Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Christian compassion or: 'It shook the foundation of your hatred'

24

Comments

  • #32
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Interestingly, Christians aren't meant to hate homosexuals at all. We are just told not to engage in such a lifestyle if we are truly to pick up our cross and follow Christ.

    The assertion that you hate the sin not the sinner ultimately falls down when dealing with something like homosexuality, where the person and the sin are so entwined, both physically and mentally, that it is hard to separate.

    If you hate who a person is (and while sexual orientation isn't the whole, it is certainly a part) there is really no difference between that and hating them.

    Christian compassion rings some what hollow because it ultimately is focused on what is based for the person based on your narrow religious interpretation, not what is actually best for the person.

    Despite mountains of evidence that repressing homosexual orientation leads to depression and suicide, Christians hold stubbornly to the idea that what is best for the homosexual is to embrace their religion and repress sexual desire for basically the persons entire life.

    While there is no doubt genuine compassion held by many Christians who mean well when preaching their version of reality to people, this goes only to a certain point because ultimately you guys don't seem prepared to reject your own beliefs when it is clear that they are, basically, wrong and harmful.

    So it is compassion only within a narrow framework that you are prepared to allow yourselves to operate in.

    It is a bit like holding to the belief that medicine X is the correct medicine. You go to a hospital and see people suffering, you feel genuinely sorry for them so you want to help. You give them medicine X, but instead of helping them it increases their suffering. For some reason you refuse to change your original position on the benefits of medicine X and you keep giving it to people, despite it making things worse. Occasionally someone does actually appear to improve, so you go "Ah ah, I knew I was right about medicine X"

    This is how I sometimes view the Christian claim to compassion and desire to help. You guys are prepared to help only up to the limits of your own religious beliefs. You will hold to your own religious beliefs despite being faced with the reality they they don't actually help.

    One has to question how compassionate that really is. One has to question how compassionate a Christian is towards homosexuals when they are still a Christian.


  • #33
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The assertion that you hate the sin not the sinner ultimately falls down when dealing with something like homosexuality, where the person and the sin are so entwined, both physically and mentally, that it is hard to separate.

    If you hate who a person is (and while sexual orientation isn't the whole, it is certainly a part) there is really no difference between that and hating them.

    Christian compassion rings some what hollow because it ultimately is focused on what is based for the person based on your narrow religious interpretation, not what is actually best for the person.

    Despite mountains of evidence that repressing homosexual orientation leads to depression and suicide, Christians hold stubbornly to the idea that what is best for the homosexual is to embrace their religion and repress sexual desire for basically the persons entire life.

    While there is no doubt genuine compassion held by many Christians who mean well when preaching their version of reality to people, this goes only to a certain point because ultimately you guys don't seem prepared to reject your own beliefs when it is clear that they are, basically, wrong and harmful.

    So it is compassion only within a narrow framework that you are prepared to allow yourselves to operate in.

    It is a bit like holding to the belief that medicine X is the correct medicine. You go to a hospital and see people suffering, you feel genuinely sorry for them so you want to help. You give them medicine X, but instead of helping them it increases their suffering. For some reason you refuse to change your original position on the benefits of medicine X and you keep giving it to people, despite it making things worse. Occasionally someone does actually appear to improve, so you go "Ah ah, I knew I was right about medicine X"

    This is how I sometimes view the Christian claim to compassion and desire to help. You guys are prepared to help only up to the limits of your own religious beliefs. You will hold to your own religious beliefs despite being faced with the reality they they don't actually help.

    One has to question how compassionate that really is. One has to question how compassionate a Christian is towards homosexuals when they are still a Christian.

    Nonsense.

    The Christian objection is not to orientation, but rather to homosexual acts.

    I know men who appear to have a compulsive desire to sleep around and commit adultery. I feel sorry for them, and am sure that they would be much happier if they were content with their wives. However, my compassion for them does not mean approving of their actions. It is perfectly possible to love the sinner while calling the sin for what it is.

    Such men, if they are to be part of the Church, need to learn to control their impulses - even if that makes them feel 'repressed'. If they choose to live outside of the Church then they are free to sleep with as many women as they want providing both parties are consenting adults.


  • #34
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,215 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    MatthewVII wrote: »
    That's the religious equivalent of someone saying to their gay friend "I don't mind you being gay, just don't do anything gay near me because I think it's wrong"

    The church believes that homosexuality is wrong. This means that any homosexual who wishes to be happy must turn away from god, which doesn't strike me as a particularly christian way of doing things

    You are incorrect. You must turn away from the church. You do not have to turn away from God. The church (whichever one, there are lots of them) is not God.


  • #35
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    PDN wrote: »
    Nonsense.

    The Christian objection is not to orientation, but rather to homosexual acts.

    I know men who appear to have a compulsive desire to sleep around and commit adultery. I feel sorry for them, and am sure that they would be much happier if they were content with their wives. However, my compassion for them does not mean approving of their actions. It is perfectly possible to love the sinner while calling the sin for what it is.

    Such men, if they are to be part of the Church, need to learn to control their impulses - even if that makes them feel 'repressed'. If they choose to live outside of the Church then they are free to sleep with as many women as they want providing both parties are consenting adults.

    Those actions hurt other people, they destroy life's and break up families. What is with you people? Every time homosexuality is mentioned you mention some other immorality is the same breath. Damnation by association. Maybe every time I mentioned Christianity I should also bring up child abuse and the pope being a nazi?

    I personally have no problem Christians, just as I have no problem with schizophrenics and recreational drug users.


  • #36
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    It is perfectly possible to love the sinner while calling the sin for what it is.

    But "what is" homosexuality PDN? Harmful? Damaging? Immoral? Wrong? Incompatible with Christianity?

    The Christian desire to hang on to the out of date and simply incorrect belief that homosexual life is some how bad and wrong simply because of their own personal religious beliefs, is ultimately incompatible with the idea of compassion towards homosexuals.

    Their quality of life suffers so you can remain happy about your choice of religion. That is not, ultimately, compassion.

    Ultimately compassion must involve the possibility of change on your side. You can be Christian. Or you can be compassionate. You can't be both. It is incompatible with Christianity
    PDN wrote: »
    Such men, if they are to be part of the Church, need to learn to control their impulses - even if that makes them feel 'repressed'.
    Even if that is harmful to them. Even if it leads to depression, misery, guilty and suicide?

    Again, where is the compassion in that?
    PDN wrote: »
    If they choose to live outside of the Church then they are free to sleep with as many women as they want providing both parties are consenting adults.

    If they choose to live outside of the Church the Church still tells them they are immoral and destined to end up hell.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Boston wrote: »
    Every time homosexuality is mentioned you mention some other immorality is the same breath.

    And when you point this out the response is always "I was not equating the two things, you are imagining things" :rolleyes:

    I've lost count of the times PDN has mentioned infidelity ...


  • #38
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    But "what is" homosexuality PDN? Harmful? Damaging? Immoral? Wrong? Incompatible with Christianity?

    This might be useful for you and Boston, to know that sins are not just involving harming others.

    Is it displeasing to God? Does it harm yourself? Does it harm others?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The Christian desire to hang on to the out of date and simply incorrect belief that homosexual life is some how bad and wrong simply because of their own personal religious beliefs, is ultimately incompatible with the idea of compassion towards homosexuals.

    "Out of date" is wholly irrelevant. We are custodians of the Gospel (1 Thessalonians 2:4 quoted near the start of this whole argument), we don't have a right to change what is explicitly mentioned to be sinful. As I say, sins range from me cursing you, to dishonouring my parents, these are all one and the same.

    We are compassionate to homosexuals because we want them to come to Christ like everyone else. What use would it be to despise a homosexual when despising in itself is a sin?

    One can disagree with ones morals and yet still be compassionate towards them and care surely.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Their quality of life suffers so you can remain happy about your choice of religion. That is not, ultimately, compassion.

    How does it? How do I affect the quality of life of homosexuals by holding my beliefs? I really don't think that works somehow.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ultimately compassion must involve the possibility of change on your side.

    It's ring a ring a rosey in this argument. Christians have no authority to change the Gospel. You almost seem to suggest that we should get a pen and cross out lines of the Bible. That isn't how it works. Either God is right or society is right, and given the state of society right now, I'm going to side with God.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Even if that is harmful to them. Even if it leads to depression, misery, guilty and suicide?

    Why should they have guilt if we all have indeed sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:10)? I've sinned, you've sinned, we are all sinners. However the Bible says that God will hold all accountable for their sins with the risk of damnation? How can we restore our position, and put ourselves right with God in the final days? Accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and accept His offer of mercy to you? Do you think Jesus is going to reject a homosexual purely for who they are? Definitely not, anyone can pick up the cross and follow Christ.

    The question is this: Are people willing to change and respect the will of God rather than have God conform for the purposes of humanity? As for being destined to end up in hell, no nobody is destined to end up in hell, they have the option of accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour.
    Boston wrote: »
    Those actions hurt other people, they destroy life's and break up families. What is with you people? Every time homosexuality is mentioned you mention some other immorality is the same breath. Damnation by association. Maybe every time I mentioned Christianity I should also bring up child abuse and the pope being a nazi?

    I personally have no problem Christians, just as I have no problem with schizophrenics and recreational drug users.

    Again read what I said to Wicknight concerning sin.

    What is it with us the Christians? We want to follow God with all our heart and soul and might and mean it. You have the choice to as well, and it's a free invitation no matter of skin, creed, colour, race or sexual orientation actually. You just have to be willing to change to conform to the will of the Father.

    As for Christianity and child abuse and being a Nazi. They are all sins, and they are how we have fallen short of God. Do you not understand yet, all mortals have sinned and have fallen short of God. No Christian claims to be perfect, indeed Paul didn't even:

    Phillippians 3:12-14 "Not that I have already obtained this, or have I already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus made me His own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies ahead and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on towards the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus".

    Now Paul was a murderer, but He accepted Christ Jesus in faith, and God worked through Him. God has a plan for everyones life whether they are homosexuals, prostitutes, adulterers, murderers, thieves, liars, etc, the list goes on.


  • #39
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    And when you point this out the response is always "I was not equating the two things, you are imagining things" :rolleyes:

    I've lost count of the times PDN has mentioned infidelity ...

    I clearly stated in the post itself that mentioning the two things together did not imply any moral equivalence between them.

    The reason why I mention them together, as you well know, is in order to make the following variations of the same point:
    1. NonChristians argue that action A must be OK because it is 'natural'.
    2. However action B, which both Christians & nonChristians agree is not OK, is also 'natural'.
    3. Therefore something being 'natural' does not necessarily make it OK.

    1. NonChristians argue that action A must be OK because refraining from it is 'not being true to myself'.
    2. However refraining from action B, which both Christians & nonChristians agree is not OK, is also 'not being true to myself'.
    3. Therefore simply because refraining from something is 'not being true to myself' does not necessarily make it OK.

    1. NonChristians argue that action A must be OK because 'God loves everbody'.
    2. However those committing action B, which both Christians & nonChristians agree is not OK, are also people whom God loves.
    3. Therefore the fact that God loves everbody does not necessarily make all their actions OK.

    Now, nobody has offered any effective defence against this point which effectively skewers these rather childish arguments. Paedophilia etc. effectively serve as action B in the above arguments. If somebody cannot see that the point of mentioning action B is a logical device which does not imply any moral equivalency between action A and action B then they would be better off trying to master joined up writing instead of trying to debate with adults.

    As it is we keep getting variations of the same stupid argument advanced, and, when the above rebuttal is presented, the same moronic whining about how people are equating homosexuality with action B.


  • #40
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This might be useful for you and Boston, to know that sins are not just involving harming others.

    Is it displeasing to God? Does it harm yourself? Does it harm others?

    I'm perfectly aware of that fact Jakkass, it is in fact central to my point.

    On the one hand a Christian may claim compassion to a homosexual, while on the other hand embracing the opinion of God has to what does or does not please him (sin) and that this is some how more important.

    Those two stances lead to something ultimately incompatable. It is not in the best interests of a homosexual to lead the life you believe pleases God. So why does your "compassion" for the homosexual lead you to God's side in the matter rather than the homosexual?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    "Out of date" is wholly irrelevant.

    Not really.

    The Arabian tribes living 4000 years ago could some what be excused for embracing a religion that taught that homosexuality was wrong because it disgusted their god. They had no idea about biology or evolution, why they instinctively viewed homosexuality as inherently disgusting (which is basically just an evolutionary way to stop you wasting time on men when you should be passing your genetic material on to women)

    You guys have less of an excuse for embracing a religion that teaches this.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    We are custodians of the Gospel (1 Thessalonians 2:4 quoted near the start of this whole argument), we don't have a right to change what is explicitly mentioned to be sinful.

    True, but you do have the right to not follow it.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    One can disagree with ones morals and yet still be compassionate towards them and care surely.
    Being compassionate involves being flexible on your own opinion. It is not simply a one way street. If you find that Christianity is failing people you should drop Christianity, not the other way around.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    How does it? How do I affect the quality of life of homosexuals by holding my beliefs? I really don't think that works somehow.

    Because you tell people (this is a public forum) that God does not want them to live homosexual lives.

    The idea that they can simply choose not to be Christians is a misnomer. If they didn't believe in the first place then it isn't an issue. The issue is those who do believe that what they feel is wrong, who do believe you when you say that homosexual life is a sin and displeasing to God.

    I would be so happy if every gay person simply rejected Christianity as nonsense. The problem arises because an awful lot, for what ever reason, don't.

    And that is before one factors in how Christians act towards homosexuals, such as in the way they vote.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's ring a ring a rosey in this argument. Christians have no authority to change the Gospel.

    You, as a person, have the ability to reject the Gospel.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You almost seem to suggest that we should get a pen and cross out lines of the Bible. That isn't how it works. Either God is right or society is right, and given the state of society right now, I'm going to side with God.

    I know you are going to side with God. That is why the claim of compassion rings hollow. Your religion, your personal faith and dogma, is more important to you than the quality of life of a homosexual man or woman. That is the opposite of compassion.

    The only way to help people is to focus on the reality of a situation at hand. If one comes at a situation with a perceived dogma of how things should be, that is ultimately doomed to failure and more often than not increased harm.

    A classic example of this is condoms for teens. The dogmatic argument is that if you give teens condoms it will only encourage them to have sex. If you don't, and instead teach them about abstinence, you will decrease the problems associated with sex.

    Bear in mind this isn't exclusively a religious argument (nor am I claiming it is your position). I know plenty of atheists who have made it as well.

    The point that is ignored is that it isn't true.

    The position should be dropped if it does not map to reality.

    Another example is the idea that the death plenty reduces crime. The logic is that the risk of losing ones life is too create for a criminal to risk, so they wont commit a crime that has the death plenty. Therefore if we introduce this crime will decrease.

    The problem? That isn't true either.

    Neither of these assertions are religious in nature, but they are both dogmas that people hold with the pretense of wanting to help the issue at hand but which are ultimately doomed because they do not map to reality.

    They are beliefs that reality should match the preconceived notions going into an issue. It hardly ever does.

    To actually be interested in helping people, in real compassion, a person must be prepared to leave their dogma at the door. It is your dogma, it doesn't necessarily relate to reality and the assumption that it does is counter productive and harmful.

    This applies to religion as much as anything else. If you come into a situation with the belief that your religion is true and correct and that reality must bend around this pre-conceived notion you are not good to anyone.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why should they have guilt if we all have indeed sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:10)?

    Because your religion tells them what they have done is immoral. That produces guilt. What do you think guilt is?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The question is this: Are people willing to change and respect the will of God rather than have God conform for the purposes of humanity?

    That shouldn't be the question at all.

    The question should be "Does Christianity help people, does Christianity improve the lives of homosexuals?"

    Not some of the time. Not if you aren't a homosexual so therefore it should if you are.

    This question shouldn't be asked in the context of well it is true to begin with so of course it does. It should be asked without it being a pre-conceived dogma.

    Does Christianity help homosexuals?

    The answer is no. It tells them their natural desires are wrong and that they shouldn't do them, despite them not causing any harm beyond the dogma that it displeases God. It tells them that to be moral they must reject their homosexuality and embrace a life counter to how they desire to live.

    None of this is helpful, any more than saying "Don't give condoms to teens" is helpful.

    It adheres to the dogma certainly, and if someone already holds the position that it must be true irrespective of reality, then they will always believe that it is for the best. But reality continues on, being reality not dogma.


  • #41
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    As it is we keep getting variations of the same stupid argument advanced, and, when the above rebuttal is presented, the same moronic whining about how people are equating homosexuality with action B.

    Yes but you are doing exactly the same thing that you dismiss as a "stupid argument"

    Because having an affair is following one's personal desire to have sex, and having an affair is immoral, doesn't mean that following ones' personal desire to have sex is immoral. Do you agree?

    You compare homosexuality with infidelity (more than once) as a way of saying that if men can manage not to cheat on their wives (boo! hiss!) then surely a homosexual can manage not have have homosexual sex.

    The point you ignore (on purpose it seems) is that those two things don't equate to each other. The man already has a wife. The reason he doesn't have affairs is because that harms his wife. That reason doesn't equate to a single homosexual because he doesn't have anyone to harm.

    You are trying to equate homosexuality with selfishness, a desire to have sex at the expense of others. You are doing that because you know no one here is going to try and argue that infidelity is moral.

    Not only is it totally untrue and unfair comparison, but it is a totally mean spirited and disgusting comparison because you know perfectly well that a man having an affair on his wife is nothing like a gay couple having sex.

    You shame yourself sir :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    How can you repent something which you do not feel is a sin? You believe it a god who supposedly teaches that for me to love another man is wrong, is a sin. Your god teaches that love is a sin. Something beautiful is wrong. That, and that's all the reason needed, is why you believe in a hateful god.


  • #43
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    Húrin wrote: »
    Sorry, but as an atheist, what understanding do you think you actually have in telling people how their church should work? You don't even understand the beliefs of Christianity. This is so arrogant. Besides how do you know that this ideal church you are trying to describe does not exist already? There are churches other than the Catholic Church.

    As an atheist who was brought up a Christian I think myself sufficiently qualified in the rights and wrongs of scripture, seeing the wrongs and rejecting them as unacceptable. What is arrogant is constantly claiming the moral high ground because you adhere to a code which is unhealthy in a modern society.

    Obviously, my experience extends only to the Catholic Church in which I was brought up in, and which forms the vast majority of faith in Ireland. To claim otherwise would be arrogant.


  • #44
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Because having an affair is following one's personal desire to have sex, and having an affair is immoral, doesn't mean that following ones' personal desire to have sex is immoral. Do you agree?
    Yes, of course I agree. My personal desire to have sex with my wife is not immoral.
    You compare homosexuality with infidelity (more than once) as a way of saying that if men can manage not to cheat on their wives (boo! hiss!) then surely a homosexual can manage not have have homosexual sex.
    No, I think you're indulging in a slight misrepresentation there. My point is that heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, do not have to indulge every urge they might have. That does not equate to repression nor to somehow being untrue to ourselves.
    The point you ignore (on purpose it seems) is that those two things don't equate to each other. The man already has a wife. The reason he doesn't have affairs is because that harms his wife. That reason doesn't equate to a single homosexual because he doesn't have anyone to harm.
    No, I don't think that is true. I could easily be unfaithful to my wife without her finding out. What she wouldn't know wouldn't harm her. However, it would harm myself as it would make me the kind of person I would despise.
    You are trying to equate homosexuality with selfishness, a desire to have sex at the expense of others. You are doing that because you know no one here is going to try and argue that infidelity is moral.
    Now you're totally misrepresenting me. I have not tried to equate homosexuality with selfishness at all.
    Not only is it totally untrue and unfair comparison, but it is a totally mean spirited and disgusting comparison because you know perfectly well that a man having an affair on his wife is nothing like a gay couple having sex.
    Why not respond to the arguments I actually made instead up making up this crap?
    You shame yourself sir
    And you shame your English teachers who, I am sure, taught you to read better than you are doing today.


  • #45
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    PDN wrote: »

    No, I think you're indulging in a slight misrepresentation there. My point is that heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, do not have to indulge every urge they might have. That does not equate to repression nor to somehow being untrue to ourselves.

    Chances are that all of a homosexual's urges will involve having sex with another person of the same gender. Chances are that at least a few of a heterosexual's urges will involve having sex with their spouse. You seem to equate a heterosexual man's urge to refrain from an affair with a homosexual man's urge to share an emotional connection with ANYONE. This is clearly unfair


  • #46
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm perfectly aware of that fact Jakkass, it is in fact central to my point.

    Right, but that doesn't make sense. Why should we dismiss sins that displease God, and sins that people do that hurt themselves?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    On the one hand a Christian may claim compassion to a homosexual, while on the other hand embracing the opinion of God has to what does or does not please him (sin) and that this is some how more important.

    There's no claiming about it. I care that all people have the opportunity to follow Christ. If I have benefited immensely from the Gospel why wouldn't I want that for other people? I would be selfish if I wasn't going to tell people that God is for all, from those who are considered by society to be first to the ones who are considered by society to be last.

    I want all people to embrace the walk with God, it's the most incredible thing that mankind has to experience. I embrace the position that God is right and that those who commit sins have fallen short of God's standard, and that it should be their aim to be as close as possible to said standard.

    How is this any different? How does this stop me being compassionate? I want the best for people genuinely. I may just have a different opinion as to what is best.

    Let me ask you a question Wicknight, parents disagree with the acts of their children, but in most cases their parents still love them and want what's best for them. The same is the case for God, and for God's people on earth in most cases.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Those two stances lead to something ultimately incompatable. It is not in the best interests of a homosexual to lead the life you believe pleases God. So why does your "compassion" for the homosexual lead you to God's side in the matter rather than the homosexual?

    No quite frankly they don't. It's not incompatible. Just because you disagree with me on what is best for these people doesn't mean that the intention is not good. My compassion for homosexuals leads me to God's side, because I believe that God has authority over all things, and I believe that beings who are spiritually fulfilled by God's presence and God's Spirit live better lives than not. That applies for everyone.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not really.

    The Arabian tribes living 4000 years ago could some what be excused for embracing a religion that taught that homosexuality was wrong because it disgusted their god. They had no idea about biology or evolution, why they instinctively viewed homosexuality as inherently disgusting (which is basically just an evolutionary way to stop you wasting time on men when you should be passing your genetic material on to women)

    You guys have less of an excuse for embracing a religion that teaches this.

    Less of an excuse? Interesting, I don't seek excuses. God has saved me and God has put me right with Him through faith, so that I may have another chance before the final judgement to put myself right before Him. As I say homosexuality is no more than any other sin, such as lying, lusting, being angry at another. We all fail at these, but the more we walk with God the more we learn on how to deal with such things.

    I don't need an excuse, that's the point. If I have freedom of conscience to embrace what God has prescribed for me instead of what society may want me to do, that is my choice.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    True, but you do have the right to not follow it.

    Yes, but I also have the right to choose it as I felt it was more accurate than the alternatives (including atheism) to how I have lived my life, and how it has been reflected in reality. I won't be rejecting Christianity.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Being compassionate involves being flexible on your own opinion. It is not simply a one way street. If you find that Christianity is failing people you should drop Christianity, not the other way around.

    Who told you that? Being compassionate means wanting the best for someone. I believe that accepting Jesus Christ with all your heart, and following Him, is the best thing for all humanity. As I say, I have benefited greatly from the Gospel and I want all humans on the face of the earth to benefit also. Is that really that bad a motive Wicknight?

    Anyhow, when did I say I found that Christianity has failed people? Christianity has never failed people. Most of the people I know that follow Christ have led fulfilling lives and are a true inspiration to others. That includes some of the things my fellow Christians write here on the boards, they have assisted me greatly in coming to faith. When I started posting here about more than a year ago, I was only starting in the Christian faith.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Because you tell people (this is a public forum) that God does not want them to live homosexual lives.

    I really couldn't care whether or not this is a public forum, for a start. You speak as if I should be ashamed of my views, and no I won't be. I won't be ashamed that I want the best possible thing for mankind, that they may humbly follow the will of their Father in heaven. Quite simply put. What part of the Gospel that we follow is hateful?

    Wicknight wrote: »
    The idea that they can simply choose not to be Christians is a misnomer. If they didn't believe in the first place then it isn't an issue. The issue is those who do believe that what they feel is wrong, who do believe you when you say that homosexual life is a sin and displeasing to God.

    I would be so happy if every gay person simply rejected Christianity as nonsense. The problem arises because an awful lot, for what ever reason, don't.

    And that is before one factors in how Christians act towards homosexuals, such as in the way they vote.

    Let's deal with this then. How is it a misnomer? You've constantly told me that I can reject the Gospel. You know fine well that I don't intend to really, and you've suggested that I should be somehow ashamed at how the Messiah led me to lead my life. Christianity is an invitation to all people of all races, of all creeds, both genders, of all classes, and of all orientations. We just have ground rules, as do every religion, and as do every society.

    How is it a problem that I have my own ethical beliefs? Your statement is just as devoid as saying that it is a problem that I see sex before marriage as wrong. I do, just because it's popular in society doesn't mean that it is right. Actually, it would indicate moreso that it could well be wrong. I believe that homosexual activity is wrong yes, just as much as I believe that promiscuity in heterosexual relationships is wrong. It's wrong because it isn't what God has intended for humanity. I'm still walking with God trying to learn what I need to reform in my life that doesn't conform in his Gospel. The difference between me and a few others in society, is that I will obey, and others won't. Many people I know even find my religious beliefs to be strange to them, but I have had no issue with anyone over them, even those of homosexual / bisexual orientation.

    I would be so happy if every person on the face of the earth, including homosexuals, decided to come before Christ, and change their lives to fit God's will. I'm doubtful that it will happen, but heres to hoping.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    You, as a person, have the ability to reject the Gospel.
    Yes, but you as a person, have the ability to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour and believe in Him.

    That's just an example of how devoid your statement is, I can just say the flipside to you. I don't see anything wrong with the Gospel, infact I see a lot of things right with it. It's been an inspiration to my life, why would I depart it?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I know you are going to side with God. That is why the claim of compassion rings hollow. Your religion, your personal faith and dogma, is more important to you than the quality of life of a homosexual man or woman. That is the opposite of compassion.

    Of course I am going to side with God!

    If God has become apparent in my life for the good and proper I will want the same for others. Infact everyone, I want it for everyone. I want people to be guided by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

    You speak of quality of life, but I don't know why you think that because when I repented of my sins and turned away from them one by one (and this wasn't easy, infact very difficult) my quality of life improved immensely. I still have sins to turn away from, and it will be a life challenge to meet God's standard, but I want to strive for it, as Paul strived for the goal of Christ's Kingdom.

    If I have recieved such benefits from the Gospel how isn't it compassionate to wish others have the same benefits I have had!
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The only way to help people is to focus on the reality of a situation at hand. If one comes at a situation with a perceived dogma of how things should be, that is ultimately doomed to failure and more often than not increased harm.

    A classic example of this is condoms for teens. The dogmatic argument is that if you give teens condoms it will only encourage them to have sex. If you don't, and instead teach them about abstinence, you will decrease the problems associated with sex.

    Bear in mind this isn't exclusively a religious argument (nor am I claiming it is your position). I know plenty of atheists who have made it as well.

    The point that is ignored is that it isn't true.

    The position should be dropped if it does not map to reality.

    I actually agree with you slightly on this. I don't welcome encouraging teens to use condoms, or to have pre-marital sex for that matter.

    However, I do realise that abstinence is hard to teach, it's hard for people to teach, and for it to resonate in the minds and opinions of people, that's why it is hard to teach. Many do stay abstinent though.

    It shouldn't be dropped to compromise ones ethics if it is possible to.

    Again you are saying that because something is popular in the Western world we should encourage it. That's like saying since we can't stop theft, we should just let them at it. It's really a devoid argument, why should we apply moral standards to somethings and not to others.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Another example is the idea that the death plenty reduces crime. The logic is that the risk of losing ones life is too create for a criminal to risk, so they wont commit a crime that has the death plenty. Therefore if we introduce this crime will decrease.

    The problem? That isn't true either.

    Well I would agree with you there, as I believe that Jesus didn't condone the death penalty in the Bible. However, unless you are an anarchist, you will agree that the crime rate would be much higher if we didn't have jails.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Neither of these assertions are religious in nature, but they are both dogmas that people hold with the pretense of wanting to help the issue at hand but which are ultimately doomed because they do not map to reality.

    I don't think either of them are doomed, it could be more a case of weaning people off if they are sexually active already. Again, though since this is an issue of wider society and not one of the teachings of the church, I don't see this as a reason why teachings of the church on sexuality should be dismissed because it isn't the exact same as what happens in society. The point of Christianity is that we are meant to offer an alternative and to liberate the people from sin through Christ. Believe it or not, Christianity has transformed peoples lives, and you can't dismiss that as being true, or that it pertains to reality.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    To actually be interested in helping people, in real compassion, a person must be prepared to leave their dogma at the door. It is your dogma, it doesn't necessarily relate to reality and the assumption that it does is counter productive and harmful.

    No not really. I've already explained my reason for encouraging God's will above all others. It's the best for humanity, and humanity should have nothing less than the best in my opinion. It's clear that many people who are lost, are merely ignoring the solution. My beliefs do relate to reality in the lives of many people, and many people serve testament to them being at work.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    This applies to religion as much as anything else. If you come into a situation with the belief that your religion is true and correct and that reality must bend around this pre-conceived notion you are not good to anyone.

    Again, are you suggesting that we cross lines through the Bible? If so I don't have the authority to do that, or infact the will to do so, because I believe that God has our best intentions at heart, and reality has suggested such in the mental health of believers, being quite superior to unbelievers in terms of suicide rates etc.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Because your religion tells them what they have done is immoral. That produces guilt. What do you think guilt is?

    I've been guilty of quite a few things that I have done that have transgressed God's commandments. However when you have a Gospel of mercy, it's quite clear that there is a method that is prescribed for you to seek the correct side of the tracks. I've done a lot of things wrong in my life Wicknight, I'm nowhere near perfect. Nobody in humanity is (Romans 3:10). The problem is if we have transgressed God's command, by definition we are due the punishment of God if God indeed has authority over His creation and we must give an account of our lives before the Almighty.

    This puts us into a predicament. We have been offered defence by Jesus Christ God's own son when we come before Him. You can either accept this or reject this. Many people have chosen to reject it, not quite so many have accepted it.

    However the point is, that we are to seek mercy from eachother, and from God, and we are to forgive eachother as we have been forgiven. This hasn't affected me at all. I've been guilty of my actions, but then again, I know that I can put myself right with God's help. It's no different for homosexuals.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That shouldn't be the question at all.

    The question should be "Does Christianity help people, does Christianity improve the lives of homosexuals?"

    Not some of the time. Not if you aren't a homosexual so therefore it should if you are.

    Yes it should be the question, as if you respect the will of God, God will make your burden light. So yes, Christianity does help people if they are willing to accept it and seek God with all their heart. Likewise it does improve the quality of life for all people not just homosexuals.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    This question shouldn't be asked in the context of well it is true to begin with so of course it does. It should be asked without it being a pre-conceived dogma.

    Yes you realise though, that what I am saying isn't preconcieved. If I have truly experienced that Christianity has improved my life since I began following it 2 years ago, and if I have truly found that Christianity has helped me that's quite a good empirical piece of evidence to suggest it has.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It adheres to the dogma certainly, and if someone already holds the position that it must be true irrespective of reality, then they will always believe that it is for the best. But reality continues on, being reality not dogma.

    Or how about this Wicknight, that Christianity is the reality, and that it is you that is mistaken? Interesting concept?

    That's the motivation behind our message. We have experienced it to be true, we have seen it in others, it's right before your eyes that it has worked for people.

    But this possibility doesn't really come into consideration? Could it be that you have preconcieved notions and a dogma of your own?


  • #47
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Boston wrote: »
    How can you repent something which you do not feel is a sin? You believe it a god who supposedly teaches that for me to love another man is wrong, is a sin. Your god teaches that love is a sin. Something beautiful is wrong. That, and that's all the reason needed, is why you believe in a hateful god.

    No, the scriptures don't teach anywhere that love is a sin. However they do teach that homosexual relations are, as well as lust.

    Mind you you did think that I was twisting the Scripture earlier.

    How about you read it indepth and see for yourself?


  • #48
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, the scriptures don't teach anywhere that love is a sin. However they do teach that homosexual relations are, as well as lust.

    Mind you you did think that I was twisting the Scripture earlier.

    How about you read it indepth and see for yourself?

    Why would I read the words of sinful men? What truth could I find there?


  • #49
    MatthewVII
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 825 ✭✭✭MatthewVII


    Jakkass wrote: »


    No not really. I've already explained my reason for encouraging God's will above all others. It's the best for humanity, and humanity should have nothing less than the best in my opinion. It's clear that many people who are lost, are merely ignoring the solution. My beliefs do relate to reality in the lives of many people, and many people serve testament to them being at work.

    I fail to see why god's will is the best for humanity, when one thinks of the division and conflict it creates. I fail to see why a system bent on making people suffer imposed guilt for the human condition should be the gold standard way of life for humanity.


  • #50
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Well for a start Boston, it would stop any assumptions, or accusations that aren't even grounded in Scripture.
    MatthewVII wrote: »
    I fail to see why god's will is the best for humanity, when one thinks of the division and conflict it creates. I fail to see why a system bent on making people suffer imposed guilt for the human condition should be the gold standard way of life for humanity.

    What division has it caused? The words of Christ alone have caused division? No, rather the selfish ambitions of men have.

    It's not guilt for the human condition, if humans weren't capable of transcending sin it wouldn't be sin in the first place. With God's help, and through loving Him, mankind can overcome sin through faith, and live a fulfilling life, sharing with others.


  • #51
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Boston wrote: »
    Why would I read the words of sinful men? What truth could I find there?

    So you believe in sin, then? And this is your criterion for not reading the bible? Tell me, can you name any book that was written by someone without sin? Failing this, I can only advise that you avoid reading altogether, including internet forums.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    So you believe in sin, then? And this is your criterion for not reading the bible? Tell me, can you name any book that was written by someone without sin? Failing this, I can only advise that you avoid reading altogether, including internet forums.

    The koran.

    In all seriousness, those who wrote the bible weren't recording the unbiased word of the lord, they had their own small prejudices, and that is reflected in the bible. Do you believe that everything the bible says is a sin is in fact a sin? Different Christian religions believe different things to be a sin. Jakkass there can go out and use condoms while my religion tell me its a serious sin.


  • #53
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Boston wrote: »
    The koran.

    In all seriousness, those who wrote the bible weren't recording the unbiased word of the lord, they had their own small prejudices, and that is reflected in the bible. Do you believe that everything the bible says is a sin is in fact a sin? Different Christian religions believe different things to be a sin. Jakkass there can go out and use condoms while my religion tell me its a serious sin.

    I would say that the authors of the bible had their own perspectives, yet those inspired by God. If you believe that this really means biases, then so be it.

    As for your religion - I assume you are referring to Catholicism? Their stance on contraception etc., afaik, is completely ex-biblical.


  • #54
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I would say that the authors of the bible had their own perspectives, yet those inspired by God. If you believe that this really means biases, then so be it.
    So these where magical mystical men from the land of make believe and fairy tales? Of course they where biased.
    As for your religion - I assume you are referring to Catholicism? Their stance on contraception etc., afaik, is completely ex-biblical.

    Seed on the sand and all that millarky


  • #55
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Boston wrote: »
    Why would I read the words of sinful men? What truth could I find there?

    If you don't want to read the Bible then that's up to you.

    However, if you want to enter into debates on the Christianity forum then, since Christian beliefs are based on the Bible, all you will be doing is displaying your own ignorance.


  • #56
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    PDN wrote: »
    displaying your own ignorance.

    I'll be in good company.


  • #57
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Boston wrote: »
    I'll be in good company.

    Indeed you will. Other trolls pop in here fairly frequently.

    BTW, anyone got a good collective noun for a group of trolls? Like any preacher worth his salt I go in for a bit of alliteration. So I propose a tribe of trolls, or a tedium of trolls. Any other suggestions?


  • #58
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Maybe you should get back to equating homosexuality to infidelity and incest? rather then calling me a troll.


  • #59
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Boston wrote: »
    Maybe you should get back to equating homosexuality to infidelity and incest? rather then calling me a troll.

    I have made no such equation. You are either a liar, extraordinarily dim, or you haven't read my posts. I will be charitable and assume the latter.

    You are free to disagree with myself or other posters here. However, I would ask that you do so without misrepresenting us. If your views are as right as you think they are then you shouldn't have to resort to such tactics.


  • #60
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    PDN wrote: »
    Indeed you will. Other trolls pop in here fairly frequently.

    BTW, anyone got a good collective noun for a group of trolls? Like any preacher worth his salt I go in for a bit of alliteration. So I propose a tribe of trolls, or a tedium of trolls. Any other suggestions?

    I would like to put forward "A Trammel of Trolls"...
    Trolls tend to go in circles and a trammel is a device used to draw circles and ellipses, as well as meaning a "hindrance or impediment to free action", and best of all "a contrivance hung in a fireplace to support pots or kettles over the fire."
    It's also a fishing net, representing the trolls key activity of fishing for responses.
    It's got it all, talking in circles, hindering the conversation, pots and kettles, being hung in a fire! :D


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    I cant see why you wouldnt have compassion for someone who sins, they have most likely sinned, erred, whatever you want to call it as a product of sufferring or pain. I am limited here too, I cannot have compassion for pedophiles, I just cant do it. I'd like to see them all put on an island and blown up, but I know at some level they live in their own hell.

    However, the more complex question of forgiveness, atonement, is what is more interesting to me. I have been thinking about this alot over the past few months since Yom Kippur, the jewish day of atonement, and has intensified at Christmas and the upcoming Christian new year, as we pass the holidays of forgiveness.

    Incidentally, I was taught in Catholic school that sin is not to disobey god's law but to alienate.

    Oh and another thing - for the Jews sin is an act, for Christians it is an act and/or a state of mind.


Advertisement