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

Cabaal wrote: »

To be fair this thread is about the Christianity and the LGBT community, it is well known that travelers are seriously religious group in Irish society...far more then the average Joe non-traveller.

It doesn't take much to conclude that any anti-LGBT sentiment they hold as a group certainly is likely to have influences from the way the church views LGBT people.

There is relevant here to this thread in my view,

Good morning!

On reading the article I didn't see anything related to Christianity in it. Like any group travellers may or may not have Christian belief. I don't think there's any evidence to say Traveller automatically means Christian.

I think posting links is good if the poster can relate them to Christianity.

For example Scotland's Episcopal Church is in the middle of codifying same sex marriage ceremonies. That's going to cause big issues for people who hold to a traditional understanding of what the Bible teaches but it will be great for those who want the church to conform to secular society. The US Episcopal Church were suspended from the Anglican Communion in January for this. I am naturally on the opposing side as I think churches ought to be Biblically faithful.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious wrote: »

As for answering any questions raised by absolom, he know's I do not want to be drawn into more rowing with him here. I believe that that is his only aim in his posting faux questions for me to respond to and that he is only interested in annoying, baiting and angering me. For that reason, I believe he is a troll.

Speaking for myself I don't want you rowing with me anywhere :-). I don't know what you think faux questions are, but I assure you my question was entirely genuine. If you find the thought of answering it annoys, baits or even angers you you're certainly free not to answer, though you'd have to ask why such a straightforward question is so troubling to you. Notwithstanding your belief in mythical animals, it leads one to wonder about the motivation behind your post.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Notwithstanding your belief in mythical animals, it leads one to wonder about the motivation behind your post.

Comments like this are unhelpful.

Delirium

aloyisious wrote: »

As for answering any questions raised by absolom, he know's I do not want to be drawn into more rowing with him here. I believe that that is his only aim in his posting faux questions for me to respond to and that he is only interested in annoying, baiting and angering me. For that reason, I believe he is a troll.

MOD NOTE

Please do not call other posters trolls.

If you believe them to be trolling, please report posts where they are engaging in such behaviour.

Thanks for your attention.

glued

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

On reading the article I didn't see anything related to Christianity in it. Like any group travellers may or may not have Christian belief. I don't think there's any evidence to say Traveller automatically means Christian.

I think posting links is good if the poster can relate them to Christianity.

For example Scotland's Episcopal Church is in the middle of codifying same sex marriage ceremonies. That's going to cause big issues for people who hold to a traditional understanding of what the Bible teaches but it will be great for those who want the church to conform to secular society. The US Episcopal Church were suspended from the Anglican Communion in January for this. I am naturally on the opposing side as I think churches ought to be Biblically faithful.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Do you think using ancient script, to base your morals on, is rather unwise? Some churches seem more keen than others on remaining 'biblically faithful'. But what does that term even mean? I've worn clothes than have been woven from two different fabrics; according to Leviticus that's a massive no, no. I'm sure the passages about slavery, death and many more immoral issues have been quoted here ad nausea so there is no need for me to quote any more.

robdonn wrote: »

Comments like this are unhelpful.

That's not necessarily true... It may well remain to be seen.

glued wrote: »

Do you think using ancient script, to base your morals on, is rather unwise? Some churches seem more keen than others on remaining 'biblically faithful'. But what does that term even mean? I've worn clothes than have been woven from two different fabrics; according to Leviticus that's a massive no, no. I'm sure the passages about slavery, death and many more immoral issues have been quoted here ad nausea so there is no need for me to quote any more.

Good afternoon!

Is it wise to trust the words of a timeless God who has demonstrated Himself to be faithful to both His Word and His people on a repeated basis? Yes. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever more (Hebrews 13:8). He will come to judge the living and the dead.

The question might be asked is it wise not to listen to this God?

From searching through this thread Leviticus has already come up. I'd be interested to discuss on slavery or anything else you've raised on another thread.

Biblically faithful means simply putting God's Word in the driving seat of churches, it means congregations who read the Bible regularly and allow it to shape their lives. It means that people are listening and becoming more like Christ each day. It means that where the world objects to God that the church will listen more rather than less intently to what He has to say into our world.

I hope that helps.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Pardon me for using your post to post the below. It answers a multiple question post from an O/P.

Ref the questions posted by absolom in his attached post; But maybe aloyisious can explain how the Christianity of the Travellers in the link he gave is relevant to the story (and perhaps his opinion on the story he linked generally) which would give us an insight into why he thinks it played a part in the acceptance of LGBT members within that particular family; maybe God's grace was why Hughie's father came to terms with his sexuality? ----

Ref question 1. My answer is that it was their Christian ethos that was relevant. especially in this thread and this forum. The family, inclusive of the father, following the ethos of Christ behaved in a Christian manner towards the bisexual son and brother. What else is to explain there as it's directly linked to God's grace as mentioned by absolom. I think that that grace is part of the Christian ethos the family has, with it's inclusion of God as it's figurehead, a basic building block on which Christianity is based. ..... Question 2. My opinion on the story? simply great, period!

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref question 1. My answer is that it was their Christian ethos that was relevant. especially in this thread and this forum. The family, inclusive of the father, following the ethos of Christ behaved in a Christian manner towards the bisexual son and brother. What else is to explain there as it's directly linked to God's grace as mentioned by absolom. I think that that grace is part of the Christian ethos the family has, with it's inclusion of God as it's figurehead, a basic building block on which Christianity is based. ..... Question 2. My opinion on the story? simply great, period!

Well there we go... despite the fact that the story mentions nothing whatsoever about the possibility that the family might be Christian, it's definitely nice to think nice things about people.

Good morning!

Here's another interesting article about good disagreement in the church about same-sex marriage.

I don't think that disagreement is possible though. Mainly because the Bible is explicit that sexual immorality is a sin in God's sight. Secondly, I think the reason why people re asking for good disagreement in the church is in order to get people to admit that this is a secondary issue rather than being explicitly contrary to what God has spoken in His Word so they can introduce marriage liturgy or rites for same-sex relationships.

My thoughts on this issue are quite clear. The church should be governed by what God has spoken rather than conforming to this world. Church and state should be separated and I think that means that the church should hold to Christian marriage.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

robdonn

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Here's another interesting article about good disagreement in the church about same-sex marriage.

I don't think that disagreement is possible though. Mainly because the Bible is explicit that sexual immorality is a sin in God's sight. Secondly, I think the reason why people re asking for good disagreement in the church is in order to get people to admit that this is a secondary issue rather than being explicitly contrary to what God has spoken in His Word so they can introduce marriage liturgy or rites for same-sex relationships.

My thoughts on this issue are quite clear. The church should be governed by what God has spoken rather than conforming to this world. Church and state should be separated and I think that means that the church should hold to Christian marriage.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Is it possible for somebody to summarise all the reasons why the church cannot include same-sex marriages as part of Christian marriage from God's word alone?

Cabaal

robdonn wrote: »

Is it possible for somebody to summarise all the reasons why the church cannot include same-sex marriages as part of Christian marriage from God's word alone?

i'd be curious about this too,
It seems messed up that "god creates gay people", "god looks down on gay people and wants them treated badly".

Cabaal wrote: »

i'd be curious about this wrong,
It seems messed up that "god creates gay people", "god looks down on gay people and wants them treated badly".

Good morning!

In all due respect I've said none of those things.

We need to be honest with one another's positions.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

robdonn

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

In all due respect I've said none of those things.

We need to be honest with one another's positions.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

As one of a number of Christians on this forum, it is a tad presumptuous to assume that Cabaal is speaking about you, or any one person, specifically.

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

In all due respect I've said none of those things.

We need to be honest with one another's positions.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I never said you did,
But it is the case that god created gay people, but yet his teachings are for gay people to be treated as lessor to other people. Thats a rather odd position for god to take.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Here's another interesting article about good disagreement in the church about same-sex marriage.

I don't think that disagreement is possible though. Mainly because the Bible is explicit that sexual immorality is a sin in God's sight. Secondly, I think the reason why people re asking for good disagreement in the church is in order to get people to admit that this is a secondary issue rather than being explicitly contrary to what God has spoken in His Word so they can introduce marriage liturgy or rites for same-sex relationships.

My thoughts on this issue are quite clear. The church should be governed by what God has spoken rather than conforming to this world. Church and state should be separated and I think that means that the church should hold to Christian marriage.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

As you believe that the church (presumably you mean the C of I you are in, given that the article is about the C of S) should hold unto what the bible traditionally say's about God's sayings on marriage and you have accepted the difference between church and state on marriage (several times on threads here, thank you) it's clearly for the members to decide that for themselves.

The good disagreement argument sound's like a "let sleeping dogs lie" policy to avoid the church being torn apart and achieve change over the long term. If there is no meeting of minds within the C of S (or the C of I) on what some now apparently see as a different reading on what God meant about marriage, then the answer is obvious. Stay and abide with the majority or leave and start afresh with the new understanding of God and marriage - this part of 1st sentence from the last sub-para in the larger 1st Para sounds relative to a possible schism: so that it does not become a barrier that stops us from journeying together.

Another part of the article includes this: [Simply put, it is about being able to articulate why someone believes what they do and the implications that their belief has on other Christians and on non-Christians around the world]. It seem's to me that that part is not about marriage but about the church message to people generally regardless of their faith or belief inside or outside Christianity. That put's a different spin on the article beyond just the marriage according to God you mentioned, but that the article is about the acceptance of Gay people within the C of S (or C of I if you prefer) generally, a much larger issue.

Being that humans are debating a very dearly held part of C of S scripture, I doubt, as you apparently do, if there could ever be a good disagreement on the issue. I think that if the C of S has a schism on the issue of faith and not just marriage (though marriage might well be labelled the cause) the C of I might well face the same here. Beyond that I have no thoughts on the issue and wish you well.

robdonn wrote: »

Is it possible for somebody to summarise all the reasons why the church cannot include same-sex marriages as part of Christian marriage from God's word alone?

Good afternoon,

I've offered my argument for why I believe that the Bible forbids sexual relationships outside of a marriage between a man and a woman here.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

I've offered my argument for why I believe that the Bible forbids sexual relationships outside of a marriage between a man and a woman here.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

So sexual relationships outside of a marriage are forbidden so by extension gay people (which god made) can't express any sexual relations since they can't get married (in the eyes of some people who hold outdated viewpoints)

So god made gay people to torture them and so they MUST suppress their natural desires?

Once again we're back to a situation of a rather mean spirited or twisted god, unless god has made an error?

Good afternoon!

God created all people everywhere for His good purposes.

God created the world and declared what was good into it. God's standards are given to us because He loves us and He wants what is good for us. We can of course choose to rebel against Him and His standards if we choose. I trust that He knows far better about what is genuinely good for us.

I find that this argument becomes excessively shrill. It doesn't need to be.

The fact is lots of of people repent and change their lives for Jesus to walk more closely with Him. That is sacrificial for many people who struggle with many things.

The same standard applies to us all. Other standards which are equally challenging to others are given. In the same way I too as a single person live in the acknowledgement that sexual expression is for marriage.

I don't believe that sexual immorality is a greater sin for the homosexual than the heterosexual. I do know that God's word applies to all equally.

I find that any accusation of God and claims that He is not good ultimately point to the futile and sinful rebellion we make against Him. We are the twisted ones. The case is acknowledging that we need to repent and trust in Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

lazygal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

I've offered my argument for why I believe that the Bible forbids sexual relationships outside of a marriage between a man and a woman here.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Good afternoon,
Are those who don't have religious marriages married? Are two men or women who get married in a civil or secular ceremony unmarried?

Much thanks,
Lazygal.

I've never really got around the difference between the various Christian churches on their biblical understanding of what God meant when it comes to marriage, except that they think it's all about procreation, as in being Pro-Creation, the making of babies.

The RC church has a ban in it's priests, those who entered the priesthood in an unmarried state, getting married after entry. I've never understood that stance as it bars priests from procreation. I'm not sure of the RC church's stance on married priests from other Christian churches transferring across into some roles within the RC church, though I understand such transfers are on the basis that they must refrain from sexual relations with their married partner and stay celibate from then on.

The other Christian religions have no problem with married priests or clergy, whether married before or after entering the priesthood. This now includes women as well as men.

It's almost like the churches, due to their various understanding of what God said about marriage, have an á la carte approach to it.

Re civil marriage and the churches, it seem's that in their opinion, marriage is solely for heterosexual couples as it's about precreation of babies. The churches can't get their head around the FACT that homosexual couples, with a bit of help from other males and females (straight and gay) can precreate, solely because it's NOT how they see procreation being done in God's preferred or traditional manner, as they understand and read it. It's like we are back at the flat earth era of the church understanding of knowledge. It'll take time for the church theologians to get their heads atround the new concept of conception and marriage, and get it past the various bishops meetings (committee meeting) before a vote, or maybe even several, to decide it's OK. The RC church may take a century or more to change it's position on marriage, if it ever does.

Good afternoon lazygal!

Yes obviously in a civil sense!

We're discussing Christian marriage which is different.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

lazygal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon lazygal!

Yes obviously in a civil sense!

We're discussing Christian marriage which is different.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Good afternoon, poster who sounds exactly like philogogos (sp.)!
My friends who get married in a Christian ceremony have to fulfill exactly the same legal requirements as I did for my civil ceremony.

Am I not married in a Christian sense? If two men or women marry in a Christian marriage ceremony, are they not married?
Much thanks.

This gent's F/B Ipad photo post seem's to sum up how four debates are seen from a traditional P.O.V. rapidly.

lazygal wrote: »

Good afternoon, poster who sounds exactly like philogogos (sp.)!
My friends who get married in a Christian ceremony have to fulfill exactly the same legal requirements as I did for my civil ceremony.

Am I not married in a Christian sense? If two men or women marry in a Christian marriage ceremony, are they not married?
Much thanks.

If it helps at all (since I know solodeogloria is beset with a barrage of questions across a number of threads);
The fulfilling of (civil) legal requirements is not relevant to the validity of Sacramental marriages in the Church, only Canonical legal requirements.

Your marriage in a Christian sense is first and foremost determined by your status as a Christian (well, more specifically from a Catholic viewpoint, Catholic rather than Christian, since Christian viewpoints vary but I'm sure solodeogloria can weigh in on where his particular perspective diverges from the Catholic point of view). If you yourself are not a Christian, and your husband is not a Christian, your marriage is viewed as a natural marriage rather than a Sacramental marriage; the Church considers it valid (as long as it is subject to no impediments), but not Sacramental.
If one or other of you is a Christian (validly baptised) it gets rather more complicated..... so you'd probably need to provide more detail on your circumstances to determine whether your marriage is natural or Sacramental, licit, illicit, valid or invalid. In a Christian (or at least Catholic) sense.

Two men or women cannot marry (presuming you mean one man marrying another man or one woman marrying another woman) in a Christian (Catholic) marriage ceremony; the ceremony may follow the form and appearance of a Christian (Catholic) marriage ceremony, but the fact that it involves a same sex couple means that it is not one; part of the definition of Christian (Catholic) marriage is that it is between a woman and a man.

aloyisious wrote: »

I've never really got around the difference between the various Christian churches on their biblical understanding of what God meant when it comes to marriage, except that they think it's all about procreation, as in being Pro-Creation, the making of babies.

I'd imagine it only really makes a difference to those who involve themselves with those Churches; evidently no Church in Ireland has sufficient influence to align a civil understanding of marriage with their own so it obviously doesn't make a difference to anyone who doesn't get involved with them.

aloyisious wrote: »

The RC church has a ban in it's priests, those who entered the priesthood in an unmarried state, getting married after entry. I've never understood that stance as it bars priests from procreation. I'm not sure of the RC church's stance on married priests from other Christian churches transferring across into some roles within the RC church, though I understand such transfers are on the basis that they must refrain from sexual relations with their married partner and stay celibate from then on.

