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

Absolam · 15-09-2016 07:38AM

learn_more wrote: »

Your absolutely right once again. Why should I spend even a moment of my time considering what other peoples point of view are . Silly me.

Did you not say the scenario was completely fictitious? So, not so much other peoples point of view as a fictitious point of view, wouldn't it be?

solodeogloria · 15-09-2016 10:00AM

Good morning!

Sometimes I wish these discussions could happen in an open and honest environment where people are actually interested in listening what others have to say.

Having said that it is frequently frustrating to see people on both sides reduce Christianity down to a religion which is primarily concerned with being opposed to opposition to abortion and gay marriage rather than a rich and comprehensive belief system fueled by Christ's death and resurrection that leaves no corner of our lives unturned.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious · 15-09-2016 10:46AM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

This is incorrect, Gardai rightly might not divulge specifics, I've often seen papers stating that "when contacted the Gardai confirmed they are not investigating x " Re your reply to me above, this is what I wrote:
Somehow I can't see the local Gardai officially confirming to the I/T that they advised Mr Murphy that, for his own safety, he should NOT attend mass on the Sunday. I'd see them saying that they don't comment on individual cases, or that for security reasons they couldn't comment.

Is there really much of a difference between my "The Gardai NOT officially confirming or saying they don't comment on individual cases and your "Gardai rightly do not divulge specifics, or are you splitting hairs re definition of Garda non-informative replies to journalists questions?

.................................................................

Re yours on the shunning of Mr Murphy, So they are or they are not, which is it ?
Good question, which is why, as I wrote, the only way to get that answered is to ask locals that question. Maybe you should write a "dear sir/madam" to the Irish Times about that, seeking their assistance.

You can rest assured though that Mr Murphy is made of sterner stuff and won't be shifted on soon.: Mr Murphy told The Irish Times that he and his family felt “shunned and terrorised by the local community in Athy”, people like myself now are subject to living in fear and being ostracised by the local community.

”He said he and his family would “not be intimidated out of the parish or out of the town” and accused the Catholic Church and Sinn Féin locally of having entered into “a bizarre alliance” against him.
..................................................................

I thought it was a same sex marriage, rather than a platonic relationship ?
Regardless of the subject, I don't know any mainstream church that places people in leadership positions who do not agree with and / or understand that Church's teaching, regardless of the subject involved ?

Yes, it IS a same sex marriage. I wrote that already.

To quote Mr Murphy: It was because of their relationship, though he also said it was NOT about sexual orientation.

There is no getting away from the fact that the couple's relationship is both a lesbian relationship and a same-sex civilly-married one. I call Mr Murphy's attitude as splitting hairs.

.........................................................................

Re your: I don't know any mainstream church that places people in leadership positions who do not agree with and /or understand that Church's teaching, regardless of the subject involved........

Maybe it's a first here, but the Athy parish RC Church involved, which is part of the mainstream RC church, has placed (in Mr Murphy's words) the couple in a leadership position. That seem's to have met with approval by the local Athy parishioners, Mr Murphy - and apparently his family - aside. Then again maybe it's only Mr Murphy's assumption that the lesbian couple don't agree with and /or understand that Church's teaching, regardless of the subject involved, whatever that is.

Re your:I thought it was a same sex marriage, rather than a platonic relationship ?.......... really? Woo.

Edit.... re the square thingy which has appeared around the upper half of my post, please ignore it and see/use the extended dotted lines as the actual borders between the various paragraphs of questions and replies.....

aloyisious · 15-09-2016 10:51AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Sometimes I wish these discussions could happen in an open and honest environment where people are actually interested in listening what others have to say.

Having said that it is frequently frustrating to see people on both sides reduce Christianity down to a religion which is primarily concerned with being opposed to opposition to abortion and gay marriage rather than a rich and comprehensive belief system fueled by Christ's death and resurrection that leaves no corner of our lives unturned.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

God forbid that the parts of the bible so oft quoted by both sides be dumped to get JC's message from God across to the great unwashed. I've tended to see that last expression as a reference to the unbaptized.

solodeogloria · 15-09-2016 10:55AM

aloyisious wrote: »

God forbid that the parts of the bible so oft quoted by both sides be dumped to get JC's message from God across to the great unwashed. I've tended to see that last expression as a reference to the unbaptized.

Good morning!

The Bible can't be dumped. God's Word doesn't change. We might ignore it to our detriment but we need to sit under the whole counsel of God not just the bits we don't like.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Timberrrrrrrr · 15-09-2016 11:06AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The Bible can't be dumped. God's Word doesn't change. We might ignore it to our detriment but we need to sit under the whole counsel of God not just the bits we don't like.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

So all the parts of the old testament (rape/stonings/slavery etc) you agree with those?

solodeogloria · 15-09-2016 11:12AM

Good morning!

I'm happy to discuss all or any of the passages that you're referring to on another thread if you quote them.

This thread is about homosexuality.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Timberrrrrrrr · 15-09-2016 11:24AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm happy to discuss all or any of the passages that your referring to on another thread if you quote them.

This thread is about homosexuality.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Well Lev. 20:13 says

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both if them have committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death"

It also says the same thing about eating shellfish, pork, interest on loans and lots of other things.

So the question is

If "gods" word does not change, why are Christians not marching and shouting about the other above things that in "gods" eyes are also an abomination worthy of death?

solodeogloria · 15-09-2016 11:34AM

Good morning!

This has already probably been answered earlier on this thread.

We read the Old Testament in light of what Jesus has said and done. That's how Christians have read it for 2,000 years. Dietary laws for example were fulfilled by Jesus. We see this in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. Christians are also at a different point in salvation history to the Hebrews. We are on the other side of Jesus' death and resurrection. That's the reason why Christians generally don't insist on the death penalty also. If Jesus came to die in my place for my sin (which deserves death according to God's standards. see Romans 1:32) then how can I insist that others die for their sin?

Jesus however didn't fulfil the law on sexual immorality. In fact Jesus condemned all forms of sexual immorality. I've mentioned this in a previous post. Jesus speaks into all areas of our lives not just this one, but this shouldn't be ignored either.

The Bible as a whole needs to be considered together. In light of where it is in the Biblical narrative, who it is being said to etc.

God's word in its totality hasn't changed.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

marienbad · 15-09-2016 03:40PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Actually you don't understand very simple fact checking / verification and investigative journalism. I suggest you take your claim that the Irish times don't verify of fact check anything they report, including the rest of the story, up with them.

C'mon now, just accept you were wrong and move on

otherwise you will have to accept Pat Hickey is innocent of all charges just because he said he was and the IT reported it .

Giacomo McGubbin · 15-09-2016 08:14PM

marienbad wrote: »

C'mon now, just accept you were wrong and move on otherwise you will have to accept Pat Hickey is innocent of all charges just because he said he was and the IT reported it .

As yes, I remember you now, the stalker from the Pat Hickey thread. So that's what's bothering you, then as now, you don't like journalists reporting what you don't want reported. Tough. Take it up with the Irish Times. Also it's against boards rules to try and drag up a forum discussion you failed at in another forum.

Delirium · 15-09-2016 08:53PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

As yes, I remember you now, the stalker from the Pat Hickey thread. So that's what's bothering you, then as now, you don't like journalists reporting what you don't want reported. Tough. Take it up with the Irish Times. Also it's against boards rules to try and drag up a forum discussion you failed at in another forum.

MOD NOTE

Kindly avoid getting personal with other posters.

Back-seat moderation is against the site rules, just FYI.

Please amend your posting accordingly.

Thanks for your attention.

Giacomo McGubbin · 15-09-2016 09:13PM

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Kindly avoid getting personal with other posters.

Back-seat moderation is against the site rules, just FYI.

Please amend your posting accordingly.

Thanks for your attention.

You should kindly take it up with the poster who started trying to make it personal instead of dealing with the actual topic.
Also pointing out what the charter says when someone tries to go off topic and drag up what they failed at in another forum is not modding.
The rules should be applied to everyone, not selected posters.

Delirium · 15-09-2016 09:21PM

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

You should kindly take it up with the person who started making it personal instead of the actual issue.
Also pointing out what the charter says when someone tries to go off topic and drag up what they failed with in another forum is not modding.

MOD NOTE

If you see posts that are getting personal/ attacking the poster, please report them.

Same applies to posts you believe are derailing a thread.

Any further issues with mod instructions should be discussed via PM, rather than arguing with them on-thread as this is against the rules.

Thanks for your attention.

Giacomo McGubbin · 15-09-2016 09:34PM

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

If you see posts that are getting personal/ attacking the poster, please report them.

Same applies to posts you believe are derailing a thread.

Any further issues with mod instructions should be discussed via PM, rather than arguing with them on-thread as this is against the rules.

Thanks for your attention.

This is a public discussion forum and this should be discussed openly for everyone to see.
As you already know, posts were already reported earlier and the reports ignored.
Bias should be parked, and rules should be applied consistently to everyone instead of selectivity.

lazybones32 · 16-09-2016 01:36PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Apart from the below courses being followed by a reporter, I can't see how Mr Murphy's claims could be verified.

Has Mr. Murphy given any reason not to be believed? He seems to have spoken honestly and openly so far (not denying speaking to the priest; sending the text message or the FB post) Why the sudden requirement for verification when you didn't apply such measures to the same degree earlier?

aloyisious wrote: »

1. Ask the Gardai. Somehow I can't see the local Gardai officially confirming to the I/T that they advised Mr Murphy that, for his own safety, he should NOT attend mass on the Sunday. I'd see them saying that they don't comment on individual cases, or that for security reasons they couldn't comment. So for the meantime, we have to rely on Mr Murphy, the alleged victim, for the veracity of his claim.

The media often report that a person has been informed by Gardai that their life is in danger (the recent Hutch/Kinahan thing has seen such warnings printed at least twice over the Summer), so unless the papers are inventing these warnings, someone in the Gardai is actually saying it or at minimum, confirming that it was said. Were a reporter to contact Gardai and ask for verification that the Gardai issued such a warning, I doubt it would be refused.

aloyisious wrote: »

2. Ask the locals if they are shunning the Murphys re Mr Murphy's claim that he and his family members are being shunned by locals. The same applies to that, that we have to rely on Mr Murphy for that as well, barring a few locals putting their hands up and telling the media that they are shunning Mr Murphy and his family.

And let's ask people if they are racist...because everyone always answers truthfully!

aloyisious wrote: »

What might be interesting would be a report in some paper of independent standing reporting that Mr Murphy attended Sunday mass with his family after he received the reported Garda personal safety advice and that nothing happened as a result of him attending the mass.

So the man should have been accosted in order for his claim to be verified and believed? And then people would be saying he ignored Garda warnings...
I'd be more interested to know if a priest brought Communion to the people who were advised to stay away from their Church because they were trying to be faithful to it.

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the presence of the civilly-married lesbian couple in roles of import within church activities in the parish, the question should be asked of Mr Murphy were the couple flaunting their relationship or marriage while carrying out their parish-related tasks?

Having them at the focal point of the building is drawing attention to it.

aloyisious wrote: »

Mr Murphy has stated that his objections were NOT connected to the fact that the COUPLE were lesbians, just that they were in a relationship that did not comply with church teachings, a lesbian relationship. I call that splitting hairs.

A bit off mark; he said that they shouldn't be in positions of leadership within the Church.

