nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

PDN

Certain individuals seem to be somewhat obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. To avoid the Forum being over-run with numerous threads on this subject, I am launching a MegaThread similar to the ones we already have on other subjects.

Please note that the Forum Charter still applies to megathreads - so try to treat each other with respect and courtesy, even if the subject is one that makes you hot and bothered.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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?

I couldn't say I follow The Bible as I would like. That is due to my failings as a Christian though. What I certainly DO NOT DO, is try to skew things to suit my desires or preconceptions. I don't say, 'I want to do this, but the bible standard is inconvenient. How can I skew it to suit my desire' Rather, I see my errors in light of Gods standards.

Zombrex

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?'

More like 'It is impossible to be a modern day Christian if you take the Bible simply how the authors meant it to be taken, you are all forced to reinterpret these passages in a modern context or you couldn't be a Christian in the first place so why are you getting annoyed at Christians who are only doing what you also do'

You all require 'faith' (or what ever you want to call it) that there is a deeper/mysterious/hidden/whatever meaning behind what the authors said, because if the Bible is just what the authors meant then Christianity shouldn't even exist any more.

And it is hypocritical then to say something like 'Well Paul clearly wouldn't have been happy with homosexual marriage, that's what is in the Bible that is what I'm going to go with' when you already adjust so much of what Paul clearly meant in order to be a modern day Christian in the first place.

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

Well you and Phil first Jimi, then you can complain about Christian people accepting loving homosexual acts.

You can start by no longer being a Christian, since the clear explicate and implicate message from the Bible is that the second coming of Jesus should have already happened by now. :P

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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?

I don't think any Christian would admit to "ignoring" the Bible. Ignoring is the phrase that people who disagree with the reinterpretation call it.

All Christians re-interpret Biblical passages away from what the authors originally meant in order to square them with modern understanding, be it modern morality, modern science or modern historical understanding.

For example no Christian, apart from crazy Creationists, today thinks language actually originated through the tower of Babel story. But that is clearly what the authors at the time believed. To them that wasn't a fable or parable, it was history.

So modern Christians are faced with the authors putting this story forward as "gospel" but knowing that it didn't happen like that. So this is when a "deeper understanding" is introduced. Yes the authors wrote that, and believed that, but God wasn't just communicating with them at that time, he was communicating with all generations and thus there is meaning that we in this modern context with our modern understanding can also take from it.

Or you can just be an atheist :P

philologos

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

How do you know what I believe about the Old Testament before asking me? Or about marriage? Or about the second coming of Jesus?

Post the Scripture you have on the other thread.

It should be on that thread because it us an atheist argument that doesn't concern this issue.

Post your passages there and I'll respond.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

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'.

It has been a long, long time since anyone tried to used a so-called 'scientific' reason to deny people their civil rights, but Christianity is constantly employed to do just this...

I would mention the last time a State tried this so-called 'scientific' approach but it would mean Godwinning the thread.

As for trying to conflate science (a discipline based on observable evidence employing methods which require any demonstrations of 'proofs' to be repeatable) with a religious philosophy based on an ancient series of documents..... seriously???

Re: people saying - 'this is not a scientific position because this person disagrees...' perhaps you should have a look at the threads in A&A where people are saying just that and you will see it is indeed discussed.

Let me ask you this - is there or is there not a position on the civil rights of homosexuals that is shared by all Christians?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

How do you know what I believe about the Old Testament before asking me? Or about marriage? Or about the second coming of Jesus?

Post the Scripture you have on the other thread.

It should be on that thread because it us an atheist argument that doesn't concern this issue.

Post your passages there and I'll respond.

You seem to be spectacularly missing the point Phil. The scriptures I have are the entire Bible

The issue at hand is can you be a true Christian while still accepting that things like homosexual marriage are ok in a Christian sense.

The initial answer would appear to be No, the authors of the Bible are clearly against homosexual unions.

The actual answer is Yes, because part of modern Christianity itself is re-interpreting in a modern context, with modern knowledge, issues that the authors of the Bible were clearly against, arriving at acceptable conclusions based on this additional knowledge that the original authors would have never agreed with. And there is no reason why homosexuality shouldn't be included in this, given practically everything else is.

If you want to put forward an argument why homosexual unions shouldn't be included, while everything else is, go ahead.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

You seem to be spectacularly missing the point Phil. The scriptures I have are the entire Bible

The issue at hand is can you be a true Christian while still accepting that things like homosexual marriage are ok in a Christian sense.

