The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

MrPudding · 12-05-2016 09:10AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think the difference between you and I is that I don't think sexuality is as fundamental as you make out. I personally don't identify myself primarily by who I am attracted to.

I don't identify myself primarily by who I am attracted to, but to deny that sexuality is a fundamental part of what it is to be human seems... odd.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If people want to stay in church it will presumably be because they want to be faithful to Christ and to Iive for Him. Part of living for Him means understanding what sex and marriage are for in the Christian understanding.

And here we have exactly my point. You sacrifice is, or should be, temporary. A temporary sacrifice is much, much easier than a permanent one, like the one you expect gay people to make. And this is my point, you can't compare these two sacrifices and simply say "we all have to make sacrifices."

solodeogloria wrote: »

The reality is that all of us in the Christian walk will find numerous things incredibly challenging in the Christian life. There is no reason why this particular issue should be elevated any higher than the other areas that I and others struggle with on a daily basis. We're all convinces that following Jesus is better and there are others who are attracted to the same-sex within our churches who are convinced of the same.

And it is really sad that they are denying a big part of who they are for something that is, in all likelihood, false.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Seeking anything else outside of what God has determined for us in His goodness is selfish from a Christian perspective because we are living for ourselves in flat opposition to the God who created us and knows what is best for us.

You mean in flat opposition to what some humans that lived a couple of thousand years ago decided was best for us?

solodeogloria wrote: »

That is as much true of my desires that lead me to ignore God's Word. I will put my hand up very clearly if someone asks me if I am a sinner. I know I am but I don't argue that the sins I battle with daily are good and I know I need to repent and depend on God to help me live the life He wants me to lead.

Yes, we get it. You are a sinner, bravo. You still have an easier time than someone who's very sexuality is considered sinful, unless you are gay, in which case I pity you, not because you are gay but because you think you need to repress that.
[/QUOTE]

MrP

solodeogloria · 12-05-2016 09:58AM

MrPudding wrote: »

You mean in flat opposition to what some humans that lived a couple of thousand years ago decided was best for us?

Good morning!

I don't know what purpose you think comments like this one I've quoted above serve.

MrPudding wrote: »

And here we have exactly my point. You sacrifice is, or should be, temporary. A temporary sacrifice is much, much easier than a permanent one, like the one you expect gay people to make. And this is my point, you can't compare these two sacrifices and simply say "we all have to make sacrifices."

And many other things that other people forsake for the sake of Christ are permanent. I'm not arguing that following Jesus is easy. It's bloody hard. What I'm saying very clearly is that it is worth it.

I appreciate that you disagree with me on this issue.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

robdonn · 12-05-2016 10:04AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

And many other things that other people forsake for the sake of Christ are permanent. I'm not arguing that following Jesus is easy. It's bloody hard. What I'm saying very clearly is that it is worth it.

Good morning solodeogloria,

Why is it worth it? Is the sacrifice reward-based?

aloyisious · 12-05-2016 01:51PM

Absolam wrote: »

Nah... I just made it all up. The hyperlinks go nowhere, and you never said any of what I quoted. I'm so ashamed you caught me out

Oh no wait! Yes really

Really?

MrPudding · 12-05-2016 02:31PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't know what purpose you think comments like this one I've quoted above serve.

You think it is what god thinks is best for us, I think it is what some humans a couple of thousand years thought was best for us. I think it is important to make that distinction as it is relevant to the discussion.

solodeogloria wrote: »

And many other things that other people forsake for the sake of Christ are permanent. I'm not arguing that following Jesus is easy. It's bloody hard. What I'm saying very clearly is that it is worth it.

I don't think I have ever said it was easy. My point, and the one you seem to be only addressing through the medium of whataboutery, is that the specific sacrifice a gay person has to make is considerably greater than that which a heterosexual might have to make. Perhaps there are other christians that do make permanent sacrifices, good for them. The point is that for a heterosexual the prohibition from sex last only until that person is married, unless he or she decides for some reason to make it permanent. For a gay person, however, that prohibition lasts for their entire life, and depending on which brand of christianity they happen to want to be in, may even include same-sex companionship, even where there is no sex.

You say it is very clearly worth it, I don't see that. Perhaps you could show it it is clearly worth it...

