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

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's that you are mixing up one's acceptance of what one is with what you as sin. I pointed out the reason the word pride was used but you continue to use it as meaning prideful, instead of accepting what one is at a personal level. It's your continued use of the word pride, and the context in which you see it [pride] as being sinful, that is part of your problem with acceptance of queer folk in general and your refusal to admit that they can be as good a christian as you.

EDIT: In regard to your reference above to gay people accepting that they are gay and identifying as such as being sinful in itself, how would you see a gay person who is totally accepting of being gay but is also totally abstinent from any same-sex activity and following what you quoted from the bible, Jesus and god? end edit.

If you were in a needy situation and a gay person came by offering help, would you refuse that offer on the basis that it came from a gay person or accept it on the basis of it being from a good Samaritan?

As you say, context is important. You seem to have the notion that a open self-admitted gay person accepting of his/her situation cannot also be christian.
Now I'll give you one practical example. There is, in the Christian groups who opposed the same-sex marriage referendum and the abortion referendum here, a gay man with a very high profile. The people in those groups did not object to his being amongst them or reject his support against both referendums on the basis that he is gay. It was his position, as a gay christian, that same-sex marriage was not marriage and he opposed the abortion referendum on the same basis. In what you say, you apparently believe, because of his acceptance that he is a gay man, he is a sinner and non-christian.

Ref your understanding that for non-Christians, there is no concept of sin, well, that might speak a multitude as to how you see other faith beliefs. BUT I'm not sure if you wrote that in reference to your vision of gays acceptance of their personal situation and at the same time identifying as christian [which you are denying as possible] or whether your reference to non-Christians is a direct reference to the non-christian faiths here.

Just because one is from the LGBT community, is aware and accepting of that fact and is from another faith does not mean one does not or cannot have a concept of sin. Putting it simply, some of my best friends in the LGBT community are not merely Christians but are Hebrew and Muslim and they do have an understanding and concept of sin and I don't see them as sinners or unbelievers. As you say, it's in the context.

Respectfully, you have very tangental and wordy replies, without actually taking in anything that has been said.

Rather than dealing with micro points, I have given you the macro which deals with every bit of the subject matter.
Sin is death. Jesus is life. To declare good what God declares sin is rebellion against him. To say that 'Jesus is my Lord' while advocating for things contrary to his Lordship is a dichotomy. Now like I said, we may all struggle with sin, but to embrace sin and call it something other than what God declares it to be means Jesus is no Lord to you. If Jesus is no Lord to you, then you are not a follower of Christ. You may describe yourself as 'Christian' like the 80% of people that call themselves 'catholic' on census forms.

Matthew 7:21-23 English Standard Version (ESV)
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

By their fruits will we know them.

aloyisious

It seem's to me that you approach life and your part in society solely from a religious perspective without taking into account a human approach to what other people face into. IMO, religiosity alone won't work out how a gay person sorts out how they can get over the hurdles put up for them in and by society. Put yourself in the shoes of a gay person and see things from that perspective.

1. He/she becomes aware of being gay.
2. He/she is scared of that fact because for a while - 2 or more years - it's a mind-blowing sensation, the only gay in the
village.
3. He/she, initially, has only one term of reference to understand his/her being gay and that is the education gotten so far.
4. He/she now has to figure out where he/she stands within his/her family at a personal level [being the different one] fearing
he/she will be shown the door in terms of relationship or home itself.
5. He/she will be wondering whether the friends he/she know's will de-friend on hearing the news and hold's back on telling
people because of that fear of rejection, having seen how society can be cruel like that.
6. He/she may eventually [depending on circumstances] come to terms with being gay and learn the hard way that some other
members of society will never accept them because they are gay and get over that refusal.

The acceptance by him/her of being gay is not a matter of sinful pride, as you claim it to be, but of their position and reality
in society. That is a long learning curve for them, a complete re-education for them despite how some people would prefer
them to be positioned in society. It seem's to me that you are facing a dilemma: how you can hold onto your present
religious perspective on gay people and how they should be seen and treated in society and at the same time think you can
have a regular discourse with other humans in society while declaring a portion of that society to be sinners merely because
they accept what they are. Every gay person has a father & mother, brother & sister, aunt & uncle in society.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that you approach life and your part in society solely from a religious perspective without taking into account a human approach to what other people face into. IMO, religiosity alone won't work out how a gay person sorts out how they can get over the hurdles put up for them in and by society. Put yourself in the shoes of a gay person and see things from that perspective.

1. He/she becomes aware of being gay.
2. He/she is scared of that fact because for a while - 2 or more years - it's a mind-blowing sensation, the only gay in the
village.
3. He/she, initially, has only one term of reference to understand his/her being gay and that is the education gotten so far.
4. He/she now has to figure out where he/she stands within his/her family at a personal level [being the different one] fearing
he/she will be shown the door in terms of relationship or home itself.
5. He/she will be wondering whether the friends he/she know's will de-friend on hearing the news and hold's back on telling
people because of that fear of rejection, having seen how society can be cruel like that.
6. He/she may eventually [depending on circumstances] come to terms with being gay and learn the hard way that some other
members of society will never accept them because they are gay and get over that refusal.

The acceptance by him/her of being gay is not a matter of sinful pride, as you claim it to be, but of their position and reality
in society. That is a long learning curve for them, a complete re-education for them despite how some people would prefer
them to be positioned in society. It seem's to me that you are facing a dilemma: how you can hold onto your present
religious perspective on gay people and how they should be seen and treated in society and at the same time think you can
have a regular discourse with other humans in society while declaring a portion of that society to be sinners merely because
they accept what they are. Every gay person has a father & mother, brother & sister, aunt & uncle in society.

Its really nothing to do with what I think when it comes to following Jesus. I could pander to what the world demands. Every religious leader on the planet could turn around tomorrow and declare everything that God declares sinful, A-OK. It wont make a blind bit of difference to the truth though. That remains the same whether 2 people or 8 billion people believe it or not.
Also, recognising sin does not prevent me from engaging, loving and treating people well. As a Christian I must recognise, it is my sin as much as anyone elses that led Jesus to be beaten, spat on, tortured and killed. He offers salvation to me and to those who identify as homosexual alike. What he says is, accept him and find your identity in him. He offers a transformational grace to all, not an affirmational one. We must repent, deny ourselves and take up our Cross. If you choose to affirm your sin as good, then you are rejecting Gods grace. That goes for those who are murderous, those who are greedy, those who are promiscuous etc. Homosexuality is no exception. If you choose to identify with a sinful desire, whatever it may be, rather than with Jesus, then you are rejecting Jesus. Whether you call yourself christian or not, you are not a follower of Christ and thus reject his salvation. The door remains open though.

