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

Nick Park wrote: »

Dear me, no-one was saying that atheists don't have the right to post here. I fail to see how my post could possibly be interpreted that way.

I was simply pointing out that atheists arguing their disagreement with Christian teachings on biblical inspiration is hardly going to help a discussion on homosexuality or gay marriage.

But if you want to go down that rabbit trail, then I'm happy to discuss it with you as long as the mods permit it.



Your sexual orientation has no bearing on the Christian doctrine of inspiration.

I was asking a particular poster if he placed Paul on a par with Jesus. This is a valid question given that Jesus instructed his followers not to judge whereas Paul was not so sanguine.

Also, as that poster said - Jesus is not recorded as having made any comment on homosexuality so those Christians who disprove - which is a form of judging - are privileging the word of Paul over the word of Jesus.

And if the Christian doctrine was kept out of civil (as in the Civil State) discourse and posters such as the one I was responding to didn't advocate that civil legislation be framed in accordance with Christian doctrine I would be more than happy to ignore Christianity completely.

Nick Park wrote: »

Dear me, no-one was saying that atheists don't have the right to post here. I fail to see how my post could possibly be interpreted that way.

I was simply pointing out that atheists arguing their disagreement with Christian teachings on biblical inspiration is hardly going to help a discussion on homosexuality or gay marriage.

But if you want to go down that rabbit trail, then I'm happy to discuss it with you as long as the mods permit it.



Your sexual orientation has no bearing on the Christian doctrine of inspiration.

I'll leave all your para's in place as editing/deleting them would be something better left to you. With regard to your 2nd and 3rd para's, do you think aethists shouldn't argue or debate with Tantraska seeing as how he/she is interested in doing so on homosexuality and gay marriage with them, or do you see his/her posts here as a rabbit trail?

aloyisious wrote: »

I'll leave all your para's in place as editing/deleting them would be something better left to you. With regard to your 2nd and 3rd para's, do you think aethists shouldn't argue or debate with Tantraska seeing as how he/she is interested in doing so on homosexuality and gay marriage with them, or do you see his/her posts here as a rabbit trail?

I think they should certainly argue and debate with Tantraska as to the pointlessness of (and non-Christian nature of) expecting civil law to prohibit everything that religious people see as sinful.

But trying to argue against Christian concepts of inspiration is most certainly a rabbit trail.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

I know people will say its about equal rights but as a Christian, its nothing to do with it.
Its about changing the constitution to approve of something God calls sin.

Except that this is a secular republic and we don't frame our laws according to the edicts of a religion. This is not a theocracy.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

As far a scripture is concerned. Homosexuality is not something a person is born with but is the belief if a lie and the giving of oneself to that lie.

Then the Bible is wrong. Categorically and demonstrably wrong. We have identified a number of causal factors of homosexuality, all of which are in some way biologically determined. Which means that YES, homosexuality IS something you're born with. If you want you can read all about it for yourself:


Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity

New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line

Homosexuality via canalized sexual development: A testing protocol for a new epigenetic model

A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation


A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Female Sexual Orientation, Childhood Gender Typicality and Adult Gender Identity

Sex steroid hormones-related structural plasticity in the human hypothalamus

You see, the problem for you, as a Christian (not all Christians obviously just people who believe as you do), is that you believe that homosexuality is an acquired trait because if its something that you're born with then it must have been something that God either allowed to happen or caused to happen. After all, some Christians believe that God takes a hand in shaping every individual before birth as outlined in Jeremiah 1:5. So, the idea that God could have allowed or caused someone to be born gay creates a dichotomy with his apparent disapproval of it in Leviticus 18 and Paul's writings. So the only way for Christians like yourself to reconcile the dissonance is to claim that homosexuality is a choice. Which is demonstrably false.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

It was only the Apostle Paul who dealt with the issue in the New Testament.
And he placed all sin at same level and as a result every person at the same level. All equal.

OK, so Paul equates homosexuality with all other sins so we should listen because Paul was divinely inspired. Right?

So, when Paul says that women shouldn't be educated in 1 Corinthians 14 we should listen too?
When he says that women can't be teachers or assume any roles of authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:12, we should listen?
When he says, twice, that women should be silent and shouldn't speak we should listen?
When he says in Ephesians 5:22 that women should be completely submissive and subservient to their husbands we should listen?
When he says that slaves should be obedient to their masters in Colossians 3:22, we should listen?
When he says that marriage is only for weak-willed people in 1 Corinthians 7:9 I guess we should listen to that too?