MrP

solodeogloria · 12-05-2016 06:05PM

Good evening all!

robdonn wrote: »

Good morning solodeogloria,

Why is it worth it? Is the sacrifice reward-based?

I'm wary of using reward. It is a free gift. Christianity is unique amongst other world religions. It doesn't day that we need to do X, Y or Z to be forgiven. All we need to do is turn to Jesus and accept His saving death and resurrection. It is out of thankfulness for what He has done that we live for Him.

When I say that it is worth it I mean that it is worth it both now and into eternity. A new creation with us in right relationship with God with no pain or death or suffering any more is certainly worth it. However being in right relationship with God now and learning each day to live for Him is a joy as much as it is a challenge. My new family that I have because of Jesus as worth it. A new relationship with God is worth it. A loving Father who is above the most powerful people on the face of this earth is worth it. Realising that my value isn't dependent on how much money I have or who I'm married to or what career I have or how popular I have or what I own is worth it. The list goes on and on. There are so many other reasons why I would happily forsake selfish pleasures now for the sake of the joy that Jesus brings.

MrPudding wrote: »

You think it is what god thinks is best for us, I think it is what some humans a couple of thousand years thought was best for us. I think it is important to make that distinction as it is relevant to the discussion.

I don't think I have ever said it was easy. My point, and the one you seem to be only addressing through the medium of whataboutery, is that the specific sacrifice a gay person has to make is considerably greater than that which a heterosexual might have to make. Perhaps there are other christians that do make permanent sacrifices, good for them. The point is that for a heterosexual the prohibition from sex last only until that person is married, unless he or she decides for some reason to make it permanent. For a gay person, however, that prohibition lasts for their entire life, and depending on which brand of christianity they happen to want to be in, may even include same-sex companionship, even where there is no sex.

You say it is very clearly worth it, I don't see that. Perhaps you could show it it is clearly worth it...

MrP

You make it sound like having sex with someone is the ultimate purpose of our existence. Perhaps that is true for you, but it is too simplistic for me. You make it sound like being in a relationship is the be all and end all of this life. However from my experience of being in a relationship I know that it doesn't ultimately satisfy and in many cases it will fail you or fall short of expectations. Worshipping these things as gods will show them up for what they are.

You point out that I'm engaging in whataboutery.

Yes, I am. I'm showing you that many people make difficult sacrifices which are no less challenging now for the sake of the Gospel. Different things are challenging to different people who try to live against the tide in a world which quite frankly hates the God who brought it into being.

Mark 8:34-38 ESV wrote:

And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

As for me, I will take up my cross and follow Jesus and I would wholeheartedly say to anyone that it is better both now and into eternity to do so.

Here's an article written by a pastor who deals with same-sex attraction explaining why he thinks it's worth it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Cabaal · 12-05-2016 06:23PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Here's an article written by a pastor who deals with same-sex attraction explaining why he thinks it's worth it.

He doesn't think its worth it because he disagrees with the lifestyle, thats evident. He's merely using an old book to reenforce his own views.

Following Jesus involves leaving things behind and giving things up. For gay people, it involves leaving behind a gay lifestyle.

Its like saying you can follow Jesus as a women, but only if you give up your lifestyle as a women. Its nonsense and disrespectful as hell.

Like it or not sexuality is an extremely important part of our species, it allows connection and forms bound.

Its unnatural for people to suppress their sexuality, its normal for species on our planet to form bonds with their species, yet ironically enough many Christians and Catholics will call gay people the unnatural one's for not denying who they are,

solodeogloria · 12-05-2016 07:02PM

Good evening Cabaal,

Cabaal wrote: »

He doesn't think its worth it because he disagrees with the lifestyle, thats evident. He's merely using an old book to reenforce his own views.

Or he could have been challenged to turn and follow Jesus because of what He said and who He is?

Why are we only willing to listen to some people who are attracted to the same sex?

I'm not asking you to agree. I'm asking you to look to a different perspective and understand.

Cabaal wrote: »

Its like saying you can follow Jesus as a women, but only if you give up your lifestyle as a women. Its nonsense and disrespectful as hell.

I think it's as disrespectful as hell to ignore what God says.

But I think we should choose a better tone. I don't believe we're defined by who we are attracted to as you seem to.

Cabaal wrote: »

Like it or not sexuality is an extremely important part of our species, it allows connection and forms bound.

It is an element amongst others.

Cabaal wrote: »

Its unnatural for people to suppress their sexuality, its normal for species on our planet to form bonds with their species, yet ironically enough many Christians and Catholics will call gay people the unnatural one's for not denying who they are,

So if you genuinely can't find a partner or don't want to it's unnatural?

I disagree with your definition of nature. Naturally I'm not going to accept a secular hermeneutic of what God determined that sex and relationships are for.

This is why we should be seeking to understand the perspective of the other rightfully.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

robdonn · 13-05-2016 09:49AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening Cabaal,

Or he could have been challenged to turn and follow Jesus because of what He said and who He is?

Why are we only willing to listen to some people who are attracted to the same sex?

I'm not asking you to agree. I'm asking you to look to a different perspective and understand.

I think it's as disrespectful as hell to ignore what God says.

But I think we should choose a better tone. I don't believe we're defined by who we are attracted to as you seem to.

It is an element amongst others.

So if you genuinely can't find a partner or don't want to it's unnatural?

I disagree with your definition of nature. Naturally I'm not going to accept a secular hermeneutic of what God determined that sex and relationships are for.

This is why we should be seeking to understand the perspective of the other rightfully.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Why can we not question the motives of God? If God makes gay people, but then says that being gay is wrong, can we not question His decisions even if just for better understanding? Can we not question the text written down in His name that seems to contradict the reality that He has created? Humans have a natural curiosity and urge to learn (an attribute given to us by God), should we restrict this natural urge as well to please God?

Nobody is ignoring what God says on a whim, it is the internal contradiction that makes it not worth following.

solodeogloria · 13-05-2016 10:08AM

robdonn wrote: »

Why can we not question the motives of God? If God makes gay people, but then says that being gay is wrong, can we not question His decisions even if just for better understanding? Can we not question the text written down in His name that seems to contradict the reality that He has created? Humans have a natural curiosity and urge to learn (an attribute given to us by God), should we restrict this natural urge as well to please God?

Nobody is ignoring what God says on a whim, it is the internal contradiction that makes it not worth following.

Good morning!

I think we can and should question the motives of God in order to understand Him better. I wouldn't dare to suggest that we leave our brains at the door. Christians should be thoughtful people.

However questioning God in order to disobey Him is as disrespectful as hell from a Christian understanding. Rejecting God's loving rule over us and claiming that we know better than Him is as disrespectful as hell because it presumes that we are God and we know better than Him. That by definition is the height of arrogance and it deserves God's rightful judgement.

However I think Cabaal's tone isn't the tone we should use. I won't be chided by an atheist for holding to Christian views. We should be using this forum to understand one another and Cabaal knows that I've encouraged Christians to treat atheists with respect. We can do better than this.

Learn by all means. Learn to understand. However from my perspective learning to rebel against God is utterly futile because He will have the last say.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious · 13-05-2016 10:54AM

it seem's to me that the enigma of God is not that what he/she would want humans to do, it's more so that we were all given minds to go with our individuality for us to separately work things out. I visualize that consciences were also part of that deal for how we treat other beings.

People keep trying to tell us that what'd been written into a two-part book starting several millennia ago, which has been translated and transcribed by unknown people x amount of times into different tongues and then reprinted into various issues for the various Christian sects (with continuous updates as to it's meanings) is directly the word of God and we, to be saved, must follow what's in the book as understood by these self-same people.

They are, in effect, claiming that because they are reading directly to the O/P what the book say's, that they are correct, infallible even, and the O/P must heed them or be refused admittance to heaven. A lot of the written messages from the various Christian sects around Ireland seem to be similar, of the "repent and you will be saved" type message.

The only mention that I know of in the book (part 1 and 2) of a distinct written message from God is that written on two tablets of stone. All the rest is what are considered to be the word of God according to the person who wrote it into, or described to a scribe for entry into, the book. Even the writings in the book itself admit that by way of the phrase "according to" giving a clear signal that they are not the direct word of God, only a personal understanding of events, or earlier writings, at an individual level.

Not wanting to sound strange to those who choose to believe that all guidance and teaching of God are solely in the book, which has not been added to by more personal-level revelations, what I find strange about their messages is that they all seem to be based around the notion that the almighty would not be currently able to "inform" anyone of what he/she wants at a personal level outside what they say is in the book, the message comes through us alone and no one else, not even the God they profess true faith and loyalty in.

Edit-inclusion:It's not that God is an enigma, rather that we humans choose to make God (out to be) an enigma for other humans.

Cabaal · 13-05-2016 10:57AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why are we only willing to listen to some people who are attracted to the same sex?

You're right, when men argued against rights for women we shouldn't have listened to the women. We should do the same with LGBT people.
:rolleyes:

The group that are mistreated are by far the best group to listen to, they hold far more valid views then those that preach hatred against them.

I'm not asking you to agree. I'm asking you to look to a different perspective and understand.

I don't consider perspectives of people that use old books to justify their hatred of my fellow humans. Such viewpoints make the world a poorer place,

Its not ok to argue that gay people should stop being who they are same as its not ok to argue treating women like dirt is ok just because the bible has several bits of text about treating women as second class to men.

We've moved on as a society and such justification doesn't cut it anymore, claiming it is "gods word" doesn't cut it. Especially when you pick and choose what in the bible is gods word and how gods word applys to your life yourself.

I think it's as disrespectful as hell to ignore what God says.

A pretty meaningless statement,
You might as well be saying I'm being disrespectful to Santa, I can't disrespectful something that doesn't exist.

However, lets say a god exists. God made people in your view, as such god made people gay. Why do you question and deny gods creation? Why are you disrespectful to god?

It is an element amongst others.

Our sexuality is a pretty fundamental part of our species, without it we wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have a society and bounds between each other. To down play it shows a lack of understanding of our species.

So if you genuinely can't find a partner or don't want to it's unnatural?

Ideally, nobody should outright deny their sexuality unless they experience it,
If they want to deny it then by all means, but don't deny it based on some old book. Thats not a good enough reason.

I disagree with your definition of nature. Naturally I'm not going to accept a secular hermeneutic of what God determined that sex and relationships are for.

Bounds and relationships are fundamental part of our species, we are an extremely social species and we form bounds between same sex and those of different sexes.

We're not the only species that does this either, so its natural for same sex bounds to form...nature itself shows us that.

So you can disagree but nature shows us otherwise, which by extension given god created it all in your view then god is ok with it

This is why we should be seeking to understand the perspective of the other rightfully.

Its not a valid or just claim to try treat others in our species differently to the degree that many religious people want to treat LGBT people.

Claiming its ok to be gay as long as you don't actually do anything is a cop out,

solodeogloria · 13-05-2016 11:32AM

Good morning Cabaal,

I'm happy to discuss these issues with you but you have to accept that we're simply going to disagree on some issues.

I'm answering the questions that people have on my beliefs. I'm not insisting that you share them.

For me the buck stops with God and that defines the parameters I hold to. That isn't going to change. I agree that I am copping out of a secular understanding of sexuality. My intention isn't to make you think that Christianity is palatable or conforms to secular sensibilities. It clearly doesn't.

Let's not continue the discussion on the assumption that I will change my mind on this issue. I more than likely will not. The only way that could happen is if someone convinced me that the Bible doesn't say that sexual expression is confined to marriage. Those are the parameters for me. The alternative is to improve our understanding. That's what I hope to do with respect.

I hold this view out of a sincere desire to live for Jesus.

I appreciate that you disagree and I respect your disagreement. I'm asking you to do the same.

Like it or not, our tone towards one another is important.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

robdonn · 13-05-2016 12:34PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Let's not continue the discussion on the assumption that I will change my mind on this issue. I more than likely will not. The only way that could happen is if someone convinced me that the Bible doesn't say that sexual expression is confined to marriage. Those are the parameters for me. The alternative is to improve our understanding. That's what I hope to do with respect.

We have a long history of the Bible changing over time because although it may have been inspired by God it was written by men and therefore cannot be infallible.

The universe, nature itself, was created by God (according to your beliefs) and can be the only true indication of His intent. Homosexuality exists in nature and is not a human construct or choice but simply how God made us. So when we read a fallible text written by men that contradicts God's own creation, how can you trust the written text, at least in this matter? Believing the Bible that homosexuality is wrong is believing that God is wrong.

solodeogloria · 13-05-2016 01:22PM

robdonn wrote: »

We have a long history of the Bible changing over time because although it may have been inspired by God it was written by men and therefore cannot be infallible.