The following open letter from a lesbian to the Church is something that may interest you. She brings attention to the obvious failings of the church in terms of how they treat homosexuals etc, but also draws attention to the idea of lying to them to make them feel better about themselves.

To the churches concerning homosexuals and lesbians:

Many of you believe that we do not exist within your walls, your schools, your neighborhoods. You believe that we are few and easily recognized. I tell you we are many. We are your teachers, doctors, accountants, high school athletes. We are all colors, shapes, sizes. We are single, married, mothers, fathers. We are your sons, your daughters, your nieces, your nephews, your grandchildren. We are in your Sunday School classes, pews, choirs, and pulpits. You choose not to see us out of ignorance or because it might upset your congregation. We ARE your congregation. We enter your doors weekly seeking guidance and some glimmer of hope that we can change. Like you, we have invited Jesus into our hearts. Like you, we want to be all that Christ wants us to be. Like you, we pray daily for guidance. Like you, we often fail.

When the word “homosexual” is mentioned in the church, we hold our breaths and sit in fear. Most often this word is followed with condemnation, laughter, hatred, or jokes. Rarely do we hear any words of hope. At least we recognize our sin. Does the church as a whole see theirs? Do you see the sin of pride, that you are better than or more acceptable to Jesus than we are? Have you been Christ-like in your relationships with us? Would you meet us at the well, or restaurant, for a cup of water, or coffee? Would you touch us even if we showed signs of leprosy, or aids? Would you call us down from our trees, as Christ did Zacchaeus, and invite yourself to be our guest? Would you allow us to sit at your table and break bread? Can you love us unconditionally and support us as Christ works in our lives, as He works in yours, to help us all to overcome?

To those of you who would change the church to accept the gay community and its lifestyle: you give us no hope at all. To those of us who know God’s word and will not dilute it to fit our desires, we ask you to read John’s letter to the church in Pergamum. “I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore!” You are willing to compromise the word of God to be politically correct. We are not deceived. If we accept your willingness to compromise, then we must also compromise. We must therefore accept your lying, your adultery, your lust, your idolatry, your addictions, YOUR sins. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

We do not ask for your acceptance of our sins any more than we accept yours. We simply ask for the same support, love, guidance, and most of all hope that is given to the rest of your congregation. We are your brothers and sisters in Christ. We are not what we shall be, but thank God, we are not what we were. Let us work together to see that we all arrive safely home.

A Sister in Christ

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

Its really nothing to do with what I think when it comes to following Jesus. I could pander to what the world demands. Every religious leader on the planet could turn around tomorrow and declare everything that God declares sinful, A-OK. It wont make a blind bit of difference to the truth though. That remains the same whether 2 people or 8 billion people believe it or not.
Also, recognising sin does not prevent me from engaging, loving and treating people well. As a Christian I must recognise, it is my sin as much as anyone elses that led Jesus to be beaten, spat on, tortured and killed. He offers salvation to me and to those who identify as homosexual alike. What he says is, accept him and find your identity in him. He offers a transformational grace to all, not an affirmational one. We must repent, deny ourselves and take up our Cross. If you choose to affirm your sin as good, then you are rejecting Gods grace. That goes for those who are murderous, those who are greedy, those who are promiscuous etc. Homosexuality is no exception. If you choose to identify with a sinful desire, whatever it may be, rather than with Jesus, then you are rejecting Jesus. Whether you call yourself christian or not, you are not a follower of Christ and thus reject his salvation. The door remains open though.

The following open letter from a lesbian to the Church is something that may interest you. She brings attention to the obvious failings of the church in terms of how they treat homosexuals etc, but also draws attention to the idea of lying to them to make them feel better about themselves.

Actually I don't see being gay as a sin, nor accepting it to be a fact of life and getting on with life as sinful. It seem's to me that it is your belief that that acceptance of reality by me [and presumably all other accepting LGBT people] is sinful is simply down to your interpreting the bible etc. If you have a desire to tell me and other gay people that we must therefore be open to Jesus and bear a cross on the basis of your interpretation of what Paul wrote to the Corinthians and other parts of the bible, IMO that's down solely to how your interpretive senses work. If you reject a gay person merely because that person accept's his/her actuality in life, that is solely down to you, not to Jesus. Your rejection is based on an assumption, and totally unknowing of their position in respect of Jesus and god. As you said, it won't make a blind bit of difference to you. That. to me, read's as similar to religious crusade thought.

BTW, if Jesus [as son of god] was to tell you that you were wrong in your interpretation of his message, would you continue to follow him without doubt in your mind then as, according to you - Its really nothing to do with what I think when it comes to following Jesus - and recant on your current beliefs and statements about gays being sinful because they accept what they are OR would you put on your thinking cap and say to him "hold on now, you can't be serious, I don't believe you" and reject him as a false prophet?

I see in the lesbian's letter you provided the mention of lifestyle when it comes to the gay community as part of a reference to church elders lying to it's flock in order to deceive the flock. I see the letter as a rabbit-hole introduced by you to distract. I am simply and singly talking about a gay person's acceptance of his/her being gay and your description that that in itself as sinful, not about elders in the church lying to it's flock, not about gay lifestyle nor the seven deadly sins; greed. promiscuity etc, along with murder, which you are trying to introduce into this. Let's stick to your personal christian belief & definition of a gay person being sinful merely because he/she accepts who and what he/she is and not go down rabbit-holes.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

Actually I don't see being gay as a sin, nor accepting it to be a fact of life and getting on with life as sinful. It seem's to me that it is your belief that that acceptance of reality by me [and presumably all other accepting LGBT people] is sinful is simply down to your interpreting the bible etc. If you have a desire to tell me and other gay people that we must therefore be open to Jesus and bear a cross on the basis of your interpretation of what Paul wrote to the Corinthians and other parts of the bible, IMO that's down solely to how your interpretive senses work. If you reject a gay person merely because that person accept's his/her actuality in life, that is solely down to you, not to Jesus. Your rejection is based on an assumption, and totally unknowing of their position in respect of Jesus and god. As you said, it won't make a blind bit of difference to you. That. to me, read's as similar to religious crusade thought.

