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

philologos

Sin City wrote: »

The whole Bible cant be the word of God, as surely God would know that some things in the bible are a bit mad, plus lets face it the writers who were said to be "inspired" by God , always tended to put their own slant on things and more than likley would have written in a style that would have complemeted their own ideals and world view at the time.

We can take that to the Atheist / Christian debate thread if you want.

I'd love for you to show me how God should think that some things in the Bible are mad, and I'd love for you to show me how people put a slant on the Bible.

MrPudding: Most mainline Christians as a whole globally would regard marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have no doubt that quite a number of people are quite willing to ignore what the Bible says on this topic and many. However, there is a difference between being apathetic, and taking ones beliefs seriously?

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

MrPudding: Most mainline Christians as a whole globally would regard marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have no doubt that quite a number of people are quite willing to ignore what the Bible says on this topic and many. However, there is a difference between being apathetic, and taking ones beliefs seriously?

So, are catholic not mainline christian then? Simple question.

If I recall correctly, have you not argued if someone want to call themselves a catholic then they are entitled to do so, even if they don't necessarily follow all the tenants of that religion.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

We can take that to the Atheist / Christian debate thread if you want.

I'd love for you to show me how God should think that some things in the Bible are mad, and I'd love for you to show me how people put a slant on the Bible.

MrPudding: Most mainline Christians as a whole globally would regard marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have no doubt that quite a number of people are quite willing to ignore what the Bible says on this topic and many. However, there is a difference between being apathetic, and taking ones beliefs seriously?

Slant on the bible can be seen from reading the Gospels according to the four authors. They are not 100 % accurate were they. Each writer put his own " expirence" into each account.

As for God , Noahs ark , Tower of Bable etc were a bit OTT and could have been handled better by God


Anyway back to gay marraige ,which was in my origional point that the writers of the Bible brought in that Gay marraige was "wrong" due to cultural norms and not that there was anything immoral about it

It all comes down to territory and family

If a man was say married (a lot of arranged marraiges back then btw, usually for land) but the man was gay , and then left his wife for another man that wife (and any children that were produced) were in effect left destitute as the land that may have passed from her family to himwould be kept by him, and they wouldnot allowed back into their own tribe and family. Gay men then were seen as a threat to society and the family. They were to be condemed and thought of as evil, the Bible is just echoing this

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Not all, but I could honestly say that a vast majority of mainline Christians do. From experience, I can't say that I've had many Bible studies with other people where there was huge disagreement.



Do you ever ask yourself why the majority of mainline Christians don't share the same views as Fred Phelps?



Jesus managed to do a very good job of it. He regarded that people had all sinned and fallen short of God's standards (see Mark 7 for example), yet He still engaged with them and loved them.

That's what Christian churches need to be like. We need to follow what God has revealed in His word, and also engage positively with those around us even if they disagree.

Fred Phelps could learn a lot from Jesus.



I don't believe that the vast majority of Roman Catholics would claim that I was being unfair or unreasonable in respect to the Scripture that I've cited.

People say a lot of things. The question is are what the things that people say Biblical. That's why when I go to church, if I hear my pastor say something that I'm not sure about Biblically, I'll ask him to show me where he found that in. Generally that doesn't happen since my church uses expository preaching, but if it did happen that's the first port of call.

For the most part, Christians are in agreement about covenant theology. Most Christians are in agreement that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). If nobody had sinned, Jesus would have never had to die. If one claims to be sinless they are lying, because all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory.



I understand how people might, because Christianity teaches that there is something wrong with the way we live. However, that's reality, and often people don't like reality either.

However, most people who reject the Gospel ignore the following - Christians believe that if we simply repent and believe the Gospel, that we can be forgiven and come to a new relationship with God.

That's the best news that has ever come into this world. Christians need to be sharing this more often.

Feel free to come back at me.

Edit: Also, I'm not saying that non-Christians can't do X, Y or Z. I'm saying that I won't applaud X, Y or Z.

Firstly, it is not that I do not 'like' your position, it is that I do not agree with it. Nonetheless, I will defend your right to hold it and request that you extend me the same. I am seeking to understand your position to the best of my ability given that we profoundly disagree on one important aspect of it which is that I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins. If I am incorrect then Jesus will judge me. No mortal human has the right to make a window into my soul and condemn me for what they think they see there.