The universe, nature itself, was created by God (according to your beliefs) and can be the only true indication of His intent. Homosexuality exists in nature and is not a human construct or choice but simply how God made us. So when we read a fallible text written by men that contradicts God's own creation, how can you trust the written text, at least in this matter? Believing the Bible that homosexuality is wrong is believing that God is wrong.

Good afternoon!

Could you present this history to me on another thread?

From my research into the reliability of Biblical manuscripts I'm not convinced this is true. I'm happy for you to show me that this is true.

The particular strain of evangelical Protestantism that I subscribe to is founded on the pillars of Biblical authority and the necessity of the death and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins.

As for the existing in nature argument. I think this is flawed. From a Christian perspective it is flawed for three reasons:
Reason 1: nor everything that occurs in nature is good (and not everything that animals do is of necessity good for humans)
Reason 2: not every inclination of the human heart is good (much of it is evil)
Reason 3: the earth now is fallen through human sinfulness, it isn't the same as it was at creation. Many things happen now this side of the fall that didn't happen before it.

I appreciate your efforts to get to the heart of the issue. I think you can see my views are based on sincere beliefs rather than gut reactions.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

robdonn · 13-05-2016 01:40PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Could you present this history to me on another thread?

From my research into the reliability of Biblical manuscripts I'm not convinced this is true. I'm happy for you to show me that this is true.

The particular strain of evangelical Protestantism that I subscribe to is founded on the pillars of Biblical authority and the necessity of the death and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins.

When I have more time I'd be happy to discuss the topic on another thread. The crux of my argument though is simply that since the Bible was written by men it cannot be infallible. Humans are not perfect and cannot achieve perfection anywhere close to the degree that you define God, so how could we express His wishes and opinions perfectly? The Bible has errors, a simple fact, and therefore cannot be perfect.

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for the existing in nature argument. I think this is flawed. From a Christian perspective it is flawed for three reasons:
Reason 1: nor everything that occurs in nature is good (and not everything that animals do is of necessity good for humans)
Reason 2: not every inclination of the human heart is good (much of it is evil)
Reason 3: the earth now is fallen through human sinfulness, it isn't the same as it was at creation. Many things happen now this side of the fall that didn't happen before it.

I appreciate your efforts to get to the heart of the issue. I think you can see my views are based on sincere beliefs rather than gut reactions.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

R1 - Everything in nature generally is good, just not for us.
R2 - You're coming close to describing homosexuality as an inclination of the heart, akin to simply an urge or a choice. Homosexual people have no more choice in the matter than you do in your (assumed) heterosexuality.
R3 - This assumes that homosexuality didn't exist before the fall, which neither of us can know.

solodeogloria · 13-05-2016 01:46PM

robdonn wrote: »

When I have more time I'd be happy to discuss the topic on another thread. The crux of my argument though is simply that since the Bible was written by men it cannot be infallible. Humans are not perfect and cannot achieve perfection anywhere close to the degree that you define God, so how could we express His wishes and opinions perfectly? The Bible has errors, a simple fact, and therefore cannot be perfect.

R1 - Everything in nature generally is good, just not for us.
R2 - You're coming close to describing homosexuality as an inclination of the heart, akin to simply an urge or a choice. Homosexual people have no more choice in the matter than you do in your (assumed) heterosexuality.
R3 - This assumes that homosexuality didn't exist before the fall, which neither of us can know.

Good afternoon!

To respond quickly.

Christians believe that the authors of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's why I say that it is God's Word.

R1. I'd encourage you to take a closer look at things that occur in nature then.

R2. I understand my own heterosexual desires as urges and inclinations. Are you asking me to understand homosexuality in a different way to how I understand my own sexuality? If so why is that justified?

R3. We know that after creation there was nothing that God didn't consider good.

I'll respond later.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

robdonn · 13-05-2016 02:48PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

To respond quickly.

Christians believe that the authors of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's why I say that it is God's Word.

And all I am saying is that God's word, no matter how perfect, can be flawed when communicated by man.

solodeogloria wrote: »

R1. I'd encourage you to take a closer look at things that occur in nature then.

R2. I understand my own heterosexual desires as urges and inclinations. Are you asking me to understand homosexuality in a different way to how I understand my own sexuality? If so why is that justified?

R3. We know that after creation there was nothing that God didn't consider good.

I'll respond later.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

R1 - I have no problems with the good or otherwise actions of nature, and how their goodness does not rely on them being good for us. A parasite that burrows into the eyes of a child, blinding them, is terrible for us but great for the parasite.

R2 - I am asking you to become homosexual, and when you fail, understand that the nature of your heterosexuality is as you were made and not at your whim. God made you and he made you straight, but for others he has apparently cursed them. Or, he made them just fine and it is only humans that have the problem with homosexuality.

R3 - And we can only judge that God does not believe homosexuality to be good based on a flawed book written after the fall by flawed men. You see where my problem is?

aloyisious · 13-05-2016 03:05PM

The fridge magnet say's it all: I chose to be gay the same day you chose to be straight.

robdonn · 13-05-2016 03:16PM

aloyisious wrote: »

The fridge magnet say's it all: I chose to be gay the same day you chose to be straight.

Typical lefty fridge magnets... :P

solodeogloria · 13-05-2016 05:49PM

robdonn wrote: »

And all I am saying is that God's word, no matter how perfect, can be flawed when communicated by man.

R1 - I have no problems with the good or otherwise actions of nature, and how their goodness does not rely on them being good for us. A parasite that burrows into the eyes of a child, blinding them, is terrible for us but great for the parasite.

R2 - I am asking you to become homosexual, and when you fail, understand that the nature of your heterosexuality is as you were made and not at your whim. God made you and he made you straight, but for others he has apparently cursed them. Or, he made them just fine and it is only humans that have the problem with homosexuality.

R3 - And we can only judge that God does not believe homosexuality to be good based on a flawed book written after the fall by flawed men. You see where my problem is?

Good evening!

From a Christian point of view on revelation we believe that God's inspiration through the Holy Spirit is what makes the text perfect. If I held that the Bible were just a human book I wouldn't listen to it in this or any other matter. It is because I'm convinced it is from God that I pay attention.

R1 - not much in disagreement.

R2 - where did I use the word choice in my post? Can you find it? I can't. My urges and inclinations are still urges and inclinations if I'm a heterosexual. I'm inclined to be attracted to women. It doesn't mean that it is appropriate to act on every inclination or urge that I might have.

R3. As I've said from a Christian point of view the Bible is perfect and true because it is God breathed. That's why I said I won't be changing my mind until someone shows me that the Bible doesn't say that sex should be kept in a marriage.

I've thought a lot about the mechanics about how my faith works and I thought a lot about what it would cost me personally to follow Jesus before I decided to put my lot in with Him nearly 10 years ago. It will take a lot to make me reject what He has said in His Word. Those are the parameters of the argument from my perspective.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Cabaal · 13-05-2016 06:34PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

From a Christian point of view on revelation we believe that God's inspiration through the Holy Spirit is what makes the text perfect.

Perfect, really?
So this is all perfect?

Exodus 21

“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

12 “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. 13 But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. 14 But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.

15 “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

17 “Whoever curses[c] his father or his mother shall be put to death.

18 “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, 19 then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm,[d] then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If it gores a man's son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels[e] of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Of course there's lots more, as you know yourself.
If its perfect then it would be wrong to deny these rules in your life,

solodeogloria · 13-05-2016 06:55PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Perfect, really?
So this is all perfect?

Of course there's lots more, as you know yourself.
If its perfect then it would be wrong to deny these rules in your life,

Good evening!

Feel free to open a new thread on the Torah and we can discuss both it and how we understand it in the light of Jesus and what He has done.

You know that I want to answer all these questions to the best of my ability and that I respect you and them.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious · 20-05-2016 11:49PM

I was happy to hear about this rescinding of an invitation by the C of I to Dr Ed Silvoso from Argentina to speak at Redcross this Sunday, though it is a denial of free speech. Dr Silvoso has a particular view on homosexuals, apparently believing baptism can cure homosexuals of their demonic urges. The Dr is speaking at a conference in Bray this Saturday and an organizer of the conference asked the Redcross Vicar if he would mind the Dr talking about the church getting involved in the community. It seemed that no one made a connect between the two dates this particular weekend til Fiona O'Leary from Cork raised it with the C of I, after which the Dr's invite was pulled. The story was covered on Google News, RTE, the Irish Times, Irish Examiner, Kildare Nationalist. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqnd6b3-nMAhVDF8AKHfLtCr4QFgglMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Freligion-and-beliefs%2Fchurch-of-ireland-pulls-invite-to-anti-lgbt-speaker-ed-silvosa-1.2653977&usg=AFQjCNGWcMU8Og_oEQLI9rsNCkstMgWmoA

Cabaal · 24-05-2016 08:00AM

aloyisious wrote: »

I was happy to hear about this rescinding of an invitation by the C of I to Dr Ed Silvoso from Argentina to speak at Redcross this Sunday, though it is a denial of free speech.

No its not,
If he wants to step up on a street corner and talk about what he believes, nobody is stopping him. That doesn't mean an organisation MUST keep an invitation open for him.

Dr Silvoso has a particular view on homosexuals, apparently believing baptism can cure homosexuals of their demonic urges

A dangerous view which has no basis in reality, fact or science.
Its better that the Redcross to offer such a person a soapbox, same as its best they don't give space to anti-vaccers.

solodeogloria · 24-05-2016 08:13AM

Good morning!

First thing to point out is that he wasn't invited to Redcross to speak about homosexuality.

Second thing to point out is that it is a possibility that Redcross didn't know his views on homosexuality particularly in respect to posession or anything like that. This I agree is probably a reason to decline a speaker as it goes beyond the Bible and edges well into homophobic territory.

Thirdly - some of the articles seem to state that opposition to "marriage equality" is a reason to stop someone preaching. It isn't. The Church of Ireland's clear and stated view is that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. The only church that actually conducts same sex marriages in The Anglican Communion is the Episcopal Church in the USA which was suspended from participating in global Anglican meetings for three years.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious · 24-05-2016 11:38PM

There's one thing clear. That is that the vicar of Redcross cancelled the invite he was asked for by the organizer of the Bray conference after intervention from Cork pointing out the personal beliefs and sermoning of Dr Silvoso. I presume the vicar of Redcross believed he had good grounds to cancel the doctor's invite.

Regardless of what you personally feel, or what the C of I's stance on marriage equality in civil law is, the fact remains that Civil Marriage does NOT have any effect whatsoever on religious marriages, no matter under what banner the religious marriages were performed. Anyone still of the belief that it does is either misinformed or mischievous. Civil marriage is a wholly different kettle of fish. The issue was put to rest by a national referendum here, inclusive of the good and faithful of all religious belief.

If any person of religious belief in the republic was or is genuinely of the belief that Civil Marriage reflected badly on their religious marriages when homosexuals were allowed access to civil marriage, then I'd advise them to look at how the religious hierarchy didn't think so, turning a blind-eye to how agnostics and non-believers in God were civilly married here for decades before 2015.

solodeogloria · 25-05-2016 06:59AM

Good morning!

Where did I say anything about secular law in my post?

You know my position on that already. Let's be fair and honest with each other's posts.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious · 25-05-2016 08:39AM

OK, i'll draw in my horns on what your personal opinion is on civil marriage as it stands here. it's my understanding that Civil Marriage is a secular law act, in that it is not connected to religious or spiritual matters. As you've pointed out above, the Church of Ireland's clear and stated view is that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. That is quite clearly opposite to what civil (secular) law allows here. You can't have one without the other, :-) Deleted word OPPOSITION and inserted OPPOSITE.

If Dr Silvoso and the C of I are in agreement on what constitutes marriage, defining it as the union between a man and a woman, then it seem's likely the invite cancellation was on another ground altogether. Given Dr Silvoso's personal religious view on homosexuals and what defines them as distinct from heterosexuals, it's feasible that those views are what he and the C of I may have differed in regard to the use of a C of I premises to publicly speak his mind. It could well have been something else topical within the parameters of family and church ties, just something he and the C of I didn't agree on him sermonizing about, whatever it was.

solodeogloria · 25-05-2016 09:06AM

Good morning!

You seem to be confused about the Church of Ireland's position.

It is saying the church believes that marriage is between a man and a woman in God's sight. Meaning it won't conduct same sex marriages. That is a matter of faith and practice.

That doesn't have any impact on secular law. The authorities can conduct marriages on a different understanding.

So, why are you saying that this is about secular law? It isn't from my perspective.

The logical fruit of church state separation is that the church is not obliged to have the same understanding of marriage as the State and the State is not obliged to have the same understanding as the church. Don't you see that?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments