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
The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
solodeogloria wrote: »Good evening!
Thank you for your post let's look at some of these.
What basis do you have for saying that Christianity doesn't prohibit sexual activity outside of a marriage (which Jesus defines as between a man and a woman)?
My reason for saying that it still applies, is as I argued in my post which I've linked. Jesus understood marriage between a man and a woman and he condemned sexual immorality, which would have been understood by His hearers in a Jewish context.
Most of the passages that you discount below aren't discounted because they don't prohibit homosexual acts, but because you have a distaste for them. Many of the passages aren't quoted in my post, which was why I was hoping someone might have read and replied to it.
You might, and that's your entitlement, but I don't think that constitutes a good argument from a Biblical perspective.
Leviticus is in the Jewish law, but the reason for believing that the dietary laws (for example) are fulfilled is more complicated than just saying "we don't follow them any more". No, rather we understand the Law as Jesus understood it. We are also under a different covenant relationship so looking distinct as Christians might look different this side of the cross.
Moreover, Jesus explains exactly why the dietary laws of Leviticus are fulfilled in Mark 7 when he says that it is what comes out of the heart that makes someone unclean, and moreover the New Testament affirms this position if you look to Acts 10 amongst other places.
Prohibitions regarding sexual immorality in the New Testament affirm the previously held Jewish position, whereas we cannot say this is true about dietary laws.
Where did I quote from Sodom and Gomorrah in my original post? It would have been nice if you could have replied to my post rather than telling me not to make an argument that I haven't made.
I didn't refer to this in my post. If you provide the chapter and verses then we can discuss it with the text open.It is good to actually engage with the text.
Where is there any justification in the text that it is referring to pagan ceremonies?
Secondly, I don't agree with you that Paul hated women. That would be interesting to discuss on a separate thread.
Both of these are claims rather than arguments showing me from the text that Romans 1 is not referring to homosexual acts in verse 26 - 27.
Perhaps it isn't referring to covetousness in verse 29? Or perhaps it isn't referring to being disobedient to parents in verse 30 also?
We need to interpret the passage in a way that makes sense and provide good textual reason for believing why the text isn't referring to homosexuality here.
I disagree, and a number of Biblical scholars disagree with you. It is in a section that is referring to sexual immorality as a whole. Every context which it falls into is referring to sexual immorality within the New Testament. The word itself is a compound word formed from the Levitical prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20 that Paul used.
See above.
Again, I don't know where I mentioned this in my original point. Nor am I sure which passage you are referring to. That's why it is helpful to reference.
I agree, it is a blanket argument, but it would have been useful if you replied to what I had actually argued in favour of my position.
Please see here, I lean towards a complementarian approach myself.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
Ahh OK, I wasn't specifically addressing one of your posts, instead I was responding to your comment as to making a case in favor of gay marriage in a christian context. Hence it's more a set of the standard arguments being countered. Sorry for not including the chapter and verse, we were on the other thread at the time (or I thought we still were) so I was just showing a case could be made rather than starting a tangent that belongs rightfully in this thread. Now we are her, I might go through the list one at a time, there's a lot to unpack as you point out.
Really all I intended to do was show that a case could be made, not to make that case their and then.
As you point out how the state regulates its institutions is none of the church's business apart from as part of civil society it has the right to comment and express its opinion. Right now I'm not sure the churches position on that is christian at all. It might be more tradition than theology.
You come from a different perspective to mine so we may never convince each other but sure if we did, I suspect this forum would implode
0 -
I'm afraid you'll need to expand on what you think that means; as usual what you see seems to be different from what's written down.aloyisious wrote: »I see you are still using the "if you can't BTWB, BTWB" ploy when replying..
So Solodegloria was talking about gay marriage in the Christianity forum? No reason to think he was talking about civil marriage so, unless he specifically called out that he was talking about a form of marriage outside the context of the forum. Which he didn'taloyisious wrote: »Anyone with a ounce of sense and 20/20 vision can read solodeo's post and see that it includes the words Gay Marriage without a mention of Christian Marriage in it and know's the christian religion does not see it's marriages and Civil Marriage as being the same, given the extra inclusion of same-sex couples marriages within the Civil Marriage rights, unless you have some information to the contrary that you would like to share with us?
Sure; the Gay Megathread in the Christianity forum. No reason not to include discussion of civil marriage sure, though there is a reason to think that when someone is talking about marriage that they're talking about Christian marriage unless they specify otherwise. Because, you know, it's the Christianity forum and all....aloyisious wrote: »This is after all the Gay Megathread, and it seem's as likely to see civil marriage, as it now includes homosexual couples getting civilly married within it's legal boundary, as religious marriage debated here.
For instance by quoting the post I was referring to? What an outrageous idea.aloyisious wrote: »Maybe, given what you wrote above, you should have originally specified which post of mine you were referring to.0 -
I'm afraid you'll need to expand on what you think that means; as usual what you see seems to be different from what's written down.
So Solodegloria was talking about gay marriage in the Christianity forum? No reason to think he was talking about civil marriage so, unless he specifically called out that he was talking about a form of marriage outside the context of the forum. Which he didn't
Sure; the Gay Megathread in the Christianity forum. No reason not to include discussion of civil marriage sure, though there is a reason to think that when someone is talking about marriage that they're talking about Christian marriage unless they specify otherwise. Because, you know, it's the Christianity forum and all....
For instance by quoting the post I was referring to? What an outrageous idea.
I regret your inability to scroll back a page to your own posts to see what you wrote. Your prevarication on the issue of what solodeogloria wrote- asking for anyone to make a christian argument on behalf of gay marriage - and your failed attempts to sidestep it are obvious to everyone who read's what you wrote and write. I'd like you to let everyone here know where else except in civil law homosexual couples can get married legally.
If you ask me to provide a link to his post in which he wrote those two words, as you have quoted them above, I probably won't reply as I may see any such request as the act of a time-wasting troll.
You don't know what "If You Can't btwb, btwb" mean's? - ah, well, I won't damage your eyesight or intellect.0 -
Why scroll? I hyperlinked the posts I was talking about...aloyisious wrote: »I regret your inability to scroll back a page to your own posts to see what you wrote. Your prevarication on the issue of what solodeogloria wrote- asking for anyone to make a christian argument on behalf of gay marriage - and your failed attempts to sidestep it are obvious to everyone who read's what you wrote and write. I'd like you to let everyone here know where else except in civil law homosexual couples can get married legally.
I can't even tell what it is you think you're referring to I'm afraid... 'those two words, as you have quoted them above' could be any two words, and if I quoted them I've no idea why I'd need another link to them. As far as time wasting trolls go, well.....aloyisious wrote: »If you ask me to provide a link to his post in which he wrote those two words, as you have quoted them above, I won't reply as I will see any such request as the act of a time-wasting troll.
Well that's true, at least. There's not much chance of you damaging my eyesight or intellect, though it sounds like you feel you'd be more comfortable chatting with the hip kidsaloyisious wrote: »You don't know what "If You Can't btwb, btwb" mean's? - ah, well, I won't damage your eyesight or intellect. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement