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

lazybones32

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I don't think I'm being hypocritical.

I don't think same-sex marriages are right in God's sight.

The issue in the post you described was a pastoral issue that needs to be dealt with sensitively.

Nowhere in that post did I claim that same-sex marriage is right. The gospel does say it is better to keep people in church than kick them out and I still hold to this. Pastoral work is messy and needs to be done graciously as Jesus calls us too. I've seen trainwreck situations in the past.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The women weren't kicked out of the Church. They were urged to resign their positions in ministry by a faithful member who was standing up for what the Church teaches and holds. You berated and tried to find fault with him for doing so. And yet 4 months later, "If we don't remain faithful to our Lord in our churches, where can we remain faithful?"
You criticised someone for doing what you've just now urged others to do.

Samuel T. Cogley

There is a well presented short piece here, which I think is quite balanced. There must be a genetic element.

I'm curious as to why God would create this issue and then demand that people be persecuted for it? I understand that the great trials are given to people but I'm not sure there is any other factor given to us, a disability say, where God commands such a high price. Perhaps I'm ill informed in this regard?

Your point on identity is well taken, if it is so absurd, why does the God give it so much thought? Surely a good God fearing gay should be allowed to identify in the Lord Jesus and marry another gay believer in a church?

solodeogloria

Good evening,

My post basically was to condemn the use of Facebook as a means of pastoral discipline. I don't need to repost what I said. I also said that Jesus gives us a protocol for dealing with pastoral issues in Matthew 18. He doesn't call us to hurtful maverick actions in His name.

Goodness me - one moment I'm a stodgy conservative and the next I'm a fluffy liberal for suggesting people should be treated with decency!

Libertarian - this is where we disagree. I don't believe God has created any issue. Rather we do - continually - by refusing to accept what He has declared to be good and continuing to ignore Him.

The Bible says we should identify as Christians and live according to the grace given to us in Jesus which means longing for what God says what is good and not the world. Sexual expression outside of marriage - the union between a man and a woman - is against what God declares as good in His Word. That has as much significance to me as a single heterosexual bloke as to anyone else.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

jobbridge4life

lazybones32 wrote: »

The women weren't kicked out of the Church. They were urged to resign their positions in ministry by a faithful member who was standing up for what the Church teaches and holds. You berated and tried to find fault with him for doing so. And yet 4 months later, "If we don't remain faithful to our Lord in our churches, where can we remain faithful?"
You criticised someone for doing what you've just now urged others to do.

'a faithful member'...

...who presumably committed no sin...

The bible has a word for such 'faithful members'...

Pharisees.

Samuel T. Cogley

But God allows heterosexuals to marry and procreate. I think I may have arrived at the flaw in my logic and have a greater understanding of Finnis' point of view now. Thank you. It must be down to procreation?

Why would God select some to be in a state of finding heterosexual coupling such a primary driver, it would seem to be making life very easy for them?

solodeogloria

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

But God allows heterosexuals to marry and procreate. I think I may have arrived at the flaw in my logic and have a greater understanding of Finnis' point of view now. Thank you. It must be down to procreation?

Why would God select some to be in a state of finding heterosexual coupling such a primary driver, it would seem to be making life very easy for them?

Good evening!

Last post for today.

I don't think it's primarily about procreation. For a few reasons. Although God has designed sex to be between a man and a woman and has created men and women to complement one another, it isn't a failure if someone ends up alone.

Singleness isn't a sin and God uses it in His church. Single people have more time and energy to devote to the gospel and serving others.

The crux of the issue is that it isn't right because God declares this to us explicitly in His Word. It's not how He has created us to live.

It has as many consequences for me in my current state as to anyone else. Is it hard? Yes, but it is worth it because of the joy of living for the Lord Jesus both now and in eternity.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Samuel T. Cogley

That only leaves me with more questions I'm afraid.

If he has created Men and Women to complement each other, why make some people outwith that design?

If it's not about procreation and being single is not a sin, surely a number of people that chose to devote themselves to the Gospel or serving others are better suited in a loving and supportive relationship regardless of the genitalia?

Thank you for your responses tonight I hope to continue the discussion again.

lazybones32

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

My post basically was to condemn the use of Facebook as a means of pastoral discipline. I don't need to repost what I said. I also said that Jesus gives us a protocol for dealing with pastoral issues in Matthew 18. He doesn't call us to hurtful maverick actions in His name.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Is that how you remember it? Selective memory.
The man went to the couple first. Then to the priest and then shared a story (with no names or places mentioned - my third time having to write that) on FB to a group page or those who subscribed to his page. That lines up with Christ's method.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

'a faithful member'...

...who presumably committed no sin...

The bible has a word for such 'faithful members'...

Pharisees.

You hurt my feelings:(

jobbridge4life

lazybones32 wrote: »

You hurt my feelings:(

Sarcasm... truly the work of the Lord.

jobbridge4life

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I don't think it's primarily about procreation. For a few reasons.

If it is not primarily about procreation what is it primarily about?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Although God has designed sex to be between a man and a woman and has created men and women to complement one another

If God designed sex to be between a man and woman why did he also design it so as to be a. possible, b. desirable, c. mutually fulfilling, d. a foundation for many families, and connection, between individuals of the same sex?

solodeogloria wrote: »

, it isn't a failure if someone ends up alone.

Singleness isn't a sin and God uses it in His church.

The Bible, as I have no doubt you are aware, includes passages against celibacy and singledom.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Single people have more time and energy to devote to the gospel and serving others.

Or to bitterness, or for sex, or for wealth/ego/etc building.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The crux of the issue is that it isn't right because God declares this to us explicitly in His Word. It's not how He has created us to live.

Who created homosexuals then? Who decided to give them an impulse almost as strong as the urge to breathe itself, and then decided to threaten them with eternal hell fire if they live according to their God given nature?

Cabaal

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Each of us is given a cross to bear... etc.

Interesting type of approach, one person's very existence it's almost considered sinful and they are viewed as unnatural by Vatican etc. Oh and an abomination of course...

aloyisious

It seems to me that solodeogloria and jobbridge4life are of the opinion that what's in the bible must rule every-one, as God put it in it. Personally I feel if you believe in God, you must put your faith in God and solely God.

solodeogloria's I don't think God creates us 'gay' or 'straight' rather God creates humanity - is something I find strange.

I also find "and identifying according to who we tend to be attracted to is an absurdity" strange at the least, if not patently absurd. I can't imagine any non-LGBT person appreciating being told that their identity was not inherent to them. As a person, I certainly think it absurd for anyone to tell me that what I know to be part of my identity is an absurdity.

The "Particularly for the Christian whose primary identity is in the Lord Jesus" is strange as well. Jesus was a messenger from God and certainly was under no illusion as to what his role was. It's the christian or newer part of the book which instructs that Jesus and God are one and the same, presumably on the basis of the trans-substantiation (which was clearly a metaphor, a parable, meant to remind the others to remember and honour God) whereas Jesus made it clear he was a messenger carrying the word of God, and didn't downplay that message, even in confrontation with others "wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business".

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Singleness isn't a sin and God uses it in His church. Single people have more time and energy to devote to the gospel and serving others.

Those that ban themselves from sexual desires however go more against nature then any gay or lesbian ever has.

Feeling a personal and sexual connection to another in our species is the most natural thing in the world. It's also natural for thousands of other species too, many of which also form same sex bounds just like humans do.

Denying your sexuality and then being obsessed about what other people do with there's is just messed up. Yet that's what nuns, priests, bishops have done for generations.

They deny themselves the joys of masterbation, the sheer joy of sex, forming a relationship with another and creating a sexual bound with another but while denying these very natural things they called others sinful and unnatural (and still do).

If I didn't feel sorry for such people that are obsessed with sex but deny themselves very natural things id almost find it funny.

aloyisious

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Each of us is given a cross to bear... etc.

Biblical humour?

lazybones32

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Sarcasm... truly the work of the Lord.

The sarcasm is 100% Lazyb.

Mancomb Seepgood

Cabaal wrote: »

Those that ban themselves from sexual desires however go more against nature then any gay or lesbian ever has.

Feeling a personal and sexual connection to another in our species is the most natural thing in the world. It's also natural for thousands of other species too, many of which also form same sex bounds just like humans do.

Denying your sexuality and then being obsessed about what other people do with there's is just messed up. Yet that's what nuns, priests, bishops have done for generations.

They deny themselves the joys of masterbation, the sheer joy of sex, forming a relationship with another and creating a sexual bound with another but while denying these very natural things they called others sinful and unnatural (and still do).

If I didn't feel sorry for such people that are obsessed with sex but deny themselves very natural things id almost find it funny.

Yet some people live celibate lives, of their own free will and are extremely happy doing so. I've come across many priests, monks and nuns who are as happy as anyone you could meet. I don't think the problem is celibacy as such - some people seem called to be celibate - but rather the repression of one's sexuality, be you gay or straight. That said, the overwhelming majority of people aren't cut out for celibacy, needless to say.

Absolam

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This is where I wonder if we need a more robust version of 'happiness' as a concept. Rather than 'happiness' as the fulfilment of our personal desires which can and frequently are sinful.

I wonder if we should see 'happiness' as the state of God's purposes being fulfilled in us and being in right relationship with our creator.


Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I'm not convinced that's a more robust version, though it seems to me a more proscriptive one. I'd leave people to determine what is happiness for themselves I think; if they don't feel happy about what they're being told it is to be happy, then I think they probably aren't happy.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Thank you all for your questions. I anticipated my posts would stir things up somewhat.

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

That only leaves me with more questions I'm afraid.

If he has created Men and Women to complement each other, why make some people outwith that design?

If it's not about procreation and being single is not a sin, surely a number of people that chose to devote themselves to the Gospel or serving others are better suited in a loving and supportive relationship regardless of the genitalia?

Thank you for your responses tonight I hope to continue the discussion again.

I'm not afraid that you have questions.

I don't think God has made people "outwith" His design. In much the way that I don't think that God has made single people outwith His design. Sure we might have different desires that lead us into sin but that doesn't absolve us from self-control. You can't pin the blame on God for what we do in His world. Rather the blame is on us for rebelling against Him.

Where did I say that genitalia get in the way of serving the Gospel though? Both men and women can serve God faithfully in their churches as we speak.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If it is not primarily about procreation what is it primarily about?

It can't be primarily about procreation for a number of reasons. Probably more than I could mention.
Firstly - single people aren't defective or sinful by virtue of not being married.
Secondly - many married couples are infertile. If marriage was just about procreation you would ask why bother?
Thirdly - marriage is about reflecting the complementary love that Christ has for His bride the church.
There are many more things here.

Dare I be even more bold and say perhaps it is about the gospel and faithfulness to the Lord Jesus? A sacrificial union between a man and his wife. That would go further than how many in secular society see it.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If God designed sex to be between a man and woman why did he also design it so as to be a. possible, b. desirable, c. mutually fulfilling, d. a foundation for many families, and connection, between individuals of the same sex?

This question is more simple to explain. I don't think God did design it for that purpose in much the same way as you see that He didn't design sex for many other things that we see it used for in society.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The Bible, as I have no doubt you are aware, includes passages against celibacy and singledom.

Not that I'm aware of. Genesis 2:24 when it refers to it not being good for man to be alone refers to it not being good for the world to be full of men rather than exhorting everyone to be married.

Genesis 1:28 and the similar exhortation to mankind after the flood in Genesis 6 are general pronouncements to mankind.

The whole Bible needs to be read together holistically rather than pitting verses against one another. We're told by Jesus and Paul in much the same way that it is virtuous for a Christian to be married it is also virtuous for a Christian to be single.

Think about the logical implications if God said it was a sin to be single. People who honestly could not get married even if that is what they desired would be deemed sinners. Fortunately the Bible doesn't do this and even says singleness can be beneficial.

That leads to a number of applications.
Firstly - churches should not over-idealise marriage.
Secondly - Single Christians (even if that is an undesired state) should think about how to use their time and energy to serve the Gospel and for churches to enable them to do that.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Or to bitterness, or for sex, or for wealth/ego/etc building.

Obviously like all things singleness can be used for good or for ill. We need to ask God to constantly change our hearts to love Him and the Gospel more. That's something I personally find unbelievably hard to do.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Who created homosexuals then? Who decided to give them an impulse almost as strong as the urge to breathe itself, and then decided to threaten them with eternal hell fire if they live according to their God given nature?

I've already answered this question. God doesn't create 'gay' or 'straight' people but just human beings.

What we do or don't do as a result of our created state is down to us. If we continually do what God says no to we're not living as we were created to be.

For the record - I personally know a number of Christians who faithfully live for Jesus despite being attracted to the same sex. I also cited a very helpful book by Ed Shaw the minister of Emmanuel City Centre in Bristol who writes about remaining celibate as someone who is same sex attracted.

Is it hard? Yes, of course. Many other Christians find other aspects of following Jesus hard.

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems to me that solodeogloria and jobbridge4life are of the opinion that what's in the bible must rule every-one, as God put it in it. Personally I feel if you believe in God, you must put your faith in God and solely God.

Distinguishing God from what He has said in His Word is absurd. I hear theological liberals try do this all the time but it doesn't work.

I put my faith in the Gospel therefore I live as God says I should in His Word which is found in the pages of Scripture and most supremely in God's Son (Hebrews 1:1)

aloyisious wrote: »

solodeogloria's I don't think God creates us 'gay' or 'straight' rather God creates humanity - is something I find strange.

It would be strange. We're told the gospel is folly to those who don't believe (1 Corinthians 1:18) and that Jesus' kingdom isn't of this world (John 18:36) and that Christians aren't at home here (2 Corinthians 5:6).

The gospel is radical. More radical than any other ideology on the face of the earth. It doesn't seek temporal change primarily, but eternal change. Our focus is changed from the temporal home that we have here to the end point - the new creation.

aloyisious wrote: »

The "Particularly for the Christian whose primary identity is in the Lord Jesus" is strange as well. Jesus was a messenger from God and certainly was under no illusion as to what his role was. It's the christian or newer part of the book which instructs that Jesus and God are one and the same, presumably on the basis of the trans-substantiation (which was clearly a metaphor, a parable, meant to remind the others to remember and honour God) whereas Jesus made it clear he was a messenger carrying the word of God, and didn't downplay that message, even in confrontation with others "wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business".

Jesus is explicitly God throughout the Scripture. The Old Testament teaches that the Messiah would be God Himself in Ezekiel 34 for example or that God Himself would be pierced for the sins of the world in Zechariah 12.

Cabaal wrote: »

Those that ban themselves from sexual desires however go more against nature then any gay or lesbian ever has.

Feeling a personal and sexual connection to another in our species is the most natural thing in the world. It's also natural for thousands of other species too, many of which also form same sex bounds just like humans do.

I don't see where I've said we should ban ourselves from sexual desires. There is the avenue of marriage.

Having said that singleness is a huge benefit to the church. Single people gave more time to use. Paul alludes to this in 1 Corinthians 7. Of course we know that Paul used his singleness to oversee the spread of the Gospel into Europe.

I'm talking in terms of faithfulness to God and the Gospel. Which I agree goes beyond the animalistic or strictly natural. But then again humans as rational creatures go beyond the strictly natural on a daily basis in many ways. Why do you think I was so careful to say that marriage isn't primarily about procreation?

Also what happens in nature isn't always what should inform our ethics. Humans and animals both do a lot of wretched things, this nonetheless doesn't make it right in God's sight. Also Christians view many aspects of this creation as good but much in behaviour and even in the natural state of the world has deteriorated since the Fall (Genesis 3).

If someone asked me if I would want to live forever here - I would say no. Why? Because of the Fall and the effects of sinfulness on creation and my sinfulness on myself and others.

Cabaal wrote: »

Denying your sexuality and then being obsessed about what other people do with there's is just messed up. Yet that's what nuns, priests, bishops have done for generations.

I'm really not massively obsessed with sexuality. I'm obsessed with Jesus and the Gospel and I long for all people everywhere to know Him and turn from their sin. I can't say homosexuality occupies much of my thought.

But when I hear a Christian say that what God has expressly spoken against is good and worthy of celebration is a point when I feel like I need to speak the truth. That would apply to anything.

Indeed when I spoke out against the Facebook outburst at a gay couple in a Catholic Church a few months ago I also said that wasn't in keeping with the Gospel. Which means lazybones32 thinks I'm a wooly liberal and the rest of you think I'm a crusty conservative. The life I do lead, eh?

Cabaal wrote: »

They deny themselves the joys of masterbation, the sheer joy of sex, forming a relationship with another and creating a sexual bound with another but while denying these very natural things they called others sinful and unnatural (and still do).

Masturbation isn't a joy. It encourages us to treat people as sex objects for our gratification. It's hugely destructive.

Sex is only a joy in marriage. Otherwise for the same reason it's just objectifying someone for your own selfish gratification.

It is incredibly hard for me to say no to these as a Christian when the world screams it continually. But the Christian needs to live differently. It is arguably my struggle for being faithful to Jesus.

Cabaal wrote: »

If I didn't feel sorry for such people that are obsessed with sex but deny themselves very natural things id almost find it funny.

I'm really not obsessed with it. I think the world is actually.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not convinced that's a more robust version, though it seems to me a more proscriptive one. I'd leave people to determine what is happiness for themselves I think; if they don't feel happy about what they're being told it is to be happy, then I think they probably aren't happy.

I think Christians need to say that sinful behaviour isn't good or acceptable in God's sight and that Jesus loves people and that He died for them so that they might have the most real happiness. Being with God and His people on the last day. Any other superficial happiness the world offers is a cheap knock off counterfeit.

Christians need to love God more and love the world enough to say no when it is walking a dangerous road to destruction. It isn't loving to say that sin is OK and something to be celebrated.

Perhaps that makes me a hardcore fundie? I honestly don't care if it does. Jesus and knowing Him is more important.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

@solodeogloria: This piece from you: Distinguishing God from what He has said in His Word is absurd. I hear theological liberals try do this all the time but it doesn't work.... doesn't work unless you believe everything in the bible is solely from God, including that of fallible human hands over the centuries. It is not being selective when it comes to distinguishing the truth in the bible, even if by doing so runs the risk of being identified by you as a liberal. :-)

Re your reference to God in your second piece: It would be strange. We're told the gospel is folly to those who don't believe (1 Corinthians 1:18) and that Jesus' kingdom isn't of this world (John 18:36) and that Christians aren't at home here (2 Corinthians 5:6), I'm actually not 100% sure if it means you think I'm a non-believer. It also leaves me wondering which version of the gospel you are referencing. Perhaps you might mention that, seeing as you identify it as radical.

Using this: Jesus is explicitly God throughout the Scripture. The Old Testament teaches that the Messiah would be God Himself in Ezekiel 34 for example or that God Himself would be pierced for the sins of the world in Zechariah 12.... is a mix of the old and new testaments, not just the Christian bible. That's being selective. Give me a segment from the Old Testament where Jesus is mentioned as the Messiah in it.

Galway_Old_Man

Cabaal wrote: »

they are viewed as unnatural by Vatican etc.

Err, no they're not.

solodeogloria

Good evening aloyisious,

Thank you for your post! This is probably the last until tomorrow.

aloyisious wrote: »

@solodeogloria: This piece from you: Distinguishing God from what He has said in His Word is absurd. I hear theological liberals try do this all the time but it doesn't work.... doesn't work unless you believe everything in the bible is solely from God, including that of fallible human hands over the centuries. It is not being selective when it comes to distinguishing the truth in the bible, even if by doing so runs the risk of being identified by you as a liberal. :-)

I believe both that everything in the Bible is from God and from human authors simultaneously. You're right to suggest that humans were involved in writing the Biblical text. You're right to say that Christianity has a different model of revelation to Islam in which the Qur'an is alleged to be a word for word dictation from God.

Yet - I regard every word in the Bible as being infallible. That's right, every single word.

How can I say that when the Bible was authored by humans?

I can say this because the Scriptures are inspired by God the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:19-21 ESVUK wrote:

And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

If I couldn't be assured that the Bible is infallible then simply put I wouldn't be a Christian. If I can't trust part of the Bible why would I trust any of it? I believe the whole Bible is true. If I didn't I wouldn't be a Christian.

There's also not much evidence to suggest that the Bible has changed significantly since it's authorship.

Perhaps people could think it would be better off if I wasn't a Christian. Perhaps I am taking all this God stuff too seriously? That's something to discuss amongst yourselves

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your reference to God in your second piece: It would be strange. We're told the gospel is folly to those who don't believe (1 Corinthians 1:18) and that Jesus' kingdom isn't of this world (John 18:36) and that Christians aren't at home here (2 Corinthians 5:6), I'm actually not 100% sure if it means you think I'm a non-believer. It also leaves me wondering which version of the gospel you are referencing. Perhaps you might mention that, seeing as you identify it as radical.

It isn't my job to determine if you believe or not but rather it is my job to explain to the best of my ability what the Biblical position is on Jesus and what has been declared in Scripture.

The rest is for you to work out with fear and trembling as all of us work these things out (Philippians 2:12-13)

To pin my colours to the mast I believe it is essential Christian belief to believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God and that God has declared marriage to be the union between a man and a woman.

I appreciate my position on both issues is strong. It is only strong because I believe it to be of utmost importance.

aloyisious wrote: »

Using this: Jesus is explicitly God throughout the Scripture. The Old Testament teaches that the Messiah would be God Himself in Ezekiel 34 for example or that God Himself would be pierced for the sins of the world in Zechariah 12.... is a mix of the old and new testaments, not just the Christian bible. That's being selective. Give me a segment from the Old Testament where Jesus is mentioned as the Messiah in it.

You do realise that Ezekiel and Zechariah are both in the Old Testament?

You can conclude from a number of places in the Old Testament Scripture alone that the Messiah must be divine. Not just the passages I've cited.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening aloyisious,

Thank you for your post! This is probably the last until tomorrow.



I believe both that everything in the Bible is from God and from human authors simultaneously. You're right to suggest that humans were involved in writing the Biblical text. You're right to say that Christianity has a different model of revelation to Islam in which the Qur'an is alleged to be a word for word dictation from God.

Yet - I regard every word in the Bible as being infallible. That's right, every single word.

How can I say that when the Bible was authored by humans?

I can say this because the Scriptures are inspired by God the Holy Spirit.



If I couldn't be assured that the Bible is infallible then simply put I wouldn't be a Christian. If I can't trust part of the Bible why would I trust any of it? I believe the whole Bible is true. If I didn't I wouldn't be a Christian.

There's also not much evidence to suggest that the Bible has changed significantly since it's authorship.

Perhaps people could think it would be better off if I wasn't a Christian. Perhaps I am taking all this God stuff too seriously? That's something to discuss amongst yourselves



It isn't my job to determine if you believe or not but rather it is my job to explain to the best of my ability what the Biblical position is on Jesus and what has been declared in Scripture.

The rest is for you to work out with fear and trembling as all of us work these things out (Philippians 2:12-13)

To pin my colours to the mast I believe it is essential Christian belief to believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God and that God has declared marriage to be the union between a man and a woman.

I appreciate my position on both issues is strong. It is only strong because I believe it to be of utmost importance.



You do realise that Ezekiel and Zechariah are both in the Old Testament?

You can conclude from a number of places in the Old Testament Scripture alone that the Messiah must be divine. Not just the passages I've cited.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Eh yes, I got the Ezekiel and Zechariah link to the Old Testament aka the Hebrew Bible. It's that there is not, as far as I know, any written link to Jesus being God except in the teaching of Christianity and I believe that he probably never imagined that a religion would be set up in his name or that it would include as a tenet of belief that he is God.

EDIT: That isn't to decry the original idea of Christianity as worthless, as it was a call to heed and obey the word of God, as original in the Old Testament. Christianity has been much abused over the centuries, inclusive of schisms and doctrinal rows, mostly over the content of the bible and teachings humans have said originate from it.

As for your mention of the Quoran, I won't be debating any comparison with the bible, ta very much.

solodeogloria

aloyisious wrote: »

Eh yes, I got the Ezekiel and Zechariah link to the Old Testament aka the Hebrew Bible. It's that there is not, as far as I know, any written link to Jesus being God except in the teaching of Christianity and I believe that he probably never imagined that a religion would be set up in his name or that it would include as a tenet of belief that he is God.

EDIT: That isn't to decry the original idea of Christianity as worthless, as it was a call to heed and obey the word of God, as original in the Old Testament. Christianity has been much abused over the centuries, inclusive of schisms and doctrinal rows, mostly over the content of the bible and teachings humans have said originate from it.

As for your mention of the Quoran, I won't be debating any comparison with the bible, ta very much.

Good morning!

I never asked you to "debate" the Qur'an. The reason why I cited it was to agree with you that the Bible isn't just a dictation of God but rather an inspired writing.

Second off. My argument using Ezekiel is very straight forward. Although the Old Testament doesn't explicitly say Jesus is the Messiah it tells us lots of specific things as to what He will do and what He will be like.

The argument goes like this:
- The OT tells us what the Messiah will be like.
- The OT tells us that the Messiah will be God in quite a number of passages (Psalm 2, Isaiah 9, Ezekiel 34, and Zechariah 12 for starters)
- Therefore to be the Messiah you must also be God.

The link to the New Testament is simple. Jesus claims to be the Christ many times. Part of being the Christ also means being God. You claim that Jesus never claims to be God but He forgives sins which as the Pharisees rightfully point out is something only God can do (Mark 2), He fulfils the prophecies that God alone can fulfil (He is pierced for the world in John 19 and it quotes Zechariah 12 when it says that God Himself will be pierced for the sins of Israel) and heck if that wasn't enough He says that He is God. He says that the Father and I are one three times in John 5, John 10 and John 14. He also says that He is deserving of the same worship as the Father in John 5:23-24. There are many many more reasons why from the New Testament Jesus says that He is God.

The Bible is very clear and has been very clear on this issue since the first century church. You need to present a good case for disagreeing with it.

This is a massive massive wild goose chase from homosexuality. Are we saying that the reason you don't hold to the Bible's teaching on this is because you believe it's been corrupted?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I never asked you to "debate" the Qur'an. The reason why I cited it was to agree with you that the Bible isn't just a dictation of God but rather an inspired writing.

Second off. My argument using Ezekiel is very straight forward. Although the Old Testament doesn't explicitly say Jesus is the Messiah it tells us lots of specific things as to what He will do and what He will be like.

The argument goes like this:
- The OT tells us what the Messiah will be like.
- The OT tells us that the Messiah will be God in quite a number of passages (Psalm 2, Isaiah 9, Ezekiel 34, and Zechariah 12 for starters)
- Therefore to be the Messiah you must also be God.

The link to the New Testament is simple. Jesus claims to be the Christ many times. Part of being the Christ also means being God. You claim that Jesus never claims to be God but He forgives sins which as the Pharisees rightfully point out is something only God can do (Mark 2), He fulfils the prophecies that God alone can fulfil (He is pierced for the world in John 19 and it quotes Zechariah 12 when it says that God Himself will be pierced for the sins of Israel) and heck if that wasn't enough He says that He is God. He says that the Father and I are one three times in John 5, John 10 and John 14. He also says that He is deserving of the same worship as the Father in John 5:23-24. There are many many more reasons why from the New Testament Jesus says that He is God.

The Bible is very clear and has been very clear on this issue since the first century church. You need to present a good case for disagreeing with it.

This is a massive massive wild goose chase from homosexuality. Are we saying that the reason you don't hold to the Bible's teaching on this is because you believe it's been corrupted?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I agree with you on the first sentence of your last so won't bother leading you astray. Have a good day with your reading.

oldrnwisr

solodeogloria wrote: »

If I couldn't be assured that the Bible is infallible then simply put I wouldn't be a Christian. If I can't trust part of the Bible why would I trust any of it? I believe the whole Bible is true. If I didn't I wouldn't be a Christian.

There's also not much evidence to suggest that the Bible has changed significantly since it's authorship.

With regard to the idea that the bible is infallible, the argument that the bible hasn't changed significantly since it's authorship is flawed in a number of ways.

Firstly, there are some significant later interpolations in the text.
Mark 16:9-20 is not present in the earliest copies of Mark and removing it gives the chapter and the gospel as a whole a more natural ending.
The two main trinitarian references in the NT are also later interpolations. 1 John 5:7-8 is a later addition not found in any manuscript before the 14th century. Matthew 28:19 is also considered to be a later addition. Firstly, it goes against the evidence of Acts 19:5, where people are being baptized in the name of Jesus alone. Furthermore, Eusebius writing in the 4th century quotes Matthew's text but only makes reference to Jesus and not the trinity.
There are in fact quite a lot of additions to the text with many passages being missing from the earliest manuscripts including John 7:53-8:11, Acts 15:34, Acts 18:37, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, Luke 24:12 etc.

Secondly there are copying errors although these are less significant than the additions listed above.
Most of the copying errors that occur between New Testament manuscripts (about 300,000 individual variations in total) are very minor and of a technical nature.
One type of variation is that of haplography and dittography, the omission or repetition of text where two different sentences begin with (homoeoarcton) or end with (homoeoteleuton) the same string of letters. This is seen in Matthew 5:19-20 where the presence of the same string of letters: ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν at the end of the first and last sentence of verse 19 and the last sentence of verse 20 has given rise to a haplographic omission in both the Codex Sinaiticus (where most of verse 19 is deleted) and the Codex Bezae (where everything between the end of the first sentence of verse 19 and the end of verse 20 is deleted).
Another example of variation is Romans 5:1 where homophonous words in Greek have created manuscript variations. In the verse:

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"

the phrase "we have" above is translated as we have in some manuscripts and we might have in others with the split seemingly fairly even between both interpretations. This arises from the similarity between ἔχομεν and ἔχωμεν in Greek.
Most of the other forms of textual variation are unintentional and very minor and involve spelling errors, word sequence adjustments, corrections to grammar and word substitutions. However, that is not to say that aren't some intentional and in some ways significant alterations to the text.
One example of an intentional and non-trivial alteration to the text is the retroactive harmonization of the text of Mark 9:31 and 10:34. In Mark 9:31 and 10:34, the foretelling of Jesus' death predicts that he will arise "after three days" or "three days later" (μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας). This stands in contrast to Matthew 17:20 (and Luke) where the verse is rendered "on the third day"(τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Later copies of Mark use the wording from Matthew in order to try and gloss over Mark's seeming mistake.
Another intentional change is found in Luke 23:32. The verse is translated in modern bibles as:

"Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him."

The majority of manuscripts agree with this translation, however, the older manuscripts (P75, Sinaiticus etc.) render the verse as:

"And also other criminals, two, were led away to be put to death with Him."

The text was changed in later manuscripts to avoid the implication that Jesus was a criminal.

Finally, there are passages which are inserted into gospels different from those where they are originally found as a duplication error such as Matthew 17:21 (a duplicate of Mark 9:29) or Matthew 18:11 (a duplicate of Luke 19:10).

The volume of these changes is not significant compared to the number of overall verses in the NT. However, the impact of these changes on the texts into which they are inserted is a different story.

Another flaw in the "bible hasn't changed significantly" argument is the fact that there is so little evidence to make a conclusion either for or against this argument. This is a long and detailed argument dealing with 5745 manuscripts of varying length but the key points are as follows:

• 22% of the New Testament does not exist in any manuscript older than Codex Sinaiticus (the oldest extant bible).
• Some entire books of the NT do not exist in manuscripts prior to Codex Sinaiticus (e.g. 1, 2 Timothy, 3 John)
• Only 48 manuscripts predate Codex Sinaiticus
• The oft-cited figure of 5000+ manuscripts covers a period from the 2nd to 16th centuries.
• In all the NT only 62.9% of verses are the same in all manuscripts.
• With regard to the gospels in particular only 54.5% (on average) of verses are the same in all manuscripts (for pedants the exact percentages are Mark - 45.1%, Matthew - 59.9%, Luke - 57.2% and John 51.8%)
• The earliest fragments of the gospels are dated thus (John - 125-150CE, Matthew, Luke - 200CE, Mark - 250CE)

However, in the wider context of your biblical infallibility argument, the idea that "the bible hasn't changed significantly" is pretty irrelevant. The historical reliability and thus infallibility of the bible isn't supported by how well preserved the texts have been. It is far more likely that they were preserved for their theological message than any notion that they were accurately recounting the events they purport to depict. The early church fathers were very much of this mentality:


"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
Irenaeus


"That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts."
Origen

Furthermore, the historical reliability and thus infallibility is damaged by a number of problems including factual errors, internal and external contradictions, plagiarised or borrowed passages, the synoptic problem, the fact that 20 out of 27 books of the New Testament are either anonymous or pseudepigraphal (i.e. forgeries) or the fact that the supposedly divinely inspired books in the New Testament make numerous references to other books which aren't divinely inspired (e.g. Paul's exhortation to read the Epistle to the Laodiceans in Colossians 4:16).


Now, in the context of this thread and the Christian argument against homosexuality, most Christians don't take the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as being particularly authoritative on their own (despite the exhortation of Matthew 19:17. Most Christians see the homosexuality as sin argument being authoritative on the basis of its inclusion in passages like Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10.



Herein lies the problem. If Paul is being divinely inspired in condemning homosexuality here, then is he also being divinely inspired when he says that women shouldn't be educated in 1 Corinthians 14 or when he says that women can't be teachers or assume any roles of authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:12 or when he says, twice, that women should be silent and shouldn't speak or when he says in Ephesians 5:22 that women should be completely submissive and subservient to their husbands or when he says that slaves should be obedient to their masters in Colossians 3:22 or when he says that marriage is only for weak-willed people in 1 Corinthians 7:9.



Let's take 1 Corinthians 14 as a particular example.
In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Paul says:

" Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Now, the church in Corinth at the time of this epistle (53-57CE) was in great disorder and Paul writes to them to tackle some of the issues. The specific issue in question in Chapter 14 is about the behaviour of people in Church. What makes the passage above stand out is that Paul's language throughout most of the chapter is quite egalitarian. He refers to brothers and sisters four times throughout the chapter. When dealing with the issue of speaking in Church Paul indicates that there is great disorder with lots of people clamouring to prophesy and speak in tongues and tries to bring it under control:

"If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret."

So Paul is not blaming the women for this, nor is there any evidence that only the women were clamouring for attention. In fact, Paul actually says in verse 31 that everyone should be afforded their turn to speak:

"For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged."

