Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

tommy2bad · 12-02-2012 11:47am

lmaopml;
- It's not really about 'social' development, or even something that can be viewed through a lens that looks at how humanity came to the conclusion that monogamy is good -

Well yes it is, I used monogamy as an example of something that God 'changed' on just to stay with apples and apples.
Lets take slavery then. God never said it was wrong, in fact scripture was used to justify slavery but we moved on. Or do you still think slavery is OK just not legal according to the world?
Is God going to condemn to Hell a loving committed homosexual couple while welcoming slave traders to heaven as long as they never engaged in homosexual acts?

SonOfAdam · 13-02-2012 1:35pm

If we accept the basis for human sexuality as Genesis 2:24 anything outside of that falls into the 'not ideal' category, be that heterosexual sex outside of the boundary of marriage or homosexual sex.

I disagree with Wolfsbane on this one, that homosexuality (per se) is wrong - the bible says that the acts are sinful not the orientation - if you are saying the orientation is wrong then you offer no hope to those who deal with same sex attraction - the woman in the video may have ended her relationship, I doubt she has resolved her attraction to women and will quite possibly endure that attraction for the rest of her life - does that make her more a sinner or less a christian ? It's little wonder that you don't find many gays in the pews if this is the received wisdom - it's a very unattractive place to be where your 'sin' is considered the 'big one', The church needs to cop onto itself - speck and plank come to mind (Mat7:3)

There's a difference between temptation and sin , we should really bear that in mind.

JimiTime · 13-02-2012 4:46pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

If we accept the basis for human sexuality as Genesis 2:24 anything outside of that falls into the 'not ideal' category, be that heterosexual sex outside of the boundary of marriage or homosexual sex.

I disagree with Wolfsbane on this one, that homosexuality (per se) is wrong - the bible says that the acts are sinful not the orientation

I don't think Wolfsbane said that tbh. Ones 'orientation' is not an action. Just because I am heterosexual does not mean that I think about sex with women. I can be celibate, full of self control etc. If I lust after women though, then it becomes sin, just like if a homosexual lusts after another it is sin.

- if you are saying the orientation is wrong then you offer no hope to those who deal with same sex attraction - the woman in the video may have ended her relationship, I doubt she has resolved her attraction to women and will quite possibly endure that attraction for the rest of her life - does that make her more a sinner or less a christian ?

Again, I don't think that this is what was said.

Also in terms of enduring the attraction, as much as homosexual groups and such apologists violently oppose the very notion, there are testimonies of people who overcame homosexual attraction.

It's little wonder that you don't find many gays in the pews if this is the received wisdom - it's a very unattractive place to be where your 'sin' is considered the 'big one', The church needs to cop onto itself - speck and plank come to mind (Mat7:3)

There's a difference between temptation and sin , we should really bear that in mind.

The issue is the desire to bend the gospel to suit ourselves and our sins. A practicing homosexual, like a practicing fornicator etc, should not be ignored in a congregation, but ministered to. Heres what Paul says to the Corinthians:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.

tommy2bad · 13-02-2012 7:29pm

JimiTime;
Also in terms of enduring the attraction, as much as homosexual groups and such apologists violently oppose the very notion, there are testimonies of people who overcame homosexual attraction

In me hole their are. The very language you use is offensive.
Get this once and for all. It. Is. Not. A. Disease.

PDN · 13-02-2012 7:40pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

In me hole their are. The very language you use is offensive.
Get this once and for all. It. Is. Not. A. Disease.

Nobody said it was.

What is offensive about someone overcoming an attraction if that attraction is leading them into behaviour which is incompatible with their desired goal?

For example, if someone has an attraction towards eating cream cakes, but their goal is to weigh less than 15 stone, then they may need to overcome their attraction. That's not offensive, nor is it saying that attraction towards cream cakes is a disease.

If someone has an attraction towards sexual acts with people of the same gender, but their goal is to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, then they may need to overcome their attraction. That's not offensive, nor is it saying their attraction is a disease.

If someone has an attraction towards eating bacon sandwiches, but their goal is to be an observant Jew, then they may need to overcome their attraction. That's not offensive, nor is it saying that attraction towards cream cakes a disease.

As a former alcoholic, I used to have an attraction towards consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, but my goal was to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, so I needed to overcome my attraction.

tommy2bad · 13-02-2012 7:53pm

Yeah right he meant it that way. Reread the post the implication of what he wrote is simple.Even your later comparison to alcoholism is as bad.

PDN;
If someone has an attraction towards eating bacon sandwiches, but their goal is to be an observant Jew, then they may need to overcome their attraction. That's not offensive, nor is it saying that attraction towards cream cakes a disease.

As a former alcoholic, I used to have an attraction towards consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, but my goal was to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, so I needed to overcome my attraction.

So it a bacon thing then? Or are you not going to engage with the 'why' question?

I'm telling you, if I were a gay person reading this thread, I wouldn't be feeling the love this Christianity lark is supposed to be about.

PDN · 13-02-2012 8:07pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Even your later comparison to alcoholism is as bad.

Why? I chose to indulge in a behaviour which, while perfectly legal, was hindering me from following Jesus. So I chose to overcome my attraction to such behaviour. What is bad about stating that? Following Jesus means putting him first.

So it a bacon thing then? Or are you not going to engage with the 'why' question?

To be honest, engaging with the 'why' question would involve us in discussing the entire purpose of sexuality and marriage in Christian theology. That is only likely to derail the thread (and bring the trolls out in force). You can start a new thread on it if you wish.

I'm telling you, if I were a gay person reading this thread, I wouldn't be feeling the love this Christianity lark is supposed to be about.

What someone 'feels' can be very subjective. Your own posts, and the way you talk to other Christians, would not IMHO make them feel very loved either.

tommy2bad · 13-02-2012 10:04pm

PDN wrote: »

Why? I chose to indulge in a behaviour which, while perfectly legal, was hindering me from following Jesus. So I chose to overcome my attraction to such behaviour. What is bad about stating that? Following Jesus means putting him first.
Thing is alcoholism is a disease, you framing it as a choice is what I object to.

To be honest, engaging with the 'why' question would involve us in discussing the entire purpose of sexuality and marriage in Christian theology. That is only likely to derail the thread (and bring the trolls out in force). You can start a new thread on it if you wish.
No thanks, maybe another time. It would be interesting though.

What someone 'feels' can be very subjective. Your own posts, and the way you talk to other Christians, would not IMHO make them feel very loved either.
Yeah, text is a poor medium(tradesman blaming his tools )

I'm actually wondering if I reacted to the medium more than the message in the OP's video. I have no problem with the idea of telling someone when their in danger from sin The fact that the sin in question is one thats not on my radar and I cant find any good reason for it to be isn't important. To be called a sinner is one thing but claiming that I am therefore not a Christian and cant be one until I am 'cured'...I'm getting angry again just typing it. No it the message thats offensive.

JimiTime · 13-02-2012 10:17pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

In me hole their are. The very language you use is offensive.

On the subject of offence:
Offence is not actually something that registers with me tbh. People who claim offence, especially on behalf of others are just an irritation, and a modern day pain in the @rse tbh. I don't think I've actually EVER been offended by anything a stranger has said. Even when they try their best. I find taking offence to be quite a childish behaviour, and a real obsticle to honest and open discussion. People looking to cause offence, you just ignore as dishonest folk, not looking for adult discussion. People looking to take offence the same. Grown ups though, should be able to share opinions etc that challenge even their very core.

And specifically to what you took offence to:
The irony of that stand, is that you must consider how "offensive" it is to someone who testifies to the contrary. The venom and bile fired at people who testify to what I said from many LGBT quarters can be horrendous. Think of the stigma THEY must overcome. 'Is he just pretending' etc. Then to have people like yourself basically call them liars, or deluded homosexuals. Just because South Park take the p!ss, and make light of such a concept, does not a pile of cr@p make it.

Get this once and for all. It. Is. Not. A. Disease.

Not that this has been claimed, but it doesn't actually matter if it is or not.

JimiTime · 13-02-2012 10:40pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm actually wondering if I reacted to the medium more than the message in the OP's video. I have no problem with the idea of telling someone when their in danger from sin The fact that the sin in question is one thats not on my radar and I cant find any good reason for it to be isn't important. To be called a sinner is one thing but claiming that I am therefore not a Christian and cant be one until I am 'cured'...I'm getting angry again just typing it. No it the message thats offensive.

We are all sinners, no-one is disputing that, including the woman in the video. The pertinent question, is are you a Christian if you choose to consciously reject what God has condemned as sinful, and follow your own treacherous heart? The obvious answer is no.

PDN · 13-02-2012 11:25pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thing is alcoholism is a disease, you framing it as a choice is what I object to.

Alcholism may be a disease - but the act of drinking is a choice. Nobody ever put a gun to my head and forced me to drink. I made poor choices, and I suffered big consequences as a result.

When I became a Christian, the first step was taking responsibility for my own actions. I had to learn to make better choices. Ultimately that meant that choosing to follow Jesus would be more important than the thing had previously been most important to me.

Doc Farrell · 13-02-2012 11:43pm

Do you believe that gay people should live alone PDN?

philologos · 13-02-2012 11:58pm

It's amazing how bitter and hostile this gets.

I believe that God was right about sexuality, and I'm quite happy to get into a discussion as to the benefits of a Christian approach to sexuality. Simply put, I disagree with the perspective currently put across by many LGBT activists, and indeed many heterosexual people who choose to live contrary to God's standards concerning sexuality.

Much the same way as I disagree with Islam. Yet for some reason when I discuss the Gospel with Muslims in my local area who are doing evangelism on the street, I can tell them why I disagree with them about Jesus, I can shake their hands and thank them for their time. I've shared my perspective about why I disagree with Islam, they've shared their perspective about why they disagree with Christianity.

I'd love to reach a point in this discussion where I could say the same, but I can't see it happening any time soon unfortunately.

tommy2bad · 14-02-2012 12:50am

JimiTime wrote: »

On the subject of offence:
Offence is not actually something that registers with me tbh. People who claim offence, especially on behalf of others are just an irritation, and a modern day pain in the @rse tbh. I don't think I've actually EVER been offended by anything a stranger has said. Even when they try their best. I find taking offence to be quite a childish behaviour, and a real obsticle to honest and open discussion. People looking to cause offence, you just ignore as dishonest folk, not looking for adult discussion. People looking to take offence the same. Grown ups though, should be able to share opinions etc that challenge even their very core.
Crap excuse for bad manners.
And specifically to what you took offence to:
The irony of that stand, is that you must consider how "offensive" it is to someone who testifies to the contrary. The venom and bile fired at people who testify to what I said from many LGBT quarters can be horrendous. Think of the stigma THEY must overcome. 'Is he just pretending' etc. Then to have people like yourself basically call them liars, or deluded homosexuals. Just because South Park take the p!ss, and make light of such a concept, does not a pile of cr@p make it.
Not an excuse to act in kind
Yes I do believe that the 'cure' people are knaves or fools same as creationists and ID muppets. See it's easy but not nice:)

Not that this has been claimed, but it doesn't actually matter if it is or not.

The pertinent question, is are you a Christian if you choose to consciously reject what God has condemned as sinful, and follow your own treacherous heart?

Their you go again. :rolleyes: Is their really a need for the aggressive language? Are you so indifferent to others opinions that you dismiss them so vehemently?

PDN · 14-02-2012 1:10am

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Do you believe that gay people should live alone PDN?

No, I don't see that anyone is suggesting solitary confinement.

The concept that there is such a thing as a 'gay person' has not existed for most of history.

Human beings have the capability, under certain circumstances, to be attracted to all kinds of people or objects. These can change depending on what is available or achievable (eg 'straight' men who engage in gay sex in prison). Those whom we would find the most attractive are not always accessible or willing.

Our choices of sexual partner are not made in isolation. They are determined by our beliefs and ideologies and environment. For example, even before I was a Christian I don't think I could have been involved in an intimate relationship with someone who was a racist. My beliefs would preclude me from doing so, even if the racist was the person I found more physically attractive than any other.

When we choose to follow Jesus, that involves discipleship. We do not fulfil whatever action might appear to be enjoyable. Instead we believe that the joy to be found in following Jesus is worth curtailing some of our choices in life.

Some people who would want to have an active sex life never do so because they don't find a suitable wife or husband. Some people who are attracted to children or animals choose not to indulge those desires. Some people who would feel more attracted to those of the same sex nevertheless find real joy and lasting happiness in being married to someone of the opposite sex. Some people who would be most atttracted to the actress Olivia Wilde find they can still live happy fulfilled lives by marrying Jane Smith from Balbriggan. Some people are attracted to multiple people, but choose instead to devote themselves to just one person. It all comes down to choices.

In a secular democratic society (which is the kind of society I choose to live in) people are free to make these choices (with the obvious proviso that we don't abuse the rights of others by actions such as rape or child abuse). I support fully their right to make those choices.

But that does not mean that every choice is compatible with being a follower of Jesus Christ. Nor does it mean that God approves of every possible choice that people might make. Nor is it intolerant or unloving if you refuse to pretend that all those possible choices are approved by God.

tommy2bad · 14-02-2012 1:22am

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't see that anyone is suggesting solitary confinement.

The concept that there is such a thing as a 'gay person' has not existed for most of history.

Human beings have the capability, under certain circumstances, to be attracted to all kinds of people or objects. These can change depending on what is available or achievable (eg 'straight' men who engage in gay sex in prison). Those whom we would find the most attractive are not always accessible or willing.

Our choices of sexual partner are not made in isolation. They are determined by our beliefs and ideologies and environment. For example, even before I was a Christian I don't think I could have been involved in an intimate relationship with someone who was a racist. My beliefs would preclude me from doing so, even if the racist was the person I found more physically attractive than any other.

When we choose to follow Jesus, that involves discipleship. We do not fulfil whatever action might appear to be enjoyable. Instead we believe that the joy to be found in following Jesus is worth curtailing some of our choices in life.

Some people who would want to have an active sex life never do so because they don't find a suitable wife or husband. Some people who are attracted to children or animals choose not to indulge those desires. Some people who would feel more attracted to those of the same sex nevertheless find real joy and lasting happiness in being married to someone of the opposite sex. Some people who would be most atttracted to the actress Olivia Wilde find they can still live happy fulfilled lives by marrying Jane Smith from Balbriggan. Some people are attracted to multiple people, but choose instead to devote themselves to just one person. It all comes down to choices.

In a secular democratic society (which is the kind of society I choose to live in) people are free to make these choices (with the obvious proviso that we don't abuse the rights of others by actions such as rape or child abuse). I support fully their right to make those choices.

But that does not mean that every choice is compatible with being a follower of Jesus Christ. Nor does it mean that God approves of every possible choice that people might make. Nor is it intolerant or unloving if you refuse to pretend that all those possible choices are approved by God.

Now thats as fair as you'll get. Maybe you should do some youtube PDN you sound much more reasonable than the lady in the op.?
Sexuality is a sliding scale theirs no gay or straight just degrees of one to the other all mixed up in culture and circumstances. A little bit of motes in our own eyes as much as planks in others.
Sin is falling short of the mark not just some deliberate act of rebellion.

