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…195196198200201…218

Comments

  • #5912
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    smacl wrote: »
    Good morning,

    I'd suggest the scale from liberal to conservative is a very subjective one. So while those belonging to more conservative churches might consider the vast majority of Catholics to belong to a more liberal church, many of those Catholics might in turn consider their church to be too conservative (regressive even) for their own understanding of what is good or bad for society. The overwhelming vote to allow gay marriage is a case in point, where the hierarchy wanted one thing based on doctrine, and the nominally Catholic population voted against that hierarchy. While numbers in conservative churches might be on the up, here in Ireland they're a rather small minority. I think you'll notice more progressive Christian churches are also increasing in size over here, bishop Michael Burrows take on the same sex marriage vote was very interesting for example.

    Good morning!

    Admittedly - I'm not referring to Roman Catholicism. I have very little experience with it.

    From experience over nearly 10 years as a Christian. I've seen that churches that take a high view of Scripture, and a high view of the necessity of Jesus' death and resurrection for example are growing.

    It is liberal churches who don't offer people much difference to the world around them that are in decline.

    The Church of Ireland where Michael Burrows is a bishop is an example of that. It is a church in decline largely because of the growth of theological liberalism. The same is true for it's counterpart in England. The core of churches that are growing, and the churches with the highest church attendance in the Church of England tend to be conservative evangelical or charismatic evangelical rather than theologically liberal churches.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5913
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    It is liberal churches who don't offer people much difference to the world around them that are in decline.

    The Church of Ireland where Michael Burrows is a bishop is an example of that. It is a church in decline largely because of the growth of theological liberalism.

    Good evening,

    Do you have any references to support that assertion? Specifically, relative decline of Church of Ireland say in comparison to the Catholic church, and similarly any study showing a causative link between theological liberalism and and decline in church attendance. While more conservative churches may be increasing their numbers, are those numbers numerically significant in terms of the overall population in Ireland? I think if we're going to compare relative growth and decline of various faiths, or atheism for that matter, it needs to be done in terms of the percentage of the total population that consider themselves adherents.


  • #5914
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    smacl wrote: »
    Good evening,

    Do you have any references to support that assertion? Specifically, relative decline of Church of Ireland say in comparison to the Catholic church, and similarly any study showing a causative link between theological liberalism and and decline in church attendance. While more conservative churches may be increasing their numbers, are those numbers numerically significant in terms of the overall population in Ireland? I think if we're going to compare relative growth and decline of various faiths, or atheism for that matter, it needs to be done in terms of the percentage of the total population that consider themselves adherents.

    Good evening!

    I grew up Anglican in Ireland. I guess that's my major thrust. I've seen what's happened in the Church of Ireland. An entire generation of people I grew up with at church (before I trusted in Jesus for myself) now don't bother.

    Conversely, when I've been both at evangelical churches in Ireland (they are few and far between), and when I've been in evangelical churches in Britain (including Anglican evangelical churches) I see the precise demographic segment that had been missing, and more than that a broad attendance of all ages.

    More recently I attended a church in central London which has roughly 1,200 people coming on a Sunday across their services. Another church further east towards the Essex countryside has about 500. In the first church quite a large portion in their 20's and 30's. In the second church evenly distributed with a portion of people in their 20's and 30's.

    It's not about the numbers per se, but these churches have healthy congregations and meaty Bible teaching. Meanwhile in theologically liberal churches the vast majority struggle to bring people in. That's right across Ireland. Country towns, city suburbs. Growth seems to be the exception. It isn't an unknown phenomenon that there has been decline in the Church of Ireland

    Why? I suspect that people know that if things get watered down that the church can't offer anything different.

    Now, is this a hypothesis. Yes. But then again you didn't provide a wealth of studies to demonstrate your position that conservative theology leads to decline.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5915
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Now, is this a hypothesis. Yes. But then again you didn't provide a wealth of studies to demonstrate your position that conservative theology leads to decline.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    In Roman Catholicism, the growth of traditional groups, religious orders dedicated to what is known as "traditional" Catholicism, is evident.

    Groups such as the Society of St.Pius X, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and
    Institute of Christ the King are increasing in number in terms of clergy and in terms of numbers.


  • #5916
    mdebets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭mdebets


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good evening!

    I grew up Anglican in Ireland. I guess that's my major thrust. I've seen what's happened in the Church of Ireland. An entire generation of people I grew up with at church (before I trusted in Jesus for myself) now don't bother.

    Conversely, when I've been both at evangelical churches in Ireland (they are few and far between), and when I've been in evangelical churches in Britain (including Anglican evangelical churches) I see the precise demographic segment that had been missing, and more than that a broad attendance of all ages.

    More recently I attended a church in central London which has roughly 1,200 people coming on a Sunday across their services. Another church further east towards the Essex countryside has about 500. In the first church quite a large portion in their 20's and 30's. In the second church evenly distributed with a portion of people in their 20's and 30's.

    It's not about the numbers per se, but these churches have healthy congregations and meaty Bible teaching. Meanwhile in theologically liberal churches the vast majority struggle to bring people in. That's right across Ireland. Country towns, city suburbs. Growth seems to be the exception. It isn't an unknown phenomenon that there has been decline in the Church of Ireland

    Why? I suspect that people know that if things get watered down that the church can't offer anything different.

    Now, is this a hypothesis. Yes. But then again you didn't provide a wealth of studies to demonstrate your position that conservative theology leads to decline.
    I do think it's a little bit more complicated then that, even so, liberal vs. conservative might be an issue, but I only see it as one of many issues.

    I think what you see is a move from main street believers (where you were baptized in a church, because your parents were and your grandparents too) and were you attended because of peer pressure , to a more a-la-card believer (not one, where you pick and choose from one believe, but where you choose the believe as a packages that suits you best).
    My recent experiences in this regard (in Ireland as well as Germany) is that the churches with high attendance are mostly the ones that give you a package of more then just a church service, but fellow ship around it while the ones with lower attendance were the ones were you go to a service once a week and home afterwards.

    Church music and style of service can also be an issue, as you often find more modern, engaging music and services at churches with higher attendance.


  • Advertisement
  • #5917
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good evening!

    I grew up Anglican in Ireland. I guess that's my major thrust. I've seen what's happened in the Church of Ireland. An entire generation of people I grew up with at church (before I trusted in Jesus for myself) now don't bother.

    Conversely, when I've been both at evangelical churches in Ireland (they are few and far between), and when I've been in evangelical churches in Britain (including Anglican evangelical churches) I see the precise demographic segment that had been missing, and more than that a broad attendance of all ages.

    More recently I attended a church in central London which has roughly 1,200 people coming on a Sunday across their services. Another church further east towards the Essex countryside has about 500. In the first church quite a large portion in their 20's and 30's. In the second church evenly distributed with a portion of people in their 20's and 30's.

    It's not about the numbers per se, but these churches have healthy congregations and meaty Bible teaching. Meanwhile in theologically liberal churches the vast majority struggle to bring people in. That's right across Ireland. Country towns, city suburbs. Growth seems to be the exception. It isn't an unknown phenomenon that there has been decline in the Church of Ireland

    Why? I suspect that people know that if things get watered down that the church can't offer anything different.

    Now, is this a hypothesis. Yes. But then again you didn't provide a wealth of studies to demonstrate your position that conservative theology leads to decline.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    Good morning,

    Church attendance is in decline in Ireland across the board, although whether this is more the case with specific denominations remains to be seen. Interestingly, once you look beyond the headline of the article you linked it states that the number of members of the CofI has grown from 95 thousand to 125 thousand between 1981 and 2006 which doesn't really support your notion of a church in decline. Having some friends who are an active part of this church in rural Ireland, by all accounts they have a vibrant community, though no idea how this is reflected elsewhere.

    I would also suggest that figures for religious practise in a city like London with a population 8.6 million of very diverse backgrounds are in no way an indicator of religious practise elsewhere, and would imagine among such a large and densely packed population very many minority religious groups enjoy good attendance rates. Among the larger nominally Christian population in Ireland and the UK however, attitudes towards sexuality both, gay and straight, illustrate the growing gulf between the church hierarchy and the population at large. I think that most people in Ireland and the UK consider the mainstream churches notions on sexuality to be archaic and inappropriate and have ditched them just as soon as the church was no longer able dictate behaviour.

