Gay & Believing - Is there room for both?

cybercellesta

mascaput wrote: »

It could be a long an futile discussion if you wish to delve into the ideas surrounding the Mighty One' ideas of Judaism, versus the Mighty Three (Trinity) of later biblical writings, as Judaism did not and do not have this idea, which was only further developed as dogma after Nicaea. However, if you wish....;)

In Genesis, Gen 1:26, who was the 'us' God was referring to? Let US make man in OUR own image! It seems to me there was more than One Person! :rolleyes:

mascaput

cybercellesta wrote: »

In Genesis, Gen 1:26, who was the 'us' God was referring to? Let US make man in OUR own image! It seems to me there was more than One Person! :rolleyes:

Nobody really seems to know. It is however often explained as being used in the context of the royal 'we', a construct called a nossism, used to refer to a single person holding a high office. However, Judaism, the precussor monotheistic religion prior to what we today call Christianity, and later, Islam, does not accept and never had this trinitarian belief. The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, as it was a Latin term that arose well after Jesus' time, and is first recorded as being used in this sense by Tertullian, in the 2nd century ad.

cybercellesta

mascaput wrote: »

Nobody really seems to know. It is however often explained as being used in the context of the royal 'we', a construct called a nossism, used to refer to a single person holding a high office. However, Judaism, the precussor monotheistic religion prior to what we today call Christianity, and later, Islam, does not accept and never had this trinitarian belief. The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, as it was a Latin term that arose well after Jesus' time, and is first recorded as being used in this sense by Tertullian, in the 2nd century ad.

It's just an issue of language that the word Trinity is not in the bible, homosexual doesn't appear in the bible either, only that man should not lie down with man and woman with woman, which means the same thing!

Fanny Cradock

mascaput wrote: »

Before I make a more substantive reply, can you tell me, do you know was Jesus a Pharisee or a Saducee, or to what branch of 'Judaism' did he adhere?

I don't suppose he identified with either. A cursory glance at the Gospels should reveal this. Jesus was constantly clashing with them and on more than on occasion calls into question their authority in public.

(I previously mentioned the Pharisees. This, I believe, was a mistake. Annas, the Chief Priest, was a Sadducee. The Sadducees denied resurrection.)

mascaput wrote: »

It could be a long an futile discussion if you wish to delve into the ideas surrounding the Mighty One' ideas of Judaism, versus the Mighty Three (Trinity) of later biblical writings, as Judaism did not and do not have this idea, which was only further developed as dogma after Nicaea. However, if you wish....;)

That is a red herring. The concept of the trinity has nothing to do with our particular discussion, which itself has little to do with the topic of the thread. You are either inexplicably unaware of the obvious, or your are deliberately engaging in frantic hand waving tin order o distract people away from a position you seem incapable of backing up.

mascaput

cybercellesta wrote: »

It's just an issue of language that the word Trinity is not in the bible, homosexual doesn't appear in the bible either, only that man should not lie down with man and woman with woman, which means the same thing!

Whereas you are correct that the word homosexual is not in the bible, as that word in that exact sense did not enter in English until the late 1800s, derived from the amalgamation of both Greek and Latin elements, the term used in the Greek was malakos (mal-a-kos), as in 1 Corinthians 6:10. The New King James Version used the word sodomite, relating to the inhabitants of Sodom.
Unlike the equivalent link between the words for what we would today term homosexual, there is no basis for thinking that the 'we' in Genesis refers to 'three' as we is a collective noun for any number of beings above one.

mascaput

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is a red herring. The concept of the trinity has nothing to do with our particular discussion, which itself has little to do with the topic of the thread. You are either inexplicably unaware of the obvious, or your are deliberately engaging in frantic hand waving tin order o distract people away from a position you seem incapable of backing up.

There is no frantic hand waving going on from my side. Once the idea of the Blessed One (not by me) was introduced to imply that Jesus said he was the Son of God, I questioned how this One (God) could be possibly the same God as the later Christian God, who only became established as a trinitarian god as a part of the credo of the then Romanised Church establishment, after the Council of Nicaea. I'm not making it up, or distracting anyone, unless they want to think so, as there is little point in discussing what is good or bad in the eyes of God unless we are clear as to what God we are discussing, as the Jewish and Christian God are obviously different; that's all.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

At risk of having some clown completely misconstruing what I am about to say (cue the timer on my mobile).

A drug addict becomes a believer. He is not able to be chaste in the simplistic manner you appear to demand. What now?

Are you attacking the post or the poster?

The demands made of homosexuals are the same as those made of unmarried heterosexuals, and those demands are made by God.

You think yourself closer to God than Catholics so what now?

As for drug addicts who are believers but find their only recourse to hard currency to feed their habit is through sex work, well perhaps that would be better discussed under a thread of it's own.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The same could be said of any sinful activity. Is there any sinful activity that you find yourself coming back to? Something for which "Be chaste in X" doesn't work?

Try as I might I just can't give up bringing the truth to unbelievers like you. But in my book, that's not a sin.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Are you attacking the post or the poster?

I'm not attacking anyone. In awaiting for "some clown" I was expecting someone to suppose I was suggesting homosexuality an addiction on a par with drug addiction.

The demands made of homosexuals are the same as those made of unmarried heterosexuals..

..and married/unmarried gossipers, slanderers and thieves. Sinners in other words. His demand on the all is the same " don't sin". Yet folk just can't seem to avoid it at all times. Not you, not me.

Now what (when lifting our gaze to look at sin rather than a specific sin that happens not to apply to yourself)??

You think yourself closer to God than Catholics so what now?

Unlike you, I don't lump Catholics into one pot.

Some are no doubt Christians in which case they are as close to God as I am (in the global, saved sense) and might well be closer to God than I am (in the having "move closer to God and he will move closer to you" sense).

And there are some Roman Catholics who aren't Christians - in which case I am closer to God on both fronts than they are.

As for drug addicts who are believers but find their only recourse to hard currency to feed their habit is through sex work, well perhaps that would be better discussed under a thread of it's own.

It wasn't sex work I was considering. It was their drug addiction - even if they work legitimate work to feed their sinful, but impossible-at-present-to-give-up, addiction.

Can you see the parallel between homosexuality and drug addiction? And thus the relevance of my introducting it. If so, you might begin to address the question.

Try as I might I just can't give up bringing the truth to unbelievers like you. But in my book, that's not a sin.

Try as you might, you've failed to address the actual question anywhere in this post. I'm a patient debater though, not wanting that any of my fellow debaters should perish..

philologos

mascaput wrote: »

Philologos, thanks for your above post, which I snipped for the purposes of brevity in making this particular reply. You raised many points to explain the background to your perspective, and I think it deserves a more comprehensive and measured reply, but probably not in the context of this specific thread, as there are many issues involved, as well as the current issue i.e. Christian morality and how it applies to homosexuals, which has always been a topic of much inflammatory ideas and counter-arguments.

Thanks for your response.

Christian morality is offensive to many people. Not just homosexuals. The reason it is primarily offensive is because it tells us that we are wrong. Nobody likes to hear that. We are being told that our way is fundamentally at odds with God's way. The primary reason why I have phrased my post in general terms is because I believe that all mankind has sinned and I believe it is incorrect of many to put particular emphasis on homosexual acts as if they are the sin of all sins. I believe that I have sinned in a way that is grievous to my Creator much in the same way that others have sinned. The point simply put is that we have all sinned, and we have all disobeyed God's standard. If you find that inflammatory so be it. I have no aim to compromise God's word. I believe that His way is right, and ultimately my way, or your way or anyone else's way if it is not His way is wrong and ultimately it leads to judgement and ultimately condemnation.

That's not an easy thing to say always.

mascaput wrote: »

I would ask you to not to assume what I may or may not think about what is or is not 'beyond the material universe', as you don't yet know what I think, just as I don't actually fully understand all of what you think in a wider context, though you have given me a good starting point for understanding at least your general framework on the main issues at hand, which I appreciate your taking the time to do.

If you claim to be an atheist which you have done, it would be inconsistent of you to claim that God doesn't exist while claiming that the immaterial does. There is no honest way that you can claim that my belief in God or Paul the Apostle's for that matter since you specifically mentioned him is invalid, or illogical. If it is possible that there is more than this mere universe then it is entirely possible that God exists also.

My beliefs aren't hard to suss out. You should be able to derive the vast majority of them from the Bible. I appreciate your time and effort in responding, but I will point out what I think about your post along the way.

mascaput wrote: »

'm not here to inflame or annoy anyone, as that is stupid behaviour, though if people choose to get upset or excited about asking or answering questions about biblical accounts and their interpretations, and the obvious role they have played and continue to play in the context of social behaviours on human societies and their thinking for several thousand years, then that is their responsibility. They are responsible for the control or lack of control they exercise on their minds. I am only responsible for what I think, as far as I know to this point in time, and I am fully aware that there are things I do not yet know. Therefore, I do not feel compelled to adhere to rules that may seek, however inadvertently, - such as "Judge not or be judged yourself" - as I have no problem about being judged on the merits of my questions, proposals and explanations, as far as I know them to be. If I am wrong about something, then it is up to me to accept that fact, but likewise I expect the same consideration in return. The reason I do this is that such blanket prohibitions are often used by debaters of these sort of subjects to restrict evaluation and judgement upon material that is presented in a way that appears to contradict other ideas that are also supposedly presented as 'truthful'. Many of these ideas are not clearly explained as to their veracity or likelihood of being accurately thought out, even according to what is written, as people tend to apply personal interpretation to things even if they don't appreciate that things need to be seen in their own perspective, and from what we know of the thinking that pervaded such writings in times very different to our own in many respects.
Probably another thread, maybe with a more appropriate title, would be the best way to go on this, so if you give me some idea as to what you would like to entitle it, then just let me know and we can discuss the possibilities of having a considered and mutually beneficial discussion. Argument and discussion of ideas can be a beneficial thing, and is profitable to all if they want to understand different viewpoints. If they merely wish to gain some form of unjustified 'victory' over others, then they miss the point of the exercise, or at least that's how I see it.

I don't get upset about you or anyone else asking about the Biblical accounts. However if you post something and if another user happens to find it inaccurate and gives you a good reason as to why that is inaccurate that's fair game as far as I see it.

As for going into the control or lack of control. I'm afraid that this is nonsense. I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord about 4 years ago. I accepted Him on the basis of what I read and as a result of thinking about it. To claim that I have lost control over my mind because I have believed in the Gospel and I have believed the strong reason that there is for it is in my opinion completely wrong. It is wrong to say this about so many Christians in the world who have clearly demonstrated their intelligence.

As I've said earlier, we're at an impasse to a certain degree. I believe your conception of the world is a falsehood. It is a falsehood in so far as you cannot be describing reality effectively without God in it. Without God from a Judeo-Christian perspective nothing else would exist.

You on the other hand claim that my conception of the world is a falsehood precisely because I believe there is a God.

I'm confused about the next section where you're talking about restricting evaluation. You'll need to explain this more thoroughly. Can I advise you to please break up your post into paragraphs, as it is becoming quite difficult to read?

As for wishing to gain some "victory" over someone. I don't aim to seek any victory over you or anyone. I personally don't care as to whether or not people claim that I have lost an argument as many people on boards.ie have done in the past. What I do care about is this. It's as simple as this. I care about the Gospel, and I care about people. I long for you and as many others as possible to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved. That's my aim. A "victory" would be hollow if it didn't provoke people to think about Jesus. A "loss" would ultimately be a victory if it did provoke people to think about Jesus.

My posts aren't beneficial as far as I see it if they do not do three things:
1. Encourage and strengthen fellow Christians in the Gospel.
2. Encourage people to look into who Jesus is, and ultimately into looking into how He saved us on His cross.
3. Help people see how Jesus has called us to live in our daily lives.

Fanny Cradock

mascaput wrote: »

I questioned how this One (God) could be possibly the same God as the later Christian God

If you really want to debate the coherence of the trinity then I suggest you start another thread about it.

who only became established as a trinitarian god as a part of the credo of the then Romanised Church establishment, after the Council of Nicaea.

Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity became orthodox doctrine with the first council. So what? It's not like they just hatched upon the idea there and then. The concept -- at least proto-versions -- had existed in written form since at least the early part of the second century. Christianity has always believed in revelation; the gradual unfolding of the knowledge of God and his will. That's an acceptable model in other academic disciplines and walks of life.

Moreover, the belief in the divinity of Christ seems to have been an integral tenet of the earliest Christians. A simple reading of the NT should be enough to understand this. Of course, if you decide to throw away large parts of the NT simply because you don't like Paul - well, I guess anything is up for grabs. To convince Christians that we should rip out each of Paul's letters you would first have offer coherent reasons why we should do such things. I've seen nothing of the sort - just assertions.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not attacking anyone. In awaiting for "some clown" I was expecting someone to suppose I was suggesting homosexuality an addiction on a par with drug addiction.

Clearly it is not so perhaps if you try equating like with like for a change you might actually get somewhere.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unlike you, I don't lump Catholics into one pot.

No, you prefer to judge them and put them into several pots.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Try as you might, you've failed to address the actual question anywhere in this post. I'm a patient debater though, not wanting that any of my fellow debaters should perish..

Clear on point questions get clear answers. Perhaps if you give an example from your own experience.

StephStarbuck

I had the same problem, it troubled me for awhile until I watched a documentary called 'For the Bible Tells Me So' and all my questions were answered

philologos

I watched that documentary about a year ago. Although it does adequately explain how difficult it can be for parents with children who are homosexuals, and the children in coping with this. It doesn't adequately explain the passages involved at all, but rather it attempts to explain them away which I didn't find all that helpful at all. Perhaps if we could actively discuss as to what passages should be interpreted in what way it might be helpful?

old hippy

antiskeptic wrote: »

Precisely.

I've a mate of mine who reached rock bottom in the classic sense of the word: alchoholism, coke, hash, prescription drugs, social welfare fraud, ill health, destructive relationships.

Then he turned.

Over the last 10 years I've watched him re-emerge. Bit by bit the shackles have been released. And bit by bit the Lord has brought to his attention the latest thing that needs dealing with. 10 years ago it was alcohol that was removed from his life. 2 years ago it was hash. Tomorrow it might very well be the disabilty allowance he claims but perhaps doesn't quite need as much as he did in earlier times.

I was a wreck for some years until I finally reconciled myself with my sexuality. I realised, all these people, pointing the finger and saying what one could or couldn't do - they didn't matter, nor their empty rhetoric of damnation and all that stuff. And I swear, it got to the stage if one more person said they'd effing pray for me, I'd find it difficult to hold on to my pacifism :rolleyes:

You must be a piss poor mate, wanting to replace one addiction with another one - religion.

DublinRescuer

Why are people saying being gay is an addiction??? you wouldn say being interested in sex is an addiction would you?? now im not gay but my best mate is and anyone who was to dis him id question why and fight for him... its not a disease, or a hobby, or an addiction, its the exact saying as me being interested in girls, he is just that way with lads... grow up people.. this closed mindedness is the exact reason our church is failing..

old hippy

DublinRescuer wrote: »

Why are people saying being gay is an addiction??? you wouldn say being interested in sex is an addiction would you?? now im not gay but my best mate is and anyone who was to dis him id question why and fight for him... its not a disease, or a hobby, or an addiction, its the exact saying as me being interested in girls, he is just that way with lads... grow up people.. this closed mindedness is the exact reason our church is failing..

Indeed - just to clarify; I'm saying that "alchoholism, coke, hash, prescription drugs, social welfare fraud, ill health, destructive relationships" and (in my opinion) religion are addictions.

I'm not gay, straight or bi. If I chose someone to be with, it's down to how compatible we are

I think some of the comments here are very sad & it's no wonder young people who happen to be gay feel confused and despairing with the intolerance shown.

PDN

old hippy wrote: »

Indeed - just to clarify; I'm saying that "alchoholism, coke, hash, prescription drugs, social welfare fraud, ill health, destructive relationships" and (in my opinion) religion are addictions.

......

I think some of the comments here are very sad & it's no wonder young people who happen to be gay religious feel confused and despairing with the intolerance shown.

Fixed your post for you. Your intolerance is noted.

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

Fixed your post for you. Your intolerance is noted.

What's your problem? Do you know how many people have suffered at the hands of religious intolerance? Do you even care or is it all about pious sermonising?

PDN

old hippy wrote: »

What's your problem? Do you know how many people have suffered at the hands of religious intolerance? Do you even care or is it all about pious sermonising?

Yes, and I also know how how many people have suffered at the hands of irreligious intolerance. I do care - but I leave the pious sermonising to one-eyed hypocrites who talk as if the problem all lies on one side.

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

Yes, and I also know how how many people have suffered at the hands of irreligious intolerance. I do care - but I leave the pious sermonising to one-eyed hypocrites who talk as if the problem all lies on one side.

I don't see gay people threatening everlasting damnation or telling Christians they can't belong to the gay community if they don't conform.

There's no book that dictates how to treat people who are "different". At least, there shouldn't be.

PDN

old hippy wrote: »

I don't see gay people threatening everlasting damnation or telling Christians they can't belong to the gay community if they don't conform.

And I don't see Christians logging on to the LGBT Forum to tell them how wrong they are, at least not with anything like the regularity that non-Christians come on here for that purpose.

The fact is you get intolerance everywhere. Presenting being gay as an addiction is, in my book, intolerance. Presenting religion as an addiction is equally intolerant.

There's no book that dictates how to treat people who are "different". At least, there shouldn't be.

There are lots of books that do just that. Religious people are 'different' - and the antireligious seem very happy to write such books as you describe. Other people don't write books, but rather use the internet to attack those who are different.

antiskeptic

old hippy wrote: »

You must be a piss poor mate, wanting to replace one addiction with another one - religion.

You seem not to have noticed the reference to God in his life being the one helping him out of the gutter. You'd have to talk to him about his 'addiction' I've nowt to do with it.

The context of my point was the acceptability (to God) of ongoing sin in a Christians life (my mate in this case). Some of the Catholic members here seem to be supposing that a Christian can't continue in sin under any circumstances.

antiskeptic

DublinRescuer wrote: »

Why are people saying being gay is an addiction???

Link?

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

And I don't see Christians logging on to the LGBT Forum to tell them how wrong they are, at least not with anything like the regularity that non-Christians come on here for that purpose.

The fact is you get intolerance everywhere. Presenting being gay as an addiction is, in my book, intolerance. Presenting religion as an addiction is equally intolerant.


There are lots of books that do just that. Religious people are 'different' - and the antireligious seem very happy to write such books as you describe. Other people don't write books, but rather use the internet to attack those who are different.

Ah, more "whataboutery".

The difference is Christians have persecuted gays for centuries under the pretext of their belief system. Gays haven't persecuted you & to claim otherwise is folly.

And just to clarify, I am well aware that Christians are persecuted (parts of Indonesia/Egypt etc). But this is by other religious groups and not gays.

DublinRescuer

With regard sin, theres not one person that hasn sinned ever, so i dunno why people are on the whole high and mighty "its a sin" proposal.... Do not froget, that its wasnt "Jesus" who said loving nother man is sin.. It was the pope, who deicded to stick that in.. the church are making their own rules in this day and age... god should be within you, not in a church that abuses...

DublinRescuer

what do you mean link?

PDN

old hippy wrote: »

Ah, more "whataboutery".

And just to clarify, I am well aware that Christians are persecuted (parts of Indonesia/Egypt etc). But this is by other religious groups and not gays.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out the barefaced nauseating hypocrisy of those who post in this forum, accusing Christians of intolerance, yet seem to think it's OK for them themselves to be so intolerant as to accuse religious people of being in an addiction.

The difference is Christians have persecuted gays for centuries under the pretext of their belief system. Gays haven't persecuted you & to claim otherwise is folly.

I would ask that you point out where I ever made such a claim. Where did I ever say gays had persecuted me? :rolleyes:

PDN

DublinRescuer wrote: »

what do you mean link?

He's asking to post a link to a post where anyone here has said that being gay is an addiction.

old hippy

PDN wrote: »

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out the barefaced nauseating hypocrisy of those who post in this forum, accusing Christians of intolerance, yet seem to think it's OK for them themselves to be so intolerant as to accuse religious people of being in an addiction.



I would ask that you point out where I ever made such a claim. Where did I ever say gays had persecuted me? :rolleyes:

You chose to be religious. Gays don't choose to be gay. They're born that way.

A lot of damage has been visited on homosexuals in the name of religion. I can't say a lot of damage has been visited on religious folk in the name of homosexuality - can you?

antiskeptic

old hippy wrote: »

You chose to be religious. Gays don't choose to be gay. They're born that way.

I didn't choose to be religious. I was born again that way.