes no difference - the argument that a biological or inherent propensity towards certain behgaviours somehow makes that behaviour automatically morally OK is really pretty facile.

Sonics2k

PDN wrote: »

I think you are confused as to what Christians mean in saying that God created us.

Most Christians would not believe that God created each individual and pre-determined their genetic or biological characteristics. I have a big nose - not because God planned for me to have a large conk, but because my mother chose to marry a guy with a similar nasal capacity.

It would appear, for example, that some people have a stronger propensity to alcoholism than others. As with sexual attraction the evidence is not conclusive as to whether this is down to nature or nurture. But it actually makes no difference - the argument that a biological or inherent propensity towards certain behgaviours somehow makes that behaviour automatically morally OK is really pretty facile.

Homosexuality is nature, that cannot be denied by any rational being. The very fact that it is found in hundreds of animals is proof enough. My own mother is a Lesbian and was raised in a Catholic household in a time of rampant homophobia, so that removes the nurture argument.

She is simply a normal woman, doing her PhD in History at U.C.C., owns a house and is in love with a wonderful woman. There is absolutely no difference between that and her sister who is married to a man, also owns a house and so on.

Now tell me PDN. How is this wrong? What has she done that deserves the Hell that so many religious speak of? She's never stolen, murdered or any such thing.

Now tell me. Why does she deserve to be spoken to in such a way? Is it right that she be called an 'abomination' and destined to eternal suffering because someone claimed God said so?

PDN

Sonics2k wrote: »

Homosexuality is nature, that cannot be denied by any rational being. The very fact that it is found in hundreds of animals is proof enough. My own mother is a Lesbian and was raised in a Catholic household in a time of rampant homophobia, so that removes the nurture argument.

It can be denied by rational human beings. Nurture can operate in many different ways - go and ask a psychologist if you don't believe me. It is perfectly plausible that someone raised in a strict environment might rebel against that by doing the opposite, for example.

I'm not saying that is what happened with your mother, btw, I'm just pointing out that your tendency to offer simplistic arguments does nothing to facilitate genuine discussion.

So you have not removed the nurture argument. Same-sex attractions may be nature or they may be nurture - it really doesn't bother me either way. But I'll wait until the evidence is more definite one way or the other before forming an opinion.

She is simply a normal woman, doing her PhD in History at U.C.C., owns a house and is in love with a wonderful woman. There is absolutely no difference between that and her sister who is married to a man, also owns a house and so on.

And I support fully her right to do all that.

Now tell me PDN. How is this wrong? What has she done that deserves the Hell that so many religious speak of? She's never stolen, murdered or any such thing.

If she's managed to spend her entire life without ever stealing so much as a jellytot then that is remarkable. (But, as her son, you're probably not the most unbiased source).

What has she done that deserves hell? The same as what I have done and Wolfsbane has done. Sinned. We have all sinned in some ways, and as such we deserve hell. That's the Christian teaching. Every human being (except those who die in infancy) are sinners. Of course if you don't believe that then you don't have to be a Christian - which is your choice and perogative. But it seems to be a bit unreasonable to post in the Christianity Forum and bitch at Christians for believing basic Christian teachings.

Now tell me. Why does she deserve to be spoken to in such a way? Is it right that she be called an 'abomination' and destined to eternal suffering because someone claimed God said so?

I wouldn't call anyone an abomination. Where did I do that?

If she is destined to eternal suffering then it won't be because someone claimed anything. It would be because God said so, and nothing you or I post will change that, will it?