The Curate at the centre of this has apparently written a letter to The Catholic Voice. He isn't too happy at the hi-jacking of the Mass* and regrets his being a part of it. http://www.catholicvoice.ie/index.php/132-latest-on-athy-parish-curate-speaks-out

*the Mass which became a platform for the "apparent triumphant and victorious return.." of the singers who quit a few days before.

aloyisious · 16-09-2016 03:43PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

Has Mr. Murphy given any reason not to be believed? He seems to have spoken honestly and openly so far (not denying speaking to the priest; sending the text message or the FB post) Why the sudden requirement for verification when you didn't apply such measures to the same degree earlier?

The media often report that a person has been informed by Gardai that their life is in danger (the recent Hutch/Kinahan thing has seen such warnings printed at least twice over the Summer), so unless the papers are inventing these warnings, someone in the Gardai is actually saying it or at minimum, confirming that it was said. Were a reporter to contact Gardai and ask for verification that the Gardai issued such a warning, I doubt it would be refused.

And let's ask people if they are racist...because everyone always answers truthfully!

So the man should have been accosted in order for his claim to be verified and believed? And then people would be saying he ignored Garda warnings...
I'd be more interested to know if a priest brought Communion to the people who were advised to stay away from their Church because they were trying to be faithful to it.

Having them at the focal point of the building is drawing attention to it.

A bit off mark; he said that they shouldn't be in positions of leadership within the Church.

The Curate at the centre of this has apparently written a letter to The Catholic Voice. He isn't too happy at the hi-jacking of the Mass* and regrets his being a part of it. http://www.catholicvoice.ie/index.php/132-latest-on-athy-parish-curate-speaks-out

*the Mass which became a platform for the "apparent triumphant and victorious return.." of the singers who quit a few days before.

Ta for the input. If you go back to Giacomo's McGubbins posting on this topic, you might find the one where he wrote a journalist is supposed to verify a matter as well as write about it - quote; I don't think you understand basic journalism. If someone makes a claim, a journalist is also suppose to verify/fact check it as well as report it: unquote. The usual way to do this is to seek out a second [preferably independent] source for verification, in this case the GS would seem right as they were the people Mr Murphy got the reported advice from.

Giacomo also replied to my pointing out a Garda response to inquiries by a journalist about threats and security advice, should a journalist have done as he suggested, verify the facts, only in this instance by asking the Gardai if they had given advice to Mr Murphy. I can't imagine a better source for a journalist to approach on whether the Gardai issued a safety warning to Mr Murphy, maybe you can.

I reckon that Mr Murphy himself, as a reporter and journalist (newspaper editor even) of some note would follow that rule himself. in order to ensure that what he finally puts to print and publication in the Catholic Voice is verified, as in the original meaning of that word.

Re your question: So the man should have been accosted in order for his claim to be verified and believed? Actually no. A simple question to any-one, even the priest, who was there at the mass would suffice.

It's nice to see the paper Mr Murphy is editor of, the Catholic Voice, apparently has a letter from the curate at the centre of this when Mr Murphy accused the Catholic Church and Sinn Féin locally of having entered into “a bizarre alliance” against him. Maybe the curate you mention and the local parish priest Mr Murphy was so critical of are two different people. Maybe also, as I said, wiser heads would prevail.

Re your "A bit off mark; he said that they shouldn't be in positions of leadership within the Church", I'm not sure what you mean. I suppose you mean this from Mr Murphy; He emphasised it was not a case of gay people not being welcome in the church. “Of course they are welcome in church and to sing in the choir, but they could not assume leadership roles because of the contradiction,” he said. The contradiction is that the couple are a same-sex lesbian civilly married couple, a marriage the church does NOT recognize, and not a heterosexual married couple whose marriage the church does recognize. Somehow I don'r see a lot of the parishioners being as interested in the couple for the reason Mr Murphy is, so the couple would probably not be so much of a focal point due to their relationship, rather their choiral management skills. Any other sudden or increased interest might lie with the publicity engendered one by MR Murphy about the couple and the church.