The initial answer would appear to be No, the authors of the Bible are clearly against homosexual unions.

The actual answer is Yes, because part of modern Christianity itself is re-interpreting in a modern context, with modern knowledge, issues that the authors of the Bible were clearly against, arriving at acceptable conclusions based on this additional knowledge that the original authors would have never agreed with. And there is no reason why homosexuality shouldn't be included in this, given practically everything else is.

If you want to put forward an argument why homosexual unions shouldn't be included, while everything else is, go ahead.

Cite the exact passages and I'll walk through them with you on the debate thread. If you're not going to let's not. The ball is in your court.

Don't make claims about my beliefs when you clearly haven't asked me.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Cite the exact passages and I'll walk through them with you on the debate thread.

Again you seem to be missing the point. If you walk me through them you are simply doing what these Christians who walk you through homosexual being ok, are doing.

There is no need, nor do I particularly care about the specifics. I already know you believe that, for example, slavery is unChristian, so I don't need you to demonstrate to me that that is your belief.

philologos wrote: »

Don't make claims about my beliefs when you clearly haven't asked me.

I've been discussing Christianity with you for close to 7 years Phil, I know what your beliefs are.

Zombrex

Judging by the response to my orignal post some feathers seem to have been ruffled, but also the response have taken a rather bizzarre turn that to me would suggest my point is not coming across.

The theme of this thread seems to be objecting to the idea that some modern Christians have explanations or justifications for why homosexual unions such as marriage are Christian despite the Bible appearing to clearly profess the opposite view.

I pointed out that this shouldn't really bother people because all modern Christians put forward explanations or justifications for why a host of other things are in fact Christian despite the Bible appearing to clearly profess the opposite view.

The bizarre response has been posters such as Phil saying (I'm paraphrasing :P) What!! Post the Biblical passages and I will explain to you why despite the Bible appearing to clearly profess the opposite view they are in fact perfectly Christian.

I hope others can see how silly that is as a response. I'm running out of ways to explain that people are missing my point.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Again you seem to be missing the point. If you walk me through them you are simply doing what these Christians who walk you through homosexual being ok, are doing.

There is no need, nor do I particularly care about the specifics. I already know you believe that, for example, slavery is unChristian, so I don't need you to demonstrate to me that that is your belief.

I've been discussing Christianity with you for close to 7 years Phil, I know what your beliefs are.

Evidently not well enough. A number of your points are inaccurate.

Why are you being so uncooperative? If you just cite the passages I'll tell you what I think about them.

If not then don't. It's your choice.

Until you do this your argument is utterly empty.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Evidently not well enough. A number of your points are inaccurate.

Why are you being so uncooperative? If you just cite the passages I'll tell you what I think about them.

Perhaps you can explain to me why you think doing that would in anyway help this discussion, and then perhaps I will understand at what point the point I'm making is being missed.

(or just see the post before this post as to why me doing that with you would be some what irrelevant to this discussion)

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Perhaps you can explain to me why you think doing that would in anyway help this discussion, and then perhaps I will understand at what point the point I'm making is being missed.

(or just see the post before this post as to why me doing that with you would be some what irrelevant to this discussion)

It's up to you. I'm not going to explain why you would or wouldn't want this. If you make claims about Christians not honouring Scripture, it's entirely reasonable to ask which passages.

If you don't want to discuss it don't, but I can't take your claims seriously if you don't.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

It's up to you. I'm not going to explain why you would or wouldn't want this. If you make claims about Christians not honouring Scripture, it's entirely reasonable to ask which passages.

If you don't want to discuss it don't, but I can't take your claims seriously if you don't.

So let me get this straight. I put forward that you all present explanations for how what is written in the Bible has context and meaning beyond the obvious written words or the authors understanding. And you attempt to counter that by asking for an example so you can show me that it has context and meaning beyond the obvious written words and the authors understanding. Brilliant.

Ok, since you clearly don't get the point I'm making and probably won't until we do this, fine. Go to the other thread, read the passages about slavery, then come back here when done (BTW while you are there you might get around to answering all the outstanding points already put to you...).

aloyisious

In line with the original intent of this thread (as defined by it's title) I'm wondering how many of the gay (male and female) population of Ireland belong to religions other than Christian, plus those of non-belief and no belief whatever.

Morbert

Finally, an argument in defence of traditional marriage that I can respect. (Cross post from A&A)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wopoEJxFYQw

Links234

philologos

Links234 wrote: »

It's funny that in his first term he didn't agree with same-sex marriage and now he does. Seems a bit like flip flopping for the electorate.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

It's funny that in his first term he didn't agree with same-sex marriage and now he does. Seems a bit like flip flopping for the electorate.

Or, you know, just progress.

Zombrex

doctoremma wrote: »

Or, you know, just progress.

Obama came out for gay marriage in May 2012, before the last election. It was put to the electorate, and they still voted for him.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/obamas-historic-pro-gay-marriage-stance-16316563

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Obama came out for gay marriage in May 2012, before the last election. It was put to the electorate, and they still voted for him.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/obamas-historic-pro-gay-marriage-stance-16316563

May 2012 was campaigning time. Right at the end of his first term during campaigning for the second.

doctoremma: progress is a hugely subjective term.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

May 2012 was campaigning time. Right at the end of his first term during campaigning for the second.

doctoremma: progress is a hugely subjective term.

Here is a mad thought.

Perhaps he examined the arguments for and against and decided that the pro case was indeed the more compelling.

Or are you suggesting that people can't change their minds once they have considered all the aspects of an issue?

That the ability to say 'I now believe in this cause' is a sign of weakness?

Links234

philologos wrote: »

It's funny that in his first term he didn't agree with same-sex marriage and now he does. Seems a bit like flip flopping for the electorate.

Flip flopping? Really? This is the man that ended don't ask don't tell, wrote into law the hate crimes prevention act, appointed the first transgender presidential appointee, I think his statement about equality is perfectly representative of his view and his actions as US president.

Benny_Cake

There's no doubt that it could be a politically motivated flip-flop, but even if it is, it seems to be one which reflects a changing mood towards the issue among Americans, millions of them are who are churchgoers who see no contradiction between their faith and allowing their gay and lesbian fellow citizens access to civil marriage.

El_Duderino 09

philologos wrote: »

It's funny that in his first term he didn't agree with same-sex marriage and now he does. Seems a bit like flip flopping for the electorate.

Just to clarify the point, he was in favour of gay marriage months before the second election.

Sure hasn't god himself change his mind from time to time?

Bannasidhe

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There's no doubt that it could be a politically motivated flip-flop, but even if it is, it seems to be one which reflects a changing mood towards the issue among Americans

The exact same charges were (and still are) laid against Lincoln but the fact remains that Lincoln's eventual support for the abolition of Slavery (whatever his motives) were instrumental in it's abolition.

Whether he was 'flip-flopping' or not did not change the outcome - his adopted stance did.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Here is a mad thought.

Perhaps he examined the arguments for and against and decided that the pro case was indeed the more compelling.

Or are you suggesting that people can't change their minds once they have considered all the aspects of an issue?

Or maybe it is that people can not change their mind once they become politicians / elected?

It is a shame that we come to forums like this where atheists and theists accuse each other of being close minded, not being open to evidence or having their opinions changed and more. "Stubborn" this. "Strident" that. "Biased" the other.

Then when someone actually DOES change their mind on an issue they are derided as flip flopping, or political pandering and more.

It seems one can not win with these people. Something tells me had it been the other way around and he had moved from a pro- to anti- gay marriage stance that philologos would not be calling it "flip flopping" but things like "seeing the light" or "a welcome change of policy".

totus tuus

Russia moves to enact anti-gay law nationwide!

Gays in Russia have been whipsawed by widespread homophobia, hostility and violence. The proposed anti-gay legislation recriminalizes homosexuality, 20 years after Russia revoked harsh Stalinist-era law.

http://news.msn.com/world/russia-moves-to-enact-anti-gay-law-nationwide?ocid=ansnews11

Bannasidhe

totus tuus wrote: »

Russia moves to enact anti-gay law nationwide!

http://news.msn.com/world/russia-moves-to-enact-anti-gay-law-nationwide?ocid=ansnews11

and your opinion of this is?

totus tuus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and your opinion of this is?

I don't have one! I thought it might be of interest to others!

Bannasidhe

totus tuus wrote: »

I don't have one! I thought it might be of interest to others!

Really? You have no opinion whatsoever about a whole section of Russian society being criminalized at the stroke of a pen? :eek: