David Quinn and Gay Marriage

Newsite

TylerIE wrote: »

Read the passage as a whole, something that time and time again Christians insist on us doing.

These people were condemned because they turned on their natural orientation and were "burned by lust" towards men. These were not loving adult couples, this was an orgy of men with men and women with women.

By the logic of this passage lesbians or gay men who go against their nature, by engaging in relationships with those of the opposite sex, will equally find recompence of their error which was meet

I'm pretty sure even you don't believe any of this.

PatricaMcKay2

TylerIE wrote: »

Perhaps because its not an Islamic David Quinn speaking up against rights for gay men and lesbians in Ireland. Perhaps because its not Muslims who are inviting David Quinn to speak to their congregations. Or because its not some Islamic fundamentalist speaking up against gay men and Lesbians in the States, and conscripting millions of dollars of their flock for homophobic leglislation. And perhaps because other issues within Islam currently take precedence over LGBT rights. And perhaps because members of that faith who are in Ireland accept that they are in that is essentially a Christian country and that they cant impose their values on people who are not of their faith. Indeed I had an experience in the Islamic Cultural Centre a few years ago which really showed exactly how well people of that faith adopted to Irish norms when with Christians.

I have a lot of respect for Muslims (I dont have a lot of respect for most Irish people), and Muslims do have respect very often for Christians, but at the end of the day Islam cannot embrace secularism the same way that Christianity can, most Christians posting here are secularists in so far as we believe in the seperation of Church and State- Libiyia, one of the last secular state in the Muslim world has fallen and been replaced by an Islamic one, political Islam has just won the election in Tunisia and Iraq would be a fully fledged Islamic state by now if it wasnt for the brutal occupation. Islam demands the execution of sexual perverts, some Christians just oppose it being put on the same level of normal, healthy sexuality.

As I said before the best way to fight homosexuality is to struggle to create a society based on duty, discipline and caring- that would put greatly lower the number of homosexuals in the population.

HugoBradyBrown

Why would anyone dignify anything said or written by David Quinn with any public attention, here or elsewhere? He seems to be mistaken for some sort of public intellectual or profound thinker, when he is just a tabloid journalist, capable of producing and reproducing reams of tendentious vacuity. He is one of those people who gain the attention of the rest of the media because people rise to his bait, and so he becomes the default spokesman or the rent-a-quote mouthpiece for otherwise fossilized Jurassic opinions. Can we even be sure that he is not in fact engaged in some protracted trolling exercise, whether for amusement, or in furtherance of the interests of a proprietor?

To paraphrase what Maggie Smith says about a tiresome pianist in 'Gosford Park': don't encourage him with comment.


Hugo Brady Brown

Manach

Classic Ad hominem.

PatricaMcKay2

Manach wrote: »

Classic Ad hominem.

A lot of what he wrote is true though a chara.

I dont like homosexuality at all- but David Quinn, not in my name!

Christianity in Ireland is paying dearly for what it let go on in its name- remember the prophet saying to submit to the yoke of Bablyon?

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

I'm saying that you are applying reason and rationality to an understanding of how God can cause destruction and punish the unrighteous - that was the conundrum you posed. I'm not trying to build a rational case for this.

Ok, so I get what you are saying. If God hates, that is love. His wrath is love too. As in He cannot do anything in the absence of love. Ok. However, the reason I responded on this topic in the first place was to refute any assertion that you can do as you please and God will still love you. That is why I was arguing with your point that 'no matter what God is love and can do nothing but love (i.e. that His love precludes him from wrath, vengeance, etc)'.

So yes, I see what you were driving at.

But of what consequence is it to an atheist, you might say?

None what so ever other than I would imagine it leads a lot of people towards atheism

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

None what so ever other than I would imagine it leads a lot of people towards atheism

Certainly - a lot of people (esp homosexuals) will be 'given over', and the 'hearts hardened'.

To their eternal detriment.

marienbad

marienbad wrote: »

So when all is said and done homosexuality is a grievous sin according to the bible . So what ? Those that believe in the bible are free to live according to its precepts , those that don't are under no such obligation.


Can you give me any other objection to gay marriage other than the bibical injunction ? So far the only other objections than I can see have been on linguistic grounds.

Can i ask ( Newsite in particular) would you make homosexuality illegal or restricted in any way if you could ?

Any chance of a few answers on this ?

HugoBradyBrown

marienbad wrote: »

Any chance of a few answers on this ?

There comes a time where it becomes clear that it is pointless to engage in civil discourse with some people, because they are in principle immoveable, and in some cases frankly ignorant. Reasonable people who are not creationists, for example, do not engage with creationists in an effort to convert them. (Neither, however, do they pay much attention to Richard Dawkins, since his approach comes across as supercilious and intended to beard the very people he claims to intend to educate. The Dawkins approach applied in this gay marriage case would also yield meagre results, and could alienate more reasonable people in the middle ground than it would enlighten.)

On a topic like this one, it is wasteful of our mental resources and of our valuable equanimity and personal calm to try to enlighten people who are morally lost in primitive Bronze Age mythological storytelling. This issue will yield over time to the education of the young, rather than the transformation of hidebound and closed-minded contemporaries and coevals of our own. All the social advances of recent decades have led to previously unchallengeable opinions being relegated to being the preserve of eccentric minorities of people with rudimentary education or what the Americans call 'issues'. Normal, rational, sensible, intelligent people simply move on, and as time passes, the cries of these moral dinosaurs get fainter and fainter as society moves away from them and as their own ranks become depleted. They get left behind in their special magical religious ethical world of "mental reservations" and forth, and I always wish them the best of luck in their loneliness. It is we, though for other reasons we are a minority, who form part of the vast majority of intelligent society, not these reactionaries.


Hugo Brady Brown

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

Certainly - a lot of people (esp homosexuals) will be 'given over', and the 'hearts hardened'.

To their eternal detriment.

If that is what you want to happen I guess I can see why Christianity would be appealing to. I didn't specifically mean you when I said some people though, I am talking about others who are less, er, happy with the Christian notion of eternal torture for those who displease God and that this should be what we define love as.

old hippy

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

As I said before the best way to fight homosexuality is to struggle to create a society based on duty, discipline and caring- that would put greatly lower the number of homosexuals in the population.

What's the best way to fight ignorance and hatred, Patricia?

I think there's a few dictators who tried to lower homosexual numbers (esp. in Europe around 60 or 70 years ago).

You can't stop people from being gay, bisexual. It's natural.

You can stop ignorance, though.

cybercellesta

Our Lady's words to Jacinta Marto shortly before the little seer died: "More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason."


http://www.theimmaculateheart.com/

Zombrex

cybercellesta wrote: »

Our Lady's words to Jacinta Marto shortly before the little seer died: "More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason."


http://www.theimmaculateheart.com/

Which shows how silly it is. It is like making going to the bathroom a sin and then saying look how many people are in hell cause of going to the bathroom, isn't it terrible that everyone goes to the bathroom.

If God had wanted us not to have sex with each except in very specific circumstances he probably should have made it a whole lot less normal.

old hippy

cybercellesta wrote: »

Our Lady's words to Jacinta Marto shortly before the little seer died: "More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason."


http://www.theimmaculateheart.com/

In that case; I'm going to hell with the lid off, yes ma'am

Seriously, though. How worried are you about our souls, Cellesta?

I need to hear your thoughts on our souls.

Newsite

marienbad wrote: »

Any chance of a few answers on this ?

Don't worry, I hadn't forgotten you, I don't spend all my time on Boards ya know!

The answer - it doesn't matter. You could look at the position as regards the law as such:

Romans 7:4, "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

In other words, through being born again, you bring forth fruits (meet for repentance), and seek to not sin - meaning that naturally you should never come into conflict with law on earth.

You were asking for 'any other objection to gay marriage other than the biblical injunction'. There is no other injunction!

So it's not a question of 'would I make it illegal'. It's not about me. It's only a question of telling you what the Scripture says on the matter.

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

There comes a time where it becomes clear that it is pointless to engage in civil discourse with some people, because they are in principle immoveable, and in some cases frankly ignorant. Reasonable people who are not creationists, for example, do not engage with creationists in an effort to convert them. (Neither, however, do they pay much attention to Richard Dawkins, since his approach comes across as supercilious and intended to beard the very people he claims to intend to educate. The Dawkins approach applied in this gay marriage case would also yield meagre results, and could alienate more reasonable people in the middle ground than it would enlighten.)

On a topic like this one, it is wasteful of our mental resources and of our valuable equanimity and personal calm to try to enlighten people who are morally lost in primitive Bronze Age mythological storytelling. This issue will yield over time to the education of the young, rather than the transformation of hidebound and closed-minded contemporaries and coevals of our own. All the social advances of recent decades have led to previously unchallengeable opinions being relegated to being the preserve of eccentric minorities of people with rudimentary education or what the Americans call 'issues'. Normal, rational, sensible, intelligent people simply move on, and as time passes, the cries of these moral dinosaurs get fainter and fainter as society moves away from them and as their own ranks become depleted. They get left behind in their special magical religious ethical world of "mental reservations" and forth, and I always wish them the best of luck in their loneliness. It is we, though for other reasons we are a minority, who form part of the vast majority of intelligent society, not these reactionaries.


Hugo Brady Brown

Hello Hugo Brady Brown,

In response to your above post, what first strikes me is the fact that you open with

There comes a time where it becomes clear that it is pointless to engage in civil discourse with some people

, the irony of which (and of which you may be blissfully unaware), is that you appear to have deemed that point reached with a post out of the blue in conflict with same.

In other words, if that 'point has been reached', was it not time for you to log off in frustration, instead of 'engaging in civil discourse'?

Just saying is all.

Probably the second thing that strikes me is that you follow up:

civil discourse

with:

some people, because they are in principle immoveable, and in some cases frankly ignorant

.

I just thought that was interesting...

In relation to your 'Bronze Age' comment, something that I would say is overlooked in these kind of exchanges is the fact that the length of time which has elapsed since Scripture was written is completely irrelevant to both you and me, and any argument you might make. Do you really think that it makes any difference how old the writings are? And if you do want to use the 'old' argument -in the grand expanse of time since the world came into being, is approx 1,950 years ago really all that long? (being the length of time since the New Testament was written).

But the real point I want to make is that it matters not a whit how old the 'storytelling' is - if Jesus had stood before you and told you He was the Son of God, you still wouldn't have believed Him. Peter was chosen by him, and his faith was weak. So if even his faith was such, what could we say about yours?!

Next, everything you say in your post I agree with - because it fulfils Scripture perfectly. There will be people whose 'hearts will be hardened' - that is to say, the more you reject Christ...well, the more you reject Christ! Nothing makes sense to you, because you don't know God. And the further you move from him, the less you know Him.

Interestingly indeed, the following verse is from John 8 - the one Zombrex was quoting:

They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.


The world is moving further and further away from God, and you yourself confirm this in your post. This kind of stuff is not surprising to me, it's expected. We have just elected a President who is part of a party which can't wait to introduce baby-murder, but which was also happy to keep quiet on the matter in their filthy desire for power.

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

If that is what you want to happen I guess I can see why Christianity would be appealing to. I didn't specifically mean you when I said some people though, I am talking about others who are less, er, happy with the Christian notion of eternal torture for those who displease God and that this should be what we define love as.

Where did I say I wanted it to happen..!?

What about the definition of love as 'peace', 'happiness', 'fellowship', 'eternal life in Heaven'? Would they not be enough to get you on board?

Newsite

old hippy wrote: »

What's the best way to fight ignorance and hatred, Patricia?

I think there's a few dictators who tried to lower homosexual numbers (esp. in Europe around 60 or 70 years ago).

You can't stop people from being gay, bisexual. It's natural.

You can stop ignorance, though.

Ohhh give up your lies!!! Care to venture a link on 'it's natural'?

There is a 20 year old girl over on that LGBT forum saying she is 'confused' about her sexuality, and being told it's 'cool to have straight sex', 'cool to have gay sex', sure whatever you're having yerself. She's 20. If it's natural and you can't stop it, funny how it seems to be a choice, no? At 20 like, instead of being 'born with it'?

And it's not about being 'born that way', or not. Nobody is saying it's a sin to be attracted to the same gender. That's the bit that 'can't be helped'. It's acting on it that's the issue. Are you telling me people can't control their own behaviour?

old hippy

Newsite, what party wants to introduce baby murder????

Now if some party had the balls to introduce abortion, that would signify a real step forward.

Now, back to the topic. I've weighed up the pros and cons of your god and this afterlife of damnation and I've decided that it doesn't appeal to me as much as freeview, or even a good fumble so I'd rather not.

But this thread has introduced me to the concept of evil (which I'd previously dismissed). Now I know what evil is and it's defo not gay marriage/sex.

It's wearing a thin veneer of respectability about it but there's no disguising its intent. Oh yes.

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

Which shows how silly it is. It is like making going to the bathroom a sin and then saying look how many people are in hell cause of going to the bathroom, isn't it terrible that everyone goes to the bathroom.

If God had wanted us not to have sex with each except in very specific circumstances he probably should have made it a whole lot less normal.

Except...going to the bathroom is not a sin?!

Sex is a gift from God, which He intended for the marriage bed. Outside of that you are 'defiling' your own body, which was given to you by God, not for you to do whatever you want with it.

3For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

4That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

5Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

...

7For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

If you are having sex outside the marriage bed, you 'know not God'.

The 'sins of the flesh' are condemned more strongly than any other, which corresponds to what the other poster quoted above.

God doesn't just say to avoid/refrain from fornication, he actually says to flee from it!! Funny how murder, adultery, theft, etc don't even get that kind of condemnation.

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."

old hippy

Newsite wrote: »

Ohhh give up your lies!!! Care to venture a link on 'it's natural'?

There is a 20 year old girl over on that LGBT forum saying she is 'confused' about her sexuality, and being told it's 'cool to have straight sex', 'cool to have gay sex', sure whatever you're having yerself. She's 20. If it's natural and you can't stop it, funny how it seems to be a choice, no? At 20 like, instead of being 'born with it'?

And it's not about being 'born that way', or not. Nobody is saying it's a sin to be attracted to the same gender. That's the bit that 'can't be helped'. It's acting on it that's the issue. Are you telling me people can't control their own behaviour?

It's completely natural and not just in our species.

Look, if you want to wrap yourself up in a habit or cassock and shut yourself off from the rest of the world, that's cool with me. But people are going to continue to have sex with each other, hot, sweaty, lusty sex with each other. Loving sex, casual sex, same gender sex.

Because here's the deal. Sex is natural, it's fun and it's free. Mostly

Oh and one more thing; please don't quote from a story book, speak of hell etc and then call me a liar.

Newsite

old hippy wrote: »

It's completely natural and not just in our species.

Look, if you want to wrap yourself up in a habit or cassock and shut yourself off from the rest of the world, that's cool with me. But people are going to continue to have sex with each other, hot, sweaty, lusty sex with each other. Loving sex, casual sex, same gender sex.

Because here's the deal. Sex is natural, it's fun and it's free. Mostly

Oh and one more thing; please don't quote from a story book, speak of hell etc and then call me a liar.

Where am I calling you a liar? I'm not calling you a liar - I was addressing your words.

People are going to continue to go to Hell too. So I guess that's one more thing that won't change.

soterpisc

old hippy wrote: »

It's completely natural and not just in our species.

? this thread is off the walls...... Its converted to comparing us to animals.

Since there is not objective rationality in it, then it really is time to close it.

Newsite

old hippy wrote: »

It's completely natural and not just in our species.

Look, if you want to wrap yourself up in a habit or cassock and shut yourself off from the rest of the world, that's cool with me. But people are going to continue to have sex with each other, hot, sweaty, lusty sex with each other. Loving sex, casual sex, same gender sex.

'It's completely natural and not just in our species' is just herd-mentality speak.

I also wouldn't pretend to know how I live.

PatricaMcKay2

old hippy wrote: »

Because here's the deal. Sex is natural, it's fun and it's free. Mostly

Oh and one more thing; please don't quote from a story book, speak of hell etc and then call me a liar.

Whether something is natural or not depends on how you define natural.

I would define natural as that belonging to the nature of world before the fall, therefore I have my doubts about sex being natural but that is for another thread.

Its clear that you have no real interest or respect for Christianity; so why come to this part of the forum?

lmaopml

old hippy wrote: »

It's completely natural and not just in our species.

Look, if you want to wrap yourself up in a habit or cassock and shut yourself off from the rest of the world, that's cool with me. But people are going to continue to have sex with each other, hot, sweaty, lusty sex with each other. Loving sex, casual sex, same gender sex.

Because here's the deal. Sex is natural, it's fun and it's free. Mostly

Oh and one more thing; please don't quote from a story book, speak of hell etc and then call me a liar.

Lol, I hope people continue to have sex! Sex is fun and free, especially with the right person - no arguements.

That's not a problem, never was. Neither is anybodies free choice to choose whatever they want, no matter, in a free world

- However, introduce the word 'Marriage' and all of a sudden there is a landslide. Marriage is a Christian term, 'Marriage' is a union blessed by God between one man and one woman. 'Civil Partnerships' exist too.

marienbad

Newsite, so your only objection then is the biblical injunction, woulld you like to incorporate any other biblical injunctions in law ?

NuMarvel

lmaopml wrote: »

However, introduce the word 'Marriage' and all of a sudden there is a landslide. Marriage is a Christian term, 'Marriage' is a union blessed by God between one man and one woman. 'Civil Partnerships' exist too.

Marriage has never solely been a Christian term. According to one Christian source referenced earlier in the thread, marriage is over 6000 years old. How can it be a Christian tradition when Christianity is only 2,000 years old?

Nor are marriages today solely unions blessed by God. 24% of marriages in Ireland in 2008 were civil marriages (source). Are you saying those couples aren't really married, just because they chose not have a religious component? If you are, then I'd say those couples would strongly disagree with you.

HugoBradyBrown

It is simply fascinating that in debates where they take up one polar position, it is always the Christian interest that sinks to the bottom, heaping abuse and curses on their opponents. Indeed, it is ironic for the religion of love. Or for the religion of the meek. Or for the religion of those who turn the other cheek.

Which part of their foundational book have they not read, I often wonder. Do they skip over the gentle parts of it in their 'education', so that they can get on to the smiting and disembowelling of their enemies? It does make it seem more like a Hammer Horror religious position, or a blood-and-gore fest, rather than the expression of the revealed truth of their gentle founder. Feed my lambs, indeed! More Hannibal L. than lambs.

What would Jesus say, I wonder?


Hugo Brady Brown

lmaopml

NuMarvel wrote: »

Marriage has never solely been a Christian term. According to one Christian source referenced earlier in the thread, marriage is over 6000 years old. How can it be a Christian tradition when Christianity is only 2,000 years old?

Nor are marriages today solely unions blessed by God. 24% of marriages in Ireland in 2008 were civil marriages (source). Are you saying those couples aren't really married, just because they chose not have a religious component? If you are, then I'd say those couples would strongly disagree with you.

I am not saying that those couples are not committed or any such thing. I am not the 'enemy' never was..If they are committed well I am not their judge, I'm only here on my own way, same as them...

Most Christians know somebody who self identifies as homosexual - do we 'hate' them - no, they are our brothers, our sisters quite literally -

What I am saying is that the 'religious' element of a marriage is that it is between one man and one woman. No wiggle room! That's it.

Everybody no matter who, has something in their life to deal with, sex or lack of sex, health or lack of health, children or lack of children, job or lack of job, etc. etc. etc. 'Sexuality' doesn't own a special 'merit' as far as self fulfillment is concerned, hetero or homosexual - we ALL like sex, we all want partnership, it's not a 'special' thing, and neither is everybody who is heterosexual always 'perfecto'!

God is judge, but please don't ask Christians to 'bless' man and man or woman and woman - it won't happen! It doesn't mean hatred, it is just the law, it's not always 'easy' for everybody - homosexuals are no different to anybody else who is on a journey..and perhaps if our problems were laid out on the table for everybody to see, most would pick up their very own..

Newsite

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

What would Jesus say, I wonder?

When admonitions are given, sin is exposed, vice corrected & the doctrines of grace preached, natural men are apt to be filled with wrath.

"Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them." Jer 1:17

jill_valentine

lmaopml wrote: »

please don't ask Christians to 'bless' man and man or woman and woman

Who is asking this...?

lmaopml

jill_valentine wrote: »

Who is asking this...?

Well, what are you looking for?...and why discuss it here?

NuMarvel

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, what are you looking for?...and why discuss it here?

We're looking for civil marriage rights and responsibilities, on the same terms that heterosexual couples can. No one is expecting, or for the most part looking for, Christians to give us their blessing.

And it was originally brought up here in the context of David Quinn's opposition to same sex civil marriage. It's since turned into a more general discussion on the reason for and against same sex civil marriage, with the occasional sidebar into the Bible's views on homosexuality.

philologos

NuMarvel: I think lmaopml wants to know what you intend to fulfil by discussing with us on this topic, as interesting and as widely discussed it is. Do you want to convince us that it is right? Do you want us to simply stop talking about it? Do you want Christians to ignore what is said about sexuality in the Bible and applaud it? What do you want from Christians?

Personally, I'm happy to let the people decide on any political issue. At the same time, I won't applaud what I feel to be wrong. Essentially, I'm happy to agree to disagree. However, I'm not going to applaud something I feel is wrong under threat of being called a homophobe.

I do recognise that this is a difficult topic for LGBT people, indeed it is a difficult topic for Christians to stand up for what they think is right in the world. Indeed, personally I have no form of contempt in the world for anyone of a differing sexual orientation. Like everyone else I would long for everyone in that community to believe if they don't already (recognising that many do, and indeed many do follow God's word in respect to sexuality).

Ultimately, I believe that God's word is best for mankind. Mankind can decide to go its own way, but ultimately it tends to fail from looking to the precedent that is set already.

The end line is that we must agree to disagree if either side isn't to compromise their position.

philologos

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

It is simply fascinating that in debates where they take up one polar position, it is always the Christian interest that sinks to the bottom, heaping abuse and curses on their opponents. Indeed, it is ironic for the religion of love. Or for the religion of the meek. Or for the religion of those who turn the other cheek.

Which part of their foundational book have they not read, I often wonder. Do they skip over the gentle parts of it in their 'education', so that they can get on to the smiting and disembowelling of their enemies? It does make it seem more like a Hammer Horror religious position, or a blood-and-gore fest, rather than the expression of the revealed truth of their gentle founder. Feed my lambs, indeed! More Hannibal L. than lambs.

What would Jesus say, I wonder?


Hugo Brady Brown

I think it works both ways. It's incredibly unfortunate. I'd be fascinated to find another way of doing this debate without Christians calling judgement onto particular individuals and without people from the LGBT side shouting 'homophobe' because people disagree with them.

I'd love a calm discussion where we lay out both of our positions on the table, and calmly discuss them. Indeed that's what the Bible would encourage me to do with any community (1 Peter 3:15).

Last Sunday in my local area some Muslims were doing dawah (Islamic evangelism) in the high street. I came over and discussed with them for a few minutes about what they believed about Jesus. They explained some of their objections to the Christian conception of Jesus, I explained some of my objections to the Islamic conception of Jesus. As we had to part, I shook hands with them, thanked them and carried on my day.

That's what I'd like to be able to do with all people who disagreed with the Gospel, it would make the world a much better place.

PDN

jill_valentine wrote: »

Who is asking this...?

The problem, Jill, is that on another thread in this Forum, Christians are being called 'homophobic' precisely for this reason - that they do not think churches are an appropriate forum for same-sex blessings and ceremonies. Bear in mind that some of these Christians support the right of same-sex couples to enter into Civil Partnerships which would carry the exact same legal and financial benefits as heterosexual marriage.

Therefore it is understandable that Christian posters tend to get defensive when this subject is continually being raised by non-Christians here in the Christianity Forum. And that, IMHO, demonstrates the danger of using words like 'homophobic' inappropriately. That term's indiscriminate and inaccurate use ,by some of those who identify themselves as being part of the LGBT community, ends up alienating those who can be their allies and friends.

Having said that, there are undoubtedly some Christians (including a small number who post on this Forum) who are homophobic. Their obsession with homosexuality, and the way they seem to prefer discussing the subject more than discussing the Gospel, is rather disturbing.

HugoBradyBrown

PDN wrote: »

Having said that, there are undoubtedly some Christians (including a small number who post on this Forum) who are homophobic. Their obsession with homosexuality, and the way they seem to prefer discussing the subject more than discussing the Gospel, is rather disturbing.

Yes, indeed, it does make one wonder!

Some are undoubtedly trolling, as I understand the term is, but others are likely to have unresolved 'issues', as our American friends so delicately put it.

So often one finds that someone who talks about 'one of them' turns out to be 'one of us'.

Hugo Brady Brown

PDN

TylerIE wrote: »

Which brings us back to pick and choose... Apparently the only part of leviticus that still applies is the reference to homosexuality?
After all the below doesnt count anymore:

Defect in vision - doesnt apply
clothing of two different materials - doesnt apply
damaged testicles - doesnt apply
infected wound - doesnt apply (thats great for all the poor people with MRSA)

but
homosexuality - does apply still

Is your cherry-picking from Leviticus due to ignorance alone? I hope so. I would hate to think you actually had some knowledge of the contents of Leviticus and were deliberately ignoring all those parts that don't suit your argument.

Here are some other things from Leviticus that Christians still see as applying to them. Since I haven't got all day, I'll limit myself to one small section - the list of various laws where you also find the prohibition of homosexual behaviour.

The prohibition against incest (Lev 18:6-18)

The prohibition against sleeping with another man's wife (Lev 18:20)

The prohibition against offering children as human sacrifices (Lev 18:21)

The prohibition against bestiality (Lev 18:23)

The command to respect your parents (Lev 19:3)

The prohibition against worshipping idols (Lev 19:4)

The command to show compassion for impoverished immigrants and foreigners (Lev 19:9-10)

The prohibition against lying and stealing (Lev 19:11)

The prohibition against lying under oath (Lev 19:12)

The prohibition against fraud, including exploiting employees (Lev 19:13)

The prohibition against mistreating the blind or the deaf (Lev 19:14)

The prohibition against corruption in the legal system, or showing partiality to the rich and powerful (Lev 19:15)

The prohibition against spreading slander (Lev 19:16)

The prohibition against any action that might endanger another's life (the moral basis behind our modern drink driving laws). (Lev 19:16)

The prohibition against hating another person in your heart (Lev 19:17)

The prohibition against seeking revenge when someone wrongs you (Lev 19:18)

The prohibition against witchcraft and sorcery (Lev 19:26)

The prohibition against pimping your daughter out as a prostitute (Lev 19:29)

The command to respect the elderly (Lev 19:32)

The command to love an immigrant foreigner as if he was one of your own (Lev 19:34)

The prohibition against merchants cheating their customers (Lev 19:36).

Now, these laws - all of which the vast majority of Christians still consider to be binding on them today were all there in plain sight, either right beside the prohibition of homosexuality, or within a page or two.

Now do you see my dilemma? You said, "Apparently the only part of leviticus that still applies is the reference to homosexuality? " So you apparently made such a sweeping statement without even bothering to find out what is in Leviticus. After all, if you had looked in Leviticus then you could not have failed to see all these other things - even Stevie Wonder could have seen them!

So here is our problem. You have made several accusations of bias against Christians for the way we interpret the Bible, yet you yourself, any time you make any reference to the Bible, betray a level of bias and one-eyedness that is truly breathtaking.

So your accusations of bias against others are particularly galling and breathtaking. I have spent decades studying and teaching the Bible (in both seminaries and in secular University) and I continually encourage my students to study the Bible in as objective a way as possible. In other words, we need to lay aside our presuppositions and denominational stances, and instead immerse ourselves as much as possible in the languages, culture, and literary genres of the Bible. Then we need to ask ourselves, "How did the original author intend this text to be understood? How would his original hearers have understood it?"

That is why I get shivers up my spine when I here someone describe themselves primarily as 'a Catholic theologian', or 'a Pentecostal theologian', or 'a Feminist theologian' or a 'Gay theologian.' As soon as you lock yourself into those kind of boxes then you will be much more likely to read your own 21st ideology into the Bible (eisegesis) rather than drawing the original meaning out of the Bible (exegesis).

Is all of this exegesis foolproof? No.
Do bible scholars still disagree on things. Absolutely, that's part of the fun of it. And that's why any biblical interpretation should always be offered with the proviso, that we might be wrong - even if we think the margin for error is extremely small.

Now, do you understand why, to someone who has made a lifetime study of searching for the meaning of scripture as objectively as possible, it is irritating when posters come on here and fire off speculative interpretations of Bible verses, that have little or no support from most biblical scholars, and that are all (coincidentally I'm sure) slanted to the one conclusion that they want to reach? Do you understand how that irritation turns to annoyance when, as you did with Leviticus, statements are made that are so contrary to plain evidence as to render them either completely ignorant or breathtakingly dishonest? Do you understand why, after all that, my annoyance turns to infuriation when these same posters then have the brass neck to complain that everyone else who does not share their minority interpretations is therefore guilty of prejudice and bias?

keanooo

marienbad wrote: »

Any chance of a few answers on this ?

We wouldn't make homosexuality illegal, but we are against the State promoting it.

PatricaMcKay2

PDN wrote: »

Therefore it is understandable that Christian posters tend to get defensive when this subject is continually being raised by non-Christians here in the Christianity Forum. And that, IMHO, demonstrates the danger of using words like 'homophobic' inappropriately. That term's indiscriminate and inaccurate use ,by some of those who identify themselves as being part of the LGBT community, ends up alienating those who can be their allies and friends.

Having said that, there are undoubtedly some Christians (including a small number who post on this Forum) who are homophobic. Their obsession with homosexuality, and the way they seem to prefer discussing the subject more than discussing the Gospel, is rather disturbing.

Why not ban discussion of homosexuality in this forum?

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

NuMarvel: I think lmaopml wants to know what you intend to fulfil by discussing with us on this topic, as interesting and as widely discussed it is. Do you want to convince us that it is right? Do you want us to simply stop talking about it? Do you want Christians to ignore what is said about sexuality in the Bible and applaud it? What do you want from Christians?

Personally, I'm happy to let the people decide on any political issue. At the same time, I won't applaud what I feel to be wrong. Essentially, I'm happy to agree to disagree. However, I'm not going to applaud something I feel is wrong under threat of being called a homophobe.

I do recognise that this is a difficult topic for LGBT people, indeed it is a difficult topic for Christians to stand up for what they think is right in the world. Indeed, personally I have no form of contempt in the world for anyone of a differing sexual orientation. Like everyone else I would long for everyone in that community to believe if they don't already (recognising that many do, and indeed many do follow God's word in respect to sexuality).

Ultimately, I believe that God's word is best for mankind. Mankind can decide to go its own way, but ultimately it tends to fail from looking to the precedent that is set already.

The end line is that we must agree to disagree if either side isn't to compromise their position.

Agree with you completely , so let us have ''civil'' gay marriage , if your faith is strong enough you don't need it enshrined in law and let those that believe differently act differently .

Newsite

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

It is simply fascinating that in debates where they take up one polar position, it is always the Christian interest that sinks to the bottom, heaping abuse and curses on their opponents. Indeed, it is ironic for the religion of love. Or for the religion of the meek. Or for the religion of those who turn the other cheek.

Which part of their foundational book have they not read, I often wonder. Do they skip over the gentle parts of it in their 'education', so that they can get on to the smiting and disembowelling of their enemies? It does make it seem more like a Hammer Horror religious position, or a blood-and-gore fest, rather than the expression of the revealed truth of their gentle founder. Feed my lambs, indeed! More Hannibal L. than lambs.

What would Jesus say, I wonder?


Hugo Brady Brown

Originally Posted by PDN
Having said that, there are undoubtedly some Christians (including a small number who post on this Forum) who are homophobic. Their obsession with homosexuality, and the way they seem to prefer discussing the subject more than discussing the Gospel, is rather disturbing.
Yes, indeed, it does make one wonder!

Some are undoubtedly trolling, as I understand the term is, but others are likely to have unresolved 'issues', as our American friends so delicately put it.

So often one finds that someone who talks about 'one of them' turns out to be 'one of us'.

Hugo Brady Brown

Are you surprised that you aren't met with love and gentleness on a thread discussing homosexuality?

Examples of kindness, charity, healing and love abound in the Bible. But if you were to open it, you would see that there are far more examples of exhortation towards obedience and warnings of the consequences of rebellion that there are of His Love. That is a fact. Anyone who would think that it is all about the love and gentleness hasn't opened a Bible.

For the record, I neither dislike homosexuals nor am afraid of them. If you knew me, you would know that. So judge not according to the appearance, but to righteous judgment!! I hope you aren't referring to me above PDN.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Agree with you completely , so let us have ''civil'' gay marriage , if your faith is strong enough you don't need it enshrined in law and let those that believe differently act differently .

If I didn't have any other basis to disagree that would be the case. I can't applaud or promote something I have fundamental disagreement with. In the current political situation I'm in, it's not likely that I or anyone else in the larger population will be consulted.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

The problem, Jill, is that on another thread in this Forum, Christians are being called 'homophobic' precisely for this reason - that they do not think churches are an appropriate forum for same-sex blessings and ceremonies. Bear in mind that some of these Christians support the right of same-sex couples to enter into Civil Partnerships which would carry the exact same legal and financial benefits as heterosexual marriage.

Therefore it is understandable that Christian posters tend to get defensive when this subject is continually being raised by non-Christians here in the Christianity Forum. And that, IMHO, demonstrates the danger of using words like 'homophobic' inappropriately. That term's indiscriminate and inaccurate use ,by some of those who identify themselves as being part of the LGBT community, ends up alienating those who can be their allies and friends.

Having said that, there are undoubtedly some Christians (including a small number who post on this Forum) who are homophobic. Their obsession with homosexuality, and the way they seem to prefer discussing the subject more than discussing the Gospel, is rather disturbing.

I would assume one of the reason non-christians discuss such issues on this forum is that most of the organised opposition will come from here.
In the same way most of the opposition to the two referenda came from a legal quarter. You have two committed monorities on the edges and the vast majority who dont give a toss until polling day.

Better than throwing bricks at each other or strangling each other with the guts of..........take your pick

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

If I didn't have any other basis to disagree that would be the case. I can't applaud or promote something I have fundamental disagreement with. In the current political situation I'm in, it's not likely that I or anyone else in the larger population will be consulted.

What happened to free will philologos ? What else would you like enshrined in law that you have fundamental disagreement with ?

I think that is the problem with a lot of these type discussions , people on each side do not believe the other side is revealing their full hand so to speak , so one side suspects a descent into a Stalinist hell and the other a slide in an Irish version of Sharia law .

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

What happened to free will philologos ? What else would you like enshrined in law that you have fundamental disagreement with ?

I think that is the problem with a lot of these type discussions , people on each side do not believe the other side is revealing their full hand so to speak , so one side suspects a descent into a Stalinist hell and the other a slide in an Irish version of Sharia law .

Not at all. This is a token misunderstanding of my position.

Simply put, if the majority of the people want it or if the Government passes legislation concerning it. I will simply tolerate it even if I disagree with the concept of same-sex marriage.

If I was in a situation where there was a referendum, and I probably won't be, I would vote based on what I thought was best. I think it is best that marriage is kept between a man and a woman for a number of reasons.

In either situation if the majority vote or the legislation passed through Government differs with my beliefs I will simply have to tolerate it. I still very much believe that Christianity is a grass-roots movement.

There's not much comparison between Sharia law and stating the opinion that I've stated above.

Newsite

marienbad wrote: »

What happened to free will philologos ? What else would you like enshrined in law that you have fundamental disagreement with ?

I think that is the problem with a lot of these type discussions , people on each side do not believe the other side is revealing their full hand so to speak , so one side suspects a descent into a Stalinist hell and the other a slide in an Irish version of Sharia law .

At least you can't accuse me of this.

Marienbad, the point I was making earlier is that it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with a law or trying to legislate for one side or the other - it's about telling you what is right or wrong for the only law that matters. Observing God's law invariably leads to observing earthly law as well.

But insofar as it isn't about trying to convert you, it's not about trying to have one law enforced over another. It's about proclaiming what the words of God are on the matter. The rest is up to God Himself.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. This is a token misunderstanding of my position.

Simply put, if the majority of the people want it or if the Government passes legislation concerning it. I will simply tolerate it even if I disagree with the concept of same-sex marriage.

If I was in a situation where there was a referendum, and I probably won't be, I would vote based on what I thought was best. I think it is best that marriage is kept between a man and a woman for a number of reasons.

In either situation if the majority vote or the legislation passed through Government differs with my beliefs I will simply have to tolerate it. I still very much believe that Christianity is a grass-roots movement.

There's not much comparison between Sharia law and stating the opinion that I've stated above.

I don't think I am misunderstanding you at all.But you are not answering what I ask. Why have your beliefs enshrined in law at all- you would still live as you do, let others use their free will to live as they see fit. And what other beliefs would you like enshrined in law ?

You may think I am being unreasonable but surely you must take into account where we are coming from. It is not so long ago that one Christian denomination had virtually the power of veto on our legislation and had a privileged position for many of its beliefs (mostly to do with sex!) passsed into law.,

marienbad

Newsite wrote: »

At least you can't accuse me of this.

Marienbad, the point I was making earlier is that it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with a law or trying to legislate for one side or the other - it's about telling you what is right or wrong for the only law that matters. Observing God's law invariably leads to observing earthly law as well.

But insofar as it isn't about trying to convert you, it's not about trying to have one law enforced over another. It's about proclaiming what the words of God are on the matter. The rest is up to God Himself.

No I don't Newsite, I this stage I accept that you would make the bible the law .And I am afraid I would be cast into the outer darkness

philologos

I'm not asking for my beliefs to be enshrined in law. My objection is to denying children the right to a mother and a father. That's why I disagree with it on a legal level.

In terms of two people formalising a relationship, that's their prerogative.