Re your "I'd be more interested to know if a priest brought Communion to the people who were advised to stay away from their Church because they were trying to be faithful to it. Having them at the focal point of the building is drawing attention to it" - personally I'd have been equally as interested if the Murphys had attended mass there in accord with their religious belief freedoms with faith trusting in the PP and the GS to ensure their safety from the locals he feared.... Irish Times report: Mr Murphy added that local gardaí were struggling to find the time to investigate the threats he and his family had received in recent days due to a lack of resources in the local force.
“Because of the lack of resources within the guards in Ireland it allows this lynch mob mentality to emerge unchallenged and people like myself now are subject to living in fear and being ostracised by the local community.”

Oh yeah, while I'm here, ta to whomever sorted out the problem with boards.ie access.

solodeogloria · 04-10-2016 08:54AM

Good morning all!

I'm reading an incredibly helpful book from the perspective of a same-sex attracted person who strives to live God's way on this issue. So far it's been remarkably helpful and I'm learning lots about what it means to be a church family and what how damaging putting marriage on a pedestal is for our churches.

It's called The Plausibility Problem - the church and same sex attraction and it's written by Ed Shaw who's a pastor at Emmanuel City Centre in Bristol.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

learn_more · 08-10-2016 01:22AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning all!

I'm reading an incredibly helpful book from the perspective of a same-sex attracted person who strives to live God's way on this issue. So far it's been remarkably helpful and I'm learning lots about what it means to be a church family and what how damaging putting marriage on a pedestal is for our churches.

It's called The Plausibility Problem - the church and same sex attraction and it's written by Ed Shaw who's a pastor at Emmanuel City Centre in Bristol.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Well it's progress of a kind to admit that one can be genuinely attracted to persons of ones own sex rather that thinking one is simply a sexual deviant.

I would suggest ditching Christianity and then one needn't read the book. Dilemma solved.

It's quite interesting that one gets the slightest hint that Christians are ever so sightly bending on this issue. I can't see any survival for the catholic church in this country unless the church serves the people as we are, rather than dictating how we should be.

aloyisious · 08-10-2016 11:50AM

learn_more wrote: »

Well it's progress of a kind to admit that one can be genuinely attracted to persons of ones own sex rather that thinking one is simply a sexual deviant.

I would suggest ditching Christianity and then one needn't read the book. Dilemma solved.

It's quite interesting that one gets the slightest hint that Christians are ever so sightly bending on this issue. I can't see any survival for the catholic church in this country unless the church serves the people as we are, rather than dictating how we should be.

Some Christians are in the "delivering God's word to the deviant" business for the moral good of all so they don't see it as dictating, more spreading the good word (using a slogan from the recent past).

You just might have caused outrage by using bending in the context of SSA

solodeogloria · 08-10-2016 12:03PM

learn_more wrote: »

Well it's progress of a kind to admit that one can be genuinely attracted to persons of ones own sex rather that thinking one is simply a sexual deviant.

I would suggest ditching Christianity and then one needn't read the book. Dilemma solved.

It's quite interesting that one gets the slightest hint that Christians are ever so sightly bending on this issue. I can't see any survival for the catholic church in this country unless the church serves the people as we are, rather than dictating how we should be.

Good afternoon!

Obviously as a Christian, I've got no interest in "ditching Christianity" because I believe God's word is trustworthy and true. I don't know why you would expect me to take such a proposition seriously.

I don't see what has been bent in this book. Ed faithfully presents the Biblical position and how he has come to see that Jesus is far better than fleeting desires even though he very much deals with same-sex attraction on a daily basis. I felt challenged by many of the chapters in his book as a single straight bloke. He works through the issues and very clearly explains how following Jesus means sacrifice in this life and that works itself out in many ways for many people.

