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

aloyisious · 27-10-2016 05:02PM

Nick Park wrote: »

'Deviant' is not a word I would normally use (unless I'm talking about Donald Trump). But i think you just made a bait and switch.

There's a difference between saying someone is a 'sexual deviant' (which was the unwarranted accusation by Aloiysius) and describing a behaviour as being deviant. Having said that, I have not used he word 'deviant' in regards to homosexuality either as directed towards an individual or their actions.

I would characterise 'gay sex' as falling short of God's will for the life of a Christian. That, for the Christian, is what we call 'sin'.

Of course, as far as non-Christians are concerned, what they choose to do sexually (providing it's all consensual) is non of my business, and of no interest to me.

Nick; Please go back to what I wrote, examine it closely and try find where i accused anyone of being a sexual deviant. Your wording makes it seem I accused some person of being a sexual deviant when I used a term currently used by SOME christians to describe homosexuals. I regret you making such an error in understanding my use of the term.

SDG included both heterosexual and homoseual couples when mentioning the sin of sex outside marriage in this debate on sex outside marriage. I understand that SDG does NOT believe same-sex marriages are equal to religious marriages. I had thought that he was of the mind that what's God is Gods and what's mans is mans when it came to recognizing the difference between church and civil marriages, though I now think I might have been wrong in that belief.

You must know it is a common practice amongst some christians to refer to homosexuals as deviants, due to the form of sexual activity those christians presume the homosexuals to partake in. That is what I was referring to when discussing the sexual behaviour of homosexuals. Unless SDG was referring solely to sex outside marriage by homosexuals as sinful on the same basis as that of heterosexual couples, that he sees them as unmarried, and not in any way to a presumed homosexual variety of activity, then I'm sorry for presuming to imagine what was in his mind when he was writing here.

Stating that sexually active homosexuals are deviant and that the sexual activity itself is not deviant would, IMO, take an extremely fluid Christian mind to see a difference, IMO. also, IMO, I reckon that some christians might see such differential fine-tuning as displeasing to God.

It's coming across to me, from what you and SDG wrote, that you both see sexually active homosexuals as non-christian, due to how that activity falls into the category of being sinful and falling short of God's will or displeasing to the sight of God.

It's my understanding that a lot of homosexuals are practicing Christians and see themselves as such. I don't know how YOU would define such people with regard to their religious status and belief, in so far as YOU don't know if they are doing anything liable to be displeasing in the sight of God.

In respect of SDG's belief that what ALL persons do when it comes to sex outside marriage, regard of their personal religious beliefs, is sinful, in so far as he's of the stated opinion that they will have to repent, SDG quote; Because the Bible clearly says that any form of sexual expression outside of marriage is wrong. When we reach to that stage people clearly aren't willing to hear what God has actually said rather clearly in the Bible and aim to twist His Word to say something else. After extensive explanation of what the Bible says on this subject without any good Biblical response the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is willful disobedience. The truth is that Jesus calls all people everywhere to repent and believe. I need this and others need it too:unquote..... I note the difference between you and SDG in that regard: Of course, as far as non-Christians are concerned, what they choose to do sexually (providing it's all consensual) is non of my business, and of no interest to me.

In reference to where SDG states (what God has actually said rather clearly in the Bible.)........... personally I can't imagine persons of other faiths, beliefs or religions reading the bible on how their marriages must be run.

Edited to place the word/title Nick at the start of what I wrote......

solodeogloria · 27-10-2016 05:23PM

Good evening!

I've been really really clear aloysius.

All sexual sin irrespective of what it is is sin. That includes when I as a single heterosexual bloke lust after a woman. I'm really clear about that. I mess up and need God's forgiveness as much as the next person. Thankfully that has been secured on the cross for those who believe.

All sexual expression outside of the marriage between one man and one woman falls short of what God asks of us.

God longs for us all irrespective of what we struggle with to repent and come to know Him better. Repenting means saying we're sorry when we sin and turn around and resolve to change our actions with God's help. It means saying that our sin is evil rather than good and asking God to deliver us from it daily.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Nick Park · 27-10-2016 10:56PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Nick; Please go back to what I wrote, examine it closely and try find where i accused anyone of being a sexual deviant. Your wording makes it seem I accused some person of being a sexual deviant when I used a term currently used by SOME christians to describe homosexuals. I regret you making such an error in understanding my use of the term.

I made no error. You made an accusation, in a paragraph addressed to solodeogloria & myself, that Christians see homosexuals as deviants. We have said no such thing.

aloyisious · 28-10-2016 03:33AM

Nick Park wrote: »

I made no error. You made an accusation, in a paragraph addressed to solodeogloria & myself, that Christians see homosexuals as deviants. We have said no such thing.

Ah yes, you mean this from me. (Eh no. Both you and solodeogloria have left out important parts of what I wrote. - Solodeogloria left out this part: When Christians of all kinds look at a person of the lgbt community, they should see solely another human being and desist from any thought that the person is instead a sexual deviant, something unnatural. They know nothing about the fellow human they see. They, if they are truly of the belief they profess to hold, must accept that he/she is made by their god and not by anything else. They have no cause to have an ipso facto belief the person is what they call a sexual deviant cos he/she's not straight)

If you check my para above inclusive of the words "sexual deviant" starting at: Solodeogloria left out this part, you will see it was a part (para 1) of a response to SDG, a comment on how christians of all kinds should, when looking at homosexuals, see a human and not a sexual deviant.

The ref to you was about you leaving out part of a response I made to a later post by you, way after i wrote the above para as part of an earlier larger post to SDG.

Re your:I made no error. You made an accusation, in a paragraph addressed to solodeogloria & myself, that Christians see homosexuals as deviants. We have said no such thing....... My response is simply that you and SDG are NOT the only Christians in the world. What I wrote in reply to SDG above was not a reference to him and you accusing either or both of you of thinking that homosexuals as deviants. It was, and still is. a fact of life that there are christians that see homosexuals as sexual deviants. You have only to check the writings and statements of bishops and cardinals and laymen from within the Church of Christ to see that they did in the very recent past, and some still do, refer to homosexuals as sexual deviants.

As I have pointed out in my previous post, there are homosexuals who are Christians. They are doing their damndest to follow the teachings of Christ, being celibate as required by the church and still get included by bishops and cardinals, no less, of the same church under the general heading of sexual deviants merely because by definition they are homosexual and not heterosexual.

I might as well add that I edited part of mine above to read:My response is simply that you and SDG are NOT the only Christians in the world...... as my original was testy and began with: I've got news for you, you and SDG are NOT.... ect.

solodeogloria · 28-10-2016 06:54AM

Good morning!

I've agreed with you that there are homosexuals who are Christians. Repenting and believing for them will look like remaining celibate if they hold to what the Bible teaches about sexuality.

I'm not here to respond to what other people think.

For the record aloysius - many of your posts are unclear to the point of being downright confusing. If you could help us by sticking to what we have said that would help immensely. That means dropping the "sexual deviant" stuff because it isn't helpful.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious · 28-10-2016 09:49PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've agreed with you that there are homosexuals who are Christians. Repenting and believing for them will look like remaining celibate if they hold to what the Bible teaches about sexuality.

I'm not here to respond to what other people think.

For the record aloysius - many of your posts are unclear to the point of being downright confusing. If you could help us by sticking to what we have said that would help immensely. That means dropping the "sexual deviant" stuff because it isn't helpful.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

OK. I'll stick to using sexually-active homosexuals as one description then when discussing the gay component of this thread with others.

aloyisious · 10-01-2017 01:03AM

First off, I'm neither god-bashing or christian-bashing by mentioning an upcoming (after midnight) programme on RTE TV 1 titled God Loves Uganda.

The title caught my eye while checking the "whats on" list. The "blurb" says it's an account of the American Evangelicans' attempts to indoctrinate their Christian Right beliefs in Uganda. I haven't bothered to "google" its source or content as I'm going to record it and check it out without any preconceptions of its contents. Its up to others to decide what they want to do in regard to the programme.

Nick Park · 10-01-2017 08:33AM

aloyisious wrote: »

First off, I'm neither god-bashing or christian-bashing by mentioning an upcoming (after midnight) programme on RTE TV 1 titled God Loves Uganda.

The title caught my eye while checking the "whats on" list. The "blurb" says it's an account of the American Evangelicans' attempts to indoctrinate their Christian Right beliefs in Uganda. I haven't bothered to "google" its source or content as I'm going to record it and check it out without any preconceptions of its contents. Its up to others to decide what they want to do in regard to the programme.

I went to see this a couple of years back at the Irish Film Institute as part of Dublin Pride week. Pretty horrific stuff. The views expressed in it were, thankfully, not ones I have ever encountered from any Evangelical in Ireland.

However, I don't think the homophobia in the film was created by the Americans. Homophobia is pretty rampant in Africa among people of various religions, and Uganda has a particularly complicated history in this regard. The earliest Christian martyrs there were a group of 22 young male pages at a royal court who, following their conversion to Catholicism, refused to allow the king to bugger them any more or to pimp them out to his guests, as a result they were tortured and killed. This is celebrated as a key event in the church calendar (google 'Ugandan martyrs').

The Americans in the film (with the exception of one particularly nasty Westboro Baptist-type individual who isn't actually a missionary and is being prosecuted for hate crimes in the US) did not give the impression of creating hatred in Uganda. Rather they come across as naive people who were rather reluctant to talk about homosexuality but, when pushed by the interviewers, tried to distance themselves from their own government's (i.e. the Obama administration) pronouncements which are unpopular among many Ugandans.

I found it a profoundly depressing film. The missionaries were, in my opinion, generally rather stupid and the filmmakers had a particular agenda to pursue. I understand that they wanted to highlight the shocking and barbaric laws against homosexuality in Uganda, but in their eagerness to portray simplistic heroes and villains failed to explore the real dynamics of a sad situation.

aloyisious · 10-01-2017 01:32PM

Ta for the heads up on production bias and the bit about pre-existing local tradition. I'll give it a checkover later. The less said about SL the better, IMO, let him wither on the vine. He's just not your average Christian.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-01-2017 01:37PM

Memory might be failing me here but was it Uganda that Stephen Fry went to during his documentary on homosexuality? And their Minister for Ethics indicated that he thought men raping children was less morally problematic than homosexuality.... because at least men raping girls were having the "right kind of sex" (which is to say heterosexual sex)?

An aging brain and personal bias might be coloring how I am recalling that one to memory, but that is why I seem to recall. It certainly is a different think-space than the one I occupy to think that consensual sex between adults can ever be graded..... whatever your opinion on homosexuality may be, positive or negative........ in a way that sheds a POSITIVE light on the rape of children.

aloyisious · 10-01-2017 10:37PM

Peculiar video, as it seems to have been either cobbled together from pre-existing videos or the missionary church agreed to the taping of the video without knowledge of the video-makers aim to make a cross-community video. It looked like the US church had co-operated with the making and allowed video-interviews of its members, though I'm sceptical and not sure about that.

The local bishop might be right in thinking the missionaries are unaware of the risks in Uganda: looking at the one small bit where the young US missionaries in a van stop and chat to locals, then find the girl they are talking to is muslim. The video moves straight on to the male missionary talking to a local man asking him if he speaks in tongues which the local replies to saying he can speak three languages. I'm unsure if the missionary really meant if the local was multi-lingual or was making a biblical reference by asking if he could "speak in tongues" given how the video had both locals speaking to them in the same clip. I assumed the local man didn't make any biblical connect with the question.

I'm not sure if the video is correct in the proposition that the young US missionaries were deliberately sending the equally young new local missionaries into areas where they themselves feared to go, or if that is the policy of their church in the US. I had heard of the pastor giving a sermon using the gay video to make a point in getting his locals into an anti-gay frenzy, having seen a news video of SL and the anti-gay bill in the past.

I was surprised that the video made the point that the US missionaries didn't go to Uganda until after the fall of Idi Amin Dada. I hadn't realised he was a secular force in Uganda.

Re Nozzferrahhtoo's point of the Ethics Minister PV of raping children being a lesser wrong than men having consensual sex, I was wondering if the minister might think corrective raping of lesbians might be in order, ala the practice elsewhere in Africa.

Peregrinus · 11-01-2017 02:23AM

aloyisious wrote: »

I was surprised that the video made the point that the US missionaries didn't go to Uganda until after the fall of Idi Amin Dada. I hadn't realised he was a secular force in Uganda.

Only in the sense that anyone who runs a brutal dictatorship in which inconvenient people are disappeared, tortured and murdered is a "secular force" by virtue of discouraging foreign visitors (including missionaries).

From memory, Amin also had the Archbishop of Kampala murdered (and, per some reports, cannibalised), but I think it would be a bit unfair to secularism to describe this as part of a process of secularisation.

aloyisious · 11-01-2017 01:59PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only in the sense that anyone who runs a brutal dictatorship in which inconvenient people are disappeared, tortured and murdered is a "secular force" by virtue of discouraging foreign visitors (including missionaries).

From memory, Amin also had the Archbishop of Kampala murdered (and, per some reports, cannibalised), but I think it would be a bit unfair to secularism to describe this as part of a process of secularisation.

True enough. The Rivers of Blood description would apply to his activities. I didn't think about his crocodile-feeding.

aloyisious · 28-01-2017 03:19AM

Fr Bernard Lynch civilly-marries his long-term partner Billy Desmond.... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/catholic-priest-from-co-clare-marries-long-time-boyfriend-1.2954163

Cabaal · 28-01-2017 09:13PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Fr Bernard Lynch civilly-marries his long-term partner Billy Desmond.... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/catholic-priest-from-co-clare-marries-long-time-boyfriend-1.2954163

Delighted for em

Absolam · 29-01-2017 01:38AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Fr Bernard Lynch civilly-marries his long-term partner Billy Desmond.... http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/catholic-priest-from-co-clare-marries-long-time-boyfriend-1.2954163

Always good to see people having happy outcomes.

solodeogloria · 31-01-2017 09:21AM

Good morning!

Dare I be controversial and suggest that from a Christian position that this isn't 'happy'? The Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman and that is what God has declared it to be. On a secular level I agree that people can do what they please on this issue. However, within the church we're called to be faithful to God's word.

I was encouraged that the Church of England House of Bishops report which was released this week suggested that they would continue to hold to Biblical marriage. If we don't remain faithful to our Lord in our churches, where can we remain faithful?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Absolam · 31-01-2017 11:52AM

Well, I was referring to the happiness of Misters Lynch and Desmond. I doubt the Churches will suffer greatly as a result, so on balance I'd say the outcome is still a happy one, notwithstanding those who aren't happy with it.

solodeogloria · 31-01-2017 12:26PM

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I was referring to the happiness of Misters Lynch and Desmond. I doubt the Churches will suffer greatly as a result, so on balance I'd say the outcome is still a happy one, notwithstanding those who aren't happy with it.

Good morning!

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

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

Rebelling against God and what He has declared in His word isn't truly 'happiness'. It leads us into a place where we are expressly living in a way that God says no to for our own good and ultimately in a way that leads to destruction.

Although I recognise the freedom that people have under the law, it is an entirely different thing to applaud something that God says no to. (Romans 1:32)

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

lazybones32 · 31-01-2017 06:27PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Dare I be controversial and suggest that from a Christian position that this isn't 'happy'? The Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman and that is what God has declared it to be. On a secular level I agree that people can do what they please on this issue. However, within the church we're called to be faithful to God's word.

I was encouraged that the Church of England House of Bishops report which was released this week suggested that they would continue to hold to Biblical marriage. If we don't remain faithful to our Lord in our churches, where can we remain faithful?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

That's a bit hypocritical of you. Earlier in this thread (#6224) you berated a fellow-Christian* for seeking the removal of two married lesbians from their ministry positions in their local RC Church but now go on about "being faithful to our Lord in our own churches". Or maybe I just don't understand the context (I get that a lot).

*You tried finding fault with everything the man did before you even read his side of the story...if you ever did read it, that is?

solodeogloria · 31-01-2017 06:53PM

Good evening!

I don't think I'm being hypocritical.

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

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

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

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ScumLord · 31-01-2017 07:06PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

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

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

Rebelling against God and what He has declared in His word isn't truly 'happiness'. It leads us into a place where we are expressly living in a way that God says no to for our own good and ultimately in a way that leads to destruction.

Although I recognise the freedom that people have under the law, it is an entirely different thing to applaud something that God says no to. (Romans 1:32)

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

The problem is this isn't "happiness" or anything related to happiness. This is telling people to be happy with a set of rules, you can't tell people to be happy about stuff because you think they should be.

Christian sins are just the rules of that particular church, a set of restrictions that have nothing to do with happiness.

solodeogloria · 31-01-2017 07:24PM

Good evening!

If you're an atheist you're obviously going to disagree with me.

As a Christian on the other hand, it's entirely possible that living for my personal desires might make me feel happy for a time but it is never lasting happiness and if it's against God's will it's not ultimately happiness.

Happiness in a Christian sense is to do with the truth and living as God created us to be. Turning our backs on God isn't living as we were created to in right relationship with God.

I understand that differs with the atheist worldview but I think that's precisely why I need to state it all the more. Christianity doesn't see the world in the same way as non believers do. That needs to be stated all the more to ensure that Christians don't functionally live as atheists applauding the same things as they do.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

eviltwin · 31-01-2017 07:26PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Dare I be controversial and suggest that from a Christian position that this isn't 'happy'? The Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman and that is what God has declared it to be. On a secular level I agree that people can do what they please on this issue. However, within the church we're called to be faithful to God's word.

I was encouraged that the Church of England House of Bishops report which was released this week suggested that they would continue to hold to Biblical marriage. If we don't remain faithful to our Lord in our churches, where can we remain faithful?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

So people cannot be happy unless they believe in the same things you do and follow an arbitrary set of rules?

ScumLord · 31-01-2017 07:36PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If you're an atheist you're obviously going to disagree with me.

As a Christian on the other hand, it's entirely possible that living for my personal desires might make me feel happy for a time but it is never lasting happiness and if it's against God's will it's not ultimately happiness.

Happiness in a Christian sense is to do with the truth and living as God created us to be. Turning our backs on God isn't living as we were created to in right relationship with God.

I understand that differs with the atheist worldview but I think that's precisely why I need to state it all the more. Christianity doesn't see the world in the same way as non believers do. That needs to be stated all the more to ensure that Christians don't functionally live as atheists applauding the same things as they do.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

That's all in your opinion. Humans are the same machine whether they're christian, Muslim, or a pagan that has no experience with anything beyond it's own tribe. We all have the same underlying behaviour. Being Christian doesn't change that and being christian doesn't mean you can be happier than someone who's not a christian just because you think other people can't be happy because they don't believe the same things you do.

Unless you have some evidense that Christians are happier than everybody else on the planet.

solodeogloria · 31-01-2017 07:56PM

Good evening!

I accept from an atheists standpoint that all religions are equally wrong.

I'm a Christian however and I'm speaking about an appropriate Christian response to same-sex marriage. Namely from a Biblical point of view that it is neither 'happy' in the true sense or something to be applauded as praiseworthy in God's sight.

You're obviously more than entitled to disagree with me in respect to how I view this.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ScumLord · 31-01-2017 08:51PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I accept from an atheists standpoint that all religions are equally wrong.

I'm a Christian however and I'm speaking about an appropriate Christian response to same-sex marriage. Namely from a Biblical point of view that it is neither 'happy' in the true sense or something to be applauded as praiseworthy in God's sight.

You're obviously more than entitled to disagree with me in respect to how I view this.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

But true in this case means your opinion or the opinion of the church. There's no quantifiable truth in what you're saying.

I don't really see religion as wrong, just redundant. As a human being I assume all human history to be my own, I'm Christian, Muslim, Hindu and atheist. It all makes up what I am.

Samuel T. Cogley · 31-01-2017 09:11PM

Given that God created us in his image, and that through science we have discovered that homosexuality is by nature rather than nurture or freewill, although I concede that a spectrum of sexual experience can come about by freewill, why did God create some Gay and then deny them marriage and indeed go further and suggest that they should be put to death?

jobbridge4life · 31-01-2017 09:19PM

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Given that God created us in his image, and that through science we have discovered that homosexuality is by nature rather than nurture or freewill, although I concede that a spectrum of sexual experience can come about by freewill, why did God create some Gay and then deny them marriage and indeed go further and suggest that they should be put to death?

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

solodeogloria · 31-01-2017 09:20PM

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Given that God created us in his image, and that through science we have discovered that homosexuality is by nature rather than nurture or freewill, although I concede that a spectrum of sexual experience can come about by freewill, why did God create some Gay and then deny them marriage and indeed go further and suggest that they should be put to death?

Good evening!

I don't think it's a fruitful discussion to argue if sexuality is biologically hardwired or not.

What I can say is that there is a distinction between who we are attracted to and what we do as a result of that.

From a Christian perspective we live in the way that God calls us to. That's challenging for lots of people in lots of ways and it requires sacrifice but following what God has said is what is best. I have no doubt whatsoever that God as creator knows what is best for us and that He loves us in the best way possible by saving us from our rebellion against Him through His Son on the cross.

I don't think God creates us 'gay' or 'straight' rather God creates humanity. Identifying according to who we tend to be attracted to is an absurdity. Particularly for the Christian whose primary identity is in the Lord Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

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

Comments