Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…192193195197198…218

Comments

  • #5822
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good afternoon!

    Some quick questions on this.
    Absolam wrote: »
    An apostate is simply a name for a baptised person, who after possessing the Christian faith, totally rejects it. I'd agree that if a person had never believed they would not consider themselves to be an apostate; the Church however might well hold that anyone who is baptised and rejects the Christian faith is an apostate whether or not they ever affirmed the faith themselves; I can't see any reason it wouldn't since the Catechism says that faith must grow after Baptism. I don't know if the Church would agree with you that baptism is an outward sign of an inward motion, but I think the view presented in the Catechism is considerably more extensive than that, including the idea that once baptised someone is a Christian (or at least, they are incorporated into Christ and the Church), and they remain so whether they believe or not.

    How can someone who rejects Jesus be in Christ?

    The logical consequence of this is that someone who is baptised is a Christian by virtue of his or her baptism rather than by virtue of belief (which the New Testament seems to hold to).

    What consequence does this have on salvation? Do you hold to universalism provided that someone is baptised a Catholic?

    These problems seem to arise less if you hold to a believers baptism rather than infant baptism.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5823
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    How can someone who rejects Jesus be in Christ? The logical consequence of this is that someone who is baptised is a Christian by virtue of his or her baptism rather than by virtue of belief (which the New Testament seems to hold to).
    I'd suggest both the parable of the lost sheep and the prodigal son might be indicative of the Church's position; rejecting Jesus or God doesn't mean God rejects, but looks for and rejoices at the return of the penitent. Now what you consider the term 'being in Christ' means is probably a matter of individual interpretation, so I'd probably stick with what is actually expressed in the Catechism, which is;
    "...we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church..."
    "The anointing with sacred chrism, perfumed oil consecrated by the bishop, signifies the gift of the Holy Spirit to the newly baptized, who has become a Christian, that is, one "anointed" by the Holy Spirit, incorporated into Christ who is anointed priest, prophet, and king"
    "Baptism incorporates us into the Church"
    "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."
    "Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ."
    "Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the faithful have received the sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian religious worship"
    "By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ."
    So you can see, whatever the New Testament may seem to hold to, the Catechism of the Church definitely holds that one is incorporated into Christ and the Church by the sacrament of Baptism, and therefore has a right to be called a Christian.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    What consequence does this have on salvation? Do you hold to universalism provided that someone is baptised a Catholic?
    I have no idea I'm afraid, I've never been interested in salvation.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    These problems seem to arise less if you hold to a believers baptism rather than infant baptism.
    I'm not really under the impression that they appear to be problems in the Catholic Church, thought at least as far as salvation goes I'll readily admit I'm very poorly informed.


  • #5824
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good afternoon!

    I think we should start a new thread on baptism at some point. This thread should stick to discussing Christianity and homosexuality.

    I'd love to get into the details a bit more but I don't want to derail this thread any further.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5825
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Poses question: re the modern child and teenager becoming more aware of her/his sexuality, way before reaching the adulthood stage at 18, would it be better to allow them a later age-limit of being accepted into the Christian faith?

    I'm including trans-people in the question as some people have the view that the body you're born into is what you must be happy with, regardless of the trans-person having an instinctive feeling that the body does not match the actual gender the trans-person's mind identifies with.

    Please remember being trans does NOT automatically make one gay or lesbian, just because there is a linkage within the societal-title "LGBT"" and similar titles. A person who's trans-ed could well be of a straight-sexual nature.

    Edit: I've deleted the (or other) mention re faith at the end of the 1st sentence as this is a Christian forum debate.


  • #5826
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good evening!

    I think your question presumes that there is no place for people with same-sex attraction in our churches. I want to say that is categorically untrue. I long for all people everywhere to know Jesus irrespective of sexual orientation, current religion, ethnicity, culture or anything else.

    Following Jesus is costly for all kinds of reasons and the reasons are different for each person. In all of these cases the chance of new relationship with God, a new family and eternity to come shows that Jesus is worth it.

    I'm thankful that we can navigate these issues in a more loving and sensitive manner today than we have often dealt with it in the past. I think we ought to repent where we haven't treated people as God wants us to.

    I think that's as much sinful of anything.

    I think we can all rightfully pray Lord Jesus heal us of our homophobia.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • Advertisement
  • #5827
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Poses question: re the modern child and teenager becoming more aware of her/his sexuality, way before reaching the adulthood stage at 18, would it be better to allow them a later age-limit of being accepted into the Christian faith?

    I don't see why. Sexuality just one aspect of a person's makeup, and in any case there are Christian churches which welcome gay people and even celebrate their marriages. Other churches may object to same-sex marriage on a theological basis but they would still welcome people regardless of sexual orientation.

    Preventing young people from playing a role in a church just in case they may be found to be gay at a later stage would send a very strange message!


  • #5828
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Absolam wrote: »
    An apostate is simply a name for a baptised person, who after possessing the Christian faith, totally rejects it. I'd agree that if a person had never believed they would not consider themselves to be an apostate; the Church however might well hold that anyone who is baptised and rejects the Christian faith is an apostate whether or not they ever affirmed the faith themselves; I can't see any reason it wouldn't since the Catechism says that faith must grow after Baptism. I don't know if the Church would agree with you that baptism is an outward sign of an inward motion, but I think the view presented in the Catechism is considerably more extensive than that, including the idea that once baptised someone is a Christian (or at least, they are incorporated into Christ and the Church), and they remain so whether they believe or not.

    aloyisious offered a number of unsubstantiated allegations, including a story that the Catholic Church enticed homosexuals to revoke their baptisms, and I asked him to provide evidence for them.
    Sadly, I don't think he will.

    I refute the allegation that I offered a story that the Catholic Church enticed homosexuals to revoke their baptisms and have no problem with describing that allegation as a complete untruth. Quite simply I regard that allegation as baiting me into a response after I had made it clear to Absolom that I would not respond to him. At this stage, i am requesting Absolom to withdraw that untruth or post exactly and verbatim the quote that the allegation refers to, including the post number and page it is on.


  • #5829
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    I don't see why. Sexuality just one aspect of a person's makeup, and in any case there are Christian churches which welcome gay people and even celebrate their marriages. Other churches may object to same-sex marriage on a theological basis but they would still welcome people regardless of sexual orientation.

    Preventing young people from playing a role in a church just in case they may be found to be gay at a later stage would send a very strange message!

    I wouldn't prevent young people from playing a role in a church just in case they may be found to be gay at a later stage. I meant young people, who are fully aware of their sexuality having an option of not going the partial or full membership route until they were aware of how a church would view their self-accepted sexuality. That's why I mentioned children and teens. While there are Christian churches which welcome gay people and even celebrate their marriages, there are other Christian churches which wouldn't be so kind.

    There is a bit of a schism between them, with the latter churches seeing the former churches who are more gay-positive as not being REAL Christians. These not-so-acceptive churches are into the conversion-therapy belief in varying formats when it comes to gay people. Therapy can be of the "see the light" format, and not the more intrusive type now seen as destructive.

    Without leading this into the world of non-Christian religion, there are similar schisms within the Judaic and Muslim faiths, with friendly and not-so-friendly branches where it comes to Gay persons.


  • #5830
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good evening!

    I think your question presumes that there is no place for people with same-sex attraction in our churches. I want to say that is categorically untrue. I long for all people everywhere to know Jesus irrespective of sexual orientation, current religion, ethnicity, culture or anything else.

    Following Jesus is costly for all kinds of reasons and the reasons are different for each person. In all of these cases the chance of new relationship with God, a new family and eternity to come shows that Jesus is worth it.

    I'm thankful that we can navigate these issues in a more loving and sensitive manner today than we have often dealt with it in the past. I think we ought to repent where we haven't treated people as God wants us to.

    I think that's as much sinful of anything.

    I think we can all rightfully pray Lord Jesus heal us of our homophobia.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    But how far does this go? Not very I fear. If I remember correctly you are currently single and not having sex as you believe marriage is the only place where sex is not a sin, whilst I find that very sad, whatever floats your boat. Now, the thing is, assuming 1) you are a man and 2) you are attracted to woman, then you are ok. The chances are, at some point, you will find someone willing to marry you and you will have sex. You are currently putting off sex, but you know that it is likely that at some point you will be able to have sex.

    if we look at gay people, you say they are welcome in your church, but is that under any circumstances or only if they don't have sex? I am guessing it is the latter and you practice "hate the sin, not the sinner". Surely you must see how this welcome is really no welcome at all. "Yes, come into our church, but you can't ever, EVER, have sex. Even if you are "married" because I don't accept your marriage as valid".

    The desire to have sex is a powerful desire. if you as an individual choose to not have sex until you are married, that is your choice. But to tell a sizable majority of the population that they can't be in your club unless they never have sex, ever, does not seem like a welcome to me.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I believe 100% that is a church wants to say "you can't be in this church if you have gay sex" and/or "we don't accept or recognise your perfectly legal civil marriage" then that is absolutely fine. But what I do object to is a person saying "gay people are 100% welcome in my church, I would love to have them, they just have to never, ever, ever have sex with people they are attracted to and I don't recognise their marriage". That is not any definition of welcome that I am aware of. I would say tolerated, rather than welcome, and tolerated grudingly and only if they repress a strong part of their nature, their sexual desire, which the heterosexual member of the church only have to repress until they find somone they are attracted to willing to marry them.

    Of course, you will say you don't make up the rules, and that is fine too. I am perfectly happy to accept you believe a god made up the rules. Again, my objection here is to what I consider to be a misuse of the word "welcome".

    MrP


  • #5831
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good evening!

    I think your question presumes that there is no place for people with same-sex attraction in our churches. I want to say that is categorically untrue. I long for all people everywhere to know Jesus irrespective of sexual orientation, current religion, ethnicity, culture or anything else.

    Following Jesus is costly for all kinds of reasons and the reasons are different for each person. In all of these cases the chance of new relationship with God, a new family and eternity to come shows that Jesus is worth it.

    I'm thankful that we can navigate these issues in a more loving and sensitive manner today than we have often dealt with it in the past. I think we ought to repent where we haven't treated people as God wants us to.

    I think that's as much sinful of anything.

    I think we can all rightfully pray Lord Jesus heal us of our homophobia.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    I don't presume that there is no place for homosexuals in Christian churches. I do wonder if the churches would be welcoming to homosexual couples as they were or whether the church/es would insist the couples desist from any form of sexual contact as a basis of acceptance, to comply with the words of Jesus?

    Is there a chance that, should the couples comply with the churches wishes, the churches would then take another step, that of trying to change the couples orientation (straighten them out) and break them up as a couple, again to comply with the words of Jesus?


  • Advertisement
  • #5832
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    MrPudding wrote: »
    But how far does this go? Not very I fear. If I remember correctly you are currently single and not having sex as you believe marriage is the only place where sex is not a sin, whilst I find that very sad, whatever floats your boat. Now, the thing is, assuming 1) you are a man and 2) you are attracted to woman, then you are ok. The chances are, at some point, you will find someone willing to marry you and you will have sex. You are currently putting off sex, but you know that it is likely that at some point you will be able to have sex.

    if we look at gay people, you say they are welcome in your church, but is that under any circumstances or only if they don't have sex? I am guessing it is the latter and you practice "hate the sin, not the sinner". Surely you must see how this welcome is really no welcome at all. "Yes, come into our church, but you can't ever, EVER, have sex. Even if you are "married" because I don't accept your marriage as valid".

    The desire to have sex is a powerful desire. if you as an individual choose to not have sex until you are married, that is your choice. But to tell a sizable majority of the population that they can't be in your club unless they never have sex, ever, does not seem like a welcome to me.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I believe 100% that is a church wants to say "you can't be in this church if you have gay sex" and/or "we don't accept or recognise your perfectly legal civil marriage" then that is absolutely fine. But what I do object to is a person saying "gay people are 100% welcome in my church, I would love to have them, they just have to never, ever, ever have sex with people they are attracted to and I don't recognise their marriage". That is not any definition of welcome that I am aware of. I would say tolerated, rather than welcome, and tolerated grudingly and only if they repress a strong part of their nature, their sexual desire, which the heterosexual member of the church only have to repress until they find somone they are attracted to willing to marry them.

    Of course, you will say you don't make up the rules, and that is fine too. I am perfectly happy to accept you believe a god made up the rules. Again, my objection here is to what I consider to be a misuse of the word "welcome".

    MrP

    Good evening!

    When I say that different things are challenging to different people they are. For example for some it might be that they need to put selfish desires such as career second to Jesus. For others it might mean changing their drinking. For others it may mean learning to honour their parents when that is difficult. For others it might mean forsaking a heterosexual relationship for the sake of the Gospel. For others it might mean stopping following a different religion. For others it might mean that people might stop being friends with them if they follow Jesus. There are many things that are challenging about the Christian walk, and there are many things that I find challenging about the Christian walk personally. Am I going to say that God must change His word if I am to keep following Him? Obviously not.

    Is there anything that is more challenging for a homosexual in respect to coming to Jesus than it is for anyone else? No. The only difference is that different things are challenging. The same expectation in respect to sexual relationships applies to me as a single heterosexual. There are numerous other areas that are more challenging to me particularly than would be to others. Why do you of necessity believe it is more likely that I will find someone to marry than a homosexual will? I'm not even sure or convinced of that. What I am sure is even if that doesn't happen, following Jesus is better and putting that aside is far better ultimately than looking for any avenue to express my sexual desires.

    Now do I expect an atheist to be pleased with that? No. But then I'm not trying to please you, I'm simply trying to offer the truth to you. Walking with Jesus is far better than walking with the world.

    Jesus says walk the narrow path it is worth it:
    Matthew 7:13-14 ESV wrote:
    Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
    Revelation 21:1-4 ESV wrote:
    Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

    If living for my own selfish desires now means that I lose out on life in the age to come, then I'd rather reject the selfish desires. God's way is better than the wide path that leads to destruction.

    By the by, I never said that people who have sex can't be Christians. The church is full of sinners who are striving to repent. That doesn't mean that we are perfect, it just means that we are sinners who need a Saviour and who long to live for Him. Jesus says go and sin no more, and that is far better. Lots of us will struggle here and now, but as God's people we aim to help one another.

    aloysius, have a read of this article by John Piper which discusses the idea of same-sex marriage and repentance. Let me know what you think. It is controversial, but I think your question is worth discussing.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5833
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    If God made us why did he make some of us gay or bi or trans or whatever? Are those of us not 100% straight a design flaw?


  • #5834
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    eviltwin wrote: »
    If God made us why did he make some of us gay or bi or trans or whatever? Are those of us not 100% straight a design flaw?

    Actually I did have this vision of the world if all humans were straight and compliant with what some Christians see as Jesus's word, and therefore God's word, on the subject of human sexuality.

    Imagine if all the people who didn't fit the "straight" bill of goods were suddenly turned straight and no longer walked on the wild side. Take it a stage further and they were all in active opposite-sex relationships. Imagine how many pregnant women there would have been in the world since time began, making babies all down the ages. The mind boggles about what state the world would be in.... overpopulation by the 10th century even.

    I wonder if people would thank all the gays and lesbians and bisexuals and trans-persons who actually helped keep the world's population down to acceptable levels for the past god-alone know's centuries, so the human race and the world could survive to this age. Maybe God does have a plan for all us humans regardless of our sexuality.... it'd be strange if those trying to change our sexuality wrecked his plan, :D


  • #5835
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good evening!

    aloysius, have a read of this article by John Piper which discusses the idea of same-sex marriage and repentance. Let me know what you think. It is controversial, but I think your question is worth discussing.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    I read the article and it seem's to me that it included more than same-sex marriage, but also a path towards another goal. If that path was followed here, we would be living in a theocracy where nothing less than the word of God, passed on human to human, would be used to decide all the everyday things we have to do. There would be no individual freedom of thought.

    I'm not sure if you realize this but Ireland and it's people, both south and north, were in thrall to the two main Christian churches, each using a form of theocracy to subjugate us.

    The problem with that is that God put brains into our heads so we could work out things for ourselves through natural individual thought processes. We had lost the use of that freedom, involuntarily given it up through being too reliant on what other humans told us was the word of God that we MUST obey. I reckon we have regained that freedom and will not willingly give it up again. I wish you God-speed in your endeavours.