So when Paul comes to make his statement in verses 34 & 35, his statement is odd for two reasons. Firstly, by singling out a single gender he changes the tone from the egalitarianism of the rest of the chapter. Secondly, it stands in marked contrast to the instruction in Verse 31.

There are three ways to resolve this contradiction.

1. The verses are authentically written by Paul. If you believe that scripture is divinely inspired then all of this epistle (and all the other epistles) were actually written by Paul. This is supported (if you begin with the base divine inspiration assumption) by 1 Timothy 2:9-15 which echoes the same sentiment. This, however, brings us back to the original problem. If Paul is to be listened to when he speaks against homosexuals then why shouldn't he be listened to when he speaks against women.

2. The verses are a later interpolation by an unknown author. As I have shown above, the change in language and tone make it likely that this was a later interpolation. The general scholarly consensus is that this was done by persons unknown. This would require you to abandon the assumption that every word of the Bible is infallible as you have stated previously.

3. The verses are a later edit by Paul. This, IMHO, is most likely. As I detail below Paul is quite hypocritical in his writings and a lot of what he writes can be seen as platitudes for the sake of the audience. A degree of fan service, if you will. I think its likely that the verses added in 34-35 were an olive branch to any Jewish readers of the letter, a way to make Paul's general message more palatable to Jewish converts. This means that the views are not reflective of Paul's own views but it also shatters the notion that Paul is reflecting the will of God.


Additionally, the hypocritical nature of Paul's writings further brings into question how his entire works can be divinely inspired.


A lot of Paul's writing is given over to condemning Jewish law and promoting the sole fide basis for salvation. He condemns specific parts of the Jewish law in Romans 14:14, Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 6:15 as well as condemning the whole law as a curse in Galatians 3:13 and as a ministry of death in 2 Corinthians 3:7-9. He also write some pretty anti-semitic stuff about the Jews themselves with passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and Titus 1:10-14.
It is strange therefore when Paul agrees to undergo Jewish purification rituals in Acts 21:21-26. When Paul eventually gets found out in Acts 21:28 and arrested he then goes on to claim that he is a Jew when speaking to the Roman commander in Acts 21:39. Paul then asks to speak to the crowd and begins by stating that he is a Jew. When his speech doesn't exactly win the crowd over and they cry "Rid the Earth of him. He's not fit to live!", Paul turns tail once again and claims to be a Roman citizen in Acts 22:27.
Paul is a man who will change his tune to fit his audience, something he openly declares in 1 Corinthians 9:20 "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews."
So, the idea that Paul's declarations are reflective of God's will rather than platitudes intended to win favour with the audience is weak at best.

Then you have Paul's relationship with Jesus and the disciples. Paul is a man who never met Jesus. He also has limited interactions with James and Peter. However, what we do know about his interactions with them is their relationship is at best what you would call strained.
Let's take James for example. There is a substantial row played out in the New Testament between James who promotes obedience to the law and Paul's sole fide approach. In Romans 4, Paul credits Abraham's salvation solely to his faith in God (Romans 4:2-3). However, James points out that it was Abraham's actions in combination with his faith which saved him in James 2:21-24. Indeed, the reference to the foolish man in the preceding verse is often seen as a dig at Paul by James. James, however is the one with the OT and Jesus on his side, with both Jeremiah 7:10 and Matthew 5:17-19 supporting James view.
Similarly with Peter, Paul is no fan. In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul criticises the hypocrisy of Peter for only eating with Gentiles when Jews were not around. Firstly, Paul is not exactly in any position to criticise anyone for hypocrisy, a) because of his remarkable anti-Jewish sentiments outlined above already and b) because he himself makes some deeply misogynistic statements in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 with the intention of lessening the culture shock for the Jews he's trying to convert. Secondly, the idea that Paul would call Peter out for hypocrisy at all is in itself hypocritical given Jesus' clear teaching against it in Matthew 7:1-5.
Of course, it's not just Jesus' disciples that Paul rows with. Even the early Church leaders get contradicted by Paul. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas go to the council of Apostles and Elders to discuss how to preach against those who claimed that only those who were circumcised could be saved. The council meets and agrees a few things and then sends Paul and Barnabas (and some others) on the road with a letter proclaiming their decision in particular this in verse 20:

"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

It soon becomes clear from Paul's writings that Paul puts very little stock in what the Church leaders decide either. Despite the proclamation above, Paul twice contradicts it:

"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.'"
1 Corinthians 10:25-27

"I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." -
Romans 14:14

So when we get finally to Romans 1:26-27 or the other passages what confidence do we really have that Paul is speaking with divine inspiration and truly reflecting the will of God about gays anymore than he is about the other examples detailed above. Not much.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You can conclude from a number of places in the Old Testament Scripture alone that the Messiah must be divine. Not just the passages I've cited.

Just on this secondary idea, there are quite a few criteria established in the OT as to the characteristics of the Messiah. It seems though that Jesus fails to fulfill most of them.


Firstly, the Messiah would be a descendant of David as stated in Jeremiah 23:5

"“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land."

While both Matthew and Luke make a genealogical connection between Jesus and David, it should be noted that a) their genealogical records don't agree with each other (Matthew's being an edited version of the one found in Chronicles) and b) Jesus is connected to David through Joseph who he wasn't actually biologically descended from.

Secondly, the Messiah would be knowledgeable and observant of the Old Testament laws as outlined in Isaiah 11:2-5. While Jesus was certainly knowledgeable, observant he wasn't. He violates the dietary laws in Mark 7:18-19, the Sabbath law in Matthew 12:3-5, the commandment to honour your father and mother in Matthew 12:46-50 and the circumcision law in John 7:22-24.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, in several places the Old Testament authors speak about the Messiah's political prowess in addition to his spiritual ones. In Isaiah 11:11-12, Hosea 3:4-5 and Jeremiah 23:7-8 and 30:3 it is stated that the Messiah will reunite the Jews in Israel and restore Jerusalem. In Isaiah 2:2-4, 11:10 and 42:1, it is stated that the Messiah would create a single world government in Israel. Furthermore, despite the Christian claims about Jesus' body as a temple, the Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah would rebuild a physical temple in Jerusalem and resume sacrifices in it (Jeremiah 33:17-18, Ezekiel 37:27-28 and Malachi 3:3-4). Jesus never accomplishes any of this and his death runs counter to the idea of the Messiah as a combined spiritual and political leader ushering Jerusalem into a new era of peace.

Speaking of peace, the arrival of the Messiah is supposed to herald the beginning of the Messianic age, accompanied by a number of signs. These include an era of perpetual peace (Isaiah 2:4), predators and prey will coexist peacefully (Isaiah 11:6), the entire human race worshipping Yahweh (Zechariah 14:9) and following all his laws (Ezekiel 37:24). None of these, obviously, came to pass, then or at any time since.

And this is all before we get to the idea that Jesus fulfilled so-called Messianic prophecies cited by the gospel authors.

I think it's fair to say that the idea of a spiritual and political Messiah is the result of a degree of optimistic wish-fulfillment on behalf of the Jews of the period. To a people who had historically and recently undergone huge suffering and upheaval at the hands of various other cultures (i.e. Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans), a political leader who would come and save them from all of that and create a land where everything would live in peace is a nice idea but not one grounded in any kind of reality.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Thank you for your post. I'll reply to it on another thread later when I've prayerfully looked at it and with my Bible to hand.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ScumLord

solodeogloria wrote: »

If I couldn't be assured that the Bible is infallible then simply put I wouldn't be a Christian. If I can't trust part of the Bible why would I trust any of it? I believe the whole Bible is true. If I didn't I wouldn't be a Christian.

Which is the problem with debating religion with a fundamentalist. We can't use logic, we can't use reason, we can't use facts, we can't use the results of experiments or any data from the natural world, because only the bible can be right, if anything interferes with that position it's to be ignored and combated with the same argument that's already been dismissed.

I just don't understand how people can put so much credit in the bible. It's not even the direct word of god, it's human interpretations of interactions people may have had with god.

If people were really serious about getting closer to the creator of this universe they have no choice but to follow science. Science is the study of the natural world, gods world. The religious books are books men wrote thousands of years ago, it's their attempt to explain the world not the word of god.

The bible on it's own is never going to convince me of anything and the problem for religions is they only have their religious book, nothing else in the world agrees with what the bible says, so you have to ignore everything else to believe it.

solodeogloria

ScumLord wrote: »

Which is the problem with debating religion with a fundamentalist. We can't use logic, we can't use reason, we can't use facts, we can't use the results of experiments or any data from the natural world, because only the bible can be right, if anything interferes with that position it's to be ignored and combated with the same argument that's already been dismissed.

I just don't understand how people can put so much credit in the bible. It's not even the direct word of god, it's human interpretations of interactions people may have had with god.

If people were really serious about getting closer to the creator of this universe they have no choice but to follow science. Science is the study of the natural world, gods world. The religious books are books men wrote thousands of years ago, it's their attempt to explain the world not the word of god.

The bible on it's own is never going to convince me of anything and the problem for religions is they only have their religious book, nothing else in the world agrees with what the bible says, so you have to ignore everything else to believe it.

Good afternoon!

I think that's a touch uncharitable given what I've written so far. I think I've explained my position in quite a lot of depth and with some nuance.

Although I'm happy for others to consider me a fundamentalist it's worth pointing out that I don't consider myself one. The best descriptors of my standpoint are evangelical, Reformed, Anglican and if another word was necessary Protestant.

Disagreement with you doesn't mean that I'm closed minded just that it would take a LOT for me not to listen to what God has spoken through the Bible or indeed to believe it is cobbled together.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ScumLord

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I think that's a touch uncharitable given what I've written so far. I think I've explained my position in quite a lot of depth and with some nuance.

Although I'm happy for others to consider me a fundamentalist it's worth pointing out that I don't consider myself one. The best descriptors of my standpoint are evangelical, Reformed, Anglican and if another word was necessary Protestant.

Disagreement with you doesn't mean that I'm closed minded just that it would take a LOT for me not to listen to what God has spoken through the Bible or indeed to believe it is cobbled together.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I don't mean to be uncharitable or mean, but that's how I see it. I also wouldn't call you closed minded as such, just focused on proving your believes at the cost of truth. You will always come to this debate trying to prove your right, any evidence will be readjusted to work with your beliefs. Which I think is fair to say.

I appreciate I'm the opposite side of the same coin, I've listened to all the religious debate and bar god appearing in front of me I'm unlikely to ever change my mind. Even if god did appear before me bottom line is I don't like him. I think the god described in the bible doesn't deserve worship, and the fact he'd burn me in hellfire for all eternity for that thought makes me like him even less.

Absolam

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!
I think Christians need to say that sinful behaviour isn't good or acceptable in God's sight and that Jesus loves people and that He died for them so that they might have the most real happiness. Being with God and His people on the last day. Any other superficial happiness the world offers is a cheap knock off counterfeit.

That you believe in and proselytise a greater happiness than that which may be found on Earth is very laudable... but I don't think you can honestly characterise it as a more robust happiness, nor can it be said that it detracts in any way from the happiness of Misters Lynch and Desmond. I think it's possible to wish them happiness both now and hereafter though.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Christians need to love God more and love the world enough to say no when it is walking a dangerous road to destruction. It isn't loving to say that sin is OK and something to be celebrated. Perhaps that makes me a hardcore fundie? I honestly don't care if it does. Jesus and knowing Him is more important. Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Perhaps it does, or perhaps you're simply inviting someone to point out that Christianity does not hold two people loving each other, and committing to each other, to be a sin? Misters Lynch and Desmond may each well be as grave a sinner as any other, but it doesn't mean there shouldn't be happiness at their love and their commitment, to my mind.