That is not to say that I am perfect or have never done things of which I am not proud and for which I have tried to make amends. My own sense of justice, fairness and desire to be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror free of guilt for my actions dictate I make amends for my personal wrongdoing. Yet, according to your religion I am condemned to Hell - not for my actions but for my lack of belief.
According to some of your co-religionists I am condemned to Hell and an abomination deserving of public vilification and 2nd class citizenship for being in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship with a member of the same gender.

As I have said - I have no issue with Christians living according to the commandments contained within the Bible - indeed I believe that is exactly what they should be doing - following their rule book as it were. But it is not my rule book, no more than the Koran is, so why should I be obliged to abide by it?

No religion should dictate how the civil state treats it's citizens. Were Roman Catholicism to be made Ireland's official State religion and some form of 'penal laws' to be introduced against non-Catholics I would advocate for freedom of religion for all Irish citizens and equality under the law.

That is what the campaign for Gay Marriage is about - equality under the civil laws of the State. No-one is asking for the 'right' to a religious wedding. No-one is advocating that religious organisations act in contrary to their ethos. We are simply saying that heterosexuals and homosexuals deserve to be treated equally by the civil state.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

W

MrPudding: Most mainline Christians as a whole globally would regard marriage as being between a man and a woman. I have no doubt that quite a number of people are quite willing to ignore what the Bible says on this topic and many. However, there is a difference between being apathetic, and taking ones beliefs seriously?

Yes but "most" Christians would be old school and would be believing what they were conditioned.

Give it time and Im sure most Christians would be appalled by the beliefs of their elders on these matters even comparring them to apparthied South Africa

aloyisious

Marriage itself is precedent to the existing major religions which spring from the Old and New Books. It is not the prerogative of any one religion or sect.

Sticking to the Civil Marriage part of this debate, it is an affair of state. The churches and religions have long recognized the right of states to perform civil marriage. Neither religion nor it's believers have the right to deny any state the right to extend the civil liberties granted to them by any state to other state citizens, including same-sex couples.

To entrust one's civil liberties to those of utter religious belief is to give them free sway over your liberty.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly, it is not that I do not 'like' your position, it is that I do not agree with it. Nonetheless, I will defend your right to hold it and request that you extend me the same. I am seeking to understand your position to the best of my ability given that we profoundly disagree on one important aspect of it which is that I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins. If I am incorrect then Jesus will judge me. No mortal human has the right to make a window into my soul and condemn me for what they think they see there.

Ultimately, it is because you don't 'like' Christian belief that one doesn't like the idea that everyone has sinned and fallen short of God's standards and that only Jesus Christ can save us from sin.

You mightn't believe in it, but it is what Christians believe about all sin. The reason Christians claim that all have sinned is easy to explain, it is because all of us at some point have done what is evil rather than what was good. Nobody can really deny that. All one needs to do is open up the newspaper and see what kinds of evil that we've done lately.

Of course that affects how Christians see this issue.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is not to say that I am perfect or have never done things of which I am not proud and for which I have tried to make amends. My own sense of justice, fairness and desire to be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror free of guilt for my actions dictate I make amends for my personal wrongdoing. Yet, according to your religion I am condemned to Hell - not for my actions but for my lack of belief.
According to some of your co-religionists I am condemned to Hell and an abomination deserving of public vilification and 2nd class citizenship for being in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship with a member of the same gender.

No, according to Christianity, all stand condemned because all have sinned against God (John 3:18).

Thankfully, Jesus Christ came into the world to offer Himself to stand in our place, take God's wrath so that we can be forgiven. That's incredible news. Repent, turn back, sincerely say that one is sorry that one has done evil rather than good, and one can begin a new relationship with the living God.

The only way one can really make amends for what is evil, is to hold fast to what is truly good. Namely God and His standards.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I have said - I have no issue with Christians living according to the commandments contained within the Bible - indeed I believe that is exactly what they should be doing - following their rule book as it were. But it is not my rule book, no more than the Koran is, so why should I be obliged to abide by it?

Living according to the commandments means regarding what God regards as good, to be good, and regarding what God regards as evil, to be evil. I can't applaud or support sin for that reason. I need to live my life in such a way that I live for Jesus.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No religion should dictate how the civil state treats it's citizens. Were Roman Catholicism to be made Ireland's official State religion and some form of 'penal laws' to be introduced against non-Catholics I would advocate for freedom of religion for all Irish citizens and equality under the law.

