Homosexuality vs. Mildew

Graces7

liamw wrote: »

Hmm so if a Law goes 'back many thousands of years', then it is correct to abide by it now? Or is it just those laws as described by your chosen holy book? What exactly is your criteria...



Are you saying it's wrong to be homosexual just because there is no desire to engage with the opposite sex? Although it may seem paradoxical, did it ever occur to you that the gene/s to promote homosexual behaviour has been selected just like the genes that make you want to have sex.
(Example paper)

You are making a Darwinian argument there which is quite strange...

It all comes back to what your holy book says right? IS the whole bible the divine word of god, or only certain parts of it?

I missed one very salient point. So did you.

Physical sexual activity is not compulsory or necessary.

It is not ever the tendency ; any more than heterosexual attraction is.

it is the act itself; that tiny and trivial act called sex.

Any sexual activity outside Christian marriage.

So the "orientation" matters little.

Unless you allow it to consume your life to the extent that many seem to; and THAT is "disordered". As is the desire to publicise private life.

I am old now; there are friends of decades and we have never once discussed what some would call our "sex lives" Why should we? there are many much more interesting and important things in life.

Miracletown

Please don't make the issue of homosexuality purely about sex either though. Human sexuality is a lot more than the physical act of sex which is why I've heard celibate nuns say that they are deeply in touch with their sexuality.

Homosexual relationships, whether you believe them to be right or wrong, are no more about sex than heterosexual relationships. You could argue that gay men have more sex than straight couples but research also shows that lesbians have less sex than straight couples.


For those who argue that it is all about sex, would you be okay with me saying that your relationship with your husband or wife is based purely on sex? Or that sex is the only difference between your partner and your friends? On a very primitive level I suppose you could say it is but practically it's not. We aren't animals and love and romantic relationships involve a lot more than lust. Even people who aren't Christians recognise that and know the difference between a slutty one night stand and the beginning of a relationship.

While the orientation itself may be acceptable, in my experience, most Christians believe that not acknowledging that as a struggle is a sin. I doubt anyone who believes homosexual sex is wrong would be okay with two lesbians sitting on a sofa cuddling and holding hands even if they were not sexually active. It's unlikely they would object if it was a straight couple.

Once again if you believe that gay relationships are wrong whatever the context then fair enough but let's not enhance the myth that gay relationships are about nothing more than sex. It does nothing to further the truth and it adds to a negative stereotype of gay people which is not necessary.

Michaelrsh

number10a wrote: »

First of all, I am not trolling. I have a genuine question. Why is homosexuality condemned by most Christian denominations, yet mildew is not?

I'll elaborate; homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus 18:22. Mildew is also looked down upon with much the same contempt in Leviticus 14:33-57. This is the same book of the Bible. Yet, why is it that nowadays we don't have Christian churches calling upon us to vacate our houses for a week if we find mildew in it and clean it with bird's blood, yet a man cannot sleep with another man? Why is one rule from the same book blatantly ignored, while another one enforced to the letter?

There are other examples of ignored rules from Leviticus, such as the ban on pork and ostrich meat. But the mildew one stands out as one of the most ridiculous rules I've ever come across.

What the hell is Mildew?

liamw

Graces7 wrote: »

I missed one very salient point. So did you.

Did I? I'm just saying your decision should not be based on Darwinian principles in any way, and even if it was, you'd be wrong about homosexuality.

Physical sexual activity is not compulsory or necessary.

Nothing is in the strictest sense.

It is not ever the tendency ; any more than heterosexual attraction is.

Sexual lust or desire is an evolved trait. We have a 'tendancy' to want to have sex if that's what you want to call it.

it is the act itself; that tiny and trivial act called sex.

The act itself is just an extension of the phenotype above. Think you're getting off topic now.

Any sexual activity outside Christian marriage.

So the "orientation" matters little.

Huh?

I am old now; there are friends of decades and we have never once discussed what some would call our "sex lives" Why should we? there are many much more interesting and important things in life.

What's your point? Aren't you against homosexuality???

Graces7

Miracletown wrote: »

Please don't make the issue of homosexuality purely about sex either though. Human sexuality is a lot more than the physical act of sex which is why I've heard celibate nuns say that they are deeply in touch with their sexuality.

Homosexual relationships, whether you believe them to be right or wrong, are no more about sex than heterosexual relationships. You could argue that gay men have more sex than straight couples but research also shows that lesbians have less sex than straight couples.


For those who argue that it is all about sex, would you be okay with me saying that your relationship with your husband or wife is based purely on sex? Or that sex is the only difference between your partner and your friends? On a very primitive level I suppose you could say it is but practically it's not. We aren't animals and love and romantic relationships involve a lot more than lust. Even people who aren't Christians recognise that and know the difference between a slutty one night stand and the beginning of a relationship.

While the orientation itself may be acceptable, in my experience, most Christians believe that not acknowledging that as a struggle is a sin. I doubt anyone who believes homosexual sex is wrong would be okay with two lesbians sitting on a sofa cuddling and holding hands even if they were not sexually active. It's unlikely they would object if it was a straight couple.

Once again if you believe that gay relationships are wrong whatever the context then fair enough but let's not enhance the myth that gay relationships are about nothing more than sex. It does nothing to further the truth and it adds to a negative stereotype of gay people which is not necessary.

You are stereotyping the reactions of others here wildly.

Cuddling in the way you describe is is sexual per se. And it would be embarassing if any couple acted like that publically.

No one is saying that any relationship is simply about sex; again that is your misinterpretation.

Religious celibacy is an entirely separate matter altogether. You are totally misunderstanding what was said there; nothing to do with homosexuailty either.

Graces7

One point here only

No we are not all seeking active sex.

That is where your understanding fails completely.. so that discussion becomes impossible.

Your basic tenet is invalid...

Who brought Darwin into this? Certainly not me! REALLY!

liamw wrote: »

Did I? I'm just saying your decision should not be based on Darwinian principles in any way, and even if it was, you'd be wrong about homosexuality.



Nothing is in the strictest sense.



Sexual lust or desire is an evolved trait. We have a 'tendancy' to want to have sex if that's what you want to call it.



The act itself is just an extension of the phenotype above. Think you're getting off topic now.



Huh?



What's your point? Aren't you against homosexuality???

liamw

Graces7 wrote: »

One point here only

No we are not all seeking active sex.

That is where your understanding fails completely.. so that discussion becomes impossible.

Your basic tenet is invalid...

Who brought Darwin into this? Certainly not me! REALLY!

Let's back up then. Why do you think homosexuality is wrong? Don't just say 'it's in the bible'. Why, in your opinion is it in the bible?

g5fd6ow0hseima

This thread is hilarious.

Seriously, who cares about homosexuality?

Also why has there been 8 pages of discussion on the matter?

This is the year 2010, and some of you people are dragging up biblical quotes, in order to discuss the issue of homosexuality.

I dont wish to troll, but this is just hilarious.

Fanny Cradock

Your amusement is noted. Though I suspect that the irony that an atheist started this thread is lost on you.

Miracletown

Graces7 wrote: »

You are stereotyping the reactions of others here wildly.

Cuddling in the way you describe is is sexual per se. And it would be embarassing if any couple acted like that publically.

No one is saying that any relationship is simply about sex; again that is your misinterpretation.

Religious celibacy is an entirely separate matter altogether. You are totally misunderstanding what was said there; nothing to do with homosexuailty either.

I disagree. I haven't stereotyped anyone and I made no accusations. I just think there's some things that are important to be kept in mind during discussions like this and I think my point did have some validity.

Regardless of your opinion on cuddling I think you got my point. If they held hands? If they sent text messages to each other with love you at the end and smiled when they got them? Either way there is a point where you would accept that behaviour coming from a heterosexual couple but not a homosexual one. It is not simply an objection to sexual acts.

I actually don't understand why you have a problem with my post because I don't see how it undermines your beliefs in any way.