If you're interested on a Christian perspective on these issues, Ed Shaw's book is probably one of the first places to look for a thoughtful and considered perspective that still puts following Jesus centre stage.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

learn_more · 09-10-2016 06:11AM

aloyisious wrote: »

You just might have caused outrage by using bending in the context of SSA

I laughed at that statement but then I instantly recoiled, cause...

@solodeogloria says this:

Ed faithfully presents the Biblical position and how he has come to see that Jesus is far better than fleeting desires even though he very much deals with same-sex attraction on a daily basis.

I expect what @solodeogloria is saying here is he thinks that homosexuals have 'fleeting desires' ie sexual desires and there is nothing more to being homosexual than that. If I were being picky I'd hardly call them fleeting desires if Ed were having them every day, but however...

This attitude is a fundamental mis-understanding what it means to be homosexual. A deliberate one too imo.

I would always ask this question to a married hetro Christian. What was it about her in particular that made you fell that you wanted to be with her and spend the rest of your life with her. Was it simple sexual 'fleeting' desires. Surely it's more than that, her personalty, her eyes, something special you see in her and she see's the same in you.

But Christians can't believe (or accept) that a man would look at another man in the same way, so they reduce their love for each other to nothing more than a sexual desire. In other words, they take the issue down to the gutter and use heterosexual disgust of homosexual acts as a reason to say it's an 'abomination'.

Well the feeing is mutual. The idea of copulating with a woman for me is equally disgusting, but when I see two hetro lovers in the park holding hands looking like they are head over heals with other I just think 'isn't that wonderful' , rather than thinking what they might get up to in bed together.

So @solodeogloria , I feel really really sorry for your man Ed, he that has reduced his love of a man to nothing more than a good f*ck.

I hope he gets his reward in heaven, cause he certainly won't get much out of this life.

solodeogloria · 09-10-2016 08:19AM

Good morning!

I think this post is unfair and to be honest I don't think you can write off the book before reading it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Cabaal · 09-10-2016 11:08AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think this post is unfair and to be honest I don't think you can write off the book before reading it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Does it advocate gay people being gay but not actually having sex?
The reviews of the book seem to suggest this is certainly a view in the book.

If it contains such a view then it can be written off without being read, this is merely the view held by many religious people already and demands that gay people suppress natural desires.

solodeogloria · 09-10-2016 11:46AM

Cabaal wrote: »

Does it advocate gay people being gay but not actually having sex?
The reviews of the book seem to suggest this is certainly a view in the book.

If it contains such a view then it can be written off without being read, this is merely the view held by many religious people already and demands that gay people suppress natural desires.

Good morning!

I advocate people following what God has said. Part of what God has said is that sex is designed for marriage. Marriage from a Christian perspective is between a man and a woman.

Ed's book goes through some of the issues. In fact he's dedicated a number of chapters to missteps that people often make in this debate. Including missteps that conservative evangelicals like me can be tempted to make.

Misstep 1: Your identity is your sexuality
Misstep 2: A family is a mum, dad and children
Misstep 3: If you're born gay, it can't be wrong to be gay
Misstep 4: If it makes you happy it must be right
Misstep 5: Sex is where true intimacy is found.
Misstep 6: Men and women are equal and interchangeable.
Misstep 7: Godliness is heterosexuality.
Misstep 8: Celibacy is bad for you.
Misstep 9: Suffering is to be avoided.

He also has two appendices at the end of the book which are hugely valuable.

Appendix 1: The plausibility of the traditional interpretation of Scripture.
Appendix 2: The implausibility of the new interpretations of Scripture.

I'm as I say, a conservative evangelical Christian and I was challenged on a lot of Ed's points even though I'm single and straight. They were all applicable to me even though this book is about homosexuality. Misstep 2 and 5 on church family were hugely challenging to me. In fact the thrust of the book is so much dedicated to common misunderstandings that you can nearly go away thinking we have completely misunderstood what the Bible says about church family and about friendships that we've wrongly obsessed about relationships and marriage in the church.