You're misunderstanding how a secular state should work. Secularism doesn't say that no religion can contribute to public life. What secularism does say is that every proposal for legislation should be considered on merit and merit alone, and not because it came from holy book X or Y. If a Jewish politician or a Muslim politician presented legislation based on the Torah or the Qur'an that abounded with merit and was clearly what was best for society, I'd welcome that.

I think on the same note, that Christians and those of other faiths should be welcome to say why they believe that traditional marriage should be left as it is if they are of that persuasion, and then the people should consider what is of merit.

That's a fair democracy. Both sides having their say and thrashing it out. Thrashing legislation out produces better legislation for all irrespective of whether one is a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu or a Sikh, or of no religion.

If people have concerns about marriage and family, then I think they should be heard rather than ignored.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is what the campaign for Gay Marriage is about - equality under the civil laws of the State. No-one is asking for the 'right' to a religious wedding. No-one is advocating that religious organisations act in contrary to their ethos. We are simply saying that heterosexuals and homosexuals deserve to be treated equally by the civil state.

See above.

Sin City wrote: »

Yes but "most" Christians would be old school and would be believing what they were conditioned.

Except for the fact that many have thought deeply about what they believe in. Many are also converts to Christianity.

This argument is becoming more and more irrelevant in the 21st century when most Christians live outside of the Western world.

Sin City wrote: »

Give it time and Im sure most Christians would be appalled by the beliefs of their elders on these matters even comparring them to apparthied South Africa

Sexuality is not biologically determined. Race very clearly is. There's not a comparison to be made in that respect.

Christianity does not encourage race distinction. The Bible clearly itself says otherwise:

Galatians 3:28 wrote:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

Sexuality is not biologically determined. Race very clearly is. There's not a comparison to be made in that respect.

Christianity does not encourage race distinction. The Bible clearly itself says otherwise:

Am Sexuality is biologicaly determined. You dont choose to be gay the same way you dont choose your race.

But the Bible does encourage sexual distinction?

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

Except for the fact that many have thought deeply about what they believe in. Many are also converts to Christianity.

This argument is becoming more and more irrelevant in the 21st century when most Christians live outside of the Western world.

Most converts would be origionaly from one of the Big three religeons so they too would have been conditioned anyway. Believers would leave anything that might undermine their own ideologies out or gloss over them even claim that they arent important

philologos

Sin City wrote: »

Am Sexuality is biologicaly determined. You dont choose to be gay the same way you dont choose your race.

But the Bible does encourage sexual distinction?

What do you mean by "sexual distinction"?

There's no evidence to suggest that sexuality is biologically determined.

Irrespective, we have another argument on our hands. Should every feeling be acted upon of necessity? For example, if I am deeply angry with someone is it acceptable for me to express that anger at them in public? Or are there times when that isn't appropriate.

As a single heterosexual male, the Bible has as much to say to me as it does to anyone else at this issue. By saying that sexuality should be expressed within a marriage, it is appropriate to wait until that point.

It's important to note that the Bible talks about much much more than sexual sin. That's why I'm always pointing to the fact that we've all sinned. This isn't about a particular sin and that only, it is about all sin and as Christian we should be mindful that we don't make out that particular sins are any less sin than another.

Sin City wrote: »

Most converts would be origionaly from one of the Big three religeons so they too would have been conditioned anyway. Believers would leave anything that might undermine their own ideologies out or gloss over them even claim that they arent important

This is a poor argument. You're essentially trying to imply that Islam and Judaism are the exact same as Christianity.

What about atheists and agnostics who become Christians?

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Ultimately, it is because you don't 'like' Christian belief that one doesn't like the idea that everyone has sinned and fallen short of God's standards and that only Jesus Christ can save us from sin.

You mightn't believe in it, but it is what Christians believe about all sin. The reason Christians claim that all have sinned is easy to explain, it is because all of us at some point have done what is evil rather than what was good. Nobody can really deny that. All one needs to do is open up the newspaper and see what kinds of evil that we've done lately.

Of course that affects how Christians see this issue.



No, according to Christianity, all stand condemned because all have sinned against God (John 3:18).

Thankfully, Jesus Christ came into the world to offer Himself to stand in our place, take God's wrath so that we can be forgiven. That's incredible news. Repent, turn back, sincerely say that one is sorry that one has done evil rather than good, and one can begin a new relationship with the living God.

The only way one can really make amends for what is evil, is to hold fast to what is truly good. Namely God and His standards.



Living according to the commandments means regarding what God regards as good, to be good, and regarding what God regards as evil, to be evil. I can't applaud or support sin for that reason. I need to live my life in such a way that I live for Jesus.



You're misunderstanding how a secular state should work. Secularism doesn't say that no religion can contribute to public life. What secularism does say is that every proposal for legislation should be considered on merit and merit alone, and not because it came from holy book X or Y. If a Jewish politician or a Muslim politician presented legislation based on the Torah or the Qur'an that abounded with merit and was clearly what was best for society, I'd welcome that.

I think on the same note, that Christians and those of other faiths should be welcome to say why they believe that traditional marriage should be left as it is if they are of that persuasion, and then the people should consider what is of merit.

That's a fair democracy. Both sides having their say and thrashing it out. Thrashing legislation out produces better legislation for all irrespective of whether one is a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu or a Sikh, or of no religion.

If people have concerns about marriage and family, then I think they should be heard rather than ignored.



See above.



Except for the fact that many have thought deeply about what they believe in. Many are also converts to Christianity.

This argument is becoming more and more irrelevant in the 21st century when most Christians live outside of the Western world.



Sexuality is not biologically determined. Race very clearly is. There's not a comparison to be made in that respect.

Christianity does not encourage race distinction. The Bible clearly itself says otherwise:

There are aspects of Christianity I have absolute respect for. It is not about 'like' or 'dislike' - it is about agreement. You do not agree with all the tenets of Roman Catholicism - or you would be a Roman Catholic - does that mean you do not 'like' it or that you do not agree with it?

There are also aspects of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism etc for which I have the profoundest respect - doesn't mean I feel the need to abide by the dictates of those religions either or that I dislike them. It simply means I do not agree with their basic premise.

You believe Jesus died for the sins of humanity. I do not. Nether of us believes that that there is only one God and Allah is his name, or that the world is still awaiting the Messiah - does this mean you do not 'like' Islam or Judaism or that you disagree with them?


As for my understanding of what a secular state means, I understand it perfectly well - what I fail to understand is why the religious beliefs of one particular section of society should be allowed to dictate the status of all members of society simply because it does not conform to their ethos. If Christians do not agree with Gay civil marriage - don't enter into one. That does not give them the right to seek prevent others from doing so.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

What do you mean by "sexual distinction"?

,My fault I meant to type orientation.

philologos wrote: »

There's no evidence to suggest that sexuality is biologically determined.

Lol a Christian demanding evidence for something to exist, cant we just take it as faith? No ok. There has been studies to determine if homosexuality is a learned condition , a mental illness or condition.The results indicated that homosexuality is none of the above. Some twin studies where one child came out as gay proved that it was a question of nurture , his surroundings etc. In fact studies have yielded evidence that homosexuality may be a product of some genetic changes. [/QUOTE]

philologos wrote: »

It's important to note that the Bible talks about much much more than sexual sin. That's why I'm always pointing to the fact that we've all sinned. This isn't about a particular sin and that only, it is about all sin and as Christian we should be mindful that we don't make out that particular sins are any less sin than another.

Sex isnt a Sin and to think that heterosex is less sinful that homosexual sex is absurd. Why would God make Homosexuals just so they could live an existence of condemnation?

philologos wrote: »

This is a poor argument. You're essentially trying to imply that Islam and Judaism are the exact same as Christianity.

What about atheists and agnostics who become Christians?

Did not Judism , Islam and Christianity have very similer core tennants that over lap?

Obviously not Jesus and the new testement but still

BTW saying something is a bad arguement, doesnt make it so

Juza1973

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well given the enormous evidence - which has repeatedly been presented to qrrgprgua in this and other forums - which shows that children raised in Gay and Lesbian households are no different from those raised in heterosexual ones then it is not really a question of spouting slogans but making demonstrably incorrect statements.

I do not recognise these studies as evidence.

Sin City

Juza1973 wrote: »

I do not recognise these studies as evidence.

Can I ask why not or do you have any evidence that would contradict the studies?

philologos

Sin City wrote: »

,My fault I meant to type orientation.

Christians welcome anyone of any sexual orientation into their churches. If people are willing to repent of their sin, believe in the Gospel, and to live and speak for Jesus they are welcome in any Christian church.

Sin City wrote: »

Lol a Christian demanding evidence for something to exist, cant we just take it as faith? No ok. There has been studies to determine if homosexuality is a learned condition , a mental illness or condition.The results indicated that homosexuality is none of the above. Some twin studies where one child came out as gay proved that it was a question of nurture , his surroundings etc. In fact studies have yielded evidence that homosexuality may be a product of some genetic changes.

If you claim that sexuality is biologically hardwired into us, people should be entitled to question that. Just as much as you are entitled to question God's existence, even if there are quite a lot of reasons one could offer for believing and trusting in Him.

Sin City wrote: »

Sex isnt a Sin and to think that heterosex is less sinful that homosexual sex is absurd. Why would God make Homosexuals just so they could live an existence of condemnation?

Sex within a marriage is not a sin.

As a heterosexual, if I have sex outside of a marriage I've fallen short of God's standards and likewise have sinned.

I think the question is how do we respond to sin? Do we try to flee from sin, and live a life according to the Gospel, even if we fail occasionally in doing so? Or do we applaud sin, and do we continue living in our sin even when the Gospel encourages us to run from sin?

Sin City wrote: »

Did not Judism , Islam and Christianity have very similer core tennants that over lap?

Obviously not Jesus and the new testement but still

Jesus and the New Testament are huge huge parts of Christianity. The major difference is Jesus.

Sin City wrote: »

BTW saying something is a bad arguement, doesnt make it so

Yes, but it is actually a bad argument. There are numerous atheists and agnostics who have come to Christianity. To claim that all converts to Christianity come from Judaism or Islam is simply wrong.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

Christians welcome anyone of any sexual orientation into their churches. If people are willing to repent of their sin, believe in the Gospel, and to live and speak for Jesus they are welcome in any Christian church.

It would depend. Would the act of homosexuality be considered a sin, then if so the church will only accept a gay man in their church as long as they are celibate which is wrong on so many levels

philologos wrote: »

If you claim that sexuality is biologically hardwired into us, people should be entitled to question that. Just as much as you are entitled to question God's existence, even if there are quite a lot of reasons one could offer for believing and trusting in Him.

People shpuld question , yes that is a very vaildi point. People should question everything nothing should be taken with blind faith. Evidence is needed for anthing to prove it has any validity. The studies I have mentioned do point to what I am suggesting but if you have any counter studies by peer reviewed (Non Christian sources , we cant have any bias) then please post them so we can all scutinise them and hopefully gain a bit more insight into our arguemnt.

philologos wrote: »

Sex within a marriage is not a sin.

As a heterosexual, if I have sex outside of a marriage I've fallen short of God's standards and likewise have sinned.

Sex itself shouldnt be sinful, denying people sex who arent married or are of the same gender is in my opinion wrong and can actually be psycholgically harmful

philologos wrote: »

I think the question is how do we respond to sin? Do we try to flee from sin, and live a life according to the Gospel, even if we fail occasionally in doing so? Or do we applaud sin, and do we continue living in our sin even when the Gospel encourages us to run from sin?

I actually would like a proper definition of what exactly sin is, not just going against Gods wishes. If sin is the human condition then to sin is human

philologos wrote: »

Jesus and the New Testament are huge huge parts of Christianity. The major difference is Jesus.



Yes, but it is actually a bad argument. There are numerous atheists and agnostics who have come to Christianity. To claim that all converts to Christianity come from Judaism or Islam is simply wrong.

But those Aethiests and Agnostics were more than likely raised in families that did subscribe to one of the major religions.

philologos

Sin City wrote: »

It would depend. Would the act of homosexuality be considered a sin, then if so the church will only accept a gay man in their church as long as they are celibate which is wrong on so many levels

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if an atheist suggested that Biblical Christianity was "wrong on so many levels"

The reality is that all are welcome to become Christians, and we welcome anyone of any sexual orientation, race or ethnic groups in congregations.

Sin City wrote: »

People shpuld question , yes that is a very vaildi point. People should question everything nothing should be taken with blind faith. Evidence is needed for anthing to prove it has any validity. The studies I have mentioned do point to what I am suggesting but if you have any counter studies by peer reviewed (Non Christian sources , we cant have any bias) then please post them so we can all scutinise them and hopefully gain a bit more insight into our arguemnt.

By the by, I was agnostic until I was 17. It was the result of looking up about Christianity and finding out more about it out of curiosity that I became a Christian. That was about 5 years ago.

To claim that Christians believe on the basis of "blind faith" is generally mistaken.

If you want me to believe that there is evidence that sexuality is biologically determined, it might be good to present something that shows it. Otherwise I can't assume that it is.

Sin City wrote: »

Sex itself shouldnt be sinful, denying people sex who arent married or are of the same gender is in my opinion wrong and can actually be psycholgically harmful

Christians don't believe that sex is sinful, rather Christians believe that sex should be expressed within a marriage.

As for it being harmful, it's not really doing me all that much harm at the moment admittedly

Sin City wrote: »

I actually would like a proper definition of what exactly sin is, not just going against Gods wishes. If sin is the human condition then to sin is human

Sin is doing what is evil rather than doing what is good. I.E - It is deviating from God's standards.

Sin City wrote: »

But those Aethiests and Agnostics were more than likely raised in families that did subscribe to one of the major religions.

I know quite a few people who were raised with atheist parents, who became Christians. To say that conversion happens exclusively from other religions isn't necessarily so.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Christians welcome anyone of any sexual orientation into their churches. If people are willing to repent of their sin, believe in the Gospel, and to live and speak for Jesus they are welcome in any Christian church.

'Christians welcome anyone of any sexual orientation into their churches' - not all of them do or perhaps it depends on how you define 'welcome' and 'repent'.

In 1987 a 17 year old named Tandy who was a member of the youth club in the community centre I managed stopped turning up. We were all very concerned about her welfare but were unable to get any information from her parents - who were evangelical Baptists. Approx 3 months after we last saw Tandy we received word that she had committed suicide in Manchester. Her parent's had sent her up there from London to be 'cured'. The coroner's report determined that Tandy had taken her own life when she had failed to be 'cured' of her lesbian tendencies. She fasted (her body weighed 5 stone - she was 5' 11"), she prayed, she under went exorcisms but to no avail. 3 people were later prosecuted for assault in connection with the 'exorcisms'. This charming, lovely, talented, young athlete (she was on the under 17 UK volley ball team) lived her short life in torment as her homosexuality was incompatible with her religion. She never acted on her impulses and died a virgin. She repented. She did everything they told her to do. It didn't work. Her parent's refused to claim her body as she was 'unclean'. She did eventually get an ecumenical funeral paid for by her fellow youth club members and the community centre staff: Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists (I know!), Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Jews. The local evangelical Baptist Church of which she had been a member - and her Father was the pastor -then boycotted our community centre.

A friend of my son's, his name was Paul, committed suicide in Cork last year. His body is still in storage as his same sex partner 'partner' (with whom by the way he had a celibate relationship hence the inverted commas around the word partner) cannot legally claim it. His 'Christian' evangelical mother who lives in the UK refuses to claim the body of her son as he was a '****** sinner who is now burning in hell' - her exact words. This 27 year old man could not reconcile what he had been taught as a child with his homosexuality. He repented. He tried aversion therapy. He prayed. He fasted. He could not change the fact that he was sexually attracted to members of the same gender - so he ended his life.

Now tell me again how all Christian churches welcome gay people into their congregation. :mad:


edit to say: PDN infract me for 'swearing' if you wish but I was quoting exactly what this young man's mother wrote on the form we sent requesting that she grant permission for his body to be claimed by his, for want of a better term, companion of 5 years.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if an atheist suggested that Biblical Christianity was "wrong on so many levels"

Its only wrong, ie harmful when they start condeming people who dont adhere to their way of thinking. By the By Christians in themselves are usualy good people, as long as they keep their religious beliefs amounst themselves

philologos wrote: »

The reality is that all are welcome to become Christians, and we welcome anyone of any sexual orientation, race or ethnic groups in congregations.

As long as they are not practicing homosexuals

philologos wrote: »

To claim that Christians believe on the basis of "blind faith" is generally mistaken.

But they believe in God without any evidence to suggest that God does exist and again take the bible as the true word of God without actually witnessing God writing or dictacting it, but relying on it as the word of God because thats what the Bible says it is

philologos wrote: »

If you want me to believe that there is evidence that sexuality is biologically determined, it might be good to present something that shows it. Otherwise I can't assume that it is.

Of course and I shall trawl thorugh the interweb and retrieve these studies and post them for you to go through.

Likewise if you could find studies (from unbiases sources) so I can do the same, and while your at it some proof of Gods existence seeing as you dont rely on Blind Faith, so you must rely on evidence instead of it

philologos wrote: »

Christians don't believe that sex is sinful, rather Christians believe that sex should be expressed within a marriage.

Unless your gay, right?

philologos wrote: »

As for it being harmful, it's not really doing me all that much harm at the moment admittedly

I beg to differ Im afraid

philologos wrote: »

Sin is doing what is evil rather than doing what is good. I.E - It is deviating from God's standards.

But what is evil exactly, what defines what is evil?

Doesnt evil vary from culture to culture and cant some evils be normalised to make them virtuous?

philologos wrote: »

I know quite a few people who were raised with atheist parents, who became Christians. To say that conversion happens exclusively from other religions isn't necessarily so.

Were they in a Christian society though? They would have a decent knowledge of Christain thinking and values?

philologos

Sin City wrote: »

Its only wrong, ie harmful when they start condeming people who dont adhere to their way of thinking. By the By Christians in themselves are usualy good people, as long as they keep their religious beliefs amounst themselves

The problem is Jesus told us to tell other people about the Gospel, so that they might be saved (Matthew 28:20 in particular).

It's our responsibility as Christians to tell people that they need to believe and trust in Jesus.

Sin City wrote: »

As long as they are not practicing homosexuals

Practising homosexuals can be a part of church. If they are to truly accept Christ, they must put an end to that lifestyle. That's what turning away from sin means.

Sin City wrote: »

But they believe in God without any evidence to suggest that God does exist and again take the bible as the true word of God without actually witnessing God writing or dictacting it, but relying on it as the word of God because thats what the Bible says it is

I disagree without any evidence, but I've asked you already to post on the Atheist / Christian debate thread, go to the charter sticky and there's a link to it there. This one is about Christian attitudes to sexuality.

Sin City wrote: »

Of course and I shall trawl thorugh the interweb and retrieve these studies and post them for you to go through.

Likewise if you could find studies (from unbiases sources) so I can do the same, and while your at it some proof of Gods existence seeing as you dont rely on Blind Faith, so you must rely on evidence instead of it

I don't need to find any. You're making the claim that sexuality is biologically determined. I'm saying there's nothing to support that claim really.

Sin City wrote: »

Unless your gay, right?

Christians define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Sin City wrote: »

I beg to differ Im afraid

Considering you don't know me that's a bit of a stretch . (EDIT: Unless you're claiming that being a Christian is in and of itself harmful).

Sin City wrote: »

But what is evil exactly, what defines what is evil?

God from a Christian point of view.

Sin City wrote: »

Doesnt evil vary from culture to culture and cant some evils be normalised to make them virtuous?

We're getting into whether or not morality is whatever the heck we like it to be rather than something that is real and true. I'd say that actually morality doesn't differ much from culture to culture, and most people have a conscience that informs them of what is right and wrong. Indeed the Bible goes as far as to say that God gave us the human conscience so that we can better determine this (Romans 2).

Sin City wrote: »

Were they in a Christian society though? They would have a decent knowledge of Christain thinking and values?

It depends on what you mean by a Christian society.

If you want an example of atheists coming to believe in Christ, from a non-Christian background, just look at China, or South Korea.

And with that, I'm off to church. I'll be back in a few hours

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

And with that, I'm off to church. I'll be back in a few hours

Perhaps while you are there you will pray that your God forgives those who made Tandy, Paul and countless other LGBT young people's lives a living hell in his name. I NEVER will.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

The problem is Jesus told us to tell other people about the Gospel, so that they might be saved (Matthew 28:20 in particular).

It's our responsibility as Christians to tell people that they need to believe and trust in Jesus.

Even if they dont want to hear or are a part of another religeon?

philologos wrote: »

Practising homosexuals can be a part of church. If they are to truly accept Christ, they must put an end to that lifestyle. That's what turning away from sin means.

So they are singled out and told they are evil if they have sex, even if they are married? (Define lifestyle btw)

philologos wrote: »

I don't need to find any. You're making the claim that sexuality is biologically determined. I'm saying there's nothing to support that claim really.

I shall find some but Im on the mobile at the min but when I get home I shall post the articles up

philologos wrote: »

Christians define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

That was the old trtaditional way of thinking

They also thought that the earth was the center of the universe

philologos wrote: »

Considering you don't know me that's a bit of a stretch

Im just going by what I have read. Maybe if you got laid once in a while it might have an effect on your outlook

philologos wrote: »

God from a Christian point of view.

and God himself (not Jesus or anyone else) actually condems homosexual sex?
What else has God himself .no angels Jesus or anyone else demmed as evil?

philologos wrote: »

We're getting into whether or not morality is whatever the heck we like it to be rather than something that is real and true. I'd say that actually morality doesn't differ much from culture to culture, and most people have a conscience that informs them of what is right and wrong. Indeed the Bible goes as far as to say that God gave us the human conscience so that we can better determine this (Romans 2)

. Im sure the holocost suvivers will agree with your there. Conscience may tell you something is wrong but wanting to conform to socail norms or obey your superiors will usually beat a conscience as Stanly Milgrim has shown us

philologos wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by a Christian society.

If you want an example of atheists coming to believe in Christ, from a non-Christian background, just look at China, or South Korea.

And with that, I'm off to church. I'll be back in a few hours

A soceity were Christianity is the major religeon

Also somewhere where religious oppression didnt happen as people will just try and do what was forbidden for no good reason other than their leaders didnt approve or it was a treath to their grip on power, especaily if it used to be a deeply spiritual country like Korea or China.

Enjoy Church

Sin City

can I also ask why does god.deem homosexual sex a sin ? seriously who does it harm?

MrPudding

Sin City wrote: »

I shall find some but Im on the mobile at the min but when I get home I shall post the articles up.

I wouldn't bother. You will not show him anything he has not been shown and subsequently dismissed before.

MrP

JH_raheny

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Come off it son. Marriage is totally other to a same sex union.

A man and a woman can make baby and start a family. Left to their own device, two men or two women can't make baby.

Marriage is of benefit to society - it makes new people and provides the ideal means to bring them up in security and with the benefits to human development of having a father and mother. There is no comparison with gay unions.

Say what you like but people do recognise the value and worth of marriage. Same sex persons already have a legal recognition of their unions, that should be enough. Demanding marriage is based on ideology.

The day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT extraordinary means (and a third person), then we can all it marriage.

so you're saying that if a couple is infertile for some reason they should not be allowed to marry ?

aloyisious

Sin City wrote: »

can I also ask why does god.deem homosexual sex a sin ? seriously who does it harm?[/QUOTE

Re your question, homosexual sex isn't listed on the two stone tablets God gave to Moses. people who are fond of the Old and New Testament quote Leviticus 18:22. from the third book of the Pentateuch or Torah (Hebrew - Old Testament) as the source for the ban on same sex relationships. It's something that humans say was a message from God to mankind, and written by human-hand into the Old Testament.

There's this quote from a Google source, but as it's a quote, it can be ignored or heeded, depending on where one stands...... Many Christians have a peculiar obsession with Leviticus and the subject of homosexuality. Unwilling to accept the clear statements of scripture, they insist that Jewish Law applies to everyone, from creation to eternity. This belief, held by many Christians, is absolutely contrary to what scripture actually says.
The Bible is crystal clear. Levitical Law and the Holiness Code are for the children of Israel. They are not for Christians.

PopePalpatine

^ There's actually a passage in the New Testament which states that the Old Testament still applies:

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law [i.e. the Old Testament] to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

raxon500

It was my free opinion and mind about religions and religious people. But not about FAITH. Of course i believe in God, but that is NOT religion, that is FAITH. You can see in the Bible what Jesus telling us about faith contra religions. So is it off-topic now? NOT off-topic, because "the GAY things" is not FAITH question and not related to Jesus Christ. Some religion accept gays, some of them are not, but it's doesn't matter what religions accept or not. Religions is nothing - the Bible say. The question is: is Jesus Christ accept gay lifestyle??? The answer is in the Bible: NO. The Bible say that gays are never going to Heaven if they not changing their life.

God Bless.

Bannasidhe

raxon500 wrote: »

It was my free opinion and mind about religions and religious people. But not about FAITH. Of course i believe in God, but that is NOT religion, that is FAITH. You can see in the Bible what Jesus telling us about faith contra religions. So is it off-topic now? NOT off-topic, because "the GAY things" is not FAITH question and not related to Jesus Christ. Some religion accept gays, some of them are not, but it's doesn't matter what religions accept or not. Religions is nothing - the Bible say. The question is: is Jesus Christ accept gay lifestyle??? The answer is in the Bible: NO. The Bible say that gays are never going to Heaven if they not changing their life.

God Bless.

Bible says 'Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' (Matt 19:24) but I don't hear anyone calling the wealthy abominations or lobbying for legislation to be introduced to prevent people making loads of money.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bible says 'Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' (Matt 19:24) but I don't hear anyone calling the wealthy abominations or lobbying for legislation to be introduced to prevent people making loads of money.

Really? I have heard people in churches advocate legislation to prevent people making obscene amounts of money. Never, however, have I heard anyone in a church advocate legislation to prevent people from engaging in gay sex.

For what it's worth, I've also never heard anyone in a church call homosexuals abominations.

I have heard Christians call homosexuality as a practice an abomination. I've also heard Christians call capitalism and the largescale accumulation of wealth abominations.