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
12357…220

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    Really? I have heard people in churches advocate legislation to prevent people making obscene amounts of money. Never, however, have I heard anyone in a church advocate legislation to prevent people from engaging in gay sex.

    For what it's worth, I've also never heard anyone in a church call homosexuals abominations.

    I have heard Christians call homosexuality as a practice an abomination. I've also heard Christians call capitalism and the largescale accumulation of wealth abominations.

    Are you seriously telling me there are not Christians who brandish signs saying God hates Fags? Seriously? Or does it only count as when it takes place in a church?

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to link me some Christian advocacy groups who are lobbying governments to reduce profits or ban usury?


  • Options
    #123
    del88
    Registered Users Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭del88


    If John and Dave next door get married, it doesn't make gary and mary who are already married less so.....simple


  • Options
    #124
    hcass
    Registered Users Posts: 628 ✭✭✭hcass


    Snappy Smurf wrote: »
    Pope speaks for and on behalf of Christ in matters of faith and morals.


    Yeah pretty much. Marriage is for the procreation of children and the good of spouses.

    Marriage is nothing to do with children it is about the union between two people who love each other. They make a commitment for life to one another.

    I got married last year. We have decided we don't want children. So are you telling me I am not really married?

    It doesn't matter what YOU think marriage is, it matters what it is and that is nothing to do with procreation.


  • Options
    #125
    hcass
    Registered Users Posts: 628 ✭✭✭hcass


    PDN wrote: »
    Really? I have heard people in churches advocate legislation to prevent people making obscene amounts of money. Never, however, have I heard anyone in a church advocate legislation to prevent people from engaging in gay sex.

    For what it's worth, I've also never heard anyone in a church call homosexuals abominations.

    I have heard Christians call homosexuality as a practice an abomination. I've also heard Christians call capitalism and the largescale accumulation of wealth abominations.

    Have to guffaw at this - have you been to the Vatican? Looks like they might have a problem practising what they preach.


  • Options
    #126
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    'Christians welcome anyone of any sexual orientation into their churches' - not all of them do or perhaps it depends on how you define 'welcome' and 'repent'.

    We long and hope for all to come and hear the Gospel. We hope that if people hear the Gospel, they will accept Jesus Christ as Lord, and repent. I.E - Turn back from everything that separates us from God. Love what He loves, hate what He hates.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    In 1987 a 17 year old named Tandy who was a member of the youth club in the community centre I managed stopped turning up. We were all very concerned about her welfare but were unable to get any information from her parents - who were evangelical Baptists. Approx 3 months after we last saw Tandy we received word that she had committed suicide in Manchester. Her parent's had sent her up there from London to be 'cured'. The coroner's report determined that Tandy had taken her own life when she had failed to be 'cured' of her lesbian tendencies. She fasted (her body weighed 5 stone - she was 5' 11"), she prayed, she under went exorcisms but to no avail. 3 people were later prosecuted for assault in connection with the 'exorcisms'. This charming, lovely, talented, young athlete (she was on the under 17 UK volley ball team) lived her short life in torment as her homosexuality was incompatible with her religion. She never acted on her impulses and died a virgin. She repented. She did everything they told her to do. It didn't work. Her parent's refused to claim her body as she was 'unclean'. She did eventually get an ecumenical funeral paid for by her fellow youth club members and the community centre staff: Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists (I know!), Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Jews. The local evangelical Baptist Church of which she had been a member - and her Father was the pastor -then boycotted our community centre.

    A friend of my son's, his name was Paul, committed suicide in Cork last year. His body is still in storage as his same sex partner 'partner' (with whom by the way he had a celibate relationship hence the inverted commas around the word partner) cannot legally claim it. His 'Christian' evangelical mother who lives in the UK refuses to claim the body of her son as he was a '****** sinner who is now burning in hell' - her exact words. This 27 year old man could not reconcile what he had been taught as a child with his homosexuality. He repented. He tried aversion therapy. He prayed. He fasted. He could not change the fact that he was sexually attracted to members of the same gender - so he ended his life.

    By the by, I agree with you that Christians need to repent of not sharing the Gospel with the gentleness and respect that it deserves. I would reckon that it was because of an antagonistic attitude to other people that these things happened. The Gospel tells us that this is wrong. The Gospel tells us that we need to share our views with gentleness, love and respect:
    1 Peter 3:15-16 wrote:
    but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Now tell me again how all Christian churches welcome gay people into their congregation.

    These are anomalies. I welcome all to come to know Jesus and to ask me questions about Him irrespective of whether or not they are gay or straight, of different religions, cultures and backgrounds. God and His word transcends these human made divisions.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Perhaps while you are there you will pray that your God forgives those who made Tandy, Paul and countless other LGBT young people's lives a living hell in his name. I NEVER will.

    See above. I think that these cases are tragic, and I think that Christians need to repent in cases where they have failed to share the Gospel with the gentleness and respect that it deserves.
    Sin City wrote: »
    Even if they dont want to hear or are a part of another religeon?

    1. Most people I talk to ask me about it. I make clear to my colleagues I am a Christian. If they ask me about my weekend, I will tell them about church. Or if they ask me about what I'm doing in the evening, if I'm going to small group I'll tell them that's what I'm doing. If people don't want to talk about it and make it clear that they don't want to talk about it I'll stop. If people are of other religions, I will tell them about what I believe if they ask me. All people of all faiths need to hear about Jesus, and they need to understand that Jesus died to save them.
    Sin City wrote: »
    So they are singled out and told they are evil if they have sex, even if they are married? (Define lifestyle btw)

    Lifestyle - The way that one chooses to live their lives.

    Singled out? - No. The church simply teaches about Jesus, and about what the Bible says. On every matter. From how we should relate with others, to how we understand family, to how we should understand wealth, to how we should understand our times, to how we should relate with those who disagree with us, how we should regard alcohol, how we should regard dishonesty, lying, slander, adultery, abuse, war, greed, power, relationships. The Bible teaches us about life as a whole, and if we as Christians belong to Jesus Christ, we will live by His words.

    For example at church today we were learning about how our minds and hearts should be transformed by the Spirit of God if we have truly believed in Him. (Romans 8:1-17)

    Marriage from a Christian perspective is clearly between a man and a woman.
    Sin City wrote: »
    I shall find some but Im on the mobile at the min but when I get home I shall post the articles up

    Sure, take your time.
    Sin City wrote: »
    That was the old trtaditional way of thinking

    They also thought that the earth was the center of the universe

    If the Bible is God's word, and if Jesus is Lord over all creation, then the Bible is as true and as real today as when it was first written.
    Sin City wrote: »
    Im just going by what I have read. Maybe if you got laid once in a while it might have an effect on your outlook

    :) - Honestly, I think you're wrong on this. I'd much rather live as God has commanded me, than to hold what can be a destructive attitude towards sexuality.
    Sin City wrote: »
    and God himself (not Jesus or anyone else) actually condems homosexual sex?

    What else has God himself .no angels Jesus or anyone else demmed as evil?

    See above about what I've said about the Bible. It concerns our lives as a whole. Not just in respect to sexuality.
    Sin City wrote: »
    . Im sure the holocost suvivers will agree with your there. Conscience may tell you something is wrong but wanting to conform to socail norms or obey your superiors will usually beat a conscience as Stanly Milgrim has shown us

    By the by, saying that we have a conscience doesn't mean that people cannot suppress them to do what is clearly evil rather than what is good.
    Sin City wrote: »
    A soceity were Christianity is the major religeon

    What kind of society is that?
    Sin City wrote: »
    Also somewhere where religious oppression didnt happen as people will just try and do what was forbidden for no good reason other than their leaders didnt approve or it was a treath to their grip on power, especaily if it used to be a deeply spiritual country like Korea or China.

    China had a state atheist regime and still does in certain ways. It heavily restricts religious belief. Yet 10% of the people have accepted Jesus as Lord.
    Sin City wrote: »
    Enjoy Church
    Thanks I did do :)
    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    ^ There's actually a passage in the New Testament which states that the Old Testament still applies:

    "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law [i.e. the Old Testament] to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

    I don't believe the Old Testament has become invalid. That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the Law is fulfilled. Jesus Himself says this in Matthew 5:17
    Matthew 5:17 wrote:
    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    The Bible is clear that a New Covenant was to be the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. Jesus did not abolish the Torah, He fulfilled it though. He satisfied the requirements of the Torah by dying in our place on the cross, and He fulfilled it by creating a New Covenant with Jews and Gentiles (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8).

    The Old Testament is still abundantly useful:
    2 Timothy 3:16 wrote:
    All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
    but we read it differently now that we know Jesus (2 Corinthians 3).

    All Scripture at Paul's time was the Old Testament. We just read the Old Testament in the light of what Christ has done. Indeed, the Old Testament told us what Jesus was going to do hundreds of years before He did it (Isaiah 53).
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Bible says 'Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' (Matt 19:24) but I don't hear anyone calling the wealthy abominations or lobbying for legislation to be introduced to prevent people making loads of money.

    Take a look at this post I posted a few weeks ago on this passage, and let me know what you think.

    For the record, Christians believe that all wealth is from God, and should be used for His glory. We also need to be wary of making money our God.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Are you seriously telling me there are not Christians who brandish signs saying God hates Fags? Seriously? Or does it only count as when it takes place in a church?

    I've heard of a tiny group in the US doing that, but I certainly don't consider them to be Christians. You get whackjobs in every group or ideology - just as you get atheists who torture or kill Christians.

    Certainly, in over 30 years of practising Christianity and meeting tens of thousands of Christians from many denominations, I've never come across that kind of thing.

    It would take a deeply dishonest person to pretend such views are representative of Christians in general - just as you would need to be deeply dishonest to pretend that atheists in general kill Christians.
    Perhaps you would be kind enough to link me some Christian advocacy groups who are lobbying governments to reduce profits or ban usury?
    I can't link from where I am (using a host's computer overseas that has already wiped my entire post twice) but try checking out World Vision, the Jubilee Campaign etc.


  • Options
    #128
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    hcass wrote: »
    Have to guffaw at this - have you been to the Vatican? Looks like they might have a problem practising what they preach.

    So that invalidates the many Christians who tirelessly give their lives in working alongside the poor in impoverished areas of the world?


  • Options
    #129
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    So that invalidates the many Christians who tirelessly give their lives in working alongside the poor in impoverished areas of the world?

    Not at all. To my way of thinking these are the true Christians and I, for one, have nothing but admiration for them. However, they are in the VAST minority among those who define themselves as Christian.

    BTW - many Atheists also tirelessly give their lives in working alongside the poor in impoverished areas of the world and they do it with no expectation of a reward once they die.


  • Options
    #130
    hcass
    Registered Users Posts: 628 ✭✭✭hcass


    PDN wrote: »
    So that invalidates the many Christians who tirelessly give their lives in working alongside the poor in impoverished areas of the world?

    Absolutely not. I don't see how you got that from what I wrote.


  • Options
    #131
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Not at all. To my way of thinking these are the true Christians and I, for one, have nothing but admiration for them. However, they are in the VAST minority among those who define themselves as Christian.

    BTW - many Atheists also tirelessly give their lives in working alongside the poor in impoverished areas of the world and they do it with no expectation of a reward once they die.

    Christians don't do what is good in order to receive a reward. We are already saved by grace:
    Ephesians 2:8-10 wrote:
    For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    I've heard of a tiny group in the US doing that, but I certainly don't consider them to be Christians. You get whackjobs in every group or ideology - just as you get atheists who torture or kill Christians.

    .

    When did an Atheist ever claim their actions were justified because God told them to do it?

    BTW - Christians have also murdered and tortured their fellow Christians - with all sides claiming their interpretation of Scripture was the only correct one and this gave them sanction to kill those who disagreed.


  • Options
    #133
    Wiggles88
    Registered Users Posts: 236 ✭✭Wiggles88


    philologos wrote: »
    Christians don't do what is good in order to receive a reward. We are already saved by grace:

    Which is contradicted in other parts of the bible.
    (James 2:24) - "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."7

    (Matthew 19:16-17) - "And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" 17And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."


  • Options
    #134
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    Christians don't do what is good in order to receive a reward. We are already saved by grace:

    Ummm - no. That is what the version of Christianity you follow says. Roman Catholics believe good works earns them grace and will be rewarded. Lutherans say Faith alone is all that is required, Calvinists say it's all pre-determined so it really makes no difference whatsoever.


  • Options
    #135
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wiggles88 wrote: »
    Which is contradicted in other parts of the bible.

    Really?

    James 1:24 - says that faith without works is dead. That's true. True conviction and faith in Christ will bring about good works which God has prepared in advance as is Ephesians chapter 2.

    Matthew 19 is a very very odd passage to use, because much of Jesus' point in that passage is to show how impossible it is on the basis of our own works to be justified. See Matthew 19:23-26:
    Matthew 19:23-26 wrote:
    And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

    We need to read the whole passage in order to make sure that we have the correct application.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Ummm - no. That is what the version of Christianity you follow says. Roman Catholics believe good works earns them grace and will be rewarded. Lutherans say Faith alone is all that is required, Calvinists say it's all pre-determined so it really makes no difference whatsoever.

    I've quoted you what the Bible says. Am more than happy to discuss it with you.


  • Options
    #136
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    Really?

    James 1:24 - says that faith without works is dead. That's true. True conviction and faith in Christ will bring about good works which God has prepared in advance as is Ephesians chapter 2.

    Matthew 19 is a very very odd passage to use, because much of Jesus' point in that passage is to show how impossible it is on the basis of our own works to be justified. See Matthew 19:23-26:


    We need to read the whole passage in order to make sure that we have the correct application.



    I've quoted you what the Bible says. Am more than happy to discuss it with you.

    So you disagree with Calvin's stance on pre-destination? Do you therefore believe that neither Calvinists or Presbyterians are Christians as they would utterly reject your interpretation? Are you claiming that Calvin (and Knox) did not 'have the correct application.'?


  • Options
    #137
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    So you disagree with Calvin's stance on pre-destination? Do you therefore believe that neither Calvinists or Presbyterians are Christians as they would utterly reject your interpretation? Are you claiming that Calvin (and Knox) did not 'have the correct application.'?

    I'm interested in looking to what Scripture is arguing. That's all. For the record, I agree that the Bible refers to predestination in a number of passages, but that's for another thread.

    You claimed that Christians do good because they seek a reward in heaven, is that really what Christianity teaches? You claimed that atheists do good, and they do it because they don't seek a reward for it. I don't seek a reward for doing the right thing, rather I seek to do the right thing because it is the right thing.

    I'm just saying, listen to what Christians actually believe before telling us what we believe.


  • Options
    #138
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm interested in looking to what Scripture is arguing. That's all. For the record, I agree that the Bible refers to predestination in a number of passages, but that's for another thread.

    You claimed that Christians do good because they seek a reward in heaven, is that really what Christianity teaches? You claimed that atheists do good, and they do it because they don't seek a reward for it. I don't seek a reward for doing the right thing, rather I seek to do the right thing because it is the right thing.

    I'm just saying, listen to what Christians actually believe before telling us what we believe.

    But your use of the blanket term 'Christian' implies that you are speaking for all Christians and that all Christians share your interpretation of Scripture. This is demonstrably not correct.

    Roman Catholics believe the performance of good works, while in a State of Grace, does indeed earn a reward in the afterlife. Lutheran's would say it makes no difference really as Faith alone is what matters and Calvinists and Presbyterians would say that whether or not one was Saved was pre-determined before one was even born so ones actions during life are essentially immaterial but that a 'Saved' person was more likely to perform good works then an 'unSaved' one.

    The largest Christian denomination in the world - the Roman Catholic Church which claims to have 1,166 million members - absolutely states that good works are important for salvation.
    Catholics believe that faith and good works are both necessary for salvation, because such is the teaching of Jesus Christ. What Our Lord demands is ``faith that worketh by charity .'' (Gal. 5 :6). Read Matthew 25:31-46, which describes the Last Judgment as being based on works of charity. The first and greatest commandment, as given by Our Lord Himself, is to love the Lord God with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength; and the second great commandment is to love one's neighbor as oneself. (Mark 12:30-31). When the rich young man asked Our Lord what he must do to gain eternal life, Our Lord answered: ``Keep the commandments.'' (Matt. 19:17). Thus, although faith is the beginning, it is not the complete fulfillment of the will of God. Nowhere in the Bible is it written that faith alone justifies. When St. Paul wrote, ``For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law,'' he was referring to works peculiar to the old Jewish Law, and he cited circumcision as an example.
    The Catholic Church does not teach that purely human good works are meritorious for salvation; such works are not meritorious for salvation, according to her teaching. Only those good works performed when a person is in the state of grace--that is, as a branch drawing its spiritual life from the Vine which is Christ (John 15:4-6)--only these good deeds work toward our salvation, and they do so only by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ. These good works, offered to God by a soul in the state of grace (i.e., free of mortal sin, with the Blessed Trinity dwelling in the soul), are thereby supernaturally meritorious because they share in the work and in the merits of Christ. Such supernatural good works will not only be rewarded by God, but are necessary for salvation.
    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html#q13

    Which brings us back once again to the fact that there really is no such thing as a coherent, unified, 'Christian' doctrine. What does exist are many, many Christian denominations with many, many divergent interpretations and conflicting doctrines all claiming to be correct and dismissing their rivals as incorrect.

    Yet, in threads like this we are constantly presented with so-called 'Christian' views, usually but not exclusively negative, of homosexuality, Gay Marriage and sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender when the reality is that Christians cannot agree among themselves making the entire concept of a unified Christian doctrine on homosexuality redundant and allowing this so-called (non-existent) doctrine to impact on people civil liberties farcical.


  • Options
    #139
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    philologos wrote: »

    I'm just saying, listen to what Christians actually believe before telling us what we believe.

    See, now that's the tricky part isn't it.

    I'd safely say that most Christians don't even know what they believe, never mind what they're supposed to believe.

    I know Catholics who think transubstantiation is just a metaphor, Christians who totally support all gay rights, and don't even consider it wrong.

    Christians can't even decide on what they really believe, like most people you just go with whatever works for you.

    And it's for precisely this reason that Christianity (or any religion) should have no impact on the States laws. At least the State doesn't going around claiming the rules are 'the truth' or 'God's word'.

    It is a sad truth that the main opposition of full gay rights in this country is basing their comments on purely religious grounds, any studies they attempt to use are always biased and funded by anti-Gay rights organizations.


  • Options
    #140
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    But your use of the blanket term 'Christian' implies that you are speaking for all Christians and that all Christians share your interpretation of Scripture. This is demonstrably not correct.

    Here's my challenge to you. Read Ephesians chapter 2 as a whole, and tell me if there is an alternative to that interpretation.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Roman Catholics believe the performance of good works, while in a State of Grace, does indeed earn a reward in the afterlife. Lutheran's would say it makes no difference really as Faith alone is what matters and Calvinists and Presbyterians would say that whether or not one was Saved was pre-determined before one was even born so ones actions during life are essentially immaterial but that a 'Saved' person was more likely to perform good works then an 'unSaved' one.

    I'm not so sure about that. I'd love to hear some Roman Catholic posters on this issue. Most would agree that we are forgiven by Christ's grace, however that good works are necessary in order for belief to be true belief. That's largely similar to Reformed belief. Reformed belief would say that we are saved by Jesus's death on the cross, but that faith is evidenced by good works which God has prepared in advance.

    The question is, what does the Bible say. Anyone reading Ephesians chapter 2 particularly verses 8 to 10 can see rather clearly what it says. It isn't vague by any means.

    I think you're largely overplaying denominational differences. I've studied the Bible for 5+ years now with other Christians of varying denominations, and I've also opened the Bible on occasion to non-believers and those of other religions.

    I can say that the vast majority of the time I read the Bible with other Christians we did not come to major disagreement on Scripture.

    Most Roman Catholics wouldn't agree that Jesus' death was for nothing. Therefore I can conclude that they believe that Jesus did save us from sin:
    Galatians 2:21 wrote:
    I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The largest Christian denomination in the world - the Roman Catholic Church which claims to have 1,166 million members - absolutely states that good works are important for salvation.


    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html#q13

    See above.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Which brings us back once again to the fact that there really is no such thing as a coherent, unified, 'Christian' doctrine. What does exist are many, many Christian denominations with many, many divergent interpretations and conflicting doctrines all claiming to be correct and dismissing their rivals as incorrect.

    There is what the Bible says and what it doesn't.

    You claimed that atheists do good works without seeking a reward for doing so. I simply claimed that the Bible says that Christians who have been saved by Jesus Christ don't either.

    I do what is good, because I believe doing what God has declared to be good is the right thing to do. I want to live for Jesus, because I am thankful for what He has done for me.

    That's all. I'm not rewarded for these things.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Yet, in threads like this we are constantly presented with so-called 'Christian' views, usually but not exclusively negative, of homosexuality, Gay Marriage and sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender when the reality is that Christians cannot agree among themselves making the entire concept of a unified Christian doctrine on homosexuality redundant and allowing this so-called (non-existent) doctrine to impact on people civil liberties farcical.

    There is what the Bible says about sin. That's why we need to listen to what it says.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    See, now that's the tricky part isn't it.

    Is it?
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    I'd safely say that most Christians don't even know what they believe, never mind what they're supposed to believe.

    What are you defining as a Christian. I would regard a Christian as a disciple of Jesus Christ, who has repented of their sin, understood the impact of His saving death on the cross, and as someone who lives and speaks for Jesus in the world around them.

    What would you define a Christian as?
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    I know Catholics who think transubstantiation is just a metaphor, Christians who totally support all gay rights, and don't even consider it wrong.

    When push comes to shove, what does the Bible say about either? That's the discussion that people who claim to follow Jesus need to be having.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Christians can't even decide on what they really believe, like most people you just go with whatever works for you.

    Again, in the 5+ years since I've become a Christian, I've come to strong agreement on the vast majority of what I've read in the Bible with Roman Catholics, Baptists, non-denominational Christians, Pentecostals, Brethren, Lutherans, and Presbyterians.

    The reason I can't go with "whatever works for me" is that God isn't about me. It's about Him, and bringing glory to Him. If I blaspheme against Him, by claiming that sin is OK, then that's something serious.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    And it's for precisely this reason that Christianity (or any religion) should have no impact on the States laws. At least the State doesn't going around claiming the rules are 'the truth' or 'God's word'.

    Nobody is saying that Christianity should have an impact on the State's laws. People are saying that all views should be considered and debated on merit alone. I can see a lot of merit in the State ensuring firstly that as many children as possible are raised with their biological parents, and in the case that is not possible ensuring that as many children as possible are raised with a mother and a father.

    You're saying - Christians shut up and don't contribute. That's not how a mature democracy should work.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    It is a sad truth that the main opposition of full gay rights in this country is basing their comments on purely religious grounds, any studies they attempt to use are always biased and funded by anti-Gay rights organizations.

    I can't applaud sin, and I can't applaud redefining marriage. Why is it that I can discuss with Muslims about Islam, and agree to disagree, shake their hands and get to know them a little better as people in the process? Why is it that disagreeing with the LGBT lobby is different? Why can't we do what I can do with Muslims I've met on the street doing dawah?

    What I will say is this. If the issue did come to a public vote and if the majority disagreed with me, I'd accept the verdict of the people even if I don't believe that a marriage is truly between a man and a woman. Until that point if I was asked to vote I'd vote no. Indeed, I've signed the Coalition for Marriage petition because I believe it is important that marriage stay as it is the union between a man and a woman.

    It's important to note that I don't suggest that LGBT people shouldn't formalise their relationships. Indeed, that's what civil partnership is for. Redefining marriage, and changing it, however is too far from my perspective.


  • Options
    #141
    Cossax
    Registered Users Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Cossax


    Any change in laws wouldn't force the RCC/any church to marry people it didn't want but you seem to be in a bit of a twist because gays will be able to be married rather than civil partners?
    I'm curious as to what makes you think you/any church has a monopoly on the meaning of a word whose concept has been around for longer than organised religion?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    Here's my challenge to you. Read Ephesians chapter 2 as a whole, and tell me if there is an alternative to that interpretation.



    I'm not so sure about that. I'd love to hear some Roman Catholic posters on this issue. Most would agree that we are forgiven by Christ's grace, however that good works are necessary in order for belief to be true belief. That's largely similar to Reformed belief. Reformed belief would say that we are saved by Jesus's death on the cross, but that faith is evidenced by good works which God has prepared in advance.

    The question is, what does the Bible say. Anyone reading Ephesians chapter 2 particularly verses 8 to 10 can see rather clearly what it says. It isn't vague by any means.

    I think you're largely overplaying denominational differences. I've studied the Bible for 5+ years now with other Christians of varying denominations, and I've also opened the Bible on occasion to non-believers and those of other religions.

    I can say that the vast majority of the time I read the Bible with other Christians we did not come to major disagreement on Scripture.

    Most Roman Catholics wouldn't agree that Jesus' death was for nothing. Therefore I can conclude that they believe that Jesus did save us from sin:




    See above.



    There is what the Bible says and what it doesn't.

    You claimed that atheists do good works without seeking a reward for doing so. I simply claimed that the Bible says that Christians who have been saved by Jesus Christ don't either.

    I do what is good, because I believe doing what God has declared to be good is the right thing to do. I want to live for Jesus, because I am thankful for what He has done for me.

    That's all. I'm not rewarded for these things.



    There is what the Bible says about sin. That's why we need to listen to what it says.



    Is it?



    What are you defining as a Christian. I would regard a Christian as a disciple of Jesus Christ, who has repented of their sin, understood the impact of His saving death on the cross, and as someone who lives and speaks for Jesus in the world around them.

    What would you define a Christian as?



    When push comes to shove, what does the Bible say about either? That's the discussion that people who claim to follow Jesus need to be having.



    Again, in the 5+ years since I've become a Christian, I've come to strong agreement on the vast majority of what I've read in the Bible with Roman Catholics, Baptists, non-denominational Christians, Pentecostals, Brethren, Lutherans, and Presbyterians.

    The reason I can't go with "whatever works for me" is that God isn't about me. It's about Him, and bringing glory to Him. If I blaspheme against Him, by claiming that sin is OK, then that's something serious.



    Nobody is saying that Christianity should have an impact on the State's laws. People are saying that all views should be considered and debated on merit alone. I can see a lot of merit in the State ensuring firstly that as many children as possible are raised with their biological parents, and in the case that is not possible ensuring that as many children as possible are raised with a mother and a father.

    You're saying - Christians shut up and don't contribute. That's not how a mature democracy should work.



    I can't applaud sin, and I can't applaud redefining marriage. Why is it that I can discuss with Muslims about Islam, and agree to disagree, shake their hands and get to know them a little better as people in the process? Why is it that disagreeing with the LGBT lobby is different? Why can't we do what I can do with Muslims I've met on the street doing dawah?

    What I will say is this. If the issue did come to a public vote and if the majority disagreed with me, I'd accept the verdict of the people even if I don't believe that a marriage is truly between a man and a woman. Until that point if I was asked to vote I'd vote no. Indeed, I've signed the Coalition for Marriage petition because I believe it is important that marriage stay as it is the union between a man and a woman.

    It's important to note that I don't suggest that LGBT people shouldn't formalise their relationships. Indeed, that's what civil partnership is for. Redefining marriage, and changing it, however is too far from my perspective.

    Civil Partnership as it exists in it's current form does not grant the same rights as enjoyed by heterosexuals who enter into a civil marriage - this blatant discrimination is what campaigners for Gay Marriage are demanding. Do you have an issue with a form of civil partnership which grants the exact same rights as civil marriage but is not called marriage?

    Evangelical Ireland published this document in response to the 2009 Civil Partnership Bill http://www.evangelical.ie/docs/Civil%20Partnership%20response.pdf

    What I found of particular interest is their conclusion which states 'Evangelical Christians have no automatic right to have their views preferred to those of others. Nor do we have a duty to try and impose Biblical morality on public life by force of law.'

    You may be interested in this http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_c.htm which contains rebuttals from a liberal Christian perspective of John Stott's anti-Gay marriage book and Focus on the Family Statement on same-sex marriage.

    Perhaps you can disagree with Muslims as they are not being placed at a legal disadvantage - unlike LGBT people - by discriminatory policies inspired by your religion? Just a thought.

    As for 'Nobody is saying that Christianity should have an impact on the State's laws. ' - how about Cardinal Keith O’Brien who likened legalising civil Gay Marriage is to legalising slavery? Or this blogger who describes civil marriage for lesbians and gays as 'momentous and catastrophic. Momentous – because the definition of marriage has historically rested upon legal precedent, theology, tradition, public opinion, and, most importantly, Scripture' ? http://www.campaignforconscience.org/gay-marriage-a-response-to-eamon-gilmore/


  • Options
    #143
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    PDN wrote: »
    For what it's worth, I've also never heard anyone in a church call homosexuals abominations.

    I have heard Christians call homosexuality as a practice an abomination. I've also heard Christians call capitalism and the largescale accumulation of wealth abominations.


    Recently a catholic close to me said that gay men are all paedophiles. "They're into buggery and they need to be cured". :confused:

    A closed mind is a sick mind that needs to be 'cured'. Education/ information is the best medicine. Taken with a spoonful of sugar, of course.


  • Options
    #144
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    When did an Atheist ever claim their actions were justified because God told them to do it?

    Round about the same time as a Christian ever thought they could get away with their actions since there was no God to judge them. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #145
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    What I found of particular interest is their conclusion which states 'Evangelical Christians have no automatic right to have their views preferred to those of others. Nor do we have a duty to try and impose Biblical morality on public life by force of law.'

    I agree, I'm not arguing that I should impose Christian belief on the law. Rather I'm saying that if I am given a say on the subject by the Government or otherwise I'll make it clear that I'll vote against it and that's my right. You'll also notice that that document talks about civil partnership and not marriage.

    If the people decide otherwise I'll respect that in fullness, while still disagreeing.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Perhaps you can disagree with Muslims as they are not being placed at a legal disadvantage - unlike LGBT people - by discriminatory policies inspired by your religion? Just a thought.

    This topic is about redefining marriage. That's different to an equality debate.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As for 'Nobody is saying that Christianity should have an impact on the State's laws. ' - how about Cardinal Keith O’Brien who likened legalising civil Gay Marriage is to legalising slavery? Or this blogger who describes civil marriage for lesbians and gays as 'momentous and catastrophic. Momentous – because the definition of marriage has historically rested upon legal precedent, theology, tradition, public opinion, and, most importantly, Scripture' ? http://www.campaignforconscience.org/gay-marriage-a-response-to-eamon-gilmore/

    I'm not going to discuss what Cardinal Keith O'Brien said, because that doesn't concern me. I wish you would focus on what I'm saying rather than what other people say. That's only what a respectful discussion entails.


  • Options
    #146
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    I agree, I'm not arguing that I should impose Christian belief on the law. Rather I'm saying that if I am given a say on the subject by the Government or otherwise I'll make it clear that I'll vote against it and that's my right. You'll also notice that that document talks about civil partnership and not marriage.

    If the people decide otherwise I'll respect that in fullness, while still disagreeing.



    This topic is about redefining marriage. That's different to an equality debate.



    I'm not going to discuss what Cardinal Keith O'Brien said, because that doesn't concern me. I wish you would focus on what I'm saying rather than what other people say. That's only what a respectful discussion entails.

    Ummm... Phil you said 'Nobody is saying that Christianity should have an impact on the State's laws.' when I pointed out that in fact people, like the Cardinal have indeed done just that your best response is that I should focus on what you are saying. That is exactly what I did. I engaged with your incorrect statement and provide examples which demonstrate your statement was incorrect.

    You have again failed to answer if you would have an issue with the exact same rights as current contained under civil marriage legislation being extended to same-sex couples under the proviso that is was not called marriage

    How about same-sex civil matrimony? -
    Or Same-Sex Civil Nuptials?
    Or same-sex wedlock?
    Would you have an issue with that?


  • Options
    #147
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    Round about the same time as a Christian ever thought they could get away with their actions since there was no God to judge them. :rolleyes:

    :rolleyes: indeed. What a bizarre statement to make.


  • Options
    #148
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I posted this over in the 'other' forum but it is worth re-posting here.

    I think we are letting the religious perspective on what is essentially semantics dominate the debate.

    To my way of thinking there are two distinct issues at play and they need to be more clearly separated.

    Firstly we have civil legislation which is enacted by the State and should, in theory, be applicable to all citizens regardless of race, creed, colour, ethnicity, or sexual orientation on the grounds that all citizens are equal under the law- yet there are two distinct pieces of civil legislation which allow adults to enter into, for want of a better term, a legally binding long-term life partnership which can only be dissolved by the courts. These two pieces of legislation are vastly different and that available only to heterosexual couples, currently called marriage, contains far more legal rights then the civil partnership which is available to homosexual couples. This makes a mockery of the notion that all citizens are equal under the law as clearly homosexual couples are not.

    Then there is the concept of 'holy' matrimony or 'being joined by God' which is also known as marriage. Now this religious ceremony in and of itself has no legal standing whatsoever and is purely a religious rite but discussion of this has been allowed to dominate the debate. Marriages which take place in churches, Mosques etc only have legal standing because the State has granted the clerics of these organisations the right to act as civil registrars.

    The solutions is simple. The State should withdraw this ability across the board and make the legally binding aspect of marriage only available from the State leaving the religious ceremonial aspect the preserve of the various religions as France did.

    It should then grant all citizens the right to enter into a civil contract of life-partnership (call it wedlock/marriage/surry with a fringe on top anything ye like as long as the same rights/responsibilities are available to all citizens) - which would be legally binding and allow those who believe the religious aspect is important to have their union ceremonially celebrated in the religious establishment of their choice. Those who believe it is important to be 'married in the eyes of God' will still be able to do so, the only difference being that the celebrant is no longer automatically also acting as a civil registrar.

    The religious aspect of the ceremony would have the exact same legal standing it current enjoys - i.e. none while the civil/legal aspect is clearly separated from the religious and retains it's legally binding status.

    Essentially, churches/mosques etc would no longer be one-stop shops for getting married and the differences between the religious and civil aspects of marriage would be made abundantly clear.

    Whether or not these religious establishments are willing to solemnise same-sex unions will then become a purely internal matter for those organisations and each can decide for themselves. The Quakers will most likely say yes, as will the Methodists, the COI could go either way, the RCC will absolutely refuse. But it will be decided by those particular organisations and not impact on those who are not members of those organisations.

    As the current debate is going, religious organisations are being allowed to muddy the waters with disinformation when no-body is asking them or seeking to oblige them to perform same-sex marriages but are actually seeking that the State, and the State alone, extend equal rights under the civil laws to all it's citizens.


  • Options
    #149
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I posted this over in the 'other' forum but it is worth re-posting here.

    I think we are letting the religious perspective on what is essentially semantics dominate the debate.

    To my way of thinking there are two distinct issues at play and they need to be more clearly separated.

    Firstly we have civil legislation which is enacted by the State and should, in theory, be applicable to all citizens regardless of race, creed, colour, ethnicity, or sexual orientation on the grounds that all citizens are equal under the law- yet there are two distinct pieces of civil legislation which allow adults to enter into, for want of a better term, a legally binding long-term life partnership which can only be dissolved by the courts. These two pieces of legislation are vastly different and that available only to heterosexual couples, currently called marriage, contains far more legal rights then the civil partnership which is available to homosexual couples. This makes a mockery of the notion that all citizens are equal under the law as clearly homosexual couples are not.

    Then there is the concept of 'holy' matrimony or 'being joined by God' which is also known as marriage. Now this religious ceremony in and of itself has no legal standing whatsoever and is purely a religious rite but discussion of this has been allowed to dominate the debate. Marriages which take place in churches, Mosques etc only have legal standing because the State has granted the clerics of these organisations the right to act as civil registrars.

    The solutions is simple. The State should withdraw this ability across the board and make the legally binding aspect of marriage only available from the State leaving the religious ceremonial aspect the preserve of the various religions as France did.

    It should then grant all citizens the right to enter into a civil contract of life-partnership (call it wedlock/marriage/surry with a fringe on top anything ye like as long as the same rights/responsibilities are available to all citizens) - which would be legally binding and allow those who believe the religious aspect is important to have their union ceremonially celebrated in the religious establishment of their choice. Those who believe it is important to be 'married in the eyes of God' will still be able to do so, the only difference being that the celebrant is no longer automatically also acting as a civil registrar.

    The religious aspect of the ceremony would have the exact same legal standing it current enjoys - i.e. none while the civil/legal aspect is clearly separated from the religious and retains it's legally binding status.

    Essentially, churches/mosques etc would no longer be one-stop shops for getting married and the differences between the religious and civil aspects of marriage would be made abundantly clear.

    Whether or not these religious establishments are willing to solemnise same-sex unions will then become a purely internal matter for those organisations and each can decide for themselves. The Quakers will most likely say yes, as will the Methodists, the COI could go either way, the RCC will absolutely refuse. But it will be decided by those particular organisations and not impact on those who are not members of those organisations.

    As the current debate is going, religious organisations are being allowed to muddy the waters with disinformation when no-body is asking them or seeking to oblige them to perform same-sex marriages but are actually seeking that the State, and the State alone, extend equal rights under the civil laws to all it's citizens.

    I agree with you. The civil ceremony should afford the same legal rights to all couples, or indeed to groups of people if they wish to take on board multiple partners etc. My only beef is the misuse of the word 'marriage' when applied to such a ceremony. I think 'Civil Partnership' is more accurate.

    So, in effect, there would be no discrimination, as homosexuals, heterosexuals, people wanting to marry their own brother or sister, or any other variation that might tickle someone's fancy would have equal legal standing in their Civil Partnerships.

    And, as I've argued in other threads, if the State insists on changing the meaning of the word 'marriage' to refer to these civil ceremonies, then the churches should adopt another term and excise the word 'marriage' from their vocabulary and Bible translations.


  • Options
    #150
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    I agree with you. The civil ceremony should afford the same legal rights to all couples, or indeed to groups of people if they wish to take on board multiple partners etc. My only beef is the misuse of the word 'marriage' when applied to such a ceremony. I think 'Civil Partnership' is more accurate.

    So, in effect, there would be no discrimination, as homosexuals, heterosexuals, people wanting to marry their own brother or sister, or any other variation that might tickle someone's fancy would have equal legal standing in their Civil Partnerships.

    And, as I've argued in other threads, if the State insists on changing the meaning of the word 'marriage' to refer to these civil ceremonies, then the churches should adopt another term and excise the word 'marriage' from their vocabulary and Bible translations.

    Good to see that you avoided muddying the waters by dragging in those old bug bears about incest, hinting at bestiality etc...oh wait....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    PDN wrote: »
    I agree with you. The civil ceremony should afford the same legal rights to all couples, or indeed to groups of people if they wish to take on board multiple partners etc. My only beef is the misuse of the word 'marriage' when applied to such a ceremony. I think 'Civil Partnership' is more accurate.

    So, in effect, there would be no discrimination, as homosexuals, heterosexuals, people wanting to marry their own brother or sister, or any other variation that might tickle someone's fancy would have equal legal standing in their Civil Partnerships.

    And, as I've argued in other threads, if the State insists on changing the meaning of the word 'marriage' to refer to these civil ceremonies, then the churches should adopt another term and excise the word 'marriage' from their vocabulary and Bible translations.

    The word 'marriage' is often the key problem here, because people are using it in different contexts. Ironically it's down to peoples interpretation.

    Those on the LGBT side aren't out to kidnap the word Marriage, they're simply looking for equality. Those who oppose it are claiming the word Marriage is being stolen, when it's really not. It doesn't even have to enter it really, because this is really about legal rights and matters.

    I, personally, use the word marriage often because it's simpler and quicker to say in a normal conversation.

    If I ask my mother if she wants to marry her partner, I'll say something like 'Do you want to marry her?" and not something like "Do you want to civil ceremony her?". It just sounds wrong and takes away from the moment.

    And just as a last point. Can we please remember that marriage itself is far older than Christianity and has been practiced around the world for centuries.


Advertisement