I'd recommend people read it if they want to be challenged. I think if you get it and read it we could have a conversation of much better quality than the one we're currently having. The Kindle version is currently £6.

If we're not interested in discussing or considering views different to our own this thread is pointless.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious · 09-10-2016 12:33PM

It's probably more true to say that when it comes to some humans, the biblical (human) understanding of marriage and God is that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman, rather than God actually saying that specifically. There's this as a counter reference:

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjVhJGXzM3PAhWqAcAKHTM3CFEQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2013%2F06%2F06%2Fbiblical-marriage-iowa-scholars-op-ed_n_3397304.html&usg=AFQjCNF_gO8dtrecttv6zScIUH_d8Oca-w

It seem's other Christians believe it was a quote from Jesus, rather than God, and the link with God is probably made because of the Christian Religion made-link between both personages. it's more that the establishment in the overall Christian religion can't or won't turn it's position on marriage on a sixpence and say "due to human error, we got our understanding of what God meant wrong".

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjVhJGXzM3PAhWqAcAKHTM3CFEQFggkMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gaychristian101.com%2Fdid-jesus-define-marriage-as-only-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html&usg=AFQjCNGaMKJj_poXtD2Ot7NykTWIiANXQA

I reckon the important thing to remember is that the bible (parts 1 and 2) is a guide book full of references and parables on how to behave like a child of God. It ain't meant to be taken literally, but with a degree of fluidity, as it was human-written done over centuries.

Cabaal · 09-10-2016 04:29PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I advocate people following what God has said. Part of what God has said is that sex is designed for marriage. Marriage from a Christian perspective is between a man and a woman.

So in short, you can be gay but you can never express that sexuality,

The issue here is people wanting gay people to stop being who they naturally are, to make them deny and never express what god made them.

Our sexuality is a very important part of our identify for each of us as a species, to deny it is to deny part of yourself.

learn_more · 10-10-2016 07:24AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think this post is unfair and to be honest I don't think you can write off the book before reading it.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

An evangelical heterosexual male reads a book about a guy called Ed who is a Christian who grapples with his Christianity vs his homosexuality ?

Let me guess. He comes out on his Christianity and represses his homosexual 'tendencies' ? What a surprise.

Would you be open to reading a book where a homosexual Christian ditches his Christianity in favour of living the reality of his life. I doubt it .

You go ahead and read stuff in books as if whatever is presented in books is the definitive answer to everything.

solodeogloria · 10-10-2016 07:34AM

Good morning!

Actually, yes I would be. That's what this thread should be about. If we're not willing to listen and be challenged this thread should be closed.

In fact I'll read a book you recommend if you get a copy of Ed's. We can discuss what we've read here.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-10-2016 11:46AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

[*]Misstep 1: Your identity is your sexuality

I am not seeing many people, if any, making that "misstep" however. I think what most people seem to claim is that sexuality is PART of your identity. A PART of who and what you are. And how could it not be when our current biology, after millions of years of evolution, has "designed" us to be reproductive machines? How could such a biologically massive aspect of ones being not map onto being a massive aspect of ones identity?

Suggesting your identity is a 1:1 relationship with your gender or sexuality would certainly be a misstep and an error. But as I say, I am struggling to find any awareness of people actually doing that.

solodeogloria wrote: »

[*]Misstep 2: A family is a mum, dad and children

That is certainly a misstep I see all too commonly from the anti homosexuality agenda. There is no reason to think that "family" means a mum, a dad, and their children.

Merely by ceasing to navel gaze and look around at reality will divest one of that position. The society around us is heavily punctuated by single parents for a start.

But more and more we are seeing different configurations of parenting. Gay Parents being the clearly obvious one. This forum also has at least one user who is in a romantic and family relationship where there are three parents looking after the children.

When it comes to parenting then "family" to me means nothing more than the children, and the people caring for them. And those people can be any combination of any number of people..... regardless of what genitals happen to occupy their underwear.

solodeogloria wrote: »

[*]Misstep 3: If you're born gay, it can't be wrong to be gay

Again this is not a "misstep" I see that many people making. In fact the only time I even see it brought up is when people call homosexuality unnatural. And people hasten to rebut that it occurs naturally in nature all the time.

But I think we as a species rush to label things right or wrong. Be it being gay, straight, being pedophile, being asexual, being angry, feeling hate, being in love, being big, being small, being rich, being poor. You name it, some one somewhere wants to say something good or bad about you.

And I do not think ANY of those things are inherently good or bad. It all, and only, depends on what you do with those things. And I included pedophile deliberately in that list above to show that I do stay consistent with my views on this matter. There is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. What is "wrong" comes ENTIRELY from what you do (or do not do) with those compulsions.

So I agree. Being born gay does not mean it can not be wrong to be gay. Being born gay does not mean it can not be RIGHT to be gay. I think being born gay is entirely neutral to considering the morality of homosexuality, and the expression of ones homosexuality, entirely.

So we have to look elsewhere. We have to look to homosexuality and the expression of it... in and of itself. And we have to ask "Is there any coherent arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to indict the ethics or morality of homosexuality and the expression of it?"

And, if this thread.... long that I have followed it..... is anything to go by the answer to that question is a very loud, very simply, very clear, and very resounding "NO". There simply isn't.

solodeogloria wrote: »

[*]Misstep 4: If it makes you happy it must be right

AGAIN this is not a "misstep" I am seeing many, if any, people actually making. I genuinely am starting to wonder who this author has been hanging out with to be seeing all these missteps happening often enough to be worth mentioning, when I am not seeing them at all.

What I DO see from people who make the sort of noises that sentence describes is that this is only a small SMALL part of their philosophy and they mediate it entirely with context, caveats and detail.

A better way to put it is that any action, whether it makes you happy or not, can not be indicted morally if it brings no reduction in well being to anyone else.

solodeogloria wrote: »

[*]Misstep 5: Sex is where true intimacy is found.

This is getting old but I have to repeat it again. I am not seeing many, if any, people espousing this. What I do see them espousing is that sex is a form of intimacy unlike any others. But that it is one of MANY ways in which we are capable of expressing and receiving and exploring intimacy.

solodeogloria wrote: »

[*]Misstep 6: Men and women are equal and interchangeable.

I am not sure what this even means or what the "misstep" is meant to be. Clearly, until our technology allows us otherwise..... men and women are not interchangeable in the biological process of reproduction.

But other than that.... the dictates of a biological gender..... I am not sure how or where else they are NOT interchangeable. Perhaps you can be a little clearer.... or make a list...... on where they are not. Perhaps I would be better able to comment or evaluate with something approaching clarity.

solodeogloria wrote: »

[*]Misstep 9: Suffering is to be avoided.

It is, but again I think a lot of context and caveats are important there. Especially related to the WHO is suffering. I think overall our aim in ethics and morality should be to maximize well being and minimize suffering. But that global agenda does not dictate local agenda. And often minority suffering has to be accepted in the overall path to greater well being.

Certainly, to throw out a fantastical situation, if I saw a group of children about to be maimed but survive a fire.... and I knew I could save them but only in such a way as I myself would be maimed and disfigured by the fire.... I would not back away saying "Suffering is to be avoided". I would dive in head first to minimize theirs at the expense of my own.

So again, what the "misstep" here is is not exactly clear. Suffering IS to be avoided, but what that actually entails and means involves a lot more than a single sentence would suggest. Clarity once again required and requested.

solodeogloria wrote: »

[*]Appendix 1: The plausibility of the traditional interpretation of Scripture.
[*]Appendix 2: The implausibility of the new interpretations of Scripture.

Sounds somewhat biased to me. Had I been writing a book I would have made it abundantly clear in my Section Titles that I was seeking and evaluating the plausibility AND the implausibility of BOTH.

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

Comments