As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

hinault

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

They could just move them to another parish. Seems to be what is done rather than throwing them out. It would be depressing to see them weeding out them rather than the ones who molested children, priorities arent really right there.

I've no problem with the Church dismissing paedophiles and reporting them to the police either.

Frank Bullitt

hinault wrote: »

I've no problem with the Church dismissing paedophiles and reporting them to the police either.

But that is something which seems to be an issue within the church, as also seems to be some sort of a second item on the list as well for you.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

McVerry and Kennedy both decided that the gospel teaching on marriage was not worth voting NO for.

They weren't voting on the gospel teaching. Nor was any other voter. The vote was about SECULAR marriage.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

The only marriage taught by Jesus was the marriage between a man and a woman.

Yes, the Church should fire clergy from their ministry who advocate for marriages other than ones between a one man and one woman.

So what clergy have advocated religious same sex marriage?

ShowMeTheCash

hinault wrote: »

The only marriage taught by Jesus was the marriage between a man and a woman.

Yes, the Church should fire clergy from their ministry who advocate for marriages other than ones between a one man and one woman.

Allegedly!

It is this small mindedness I find disturbing a blinkered approach to the teachings of some man who may or may not of existing on teachings he may or may not have given.

People want to look at the bible literally and give the bible and church a complete free pass with no regard to scrutiny.

Even is Jesus did exist and even if the gospels give a somewhat accurate account of his life and even if Jesus was a supernatural being and the son of God, Jesus did not write the bible we are not even sure if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the correct authors, some historian theorize the names of the authors came long after the books had been written. 2000 years ago when slaves, weekend crucifixion and a morning stoning before breakfast was all the norm I think it only rational to perhaps try and view the teachings of Jesus within context.

Some Christians want to condemn Homosexuality because the texts of the bible support it, it also advocates murder and slavery but I find it amazing when Christians start cherry picking these texts, wealthy people talk about being blessed but the bible states "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."

People who cannot think for themselves I would not even consider people of faith, they are sheep who follow blindly refusing to question the logic no matter how biased or bigoted, you are probably Christian due to your influences going to guess born into it..... Seems that getting into heaven has a lot to do with your demographic a little unfair if you ask me.

If you where born a Muslim you would probably talking about martyrdom and 17 virgins!

But at least you would probably still have the same narrow view.

uck51js9zml2yt

There are contemporary writimgs which speak of Jesus so his existence is factual.
As for whether he was a lunatic, liar or lord you need to decide. I already have.
I wasn't born christian, it was a choice I made 30 years ago . As for Muslims, I've very good friends who converted to Christianity at great personal cost.

In referring to slavery etc, I assume your referring to the old testament. The new testament doesn't advocate it but does deal marriage and homosexuality calling the later a rejection of God and sin on the same par ad any other sin and requiring repentance.
Knowing that Jesus died for all mankind and all sin I can look on homosexuality as sin without hating the person knowing that I sin as well.

jungleman

Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »

There are contemporary writimgs which speak of Jesus so his existence is factual.

What writings, out of curiosity?

uck51js9zml2yt

jungleman wrote: »

What writings, out of curiosity?

There was a contemporary historian called Josephus who mentions Him

hinault

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Allegedly!

It is this small mindedness I find disturbing a blinkered approach to the teachings of some man who may or may not of existing on teachings he may or may not have given.

People want to look at the bible literally and give the bible and church a complete free pass with no regard to scrutiny.

Even is Jesus did exist and even if the gospels give a somewhat accurate account of his life and even if Jesus was a supernatural being and the son of God, Jesus did not write the bible we are not even sure if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the correct authors, some historian theorize the names of the authors came long after the books had been written. 2000 years ago when slaves, weekend crucifixion and a morning stoning before breakfast was all the norm I think it only rational to perhaps try and view the teachings of Jesus within context.

Some Christians want to condemn Homosexuality because the texts of the bible support it, it also advocates murder and slavery but I find it amazing when Christians start cherry picking these texts, wealthy people talk about being blessed but the bible states "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."

People who cannot think for themselves I would not even consider people of faith, they are sheep who follow blindly refusing to question the logic no matter how biased or bigoted, you are probably Christian due to your influences going to guess born into it..... Seems that getting into heaven has a lot to do with your demographic a little unfair if you ask me.

If you where born a Muslim you would probably talking about martyrdom and 17 virgins!

But at least you would probably still have the same narrow view.

There is no allegedly about it. Jesus teaching about marriage in the Bible is clear and unequivocal.

If Jesus Christ countenanced other forms of marriage it is reasonable to assume that (i) Jesus would have stated so, and (ii) that the gospels would have recorded Jesus saying so.
Therefore Jesus did not countenance other forms of marriage because the gospel tells us what Jesus did countenance in terms of marriage.

It's interesting how atheists try to use what isn't in the Bible to make their spurious claims.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

There is no allegedly about it. Jesus teaching about marriage in the Bible is clear and unequivocal.

If Jesus Christ countenanced other forms of marriage it is reasonable to assume that (i) Jesus would have stated so, and (ii) that the gospels would have recorded Jesus saying so.
Therefore Jesus did not countenance other forms of marriage because the gospel tells us what Jesus did countenance in terms of marriage.

It's interesting how atheists try to use what isn't in the Bible to make their spurious claims.

Why is it reasonable to assume that Jesus would have stated anything about something like same sex marriage, when he was speaking in the society of Israel two thousand years ago, where such a thing was never considered.

I don't have much time for some of the American style of Christianity, but I think the phrase "What would Jesus do" is an apt one in this context. Do you really think Jesus would turn his back on two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together as a married couple?

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

There is no allegedly about it. Jesus teaching about marriage in the Bible is clear and unequivocal.

If Jesus Christ countenanced other forms of marriage it is reasonable to assume that (i) Jesus would have stated so, and (ii) that the gospels would have recorded Jesus saying so.
Therefore Jesus did not countenance other forms of marriage because the gospel tells us what Jesus did countenance in terms of marriage.

It's interesting how atheists try to use what isn't in the Bible to make their spurious claims.

I'm sick of this kind of crap. We were asked a question and we answered.

You're free to believe that marriage is a man and woman because Jesus says so. More power to you. Thankfully the rest of the country is no longer a slave to some work of fiction and is able to make up its own mind about the country we live in and what our values are and we've voted for this so deal with it, suck it up and be an adult, respect the vote of your country men and woman and have the manners and decency to acknowledge the new marriages that will come about as a result. You don't have to agree with it but I would hope you would accept those marriages as valid and treat them accordingly.

Its time to <snip> now and get on with it.

uck51js9zml2yt

katydid wrote: »

Why is it reasonable to assume that Jesus would have stated anything about something like same sex marriage, when he was speaking in the society of Israel two thousand years ago, where such a thing was never considered.

I don't have much time for some of the American style of Christianity, but I think the phrase "What would Jesus do" is an apt one in this context. Do you really think Jesus would turn his back on two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together as a married couple?

He wouldnt turn his back on them but He would have said stop sinning. The new testament clearly states Gods thoughts on the mater.
Jesus did mention marriage and said it was between a man and woman. He would have been aware of roman culture and what it brought to Israel as would the Apostle Paul who was a Roman citizen.

uck51js9zml2yt

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm sick of this kind of crap. We were asked a question and we answered.

You're free to believe that marriage is a man and woman because Jesus says so. More power to you. Thankfully the rest of the country is no longer a slave to some work of fiction and is able to make up its own mind about the country we live in and what our values are and we've voted for this so deal with it, suck it up and be an adult, respect the vote of your country men and woman and have the manners and decency to acknowledge the new marriages that will come about as a result. You don't have to agree with it but I would hope you would accept those marriages as valid and treat them accordingly.

Its time to <snip> now and get on with it.

I've no problem respecting the decision of the majority. What I don't have to do is change my view on the mater.
As a Christian my primary responsibility is to God. Where the law of the land conflicts with His command , I will obey Him.
As freedom of religion is still protected under our constitution Im free to practice my faith.

katydid

Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »

He wouldnt turn his back on them but He would have said stop sinning. The new testament clearly states Gods thoughts on the mater.
Jesus did mention marriage and said it was between a man and woman. He would have been aware of roman culture and what it brought to Israel as would the Apostle Paul who was a Roman citizen.

It depends on whether he thought it was a sin or not. Nowhere in the Gospels does he ever say it's a sin. The only mention in the NT is in Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, and it's thought by many to refer primarily to the kind of sexual practices the pagan Corinthians were getting up to in their temples; religious prostitution of all kinds, especially homosexual.

Paul never met Jesus, he is expressing his own opinion. Which he is entitled to do. But you can't use his ambiguous references to homosexuality in a particular setting to claim that Jesus had any particular opinion on the matter.

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm sick of this kind of crap. We were asked a question and we answered.

You're free to believe that marriage is a man and woman because Jesus says so. More power to you. Thankfully the rest of the country is no longer a slave to some work of fiction and is able to make up its own mind about the country we live in and what our values are and we've voted for this so deal with it, suck it up and be an adult, respect the vote of your country men and woman and have the manners and decency to acknowledge the new marriages that will come about as a result. You don't have to agree with it but I would hope you would accept those marriages as valid and treat them accordingly.

Its time to <snip> now and get on with it.

I'm not required to respect anything. The State can legislate for whatever it chooses. I couldn't care less what the state says is valid.

I can't save a person from themselves.

All that those who hold the view that marriage can only be between one man and one woman do is to continue to assert Jesus teaching in the hope that some may heed that teaching.

katydid

Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »

I've no problem respecting the decision of the majority. What I don't have to do is change my view on the mater.
As a Christian my primary responsibility is to God. Where the law of the land conflicts with His command , I will obey Him.
As freedom of religion is still protected under our constitution Im free to practice my faith.

Who is asking you to change your view on the matter?

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

I'm not required to respect anything. The State can legislate for whatever it chooses. I couldn't care less what the state says is valid.

I can't save a person from themselves.

All that those who hold the view that marriage can only be between one man and one woman do is to continue to assert Jesus teaching in the hope that some may heed that teaching.

Well that says a lot about you doesn't it that you would put your religious convictions before the law of the land. When gay couples marry their marriages will be as valid as any that take place in your church and there is nothing you can do about that now. I suggest you try and find a way of accepting it as I don't think carrying around anger and resentment is a healthy way to live.

katydid

eviltwin wrote: »

Well that says a lot about you doesn't it that you would put your religious convictions before the law of the land. When gay couples marry their marriages will be as valid as any that take place in your church and there is nothing you can do about that now. I suggest you try and find a way of accepting it as I don't think carrying around anger and resentment is a healthy way to live.

Actually the marriage that takes place in his church will be LESS valid, legally, if the priests throw their toys out of the pram and refuse to act as solemnisers. The ceremony that happens in church has no legal standing by itself - it's the signing of the register in the vestry that constitutes the legal part of the procedure.

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

Well that says a lot about you doesn't it that you would put your religious convictions before the law of the land. When gay couples marry their marriages will be as valid as any that take place in your church and there is nothing you can do about that now. I suggest you try and find a way of accepting it as I don't think carrying around anger and resentment is a healthy way to live.

The Irish State has decided to legislate for sin.

I'll never endorse sin. You can though.

ShowMeTheCash

Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »

There are contemporary writimgs which speak of Jesus so his existence is factual.
As for whether he was a lunatic, liar or lord you need to decide. I already have.
I wasn't born christian, it was a choice I made 30 years ago . As for Muslims, I've very good friends who converted to Christianity at great personal cost.

In referring to slavery etc, I assume your referring to the old testament. The new testament doesn't advocate it but does deal marriage and homosexuality calling the later a rejection of God and sin on the same par ad any other sin and requiring repentance.
Knowing that Jesus died for all mankind and all sin I can look on homosexuality as sin without hating the person knowing that I sin as well.

I have heard this argument before but let me enlighten you.
There is no factual evidence for his existence, most historian will concede a guy called Jesus probably did exist but it is not a fact..

Your argument around your choices albeit perhaps not the norm does not change my stance, people who follow blindly can easily change direction but continue to follow just as blindly....

If not born into it you live in a predominately christian country you seem to think you made this choice on your own, most people don't myself included we are to a degree at the mercy of our environment.

The new testament doesn't advocate slavery?
I will need to read Luke 12:47 again then....

But you are really missing the point!

The text of the bible could have been written from the narrow view point of people and peoples understanding 2000 years ago....

People thought the earth was flat because it looked flat, if the bible said it was flat perhaps it's because the author thought it was flat or it was the excepted theory.

If you go onto believe the earth is flat even now your just an idiot!

katydid

hinault wrote: »

The Irish State has decided to legislate for sin.

I'll never endorse sin. You can though.

How can someone legislate for sin? Sin is a religious concept. You're being plain silly now.

eviltwin

katydid wrote: »

Actually the marriage that takes place in his church will be LESS valid, legally, if the priests throw their toys out of the pram and refuse to act as solemnisers. The ceremony that happens in church has no legal standing by itself - it's the signing of the register in the vestry that constitutes the legal part of the procedure.

I wonder will they act on that threat now. Somehow I doubt it. They know the writing is on the wall.

uck51js9zml2yt

You really need to read the bible if your going to refer to it.
Paul speaks clearly about homosexuality in romans 1.

PopePalpatine

hinault wrote: »

The Irish State has decided to legislate for sin.

I'll never endorse sin. You can though.

OK, Abu Bakr Al-Hinaulti.

katydid

Adriel Unsightly Witchcraft wrote: »

You really need to read the bible if your going to refer to it.
Paul speaks clearly about homosexuality in romans 1.

I refer you to my post on the issue of Paul and his writings on this matter. Post 105

katydid

eviltwin wrote: »

I wonder will they act on that threat now. Somehow I doubt it. They know the writing is on the wall.

Not at all. It was all guff.

ShowMeTheCash

hinault wrote: »

There is no allegedly about it. Jesus teaching about marriage in the Bible is clear and unequivocal.

If Jesus Christ countenanced other forms of marriage it is reasonable to assume that (i) Jesus would have stated so, and (ii) that the gospels would have recorded Jesus saying so.
Therefore Jesus did not countenance other forms of marriage because the gospel tells us what Jesus did countenance in terms of marriage.

It's interesting how atheists try to use what isn't in the Bible to make their spurious claims.

Look only a complete idiot with no understanding of history and the process of looking at historical facts would make this claim "Jesus teaching about marriage in the Bible is clear and unequivocal."

You may well believe this to be true that is your prerogative but try and not mix up what you believe to be true and what is proven as meaning the same thing.

I am not an atheists but I am educated.

Let me ask a question, who wrote the gospels and how much study have you actually done to the authors authenticity and origins? Or did someone just hand you a bible one day and you decided to go with that?

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

The Irish State has decided to legislate for sin.

I'll never endorse sin. You can though.

Do you believe every decision made by Gov should be checked against what is and is not allowed in Christianity and that our laws should be made accordingly?

How arrogant and selfish would that be for the vast numbers of people in this country who are not of that faith. No one is stopping you from being religious or having your views or living your life how you wish. All others are asking is for that same freedom. Its our country too.

hinault

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am not an atheists but I am educated.

Apparently not.

ShowMeTheCash

hinault wrote: »

Apparently not.

Good come back!