  • #5836
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Poses question: re the modern child and teenager becoming more aware of her/his sexuality, way before reaching the adulthood stage at 18, would it be better to allow them a later age-limit of being accepted into the Christian faith?
    Do you mean deliberately preventing people from being accepted into the Christian faith at an earlier age? I'm not aware of any upper age limit on acceptance into the Christian faith as it stands?


  • #5837
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    aloyisious wrote: »
    I refute the allegation that I offered a story that the Catholic Church enticed homosexuals to revoke their baptisms and have no problem with describing that allegation as a complete untruth. Quite simply I regard that allegation as baiting me into a response after I had made it clear to Absolom that I would not respond to him. At this stage, i am requesting Absolom to withdraw that untruth or post exactly and verbatim the quote that the allegation refers to, including the post number and page it is on.
    Sure no probs here you go;
    aloyisious wrote: »
    Fourth was a policy (the DEFECTION policy) whereby it would make voluntary legal agreements in writing with Gay people to leave the church, revoking it's baptism. The church, to go long with the policy, had a pro-forma legal letter for the gay person to sign to that effect. A lot of gay people took that course and went into CP's, which the church didn't approve of. The church rescinded the policy, and the letters validity, but didn't tell those gay people who'd believed - in good faith - that they were NO LONGER members of the RCC.


  • #5838
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sure no probs here you go;

    Originally Posted by aloyisious View Post
    Fourth was a policy (the DEFECTION policy) whereby it would make voluntary legal agreements in writing with Gay people to leave the church, revoking it's baptism. The church, to go long with the policy, had a pro-forma legal letter for the gay person to sign to that effect. A lot of gay people took that course and went into CP's, which the church didn't approve of. The church rescinded the policy, and the letters validity, but didn't tell those gay people who'd believed - in good faith - that they were NO LONGER members of the RCC.

    Please show me and everyone else here the enticement offered by the church to make gays leave the church and revoke baptism....


  • #5839
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Please show me and everyone else here the enticement offered by the church to make gays leave the church and revoke baptism....
    Are you saying that your statement "A lot of gay people took that course" was not intended to relate to the second part of the sentence "and went into CP's"? Because it certainly appears from what you said that the one was intended to appear to depend on the other... which makes going into CPs an enticement to revoke their baptism.


  • #5840
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Absolam wrote: »
    Are you saying that your statement "A lot of gay people took that course" was not intended to relate to the second part of the sentence "and went into CP's"? Because it certainly appears from what you said that the one was intended to appear to depend on the other... which makes going into CPs an enticement to revoke their baptism.

    It must have taken some time to cobble that convoluted reply together. However, an honest reply, rather than your usual routine of asking another question, would be nice. :D


  • #5841
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    aloyisious wrote: »
    I read the article and it seem's to me that it included more than same-sex marriage, but also a path towards another goal. If that path was followed here, we would be living in a theocracy where nothing less than the word of God, passed on human to human, would be used to decide all the everyday things we have to do. There would be no individual freedom of thought.

    I'm not sure if you realize this but Ireland and it's people, both south and north, were in thrall to the two main Christian churches, each using a form of theocracy to subjugate us.

    The problem with that is that God put brains into our heads so we could work out things for ourselves through natural individual thought processes. We had lost the use of that freedom, involuntarily given it up through being too reliant on what other humans told us was the word of God that we MUST obey. I reckon we have regained that freedom and will not willingly give it up again. I wish you God-speed in your endeavours.

    Good morning!

    You don't need to teach me about Ireland. I spent over 20 years there. I visit frequently.

    The article doesn't concern State laws. It rather simply asks what happens when one or more partners repent. He rather graciously gives advice for how a church should consider counselling one or both partners and their children and encouraging the church to get around them in love and support as they begin following their new life in Christ.

    The only place where he mentions the State is in saying that we must follow the laws of the State in dissolving the union and in dealing with damages in court even when as he rightfully states there is no Biblical framework in Christianity for the divorce of a gay marriage as there is none for a gay marriage itself.

    Walking with Jesus is costly. It is costly for all kinds of people in many ways. However it is worth it. I'm convinced.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • Advertisement
  • #5842
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    aloyisious wrote: »
    It must have taken some time to cobble that convoluted reply together. However, an honest reply, rather than your usual routine of asking another question, would be nice. :D
    How convoluted do you think it is? Either you intended to relate one to the other by placing them together or you didn't, and if you didn't intend to infer that entering into a CP followed on from taking the course of revoking baptism, I imagine you'll have a plausible explanation for your sentence. Pretty simple really.


  • #5843
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Absolam wrote: »
    How convoluted do you think it is? Either you intended to relate one to the other by placing them together or you didn't, and if you didn't intend to infer that entering into a CP followed on from taking the course of revoking baptism, I imagine you'll have a plausible explanation for your sentence. Pretty simple really.

    You continually choose to put the cart before the horse in an effort to look like you are asking reasonable questions. Examples of that are your "questions" above. You are writing about several things I wrote in a reply to Benny_cake about items I found while googling on defection from the church. You choose to cobble parts of them together to make up your "questions".

    The 1st item covered when the Vatican started and ended it's defection rule.

    The 2nd item included a post from a Mr Silver, a man who defected from the RCC, about a letter HE stated he got from the RCC Archbishop of Dublin regarding the revoking of his RCC baptism.

    If you bother to scroll back again at my post to Benny_cake, you will see they are separate items and that I never wrote that the CP couple revoked their baptisms, just defected from the RCC. However, as you have already quoted selective parts of what I wrote to Benny_cake, i know you have read it and know what's in it.

    You also wrote that you "doubted" the CP story & "doubted" I would answer questions about that particular CP. . If you choose to "doubt" what I wrote about my friends CP, that's your privilege. I know that you know the only way to confirm what I wrote about their CP would be to call my friends along here to verify the story of their CP. I certainly won't insult them by putting them to your interrogation and for whatever pleasure you might get from it.


  • #5844
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good evening!

    Could I suggest that it may be more fruitful to progress on a wider discussion point?

    We can't verify the claims absolutely. Absolam doesn't believe it. Others can decide for themselves.

    I think there's been some pretty good questions recently and probably there are more worth exploring.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5845
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good evening!

    Could I suggest that it may be more fruitful to progress on a wider discussion point?

    We can't verify the claims absolutely. Absolam doesn't believe it. Others can decide for themselves.

    I think there's been some pretty good questions recently and probably there are more worth exploring.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    Ta for the advice.


  • #5846
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Couple of nice things to report:

    Italian Chamber of Deputies has voted to allow Same-Sex Civil Unions....

    https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j...HaFvIh01AbAGNg

    https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j...p68Y-BRZkeW0JQ

    Germany is to rehabilitate gay men tried and sentenced under laws predating the Nazi era, circa it's unification in the mid-1800's, and which, after WW2, were carried over into state criminal law in both the German nations after 1945.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/germany-to-rehabilitate-gay-men-convicted-in-post-war-era-1.2644237


