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

philologos wrote: »

I'm open to being proven wrong about Scripture. But people have to walk through the passages first. If I find flaws in their argument I'll say so but I have been challenged and I have accepted correction from other Christians before on some issues but if it isn't convincing I hold fast.

So other Christians have interpreted things differently from your original interpretation? If another Christian corrected the biblical view on homosexuality with a convincing argument, would you accept correction?

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, I based my comment on observing others, not anything Phil said, so its certainly not , 'Nope'. In fact, your flippant remark about 'Its like someone looked at the same thing and interpreted it differently', which was thanked by the minions, was the straw that broke the camels back for me in terms of the standard you and those in agreement with you have applied to this part of the discussion. From Bannisidhes, 'These guys say this, but I couldn't be bothered to ask if they are right or wrong, I'll just use it to pretend this means that there is no biblical stance on the subject matter', to your recent comment would indicate to me that there is no genuine interest in any critical analysis. If you want to get into if The Bible condemns homosexual union, then you should educate yourself on the subject matter rather than making flippant comments and ignorant pronouncements. Phil has been asking you to make your case, he has not simply declared, 'I'm right'. He has, IN STUDYING THE BIBLE, come to what he see's the only honest conclusion. So if you are presenting an opposing view, you need to do something more than say, 'Well there's guys who think differently', which is what has been done by his opposition thus far.

Which is of course to ignore the point being made by myself and others.

Phil and yourself maintain that the Bible disapproves of Homosexuality therefore it is justifiable, as far as your religious beliefs are concerned, to advocate that homosexuals be treated unequally to heterosexuals by the Civil State.

Other Christians, including posters in this thread, disagree with the stance taken by yourself and Phil.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a unified 'Christian' position - no matter how much either of you want to claim there is.

This fatally weakens your argument against equality but ye don't want to admit that so engage in various tactics such as claiming those Christians who disagree are not 'proper' Christians; That all other interpretations bar the ones you believe in cannot possibly be true; and attempting to drag those who have pointed out the discrepancy in the various interpretations into theological discussions.

On that latter point, what you are doing is akin to requiring those who advocate for civil rights for women in Saudi Arabia to discuss the Koran.

I don't care what it says in your Holy Book, I don't care if you live according to your interpretation of what it says in your Holy Book. I draw the line when you advocate that the country of which I am a citizen treats me as lesser because by treating me as equal it conflicts with your religion.

Indeed, if those who oppose equality were not using what it says in their Holy Book to justify discrimination and claiming all their co-religionists agree - I wouldn't bother with ye at all.

It's quite simple - stop trying to justify discrimination based on what it says in your Holy Book and false claims about a unified Christian position and I'll stop pointing out the contradictory interpretation of that Holy Book and the lack of unity in Christianity.

28064212 wrote: »

Which is fine. As I've said already in the discussion, I fully support his right to come to an honest conclusion, and I believe it's one he's reached. What I object to, as I've said a half-dozen times, is his assertion that it is the only possible conclusion, and that anyone who comes to any other conclusion is wrong, and being affected by their personal biases, while Phil claims that it is impossible that he himself could be doing the same

We have had similar conversations about the correctness of other religions, and in that case I think the is possibly more marked.

If we take two imaginary people, we have "christian phil" and "islamic phil". Now, christian phil has read the bible and when he looks around him and sees the world what he reads in the bible seems to be an excellent explanation for what he sees. It resonates with him in a way that nothing else does and for this, and some other reasons he believes it to be true and for all other religions to be wrong.

Then we take islamic phil. He has read the bible koran and when he looks around him and sees the world what he reads in the bible koran seems to be an excellent explanation for what he sees. It resonates with him in a way that nothing else does and for this, and some other reasons he believes it to be true and for all other religions to be wrong.

Neither of them accept that the other has exactly the same reasons for believing what they believe. At least one of them is wrong, and the fact that they both have exactly the same reasons for belief calls into question the method by which they come to deicide on the correctness of their view.

MrP

Ullysses wrote: »

Muslims are a lot closer to God than atheists/secularists/whatever-takes-your-fancy such as yourself.

It's the path they're on that's wrong. That's not to say I believe all Muslims are going to hell, but I certainly believe those who have been afforded the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, yet think they know better to turn their backs on their inheritance; are almost certainly going to hell.

In terms of set theory -- Muslims and Catholics are not two separate sets. There's an overlap between the two faiths. It's the differences that need to be sorted out. These differences will take a lot longer than my lifetime to resolve.

So what about muslin secularists or christian secularists? What happens to them?

And leaving that aside, the thought of spending eternity with the vast majority of catholics I have met over the years bears a remarkable resemblance to what I would consider to be hell.

MrP

philologos wrote: »

Bannasidhe: present what you wish on the Bible. My position is that it is God's infallible inspired word to mankind. I won't be changing my view on that because it us fundamental to Christianity.

What I do expect is if you want to convince me that Christianity doesn't say that sexual expression between a man and a woman in marriage that you or the compromisers on this issue present a sound Biblical argument. If there are good textual reasons for holding your position I will correct it and thank you for improving my understanding of God's sovereign and holy will.

If you go about thrashing the Bible on no basis whatsoever why are you surprised that I'm not convinced?

I trust God and I thank Him for His Son Jesus who was nailed to a cross of wood for my sin, the righteous for the unrighteous to bring us to Him.

I praise God continually for His wisdom in every area that includes in terms of relationships and sexuality. It includes absolutely everything. I don't mind if people call me a fundamentalist.

The Bible is offensive. Jesus is the only way to salvation. I was once spiritually dead but Jesus raised me to new life. Praise God and I trust that many many more will be saved through seeing the truth.

Phil - I have zero interest in discussing theology with you. I have zero interest in what the Bible says. If you believe it is the path to your salvation - good for you.

I think it is a book, just like the Koran is a book. I also do not believe I am in need of salvation.

All I want is for your Holy Book to be kept out of my life. As I want everyone else's Holy Books kept out of my life and the laws the govern it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm certainly not feeling any love from your interpretation of the gospels, quite the opposite.

Proverbs 27:6
Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.

28064212 wrote: »

The "flippant" remark, which illustrated the exact point that was at the entire heart of the discussion? That "flippant" remark?

It was a remark without any depth or thought. The fact that it is at the heart of the discussion should indicate to you the level that the discussion is at.

Which is fine. As I've said already in the discussion, I fully support his right to come to an honest conclusion, and I believe it's one he's reached.

How kind of you

What I object to, as I've said a half-dozen times, is his assertion that it is the only possible conclusion, and that anyone who comes to any other conclusion is wrong, and being affected by their personal biases, while Phil claims that it is impossible that he himself could be doing the same

The issue is that you have made no case for your objection. Phil and I are certain, because we know we are being honest. We are seeking to establish what the text is telling us, rather than trying to make it tell us something we want it to say. I would deduce from looking at the various pro-homosexuality theology, that its a case of serious wishful thinking. Its just pure fantasy. Its got nothing to do with personal biases etc that I deduce these people are wrong, but by the fact that a) The text is clear, and no plausible case has been presented, and b) Those advocating the pro-homosexuality theology are pretty much all out with an agenda to make their outlook fit, rather than seeking what the bible is actually saying.

Like Phil has repeatedly said, if you have a case to make as to how mistaken we are in our reading, then by all means present it for scrutiny. At this moment in time, nothing I have seen or read, is in any way convincing. More than that its ludicrous and extremely far fetched.

Even Zombrex could see how plain it was. He simply argued that we could simply pretend that it didn't say what it said. His argument being that in his view we pretend in terms of Jesus' second coming, so why not just pretend in terms of the homosexuality question. I would be absolutely flabbergasted if a coherent, honest case could be made for homosexual union being acceptable in biblical terms. That is how airtight it is.

philologos wrote: »

I thought you didn't want to do theology but I'm all ears if you do.

No Philo, I'm very much afraid that you are not all ears to anything bar your certainty that you are right and any who disagree with you are wrong.

philologos wrote: »

I don't accept things without question. It is only when people walk through their argument step by step. That applies to everything.

That's actually not a closed minded approach that's a rational one.

If others want to show me that Scripture doesn't say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that sexual expression outside of such a marriage is OK I'm all ears particularly if they give a good Biblical explanation.

It's just an entirely reasonable approach to the subject. I don't blindly accept anything, it's all open to scrutiny.

That all very well and good Phil as long as it is your own personal belief . The problem arises when you want your own belief enshrined in law , and applying that law to people that do not believe as you do. That is where your ''entirely reasonable approach '' becomes entirely unreasonable .

That is the issue - no need for scriptural discussion and interpretation at all. You believe and practice what you wish and let other do the same .

philologos wrote: »

You should only assume that I agree with what I tell you I agree with.

I accept the mainstream Christian view that has been believed by Christians since the beginnings of Christianity and the view that is clearly advocated in Scripture. No more, no less.

I love God, and I trust Him, I believe His will and His standards are right and I submit to them. I long for all to know the true and authentic gospel rather than a distortion and I long for all to know Jesus.

I genuinely believe that if people believed and trusted God instead of saying "Did God really say that?" as Satan did in the garden then it would be for the better.

Insofar as people have rejected the gospel and suppressed the truth in unrighteousness we rightfully deserve God's wrath, myself included. What is wonderful is that while we were sinners living in contempt of God and His loving rule, that God nonetheless sent His Son Jesus to stand in our place and take the penalty we deserved on our behalf so that we could be forgiven if we only believe and trust in Him. He was stricken and nailed to a cross. Sin is costly and it is important we take it seriously.

I know nothing more beautiful. I know nothing that is as wonderful news as that is. Essentially I long for all to be in God's kingdom. I wouldn't want my worst enemy to stand condemned never anyone else.

There's nothing vindictive about the gospel. It is true love.

Touche: I should have started my question with, "Phil, do you think" instead of: "Phil, I take it that you would also agree". Other than that, the question remains unchanged. I meant the question as it read at face, no hidden depth, nothing else.

Since becoming aware that I am gay and coming-out, and resultingly more aware of hate at a personal level, I have become rather "Thomas'ish" about what people say on topical matters, rather than my previous laissez-faire attitude.

philologos wrote: »

I don't accept things without question. It is only when people walk through their argument step by step. That applies to everything.

That's actually not a closed minded approach that's a rational one.

If others want to show me that Scripture doesn't say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that sexual expression outside of such a marriage is OK I'm all ears particularly if they give a good Biblical explanation.

It's just an entirely reasonable approach to the subject. I don't blindly accept anything, it's all open to scrutiny.

No Phil - you do not accept it 'only when people walk through their argument step by step' - you demand we show you where in your Holy Book it says x,y or z but are utterly deaf when we say that your Holy Book is not everyone's Holy Book and it's strictures should not be enforced on all of Civil society. No more than the Koran should be.

You genuinely believe in the Bible but when you advocate imposing it's strictures on those who genuinely do not believe in it - that is tyranny.
But you can't see this or hear the arguments.