    While you say numbers aren't important, I'd interested in the total number of members of your church across Ireland and the UK, as it does provide a sense of perspective when considered as a function of the total population size.


  • #5918
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    mdebets wrote: »
    Church music and style of service can also be an issue, as you often find more modern, engaging music and services at churches with higher attendance.

    I spent a bit of time in Indiana and Georgia some years back, and even as an atheist I could see the attraction of some of the baptist services. Great music and involvement.


  • #5919
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    smacl wrote: »
    Good morning,

    Church attendance is in decline in Ireland across the board, although whether this is more the case with specific denominations remains to be seen. Interestingly, once you look beyond the headline of the article you linked it states that the number of members of the CofI has grown from 95 thousand to 125 thousand between 1981 and 2006 which doesn't really support your notion of a church in decline. Having some friends who are an active part of this church in rural Ireland, by all accounts they have a vibrant community, though no idea how this is reflected elsewhere.

    I would also suggest that figures for religious practise in a city like London with a population 8.6 million of very diverse backgrounds are in no way an indicator of religious practise elsewhere, and would imagine among such a large and densely packed population very many minority religious groups enjoy good attendance rates. Among the larger nominally Christian population in Ireland and the UK however, attitudes towards sexuality both, gay and straight, illustrate the growing gulf between the church hierarchy and the population at large. I think that most people in Ireland and the UK consider the mainstream churches notions on sexuality to be archaic and inappropriate and have ditched them just as soon as the church was no longer able dictate behaviour.

    While you say numbers aren't important, I'd interested in the total number of members of your church across Ireland and the UK, as it does provide a sense of perspective when considered as a function of the total population size.

    Good morning!

    I'm still an Anglican. There are pockets of evangelicalism within the church.

    My point (like yours) is anecdotal. However, there is a clear noticeable difference. Even if I compared churches within London itself, evangelical ones with a high view of Scripture seem to be growing. I'm sure the difference would be more stark outside of London.

    The reality is that Michael Burrows or Paul Colton and other liberal bishops aren't causing growth in Church of Ireland ranks as you present. Why do you believe that? You also need to justify your position.

    Consistency in views with the secular would doesn't cause growth. Growth actually comes from teaching the Bible clearly from what I've seen. If I got the same thing in church as I got from the world I wouldn't bother. No, I come to church to hear Jesus speak into the world and often grate with it so I can repent and know Him more.

    I've got an intimate enough knowledge of what Church of Ireland churches are like from attending many over the years.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5920
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    My point (like yours) is anecdotal. However, there is a clear noticeable difference. Even if I compared churches within London itself, evangelical ones with a high view of Scripture seem to be growing. I'm sure the difference would be more stark outside of London.

    The reality is that Michael Burrows or Paul Colton and other liberal bishops aren't causing growth in Church of Ireland ranks as you present. Why do you believe that? You also need to justify your position.

    I think you're making a dangerous extrapolation with your experience of London to an entirely different demographic in Ireland. The article you linked to support the decline in the Church of Ireland actually shows a 30% growth in this church between 1981 and 2006 and has increased slightly again between then and 2011. While I have no experience of this church, other than anecdotal from friends who are involved, at face value it would not seem to be in decline in recent years. The headline on the article you linked actually referred to decline between 1870s and 1980s, which is really more about Irish history than current religious practise.
    Consistency in views with the secular would doesn't cause growth. Growth actually comes from teaching the Bible clearly from what I've seen. If I got the same thing in church as I got from the world I wouldn't bother. No, I come to church to hear Jesus speak into the world and often grate with it so I can repent and know Him more.

    I don't for a moment doubt any of the above, which would tally with collapse of church attendance across the UK and Ireland. At the same time, while there may be many who share your views, from a statistical or demographic standpoint would you consider those numbers are any way representative of the nominally Christian views of the larger population? I ask this in the context of the opening post relating to homosexuality, as from where I'm sitting, the vast majority of Christians in Ireland and the UK have no problem with it whatsoever. Most people in this country know full well that sex is an intrinsic part of any healthy relationship that goes well beyond procreation, as can be seen from the extensive range of contraception on display in most chemists, and this applies equally to gay and straight couples.


  • #5921
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good morning!

    My position is anecdotal as is yours, but it is based on experience.

    You've claimed that liberalism seems to stop decline. Or there is a correlation between it and people leaving.

    I've argued the opposite on experience.

    In all due respect why are you asking me to provide statistics it you have provided none yourself?

    I acknowledge my hypothesis is anecdotal. I could take time out to work on a PhD on it, but regrettably I've got other things to do.

    Nominal Christians are broadly speaking non-churchgoers. Therefore they are a part of the decline. The decline of nominal Christianity in favour of an active Christian faith is a very good thing. Active living practical Christianity broadly speaking draws people to churches because it offers people something different to the world. Census figures are not indicative of anything other than personal affiliation.

    The contraception point is moot because as a Protestant I can see there's no Biblical grounds for opposing it. It's a red herring when it comes to growing and declining churches.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • Advertisement
  • #5922
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    My position is anecdotal as is yours, but it is based on experience.

    You've claimed that liberalism seems to stop decline. Or there is a correlation between it and people leaving.

    I've argued the opposite on experience.

    In all due respect why are you asking me to provide statistics it you have provided none yourself?

    I acknowledge my hypothesis is anecdotal. I could take time out to work on a PhD on it, but regrettably I've got other things to do.

    Nominal Christians are broadly speaking non-churchgoers. Therefore they are a part of the decline. The decline of nominal Christianity in favour of an active Christian faith is a very good thing. Active living practical Christianity broadly speaking draws people to churches because it offers people something different to the world.

    The contraception point is moot because as a Protestant I can see there's no Biblical grounds for opposing it. It's a red herring when it comes to growing and declining churches.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    I think you're possibly misunderstanding my argument. What I suggested was that intransigent attitudes within the church hierarchy have contributed to declining attendance. The vote in favour of allowing gay marriage despite protestations from the Catholic church hierarchy illustrate this correlation, and I would tend to share Michael Burrows' speculation that there is likely a causative link here. I don't think there the decline of church attendance favours active Christian faith so much as religious indifference and wholesale rejection of certain more archaic notions of sin. Again, in the context of this thread, I would suggest that your view of gay sex being a sinful act would be a minority viewpoint among nominal Christians in this country, who's moral compass is guided well beyond scripture.


  • #5923
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good afternoon,

    And my question for you is what justification do you have for that given that there are lots of liberal churches in decline? I suspect that's true even in Michael Burrows' diocese.

    With that backdrop how do you explain healthy congregations which are Biblically faithful?

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5924
    beach_walker
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 976 ✭✭✭beach_walker


    IamtheWalrus wrote: »
    'God' this is depressing.

    It's the norm around here. Thread opens, immediate shout down from an atheist (cue a bunch of thanks), bit of your average Catholic bashing, bit of "sky fairy" stuff and you're away. I feel there should be a bingo card game for the way these go.


  • #5925
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    How was homosexuality perceived in Jesus's time?
    There was no concept of sexual orientation, but there was a concept of gender. So, in the Bible, when a man sleeps with another man like with a woman, it's an abomination. See, the emphasis is on a man betraying his status: He has feminized himself. So it's a gender violation as opposed to a sexual violation. The code of masculinity is very strong in the ancient world. Now, homoerotic relationships in the ancient world are really common, especially in the Greek and Roman worlds.

    Does Jesus himself ever address that?
    As a matter of a fact, one of Jesus's miracles is the healing the Centurion's boy. It's in Matthew and Luke. Matthew uses the word "pais"—you get the word pederasty from it, it means youth—to describe this boy, who is essentially a concubine to the Centurian. It's an erotic relationship. He comes to Jesus and asks for his boy to be healed. And Jesus asks if he should heal him, and he says, "I'm not worthy that you should come under my roof, but say the world and my boy will be healed." Jesus says about the faith of the Centurion, who is in a homoerotic relationship, that "there is no greater faith that I've encountered in Israel."

    What's great about that is that every time you go to communion on Sunday, millions of Catholics say, "Lord, I'm not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." They're uttering this homoerotic phrase that was uttered by a Centurion in an actual homosexual relationship with a youth. We've just sanitized that and forgotten those sort of things in the meantime. But a church of the second century would understand that this is a homosexual relationship and it wasn't a big deal.

    Source


  • #5926
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    smash wrote: »
    Source

    Ahh here! Claiming the centurion's confession as a homoerotic phrase is stretching it a bit. Its a clear statement of faith which earned the response from Jesus. The point being that it came from what would be considered a sinner, it could just as easily have been a thief or tax collector or adulterer. its the faith that's being rewarded not the sin being given a free pass.


  • #5927
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    beach_walker wrote: »
    It's the norm around here. Thread opens, immediate shout down from an atheist (cue a bunch of thanks), bit of your average Catholic bashing, bit of "sky fairy" stuff and you're away. I feel there should be a bingo card game for the way these go.

    A very good summary.
    The bunch of "thanks" is a very observant point.

    This section of the site contains an abundance of heat, but very little light.


  • #5928
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    alma73 wrote: »
    The chruchs teachings are very much based on following the Living person of Christ. When he is the centre of our lives then all is possible. The rules for a gay person are the same as a straight person. Sex has a meaning in natural law.
    There's no such thing as law in nature. Nature does whatever works. For the most part in nature sex is for reproduction, but in many animals, especially the higher primates like us sex is also a bonding tool. Bonobos use sex liberally for conflict resolution and bonding and gender isn't an obstacle. Even our own history has seen gay relationships be a normal and expected part of society.


    So homosexuality is common in nature even outside of the higher primates. Surely the actual work of god, that being the natural world trumps a book people wrote through 3rd hand accounts and what could be described as dream states. Homosexuality is a part of the natural world, therefore god intended it to exist, therefore any parts of the bible that report homosexuality to be wrong must at best be a misunderstanding of god's intentions.


  • #5929
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good evening!

    I'm really confused as to why this thread hasn't been merged into the megathread yet. It would be easier to point to how certain points have already been answered there.

    It would also spare meaningless repetition.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5930
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good afternoon,

    And my question for you is what justification do you have for that given that there are lots of liberal churches in decline? I suspect that's true even in Michael Burrows' diocese.

    With that backdrop how do you explain healthy congregations which are Biblically faithful?

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    You are drawing a comparison between groups are separated by many orders of magnitude in size. The decline in church attendees in Ireland from what I can gather is in the millions over recent years, most of which are Catholics as this is the majority religion in this country. Of the churches is decline, the most dramatic fall off according to the Irish Times was Northern Presbyterian, which is also staunchly conservative and called for a No vote in the recent equality referendum.

    I'm not sure what the increase rates in Biblically faithful congregations are in this country, but unless they number in the thousands they hardly make for a reasonable comparison with similar drop off rates in other protestant congregations, let alone the Catholic majority. According to Wikipedia Evangelical Christians made up 0.12% (5,276 followers) of the population in 2006 and this fell to 0.09% in 2011 (4,188 followers). To put this into some perspective, during the same period the Church of Ireland gained ~8,000 followers and the Catholic church 180,000. The fall off rate for weekly church attendance for Catholicism from 1973 to 2011 fell from 91% to 30% or in the order of two million people.


  • #5931
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,047 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    MOD NOTE

    Threads merged.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #5932
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good evening!

    I'm really confused as to why this thread hasn't been merged into the megathread yet. It would be easier to point to how certain points have already been answered there.

    It would also spare meaningless repetition.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    Thy will be done.


  • #5933
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,970 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    robdonn wrote: »
    Thy will be done.

    Blasphemer, the post read Mod note, not God note.


  • #5934
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Ahh here! Claiming the centurion's confession as a homoerotic phrase is stretching it a bit.
    Literally any interpretation of the bible is stretching it a bit.


  • #5935
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good morning!

    That just isn't true. Texts have contexts. Words have meanings. You believe that about any other text you read. The same is true of the Bible.

    Some interpretations are closer to the context and to the meaning than others. Some interpretations are more valid than others.

    I've offered my reasoning in this post as to why I believe the Bible doesn't affirm.

    The Bible explicitly forbids sexual relationships outside of marriage. It doesn't explicitly affirm it. I suspect that is why people resort to bizarre sexualised interpretations that go beyond the text. Like the bizarre centurion case quoted a few posts ago.

    I'd love to hear a good Christian argument for supporting gay marriage.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5936
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!

    That just isn't true. Texts have contexts. Words have meanings. You believe that about any other text you read. The same is true of the Bible.

    Some interpretations are closer to the context and to the meaning than others. Some interpretations are more valid than others.

    I've offered my reasoning in this post as to why I believe the Bible doesn't affirm.

    The Bible explicitly forbids sexual relationships outside of marriage. It doesn't explicitly affirm it. I suspect that is why pekple resort to bizarre sexualised interpretations that go beyond the text. Like the bizarre centurion case quoted a few posts ago.

    I'd love to hear a good Christian argument for supporting gay marriage.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    1) The ban belongs to a specific cultural context which no longer applies. When Israel was a raggle taggle bunch of refugees wandering the desert, open to attack they needed a lot of fighting men and as the replacement rate would be high, it was every man's duty to make babies and fight. This matches with the proscription on withdrawal (see the tale of Onan) and the fact that polygamy was legal but not polyandry. Also the obligation to marry any childless widowed sister in laws.
    That circumstance no longer applies and the proscription on homosexuality should go the way of the rest.

    2) Leviticus is a set of jewish holy laws and as christians does not apply to us. We don't keep the rest of them, why this one?

    3) Sodom and Gomorrah. Oh let's bury this one once and for all! the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, it was rape. Stop using this argument, it makes you look ignorant of the bible your using to make your point.

    4) Deuteronomy and Kings is explicitly about prostitution so does not apply to committed relationships which in a christian context is the type of homosexuality or hetrosexuality we are discussing.

    5) Romans. Hey, they discovered lesbians! Apart from this being Paul who has a rep as a woman hater anyway, this isn't about being gay, its about going against their nature and can be argued to be more about engaging in pagan ceremonies than the act itself. One to keep in mind but not definitive.

    6) Corinthians. Big problem with this is Paul makes up a word which we have to guess at its translation. The Greek 'malakoi arsenokoitai' is two words the first malakoi translates as soft and arsenokoitai seems to be a portmanteau of the greek for male and bed, Paul is the first recording of this so who knows what he's referring to. Assuming it means male homosexual is well just that, an assumption.

    7) Timothy. Again the word used is arsenokoita however this time the NIV translates it as perverts. Not sure what its relevance is.

    8) Oh Judges! Let's not go there. If this is a pissing contest as to how sinful one sin is over another I'm going with the gang rape and murder, just saying.

    OK there's my argument as to why none of the classic texts supporting the blanket ban fail. You can see I get a bit tired and emotional at these being used.
    In support of lifting it I'll draw attention to the numerous texts exhorting us to love and support each other in committed loving relationships.


  • #5937
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    That just isn't true. Texts have contexts. Words have meanings. You believe that about any other text you read. The same is true of the Bible.

    Some interpretations are closer to the context and to the meaning than others. Some interpretations are more valid than others.

    Interpret this for me please:

    Timothy 2:11-12 – "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."


  • #5938
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    smash wrote: »
    Interpret this for me please:

    Timothy 2:11-12 – "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

    I can answer that for you,
    You're taking that entire sentence out of context, it doesn't mean what you think it means and/or no longer applys.

    HOWEVER, ""You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." means the exact same thing that it states and is perfectly in context.....until somebody decides its not
    :pac:


  • #5939
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I can answer that for you,
    You're taking that entire sentence out of context, it doesn't mean what you think it means and/or no longer applys.

    HOWEVER, ""You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." means the exact same thing that it states and is perfectly in context.....until somebody decides its not
    :pac:
    Thanks. Just what I thought.


  • #5940
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I can answer that for you,
    You're taking that entire sentence out of context, it doesn't mean what you think it means and/or no longer applys.
    What does it mean and why doesn't it apply anymore?


  • Advertisement
  • #5941
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    ScumLord wrote: »
    What does it mean and why doesn't it apply anymore?

    You'll have to ask the scripture readers for that one,

    I was merely pre-empting the sort of answer they are likely to give for why a part about women isn't followed these days,
    :D


Advertisement