Most Christians have learned that there is a lot of outdated nonsense in Pauline writings and most have learned to ignore it but somehow when he talks about gays he is worth listening to? You Christians crack me up sometimes.

Nick Park wrote: »

Unfortunately ripping one verse out of context does not help this (or any other) discussion. For example, Jesus told his followers that they would know the hearts of others by the fruit of their lives.

It would be nonsensical to argue that followers of Jesus should operate in a moral vacuum where they cannot judge any action at all as being wrong.



No Christian thinks that Jesus was a law giver who legislated for every possible activity. This, sadly, is where rabbit trails take us.


Again, your sexual orientation is irrelevant to this point. I hold the same views as you concerning civil law and it remaining separate from Christian doctrine -but I don't think my sexual orientation matters either way when I make that point.

You seem to have missed the parts of my post where I stated I was trying to have a discussion with a particular poster who does not agree that civil law and Christian doctrine should remain separate - quite the opposite in fact.

Rabbits notwithstanding you are not the bunny I am trying to have a discussion with at this time.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

I'm equalising sin. Jesus died for all people and to pay the penalty for all sin. He didn't differentiate like we do..

wow! Way to misunderstand Jesus!
The point is we shouldn't judge because we are as guilty of sin, not that all sins are equal.
Anyway what's that got to do with civil marriage? Unless you want the civil law to equate to religious law it's irrelevant. By the way if that is you choice, Saudi is nice, hot as hell, possible not a coincidence, but an example of the kind of theocracy you desire.

Nick Park wrote: »

Unfortunately you posted in the thread, rather than sending a private message.

You can't really expect to attack a major Christian doctrine (the inspiration of Scripture) in the Christianity forum and then specify that only one poster can respond and that no-one else is allowed to do so.

I didn't 'attack' as you so dramatically put it. I queried one poster's interpretation for clarification and then you and you rabbits hopped in.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I didn't 'attack' as you so dramatically put it. I queried one poster's interpretation for clarification and then you and you rabbits hopped in.

You did when you started arguing that Paul's teaching should have a lesser authority for Christians than the words of Jesus. That, in the Christianity Forum, is an attack on the Christian teaching that all Scripture is inspired by God.

As I said, you are perfectly entitled to believe what you want - but trying to argue the toss over Christian doctrine in that way is extraordinarily unhelpful and distracting when it comes to a discussion about homosexuality in general and same-sex marriage in particular.

katydid wrote: »

Not all Christians put Paul on a part with the rest of the Gospels. Paul never met Jesus, apart from his claim to have met him in a vision. Just because the scriptures were divinely inspired means they are perfect, and the thoughts - that's all they are at the end of the day - of an early Christian are, to many, not on a par with the eye witness accounts of those who knew Jesus.

Well, in fairness, its quite likely that none of the gospel writers ever met Jesus (even in a vision!) and absolutely certain that at least some of them did not. So I'm not sure that this provides much of a basis for distinguishing between the letters of Paul and the Gospels.

The author's proximity to Christ is an important consideration if we're addressing the historicity of the texts, but I think not so much when we are considering their theological significance. Their status as "scripture" comes, I think, from their reception as such by the church; the early Christian communities recognised these texts as inspired and it's that, more than the personal status or position of their authors, which makes them important for us.

I've posted a link on the "how will you vote on the referendum" thread to an Irish Times link to an internal debate there recorded debate between Breda O'Brien and Noel Whelan, both I/T columnists. It's approx one (1) hour long so you had better set aside time to hear it in full. If you are payed-up to the I/T online version, it's on the Inside Politics section.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

If I felt you had read the text you referenced and understood the background to it,I'd happily discuss it point by point. But I'm not sure you have read it or understand it,or indeed want to. So what's the point.

Its very easy to dismiss as rubbish something we disagree with.
The skill is listening and understanding and having a reasoned debate.
But ive not met many on the yes side like that:(

I need a new irony meter.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

If I felt you had read the text you referenced and understood the background to it,I'd happily discuss it point by point. But I'm not sure you have read it or understand it,or indeed want to. So what's the point.

That's quite a big assumption you've got going on there. Perhaps if you engaged in debate instead you might find whether I have or not.

You see here's the thing about Paul and his epistles.

Let's take the passage from 1 Corinthians 14 that I quoted as an example.

While 1 Corinthians 14 condemns women for speaking in church, it is flatly contradicted by 1 Corinthians 11:5 which mentions women praying and prophesying in church. This creates a contradiction which needs to be resolved.

