JimiTime wrote: » I'm actually surprised at you Zombrex. Next you'll be asking why I eat Bacon sarnies.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
MrPudding; Those "christians" that disagree with you are not actually real christians.
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.
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.
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.
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.
philologos wrote: » That's not tolerance. That's a church at war with itself unfortunately.
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.
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. .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
philologos wrote: » I'm discussing theology within Christian churches which Bannasidhe has now brought up. I'm not discussing legislation.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
