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

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The point Phil - as well you know but are refusing to address. It that other Christians do not agree with your interpretation. Many, many of them.

We do not need to discuss the Bible or theology with you as we are not the ones saying 'I am a Christian and I disagree' - you need to take that that up with them. Call it heresy, call them not -Christian all you want but the debate is an internal matter and asking atheists like myself to discuss the theology is pointless given we do not accept the Bible is the world of God or indeed that God even exists.

We are simply saying there is no unified Christian position and have provided ample evidence to support that.

This is a Christian theological issue, on the Christianity forum and it concerns the Bible.

I think where we are getting lost is that we have different understandings of what Christianity is based on. You think its a fluid process that is based on the thinking of Christians. I think it is based on God's word which doesn't change according to mans whim.

I believe I have a responsibility to be a custodian of the Gospel to ensure that faithful teaching from Scripture goes put to every generation.

If the Bible is about God's word rather than our word I think we need to take this very seriously and tread carefully. That goes for both parties myself included.

I'm sorry but if you want to delve into Christianity we need Biblical assessment of this topic, and we need theology.

Discussing this is point without Biblical consideration is pointless. If you want to discuss how churches should deal with this topic getting into the Bible is unavoidable.

Why did you bring it up if you don't want to engage with theology?

This thread as a whole is about that topic. I would have preferred to have a single thread on sexuality as a whole rather than on homosexuality only. This issue is broader than this.

Perhaps that's something for Benny Cake to consider.

philologos wrote: »

This is a Christian theological issue, on the Christianity forum and it concerns the Bible.

I think where we are getting lost is that we have different understandings of what Christianity is based on. You think its a fluid process that is based on the thinking of Christians. I think it is based on God's word which doesn't change according to mans whim.

I believe I have a responsibility to be a custodian of the Gospel to ensure that faithful teaching from Scripture goes put to every generation.

If the Bible is about God's word rather than our word I think we need to take this very seriously and tread carefully. That goes for both parties myself included.

I'm sorry but if you want to delve into Christianity we need Biblical assessment of this topic, and we need theology.

Discussing this is point without Biblical consideration is pointless. If you want to discuss how churches should deal with this topic getting into the Bible is unavoidable.

Why did you bring it up if you don't want to engage with theology?

This thread as a whole is about that topic. I would have preferred to have a single thread on sexuality as a whole rather than on homosexuality only. This issue is broader than this.

Perhaps that's something for Benny Cake to consider.

This one thread - the Big Gay Mega Thread - is devoted to discussing Christian attitudes to homosexuality. There are several threads devoted to Theology. I don't go in there as it is none of my concern.

What is my concern is that it is notable among the responses from those Christians who are opposed to various aspects of homosexuality (which range from 'love the sinner/hate the sin' to 'abomination') is a tendency to claim theirs is the only Christian position. This is patently not true.

As a homosexual I am well within my rights to point out this inconvenient truth especially as this falsehood is being used to justify the civil State not extending me equal rights.

It's not my fault if Christians can't agree...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This one thread - the Big Gay Mega Thread - is devoted to discussing Christian attitudes to homosexuality. There are several threads devoted to Theology. I don't go in there as it is none of my concern.

What is my concern is that it is notable among the responses from those Christians who are opposed to various aspects of homosexuality (which range from 'love the sinner/hate the sin' to 'abomination') is a tendency to claim theirs is the only Christian position. This is patently not true.

As a homosexual I am well within my rights to point out this inconvenient truth especially as this falsehood is being used to justify the civil State not extending me equal rights.

It's not my fault if Christians can't agree...

This thread concerns theology also. We have to get to the underlying theological justifications for those attitudes to determine whether they are Biblical or not otherwise a discussion about if church A is justified to do X is meaningless and pointless.

To say that theology shouldn't be considered on this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

The Bible itself is clear on this issue that marriage is the union between a man and a woman (Matthew 19, Mark 12, Genesis 2) and so on. The Biblical text is equally clear as to what's right in respect to sexuality.

The reality is when I see that over the broad course of Christian history practically all have held to this view of marriage and the view that you've advocated is extremely recent, and that no passage in Scripture argues for unions outside of traditional marriage it's incredibly difficult to justify even if it is an 'interpretation' there are good and bad interpretations.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Christianity is rooted in Scripture, not in man's opinion.

There is hardly a Christian alive today who interprets the Bible in the manner the original authors meant it to be interpreted, certainly no one on this forum, so it is some what of a moot point (*cough*slavery*cough*).

You all have altered the message based on what you view a modern understands and interpretations. It is nonsensical to get pissy when other Christians continue to do this.

aloyisious

The problem with persons calling themselves Christians discussing Christian attitudes to homosexuality is that there is nothing in writing written by Jesus laying out what he believed God wanted him to tell other humans in regard to homosexuals and homosexuality.

In any case, being human mean's that there will forever be differing opinions as to what Jesus said and meant in his teachings, statements and prophecies.

I personally believe that when Jesus is quoted as saying: render to Caesar what is Caesar's, etc, he was drawing a line between religious and civil rules. This was an age before the Christian religion reached the status where it could affect how branches of Civil Authority made it's rules. To those who believe that one branch, or even several branches, of one religion has any right to decide what any state gives as civil rights to it's citizens, I say look at theocracy in action in the present day world, it's a double-edged sword.

tommy2bad

So apart from some biblical injunctions against same sex relationships what are the theological implications of us saying that thoes injunctions like others that we have decided no longer apply, no longer apply.
What makes gay sex so repugnant to God that it's the one thing that cant ever change.?
Theologically not some because he said so argument.

28064212

philologos wrote: »

Can you answer my question on reading being a postmodern exercise? Do you believe that about every book or just the Bible? Why in the latter?

I don't know what you mean by postmodern in this context. Which is in itself emblematic of the problem

"Time flies like an arrow" - I know exactly what I mean by that sentence. Do you? Lets say I can implant my meaning within you so that you do. You then write down what I said and pass it on. Did you write down my meaning? Did you interpret my meaning? What happens when, 10 links down the chain, it gets translated to French, which doesn't have an exact equivalent of certain contexts. Is it interpreted again by the translator?

Language is inherently an imperfect tool. And when it's a "two thousand year-old document whose writing is spread out over several centuries, by dozens of authors, in thousands of contexts, in a handful of languages and subsequently interpreted through a handful of others", these imperfections are multiplied a million times over.

philologos wrote: »

This thread concerns theology also. We have to get to the underlying theological justifications for those attitudes to determine whether they are Biblical or not otherwise a discussion about if church A is justified to do X is meaningless and pointless.

To say that theology shouldn't be considered on this thread is absolutely ridiculous.

The Bible itself is clear on this issue that marriage is the union between a man and a woman (Matthew 19, Mark 12, Genesis 2) and so on. The Biblical text is equally clear as to what's right in respect to sexuality.

The reality is when I see that over the broad course of Christian history practically all have held to this view of marriage and the view that you've advocated is extremely recent, and that no passage in Scripture argues for unions outside of traditional marriage it's incredibly difficult to justify even if it is an 'interpretation' there are good and bad interpretations.

Yes, it does concern theology - but the theology doesn't concern me. The conflicting messages do.
I do believe the differing interpretations and theologies should be discussed - but it is neither my place nor inclination to do so as, tbh, the Bible is about as valid to me as the Koran or Torah or the Vedas - i.e other people's Holy texts which I do not believe in.

As for 'this [Christian] view of marriage and the view that you've advocated is extremely recent' - once again I'm afraid you are incorrect

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

By no stretch of the imagination is 1,000 years extremely recent nor, given that same-sex unions were solemnised over 1,000 years ago in Christian churches, is it radical (or post-modern).

Links234

Continuing with the good news theme, Progressive Catholic Group Ordaining Transgender Priest. it also shows how open and accepting some denominations are compared to others.

TBH, The Bible is there for anyone to pick up and read. NO-ONE denies that professing Christians believe a whole myriad of all kinds of stuff. Like I said earlier, from God hates Ireland, Fags etc, to all roads lead to God and all other kinds of things. Its a catch all term in the context of the world, where its simply applied to anyone who wants to call themselves it. Now, some of you are intent on that meaning that everyone who calls themselves Christian, is a Christian. Now if you wish to take that position, so be it. You'll find that most recognise the Bible as an authoritative source, and the ones that don't, well you need to ask them where their claims to be Christian and their doctrine etc comes from. In terms of mainstream Christianity though, you'll have to appeal to The Bible.

EVERYONE has the capabilities of looking at the Bible honestly and forming an opinion. So rather than trying to confuse things with, 'Hey, this guy says he's a Christian, and he says God hates Ireland and Fags. aAnd this guy says he's a Christian and believes we should stock up on weapons for a nuclear Armageddon etc' Ergo, that must mean they have a valid argument. Try be a bit more discerning. The Bible is the source of doctrinal authority. Even in the RCC, where they believe in their own authority, they look to square it with The Bible. So there you go, look at the source. It just seems to work for you to believe that 'Ah sure we can't know what a Christian is', but in reality, you know exactly what you're doing. There is no argument being made here that there are not professing Christians that have a sexually immoral affirming theology. Just like there are professing Christians preaching a prosperity gospel. There are all kinds of groups professing to be Christians, that have all sorts non-biblical stances. THAT HAS NEVER BEEN IN DOUBT. The question pertinent here, is: Is the Bible is compatible with affirming homosexual union. Unless of course the whole point is to say, 'Hey look, there some prfessing Christians that say this', in which case, thanks for the info, but what is there to discuss? Other than to say, using the authority of scripture, they are not Christian.

Links234 wrote: »

Continuing with the good news theme, Progressive Catholic Group Ordaining Transgender Priest. it also shows how open and accepting some denominations are compared to others.

Again, there is NO DENIAL from ANYONE, that such churches exist. Its not even news. There are LOTS of gay affirming churches. Just like there are lots of greed affirming churches etc.

Christ told us that there would be those who would take on his name, but who are ravenous wolves in sheeps clothing, and will be judged accordingly.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Andrewf20

Im all for gay marriage. The bible may seem clear that its against gay marriage but the reason why God is against it seems even less clear. The argument for or against gay marriage needs to stand its own legs, independent of scripture.

Marriage thats gay or straight is surely a promotion of love. After reading alot of the arguments for and against it, I still cant get my head around why God is so opposed to it.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Im all for gay marriage. The bible may seem clear that its against gay marriage but the reason why God is against it seems even less clear. The argument for or against gay marriage needs to stand its own legs.

Marriage thats gay or straight is surely a promotion of love. After reading alot of the arguments for and against it, I really dont see why God can be so opposed to it.

The union of a man and a woman is of great significance. It is a reflection of God. From the opening chapter of the opening book of the Bible, the appointment of the Man - Woman relationship was established as a reflection of Gods image. Any union beyond this, and by default, is ungodly.

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

The question pertinent here, is: Is the Bible is compatible with affirming homosexual union.

Well no, the question pertinent here is if modern Christians can put a modern twist on a whole host of Biblicial passages why can't they do it with homosexuality?

The reality is that Christians have always done this, you are just objecting now because it isn't an interpretation you particularly agree with. But claiming that you are just honour the original meaning of the authors is completely fallacious.

Or do you still own slaves, control who your daughters marry and believe judgement is just a generation away?

Zombrex wrote: »

Well no, the question pertinent here is if modern Christians can put a modern twist on a whole host of Biblicial passages why can't they do it with homosexuality?

The reality is that Christians have always done this, you are just objecting now because it isn't an interpretation you particularly agree with. But claiming that you are just honour the original meaning of the authors is completely fallacious.

Or do you still own slaves, control who your daughters marry and believe judgement is just a generation away?

I'm actually surprised at you Zombrex. Next you'll be asking why I eat Bacon sarnies. There is nothing fallacious, and the fact that I don't own slaves or control who my daughter marries is NOTHING to do with revisionism. Now, would YOU care to answer the question pertaining to The Bible? Do YOU think, taking The Bible as a whole, homosexual union is compatible with it?

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm actually surprised at you Zombrex. Next you'll be asking why I eat Bacon sarnies. There is nothing fallacious, and the fact that I don't own slaves or control who my daughter marries is NOTHING to do with revisionism. Now, would YOU care to answer the question pertaining to The Bible? Do YOU think, taking The Bible as a whole, homosexual union is compatible with it?

I'll weigh in here and predictably say yes. From what I can gather, the relevant passages from the Bible emphasise the importance of the family unit in God's plan. God didn't denounce homosexual acts because they were gross, but rather because they subverted His plan, just as all sex outside of marriage subverted his plan. Furthermore, to promote the propagation of humanity, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman.

In modern times, however, it is hard to make the case for homosexual marriage being any such subversion, as modern society has a better understanding of the nature and utility of homosexual unions, as well as a need to promote stable couples capable of raising a generation of children with no families. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman seems no more relevant to what God has revealed for humanity than abstaining from eating shellfish.

Andrewf20

JimiTime wrote: »

The union of a man and a woman is of great significance. It is a reflection of God. From the opening chapter of the opening book of the Bible, the appointment of the Man - Woman relationship was established as a reflection of Gods image. Any union beyond this, and by default, is ungodly.

Yes, certainly the union of man and woman is of great significance and we understand through reason why this makes sense. But why is any union beyond this ungodly. I dont think the bible gives much more details unless I am mistaken. Ultimately, I dont see what all the fuss is about.

MrPudding

The theology is not actually relevant here, this is kind of a wood for the trees kind of situation. The issue in question is not whether your are right or wrong; it is not if your interpretation of the bible, rather than that of someone that supports same sex marriage, is correct. The issue is, irrespective of whether or not your interpretation of god’s opinion on same sex marriage is correct, why should you be able to push that view onto others that don’t share your belief?

I am perfectly happy for you to hold the opinion you do, with respect to same sex marriage. I am also perfectly happy for your church to hold restrictive views on marriage and I support your church’s right to choose not to marry same sex couples. What I don’t support is laws that restrict a particular right, or discriminate against a particular class of person based on a particular belief that a person might hold.

Should the state wish to discriminate against a class of person then they must be able to justify that discrimination in term that are accessible to all reasonable people, irrespective of what views they may hold. In order to do this the state needs to come up with reasons not based on a particular religious belief. How can you convince a person that your discrimination against them is reasonable when you can’t frame it in terms that are reasonable to them?

It is pointless using the bible as justification for discriminating against gay people. You need to come up with political, rational reasons for doing so. Imagine if the government decided to ban contraception and the only reason they gave was Roman Catholic doctrine. Would this be acceptable to you? If not why not? Would you be happy to be discriminated against on the basis of someone else’s religious belief? Particularly one that you believe to be incorrect, though obviously they would believe it to be correct… I am guessing no. If that is the case then why should you (and this is a general question to the religious, not just phil) be allowed to discriminate on the basis of your belief?

MrP

aloyisious

JimiTime
Registered User

(Originally Posted by Andrewf20
Im all for gay marriage. The bible may seem clear that its against gay marriage but the reason why God is against it seems even less clear. The argument for or against gay marriage needs to stand its own legs.

Marriage thats gay or straight is surely a promotion of love. After reading alot of the arguments for and against it, I really dont see why God can be so opposed to it.)
....................................................................................

JimiTime(Quote:
The union of a man and a woman is of great significance. It is a reflection of God. From the opening chapter of the opening book of the Bible, the appointment of the Man - Woman relationship was established as a reflection of Gods image. Any union beyond this, and by default, is ungodly.

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth

..................................................................................
Aloyisious response:-

I don't see any mention of union or marriage above, just a directive to Adam and Eve to have sexual congress, and have kids, so must assume the words are used by later generations of humans to interpret God's message to Adam and Eve.

Zombrex wrote: »

Well no, the question pertinent here is if modern Christians can put a modern twist on a whole host of Biblicial passages why can't they do it with homosexuality?

The reality is that Christians have always done this, you are just objecting now because it isn't an interpretation you particularly agree with. But claiming that you are just honour the original meaning of the authors is completely fallacious.

Or do you still own slaves, control who your daughters marry and believe judgement is just a generation away?

Cite your passages on the Atheist / Christian debate megathread. I'll look at them one by one an walkthrough them. Posting about Scripture with no reference to it is unhelpful to other posters at best.

I made a summary of the Torah concept of slavery and the Pauline / Petrine handling of it on the A&A forum in 2009. The reality is textually it's rather different to colonial slavery.

But this thread should be left on topic.

MrP: I'm referring specifically to Bannasidhes point concerning the Episcopal Church, and Christian understanding of marriage. Theology is relevant in assessing this.

This is the Christianity forum. Expect theological discussion.

This is the problem with this stupid feckin Mega-threads. Everything gets so bloomin jumbled.

