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

Zombrex · 11-01-2013 11:09PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm actually surprised at you Zombrex. Next you'll be asking why I eat Bacon sarnies.

I'm not talking about shell fish. Christians ignore "reinterpret" both the old and new Testament all the time (including all the bits in the Old Testament that are still supposed to be relevant to Christians).

JimiTime wrote: »

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?

If by "compatible" you mean did the original authors think that homosexuals could marry or that this was compatible with the religion they were attempting to convey? No not at all. The authors believed homosexuality was disgusting.

But again you don't follow what the original authors meant either in a host of other areas, so it is a moot point. Appealing to scripture as the source of how a Christian should be stopped being relevant about 1900 years ago. None of you are "true" Christians based on what is actually in the Bible, new or old testaments.

So it is again odd that you would get pissy at people who simply apply this revisionism to homosexuality as if they are some how doing something unChristian.

Again you don't control what your daughter does. You don't own slaves. You don't believe the rapture is well overdue. You don't do any of these things because you have reinterpreted the New Testament in a modern context. But it is laughable to say that the original authors would agree with you on these things.

Zombrex · 11-01-2013 11:16PM

philologos wrote: »

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.

Well that isn't true as we have already pointed out to you many many many times (that was true only for Jewish servants, not non-Jews, it was also irrelevant to woman). And a Christian supporting gay marriage could equally argue that homosexuality Paul was talking about men sneaking off to gay prostitutes, not men getting married to each other, a concept that is never even discussed in the Bible as it probably seemed as alien to them as flying a plane.

I don't for one second think the authors of the Bible, including Paul would be happy with gay marriage. But then he would think freeing slaves was equally perverse. I think he would view the rights we give women and children ridiculous. If you told him everyone would still be waiting around 2000 years later for Jesus to return he would have laughed in your face.

You ignore all that because it doesn't suit your modern notions of morality. You can (and you do) do this about anything in the Bible. Doing it yourself and then getting annoyed at other Christians who do it is nonsensical.

So given you all do it, you all attempt to re-interpret the Bible in a modern context, why not simply welcome that you are all muddling along and say that when you die and get to heaven God will eventually let you know if you got it right or not.

philologos · 11-01-2013 11:21PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Well that isn't true as we have already pointed out to you many many many times (that was true only for Jewish servants, not non-Jews, it was also irrelevant to woman). And a Christian supporting gay marriage could equally argue that homosexuality Paul was talking about men sneaking off to gay prostitutes, not men getting married to each other, a concept that is never even discussed in the Bible as it probably seemed as alien to them as flying a plane.

I don't for one second think the authors of the Bible, including Paul would be happy with gay marriage. But then he would think freeing slaves was equally perverse. I think he would view the rights we give women and children ridiculous. If you told him everyone would still be waiting around 2000 years later for Jesus to return he would have laughed in your face.

You ignore all that because it doesn't suit your modern notions of morality. You can (and you do) do this about anything in the Bible. Doing it yourself and then getting annoyed at other Christians who do it is nonsensical.

So given you all do it, you all attempt to re-interpret the Bible in a modern context, why not simply welcome that you are all muddling along and say that when you die and get to heaven God will eventually let you know if you got it right or not.

Show me the passages that you have on the Atheist / Christian debate thread and I'm more than happy to walk through your objections again.

You're making empty claims without substance otherwise about me and about my position.

JimiTime · 12-01-2013 05:27AM

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm not talking about shell fish. Christians ignore "reinterpret" both the old and new Testament all the time (including all the bits in the Old Testament that are still supposed to be relevant to Christians).

If by "compatible" you mean did the original authors think that homosexuals could marry or that this was compatible with the religion they were attempting to convey? No not at all. The authors believed homosexuality was disgusting.

But again you don't follow what the original authors meant either in a host of other areas, so it is a moot point. Appealing to scripture as the source of how a Christian should be stopped being relevant about 1900 years ago. None of you are "true" Christians based on what is actually in the Bible, new or old testaments.

So it is again odd that you would get pissy at people who simply apply this revisionism to homosexuality as if they are some how doing something unChristian.

Again you don't control what your daughter does. You don't own slaves. You don't believe the rapture is well overdue. You don't do any of these things because you have reinterpreted the New Testament in a modern context. But it is laughable to say that the original authors would agree with you on these things.

I think Phil has said he'll walk you through your questions and accusations elsewhere, but aside from that, I'm glad that you can see that the bible is clearly against homosexual union. Whether you are a believer or not, or whether you believe in The Bible as authoritive or not, I cannot see how anyone could possibly believe that the bible is anything but against the sexual union of two members of the same sex. It is there both implicitly and explicity.

Bannasidhe · 12-01-2013 11:11AM

JimiTime wrote: »

I think Phil has said he'll walk you through your questions and accusations elsewhere, but aside from that, I'm glad that you can see that the bible is clearly against homosexual union. Whether you are a believer or not, or whether you believe in The Bible as authoritive or not, I cannot see how anyone could possibly believe that the bible is anything but against the sexual union of two members of the same sex. It is there both implicitly and explicity.

Once again - not all Christians agree with you.

I don't care who is 'wrong' and who is 'right' - but the lack of consensus makes it impossible to state there is a Christian position on homosexuality. That is the issue I am highlighting.

philologos · 12-01-2013 11:17AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Once again - not all Christians agree with you.

I don't care who is 'wrong' and who is 'right' - but the lack of consensus makes it impossible to state there is a Christian position on homosexuality. That is the issue I am highlighting.

That's fine to claim that. But in order to determine the validity of their objection to mainline Biblical Christianity that's where we need to assess the Biblical case for their objection in comparison to the passages that we actually find in Scripture.

Not all disagreement or interpretation is well founded.

I disagree with you insofar as it is very easy to show a Christian position by opening the Bible and having a look honestly at what it says rather than ignoring it.

As I've mentioned already, I don't encourage twisting the Bible to advocate any form of sin. There are serious implications for encouraging people to be unrepentant and encouraging people not to seek out God's mercy when they fall short of God's standard. The Bible says that the Christian is no longer under the reign of Adam (the reign of sin) but we're now under the reign of Christ. We're to begin the process of putting aside sin, and waging war with it in our inner being until the point of death, judgement and Christ's return.

This is a broader subject that concerns all sin, but claiming that certain sin is acceptable is wrong.

MrPudding · 12-01-2013 11:25AM

philologos wrote: »

That's fine to claim that. But in order to determine the validity of their objection to mainline Biblical Christianity that's where we need to assess the Biblical case for their objection in comparison to the passages that we actually find in Scripture.

Not all disagreement or interpretation is well founded.

No. They claim to be christians and they claim a particular thing. You claim to be a christian and you claim a different particular thing. Who is right and who is wrong is not actually relevent; all that is relevant is that both claim to be christians and both claim to be correct.

This is somewhat similar to the discussion we had around people calling themselves catholic when they didn't believe in or follow even the most basic requirements of being a catholic. Plenty of christians on that thread defended the right of a person who is, IMO, clearly not a catholic to call themselves a catholic. Now, whilst I don't think, in the context of this current conversation, who is right and who is wrong is actually relevent I do still wonder why it is ok for people that don't believe in the basic tenants of catholicism to call themselves catholic but those that don't believe in your particular flavour of chritianity are somehow not proper christians. At the end fo the day, that is what it boils down to, isn't it? Those "christians" that disagree with you are not actually real christians.

MrP

Bannasidhe · 12-01-2013 11:27AM

philologos wrote: »

That's fine to claim that. But in order to determine the validity of their objection to mainline Biblical Christianity that's where we need to assess the Biblical case for their objection in comparison to the passages that we actually find in Scripture.

Not all disagreement or interpretation is well founded.

Given that I and others have provided ample evidence to support the 'claim' that the wider Christian fellowship is deeply divided on this issue the fact of the lack of consensus cannot be seriously disputed.

Given this lack of consensus I would expect discussion to take place as to how the various denominations reached their conclusions but as I am not a Christian that has nothing to do with me. It is, as I have said, an internal matter.

However, at this point in time there is no 'Christian' position on homosexuality - there are a myriad of conflicting positions - so stating that 'Christianity' as a whole has a particular view (either pro or anti) is not factually correct.

philologos · 12-01-2013 11:40AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that I and others have provided ample evidence to support the 'claim' that the wider Christian fellowship is deeply divided on this issue the fact of the lack of consensus cannot be seriously disputed.

Given this lack of consensus I would expect discussion to take place as to how the various denominations reached their conclusions but as I am not a Christian that has nothing to do with me. It is, as I have said, an internal matter.

However, at this point in time there is no 'Christian' position on homosexuality - there are a myriad of conflicting positions - so stating that 'Christianity' as a whole has a particular view (either pro or anti) is not factually correct.

You repeat that, but just because people disagree doesn't mean their position is well founded, or based on Scripture. That's why a discussion of the Biblical text is necessary.

I can think of a tiny minority of established denominations that come to this conclusion. If I take a wider point of view over Christian history where Scripture has been pored over, the point of view that is being advocated is practically non-existent.

If we claim that God is not changing, and the word of God lasts forever, the claims that are made in this case can only be met with skepticism. There is a broad consensus over Christian history on this issue.

philologos · 12-01-2013 11:44AM

MrPudding wrote: »

No. They claim to be christians and they claim a particular thing. You claim to be a christian and you claim a different particular thing. Who is right and who is wrong is not actually relevent; all that is relevant is that both claim to be christians and both claim to be correct.

This is somewhat similar to the discussion we had around people calling themselves catholic when they didn't believe in or follow even the most basic requirements of being a catholic. Plenty of christians on that thread defended the right of a person who is, IMO, clearly not a catholic to call themselves a catholic. Now, whilst I don't think, in the context of this current conversation, who is right and who is wrong is actually relevent I do still wonder why it is ok for people that don't believe in the basic tenants of catholicism to call themselves catholic but those that don't believe in your particular flavour of chritianity are somehow not proper christians. At the end fo the day, that is what it boils down to, isn't it? Those "christians" that disagree with you are not actually real christians.

MrP

It's relevant to Christians as we believe in God. It's not relevant to atheists insofar as they reject God. The Biblical consistency of their position is important. At least if they want me to regard their position as a valid one.

By the by, I do think people have the right to identify as whatever they want, but if theological claims don't hold up in Scripture then they should be questioned.

Moreover, I think people should fill out the census honestly. It's impossible to ensure it though.

The more that Christians contend for the Biblical gospel rather than another gospel hopefully the world will start to get the idea that being a Christian means that you are markedly distinct from others in the world.

tommy2bad · 12-01-2013 12:07PM

MrPudding;
Those "christians" that disagree with you are not actually real christians.

I don't think phil would say they are not Christians but that they are Christians in error on some things. Just to be fair.
I think this isnt as much about whether the bible is clear on gay relationships, we all agree it is but more that the standard set down in the bible is one we are held to now. phil says we are, others say we are not. So their isn't a clear position.
What interists me is why it has to be one or the other, isn't it posible for people who believe it's forbidden to just not do it and let the rest move on. This is what happened with all the rest of the things that were contentious.
Can't stop the wicked going to Babylon and all that.

philologos · 12-01-2013 12:09PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I don't think phil would say they are not Christians but that they are Christians in error on some things. Just to be fair.
I think this isnt as much about whether the bible is clear on gay relationships, we all agree it is but more that the standard set down in the bible is one we are held to now. phil says we are, others say we are not. So their isn't a clear position.
What interists me is why it has to be one or the other, isn't it posible for people who believe it's forbidden to just not do it and let the rest move on. This is what happened with all the rest of the things that were contentious.
Can't stop the wicked going to Babylon and all that.

My point is that the Bible itself is clear.

As for whether or not people submit to Scriptural authority, and submit to God's word, that's another thing altogether.

tommy2bad: It isn't really, because churches like the Episcopal Church have disposed bishops such as the Bishop of South Carolina who refuse to agree with them and are now threatening to sue them for $500mn worth of property even though the Diocese of South Carolina predates the Episcopal Church.

That's not tolerance. That's a church at war with itself unfortunately.

MrPudding · 12-01-2013 12:10PM

philologos wrote: »

It's relevant to Christians as we believe in God. It's not relevant to atheists insofar as they reject God. The Biblical consistency of their position is important. At least if they want me to regard their position as a valid one.

Their biblical consistency, or yours for that matter, is not relevant to showing that there isn’t a christian view on a particular subject. It is enough to show that there is more than one claimed christian view on a particular subject to defeat any claim you might make of consensus.

The right and the wrong of it, in your view, isn’t relevant. A person is unlikely to hold a belief they that they think is untrue are they? Therefore, if that person believes their view to be true, and that view conflicts with your view then you can’t say there is consensus on that subject. Who is right is not relevant; there is disagreement. If two people disagree over something, and only one of them can be correct, the fact that one of them is wrong does not mean there is consensus. There is still a disagreement.

Take evolution as an example. We have reasonably safely say that within the conventional scientific community there is consensus that evolution offers the best explanation for the life we see around us. There might be some disagreements over the finer details, but the general consensus is that evolution is true. If we widen it to encompass creationists (I refuse to call them scientists) and the general population then we see the claim of consensus is harder justifiy. I believe evolution is correct, if believe those that do not believe evolution to be correct is wrong, but outside of the conventional scientific community I cannot claim there is consensus. There clearly isn’t. Creationists, who I believe are wrong, don’t believe it, therefore I can’t claim consensus.

philologos wrote: »

By the by, I do think people have the right to identify as whatever they want, but if theological claims don't hold up in Scripture then they should be questioned.

That is fine, but you can’t ignore the differing opinion and claim consensus.

philologos wrote: »

Moreover, I think people should fill out the census honestly. It's impossible to ensure it though.

The more that Christians contend for the Biblical gospel rather than another gospel hopefully the world will start to get the idea that being a Christian means that you are markedly distinct from others in the world.

Fine, but I am going to go ahead and guess there will never be consensus. Irrespective of what you believe, someone else will believe someone else and he will defend it just as vigorously as you.

This is no different, really, to the beliefs of followers of other religions. They give exactly the same reason for believing their religion to be true. Clearly I believe you are both wrong, but if we allow that one of you is correct that does not mean there is consensus. There is still a disagreement over who is right about god, the fact that one, or probably both, of you is wrong does not equal consensus.

MrP

MrPudding · 12-01-2013 12:12PM

philologos wrote: »

That's not tolerance. That's a church at war with itself unfortunately.

And supports the claim that, irrespective of the right or wrong of either position, that there is no consensus.

MrP

Bannasidhe · 12-01-2013 12:15PM

philologos wrote: »

You repeat that, but just because people disagree doesn't mean their position is well founded, or based on Scripture. That's why a discussion of the Biblical text is necessary.

I can think of a tiny minority of established denominations that come to this conclusion. If I take a wider point of view over Christian history where Scripture has been pored over, the point of view that is being advocated is practically non-existent.

If we claim that God is not changing, and the word of God lasts forever, the claims that are made in this case can only be met with skepticism. There is a broad consensus over Christian history on this issue.

I am not saying if anyone's position is well- founded or not. I don't care. Indeed, if the religious were to cease trying to exert control and influence over the Civil State and limit the rights of some citizens based on their personal religious beliefs I would be content to mind my own business. Or to put it simply - if the religious minded their own business, I would mind mine. But no, instead they insist they own words like 'marriage'

I am saying no one can claim there is a Christian position on homosexuality. Yet - those who seek to pontificate - usually found in the anti camp - insist on doing just that.

This makes attempts to influence the civil State (such as over the use of the word marriage) arguing from a 'Christian' perspective to be demonstrably misleading. Yet, it is continually trotted out as an excuse.

Episcopalians are Christians - they are introducing same-sex marriages in their churches therefore they do not have any issue with the use of the word marriage or extending full equality.

MrPudding · 12-01-2013 12:15PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I don't think phil would say they are not Christians but that they are Christians in error on some things. Just to be fair.
I think this isnt as much about whether the bible is clear on gay relationships, we all agree it is but more that the standard set down in the bible is one we are held to now. phil says we are, others say we are not. So their isn't a clear position.
What interists me is why it has to be one or the other, isn't it posible for people who believe it's forbidden to just not do it and let the rest move on. This is what happened with all the rest of the things that were contentious.
Can't stop the wicked going to Babylon and all that.

I think this the point that some of us are trying to make. There isn't a clear position that everyone that claims to be a christian agrees with.

You last point is the one that interests me most. This is the bit I really have trouble with. If you don't want gay sex or gay marriage then don't have gay sex and don't marry someone of the same sex. If someone else wants to then you really have no right to prevent them.

MrP

philologos · 12-01-2013 12:15PM

MrP: There's the reassuring notion that when I look throughout the whole course of Christian history most have held the traditional interpretation of Scripture on this issue and that contrary interpretations are by and large a modern phenomenon.

Irrespective of what people claim I can look to see what Scripture says in both testaments, I can also look to people who have quoted and preached on these passages for the last 2,000 years. There's certainly a consensus here on this issue and many others.

The idea that Scripture is a postmodern reading exercise from reading it is absolutely absurd considering my experience reading it with people of many denominations.

Bannasidhe · 12-01-2013 12:27PM

philologos wrote: »

The world isn't "vastly different". Mankind is still the same, mankind still faces similar problems and similar issues, in fact the church as a whole has faced varying kinds of heresies over the years. This one is the one we just happen to be facing at this particular juncture.

No, I don't believe the truth path was revealed to me. It's been revealed to all mankind in Scripture. Some choose to reject it and some choose to accept it.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I don't think phil would say they are not Christians but that they are Christians in error on some things.
.

Phil has on numerous occasions used the not 'true' Christians argument when confronted with views that differ from his own (to be fair this was usually in reference to the likes of Fred Phelps - but not always.) Haven't time to look them up now as I have a sick puppy and 2 kids to look after.

But, in terms of those who disagree being in error - the term Phil used was heresy. He thinks those who do not agree with him are heretics - one cannot be a heretic and a Christian. So no, based on his own words, it does not appear to me that Phil thinks those who disagree with him are Christians.

MrPudding · 12-01-2013 12:33PM

philologos wrote: »

MrP: There's the reassuring notion that when I look throughout the whole course of Christian history most have held the traditional interpretation of Scripture on this issue and that contrary interpretations are by and large a modern phenomenon.

Irrespective of what people claim I can look to see what Scripture says in both testaments, I can also look to people who have quoted and preached on these passages for the last 2,000 years. There's certainly a consensus here on this issue and many others.

The idea that Scripture is a postmodern reading exercise from reading it is absolutely absurd considering my experience reading it with people of many denominations.

The problem is this: Modern civilised countries are developing constantly. One of the major features of this development, over the last century, is the elimination of discriminatory practices.

We now find ourselves in a position where, in general discrimination is not an acceptable form of interaction with other citizens. There are circumstances where discrimination is still permitted, but those circumstances are limited, and becoming more limited, and those that avail of them are required to justify their discrimination. Religious belief is not a sufficient justification.

You may believe, informed by your particular interpretation of your particular holy book, that your particular god did not approve of something not even considered 2000 years ago and your are perfectly entitled to hold that belief. You are perfectly entitled to insist that your church follows this particular doctrine, but you cannot insist that the state does.

It is clear that law and religion agree on a large number of things, killing stealing etc. But do not interpret that as meaning it is ok to base law on religion. If you analyse it you will find that whilst there is an overlap you can generally find non-religious justifications for these laws. There are public reasons, which are not based on a particular religious view.

With respect to homosexuality or same sex marriage there is no overlap. All you have is your particular flavour of religious morality. There is no public political reason for continued discrimination against homosexuals in general, nor is there any public political reason for them to be denied civil marriage. Personally, I believe that a church should have the right to not marry same sex couples, should they choose not to, but religious morality is not sufficient justification for limiting civil marriage.

MrP

Zombrex · 12-01-2013 12:49PM

JimiTime wrote: »

I cannot see how anyone could possibly believe that the bible is anything but against the sexual union of two members of the same sex. It is there both implicitly and explicity.

Well that is my point, if you want to understand just look at all the times you do it.