PDN · 14-02-2012 1:25am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their you go again. :rolleyes: Is their really a need for the aggressive language? Are you so indifferent to others opinions that you dismiss them so vehemently?

I think there's a fundamental point here, Tommy, and it applies to so many more issues other than gay sex or any other extramarital sex.

Who determines what is right or wrong for a follower of Jesus Christ?

As I see it there are three possible answers:

1. You can set you yourself up as the arbiter of what is right or wrong. By this criteria, it is up to God to convince you why a particular action is right or wrong. And if you don't accept (or even understand) those reasons, then you are free to ignore or even reverse the revelation of Scripture. Such an attitude, I believe, is sub-Christian and ultimately incompatible with being a follower of Jesus Christ. According to Scripture, all our hearts are treacherous and prone to sin, therefore we are hopelessly biased and unable to be that moral arbitrer.

2. You can set up a human institution (eg a church or denomination) as the arbiter of right or wrong. The problem with that, of course, is that human institutions, even the best of them, are run by people with treacherous hearts and a proneness to sin. Therefore this approach can still produce a distorted version of Christianity.

3. You can accept the teachings of Jesus, as revealed through the apostolic writers, as being the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. This involves studying both the Old and New Testaments and reading them Christocentrically. This, I believe is the historic Christian position.

Now, even in number (3) there will still be an element of subjectivity. Our treacherous hearts can lead us to misinterpret Scripture, even with the best of intentions. But I think the honest impartial observer will see that this approach is the most objective. If you measure six inches with a ruler you can still make an error, but are less likely to do so than if you decide that six inches is whatever length you choose to make it.

tommy2bad · 14-02-2012 1:39am

If you measure six inches with a ruler you can still make an error, but are less likely to do so than if you decide that six inches is whatever length you choose to make it.

I'm inclined to use the gap between my thumb and pinky as 6 inches, 1 inch is the knuckle of my thumb and a foot, well you know how I measure that. I guess I use me as the measure of all things. But it is my life on the line here and I have to suspect that the people who wrote scripture used their hands and feet to measure too.

JimiTime · 14-02-2012 1:56am

Jimitime wrote:

On the subject of offence:
Offence is not actually something that registers with me tbh. People who claim offence, especially on behalf of others are just an irritation, and a modern day pain in the @rse tbh. I don't think I've actually EVER been offended by anything a stranger has said. Even when they try their best. I find taking offence to be quite a childish behaviour, and a real obsticle to honest and open discussion. People looking to cause offence, you just ignore as dishonest folk, not looking for adult discussion. People looking to take offence the same. Grown ups though, should be able to share opinions etc that challenge even their very core.

tommy wrote:

Crap excuse for bad manners.

Spoken like a true offence junkie;)

Jimitime wrote:

And specifically to what you took offence to:
The irony of that stand, is that you must consider how "offensive" it is to someone who testifies to the contrary. The venom and bile fired at people who testify to what I said from many LGBT quarters can be horrendous. Think of the stigma THEY must overcome. 'Is he just pretending' etc. Then to have people like yourself basically call them liars, or deluded homosexuals. Just because South Park take the p!ss, and make light of such a concept, does not a pile of cr@p make it.

tommy wrote:

Not an excuse to act in kind
Yes I do believe that the 'cure' people are knaves or fools same as creationists and ID muppets. See it's easy but not nice

Which is exactly why your faux outrage is both ironic, and a double standard.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their you go again. :rolleyes: Is their really a need for the aggressive language?

I wish I COULD claim such wisdom as my own, but I'm afraid its the prophet Jeremiah, and an author of Proverbs that you have the issue with, not me.

Are you so indifferent to others opinions that you dismiss them so vehemently?

I've just corrected your misrepresentations of the arguments, and presented you with how following Christ works in relation to what we desire. If that dismisses your opinions as a consequence, then so be it. That doesn't make me indifferent to them though, it makes me diametrically opposed to them. As a tolerant person, I realise that other people exist and that they don't all agree with me. I'm fine with that, as should anyone who tolerates opposing opinion. Being vehemently opposed is the polar opposite to indifference tommy. At the end of the day, as Christians, we look for what Christ wants, rather than what we want. That is the crux of all of this, as PDN described in relation to his former alcoholism.

SonOfAdam · 14-02-2012 11:34am

@JimiTime - We'll have to wait til he posts again for clarification - it's what I took from his posts. It is not my desire to bend the gospel to condone sinful practices, whatever they may be.
I am not opposed to the idea that some experience change in their attraction but those examples are few and far between in my experience - there are formerly ex-gay groups such as Courage that have changed their ethos because they saw little or no freedom from same sex attraction among attendees and now embrace 'loving same-sex relationships' - and there are groups that maintain the biblical perspective despite not seeing that freedom in the majority of cases.
My point is the church can be a cold place for those struggling with this issue, even for those on the 'inside' - so it's little wonder there aren't many gays (ex or otherwise) in the pews.

Zombrex · 14-02-2012 2:55pm

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Do you believe that gay people should live alone PDN?

Would you care if he did?

I have to agree with the Christians on this one, I'm sort of at a loss why people are getting so offended.

For a start it is difficult to believe everyone here didn't already know that Christianity considered homosexual acts to be sinful. So the idea that someone would be offended by that commonly known fact simply being repeated seems silly.

Also a very simply solution to finding Christian doctrine illogical or repulsive is to not be a Christian.

It seems though that people not only don't want to believe this stuff, but they want Christians to stop believing it as well. That is also some what silly.

There are anti-homosexual movements within Christianity that attempt to impose Christian notions of sexual purity on others despite not having grounds within the standard modern notions of what justifies civil restrictions (ie is it harming anyone). These movements should be fought against.

But people seem to be taking offense at the very existence of Christianity and the beliefs. People don't need to respect them, but are people honestly offended by their existences? Why would anyone care that much?

JimiTime · 14-02-2012 3:46pm

SonOfAdam wrote: »

@JimiTime - We'll have to wait til he posts again for clarification - it's what I took from his posts.

No problem.

I am not opposed to the idea that some experience change in their attraction but those examples are few and far between in my experience

Fair enough, but thats no reason to dismiss those who testify to such a thing I'm sure you'd agree? Especially in the venomous manner many do.

My point is the church can be a cold place for those struggling with this issue,

Any group claiming to be Christian who decides that certain sinners are unwelcome, are not Christian thats for sure. Equally, any group that claims to be Christian who affirms a persons sin is also not Christian. This is the crux of it. Not affirmational inclusion but transformational inclusion! THAT is what Jesus thought. We all need to be transformed in Christ and repent, but if the leaders of our churches tell us that our particular sin is ok, it really betrays our spiritual welfare and what Christ thought us.

SonOfAdam · 14-02-2012 4:27pm

^^^ It's an emotive issue for sure - people naturally want others to validate their lifestyles - when they fail to do so immediate incredulity and outrage follows.

JimiTime wrote:

Not affirmational inclusion but transformational inclusion!

I agree.

Morbert · 14-02-2012 4:48pm

philologos wrote: »

It's amazing how bitter and hostile this gets.

I believe that God was right about sexuality, and I'm quite happy to get into a discussion as to the benefits of a Christian approach to sexuality. Simply put, I disagree with the perspective currently put across by many LGBT activists, and indeed many heterosexual people who choose to live contrary to God's standards concerning sexuality.

I will happily get into this discussion too.

It is generally accepted that the Bible opposes the homosexual lifestyle, as I'm sure you will agree. My question is why. Is it a decree from God, without any explanation or motive exhibited? Or do you believe God's objection to the homosexual lifestyle can be understood in the context of mental and physical well-being, just as we can understand why God opposes stealing, murdering and paedophilia.

tommy2bad · 14-02-2012 5:16pm

Morbert wrote: »

I will happily get into this discussion too.

It is generally accepted that the Bible opposes the homosexual lifestyle, as I'm sure you will agree. My question is why. Is it a decree from God, without any explanation or motive exhibited? Or do you believe God's objection to the homosexual lifestyle can be understood in the context of mental and physical well-being, just as we can understand why God opposes stealing, murdering and paedophilia.

Seems it something to do with the theology of marriage and what that means in a Christian context. The trouble with that is that theology is man made, a sort of guessing game as to how God's intentions play out in the real world.
They screwed up with slavery and IMNSHO are screwing up on this one as well.

As to why people would be offended by the churches attitude to anything, they don't. Its when 'my way or the highway' becomes the argument that people tend to get hostile.
People get offended when an aggressive tone is used. Forthright or direct is one thing but words carry an emotional charge and some people fail to allow for this.

Doc Farrell · 14-02-2012 5:32pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Do you believe that gay people should live alone PDN?

Would you care if he did?

I have to agree with the Christians on this one, I'm sort of at a loss why people are getting so offended.

For a start it is difficult to believe everyone here didn't already know that Christianity considered homosexual acts to be sinful. So the idea that someone would be offended by that commonly known fact simply being repeated seems silly.

Also a very simply solution to finding Christian doctrine illogical or repulsive is to not be a Christian.

It seems though that people not only don't want to believe this stuff, but they want Christians to stop believing it as well. That is also some what silly.

There are anti-homosexual movements within Christianity that attempt to impose Christian notions of sexual purity on others despite not having grounds within the standard modern notions of what justifies civil restrictions (ie is it harming anyone). These movements should be fought against.

But people seem to be taking offense at the very existence of Christianity and the beliefs. People don't need to respect them, but are people honestly offended by their existences? Why would anyone care that much?

Of course I'm interested because he's one of the less reactionary posters here. There seem to be few on here, including your self who are familiar with the attempts in Catholicism to drop the condemnation and attempt a little inclusivity. I don't have the time or interest in going into it here so instead here's a little article about what Jesus actually said about gay people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/elizabeth-cunningham/what-were-jesus-views-on_b_554230.html

Zombrex if you honestly think that the catholic church is the same now as it was a hundred years ago or in the middle ages then there's nothing left to say.

Zombrex · 14-02-2012 5:45pm

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Of course I'm interested because he's one of the less reactionary posters here. There seem to be few on here, including your self who are familiar with the attempts in Catholicism to drop the condemnation and attempt a little inclusivity.

Why though would you want the Catholic church, or any Christian church, to be more inclusive? If you don't believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, why would you want to be a Catholic? Why would anyone?

tommy2bad · 14-02-2012 6:24pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Why though would you want the Catholic church, or any Christian church, to be more inclusive? If you don't believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, why would you want to be a Catholic? Why would anyone?

Because you believe and accept the core message, it's the little nuances that have to be sorted out.
Also a faith isn't a static thing it a living, growing and evolving understanding of
our relationship with God. Its not a social club.

PDN · 14-02-2012 6:53pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Because you believe and accept the core message,

Like the Bible being God's revelation to man?

tommy2bad · 14-02-2012 8:16pm

PDN wrote: »

Like the Bible being God's revelation to man?

Define revelation?
I don't think anyone sees the bible as a list of commands and strictures. It's a record of a peoples relationship with God. Told in poetry, myth, song and story.
It contains things that are relevant to us now and things that are irrelevant.
It's not and never was intended to be read as anything other than a record.
Theirs a strain of Christianity that seeks certainty so it try s to nail everything down to; this is, that isn't, no shades of gray.

Doc Farrell · 14-02-2012 10:42pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Of course I'm interested because he's one of the less reactionary posters here. There seem to be few on here, including your self who are familiar with the attempts in Catholicism to drop the condemnation and attempt a little inclusivity.

Why though would you want the Catholic church, or any Christian church, to be more inclusive? If you don't believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, why would you want to be a Catholic? Why would anyone?

I'm very sorry zombrex but I can't discuss this at the moment. A couple of quick points, 100 years ago a Jesuit theologian was refused a Catholic burial because of what he wrote. I found that story extraordinarily sad and I'm glad we are moving away from that kind of thinking.
I personally would be considered a liberal catholic but fundamentally I believe in a supernatural dimension to reality because of a couple of experiences I have had so I don't have much of a problem anymore believing in the Resurrection.
I genuinely think that Catholicism has been a source of goodness to the poor in education, medicine, social concerns. I also believe that the sins committed by the church has caused its own implosion and that this was a necessary and eventually an incredibly revitalising step.
On this particular subject, homosexuality, the key word is dignity. You cannot show compassion without believing that all people deserve dignity, rich and poor, straight and queer. All deserve equal dignity.
The church moves at a glacial pace, if you are genuinely interested in my views I would be happy to discuss any subject with you here. There are many diverging views within church hierarchy, as Vatican II highlighted 50 years ago, but fundamentally the central teaching of Compassion is shared by all and also believed in by me.
In 50 years the world will have changed greatly and the church will have opened up to married priests, women priests and gay weddings, well maybe 100 years, and we will look back at the turn of the 21st century as the end of male dominated church.
And I hope that there will also be respect for old fashioned subjects such as celibacy, Latin and Greek, incense, rituals and most importantly that commonly mocked subject, the supernatural.
That in a nutshell is why I have returned to and deeply admire the many wonderful people (and the odd nutter) who make up the Catholic church.

Zombrex · 15-02-2012 9:02am

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I'm very sorry zombrex but I can't discuss this at the moment.

Fair enough.

Zombrex · 15-02-2012 9:06am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Because you believe and accept the core message, it's the little nuances that have to be sorted out.

The core message being that God exists and has a correct way he wants humans to live their lives and an incorrect way that will result in righteous punishment? And that this is revealed through the Bible? And includes homosexual acts as a sin?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Also a faith isn't a static thing it a living, growing and evolving understanding of
our relationship with God. Its not a social club.

Yes you can believe anything you like. You can believe in Zeus for all I care. What I don't get is why anyone would take a religious group that has a defined set of beliefs and then demand that that religious group change those core beliefs in order to be more inclusive to those that don't actually share those beliefs.

Zombrex · 15-02-2012 9:07am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Define revelation?
I don't think anyone sees the bible as a list of commands and strictures. It's a record of a peoples relationship with God. Told in poetry, myth, song and story.
It contains things that are relevant to us now and things that are irrelevant.
It's not and never was intended to be read as anything other than a record.
Theirs a strain of Christianity that seeks certainty so it try s to nail everything down to; this is, that isn't, no shades of gray.

Do you believe in sin? Do you believe that unrepentant sinners will face hell? If you don't personally believe in sin do you accept that it is a core concept in most Christian denominations including Catholism?

PDN · 15-02-2012 9:21am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Define revelation?

"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being" (Hebrews 1:1-3)

"Scripture cannot be set aside" (John 10:35)

Revelation is where God shows Himself and His will to mankind. It is, by definition, a one-way communication. Man does not try to search out God's will by his own logic or reasoning. God reveals His will to us because otherwise we could not know it.

I don't think anyone sees the bible as a list of commands and strictures. It's a record of a peoples relationship with God. Told in poetry, myth, song and story.
It contains things that are relevant to us now and things that are irrelevant.
It's not and never was intended to be read as anything other than a record.

The Bible is a record, but it is also a call to follow God. Not to follow some made-up god that fits with our personal whims, but to follow the real God who has revealed Himself.

If the Bible is a record, then that does not give us the option of picking and choosing those parts of the record that we like and rejecting the bits that make us uncomfortable.

Theirs a strain of Christianity that seeks certainty so it try s to nail everything down to; this is, that isn't, no shades of gray.

And there's a strain of 'Christianity' which tries to argue that black is really white.

tommy2bad · 15-02-2012 4:14pm

PDN wrote: »

Revelation is where God shows Himself and His will to mankind. It is, by definition, a one-way communication. Man does not try to search out God's will by his own logic or reasoning. God reveals His will to us because otherwise we could not know it.

And there's a strain of 'Christianity' which tries to argue that black is really white.

Theirs a certain irony in that bit

No one is saying black is white, we might say not as black as you think though.
This is one of those 'bible believing Christian' v Christian things. How you read the bible will always claim to be the right way and the other guy will be an idolater. The joke is the insult will come from both sides.

Benny_Cake · 15-02-2012 6:13pm

It's 16 years old at this point, but there is a transcript of an interesting discussion / debate here between the Baptist pastor Tony Campolo and his wife, Peggy, in relation to this issue (he believes gay men and women are called to celibacy, she believes that gay marriage is permissible). It helped me to understand the issue a little better anyway.

Zombrex · 16-02-2012 12:09am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Theirs a certain irony in that bit

No one is saying black is white, we might say not as black as you think though.
This is one of those 'bible believing Christian' v Christian things. How you read the bible will always claim to be the right way and the other guy will be an idolater. The joke is the insult will come from both sides.

What is a non-bible-believing Christian?

lmaopml · 16-02-2012 1:01am

Zombrex wrote: »

What is a non-bible-believing Christian?

True.

However, I do believe that our brothers, sisters, cousins etc. etc. who identify as gay are more than worthy to thread the path, just so long as they know where the bar is set - just like me, who falls short many times over. They deserve as much hairy eyeball as I would receive as a heterosexual who is finding my way too, and falls below it, always will and looks to Christ - nobody is beyond the borders of looking to Christ for mercy.

They shouldn't be told 'bad you' or 'those crazy Christians, look elsewhere' if connection with Jesus is what they desire, because he is always waiting, always, and willing to change a heart any moment, and knows every single one.

They are no different to anybody else imo that falls short and doesn't even realise it in so many ways.

However, yes, the 'bar' is set, no point in moving it or even trying, it's immoveable, it's set in something stronger than stone, so yes you are committing a sin, yes so am I when I act contrary to God everyday; imo, the emphasis should be on not only the 'sin' every single person commits, but moreso on growing in a relationship and faith in Christ - everything else is secondary and comes naturally to it.

'Daniel' is a name that I love; it means 'God is my Judge' - it also signifies 'Daniel in the Lions Den' -

This is the lions den, and yes, God is Judge. However, sin is sin, but his mercy is boundless and anybody who seeks companionship with him no matter how tricky the road will be judged accordingly, there are no perfect stone throwers here.

tommy2bad · 16-02-2012 1:30am

Zombrex wrote: »

What is a non-bible-believing Christian?

Their you go, its not my phrase.
I wonder if this is a pond thing? Americans tend to be about 'in' and 'out' more than we do, so her 'not a Christian' comment may not mean what I think it means. She may mean good Christian more than non Christian.

JimiTime · 16-02-2012 1:31am

lmaopml wrote: »

They are no different to anybody else imo that falls short and doesn't even realise it in so many ways.

A person who realises its sinful and struggles with it is indeed no different to any of us who struggle against sins clutches. The issue with homosexuality that sets it apart though, is the campaign to have it affirmed as ok, and NOT sinful. A homosexual person who accepts Christ and recognises their sin, should be treated no differently to anyone else in Christ. However, anyone trying to claim to be a brother or sister while at the same time trying to have what God has condemned, affirmed as ok should be met with strong opposition in the Church. I think thats the REAL issue for Christians in relation to homosexuality.

tommy2bad · 16-02-2012 1:34am

Some homophobic withered;
The issue with homosexuality that sets it apart though, is the campaign to have it affirmed as ok,

Homosexuality is not a sin. Get over it.

Zombrex · 16-02-2012 1:45am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their you go, its not my phrase.
I wonder if this is a pond thing? Americans tend to be about 'in' and 'out' more than we do, so her 'not a Christian' comment may not mean what I think it means. She may mean good Christian more than non Christian.

You would agree though that it is difficult to call someone who doesn't believe in the Bible a "Christian" though, wouldn't you?

JimiTime · 16-02-2012 1:48am

tommy2bad wrote:

Homosexuality is not a sin. Get over it.

I'm not sure if you are a professing Christian, if so, I'm afraid you'll have to do a bit better than proclamation. If you're not a professing Christian, then I understand your position, but its irrelevant to the point.

Oh, and I don't mind being called homophobic (As i said earlier, I'm not easily offended. Especially by strangers on the internet. Speaking of which, didn't you try lecture me about manners?)it belongs to a category of lazy minded pejoratives that look to stifle debate and silence opposing viewpoints. So now its off your chest, do you want to grow up a bit and leave the name-calling out?

lmaopml · 16-02-2012 1:58am

JimiTime wrote: »

A person who realises its sinful and struggles with it is indeed no different to any of us who struggle against sins clutches.

No they aren't.

The issue with homosexuality that sets it apart though, is the campaign to have it affirmed as ok, and NOT sinful.

Yes, but that campaign has nothing to do with a person who may identify as homosexual, but also as a Christian, and is looking towards Christ. It's a political movement, we shouldn't react to it like a prejudice exists that sets homosexuality apart from all the crazy mad sinners that we ourselves are.

[A homosexual person who accepts Christ and recognises their sin, should be treated no differently to anyone else in Christ.[/quote]

Absolutely they shouldn't - they are just starting out on a journey and may have tremendous faith too. Who knows where it leads.

However, anyone trying to claim to be a brother or sister while at the same time trying to have what God has condemned, affirmed as ok should be met with strong opposition in the Church. I think thats the REAL issue for Christians in relation to homosexuality.

Ok, I understand the 'REAL' opposition part in response to a political motive to change the faith should be stated as fact. However, I would rather have faith in the 'faith' and above all in those who are just normal people who need Christ in their lives and seek him out.

The simple fact is that the Scripture the Church the Faith - Christianity is not going to redefine 'sin' for anybody EVER - well at least I know my Church isn't going to, but the truth is that it is full up to the total brim with sinners and that is exactly what it is made for - both a rebuke, but also a welcome too for anybody who takes the first steps. We're not a Church of perfect people, we're anything but...

JimiTime · 16-02-2012 2:06am

lmaopml wrote: »

No they aren't.

Yes, but that campaign has nothing to do with a person who may identify as homosexual, but also as a Christian and is looking towards Christ. It's a political movement, we shouldn't react to it like a prejudice exists that sets homesexuality apart from all the crazy mad sinners that we ourselves are.

[A homosexual person who accepts Christ and recognises their sin, should be treated no differently to anyone else in Christ.

Absolutely they shouldn't - they are just starting out on a journey and may have tremendous faith too.

Ok, I understand the 'REAL' opposition part in response to a political motive to change the faith. However, I would rather have faith in the 'faith' and above all in those who are just normal people who need Christ in their lives and seek him out.

The simple fact is that the Scripture the Church the Faith - Christianity is not going to redefine 'sin' for anybody ever - well at least I know my Church isn't going to, but the truth is that it is full up to the total brim with sinners and that is exactly what it is made for - both a rebuke, but also a welcome too for anybody who takes the first steps.

I think we're on the same page. I just feel that sometimes people forget about the rebuke part;) Again, the wisdom of Paul to the Corinthians:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.

lmaopml · 16-02-2012 2:18am

Exactly! We can't leave this world or judge anybody on it, but we never lower the bar ever, not for ourselves or anybody, or indeed can close the gates of our Churches to anybody or tell them they aren't or can't become Christ like, because that's not in our remit to do, we're in the process ourselves only. All sinners are welcome, that means everybody no exceptions.

JimiTime · 16-02-2012 11:26am

lmaopml wrote: »

Exactly! We can't leave this world or judge anybody on it, but we never lower the bar ever, not for ourselves or anybody, or indeed can close the gates of our Churches to anybody or tell them they aren't or can't become Christ like, because that's not in our remit to do, we're in the process ourselves only. All sinners are welcome, that means everybody no exceptions.

Thats it. What do you think about what is said about judging people who claim to be brothers or sisters within the church but who are sexually immoral etc? Its a fairly strong command given. Actually, I think I'll start a thread about that. Might be interesting.

tommy2bad · 16-02-2012 1:36pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You would agree though that it is difficult to call someone who doesn't believe in the Bible a "Christian" though, wouldn't you?

Hmmm. Good question. It depends on what you mean by believe in the bible. 'Bible Believing Christian' tends to be a self description that denotes born again evangelical christian, some more Calvinist than others but ist less about being christian and more about tribal identity.
All Christians believe in the bible but not all give it the same weight, tradition and the guidance of the holy spirit are counted too.

tommy2bad · 16-02-2012 1:45pm

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are a professing Christian, if so, I'm afraid you'll have to do a bit better than proclamation. If you're not a professing Christian, then I understand your position, but its irrelevant to the point.

Oh, and I don't mind being called homophobic (As i said earlier, I'm not easily offended. Especially by strangers on the internet. Speaking of which, didn't you try lecture me about manners?)it belongs to a category of lazy minded pejoratives that look to stifle debate and silence opposing viewpoints. So now its off your chest, do you want to grow up a bit and leave the name-calling out?

Oh the irony!

Your attitude is somewhat combative, so if you get the same in return don't complain.
To assert that homosexuality is sinful is nonsense, no denomination makes that claim. To say that this is the biggest issue facing christianity is laughable. Worse it shows a sense of priorities that are so askew they make Jesus cry.
Yes I am a professing Christian.

Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

Comments