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

Ecce_Agnus_Dei · 21-03-2013 09:27PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

You have just presented a very good example of why religion is evidently wrong!

Profound...

Of course you know better eh?

Or do you rely on Richard Dawkins's best-sellers for your intellectual and spiritual guidance?

Kiwi in IE · 21-03-2013 09:31PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Profound...

Of course you know better eh?

Or do you rely on Richard Dawkins's best-sellers for your intellectual and spiritual guidance?

No! I'm just comfortable with the fact that nobody knows the answers to the questions others think religion provides an answer to.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei · 21-03-2013 09:35PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It is obviously very important to you to follow 'scripture' (2000 year old documentation) as a guideline on how life is to be lived. Would you be content to have a surgeon, who followed 2000 year old documentation on how to complete a medical procedure, work on you?

The human mind and body of man from 2000 years ago is the same today. You might think we are far abstracted away from the realities of what occurred 25 to 40 generations ago (the cult of modernism if you will), but the same challenges, the same nature, the same moral dilemmas still face the humanity of today. It's pretty nonchalant of you to think that just because you live in the present, that you know better than what has gone before you.

Anyway, do you think Catholics believe the Bible is to be interpreted literally?

The Bible was written as a series of literary stories for a reason -- their core message transcends time and are open to interpretation as new scientific and historical information comes to light. The Church was also founded for a reason -- to be the guardian of the Truth and to authoritatively administer the message of Christ.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei · 21-03-2013 09:44PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No! I'm just comfortable with the fact that nobody knows the answers to the questions others think religion provides an answer to.

The scientific method is a tool God gave us to utilise our environment for the betterment of all mankind. The human intellect, language and the use of tools are what separates us from the animals. We are able to use these gifts to see evidence of the Creator all around us.

Science is not an end in itself. Atheism and science is a poisonous combination -- the motivations of the scientist become self-serving and arrogant and the Truth of the existence of a Creator is denied. The pursuit of "holy grails" such as "The Theory of Everything" or religious belief in the "Theory of Evolution" go against the grain of human nature and ultimately ends in deep unhappiness and emptiness.

Benny_Cake · 21-03-2013 09:46PM

Kiwi in IE and Ecce_Agnus_Dei - this is better suited to the Atheism / Existence of God megathread, take it there please.

mrkiscool2 · 22-03-2013 06:50AM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

The Bible was written as a series of literary stories for a reason -- their core message transcends time and are open to interpretation as new scientific and historical information comes to light. The Church was also founded for a reason -- to be the guardian of the Truth and to authoritatively administer the message of Christ.

I must not be reading it right so. Which story has the message that being gay is wrong again?

JimiTime · 22-03-2013 05:07PM

Great article here I think from one of our sisters. Food for thought in terms of compromising the Gospel, and also how some behave in relation to our brothers and sisters struggling with their homosexual desires.

http://hunterbaker.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/an-astonishing-message-from-a-gay-sister-in-christ/

(You must make it to the third paragraph in order to understand.)

To the churches concerning homosexuals and lesbians:

Many of you believe that we do not exist within your walls, your schools, your neighborhoods. You believe that we are few and easily recognized. I tell you we are many. We are your teachers, doctors, accountants, high school athletes. We are all colors, shapes, sizes. We are single, married, mothers, fathers. We are your sons, your daughters, your nieces, your nephews, your grandchildren. We are in your Sunday School classes, pews, choirs, and pulpits. You choose not to see us out of ignorance or because it might upset your congregation. We ARE your congregation. We enter your doors weekly seeking guidance and some glimmer of hope that we can change. Like you, we have invited Jesus into our hearts. Like you, we want to be all that Christ wants us to be. Like you, we pray daily for guidance. Like you, we often fail.

When the word “homosexual” is mentioned in the church, we hold our breaths and sit in fear. Most often this word is followed with condemnation, laughter, hatred, or jokes. Rarely do we hear any words of hope. At least we recognize our sin. Does the church as a whole see theirs? Do you see the sin of pride, that you are better than or more acceptable to Jesus than we are? Have you been Christ-like in your relationships with us? Would you meet us at the well, or restaurant, for a cup of water, or coffee? Would you touch us even if we showed signs of leprosy, or aids? Would you call us down from our trees, as Christ did Zacchaeus, and invite yourself to be our guest? Would you allow us to sit at your table and break bread? Can you love us unconditionally and support us as Christ works in our lives, as He works in yours, to help us all to overcome?

To those of you who would change the church to accept the gay community and its lifestyle: you give us no hope at all. To those of us who know God’s word and will not dilute it to fit our desires, we ask you to read John’s letter to the church in Pergamum. “I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore!” You are willing to compromise the word of God to be politically correct. We are not deceived. If we accept your willingness to compromise, then we must also compromise. We must therefore accept your lying, your adultery, your lust, your idolatry, your addictions, YOUR sins. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

We do not ask for your acceptance of our sins any more than we accept yours. We simply ask for the same support, love, guidance, and most of all hope that is given to the rest of your congregation. We are your brothers and sisters in Christ. We are not what we shall be, but thank God, we are not what we were. Let us work together to see that we all arrive safely home.

A Sister in Christ

lmaopml · 22-03-2013 09:43PM

That's a great post Jimi!

Sounds very much the way my brother in law would speak, and I love the ground he walks on - he's really an amazingly honest and lovely, lively, clever compassionate person, and he's not at all inclined to want to change or even compromise the 'Word' of God, in fact I think he's really against that - he's a pretty humble guy....He's working it out..

He is 'faithful', prays quietly often times pops in to light a candle when nobody else is there, goes to Mass, but he's not perfect - just like everybody else at Church. Walking through the doors is not displaying a badge of savedness, it's an acknowledgement that we recognise Christ, are Christians - and know that we need him because everybody is ultimately not perfect.

Jeepers, I love my adorable brother in law, and I admire his sense of integrity.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei · 22-03-2013 11:01PM

Sin is sin. There should be no pussy-footing around. It's in the best interests of the person concerned to tell them outright that what they engage in is wrong.

marienbad · 22-03-2013 11:03PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Sin is sin. There should be no pussy-footing around. It's in the best interests of the person concerned to tell them outright that what they engage in is wrong.

Why not mind your own business and let them mind theirs ?

Ecce_Agnus_Dei · 22-03-2013 11:05PM

marienbad wrote: »

Why not mind your own business and let them mind theirs ?

Because what they do is detrimental to their physical, mental and spiritual well-being. There's no happy ending to homosexuality, despite the ambitions of those seeking to legalise one-sex "marriage" and allowing them to get their hands on children.

It's every Christian's duty to help a smoker, an addict, a homosexual, an adulterer to explore positive alternatives.

marienbad · 22-03-2013 11:10PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Because what they do is detrimental to their physical, mental and spiritual well-being. There's no happy ending to homosexuality, despite the ambitions of those seeking to legalise one-sex "marriage" and allowing them to get their hands on children.

It's every Christian's duty to help a smoker, an addict, a homosexual, an adulterer to explore positive alternatives.

How many posts have you made on the addiction threads ? or the smoking threads ?

Dani Pacheco · 22-03-2013 11:23PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Because what they do is detrimental to their physical, mental and spiritual well-being. There's no happy ending to homosexuality, despite the ambitions of those seeking to legalise one-sex "marriage" and allowing them to get their hands on children.

It's every Christian's duty to help a smoker, an addict, a homosexual, an adulterer to explore positive alternatives.

What scares me is that people like you actually believe these things.
Phrases like "get their hands on" and "positive alternatives" show just how bigoted your views are, and even scarier is they're derived from a misguided ancient belief system.
Your beliefs are the equivalent to racism and sectarianism.
Genuinely terrifying stuff...

lmaopml · 22-03-2013 11:45PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Sin is sin. There should be no pussy-footing around. It's in the best interests of the person concerned to tell them outright that what they engage in is wrong.

What you are engaging in is wrong!

NuMarvel · 23-03-2013 12:49AM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Because what they do is detrimental to their physical, mental and spiritual well-being. There's no happy ending to homosexuality, despite the ambitions of those seeking to legalise one-sex "marriage" and allowing them to get their hands on children.

It's every Christian's duty to help a smoker, an addict, a homosexual, an adulterer to explore positive alternatives.

Those are false analogies because the negative effects of smoking and addictions can be objectively shown. I haven't seen anything that shows that homosexuality is bad for someone's mental or physical health.

PopePalpatine · 23-03-2013 03:00AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Those are false analogies because the negative effects of smoking and addictions can be objectively shown. I haven't seen anything that shows that homosexuality is bad for someone's mental or physical health.

Probably something to do with the negative impact of the economy because someone ends up with a sore arse.

Zombrex · 23-03-2013 01:25PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Because what they do is detrimental to their physical, mental and spiritual well-being. There's no happy ending to homosexuality, despite the ambitions of those seeking to legalise one-sex "marriage" and allowing them to get their hands on children.

Well yes, obviously there will be no happy ending to homosexuality if people like yourself are determined to make sure that homosexuals cannot be happy :rolleyes:

DEFTLEFTHAND · 24-03-2013 12:18PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

So really, the fertility argument doesn't matter to you and you were just using it to mask a rather baseless opposition to it?

Psychology would sort of disagree with you on the front of it being illness or a defect. Your entire basis for your argument is a repulsion that is founded on a prejudice that likes to sound sciencey and reasonable but when your called up on the supposed nature of it being unnatural, you can't prove that it is so it becomes a 'defect' which you can't prove either.

You sound like a guy who just tries to be liberal to be the pop, my repulsion is not founded on prejudice, I merely stated that it's not natural for a man to mount another man. Whether you bleedin heart liberals get that or not I don't really care.

philologos · 24-03-2013 12:27PM

I think we need to be careful about how we handle this issue. I think banging on about being repulsed by homosexuality is wrong unless we harp about our own sin. Don't be hypocrites.

I wonder sometimes if we can focus too much on the manifestation of sin without getting to the heart of it. That is that all sin results from the rejection of God's sovereignty over our lives.

Most sin occurs in private not in public. Most is not seen.

It is wrong to speak of homosexuality as a sin any worse than any other. Demonisation is wrong. We aren't God. Intact all Christians have sinned before God. We just need to gold out the Gospel and show real love to them.

This debate is deeply discouraging on both sides. Even if I was to look into the Christian camp alone I think there are many many things we need to repent of in our handling of this issue.

So it's saddening to me for many reasons. Both to see a rejection of the Gospel and heretical teaching on this issue from the liberalising side, but a deep hardness of heart from the conservative side which I fall under.

Edit: Both parties over-inflate this issue. The liberalising party say that homosexuality is so innate and it is something that one can't turn away from, and the conservative side make this to be the "biggest sin". Both I think are wrong, it isn't the biggest sin, and it isn't any different than anyone tackling any sin. We all have struggles and battles to live for God's glory.

IT-Guy · 24-03-2013 01:09PM

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Because what they do is detrimental to their physical, mental and spiritual well-being. There's no happy ending to homosexuality, despite the ambitions of those seeking to legalise one-sex "marriage" and allowing them to get their hands on children.

It's every Christian's duty to help a smoker, an addict, a homosexual, an adulterer to explore positive alternatives.

Been a while since we had a post where every sentence was an example of flawed thinking, bigotry dressed up as concern and downright ignorance.

There's no evidence homosexuality is detrimental to a person's well being but being a member of a minority that is feared, misunderstood, castigated, prejudiced against and sometimes killed for no other reason than who they're attracted to, is. If there's a choice involved in homosexuality, it belongs to those who decide whether to include or exclude people based on their sexual orientation.

Plenty of "happy endings" in homosexuality just like with heterosexuality

Seriously though, are you that blind to your own sexuality and happiness that you can't imagine it being similar for gay couples? Or worse, that you'll do everything in your limited power to make the lives of the LGBT community as uncomfortable (if not dangerous) as possible?

I think you're confusing paedophilia and homosexuality with the "get their hands on children" remark, or at the very least attempting to shamelessly associate the two.

The only duty Christians have is to live good lives according to your bible and to recognise that many people neither share your idea of a good life nor want it foisted on them as if they weren't aware of what they were doing. Treating adults like kids will only earn you the same treatment. Indeed you may learn that there's nothing inherently wrong with a life outside of limiting religious beliefs.

NuMarvel · 24-03-2013 01:14PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You sound like a guy who just tries to be liberal to be the pop, my repulsion is not founded on prejudice, I merely stated that it's not natural for a man to mount another man. Whether you bleedin heart liberals get that or not I don't really care.

You didn't merely state that, you're using it as the basis of your opposition to civil rights. And the reason it looks like it's founded on prejudice is because your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny, and you even change your arguments when the flaws are pointed out to you. You obviously came to your conclusion before considering the relevant facts, which is the very definition of prejudice, i.e. pre judging.

Corkfeen · 24-03-2013 02:41PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You sound like a guy who just tries to be liberal to be the pop, my repulsion is not founded on prejudice, I merely stated that it's not natural for a man to mount another man. Whether you bleedin heart liberals get that or not I don't really care.

I'm gonna need some evidence from you that proves that it is not natural or even proof for any of your ever changing assertions. Otherwise your repulsion is founded on prejudice.:) I may be liberal but at least I am consistent in my views and i'll happily reconsider them if evidence is given to the contrary

Benny_Cake · 24-03-2013 02:54PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You sound like a guy who just tries to be liberal to be the pop, my repulsion is not founded on prejudice, I merely stated that it's not natural for a man to mount another man. Whether you bleedin heart liberals get that or not I don't really care.

Remarks such as "bleedin heart liberals" are not acceptable here. Tackle the issue, not other posters.

Gumbi · 25-03-2013 01:48PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You sound like a guy who just tries to be liberal to be the pop, my repulsion is not founded on prejudice, I merely stated that it's not natural for a man to mount another man. Whether you bleedin heart liberals get that or not I don't really care.

It's not natural to do a lot of things. You're making a fool of yourself.

JimiTime · 25-03-2013 06:35PM

The plot thickens in the whole banning therapy situation happening in the US it would seem.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/25/did-a-gay-activist-lie-to-the-new-jersey-senate-n1548304 http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/25/did-a-gay-activist-lie-to-the-new-jersey-senate-n1548304

marienbad · 25-03-2013 06:46PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The plot thickens in the whole banning therapy situation happening in the US it would seem.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/25/did-a-gay-activist-lie-to-the-new-jersey-senate-n1548304 http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/25/did-a-gay-activist-lie-to-the-new-jersey-senate-n1548304[/QUOTE]

I think the lawmakers see a difference Jimi - those conditions are inherent to the person whereas hatred of being gay is a societal imposition.

JimiTime · 25-03-2013 06:57PM

marienbad wrote: »

JimiTime wrote: »

The plot thickens in the whole banning therapy situation happening in the US it would seem.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/25/did-a-gay-activist-lie-to-the-new-jersey-senate-n1548304 http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/25/did-a-gay-activist-lie-to-the-new-jersey-senate-n1548304[/QUOTE]

I think the lawmakers see a difference Jimi - those conditions are inherent to the person whereas hatred of being gay is a societal imposition.

Pardon my illiteracy, but I don't understand what you mean?

MrPudding · 25-03-2013 06:58PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The plot thickens in the whole banning therapy situation happening in the US it would seem.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/25/did-a-gay-activist-lie-to-the-new-jersey-senate-n1548304 http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/25/did-a-gay-activist-lie-to-the-new-jersey-senate-n1548304

Interestingly it looks like New Jersey is planning a similar ban...

Also, the WHO don't like conversion therapy. But what do they know? Right?

http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6803&Itemid=1926

MrP

Corkfeen · 25-03-2013 07:03PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The plot thickens in the whole banning therapy situation happening in the US it would seem.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/25/did-a-gay-activist-lie-to-the-new-jersey-senate-n1548304 http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/25/did-a-gay-activist-lie-to-the-new-jersey-senate-n1548304

Firstly, that website is absolutely vile. The comment section is illustrative of the kind of demographic that they're appealing to. All so called conversion therapies still don't convert your sexuality, it's a pseudoscience that can be psychologically damaging for the patient.

If a person is over the age of 18 and uses it of their own volition, fair enough. However why the hell should a potentially dangerous and unproven therapy be used on a person under the age of 18? In all likelihood, these people are highly influenced by their parents and are being pushed into it or assume it's wrong because of their parent's prejudices.

e_e · 25-03-2013 07:11PM

I always love the irony of someone complaining about people doing unnatural things while typing on a computer.

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

Comments