You don't have to agree with their conclusions, but imagine how you would feel if someone said to you that they thought you were being dishonest in your faith for rejecting slavery, or believing women should be allowed work and vote, or accepting modern historical understanding rather than Biblical history.

If you can view yourself as honestly attempting to merge the Bible with modern understandings, why do you doubt others doing the same?

Zombrex · 12-01-2013 12:51PM

philologos wrote: »

Show me the passages that you have on the Atheist / Christian debate thread and I'm more than happy to walk through your objections again.

You're making empty claims without substance otherwise about me and about my position.

We have, many many times. You tend to half heartly debate them until a point where you either simply leave or attempt to change the subject to something easier to argue, or you just get pissy. There are a ton of posts still awaiting reply from you.

It is not up for debate that you do this, it is well established. The point of my post is to appeal to you to not view others who do it as some how corrupt or dishonest.

As I said to Jimi if you want to understand the motivations of those who do this you just have to look at yourself.

philologos · 12-01-2013 01:11PM

Zombrex wrote: »

We have, many many times. You tend to half heartly debate them until a point where you either simply leave or attempt to change the subject to something easier to argue, or you just get pissy. There are a ton of posts still awaiting reply from you.

It is not up for debate that you do this, it is well established. The point of my post is to appeal to you to not view others who do it as some how corrupt or dishonest.

As I said to Jimi if you want to understand the motivations of those who do this you just have to look at yourself.

Bring them up on the Atheist / Christian megathread and I'll look at them. If not your argument isn't based on much substance.

philologos · 12-01-2013 01:12PM

MrPudding wrote: »

The problem is this: Modern civilised countries are developing constantly. One of the major features of this development, over the last century, is the elimination of discriminatory practices.

We now find ourselves in a position where, in general discrimination is not an acceptable form of interaction with other citizens. There are circumstances where discrimination is still permitted, but those circumstances are limited, and becoming more limited, and those that avail of them are required to justify their discrimination. Religious belief is not a sufficient justification.

You may believe, informed by your particular interpretation of your particular holy book, that your particular god did not approve of something not even considered 2000 years ago and your are perfectly entitled to hold that belief. You are perfectly entitled to insist that your church follows this particular doctrine, but you cannot insist that the state does.

It is clear that law and religion agree on a large number of things, killing stealing etc. But do not interpret that as meaning it is ok to base law on religion. If you analyse it you will find that whilst there is an overlap you can generally find non-religious justifications for these laws. There are public reasons, which are not based on a particular religious view.

With respect to homosexuality or same sex marriage there is no overlap. All you have is your particular flavour of religious morality. There is no public political reason for continued discrimination against homosexuals in general, nor is there any public political reason for them to be denied civil marriage. Personally, I believe that a church should have the right to not marry same sex couples, should they choose not to, but religious morality is not sufficient justification for limiting civil marriage.

MrP

I'm discussing theology within Christian churches which Bannasidhe has now brought up. I'm not discussing legislation.

Bannasidhe · 12-01-2013 01:17PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm discussing theology within Christian churches which Bannasidhe has now brought up. I'm not discussing legislation.

No. Jimi and yourself brought up the theology.

Bannasidhe brought up the demonstrable fact that there are large Christian denominations who have no problem with either same-sex marriages or the use of the word marriage when applied to same-sex legalised unions.

philologos · 12-01-2013 01:22PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. Jimi and yourself brought up the theology.

Bannasidhe brought up the demonstrable fact that there are large Christian denominations who have no problem with either same-sex marriages or the use of the word marriage when applied to same-sex legalised unions.

You brought up how churches regard sexuality in their churches. That's a theological issue.

This is the Christianity forum, why wouldn't one discuss Scripture in light of this issue? Or why is it anathema to discussion to discuss the latest behaviour of the Episcopal Church on this issue and how that church has rejected Biblical teaching?

Bannasidhe · 12-01-2013 01:32PM

philologos wrote: »

You brought up how churches regard sexuality in their churches. That's a theological issue.

This is the Christianity forum, why wouldn't one discuss Scripture in light of this issue? Or why is it anathema to discussion to discuss the latest behaviour of the Episcopal Church on this issue and how that church has rejected Biblical teaching?

I posted a link to a newspaper article which stated the Episcopalian Church in the US has announced it's intention to introduce Gay Marriages and commented that it was further proof that there is no agreed 'Christian' anti-Gay marriage position. That's it. That is what I did. Never mentioned the means by which they came to this decision - just reported that they had.

By all means discuss the theology - but please stop claiming I introduced it as a topic as that is incorrect.

Yourself and Jimi responded to the link I posted with statements regarding theology and requesting my opinion. I have continually insisted that theological discussions are an internal matter for the Christian fellowship and therefore nothing to do with me.

Zombrex · 12-01-2013 03:25PM

philologos wrote: »

Bring them up on the Atheist / Christian megathread and I'll look at them. If not your argument isn't based on much substance.

Why, they don't have anything to do with atheism?

Plus we already know you don't think slavery is acceptable, we know you don't think women are subservant to their fathers/husbands, we know you don't believe the time for the second coming has come and passed, we know you don't believe Babel is literal (or 90% of the Old Testament history) etc etc

JimiTime · 12-01-2013 03:48PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Why, they don't have anything to do with atheism? Plus we already know you don't think slavery is acceptable, we know you don't think women are subservant to their fathers/husbands, we know you don't believe the time for the second coming has come and passed, we know you don't believe Babel is literal (or 90% of the Old Testament history) etc etc

So what you are saying boils down to. 'Yes, its clear that the Bible is against homosexual union, but you revise so many things you don't like, who cares?'

Firstly, The relevant piece for this thread is the fact that you recognise that the Bible is clear on the issue, and to say its not is to go against the Bible. I agree with you that you cannot honestly interpret it any other way. Your point of 'Sure you ignore the bits of the bible anyway', EVEN IF CORRECT, would NOT mean that we say, 'Oh yeah, lets ignore this bit now too'. It actually, IF YOU WERE CORRECT, should make us as biblically rooted Christians change our views IN LINE with the Bible rather than the other way around. Phil is right though, your accusations are rather huge, and would completely mess up this already messed up thread. Phil has agreed to engage you elsewhere on the topic if you want to lay out the case for your accusations though.

Bannasidhe · 12-01-2013 03:56PM

JimiTime wrote: »

So what you are saying boils down to. 'Yes, its clear that the Bible is against homosexual union, but you revise so many things you don't like, who cares?'

Firstly, The relevant piece for this thread is the fact that you recognise that the Bible is clear on the issue, and to say its not is to go against the Bible. I agree with you that you cannot honestly interpret it any other way. Your point of 'Sure you ignore the bits of the bible anyway', EVEN IF CORRECT, would NOT mean that we say, 'Oh yeah, lets ignore this bit now too'. It actually, IF YOU WERE CORRECT, should make us as biblically rooted Christians change our views IN LINE with the Bible rather than the other way around. Phil is right though, your accusations are rather huge, and would completely mess up this already messed up thread. Phil has agreed to engage you elsewhere on the topic if you want to lay out the case for your accusations though.

As you say you are a Biblical Christian do you therefore follow all of the strictures as laid down in the Bible or do you, in fact, ignore some?

If you do ignore some - why? On what basis can these be dismissed as no longer relevant?

JimiTime · 12-01-2013 03:57PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I posted a link to a newspaper article which stated the Episcopalian Church in the US has announced it's intention to introduce Gay Marriages and commented that it was further proof that there is no agreed 'Christian' anti-Gay marriage position. That's it. That is what I did. Never mentioned the means by which they came to this decision - just reported that they had.

By all means discuss the theology - but please stop claiming I introduced it as a topic as that is incorrect.

Yourself and Jimi responded to the link I posted with statements regarding theology and requesting my opinion. I have continually insisted that theological discussions are an internal matter for the Christian fellowship and therefore nothing to do with me.

So using your logic, can I say that there is no scientific position on Evolution, seeing how there are people professing to be scientists and saying that Evolution is fiction? Your position would mean that you could give me all the info etc that you want, but I could just say, 'Yeah, but this guy is a scientist and he doesn't agree, so there is not a scientific position'.

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

Comments