The stance is generally believed to be held in order to prevent the progeny of priests from obtaining control of Church assets. However, there's plenty of evidence that celibacy was valued in the early Church, and it was this conformation to the chastity of Christ which seems to have resulted in the varying proscriptions in the Christian churches regarding both celibacy and chastity, particularly amongst the priesthood. So it could be said there are both practical and philosophical reasons behind all of the Christian Churches attitudes to the subject.

aloyisious wrote: »

The other Christian religions have no problem with married priests or clergy, whether married before or after entering the priesthood. This now includes women as well as men.

Well... there's a fair bit of variation on the subject. It's probably fair to say the Catholic Church takes one of the strictest views though.

aloyisious wrote: »

It's almost like the churches, due to their various understanding of what God said about marriage, have an á la carte approach to it.

Or perhaps, different understandings of the practical and scriptural (not to mention dogmatic) aspects of it?

aloyisious wrote: »

Re civil marriage and the churches, it seem's that in their opinion, marriage is solely for heterosexual couples as it's about precreation of babies. The churches can't get their head around the FACT that homosexual couples, with a bit of help from other males and females (straight and gay) can precreate, solely because it's NOT how they see procreation being done in God's preferred or traditional manner, as they understand and read it. It's like we are back at the flat earth era of the church understanding of knowledge.

I don't think that's even close to true; of course the Churches can get their heads around the facts, it's not like they're bereft of intellectuals. That they don't believe it's in accordance with Gods will doesn't mean they think it can't or doesn't happen.

aloyisious wrote: »

It'll take time for the church theologians to get their heads atround the new concept of conception and marriage, and get it past the various bishops meetings (committee meeting) before a vote, or maybe even several, to decide it's OK. The RC church may take a century or more to change it's position on marriage, if it ever does.

There's no real reason it should though. Understanding the ramifications of technological advancement will be (and has been for millenia) something the Church can probably cope with and fold into existing theology; changing position on Sacramental marriage doesn't seem all that necessary though.

Technological advancement???? Oh, yes this: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi9hJasg6_NAhUqKMAKHcgAB-YQFggsMAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbandictionary.com%2Fdefine.php%3Fterm%3Dturkey%2520baster&usg=AFQjCNESD0CzFG3FNOsxaj8UdTPJsvdQgw

tommy2bad

lazygal wrote: »

Good afternoon, poster who sounds exactly like philogogos (sp.)!
My friends who get married in a Christian ceremony have to fulfill exactly the same legal requirements as I did for my civil ceremony.

Am I not married in a Christian sense? If two men or women marry in a Christian marriage ceremony, are they not married?
Much thanks.

No, sorry but your civil marriage is not a valid marriage in the sense of a sacramental Christian marriage. Pope Francis thinks a lot of catholic marriages are not valid either so don't feel too bad, it seems most people don't understand what a sacramental marriage is.

tommy2bad wrote: »

No, sorry but your civil marriage is not a valid marriage in the sense of a sacramental Christian marriage. Pope Francis thinks a lot of catholic marriages are not valid either so don't feel too bad, it seems most people don't understand what a sacramental marriage is.

Good evening!

Shall we put this point to bed now?

I believe lazygal's marriage is valid. I'm not sure why we are discussing it though.

It is a secular marriage. That doesn't make it any less a marriage.

My only point is that Christians and atheists believe different things about marriage. A Christian marriage is a marriage conducted under a Christian understanding in God's sight. A secular marriage is a marriage conducted without any reference to God by a secular body or a government official.

Quite a few Christians I know have had both a civil and a Christian marriage.

I don't claim that lazygal's marriage is invalid irrespective of what a Pope has said on the issue. I think that is uncharitable and unfair.

However, I was discussing marriage within a church and how churches should see Christian marriage. My answer is that they ought to hold to the Bible.

I have no interest in slighting anyone's marriage or dictating to secular authorities.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria