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

Why The Horrible Attitude Towards Homosexuality?

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    equivariant wrote: »
    This is a fairly pathetic argument. It amounts to saying 'I don't like the implications of my belief system with respect to homophobia, so I reject the validity of the concept of homophobia'.

    No, Jimitime was making the very valid point that, for most people, the word 'homophobic' carries connotations of fear, hatred, and even violence. However, if you try to redefine that word to label everyone a homophobe who doesn't clap their hands and declare gay sex to be the best thing since sliced bread, then you are indeed using it as a weasel word.
    I was only following orders so. (A noble tradition that you are appealing to there). If the principles revealed in the bible are homophobic, then you should as a moral being reject them. You accuse me of sophistry and then try to argue in this way?
    No, I don't try to argue in that way at all. What I said had nothing to do with following orders, and I'm disappointed that you would twist my words so dishonestly.

    What I said is that the Bible reveals who is saved and who isn't. It is not the job of the Christian Church to enforce that on anyone, nor does the Church have the power to grant or withhold salvation.

    'Obeying orders' would be akin to a policeman who enforces a law whether he agrees with it or not. What I am doing in stating the position of the Bible is like your solicitor who tells you, "Look, this is what the law says, and if you choose to disobey it then I obviously won't do a thing to you or attempt to stop you - but the State probably will."

    You are free to disagree with me, but please refrain from falsely putting words into my mouth.
    Hardly sophistry when I openly acknowledge my atheism.
    It's a shame you were too busy cherrypicking a definition of 'homophobia' that suits you that you neglected to look up 'sophistry' while you had the dictionary to hand.

    Openly acknowledging your prejudices does not save you from committing sophistry. You are arguing that someone is being discriminated against because Christianity believes their actions prevent them receiving something that you don't even believe exists. That IMHO fully meets the definition of "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning."
    It is interesting that as a christian your argument has got so convoluted that you have to draw analogies between god and Santa/the tooth fairy/Peter Pan I think that these analogies are indeed very appropriate. And you illustrate perfectly the folly of basing your morality on a non existent being.
    I agree that they are appropriate. They demonstrate the folly of getting outraged by the witholding of something that you believe to be non-existent.

    Of course you try to twist it to mean something else, but, hey, why break the habit when you're on a roll of misrepresentation?
    I would like to point out that the OED has a rather different definition of homophobia. Specifically, it defines homophobia as "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals." In particular, it does not explicitly include discrimination in its definition. Make what you will of that.
    What I make of that is that you cherrypicked a definition to suit yourself.


  • Options
    #93
    Dublin_Gunner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I guess, you view Christian morality as ridiculous then. That's your choice, but we have the right to hold whatever moral viewpoint we feel is appropriate.

    As for the fact whether or not it already happens is irrelevant. Marriage is deemed to be the place for sexual relations in the Christian faith. Anything outside of this is deemed to be sinful.

    This is the difference between Christianity and social liberalism concerning sexuality.

    This standard is applicable to me just as much as it is to anyone else.

    So what about homosexuals, engaging in homosexual sex, after being married?

    Just because they may not have been married in this country, does not deny the marriage.


  • Options
    #94
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Malty_T wrote: »
    This makes no sense to me as many Christians have acknowledged that homosexuality is not inherently sinful according to the bible?:confused::confused

    That isn't actually true. The denominations you have mentioned previously are ones that have rejected the bible as an authoritative rule for Christian faith and practice.

    They generally acknowledge that homosexual acts are sinful according to the Bible, but they choose not to accept what the Bible says.

    See the difference?


  • Options
    #95
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    eightyfish wrote: »
    I think that to pretend there is a difference between "homosexuals are sinners" and "the homosexual act is a sin" is ridiculous.

    All mankind are sinners, we all need to repent of our sins, and we all need to accept Jesus Christ as our Saviour to receive salvation according to Christianity. I've done this already.

    Homosexual acts are sinful, as are many other things in Christianity.
    eightyfish wrote: »
    I also think that saying to gay people "you are welcome to our church, but you must renounce your sins" is an abusive statemtnt. It is your right to your belief, yes, but this kind of talk leads yourg gay people into all sorts of self-hate and self-doubt that is destructive.

    Does repentance mean hating ones self? I've repented my sins, and I don't hate myself in any way. I accepted that I did things wrong, but that doesn't amount to hatred of ones self.

    I think saying to Christians, you must change your religion to suit us, is abusive.
    Dublin_Gunner wrote: »
    So what about homosexuals, engaging in homosexual sex, after being married?

    Just because they may not have been married in this country, does not deny the marriage.

    In Christianity a marriage is considered to be between a man and a woman. So we are working under that definition.


  • Options
    #96
    greendom
    Registered Users Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Only celibate homosexuals are not sinning? What planet are you living on where sex is not important? Straight people have sex. (Except priests.) Gay people have sex. Sex in an integral part of life. To say it's okay to be gay as long as you don't have sex is, frankly, ridiculous.

    lol at the bold bit :D On 2 counts - the obvious -not having sex and secondly that there are no gay priests!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Jakkass wrote: »
    All mankind are sinners

    Fair enough. We're all sinners in your God's eyes, except those who have repented and accepted the truth. Ie you and your church.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think saying to Christians, you must change your religion to suit us, is abusive.

    Ah- now- here we go again. Being gay is not the same as being a christian. You are born one, you acquire the other. I know, Jakkass, that you do not subscribe to this view, but anyone who has had any sort of friendship with any gay people will know that this is the case. Also we have some recent research to back it up.


  • Options
    #98
    homer911
    Registered Users Posts: 5,113 ✭✭✭homer911


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Fair enough. We're all sinners in your God's eyes, except those who have repented and accepted the truth. Ie you and your church.

    No, We are all sinners. Period. Only Jesus was without sin.


  • Options
    #99
    Dublin_Gunner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Jakkass wrote: »


    In Christianity a marriage is considered to be between a man and a woman. So we are working under that definition.

    Where exactly is it written that a marriage must be between a man and woman, in scripture?

    I've never heard of this, and would like to know if this view is supported in the bible.


  • Options
    #100
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've repented my sins, and I don't hate myself in any way. I accepted that I did things wrong, but that doesn't amount to hatred of ones self.
    You're not homosexual Jakkass so making a comparision to your life is irrelevant. The hatred of oneself comes from the acknowledgement that the gay is constantly doing wrong only they cannot help themselves it is a form of temptation yes, but is an innate one almost impossible to ignore good luck with trying to ignore it.
    PDN wrote: »
    That isn't actually true. The denominations you have mentioned previously are ones that have rejected the bible as an authoritative rule for Christian faith and practice.

    They generally acknowledge that homosexual acts are sinful according to the Bible, but they choose not to accept what the Bible says.

    See the difference?

    I do, the difference is these denominations follow mainly the teachings of Jesus , does Jesus express any views re homosexuality??


  • Options
    #101
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Fair enough. We're all sinners in your God's eyes, except those who have repented and accepted the truth. Ie you and your church.

    I'm just as guilty as anyone else, and I'm just as deserving to be punished for those sins. I have accepted God's grace, and I have been forgiven. The same is possible for anyone.

    homer911 sums this up aptly.
    eightyfish wrote: »
    Ah- now- here we go again. Being gay is not the same as being a christian. You are born one, you acquire the other. I know, Jakkass, that you do not subscribe to this view, but anyone who has had any sort of friendship with any gay people will know that this is the case. Also we have some recent research to back it up.

    There simply isn't any evidence to suggest that people are born homosexual. I am willing to say I don't know, and nobody knows. It's dishonest to say otherwise. You cited research before but none of it said that sexuality was biologically determined.

    I can't change Christianity, because it isn't mine to change!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    homer911 wrote: »
    No, We are all sinners. Period. Only Jesus was without sin.

    I stand corrected - what I meant was that only christians, who have repented for the sins they have, will be saved. Everyone else, as long as they don't repent, is doomed.

    (Maybe we should stop this one here - for fear of derailing the thread with theology.)


  • Options
    #103
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty_T wrote: »
    You're not homosexual Jakkass so making a comparision to your life is irrelevant. The hatred of oneself comes from the acknowledgement that the gay is constantly doing wrong only they cannot help themselves it is a form of temptation yes, but is an innate one almost impossible to ignore good luck with trying to ignore it.

    I actually found it difficult to turn away from many of my sins, I still find it difficult to turn from many of the sins that I still struggle with. I don't hate myself for what I have done in the past, and I don't think anyone should. I don't even think that Christianity promotes this.

    As such I think my post was valid.


  • Options
    #104
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Being gay is not the same as being a christian. You are born one, you acquire the other..

    Nonsense! The lord decided homosexuality was sin. If people were to have no choice in the matter by being born that way, then that would make the lord unjust!:eek: As we know that is clearly impossible we conclude that no one is born a homosexual.
    Also we have some recent research to back it up
    C'mon science :D.

    Hmm, now I know why Christianity is mostly against research in genetics:p


  • Options
    #105
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I can't change Christianity, because it isn't mine to change!
    You may not have written or edited the founding texts, but as you implied yourself, you certainly interpret them as you wish:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Mordeth wrote:
    so the reason you're sure your version of christianity is the right one for you is that it's the one you're most familiar with?
    No. It suits my interpretatation.


  • Options
    #106
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Hmm, now I know why Christianity is mostly against research in genetics:p

    Ey?:confused:


  • Options
    #107
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I actually found it difficult to turn away from many of my sins, I still find it difficult to turn from many of the sins that I still struggle with. I don't hate myself for what I have done in the past, and I don't think anyone should. I don't even think that Christianity promotes this.

    As such I think my post was valid.

    In fairness though what is asked of you is a lot less than is what is asked of a homosexual man. You can still have a life long physical relationship with someone you love. Homosexuals are told that they can't, this is sinful. They must give up this aspect completely and view their desire to have this as being wrong.


  • Options
    #108
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    robindch wrote: »
    You may not have written or edited the founding texts, but as you implied yourself, you certainly interpret them as you wish:

    That depends on how ambiguous you consider Pauline theology on homosexuality to be.


  • Options
    #109
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Jakkass wrote: »
    There simply isn't any evidence to suggest that people are born homosexual.

    There is growing evidence. Also this. At least there is some evidence, so to say there isn't any is not true.

    Also, to suggest that people are not born gay is, in my opinion and in the true sense of the word, ignorant. Any gay person you meet will tell you it is something you are born with. Also there are certain idiosyncrasies which are possessed by gay people and these are evident in some cases from a very early age. A lot of gay people will tell you that if they could choose, they would be straight, becasue being gay makes like much more complicated.


  • Options
    #110
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    PDN wrote: »
    No, Jimitime was making the very valid point that, for most people, the word 'homophobic' carries connotations of fear, hatred, and even violence. However, if you try to redefine that word to label everyone a homophobe who doesn't clap their hands and declare gay sex to be the best thing since sliced bread, then you are indeed using it as a weasel word.

    Now who is putting words in whose mouth. I made very clear the definition of homophobia (I will return to your cherrypicking accusation later).
    No, I don't try to argue in that way at all. What I said had nothing to do with following orders, and I'm disappointed that you would twist my words so dishonestly.

    What I said is that the Bible reveals who is saved and who isn't. It is not the job of the Christian Church to enforce that on anyone, nor does the Church have the power to grant or withhold salvation.
    Now this is real sophistry, isn't it. The "bible reveals who is saved and who is not", therefore christianity cannot be homophobic, since we are only following the bible. So you are attempting to distinguish between christianity and the bible in order to justify behaviour that the majority of society deems unacceptable. If we can apply that type of reasoning, then any behaviour is acceptable as long as it can be attributed to some revealed document. This is either deliberate sophistry or just laziness. No serious defender of christianity would argue that something is acceptable just because a literal reading of the bible says so.




    You are free to disagree with me, but please refrain from falsely putting words into my mouth.
    I never quoted anyone as saying that 'I was just following orders' - I was merely pointing out the commonalities between your argument and this longstanding justification of bad behaviour. I stand by that observation. Many wicked people throughout history have argued in the way that you have - by trying to distinguish themselves from the set of rules that they were allegedly just following. Note, I am not accusing you of wickedness, so please don't take that as an ad hominem attack. I am merely pointing out some commonalities.

    Openly acknowledging your prejudices does not save you from committing sophistry. You are arguing that someone is being discriminated against because Christianity believes their actions prevent them receiving something that you don't even believe exists. That IMHO fully meets the definition of "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning."
    First, I don't believe that atheism is a "prejudice". However, that may be an argument for another thread. Homophobia, on the other hand, is I believe a prejudice.

    To the accusation of sophistry. My argument was not unnecessarily subtle. Nor did I attempt to obscure some fact relevant to the argument. Regarding the accusation of fallaciousness - where exactly is the fallacy? I considered a definition of the word "homophobia" and then by applying the churches own rules, came to the conclusion that christian dogma satisfied this definition. In what way is that argument fallacious. I can accept that you may dispute my interpretation of christian dogma. However, that does not render my argument fallacious. Your accusation of sophistry is without foundation.



    What I make of that is that you cherrypicked a definition to suit yourself.
    Seeing as Merriam-Webster is one of the most widely used dictionaries in the world, it is hardly "cherry-picking". It was the first online dictionary to which I referred and that it is the reason why I adopted that definition. Moreover, when I suggested that definition, nobody objected to it then. I, for the sake of honesty, decided to point out the difference with the OED - hardly the actions of a cherry-picker. Moreover, if you want to adopt the OED definition, I will still argue that christian dogma fits that particular bill as well.


  • Options
    #111
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    robindch wrote: »
    You may not have written or edited the founding texts, but as you implied yourself, you certainly interpret them as you wish:
    Great. So we may have a solution in sight! Christians cannot discount what the bible dictates to them, but it seems there is some wriggle room in that we can persuade them to revise how they interpret the bible?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Dublin_Gunner wrote: »
    Where exactly is it written that a marriage must be between a man and woman, in scripture?

    It doesn't.

    That is an common interpretation given that it never mentions marriage in any other context than between a man and a woman.

    There are Christian groups, albeit in the minority, who see no issue with homosexuals getting married, or homosexual sex inside marriage, they take the position that not every single thing is going to be specifically mentioned in the Bible and that the over all message (marriage is about love and companionship) is retained in a homosexual marriage.


  • Options
    #113
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    <snip>
    slight misunderstanding
    </snip>


  • Options
    #114
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Dublin_Gunner wrote: »
    PDN - to a comment you made on the first page I think; How could you, as a Christian, state that homosexuality is tolerated, yet in the same breath say its practices are condemned in the New Testament?

    Surely, they are one and the same, and this is merely another blindingly obvious statement of hypocrisy

    No, my position on homosexuality is one I have made abundantly clear in many threads on this board. Unfortunately it frequently gets drowned out by the hysteria of some non-Christian posters who appear unable to discuss this subject without hurling insults and making sweeping generalisations.

    Being a homosexual, as in feeling attracted to someone of the opposite sex, is not sinful. No more than it is sinful to feel attracted to anyone of the opposite sex.

    Homosexual acts should be tolerated in society. I support a secular society with complete separation of church and state, and those who choose to engage in homosexual acts should be afforded the same legal protections as anyone else. They deserve to be protected from insults, from discrimination, and from any threats. I have no right to expect non-Christians to abide by my standards, just as I would find it intolerable for a Jew or a Muslim to force me to observe their standards about eating pork.

    Homosexual acts are considered by Christians to be sinful. Sin is defined by Christian theologians as a transgression against God's laws and commands. Therefore, according to Jews, eating a bacon sandwich is a sin. It's not a case of demonising or hating anyone, nor is it saying that anyone is evil or nasty. I see a practising homosexual as being no worse, and no more deserving of hell than any heterosexual. In fact, considering my own colourful past, I think my own actions in life are much worse, and more deserving of hell, than the vast majority of homosexuals.

    According to Christian teaching, salvation is a process whereby we acknowledge our sinfulness and, due to Christ's death on the Cross, accept the free gift of undeserved salvation (the technical term for this undeserved gift is 'grace' - Amazing grace indeed!). Part of this salvation process is repentance, which does not just mean feeling sorry, but also includes making a sincere effort to abide by God's standards and to abstain from the stuff that God says is contrary to his will.

    This means that, as Christians, we can't do just whatever takes our fancy. I might feel attracted to a woman that I'm not married to, but shagging her will definitely fall under a biblical definition of sin. In fact, engaging in extra-marital sex is incompatible with Christian faith and practice. This does not mean that we are discriminating against those who engage in unmarried sex - nor are we phobic about them (shackingupphobia?) we simply believe that you can't be a Christian while simultaneously breaking God's rules.

    You are entitled to disagree with our beliefs as Christians, but all this load of tosh about homophobia only serves to hinder any sensible discussion about those disagreements.


  • Options
    #115
    Dublin_Gunner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It doesn't.

    That is an common interpretation given that it never mentions marriage in any other context than between a man and a woman.

    There are Christian groups, albeit in the minority, who see no issue with homosexuals getting married, or homosexual sex inside marriage, they take the position that not every single thing is going to be specifically mentioned in the Bible and that the over all message (marriage is about love and companionship) is retained in a homosexual marriage.

    Thanks you. That is what I had assumed. I'm no scripture scholar, but I couldn't find anything related to it either.

    Another sign of hypocrisy there then.

    They follow the bible, but only when it suits, and feel free to make stuff up that gives their viewpoint.

    So, let me get this straight.

    It nowhere states that marriage must be between a man & woman.

    Does it state anywhere that homosexual acts are a sin?


  • Options
    #116
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Malty_T wrote: »
    I do, the difference is these denominations follow mainly the teachings of Jesus , does Jesus express any views re homosexuality??

    They certainly don't follow the teachings of Jesus when it comes the authority of scripture. Neither do they hold to the teachings of Jesus about hell. They basically stick to the nice and fluffy stuff and ignore anything might make them seem dogmatic and upset the PC brigade.

    No, Jesus doesn't appear to have said anything about homosexuality. The historic Christian position is that all scripture is inspired by God, not just the bits that record the actual words of Jesus.

    Martin Luther King, for example, based much of his fight against racial segregation on the words of the Old Testament prophets and the words of the apostles.


  • Options
    #117
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    eightyfish: I believe I dealt with these articles before on another thread quite consistently. B][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61255748&postcount=16"]1[/URL][/BB][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61276407&postcount=93"]2[/URL][/B The links you provided last time, merely showed that homosexuality takes place within nature, it doesn't prove that it is biologically determined. I find this quite dishonest.

    As for gay brains being structured differently, you are quite aware that ones brain structure can change without it being biologically determined?

    Dublin Gunner: I believe Wicknight has misinformed you:
    Matthew 18:4 wrote:
    He answered, 'Have you not read that the one who made them in the beginning "made them male and female", and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and two shall become one flesh".
    Genesis 2:24 wrote:
    Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

    I personally hate talking about this topic.


  • Options
    #118
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Jakkass wrote: »
    God's standard is defined in Christian scripture. If one doesn't repent, one will be subject to God's judgement. The only way one can achieve salvation is through repentance.

    If I had sinned, in any way as a heterosexual while remaining unrepentant, I would be subject to the same judgement.

    There is nothing discriminatory about it if all are subject to the same conditions of judgement.

    Of course it is discriminatory if the conditions of judgement themselves are discriminatory. Imagine a job interview panel, where one of the conditions of appointment was "appointee must not be homosexual". Could the interview board then argue that they are not discriminatory just because the publicly announced conditions are the same for everyone?

    PDN tries to argue around this point by saying that Christians are only there to follow the revealed word of god and therefore cannot be judged based on the contents of that revealed document. However, that is sophistry as in any civilized society people cannot abdicate responsibility for their own actions or beliefs based on some supposedly authoritative document or set of rules. Of course, beliefs on their own will do no harm. However, when those beliefs lead directly to discriminatory behaviour and are used as justification for badness, then there is a problem.


  • Options
    #119
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

    It nowhere states that marriage must be between a man & woman.

    Does it state anywhere that homosexual acts are a sin?

    It sort of does that marriage must be between a man and woman, though.

    As for homosexual acts a sin all I'm aware is of it being in Leviticus (which Christians don't really follow)
    If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


  • Options
    #120
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    eightyfish: I believe I dealt with these articles before on another thread quite consistently. B][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61255748&postcount=16"]1[/URL][/BB][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61276407&postcount=93"]2[/URL][/B The links you provided last time, merely showed that homosexuality takes place within nature, it doesn't prove that it is biologically determined. I find this quite dishonest.

    As for gay brains being structured differently, you are quite aware that ones brain structure can change without it being biologically determined?

    A jeez c'mon, I can't grow an extra frontal lobe now can I??
    If I am born a psychopath, I cannot change that wiring...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Dublin_Gunner wrote: »
    Thanks you. That is what I had assumed. I'm no scripture scholar, but I couldn't find anything related to it either.

    Another sign of hypocrisy there then.

    LOL. A non-Christian asks a question, gets the answer they're looking for from an atheist with an abysmal track record of uunderstanding Scripture, and then accuses Christians of hypocrisy.

    Jesus on marriage: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

    Anyone, other than a legalist looking for a non-existent loophole, will see that Jesus saw marriage as something between a man and a woman. It is unreasonable to assume that he should insert an extra clause in there for the benefit of those 2000 years in the future when some people want to abandon a definition of marriage that has stood for millenia and replace it with something else.

    No serious historian or scholar should entertain such a silly notion.


Advertisement