BTW, if Jesus [as son of god] was to tell you that you were wrong in your interpretation of his message, would you continue to follow him without doubt in your mind then as, according to you - Its really nothing to do with what I think when it comes to following Jesus - and recant on your current beliefs and statements about gays being sinful because they accept what they are OR would you put on your thinking cap and say to him "hold on now, you can't be serious, I don't believe you" and reject him as a false prophet?

I see in the lesbian's letter you provided the mention of lifestyle when it comes to the gay community as part of a reference to church elders lying to it's flock in order to deceive the flock. I see the letter as a rabbit-hole introduced by you to distract. I am simply and singly talking about a gay person's acceptance of his/her being gay and your description that that in itself as sinful, not about elders in the church lying to it's flock, not about gay lifestyle nor the seven deadly sins; greed. promiscuity etc, along with murder, which you are trying to introduce into this. Let's stick to your personal christian belief & definition of a gay person being sinful merely because he/she accepts who and what he/she is and not go down rabbit-holes.

What non-christians believe is not what I'm discussing. I don't 'reject' those who are homosexual, and I'm not actually sure what such a 'rejection' would look like tbh.

What I'm telling you is what God says on the matter. If you don't believe in God, then thats your business, and obviously the issue of sin is of no meaning to you. Much the same as if a muslim tells me not to eat pork based on the declarations of Muhammad its of no meaning to me.
However, if I were to declare myself muslim, then I could not simply dismiss the declarations of Muhammad to follow my own desires. If somebody is professing Jesus as Lord, then they must reject sin as declared by God.

As for the letter, thats simply something I thought of interest to anyone who believes that Christians should reject the truth of what Christ and God declared in order to affirm homosexuality as something that God affirms. Coming from a professing lesbian, I think it may lend more weight to those who believe that Christianity and affirming sin are compatible.

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

What non-christians believe is not what I'm discussing. I don't 'reject' those who are homosexual, and I'm not actually sure what such a 'rejection' would look like tbh.

What I'm telling you is what God says on the matter. If you don't believe in God, then thats your business, and obviously the issue of sin is of no meaning to you. Much the same as if a muslim tells me not to eat pork based on the declarations of Muhammad its of no meaning to me.
However, if I were to declare myself muslim, then I could not simply dismiss the declarations of Muhammad to follow my own desires. If somebody is professing Jesus as Lord, then they must reject sin as declared by God.

As for the letter, thats simply something I thought of interest to anyone who believes that Christians should reject the truth of what Christ and God declared in order to affirm homosexuality as something that God affirms. Coming from a professing lesbian, I think it may lend more weight to those who believe that Christianity and affirming sin are compatible.

Scroll back, at your leisure, through my posts and find exactly where I wrote homosexuality is something that god does, or does not, affirm. Stop twisting my words to suit your approach. I wrote about gay people accepting the reality of what they are [as in homosexual] and getting on with their lives. It is you who keep coming out with the statements that being gay [a homosexual] is sinful and that you base that on Jesus and God.

You keep writing about non-christians without actually identifying who you mean by that so I'm asking you directly now are you defining homosexuals as non-chrstian?

When you have used the term non-christian and are not using it in reference to homosexuals, then what section of humanity are you referring to by your use of that term?

If you are choosing to see homosexuals as sinners, as non-christian and non-believers in god and Jesus. and your adding in this other piece [Coming from a professing lesbian, I think it may lend more weight to those who believe that Christianity and affirming sin are compatible] add's strength to that, then I suggest you are wrong. A lesbian, though female, is a homosexual and your use of the letter you say she wrote in which her being lesbian is plainly stated and she calls out other christians and the church elders on their treatment of her as a sinner merely because she is a lesbian, is a de facto recognition by you that she is christian, even while you claim that such self-acceptance of homosexuality is sinful. That plainly put's her into your sinful non-belief in christianity, Jesus and god zone, a strange contradiction by you.

Let me make it clear to you, just because you choose to define what and whom is christian or a believer in god does not make your choice the word of god. The same goes for all those references to "sinful" people you keep making. It's just your opinion.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

Scroll back, at your leisure, through my posts and find exactly where I wrote homosexuality is something that god does, or does not, affirm. Stop twisting my words to suit your approach. I wrote about gay people accepting the reality of what they are [as in homosexual] and getting on with their lives. It is you who keep coming out with the statements that being gay [a homosexual] is sinful and that you base that on Jesus and God.

You keep writing about non-christians without actually identifying who you mean by that so I'm asking you directly now are you defining homosexuals as non-chrstian?

When you have used the term non-christian and are not using it in reference to homosexuals, then what section of humanity are you referring to by your use of that term?

If you are choosing to see homosexuals as sinners, as non-christian and non-believers in god and Jesus. and your adding in this other piece [Coming from a professing lesbian, I think it may lend more weight to those who believe that Christianity and affirming sin are compatible] add's strength to that, then I suggest you are wrong. A lesbian, though female, is a homosexual and your use of the letter you say she wrote in which her being lesbian is plainly stated and she calls out other christians and the church elders on their treatment of her as a sinner merely because she is a lesbian, is a de facto recognition by you that she is christian, even while you claim that such self-acceptance of homosexuality is sinful. That plainly put's her into your sinful non-belief in christianity, Jesus and god zone, a strange contradiction by you.

Let me make it clear to you, just because you choose to define what and whom is christian or a believer in god does not make your choice the word of god. The same goes for all those references to "sinful" people you keep making. It's just your opinion.

You should read that letter again to see what she actually said about those who attempt to affirm her sin.

A person who affirms sin is not following Christ, it really is not that complicated.

If we are defining 'christianity' as some tribal identification, then anyone can call themselves it.

We do however have very clear guidelines in the Bible as to what following Jesus means. Rejecting sin and repenting is very much a part of that. So if you seek to affirm sin, you are not Christian in any meaningful way. I.E. You will not inherit the promises of Jesus, namely salvation. We all struggle with sin, and none of us are good enough to save ourselves, but trying to say what God says is sin, is not sin, as the lesbian lady said:

"To those of you who would change the church to accept the gay community and its lifestyle: you give us no hope at all. To those of us who know God’s word and will not dilute it to fit our desires, we ask you to read John’s letter to the church in Pergamum. “I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore!” You are willing to compromise the word of God to be politically correct. We are not deceived. If we accept your willingness to compromise, then we must also compromise. We must therefore accept your lying, your adultery, your lust, your idolatry, your addictions, YOUR sins. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

We do not ask for your acceptance of our sins any more than we accept yours. We simply ask for the same support, love, guidance, and most of all hope that is given to the rest of your congregation. We are your brothers and sisters in Christ. We are not what we shall be, but thank God, we are not what we were. Let us work together to see that we all arrive safely home."

So if we are speaking directly about homosexuality, it is no exception to any other sin. If you embrace it, you are drinking the consequence of sin. If you reject sin and embrace Christ, then you are drinking salvation.

aloyisious

You have for the 2nd time included the homosexual lifestyle bit as a get-out clause to say gay people who accept who and what they are as sinners. I asked you before if the gay people are NOT following a gay lifestyle but are simply being honest about being gay, are you going to continue to argue that they are sinners even thought they are abstinent of same-sex activity? It seem's to me that a homosexual person being abstinent of homosexual sexual activity is not sinning against what you say is the word of Jesus and god. It seem's to me you would much prefer the sexually non-active homosexual to be dishonest in his/her dealing with Jesus and god instead of being honest.

Would it be your preference that the homosexual person enter a relationship with a member of the opposite sex and wed that person, with you knowing that the homosexual was not being honest with Jesus, god and the partner where it comes to any vows made before Jesus and god?

Given that you have not actually stated which branch of the christian faith you have in mind when you write about homosexual sin, how do you view the status, vis-a-vis Jesus, of those non-homosexual members of the christian Presbyterian Church of Ireland who seek the inclusion of gay people within that church's congregation. or have you only the RC church in mind when you write about christians and homosexuals?

If you are concentrating your attention on the RC church, what say you about the status of regular mass-going families adherent to it who are accepting of their homosexual kin's [abstinent or not] status? Are they also sinners in your eyes?

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

You have for the 2nd time included the homosexual lifestyle bit as a get-out clause to say gay people who accept who and what they are as sinners. I asked you before if the gay people are NOT following a gay lifestyle but are simply being honest about being gay, are you going to continue to argue that they are sinners even thought they are abstinent of same-sex activity? It seem's to me that a homosexual person being abstinent of homosexual sexual activity is not sinning against what you say is the word of Jesus and god. It seem's to me you would much prefer the sexually non-active homosexual to be dishonest in his/her dealing with Jesus and god instead of being honest.

Not at all. A person who rejects sin, as I've said all along, can follow Christ. I don't think I could have been clearer. I said it all along, I gave you the macro rather than the micro.
The bit you may be confused about is the idea of making sex your identity. If you happen to be Christian, as in an actual follower of Jesus as your Lord, but struggle with same sex attraction, recognising the act of homosex and lust as sinful in Gods sight, then the idea of identifying yourself by your struggle is rather foolish.

Given that you have not actually stated which branch of the christian faith you have in mind when you write about homosexual sin, how do you view the status, vis-a-vis Jesus, of those non-homosexual members of the christian Presbyterian Church of Ireland who seek the inclusion of gay people within that church's congregation. or have you only the RC church in mind when you write about christians and homosexuals?

If you are concentrating your attention on the RC church, what say you about the status of regular mass-going families adherent to it who are accepting of their homosexual kin's [abstinent or not] status? Are they also sinners in your eyes?

I'm not a RC, nor a protestant. But all these denominations can refer to the same revelation for guidance. If they wander off on their own path, and against the teachings revealed to us in the Bible then they can be confidently dismissed as corrupt. Following their own paths rather than Jesus'. There are many unGodly religions, sects and cults that place themselves under the 'christian' umbrella.
But again, I gave you the quote from Jesus earlier:

Matthew 7:21-23 English Standard Version (ESV)

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

The church is full of sinners, and all should be embraced, as Jesus embraces us. It would be nothing but hypocrisy, not to mention delusion, to seek to reject sinners in a church. One would be a)rejecting themselves, and b)rejecting the mercy of Jesus.
Jesus dined and associated with sinners, but while he met them in their sin, he offered them salvation FROM their sin, not IN their sin. 'Go and sin no more' he proclaimed. 'Repent' he proclaimed. He did not come into the world and say 'You are quite right, carry on'. He called people out of their sin, he did not leave them to rot in it.

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all. A person who rejects sin, as I've said all along, can follow Christ. I don't think I could have been clearer.

The bit you may be confused about is the idea of making sex your identity.

Jesus dined and associated with sinners, but while he met them in their sin, he offered them salvation FROM their sin, not IN their sin. 'Go and sin no more' he proclaimed. 'Repent' he proclaimed. He did not come into the world and say 'You are quite right, carry on'. He called people out of their sin, he did not leave them to rot in it.

As I've said before, recognizing and accepting what one is and not engaging in the practice other people see as usual, by being abstinent from the practice, is not [IMO] being what you described [sinful] rather the opposite where it comes to the word of Jesus as in 'Go and sin no more' he proclaimed. 'Repent' he proclaimed. If they ain't sinning, they ain't sinners.

If I recall right, the bible [as per the word of god] mentioned men who sleep with men as being an abomination. If said practice is not being followed by a homosexual, then he/she ain't sinning. The worst that can be said about that person is that he/she is a recovering homosexual. You seem to see abstinence in homosexual sexual activity as not being the same to not sinning any more, merely because the homosexual recognizes and accepts what he/she is [in your words - a sinner]. It seem's you choose to see them as being unrepentant as a result. They don't even have to sit with other homosexuals.

I would have thought that you would see a recognition that one is a sinner [homosexual] as part 1 of the process of, as you see it, repentance. Abstinence from the practice [sinning no more] would surely be the immediate and continuous second part of the process allied to and recognition of being a sinner.

You've also mentioned Jesus sitting with sinners and that that didn't make him a sinner. I say ditto to a homosexual sitting with other homosexuals and, in a similar fashion to Jesus, being abstinent and not engaging in a sinful practice show's the homosexual is NOT a sinner. It seem's to me that you will never be able to see any self-accepting and same-sex sexually-abstinent homosexual as a non-sinner [in the way Jesus said of repenting and not sinning no more].

You choose, no matter what any homosexual could do in the way of following what you say is the word of Jesus, to see the recognition and acceptance of being, in your words, a sinner as an automatic sinful practice in itself when it comes to homosexuals, a continuation of homosexual activity, instead of being the start to repentance. It seem's to me that it's you who has the problem with homosexuality, not Jesus, who's word you claim to be following. Your's above refers [The bit you may be confused about is the idea of making sex your identity]. I suggest it is you who is choosing to be confused in an unconfused way.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

As I've said before, recognizing and accepting what one is

Nobody has to accept being identified as a homosexual. I'm not identified as a heterosexual. Heterosexual is not who or even what I am. Its simply a small detail about a particular part of me.

and not engaging in the practice other people see as usual, by being abstinent from the practice, is not [IMO] being what you described [sinful] rather the opposite where it comes to the word of Jesus as in 'Go and sin no more' he proclaimed. 'Repent' he proclaimed. If they ain't sinning, they ain't sinners.

Everyone is a sinner. And all need to repent. If a person happens to find the same sex attractive, but does not let that give birth to sin, then they obviously do not need to repent of a sin they didn't commit.

If I recall right, the bible [as per the word of god] mentioned men who sleep with men as being an abomination. If said practice is not being followed by a homosexual, then he/she ain't sinning.

Jesus took the law to an even higher standard:

Matthew 5:27-28 English Standard Version (ESV)

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

But yes, you are correct, if a person is not engaging in a particular sin, then they do not have to repent of it, obviously.

The worst that can be said about that person is that he/she is a recovering homosexual. You seem to see abstinence in homosexual sexual activity as not being the same to not sinning any more, merely because the homosexual recognizes and accepts what he/she is [in your words - a sinner]. It seem's you choose to see them as being unrepentant as a result. They don't even have to sit with other homosexuals.

I wouldn't describe them as 'recovering homosexuals', any more that I'd call someone a 'recovering adulterer'.

If a person accepts their identity in Christ and reject sin, then they need not identify as a recovering anything. I'm not a 'recovering sinner'. I am a sinner who is saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. A Christian who struggles with same sex attraction is not a 'recovering homosexual', they are simply Christians saved by the same grace any other sinner is.

You've also mentioned Jesus sitting with sinners and that that didn't make him a sinner. I say ditto to a homosexual sitting with other homosexuals and, in a similar fashion to Jesus, being abstinent and not engaging in a sinful practice show's the homosexual is NOT a sinner. It seem's to me that you will never be able to see any self-accepting and same-sex sexually-abstinent homosexual as a non-sinner [in the way Jesus said of repenting and not sinning no more].

'Self accepting'? There is no problem with a person recognising their issues and accepting that they have a problem. That type of inner reflection is very important for anyone.

You choose, no matter what any homosexual could do in the way of following what you say is the word of Jesus, to see the recognition and acceptance of being, in your words, a sinner as an automatic sinful practice in itself when it comes to homosexuals, a continuation of homosexual activity, instead of being the start to repentance. It seem's to me that it's you who has the problem with homosexuality, not Jesus, who's word you claim to be following. Your's above refers [The bit you may be confused about is the idea of making sex your identity]. I suggest it is you who is choosing to be confused in an unconfused way.

There is no confusion. Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, who took the law to an even higher standard. Its all about Jesus, and nothing to do with any subjective feelings I have. Its simply an honest reading of the facts we have. Jesus does not call us to be heterosexual, he calls us to be Holy. So whether your struggle is with homosexual sin, heterosexual sin, greed, idolatry etc, the call is to come out of your sin and find your identity with Jesus. This idea that you must identify according to your sexual preference is a modern phenomenon. A Christian is asked to find their identity in Jesus, in the fruits of the spirit, and reject the flesh.

Galatians 5

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy,[d] drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do[e] such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

Nobody has to accept being identified as a homosexual. I'm not identified as a heterosexual. Heterosexual is not who or even what I am. Its simply a small detail about a particular part of me.

Everyone is a sinner. And all need to repent. If a person happens to find the same sex attractive, but does not let that give birth to sin, then they obviously do not need to repent of a sin they didn't commit.

But yes, you are correct, if a person is not engaging in a particular sin, then they do not have to repent of it, obviously.


'Self accepting'? There is no problem with a person recognising their issues and accepting that they have a problem. That type of inner reflection is very important for anyone.



There is no confusion. Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, who took the law to an even higher standard. Its all about Jesus, and nothing to do with any subjective feelings I have. Its simply an honest reading of the facts we have. Jesus does not call us to be heterosexual, he calls us to be Holy. So whether your struggle is with homosexual sin, heterosexual sin, greed, idolatry etc, the call is to come out of your sin and find your identity with Jesus. This idea that you must identify according to your sexual preference is a modern phenomenon.[/I]

Your mention of [This idea that you must identify according to your sexual preference is a modern phenomenon] clashed with your identifying homosexuals as such without any reference to other parts [large or small] of their character excepting where it comes [IYO] to their not being christian. You were point blankly stating that a homosexual could NOT be a christian on the basis that they had self-identified as being homosexual and were thus sinners.

You HAD been describing homosexuals as sinners regardless of whether or not he/she/they have been involved in same-sex sexual activity [the abomination mention in the bible] so for you to come out with this - If a person happens to find the same sex attractive, but does not let that give birth to sin, then they obviously do not need to repent of a sin they didn't commit - now [IMO] could be a kindness if you were to keep it permanently in mind. I'm hopeful that quoting back to you your mention of Jesus sitting with prostitutes not making him a sinner had some effect.

I will always see myself as christian because I see that as part of my character, the same way I see being homosexual as part of my character, the second not axiomatic to the first. Cheer's.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

Your mention of [This idea that you must identify according to your sexual preference is a modern phenomenon] clashed with your identifying homosexuals as such without any reference to other parts [large or small] of their character excepting where it comes [IYO] to their not being christian. You were point blankly stating that a homosexual could NOT be a christian on the basis that they had self-identified as being homosexual and were thus sinners.

From the start I have been clear. If you find your identity in sin, you are not in Christ. I never said someone who is same sex attracted could not be Christian, I said somebody who finds their identity in sin is not Christian. I'm a 'gay Christian' has connotations which I laid out early on. There are many that look to corrupt Gods message to affirm their particular sin.

You HAD been describing homosexuals as sinners regardless of whether or not he/she/they have been involved in same-sex sexual activity

We are ALL sinners. If you believe that I said that those who are attracted to the same sex are guilty of homosexual sin regardless of their actions, then could you show me where I allegedly said it?

I'm hopeful that quoting back to you your mention of Jesus sitting with prostitutes not making him a sinner had some effect.

My concern with you mentioning that in this context is that you don't get it. Jesus met people in their sin all the time, but always called them out of their sin, not affirmed them in it. When the men did not stone the adulterous woman, he said 'Go and sin no more'. He had mercy and grace, an example we should all follow, but he did not affirm her sin. She was not an 'adulteress Christian', but simply a Christian.

1 Corinthians 6
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Notice that. WERE. Past tense.

I will always see myself as christian because I see that as part of my character, the same way I see being homosexual as part of my character, the second not axiomatic to the first. Cheer's.

What you or I see ourselves as doesn't matter if there is an objective truth that contradicts it. Its what Jesus see's us as that means something. There are many that call themselves Christians that indulge in all sorts of unchristian behaviour. A famous example would be Westboro baptist church.

If you are somebody who affirms sin, then you are contradicting God, and are rebelling against his spirit for the sake of the flesh. By very definition, you cannot follow Christ and be in open rebellion against him at the same time.

If you are somebody who does indeed follow Jesus and rejects sin, then I question the wisdom of identifying yourself by a sin you struggle with. I also would bare in mind, that there are many who seek to affirm homosexuality in christian circles. People like Matthew Vines, those involved with 'The Queen James Bible' etc come to mind. Calling oneself a 'gay christian' confuses the narrative, and may deceive people into thinking that you are advocating the idea that following Christ and affirming homosexuality are compatible.

Matthew 7

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

From the start I have been clear. If you find your identity in sin, you are not in Christ. I never said someone who is same sex attracted could not be Christian, I said somebody who finds their identity in sin is not Christian. I'm a 'gay Christian' has connotations which I laid out early on. There are many that look to corrupt Gods message to affirm their particular sin.



We are ALL sinners. If you believe that I said that those who are attracted to the same sex are guilty of homosexual sin regardless of their actions, then could you show me where I allegedly said it?



My concern with you mentioning that in this context is that you don't get it. Jesus met people in their sin all the time, but always called them out of their sin, not affirmed them in it. When the men did not stone the adulterous woman, he said 'Go and sin no more'. He had mercy and grace, an example we should all follow, but he did not affirm her sin. She was not an 'adulteress Christian', but simply a Christian.

1 Corinthians 6
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Notice that. WERE. Past tense.


What you or I see ourselves as doesn't matter if there is an objective truth that contradicts it. Its what Jesus see's us as that means something. There are many that call themselves Christians that indulge in all sorts of unchristian behaviour. A famous example would be Westboro baptist church.

If you are somebody who affirms sin, then you are contradicting God, and are rebelling against his spirit for the sake of the flesh. By very definition, you cannot follow Christ and be in open rebellion against him at the same time.

If you are somebody who does indeed follow Jesus and rejects sin, then I question the wisdom of identifying yourself by a sin you struggle with. I also would bare in mind, that there are many who seek to affirm homosexuality in christian circles. People like Matthew Vines, those involved with 'The Queen James Bible' etc come to mind. Calling oneself a 'gay christian' confuses the narrative, and may deceive people into thinking that you are advocating the idea that following Christ and affirming homosexuality are compatible.

Matthew 7

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

I'm not sure that someone whose theology is screwed up (assuming identifying as a gay christian is a screwed up theology) means a person isn't a Christian.

Is a person who is born again yet believes still that their works increase their chances of being saved not a Christian? Just because their theology is screwed up (assuming a works theology is a screwed up one.

If one is born again and can't be unborn again (assuming that is a correct theology) then their having a screwed up theology is neither here nor there. Our correct theology doesn't save us

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure that someone whose theology is screwed up (assuming identifying as a gay christian is a screwed up theology) means a person isn't a Christian.

Is a person who is born again yet believes still that their works increase their chances of being saved not a Christian? Just because their theology is screwed up (assuming a works theology is a screwed up one.

If one is born again and can't be unborn again (assuming that is a correct theology) then their having a screwed up theology is neither here nor there. Our correct theology doesn't save us

Affirming sin is not a matter of theological belief. We are talking about camels not gnats.

Do you believe the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God?

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

From the start I have been clear. If you find your identity in sin, you are not in Christ. I never said someone who is same sex attracted could not be Christian, I said somebody who finds their identity in sin is not Christian. I'm a 'gay Christian' has connotations which I laid out early on. There are many that look to corrupt Gods message to affirm their particular sin.

We are ALL sinners. If you believe that I said that those who are attracted to the same sex are guilty of homosexual sin regardless of their actions, then could you show me where I allegedly said it?[/I]

Dear JimiTime. Perhaps you can let me know how a same-sex attracted person is not a homosexual? Do you perhaps see them through different prisms? You have stated in your posts that a homosexual is a sinner, merely by him/her being honest and accepting about being homosexual. You described that as finding their identity in sin. All your references to sinners and sin were in relation to homosexuals and homosexuality.

Your attempts to muddy the waters by asking me to show you where you said those who are attracted to the same sex are guilty of homosexual sin regardless of their actions fail. If you recognize and accept the fact that a person who is attracted to the same sex is homosexual, there can [using your definition of sin in reference to homosexuals] be no allegedly about what you wrote as you have written homosexuals are sinners. Anyone who admit's, even to self, he/she is same-sex attracted has to fall within your definition of a sinner. If you choose not to recognize, or even deny, that a same-sex attracted parson is homosexual then you are engaging in obvious self-delusion.

I await your next written definition of what a homosexual's sexuality is with interest.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

Affirming sin is not a matter of theological belief. We are talking about camels not gnats.

Of course its a matter of theology. From theology flows how we ought to live.

The question, I suppose, is whether or not a persons theology stacks up (and it is the person, ultimately, who reaps the reward of their theology). We are certainly on dangerous ground if we rest our position on a verse or a word (on this rock .. anyone?)

Do you believe the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God?

Given Christians are capable of sexual immorality and thievery and adultery - whilst being Christians, there is more to this than meets the eye.

There is a huge diversity of view in the Christian church. On every matter under the Sun. And those views are genuinely held. If someone genuinely holds homosex (let's say, for simplicity's sake, within the confines of a firm relationship) not sinful then how are they to be considered not Christians?

Does your theology insist that God would not permit someone to genuinely hold such a theology. That they couldn't rest in it? From whence that idea?

The question of what's a gnat and whats a camel probably rests on how much a person knowingly suppresses the conviction that what they are doing is sinful as much as it does on their being an absolute league table of sin.

aloyisious

I suppose these two people on the Dublin parade fall into JimiTime's sinful unchristian category.

Nick Park

aloyisious wrote: »

I suppose these two people on the Dublin parade fall into JimiTime's sinful unchristian category.

Not knowing the two people involved in the picture, it's highly likely that neither you nor Jimi have any idea whether they identify as 'homosexual' or not. There are people within Christian churches who argue for the inclusion of same sex couples. Many such campaigners are not themselves attracted to people of the same gender. That is, of course, a completely separate issue from that of how someone identifies.

Reading the last few posts in this thread, it seems as if you and Jimi are arguing past each other, rather than addressing what each other are saying.

Jimi is saying that our sexuality does not determine our identity. I think he makes a very valid point. According to this way of thinking, homosexuality (and heterosexuality, for that matter) is not what somebody is - it is what someone does.

You keep going on about people who are attracted to someone of the same sex. As far as I can see, both you and Jimi are in agreement that such a person, if they abstain from same-gender sexual activity, is in good standing as a Christian. The difference is that you want to label them as a 'homosexual' and Jimi disagrees.

As for whether they label themselves as 'homosexual' or not - that would appear to be argument over semantics. Christianity is not about what labels we put on ourselves (including the label of 'Christian') it is about our relationship with Jesus Christ and our commitment to following Him (which obviously carries implications about behaving in certain ways).

aloyisious

Nick Park wrote: »

Not knowing the two people involved in the picture, it's highly likely that neither you nor Jimi have any idea whether they identify as 'homosexual' or not. There are people within Christian churches who argue for the inclusion of same sex couples. Many such campaigners are not themselves attracted to people of the same gender. That is, of course, a completely separate issue from that of how someone identifies.

Reading the last few posts in this thread, it seems as if you and Jimi are arguing past each other, rather than addressing what each other are saying.

Jimi is saying that our sexuality does not determine our identity. I think he makes a very valid point. According to this way of thinking, homosexuality (and heterosexuality, for that matter) is not what somebody is - it is what someone does.

You keep going on about people who are attracted to someone of the same sex. As far as I can see, both you and Jimi are in agreement that such a person, if they abstain from same-gender sexual activity, is in good standing as a Christian. The difference is that you want to label them as a 'homosexual' and Jimi disagrees.

As for whether they label themselves as 'homosexual' or not - that would appear to be argument over semantics. Christianity is not about what labels we put on ourselves (including the label of 'Christian') it is about our relationship with Jesus Christ and our commitment to following Him (which obviously carries implications about behaving in certain ways).

Sorry Nick, JT has stated that to identify as homosexual is sinful and he includes homosexuals who accept who and what they are even though they are abstinent of same-sex sexual activity as - in his words - an affiliation making them non-christian as a result. Saying [even to one-self] I fancy another male in a sexual way is [IMO] a point-blank admission that one is homosexual. If that's not both an admission and an affiliation in JT's book, I don't know what is. A JT quote: Thats not saying that you can't be Christian and also be same sex attracted, but you certainly can't identify yourself with the homosexual community but also with Christ:unquote.

I don't understand how a homosexual can take the homosexual out of one's identity to be christian in the way JT seems to think it can be done in order to satisfy his definition of what repentance is. JT say's repentance is the route but say's accepting one is homosexual is sinful by itself. JT's of the opinion that thoughts would suffice to be sinful in a homosexual way. How does a sinner confess to a sin without mentioning the sin, the "excuse me father, I had thoughts about having sex with another man" moments, let alone any admission to actually having had sex with another man?

I used the analogy of a recovering homosexual in regard to a sexually-abstinent homosexual as being necessary for repentance to him and initially he seemed to recognize that that would be necessary, then wrote that he disagreed with it.

He has only started using the words same-sex attraction when it comes to referring to homosexuals in the last page or so and ascribed the introduction of that two-word term to me. To me they are the same thing so I can't explain why he started using the term same-sex attraction. I won't even bother.

Re the picture, I used it to illuminate a question I put to JT some pages back about people who accept their homosexual kin for what they are and asked him if their action in standing with their homosexual kin would put them within his definition of being unchristian, due to alliance with those whom he declared as sinful and non-christian.

I am NOT in any way choosing, referring or implying that the two people in the photo are in any homosexual. It's all about the message on their poster, inclusion of homosexual kin in the church of christ.