The common resolution of this contradiction, argued by several new testament scholars is that 1 Corinthians 14 is a later interpolation. However, Christians such as yourself believe that all of Paul's writings are authentic and, more importantly, divinely inspired. So either you argue that Paul's writings are divinely inspired and accept that Paul taught that women should be silent in Church and still have to explain the contradiction above or you have to accept that not all Pauline writings are authentic.

Then you have the hypocritical nature of Paul. A lot of Paul's writing is given over to condemning Jewish law and promoting the sole fide basis for salvation. He condemns specific parts of the Jewish law in Romans 14:14, Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 6:15 as well as condemning the whole law as a curse in Galatians 3:13 and as a ministry of death in 2 Corinthians 3:7-9. He also write some pretty anti-semitic stuff about the Jews themselves with passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and Titus 1:10-14.
It is strange therefore when Paul agrees to undergo Jewish purification rituals in Acts 21:21-26. When Paul eventually gets found out in Acts 21:28 and arrested he then goes on to claim that he is a Jew when speaking to the Roman commander in Acts 21:39. Paul then asks to speak to the crowd and begins by stating that he is a Jew. When his speech doesn't exactly win the crowd over and they cry "Rid the Earth of him. He's not fit to live!", Paul turns tail once again and claims to be a Roman citizen in Acts 22:27.
Paul is a man who will change his tune to fit his audience, something he openly declares in 1 Corinthians 9:20 "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews."
So, the idea that Paul's declarations are reflective of God's will rather than platitudes intended to win favour with the audience is weak at best.

Then you have Paul's relationship with Jesus and the disciples. As katydid points out, Paul is a man who never met Jesus. He also has limited interactions with James and Peter. However, what we do now about his interactions with them is their relationship is at best what you would call strained.
Let's take James for example. There is a substantial row played out in the New Testament between James who promotes obedience to the law and Paul's sole fide approach. In Romans 4, Paul credits Abraham's salvation solely to his faith in God (Romans 4:2-3). However, James points out that it was Abraham's actions in combination with his faith which saved him in James 2:21-24. Indeed, the reference to the foolish man in the preceding verse is often seen as a dig at Paul by James. James, however is the one with the OT and Jesus on his side, with both Jeremiah 7:10 and Matthew 5:17-19 supporting James view.
Similarly with Peter, Paul is no fan. In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul criticises the hypocrisy of Peter for only eating with Gentiles when Jews were not around. Firstly, Paul is not exactly in any position to criticise anyone for hypocrisy, a) because of his remarkable anti-Jewish sentiments outlined above already and b) because he himself makes some deeply misogynistic statements in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 with the intention of lessening the culture shock for the Jews he's trying to convert. Secondly, the idea that Paul would call Peter out for hypocrisy at all is in itself hypocritical given Jesus' clear teaching against it in Matthew 7:1-5.
Of course, it's not just Jesus' disciples that Paul rows with. Even the early Church leaders get contradicted by Paul. In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas go to the council of Apostles and Elders to discuss how to preach against those who claimed that only those who were circumcised could be saved. The council meets and agrees a few things and then sends Paul and Barnabas (and some others) on the road with a letter proclaiming their decision in particular this in verse 20:

"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

It soon becomes clear from Paul's writings that Paul puts very little stock in what the Church leaders decide either. Despite the proclamation above, Paul twice contradicts it:

"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.'"
1 Corinthians 10:25-27

"I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean." -
Romans 14:14

So when we get finally to Romans 1:26-27 what confidence do we really have that Paul is speaking with divine inspiration and truly reflecting the will of God about gays anymore than he is about the other outdated nonsense. Not much.

Also, as Nick Park so brilliantly pointed out, there are other categories of sinners which are equated with homosexuals such as idolaters. If the idea of gay marriage in the constitution is repugnant to you then why aren't you out calling for the repeal of this:

"The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status. "

Surely we shouldn't legally allow people to worship false gods? Right?

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

Its very easy to dismiss as rubbish something we disagree with.
The skill is listening and understanding and having a reasoned debate.
But ive not met many on the yes side like that:(

Can you point to anywhere where I've dismissed your arguments out of hand or anyone else's for that matter. I tend to post in a tone-neutral and civil manner especially in this referendum debate because being inflammatory (like your equating homosexuals with murderers yesterday) is not useful in advancing the overall debate.


Oh, and one final point. Whatever you might think on the extent to which I've read the bible or not, anytime you feel like responding on the science of why your claim about homosexuality not being something you're born with is false, let me know.