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
The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)
Options
Comments
-
How come women don't compete against men in the Olympics or in football? Because Men and Women are different. You can't negate biology.
Just because men are generally better than woman in football it doesn't mean that two men or two women cant successfully raise a kid in a loving and healthy environment.0 -
I suggest you start a thread on hermeneutics. It is going to really get tiresome, and derail the thread hopelessly, if we have to explain the basic principles of biblical interpretation in this one to people who are uninformed on the subject.
Putting it very simply, a verse in Leviticus is inadequate when quoted as a justification for being against homosexuality. If you want to get into the reasons why, then feel free to start a thread we we can answer your questions on the basic principles followed by Christians in interpreting the Bible
(I'm catching up on the thread as I've been driving on the interstate for the last two hours. I'm currently talking a break, eating a fine Chick-fil-A chicen sandwich, and piggybacking on the wireless signal from the McDonalds next door)
I suggest that if Christians are going to discuss why their religious beliefs determine their position on homosexuality and the scriptural reasoning which underpins the often virulent opposition expressed by some posters- which is after all the point of this thread -then it is not derailing the thread, nor is it unreasonable, for a non-Christian to question why certain passages of the Bible - those in Leviticus for example, are trotted out by some Christians as a justifiable reason while passages in the exact same text can seemingly be ignored by those same Christians as irrelevant to 21st Century life. Seems to me it's having your cake and eating it 101.
Christians state their position is based on Biblical texts -some say both OT and NT/others say just NT- yet grow defensive when asked to clarify which sections they believe are relevant to their argument and when it is pointed out that not all of the strictures contained within the either of those are followed by Christians even as some of them seek to impose Biblically inspired strictures on people of other faiths and none. Are we now not allowed to discuss this?
Also given the diversity of interpretations of those same texts it is neither derailing the thread nor unreasonable to attempt to determine which specific interpretation a particular Christian poster is alluding to - do they mean Roman Catholic or Calvinist, Baptist or Lutheran? Maybe they are Anabaptists, Methodists, Quaker, Amish (unlikely on an internet forum granted but they could be on Rumspringa), Mormon or any of the plethora of Christian denominations in existence across the globe.
Christians all don't believe the same things but all base your religious beliefs on the same book which naturally can lead to confusion as to which form of Christianity a particular poster is advocating so there really is no need to get sniffy with people who are trying to understand your various, and often conflicting, motivations and interpretations.
Unless of course you don't actually want an actual debate and are embarrassed that despite frequent references to 'Christian' beliefs the demonstrable reality is you all simply can't agree on what the Bible actually says - hence all of the widely conflicting interpretations.0 -
let him finish his sandwich.:pac:0
-
I've explained to you already how Christians read Old Testament texts. We read the text while considering what Jesus has done. That's been done right from the beginning of the early Christian church (2 Corinthians 3 for example).
Christians believe that ceremonial laws existed for the Hebrew people, for example in terms of dietary laws, in terms of ritual uncleanliness and so on to mark them as distinctive from the Gentiles. These are distinct from moral laws. The New Testament makes clear that God tore down the dividing line between Jews and Gentiles at the coming of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2). This is why the ceremonial laws of the Torah have been fulfilled.
One clear example: We don't offer animal sacrifices any longer, because Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice for sin. Therefore, when I read passages about animal sacrifice in Leviticus, I learn about how God revealed Himself to the Hebrews for sure, and I learn a bit about how the Hebrews related to Him. However, as a Christian, I know that Jesus died in my place on the cross. As a result of that I am under a new covenant with God.
However, moral and ethical laws remain the same. For example, Christians by and large agree with the ethical laws of the Torah. I.E - Not to steal, not to lie, not to dishonour ones mother and father, not to blaspheme, not to make idols, to regard the poor and the stranger in society, to give freely to those who desperately need it.
One God, two different agreements at different times in history. The Bible is clear about showing us this.
I wish that people who mock and scoff at the Bible would actually just sit down and read it and seek out Jesus.
Edit: I can guarantee you that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and so on will be in full agreement on this. Any mainline Christian should be. Personally I'm an evangelical and I've read the Bible with people from most of the afforementioned denominations and others.0 -
philologos wrote: »I've explained to you already how Christians read Old Testament texts. We read the text while considering what Jesus has done. That's been done right from the beginning of the early Christian church (2 Corinthians 3 for example).
Christians believe that ceremonial laws existed for the Hebrew people, for example in terms of dietary laws, in terms of ritual uncleanliness and so on to mark them as distinctive from the Gentiles. These are distinct from moral laws. The New Testament makes clear that God tore down the dividing line between Jews and Gentiles at the coming of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2). This is why the ceremonial laws of the Torah have been fulfilled.
One clear example: We don't offer animal sacrifices any longer, because Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice for sin. Therefore, when I read passages about animal sacrifice in Leviticus, I learn about how God revealed Himself to the Hebrews for sure, and I learn a bit about how the Hebrews related to Him. However, as a Christian, I know that Jesus died in my place on the cross. As a result of that I am under a new covenant with God.
However, moral and ethical laws remain the same. For example, Christians by and large agree with the ethical laws of the Torah. I.E - Not to steal, not to lie, not to dishonour ones mother and father, not to blaspheme, not to make idols, to regard the poor and the stranger in society, to give freely to those who desperately need it.
One God, two different agreements at different times in history.
I wish that people who mock and scoff at the Bible would actually just sit down and read it and seek out Jesus.
I have read it, several times. I have neither mocked nor scoffed at the book. I have questioned how a person reading a poster who defines themselves and the Biblical interpretation they are employing as simply 'Christian' is meant to know if the particular interpretation is, for example, the Roman Catholic one or the Westboro Baptist one. It is Lutheran or Calvin?
What you have explained is how you read the texts - can you really, truthfully, hand on the Bible swear that every single Christian would agree with you and employ the same methodology?
What about those many Roman Catholics who have never read it at all?0 -
Advertisement
-
philologos wrote: »
Edit: I can guarantee you that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and so on will be in full agreement on this. Any mainline Christian should be. Personally I'm an evangelical and I've read the Bible with people from most of the afforementioned denominations and others.
Really? I come from a very large extended Roman Catholic family and I, my agnostic son and my Lutheran ex sister-in-law are the only members who have ever read the Bible. Yes, I did ask all of my aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents and in-laws 'have you read the Bible?'. Not even my son's ex father-in-law (a member of opus dei) said yes.0 -
Its not unethical to teach your children your faith. Its not unethical for your Children to live their Faith.
There is not age limit on faith. What if tomorrow my wife and I were killed and (god forbid) my Children were put up for Adoption. The way Gay Marriage is going these couples want equal rights on all levels, including being able to Adopt. I would never allow my kids to be raised by a gay couple. A child should (if possible) have the best environment and that is to have a Father and a Mother if possible. A Gay couple can't provide the best environment to raise a Child.
Of course they can, once the child is loved and cared for that is all that matters. There are plenty of male/female couples with children who shouldn't rare a dog never mind a human.0 -
-
Really. You state this as a fact, so I expect you will have no trouble backing it up with evidence of admitting you simply made it up...?
MrP
Nobody can produce final proofs of that or of the contrary. All we can produce is our personal experience and slogans. And this is a forum for christians, so christian slogans will always win over non-christian ones.0 -
Nobody can produce final proofs of that or of the contrary. All we can produce is our personal experience and slogans. And this is a forum for christians, so christian slogans will always win over non-christian ones.
Well given the enormous evidence - which has repeatedly been presented to qrrgprgua in this and other forums - which shows that children raised in Gay and Lesbian households are no different from those raised in heterosexual ones then it is not really a question of spouting slogans but making demonstrably incorrect statements.0 -
Advertisement
-
Snappy Smurf wrote: »No it's not a straw man. If I buy a van and start calling myself the ice cream man, if I can't produce real ice cream I am deluding myself.
The day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT scientific intervention and a third person, then we can call it marriage.
You're analogy doesn't quite work but can be changed to suit my argument anyway. If I buy a van, dont have a machine for making the ice cream but buy it ready made and sell it in my van I'm not deluded in calling myself an ice cream man. I'm a man in a van selling ice cream of as good quality as any other ice cream man, the fact that I didn't make the ice cream myself is irrelevant.
It's the exact same thing with hetero vs homosexual couples. The fact a homosexual couples can't reproduce without scientific intervention or a third person as you put it does not impact how good those two be people will be as parents. If you can somehow show me otherwise I'm all ears.
The issue here is the family environment and the raising of the family, not the creation of the family. There are plenty of examples of heterosexual couples who require scientific intervention such as IVF, or a third person, or those who simple can't have children, but no one would ever deny them the right to marriage and nor should they. Homosexual couples are just one of these couples too so it really is irrelevant.
Why does the issue of how the family is created matter so much to you? Surely would you agree the actual issue is the raising of the family and suitability of the family environment?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 79125
Time to go make it illegal for women over 50 to marry soThe day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT scientific intervention and a third person, then we can call it marriage.
or anyone infertile
:rolleyes:
the nonsense people come out with, honestly
how far did you get without "scientific intervention", by the way? Any vaccines against diseases? medicine etc?0 -
Snappy Smurf wrote: »The day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT scientific intervention and a third person, then we can call it marriage.
Women who have their ovaries removed due to cancer. Sorry, no marriage for you.0 -
-
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 19,240 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 18486
I say, if you wish to state that homosexuality is an abomination and we should all be executed for engaging in such, then you check if you partners, women are virgins. If not, then they shall be executed also. If the bible was followed to a T, I can assure you that we would not have a population of over 7 billion today.0 -
My bright, clever young daughter would be shocked and bewildered at this outrageous bigotry.
Fear not Ireland, there's a cleverer lot coming up behind us.0 -
Leviticus
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
So, which of you lot really believes this? I can assume wolfsbane does, as he's already admitted he takes the Bible literally. No shocker that Snappy Smurf would be okay with it. Despite disagreeing with PDN and Phil a few times, I don't think they're quite up for murder. But, why not?
I find it intriguing the idea of context, and Jesus fulfilling things, but this right here is the kicker. You ignore the sections on food, clothing, hair, tattoos and so on. And you also come up with a wonderful excuse to do so, but then you have the audacity and utter cheek to ignore the rest of the actual sentence.
I -always- see Christians against homosexuality quote the first part, but you miraculously ignore the second part of the line.0 -
TequilaMockingBird wrote: »My bright, clever young daughter would be shocked and bewildered at this outrageous bigotry.
Fear not Ireland, there's a cleverer lot coming up behind us.
When it comes to gay marriage / civil partnerships, I find it amazing how the public mood has shifted in such a short space of time. I don't think that any previous movement of a similar nature (female suffrage, racial equality) made such progress in such a short space of time. It's also worth noting that polls show younger evangelical Christians differ from their elders in that they are far more likely to favour recognition of same sex marriage. So despite the fact that some posters here persist in posts that begin with "Christians believe..." there is no uniform Christian position on this. I think there are few bigots in this forum, in that I believe that one can read the Bible and reach a conscientious decision that homosexual relationships are wrong, provided that you don't seek to deny civil liberties to others. For what it's worth, I've read plenty to persuade me that the Bible has little or nothing to say about committed and loving same-sex relationships as they exist today.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Really? I come from a very large extended Roman Catholic family and I, my agnostic son and my Lutheran ex sister-in-law are the only members who have ever read the Bible. Yes, I did ask all of my aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents and in-laws 'have you read the Bible?'. Not even my son's ex father-in-law (a member of opus dei) said yes.
That's Biblical illiteracy which has nothing to do with what the Bible has to actually say on the subject. I can guarantee you if you look to what each of those churches actually holds to on covenant theology, they will be in full agreement. That's basic Christianity.
My point was that I've read the Bible in a group which contained people of many different denominations through my university Christian Union. I'll have the privilege of doing the same again with people in my workplace here in London. Most times that I've opened the Bible with other Christians, we've all come to broad agreement as to what a passage means.TequilaMockingBird wrote: »My bright, clever young daughter would be shocked and bewildered at this outrageous bigotry.
Fear not Ireland, there's a cleverer lot coming up behind us.
This isn't about intelligence. It's disingenuous to claim that it is.
Benny_Cake: If you have issues with me saying "Christians believe". You can substitute it with "Most mainline Christians believe", or "The Bible clearly says". I'm more than happy to discuss with you as to how you think Christianity presents that sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is unacceptable. Present some passages, and we'll discuss. Or provide an alternative interpretation to them.0 -
So, which of you lot really believes this? I can assume wolfsbane does, as he's already admitted he takes the Bible literally. No shocker that Snappy Smurf would be okay with it. Despite disagreeing with PDN and Phil a few times, I don't think they're quite up for murder. But, why not?
I find it intriguing the idea of context, and Jesus fulfilling things, but this right here is the kicker. You ignore the sections on food, clothing, hair, tattoos and so on. And you also come up with a wonderful excuse to do so, but then you have the audacity and utter cheek to ignore the rest of the actual sentence.
I -always- see Christians against homosexuality quote the first part, but you miraculously ignore the second part of the line.
Again, covenant theology, which is a basic part of Christianity shows that Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross so that we might be forgiven. This influences how we read these passages as Christians.
If Jesus has died for my sins on the cross, then what right have I to insist that others should be put to death? If I've been forgiven I must forgive others (Matthew 18) also the Lord's prayer "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us" (Matthew 6).
Your quotation also ignores context insofar as this is within the Biblical State of Israel which no longer exists. Christians recognise that we will be under unbelieving authorities (Romans 13), but our call as Christians is to live distinctive lives so that other people might see the Gospel (see 1 Peter).
Again, this is another reason why I have to say that if you're interested in posting about Christian belief you should become more familiar with covenant theology which is inherent to Christianity.
It's real simple, when Christians read the Old Testament, they do so while considering what Jesus has done for us.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm getting married in 2 years and my gf and I don't want children. If she accidentally gets pregnant I will sell the baby to a gay married couple
0 -
Jesus never once said "write down everything I say, put it in a book and follow it word for word"
The only direct commands we have received from God are the 10 commandments.
I didn't make the decision to be straight so I don't see how anyone can make a decision to be gay.
I'm catholic and have no problem with the gay community. I don't think these beliefs make me any less of a catholic.0 -
philologos wrote: »Again, covenant theology, which is a basic part of Christianity shows that Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross so that we might be forgiven. This influences how we read these passages as Christians.
If Jesus has died for my sins on the cross, then what right have I to insist that others should be put to death? If I've been forgiven I must forgive others (Matthew 18) also the Lord's prayer "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us".
Your quotation also ignores context insofar as this is within the Biblical State of Israel which no longer exists. Christians recognise that we will be under unbelieving authorities (Romans 13), but our call as Christians is to live distinctive lives so that other people might see the Gospel (see 1 Peter).
Again, this is another reason why I have to say that if you're interested in posting about Christian belief you should become more familiar with covenant theology which is inherent to Christianity.
According to Matthew Jesus also said ' Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24' so surely those who use His name to justify hatemongering against homosexuals (and yes - using terms such as 'abomination', 'sodomites', 'God hates Fags', 'Sinners' is hatemongering) are ignoring a very important aspect of Christ's teaching?
If Jesus died for our sins what right do some Christians have to call me sinner? Surely only He can judge me?
Are some Christians not engaging in casting the first stone?
As for those of us who question the Biblical origins of anti-homosexual propaganda becoming familiar with covenant theology it appears to me that that is exactly what we are trying to do but tbh we are been dismissed for not being already conversant with your religion (which as far as I am aware is 'evangelical' - but again that term is so broad as to defy a precise definition) and it's myriad theological strands even though many Christians would have even less knowledge on the subject than those here who are genuinely enquiring plus there is the annoying fact that the various Christian denominations cannot agree among themselves as to theology.
Some Christians are the ones taking a particular position which states that their fellow human beings are sinners based on certain texts in a book to advocate, lobby and justify the civil state continuing to deny equal rights to some of it's citizens based only on sexual orientation.
Surely the onus is on those Christians - especially when it has been demonstrated that this view is not shared by all Christians - to explain their position and which texts exactly are pertinent and which are not - and why?0 -
Irishchick wrote: »Jesus never once said "write down everything I say, put it in a book and follow it word for word"
The only direct commands we have received from God are the 10 commandments.
I didn't make the decision to be straight so I don't see how anyone can make a decision to be gay.
I'm catholic and have no problem with the gay community. I don't think these beliefs make me any less of a catholic.
I don't have a problem with the gay community either. People are people. And all people need to repent of their sin and believe in the Gospel.
However, it isn't true to say that the 10 Commandments are the only direct commandments of God. From a Christian perspective whole Bible is the word of God, and God's standards are spread throughout it. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and you'll see that Jesus gives us commandments as to what we should do.
Now, this involves all areas of life, not just the area of sexuality. However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore what God has to say about sexuality. As a single heterosexual male that has implications for me as well as for everyone else. Namely insofar as the Gospel teaches that the correct place for sexual expression is within a marriage. I need to follow that.
Also, nobody is saying that sexual acts outside of a marriage are any worse than any other sin. Indeed, I would acknowledge that I have sinned and fallen short of God's glory as every single person on the face of the earth has (Romans 3:23).
The correct response to sin, is to repent, and to live new lives through Jesus Christ. It isn't to applaud our former sin and to dwell in it. If I love God, I'll live as God has commanded me to. If I am thankful that He saved me by sending His only Son into the world so that I might not perish and have everlasting life (John 3:16) then the only appropriate response is to live for Him rather than the ways of the world that largely doesn't know Him.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »According to Matthew Jesus also said ' Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24' so surely those who use His name to justify hatemongering against homosexuals (and yes - using terms such as 'abomination', 'sodomites', 'God hates Fags', 'Sinners' is hatemongering) are ignoring a very important aspect of Christ's teaching?
Edit: By the way, Mark 4:24 comes straight after the Parable of the Sower. It's probably good to read the passage as a whole. I'm going to be starting a new thread to look at that chapter in Mark quite soon. So feel free to join in.
I'm telling people about what God has done. God has revealed His standard to mankind over generations. It is because God has spoken into Creation that we can know anything about Him. I'm thankful that He has given us His word through revelation, and I'm thankful that I can know the truth about Him.
If someone asks me what does the Bible say about sexuality, is it my own personal judgement to say that the Bible says that it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of a marriage, or is it God's standard?
I'm personally not claiming that anyone is any worse than I am as a result of their rejection of the Gospel. Why? - I rejected it for a very very long time.Bannasidhe wrote: »If Jesus died for our sins what right do some Christians have to call me sinner? Surely only He can judge me?
We're all sinners. Every single one of us. Myself very very certainly included in that figure. (Romans 3:23, Psalm 14, Psalm 51).
The following is what Paul the Apostle had to say about sin:1 Timothy 1:15 wrote:The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
In fact, one who claims that he has not sinned is lying:1 John 1:10 wrote:If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.Bannasidhe wrote: »Are some Christians not engaging in casting the first stone?
I'm sure some are.Bannasidhe wrote: »As for those of us who question the Biblical origins of anti-homosexual propaganda becoming familiar with covenant theology it appears to me that that is exactly what we are trying to do but tbh we are been dismissed for not being already conversant with your religion (which as far as I am aware is 'evangelical' - but again that term is so broad as to defy a precise definition) and it's myriad theological strands even though many Christians would have even less knowledge on the subject than those here who are genuinely enquiring plus there is the annoying fact that the various Christian denominations cannot agree among themselves as to theology.
No, I brought up covenant theology because Nodin misquoted a passage. I also brought up covenant theology when Sonic2ks misquoted a passage.
It's only right and proper if we are to read the Bible, we need to understand what exactly it is saying in its correct context.
What I'm saying is - that if you're going to use the Bible, we need to get in to understand what exactly Christians believe about the Bible. I told you about how Christians read the Old Testament on at least three occasions, and you claimed that I was ignoring it. I've also shown you that this how Christians have read the Old Testament since the first century.
I think if you are going to discuss about Christianity - we need to get straight as to what Christians actually believe concerning covenants. If you are going to criticise the Bible, you should understand what Christians believe. I think that's fair.Bannasidhe wrote: »Some Christians are the ones taking a particular position which states that their fellow human beings are sinners based on certain texts in a book to advocate, lobby and justify the civil state continuing to deny equal rights to some of it's citizens based only on sexual orientation.
Surely the onus is on those Christians - especially when it has been demonstrated that this view is not shared by all Christians - to explain their position and which texts exactly are pertinent and which are not - and why?
No. Christians believe that all people are sinners. Myself very very clearly included.
As a result of this Christians believe that people need to repent. Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross precisely because we are sinners (Romans 5:8-9), in order that we can be forgiven. Through His death, we died to sin, through His resurrection we were born again through Him (Romans 6, 1 Peter 1:3).
I've explained my position from the Bible, to you on numerous occasions, and I'll do so again if you want.
I don't think the problem is that you don't understand where my position comes from Biblically, it's that you don't like my position. I understand why that mightn't be the case. Biblical Christianity says that we all have sinned, but that Christ in His loving mercy paid the price for our sin so that we can be forgiven and start a new relationship with our God as we were created to do in the beginning.
That applies to all people, who have done all kinds of sin myself included.0 -
philologos wrote: »I don't have a problem with the gay community either. People are people. And all people need to repent of their sin and believe in the Gospel.
However, it isn't true to say that the 10 Commandments are the only direct commandments of God. From a Christian perspective whole Bible is the word of God, and God's standards are spread throughout it. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and you'll see that Jesus gives us commandments as to what we should do.
Now, this involves all areas of life, not just the area of sexuality. However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore what God has to say about sexuality. As a single heterosexual male that has implications for me as well as for everyone else. Namely insofar as the Gospel teaches that the correct place for sexual expression is within a marriage. I need to follow that.
Also, nobody is saying that sexual acts outside of a marriage are any worse than any other sin. Indeed, I would acknowledge that I have sinned and fallen short of God's glory as every single person on the face of the earth has (Romans 3:23).
The correct response to sin, is to repent, and to live new lives through Jesus Christ. It isn't to applaud our former sin and to dwell in it. If I love God, I'll live as God has commanded me to. If I am thankful that He saved me by sending His only Son into the world so that I might not perish and have everlasting life (John 3:16) then the only appropriate response is to live for Him rather than the ways of the world that largely doesn't know Him.
But Phil you have to admit that not all those who define themselves as Christian would share your viewpoint re: people are people and do engage in very public acts of condemnation and vilification against those who do not share their particular ethos. These people use the Bible and Jesus as justification for murder, scare and hate mongering etc etc. They fund advocacy groups which lobby governments to create and legally enshrine a two tiered system of citizenship based on sexual orientation. Surely you can see how it can be confusing when this is all done under the umbrella term of 'Christianity'?
How is an outsider meant to know the difference between you and Fred Phelps when you both use the same terms to define your religious beliefs and refer to the same book to explain your philosophy and actions?
How is an outsider meant to reconcile Jesus' message of love thy neighbour, judge not and let ye without sin cast the first stone with images of Christians waving placards that state that God Hates Fags?
While I am glad for your sake that you have found a spiritual path that gives meaning to your life surely you can accept that other people, like me, have chosen a different path according to the dictates of our consciences but that does not make us abominations deserving of public vilification? Nor does it justify the civil state treating certain citizens as deserving of less than equal rights? After all, to some fundamentalist Roman Catholics you would be a heretic yet you are acting in good faith and according to your conscience. According to some members of evangelical Protestant denominations Roman Catholics are superstitious and idolatrous and the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Christians may claim to all sing from the same hymn book, as it were, but that is patently not true.
Is it so hard to accept that other people view Christianity as a judgemental, hate spewing, often hypocritical religion which should not be allowed to dictate how non-Christians live their lives and the laws under which the civil state is governed?0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »But Phil you have to admit that not all those who define themselves as Christian would share your viewpoint re: people are people and do engage in very public acts of condemnation and vilification against those who do not share their particular ethos. These people use the Bible and Jesus as justification for murder, scare and hate mongering etc etc. They fund advocacy groups which lobby governments to create and legally enshrine a two tiered system of citizenship based on sexual orientation. Surely you can see how it can be confusing when this is all done under the umbrella term of 'Christianity'?
Not all, but I could honestly say that a vast majority of mainline Christians do. From experience, I can't say that I've had many Bible studies with other people where there was huge disagreement.Bannasidhe wrote: »How is an outsider meant to know the difference between you and Fred Phelps when you both use the same terms to define your religious beliefs and refer to the same book to explain your philosophy and actions?
Do you ever ask yourself why the majority of mainline Christians don't share the same views as Fred Phelps?Bannasidhe wrote: »How is an outsider meant to reconcile Jesus' message of love thy neighbour, judge not and let ye without sin cast the first stone with images of Christians waving placards that state that God Hates Fags?
Jesus managed to do a very good job of it. He regarded that people had all sinned and fallen short of God's standards (see Mark 7 for example), yet He still engaged with them and loved them.
That's what Christian churches need to be like. We need to follow what God has revealed in His word, and also engage positively with those around us even if they disagree.
Fred Phelps could learn a lot from Jesus.Bannasidhe wrote: »While I am glad for your sake that you have found a spiritual path that gives meaning to your life surely you can accept that other people, like me, have chosen a different path according to the dictates of our consciences but that does not make us abominations deserving of public vilification? Nor does it justify the civil state treating certain citizens as deserving of less than equal rights? After all, to some fundamentalist Roman Catholics you would be a heretic yet you are acting in good faith and according to your conscience. According to some members of evangelical Protestant denominations Roman Catholics are superstitious and idolatrous and the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Christians may claim to all sing from the same hymn book, as it were, but that is patently not true.
I don't believe that the vast majority of Roman Catholics would claim that I was being unfair or unreasonable in respect to the Scripture that I've cited.
People say a lot of things. The question is are what the things that people say Biblical. That's why when I go to church, if I hear my pastor say something that I'm not sure about Biblically, I'll ask him to show me where he found that in. Generally that doesn't happen since my church uses expository preaching, but if it did happen that's the first port of call.
For the most part, Christians are in agreement about covenant theology. Most Christians are in agreement that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). If nobody had sinned, Jesus would have never had to die. If one claims to be sinless they are lying, because all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory.Bannasidhe wrote: »Is it so hard to accept that other people view Christianity as a judgemental, hate spewing, often hypocritical religion which should not be allowed to dictate how non-Christians live their lives and the laws under which the civil state is governed?
I understand how people might, because Christianity teaches that there is something wrong with the way we live. However, that's reality, and often people don't like reality either.
However, most people who reject the Gospel ignore the following - Christians believe that if we simply repent and believe the Gospel, that we can be forgiven and come to a new relationship with God.
That's the best news that has ever come into this world. Christians need to be sharing this more often.
Feel free to come back at me.
Edit: Also, I'm not saying that non-Christians can't do X, Y or Z. I'm saying that I won't applaud X, Y or Z.0 -
The Pope can't do anything to change or alter the Christian teaching on Marriage. Which will always and will always remain between a Man and a Women.
He is not dictating anything. He is preaching the teaching that the church holds, as passed on by the apostles
Its not going to Change.
nor should it change. but just because it's not allowed as a catholic ceremony doesn't mean it should be stopped as a non catholic ceremony. that's the single biggest thing about it
a religious sect doesnt like homosexuality? fine. don't allow it in your sect. but you can't dictate how the rest of the world lives0 -
philologos wrote: »I don't have a problem with the gay community either. People are people. And all people need to repent of their sin and believe in the Gospel.
However, it isn't true to say that the 10 Commandments are the only direct commandments of God. From a Christian perspective whole Bible is the word of God, and God's standards are spread throughout it. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and you'll see that Jesus gives us commandments as to what we should do.
Now, this involves all areas of life, not just the area of sexuality. However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore what God has to say about sexuality. As a single heterosexual male that has implications for me as well as for everyone else. Namely insofar as the Gospel teaches that the correct place for sexual expression is within a marriage. I need to follow that.
Also, nobody is saying that sexual acts outside of a marriage are any worse than any other sin. Indeed, I would acknowledge that I have sinned and fallen short of God's glory as every single person on the face of the earth has (Romans 3:23).
The correct response to sin, is to repent, and to live new lives through Jesus Christ. It isn't to applaud our former sin and to dwell in it. If I love God, I'll live as God has commanded me to. If I am thankful that He saved me by sending His only Son into the world so that I might not perish and have everlasting life (John 3:16) then the only appropriate response is to live for Him rather than the ways of the world that largely doesn't know Him.
The whole Bible cant be the word of God, as surely God would know that some things in the bible are a bit mad, plus lets face it the writers who were said to be "inspired" by God , always tended to put their own slant on things and more than likley would have written in a style that would have complemeted their own ideals and world view at the time.0 -
Advertisement
-
So are catholic not mainstream? if they are, how do you explain my earlier post; 84% of Irish people identify themselves as catholic, but 70% of Irish support same sex marriage?philologos wrote: »Not all, but I could honestly say that a vast majority of mainline Christians do. From experience, I can't say that I've had many Bible studies with other people where there was huge disagreement.
MrP0
Advertisement