JimiTime

Came across this article today by chance and thought of this conversation.

https://www.christian.org.uk/features/gay-christian-label-dilutes-gospel/?hp

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

Came across this article today by chance and thought of this conversation.

https://www.christian.org.uk/features/gay-christian-label-dilutes-gospel/?hp

Had a look/still looking at it. I suggest you delete the https:// AND the /?hp from your link. I copied it all and it didn't work with those parts in the link until I, piece by piece, deleted them. It's a UK Christian Institute magazine.

aloyisious

I find this interesting with regard to the Queen as Protector Of The Faith, a branch of the Christian religion and wonder how she will have to view the matter. Her cousin, Lord Ivar Mountbatten, is marrying his fiancée and partner James Coyle at a private chapel on Wednesday. Lord Mountbatten was formerly married for 16 years to Penny his wife with whom he had 3 daughters. Before that marriage, he told her he was bisexual. He came out publicly in 2016. Penny will be giving him away at the wedding, an idea thought of by their daughters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5849971/Royal-familys-gay-wedding-story-Queens-cousin-Lord-Ivar-Mountbatten.html

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

I find this interesting with regard to the Queen as Protector Of The Faith, a branch of the Christian religion and wonder how she will have to view the matter. Her cousin, Lord Ivar Mountbatten, is marrying his fiancée and partner James Coyle at a private chapel on Wednesday. Lord Mountbatten was formerly married for 16 years to Penny his wife with whom he had 3 daughters. Before that marriage, he told her he was bisexual. He came out publicly in 2016. Penny will be giving him away at the wedding, an idea thought of by their daughters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5849971/Royal-familys-gay-wedding-story-Queens-cousin-Lord-Ivar-Mountbatten.html

The man is a third cousin, once removed, of the present English queen. This is about the least interesting aspect of the story.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

The man is a third cousin, once removed, of the present English queen. This is about the least interesting aspect of the story.

I kept in mind, having being reminded by other posters here in the past, that this thread is in the Christian forum so mentioned that link upfront as relevant. I was also thinking about, shall we say, the way that men and women of public figurehood or a certain era/age would have felt obliged to follow the straight married life path for public appearance in the established way and that the age-old way was changing. There may be a chance that people directly linked to HRH could, in the future, be more open about possible relationships as a result of the ice being broken.

Friends of mine followed that path here before ending their marriages to their spouses in non-amicable ways due to a natural "how could you" manner response from a feeling of betrayal and being deceived from spouse and children.

He, being of the establishment, so to speak, seems to have originally toed the line but following on from change of public opinion on marriage, has now felt able to be publicly honest on his personal situation. It's also, IMO, naturally good that his ex and his daughters have taken to the situation well.

Peregrinus

Mountbatten identifies as bisexual, so his entering into a same-sex relationship now doesn't necessarily imply that his previous opposite-sex marriage was inauthentic, dishonest, a "cover", or anything of the kind. We don't know when or how he disclosed his bisexuality to his wife, but her attitude to his present relationship might suggest that it hasn't come as a complete suprise to her, and she doesn't feel that she has been deceived or treated badly. I completely get that in many cases the history will have been very different and/or the case will be one of homosexuality rather than bisexuality. Spouses will understandably feel deceived, bewildered, angry, betrayed, etc - not because of the later same-sex relationship but because they now fear their own relationship to have been based on something inauthentic or dishonest. It must be a devastating experience.

But many families - including many Christian families - will have stories of this kind and, honestly, I don't see the queen's rather distant cousinhood to Mountbatten, and her position in relation to the Church of England, as having a huge relevance here. There must be many Christians who have entered into a heterosexual marriage based either on a failure to recognise or accept their own orientation, or on at attempt to deny or manage it, and as time passes that may present painful choices and huge challenges to them, to their families and to their wider Christian communities. You don't need to be a third cousin once removed to Queen Elizabeth for this issue to present itself.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mountbatten identifies as bisexual, so his entering into a same-sex relationship now doesn't necessarily imply that his previous opposite-sex marriage was inauthentic, dishonest, a "cover", or anything of the kind. We don't know when or how he disclosed his bisexuality to his wife, but her attitude to his present relationship might suggest that it hasn't come as a complete suprise to her, and she doesn't feel that she has been deceived or treated badly. I completely get that in many cases the history will have been very different and/or the case will be one of homosexuality rather than bisexuality. Spouses will understandably feel deceived, bewildered, angry, betrayed, etc - not because of the later same-sex relationship but because they now fear their own relationship to have been based on something inauthentic or dishonest. It must be a devastating experience.

But many families - including many Christian families - will have stories of this kind and, honestly, I don't see the queen's rather distant cousinhood to Mountbatten, and her position in relation to the Church of England, as having a huge relevance here. There must be many Christians who have entered into a heterosexual marriage based either on a failure to recognise or accept their own orientation, or on at attempt to deny or manage it, and as time passes that may present painful choices and huge challenges to them, to their families and to their wider Christian communities. You don't need to be a third cousin once removed to Queen Elizabeth for this issue to present itself.

The story ran that she was aware from before their wedding that he was, at least, bisexual. Some men and women [I cant say all] who are LGBT and have married an opposite-sex partner and then come out later as LGBT would have declared themselves as being bisexual initially and then followed that up later with saying they were same-sex attracted. It's part of the slow self-admission way LGBT folk get to recognition of who and what they are, as it's initially a shock to the system. I get your point about the other partner in the original marriage feeling that the person he/she wedded acted with mal faith throughout their whole marriage, including any responsibility towards offspring born within the marriage.

There's a split between the English branch of the Anglican church and those branches abroad on the issue of LGBT folk being part of the church. The same may also apply to home parishes. In respect of the Queen, or the heir to the throne, with it's allied [Fid Def] duties to the church, there would be [it seems to me] a chance that the faith differences between the different branches of that church might reach schism point should the royals officially recognize the presence of LGBT folk within that church.

By officially I include even acknowledgement of the O/P's situation, as people [from both straight and LGBT sides] would see that as an official or de facto recognition of the new marriage/wedding, even if it WERE NOT SO.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Lord Ivar Mountbatten, is marrying his fiancée and partner James

Fiancé, no?

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Fiancé, no?

Yes. didn't cop the 2nd e error in fiancé. Took me a while to re-find the accent device. They seem to have been an item for some time so I stuck in the word partner as well.

aloyisious

The Irish Society for Christian Civilisation - Irish TPF has written a letter and is asking the public to sign a F/B petition to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin to dis-invite Fr James Martin SJ from the World Meeting of Families event here this August. They are upset by what they see as Fr Martin's opposition to the church's teaching on human sexuality. In 2017 Pope Francis appointed Fr Martin as a consultant to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications. Fr Martin writes for, and is editor-at-large for, the Jesuit magazine America.

Fr John Zuhlsdorf thinks Fr Martin is homosexual and secretly hates himself and this explains why Fr Martin is "obsessed" with homosexuals. http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2017/06/james-martin-sj-homosexual-sex-obsessed.html.