Graces7

liamw wrote: »

Let's back up then. Why do you think homosexuality is wrong? Don't just say 'it's in the bible'. Why, in your opinion is it in the bible?

Please read my previous posts; I am not going to repeat myself over and over for the sake of argument.
This has been explained time and again.

Graces7

Miracletown wrote: »

I disagree. I haven't stereotyped anyone and I made no accusations. I just think there's some things that are important to be kept in mind during discussions like this and I think my point did have some validity.

Regardless of your opinion on cuddling I think you got my point. If they held hands? If they sent text messages to each other with love you at the end and smiled when they got them? Either way there is a point where you would accept that behaviour coming from a heterosexual couple but not a homosexual one. It is not simply an objection to sexual acts.

I actually don't understand why you have a problem with my post because I don't see how it undermines your beliefs in any way.

What I would or would not hyothetically "accept" whatever that means, is a total red herring. ( I am not in the habit of reading text messages anyways; that is what I mean by your approach and method; it all reads like role playing.)

And I think that you know that..

And yes it is as others have said.

do you really think that anything you say could ???undermine my beliefs?? That these are issues that all of us here have not thought and prayed on deeply and over many years?

oceanclub

PDN wrote: »

Christian views on homosexual behaviour come from the New Testament, not from Leviticus.

Just to be clear, doesn't it only come from St. Paul, and not anywhere else in the New Testament?

P.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Your amusement is noted. Though I suspect that the irony that an atheist started this thread is lost on you.

An athiest started it?, and?

I was referring to the 8 pages of posts, not to who started the thread. To me, it shows that homosexuality is very much an issue within christianity. If it was not, the whole thread would never have warranted so much attention in the first place.

I guess im wrong though.

Graces7

oceanclub wrote: »

Just to be clear, doesn't it only come from St. Paul, and not anywhere else in the New Testament?

P.

No; that is not so.

Please read my first post in this thread. Jesus affirms Mosaic ie Old Testament law where sexuality is concerned. ie Leviticus stands.

Miracletown

Graces7 wrote: »

What I would or would not hyothetically "accept" whatever that means, is a total red herring. ( I am not in the habit of reading text messages anyways; that is what I mean by your approach and method; it all reads like role playing.)

And I think that you know that..

And yes it is as others have said.

do you really think that anything you say could ???undermine my beliefs?? That these are issues that all of us here have not thought and prayed on deeply and over many years?

I don't get what you mean about the roleplaying thing but I don't think it matters anyway as you seem to think I'm trying to argue something that I'm not.

I've already said that I respect and understand the Christian position on immorality and homosexuality and I'm not trying to change that. Why would I be trying to undermine your beliefs and why would I think that you haven't put prayer and thought into them? Nothing I have said has indicated that.

I also believe that in discussing homosexuality we have to make an effort to not misrepresent the gay community. Don't try and turn what I'm saying into hostility. The only change I want to see is better relations between the church and the gay community.

Graces7

Miracletown wrote: »

I don't get what you mean about the roleplaying thing but I don't think it matters anyway as you seem to think I'm trying to argue something that I'm not.

I've already said that I respect and understand the Christian position on immorality and homosexuality and I'm not trying to change that. Why would I be trying to undermine your beliefs and why would I think that you haven't put prayer and thought into them? Nothing I have said has indicated that.

I also believe that in discussing homosexuality we have to make an effort to not misrepresent the gay community. Don't try and turn what I'm saying into hostility. The only change I want to see is better relations between the church and the gay community.

In what way? your last sentence I mean?

The fact that you use "the gay community" says it all really. it becomes a ghetto that no one can manage.

Many homosexuals simply quietly integrate, living celibate and holy lives, making no fuss re tiny issues like sexuality.

oceanclub

Graces7 wrote: »

No; that is not so.

Please read my first post in this thread. Jesus affirms Mosaic ie Old Testament law where sexuality is concerned. ie Leviticus stands.

Neither Jesus or St Paul said anything against slavery. Indeed, St Paul returned a slave to their owner, in contravention of Deuteronomy:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

So, by your own logic, slavery is allowed.

P.

antiskeptic

Kenny Red Jeans wrote: »

This thread is hilarious.

Pride comes before a fall..

Seriously, who cares about homosexuality?

Seriously? Lot's of people - including homosexuals

Also why has there been 8 pages of discussion on the matter?

See above.

This is the year 2010, and some of you people are dragging up biblical quotes, in order to discuss the issue of homosexuality.

That's because some of us, Christians an no, are examining the Christian view of homosexuality. Given that Christianity is based on what's written in the Bible, the fact it's 2010 is neither here nor there

I dont wish to troll, but this is just hilarious.

Fair enough. I don't wish to say you're unintelligent, but this post of yours was unintelligent.

Zombrex

Graces7 wrote: »

Jefferson is not God.

Neither are you, so I'm sure you will appreciate when you say

The Laws on homosexuality go back many thousands of years. Period. They are Divine law. Nothing less. Strong and steadfast.

that doesn't mean very much. You could simply be as wrong in your understanding of the Bible, as I imagine you believe Jefferson was.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

that doesn't mean very much. You could simply be as wrong in your understanding of the Bible as Jefferson was.

Again to clarify, this whole 'in your understanding' is a red-herring. There are things that are clear, and other things that aren't as clear. With regards to a man having sex with another man, it is concise and to the point. It really is not about interpretation.

It seems to be quite common for opponents of the bible to try make out that you can't make out the meaning of anything in it. that it wide open to inerpretation. The fact is though, only certain parts are a bit unclear, and on this occasion its very concise.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Again to clarify, this whole 'in your understanding' is a red-herring. There are things that are clear, and other things that aren't as clear.

And who defines what should be clear and what isn't clear? You?

JimiTime wrote: »

It seems to be quite common for opponents of the bible to try make out that you can't make out the meaning of anything in it.

These people aren't opponents of the Bible, they considered themselves good Christians. What they oppose is your interpretation of the Bible, which they see as flawed and out of date (bit like the slavery thing)

Simply because you dismiss them as being dishonest, again, doesn't really mean much. It is just No True Scots Man nonsense, it is clear and if you don't agree it is clear you are being dishonest, QED.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

And who defines what should be clear and what isn't clear? You?

Its not about people defining whats clear and whats not. Its simple communication. Wolfsbanes post on the last page described it.

If someone says 'Do not do such and such', then its simple and basic to understand. So in essence, the writer is who makes it clear or not. What you are doing is redefining language to say nothing is ever clear.

What they oppose is your interpretation of the Bible, which they see as flawed and out of date.

And simply put, they're wrong. I accept that they oppose it. However, they oppose it because thay wish to engage in an act that is considered sinful. They present no credible arguement. Not a surprise, in that it is very difficult to argue against something so plain and concise.

Simply because you dismiss them as being dishonest, again, doesn't really mean much.

I agree. My dismissing them means little, its a personal conclusion. However, the fact that there is nothing to interpret certainly raises a question mark about their honesty.

It is just No True Scots Man nonsense, it is clear and if you don't agree it is clear you are being dishonest, QED.

Its actually nothing to do with 'No true scots man'. Its observing something that has a clear and concise meaning, and someone who has a clear agenda, trying to make it mean something else. My only agenda is simply trying to understand what the writer is saying, and thankfully, on this occasion it is clear as to what is being said. No credible arguement is available to the contrary. It really is that simple and I'm surprised you think that it is open to interpretation.

Fanny Cradock

Don't bother, Jimi. We all know where this is going. Truth is unknowable and your interpretation is as valid as the next persons.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

If someone says 'Do not do such and such', then its simple and basic to understand. So in essence, the writer is who makes it clear or not.

But nothing makes sense without the context in which it was said. Otherwise people would be thinking the law is saying don't "lie" with a man.

From the very get go you need context to even know that they are talking about sex.

You introduce sex as the interpretation of what they are talking about. I imagine you will say it is clearly talking about sex so that isn't an issue. It is obviously about sex, who cares about two men lying down in a bet together.

Which is the point.

These people believe it is clearly talking about heterosexuals having same sex with each other because that is what was common in Egypt, referenced at the top of the passage. And the same context exists when it is mentioned again in the New Testament.

It is easy to get to this interpretation, whether you accept it or not (I frankly think your holy book is made up nonsense, but I doubt you agree). The idea that they are redefining language in a dishonest fashion is frankly ridiculous.

Think of it this way.

If you heard someone say "You shouldn't touch a woman's breasts" to a group of men, do you think this person is saying that these men should never touch a woman's breasts, even their wives and girlfriends.

Saying that it is clear what is being said is some what ridiculous, the context of when it is being said greatly changes the meaning.

Given the so many things you guys attribute to context it seems rather bizarre that you take issue with this.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Don't bother, Jimi. We all know where this is going. Truth is unknowable and your interpretation is as valid as the next persons.

Come on Fanny I expected a bit better from you than that nonsense, considering you have been following my posts.

There is obviously one valid interpretation, and I'm sure God will tell you when you get to heaven.

Graces7

Wicknight. What exactly is your agenda?

You say you are not a Christian; and you know what the Law for us is, so why all this?

Are you aiming to change how we think and act? No way.

It is not a question or matter for us of understanding but of simple obedience in love for Jesus.

Which you will not ever accept or grasp.

Your choice. Which you are free to make.

Jesus says, in the story of Dives and Lazarus... No you cannot rescue him; he had the law and the prophets to teach him how to live.

So be it.

Miracletown

Graces7 wrote: »

In what way? your last sentence I mean?

The fact that you use "the gay community" says it all really. it becomes a ghetto that no one can manage.

Many homosexuals simply quietly integrate, living celibate and holy lives, making no fuss re tiny issues like sexuality.

I mean gay people obviously. What would I mean if I said the church community? A ghetto that no one can manage? I almost feel like you are trying to twist what I'm saying into something else. The gay community is a term people use to describe those who identify as gay. Whether you agree with their lifestyles or not God still loves the gay community and so I think relations between them and the church matter.

What I mean by my last sentence is that having a situation where you've got gay people on one side and Christians on the other both feeling misunderstood and possibly hated is not right and I don't think its what Jesus would want. There's room and I would argue a great need for respectful disagreement and more understanding. There's also a lot of healing that needs to go on. If you're actually interested in the same thing then I recommend this book, which is written by a straight evangelical Christian who hasn't called himself gay affirming - http://www.amazon.com/Love-Orientation-Elevating-Conversation-Community/dp/0830836268

That's my heart and it involves bride building instead of more stone throwing which happens on both sides. Unless you'd rather pretend I'm trying to further some gay agenda but I think I've made myself pretty clear. And if it makes you feel any better I challenge the gay community on the same points when I hear them talk badly about the church and Jesus.

Zombrex

Graces7 wrote: »

Wicknight. What exactly is your agenda?

Your post isn't really contributing anything to the topic and going on passed experience as soon as I try and answer you in this thread I will get given out to for derailing the thread.

If you have genuine questions about my motivation for posting feel free to PM me.

Zombrex

Miracletown wrote: »

I mean gay people obviously.

Careful now :P

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Come on Fanny I expected a bit better from you than that nonsense, considering you have been following my posts.

There is obviously one valid interpretation, and I'm sure God will tell you when you get to heaven.

You apparently don't believe we can ever get to the core of truth - either scholarly endeavour or by other means - in this life. That's fine. But other than lodging my disagreement with this sentiment, I don't believe that much else will be solved by debating this further.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You apparently don't believe we can ever get to the core of truth - either scholarly endeavour or by other means - in this life.

That wasn't exactly my point. I've no issue with people getting to the core of the truth.

I'm happy to expand, but the old familiar wagons seem to be circuling so I'm not going to unless specifically asked to less the charge that I'm trolling is brought up again.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's fine. But other than lodging my disagreement with this sentiment, I don't believe that much else will be solved by debating this further.

ok, then don't debate it further.

Graces7

Miracletown wrote: »

I mean gay people obviously. What would I mean if I said the church community? A ghetto that no one can manage? I almost feel like you are trying to twist what I'm saying into something else. The gay community is a term people use to describe those who identify as gay. Whether you agree with their lifestyles or not God still loves the gay community and so I think relations between them and the church matter.

What I mean by my last sentence is that having a situation where you've got gay people on one side and Christians on the other both feeling misunderstood and possibly hated is not right and I don't think its what Jesus would want. There's room and I would argue a great need for respectful disagreement and more understanding. There's also a lot of healing that needs to go on. If you're actually interested in the same thing then I recommend this book, which is written by a straight evangelical Christian who hasn't called himself gay affirming - http://www.amazon.com/Love-Orientation-Elevating-Conversation-Community/dp/0830836268

That's my heart and it involves bride building instead of more stone throwing which happens on both sides. Unless you'd rather pretend I'm trying to further some gay agenda but I think I've made myself pretty clear. And if it makes you feel any better I challenge the gay community on the same points when I hear them talk badly about the church and Jesus.

Briefly.. I do not need to know anyone's sexual orientation, period, to accept them, and even when I am aware, that matters not.

I can think of several hereabouts who are clearly gay;makes no difference to how i am with them.

What most of us find very, very hard is the way so many homosexuals identify themselves first and foremost by their sexuality. And flaunt it.

There was an episode in Holland recently when large group dressed in pink wigs and carrying banners invaded a church and demanded communion ( RC)

The priest refused and of course there was a riot

Later there was a meeting with the Bishop; the "gays "apologised and promised never to do that again and the bishop and priest offered them communion.

so then they would be there as individuals.

The phrase 'the gay community" elicts images of banners etc

I don;t challenge anyone; unless they raise the subject directly. Sad that so many do is all.

A dear Orthodox lady was asked what she would do if any unmarried couple were staying at her house if she thought they would sleep together. Her reply was that she would quietly explain to them how she loved them and valued them as friends, but that they must in her house respect her beliefs.

She has a right and need to do that.

I have no idea re the sexuality of those beside me in church; it is their affair totally and ultimately between them and God.

For any group to try to avert that wrong is right is a different matter.

Miracletown

That's a nice post Graces7 and I have no problems with it. I don't really see how its relevant to mine either though. Perhaps you're grand with people who are gay but not all Christians are. There's still a lot of bridge building that needs done.

Graces7

Miracletown wrote: »

That's a nice post Graces7 and I have no problems with it. I don't really see how its relevant to mine either though. Perhaps you're grand with people who are gay but not all Christians are. There's still a lot of bridge building that needs done.

But it is the way that assumptions are made.

You are assuming there will be hostility before it happens and therefore are confrontational.

We are in Church to worship and praise. In peace together.

It is not the place to raise these issues, simply. Which is why my post is relevant to yours.

You are intent on challenge. So you create it.

Had I been in that church in Holland I would simply have prayed then left. That is not why we go to Mass.

It is inappropriate behaviour that exacerbates these things. Nothing to do with building bridges.

Miracletown

Graces7 wrote: »

You are assuming there will be hostility before it happens and therefore are confrontational.

This is where we disagree. In fact the above is how I've felt about your responses from the very beginning.

Graces7

Miracletown wrote: »

This is where we disagree. In fact the above is how I've felt about your responses from the very beginning.

And that is where your problem really lies.

Because you are blaming and judging others.

We can each only be and act as ourself; Jesus time and again teaches this.

I imagine that your reaction in the Dutch situation would have been different?

Our mass, our worship is Christ-centred. The first great commandment. To love Him ...Unless we unite in that there is no hope for our lives together.

Unless we know the peace of Christ within us, how can we be at peace with each other?

Jesus first always. He will build the bridges. If we give Him time and space to do that.

Too often we do not do that.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

What is illogical by its own premises of the "gay lobby" argument?

Their premise begins with homosexuality being morally OK. If they just follow the logic of that their argument would be mistaken yet honest.

But they wish to claim the Bible in support of their premise, and interpret its plain statements against homosexuality into the most bizarre manner. If we did that to the posts here we would not be thought of as behaving reasonably, but as blatant liars or in need of antipsychotic medication.

___________________________________________________________________
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Miracletown

Graces7 wrote: »

And that is where your problem really lies.

Because you are blaming and judging others.

Seriously I don't get your problem with me. You seem to want me to be antagonistic and judgemental when I've stated my position and heart behind things.

Graces7 wrote: »

I imagine that your reaction in the Dutch situation would have been different?

And maybe this is the problem. You have made assumptions about me also. I think it would extremely disrespectful for people to dress up in pink wigs and carry banners into a church service and I would have found that to be upsetting. That's not the way to do things and it only causes more division.

This is getting ridiculous. If you have issues with me or my positions please feel free to PM me for clarification because right now it seems like your issues are with me personally rather than anything specific that I am saying.

Graces7

I asked is all...

Miracletown wrote: »

Seriously I don't get your problem with me. You seem to want me to be antagonistic and judgemental when I've stated my position and heart behind things.


And maybe this is the problem. You have made assumptions about me also. I think it would extremely disrespectful for people to dress up in pink wigs and carry banners into a church service and I would have found that to be upsetting. That's not the way to do things and it only causes more division.

This is getting ridiculous. If you have issues with me or my positions please feel free to PM me for clarification because right now it seems like your issues are with me personally rather than anything specific that I am saying.

Miracletown

Graces7 wrote: »

I asked is all...

Sure you did.

Graces7

Miracletown wrote: »

Sure you did.

Miracletown

Graces7 wrote: »

You can PM me if you want to discuss things further. If not that's fine too.

Fanny Cradock

Miracletown wrote: »

You can PM me if you want to discuss things further. If not that's fine too.

Good idea. Sometimes the privacy of a PM (or a chat aided by a durty pint of Smithwicks) can be the best environment to resolve issues.

Graces7

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Good idea. Sometimes the privacy of a PM (or a chat aided by a durty pint of Smithwicks) can be the best environment to resolve issues.

No issues here; simply differing views is all. Why does that bother folk so much?

Smithwicks?

Fanny Cradock

Smithwicks - with a Guinness head for a treat.

Miracletown

Graces7 wrote: »

No issues here; simply differing views is all. Why does that bother folk so much?

Smithwicks?

It bothers people when it gets personal and then it does count as issues. If you want to continue discussing things to do with homosexuality and the Bible though then I'm cool with doing that publicly even if we disagree.

Although Smithwicks I really can't agree on... not my choice of drink at all! :P

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Smithwicks - with a Guinness head for a treat.

Horrible stuff, Smithwicks, tastes like the mildew part of the thread title.

Fanny Cradock

It is a drink for gentlemen. A drink of refinement and distinction.



I should not have expected better from ruffians.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Their premise begins with homosexuality being morally OK. If they just follow the logic of that their argument would be mistaken yet honest.

But they wish to claim the Bible in support of their premise, and interpret its plain statements against homosexuality into the most bizarre manner. If we did that to the posts here we would not be thought of as behaving reasonably, but as blatant liars or in need of antipsychotic medication.

I'm not quite following.

Their argument is that when you look at the context of what is condemned in the Bible it is same sex behavior between heterosexual married men (basically married men slipping off to male prostitutes)

They then say that homosexual relationships are nothing like this and as such are not prohibited by the Bible, and in fact given the general theme of the Bible prohibiting them would make no sense, why would God not want to loving homosexuals to be together, where as you can think of lots of reasons why he wouldn't want heterosexual men slipping off to lay with men as they lay with their women (infidelity, STDs etc)

Whether you agree with that interpretation or not it seems entirely logically consistent.