Mr P, I know what you are talking about, but that was not the capacity which I entered here. I was asking a poster who posted something about theology (Bannisidhe), or more specifically the theology of a particular Church in the US. So the context of the last couple of pages has been about homosexuality and Christianity, rather than the secular view, or marriage rights.

Grrr, I hate these megathreads. Moronic creations of the highest order!!

Morbert wrote: »

I'll weigh in here and predictably say yes. From what I can gather, the relevant passages from the Bible emphasise the importance of the family unit in God's plan. God didn't denounce homosexual acts because they were gross, but rather because they subverted His plan, just as all sex outside of marriage subverted his plan. Furthermore, to promote the propagation of humanity, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman.

In modern times, however, it is hard to make the case for homosexual marriage being any such subversion, as modern society has a better understanding of the nature and utility of homosexual unions, as well as a need to promote stable couples capable of raising a generation of children with no families. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman seems no more relevant to what God has revealed for humanity than abstaining from eating shellfish.

That SEEMS to be suggesting that the Bible is against it, but that you reckon it doesn't apply now. Am I reading you right?

JimiTime wrote: »

This is the problem with this stupid feckin Mega-threads. Everything gets so bloomin jumbled.

Mr P, I know what you are talking about, but that was not the capacity which I entered here. I was asking a poster who posted something about theology (Bannisidhe), or more specifically the theology of a particular Church in the US. So the context of the last couple of pages has been about homosexuality and Christianity, rather than the secular view, or marriage rights.

Grrr, I hate these megathreads. Moronic creations of the highest order!!

To clarify - I never referred to what theological interpretation the Episcopalian Church in the US had employed when reaching it's decision to celebrate same-sex marriages - simply the fact that it has publicly announced it's intention to.

I never even mentioned theology until I was questioned on it by you Jimi, and have maintained my position that as an Atheist it is none of my business as it is a purely internal matter for Christians.

If anyone does want to discuss the theology which resulted in the Episcopalians reaching this decision then the people to discuss that with are Episcopalians.

Once again - my point is that those Christian posters who speak out against such things as marriage equality state this is the Christian position - No, it isn't. It is a position held by some Christians, but by no means all.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To clarify - I never referred to what theological interpretation the Episcopalian Church in the US had employed when reaching it's decision to celebrate same-sex marriages - simply the fact that it has publicly announced it's intention to.

I never even mentioned theology until I was questioned on it by you Jimi, and have maintained my position that as an Atheist it is none of my business as it is a purely internal matter for Christians.

If anyone does want to discuss the theology which resulted in the Episcopalians reaching this decision then the people to discuss that with are Episcopalians.

Once again - my point is that those Christian posters who speak out against such things as marriage equality state this is the Christian position - No, it isn't. It is a position held by some Christians, but by no means all.

It brings it up. This thread is as you said about Christian attitudes to homosexuality. This will inevitably bring up Scripture.

Part of posting on the Christianity forum means engaging with Christianity.

philologos wrote: »

It brings it up. This thread is as you said about Christian attitudes to homosexuality. This will inevitably bring up Scripture.

Part of posting on the Christianity forum means engaging with Christianity.

Which version of Christianity am meant to be engaging with exactly?

Therein lies the crux of the matter.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which version of Christianity am meant to be engaging with exactly?

Therein lies the crux of the matter.

The Biblical one. That's where assessing the Scriptures comes in.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

The Biblical one. That's where assessing the Scriptures comes in.

Yeah well biblical dosn't mean much if everybody claims to be biblical.
Sola scriptura isn't the only way to do Christianity. What of the Spirit and tradition?

philologos wrote: »

The Biblical one. That's where assessing the Scriptures comes in.

Which interpretation?

You say yours is correct. Others disagree.

Even on this thread there are Christians who disagree with you. You should discuss the assessing with them, not me.

Once ye have reached an agreed position shared by all Christians (at least on this forum) then you can honestly say 'This is the view of all Christians on this forum' - worldwide is another story....I doubt you will ever be able to state there is one agreed Christian position on this issue and every time you try to I will be there - to remind you that you do not speak for all Christians nor is your version of Christianity the only one.

Or you could stop using your religion as an excuse to justify the fact that you do not believe in full equality under the Civil law for homosexuals ...