  • #5847
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    aloyisious wrote: »
    You continually choose to put the cart before the horse in an effort to look like you are asking reasonable questions. Examples of that are your "questions" above. You are writing about several things I wrote in a reply to Benny_cake about items I found while googling on defection from the church. You choose to cobble parts of them together to make up your "questions".
    Actually, my "questions" above were about one specific sentence (at your behest I might add): "A lot of gay people took that course and went into CP's" in the context of it's original post. No cobbling whatsoever.
    aloyisious wrote: »
    The 1st item covered when the Vatican started and ended it's defection rule.
    The 2nd item included a post from a Mr Silver, a man who defected from the RCC, about a letter HE stated he got from the RCC Archbishop of Dublin regarding the revoking of his RCC baptism.
    As I recall, you brought up these after I questioned your 'various established policy facts' (which I don't think were in reply to Benny-cake). Didn't you? And then I replied to your new stories. Sorry if you're having trouble following what you said; I've provided hyperlinks to help you.
    aloyisious wrote: »
    If you bother to scroll back again at my post to Benny_cake, you will see they are separate items and that I never wrote that the CP couple revoked their baptisms, just defected from the RCC. However, as you have already quoted selective parts of what I wrote to Benny_cake, i know you have read it and know what's in it.
    If I may, what you originally said was:
    aloyisious wrote: »
    Fourth was a policy (the DEFECTION policy) whereby it would make voluntary legal agreements in writing with Gay people to leave the church, revoking it's baptism. The church, to go long with the policy, had a pro-forma legal letter for the gay person to sign to that effect. A lot of gay people took that course and went into CP's, which the church didn't approve of. The church rescinded the policy, and the letters validity, but didn't tell those gay people who'd believed - in good faith - that they were NO LONGER members of the RCC.
    . Perhaps you just didn't scroll back far enough?
    aloyisious wrote: »
    You also wrote that you "doubted" the CP story & "doubted" I would answer questions about that particular CP. . If you choose to "doubt" what I wrote about my friends CP, that's your privilege. I know that you know the only way to confirm what I wrote about their CP would be to call my friends along here to verify the story of their CP. I certainly won't insult them by putting them to your interrogation and for whatever pleasure you might get from it.
    Hmm. I certainly said "I find it hard to believe aloyisious's statement " it was here in Ireland, the ceremony & afters being in Enniskerry. When I heard about the revocation of the defection, I told the person concerned and he said he hadn't heard, would check it out. That was several years ago, some time after he and his partner CP'd when it was legalised in 2010." is actually true. Nobody 'CP'd' when it was legalised in 2010, and it's hard to imagine anyone doing so in 2011 thought that a non-civil act done away with at least sixteen months previously (if aloyisious's friends were amongst the very first registered partnerships in 2011) could have any relevance to their civil partnership.", and prior to that, that I didn't think that you would provide any evidence for your preceding allegations. So you're almost right about what I wrote, if not actually right. Still, how you substantiate your stories is entirely up to you.


  • #5848
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,953 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Absolam wrote: »
    Actually, my "questions" above were about one specific sentence (at your behest I might add): "A lot of gay people took that course and went into CP's" in the context of it's original post. No cobbling whatsoever.
    As I recall, you brought up these after I questioned your 'various established policy facts' (which I don't think were in reply to Benny-cake). Didn't you? And then I replied to your new stories. Sorry if you're having trouble following what you said; I've provided hyperlinks to help you.

    If I may, what you originally said was:
    . Perhaps you just didn't scroll back far enough?
    Hmm. I certainly said "I find it hard to believe aloyisious's statement " it was here in Ireland, the ceremony & afters being in Enniskerry. When I heard about the revocation of the defection, I told the person concerned and he said he hadn't heard, would check it out. That was several years ago, some time after he and his partner CP'd when it was legalised in 2010." is actually true. Nobody 'CP'd' when it was legalised in 2010, and it's hard to imagine anyone doing so in 2011 thought that a non-civil act done away with at least sixteen months previously (if aloyisious's friends were amongst the very first registered partnerships in 2011) could have any relevance to their civil partnership.", and prior to that, that I didn't think that you would provide any evidence for your preceding allegations. So you're almost right about what I wrote, if not actually right. Still, how you substantiate your stories is entirely up to you.

    Really?


  • #5849
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Really?
    Nah... I just made it all up. The hyperlinks go nowhere, and you never said any of what I quoted. I'm so ashamed you caught me out :(

    Oh no wait! Yes really :D


  • #5850
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    solodeogloria wrote: »

    Is there anything that is more challenging for a homosexual in respect to coming to Jesus than it is for anyone else? No. The only difference is that different things are challenging. The same expectation in respect to sexual relationships applies to me as a single heterosexual. There are numerous other areas that are more challenging to me particularly than would be to others. Why do you of necessity believe it is more likely that I will find someone to marry than a homosexual will? I'm not even sure or convinced of that. What I am sure is even if that doesn't happen, following Jesus is better and putting that aside is far better ultimately than looking for any avenue to express my sexual desires.
    I think you are missing the point somewhat. I am not arguing or commenting on the likelihood or difficulty of you finding a spouse when compared to a gay man. The point is, once you do find a spouse, assuming, of course, you are heterosexual, you will be free to have sex. The gay man, on the other hand, will not be free to have sex, assuming he wants to stay in the church. Even though he has found his love, and he has married that person, most christian churches will not recognise that marriage and will still consider any sex they have to be sinful.

    So for you, again assuming you are straight, you are only putting your sexuality aside until you et married, but a gay man, or presumably woman, is expected to put his or her sexuality aside for his or her entire life, even when they have met and married the person they want to spend the rest of their life with. Not really the same.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Now do I expect an atheist to be pleased with that? No. But then I'm not trying to please you, I'm simply trying to offer the truth to you. Walking with Jesus is far better than walking with the world.
    I seriously doubt that when walking with your Jesus required the denial of something as fundamental as one's sexuality.

    solodeogloria wrote: »
    If living for my own selfish desires now means that I lose out on life in the age to come, then I'd rather reject the selfish desires. God's way is better than the wide path that leads to destruction.
    So loving and being loved is a selfish desire? This is one of the most insidious things about religion. It takes something that should be, and I, beautiful and tried to make it dirty, wrong and ugly.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    By the by, I never said that people who have sex can't be Christians. The church is full of sinners who are striving to repent. That doesn't mean that we are perfect, it just means that we are sinners who need a Saviour and who long to live for Him. Jesus says go and sin no more, and that is far better. Lots of us will struggle here and now, but as God's people we aim to help one another.
    You'll have to forgive me, given you christians themselves can't seem to agree with what is allowed and what isn't, which is presumably the reason why there are over 30,000 different flavours of it, I do sometimes get a little confused about what is allowed and what isn't. I know that gay people are welcome in various churches, I think that is the same for probably most of the 30,000, but are you saying that in your church it is also ok for them to be sexually active with a member of the same sex?


  • Advertisement
  • #5851
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I think you are missing the point somewhat. I am not arguing or commenting on the likelihood or difficulty of you finding a spouse when compared to a gay man. The point is, once you do find a spouse, assuming, of course, you are heterosexual, you will be free to have sex. The gay man, on the other hand, will not be free to have sex, assuming he wants to stay in the church. Even though he has found his love, and he has married that person, most christian churches will not recognise that marriage and will still consider any sex they have to be sinful.

    So for you, again assuming you are straight, you are only putting your sexuality aside until you et married, but a gay man, or presumably woman, is expected to put his or her sexuality aside for his or her entire life, even when they have met and married the person they want to spend the rest of their life with. Not really the same.

    I seriously doubt that when walking with your Jesus required the denial of something as fundamental as one's sexuality.


    So loving and being loved is a selfish desire? This is one of the most insidious things about religion. It takes something that should be, and I, beautiful and tried to make it dirty, wrong and ugly.

    You'll have to forgive me, given you christians themselves can't seem to agree with what is allowed and what isn't, which is presumably the reason why there are over 30,000 different flavours of it, I do sometimes get a little confused about what is allowed and what isn't. I know that gay people are welcome in various churches, I think that is the same for probably most of the 30,000, but are you saying that in your church it is also ok for them to be sexually active with a member of the same sex?

    Good morning!

    I think the difference between you and I is that I don't think sexuality is as fundamental as you make out. I personally don't identify myself primarily by who I am attracted to.

    If people want to stay in church it will presumably be because they want to be faithful to Christ and to Iive for Him. Part of living for Him means understanding what sex and marriage are for in the Christian understanding.

    The reality is that all of us in the Christian walk will find numerous things incredibly challenging in the Christian life. There is no reason why this particular issue should be elevated any higher than the other areas that I and others struggle with on a daily basis. We're all convinces that following Jesus is better and there are others who are attracted to the same-sex within our churches who are convinced of the same.

    Seeking anything else outside of what God has determined for us in His goodness is selfish from a Christian perspective because we are living for ourselves in flat opposition to the God who created us and knows what is best for us.

    That is as much true of my desires that lead me to ignore God's Word. I will put my hand up very clearly if someone asks me if I am a sinner. I know I am but I don't argue that the sins I battle with daily are good and I know I need to repent and depend on God to help me live the life He wants me to lead.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


Advertisement