For Christians

[Montalban]

OK, I will paint you a picture.

So far it's using white on a white canvas as far as your 'debate' points are concerned

The entire point was to get you to debate the issue of gay marriages in society rather than debating religion.

So, now you're saying you raised something that had no point in order to illustrate that you believe that religion has no place in a decision about gay marriages? You still haven't shown 'why?' you believe this to be the case as I've already mentioned thrice that 'society' which you think can decide contains religion within it.

I can debate anything you like but this forum is not about religion or is it?

Why do you think they are separate when I started this thread on the issue of Christian's views on homosexuality? You've entered this thread about a religious perspective on homosexuality, made a few vague statements that religion has no place in such a discussion. And I want to know 'why?' you believe this to be so.

You must have a reason, beyond re-stating your position (which is not an answer 'why?'). You've just not stated anything other than 'religion has no place in this discussion'

Here's another way of progressing the debate. I think it does. Not only because it's pertinent to this particular thread, but religious people have a right to decide on moral issues based on their moral stand-point. I have already exampled some people who went beyond what society said was normative; these men and women appealed to higher moral principles in arguing against slavery.

And that reminds me, you've still not answered a question I put to you about women and slaves and your linking them to religion. Specifically you said

Good thing we didn't think this way about women's rights and the rights of persons of color, which religious organizations also faught against. Praise be to God, that the American people didn't listen to them.

 

[Montalban]

In fact, in relation to your statement...

Good thing we didn't think this way about women's rights and the rights of persons of color, which religious organizations also faught against. Praise be to God, that the American people didn't listen to them.

You seem to separate religious organisations from God, as if God can't be found there, otherwise you're praising God on one hand and taking away from Him with the other (and can't you see, you've raised here a question about religion, too).

 

[shuamort]

In fact, in relation to your statement...


You seem to separate religious organisations from God, as if God can't be found there, otherwise you're praising God on one hand and taking away from Him with the other (and can't you see, you've raised here a question about religion, too).

Religion does not equal God. Plenty of religions are polytheistic, goddess centric or atheist.

 

[Fantasea]

The real problem for Christians who are attempting to be modern liberals is that we have to ignore the proscriptions in our faith against homosexuality.

I'm not aware of any branch of Christianity which considers its homosexual members differently than it does its heterosexual members. The teaching is quite simple. Marriage is between a man and a woman; all unmarried persons are obliged to remain celibate.

Regardless of sexual orientation, any unmarried person who does not remain celibate is not following the teachings of Christ.

Christ exhorted all to love one another, unconditionally.

 

[Montalban]

Religion does not equal God. Plenty of religions are polytheistic, goddess centric or atheist.

I agree that religion doesn't equal God. I want to know his reasons for making certain comments, not yours, not mine - I know what I think, I don't know what he thinks. This is a thread on Chrisitianity and its perspective of homosexuality, so I would imagine that the "God" he refers to is the Christian God. He has made some very vague comments about 'organised religions' being separate from God... he thanks God that organised religions haven't continued in their influence. Yet, if we're referring to the Christian God, our knowledge of Him comes from organised religions. Such a general statement he makes about 'organised religions' having a negative effect has made me ask "Does he mean them all?" However I asked for specific reasons why he believes that 'organised religions' are against women, etc.

 

[Montalban]

I'm not aware of any branch of Christianity which considers its homosexual members differently than it does its heterosexual members. The teaching is quite simple. Marriage is between a man and a woman; all unmarried persons are obliged to remain celibate.

Regardless of sexual orientation, any unmarried person who does not remain celibate is not following the teachings of Christ.

Christ exhorted all to love one another, unconditionally.

I beg to differ. I stated 'homosexuality' not homosexauls. That is 'the act', not the person. There is a Christian precept of loving one another. However it is not Christian to ignore sin. "Sexual orientation" that becomes manifested in an act that is sinful is the concern of Christians.

However in this regards people who are prone to a particular sin are in need of extra help

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
I'm not aware of any branch of Christianity which considers its homosexual members differently than it does its heterosexual members. The teaching is quite simple. Marriage is between a man and a woman; all unmarried persons are obliged to remain celibate.

Regardless of sexual orientation, any unmarried person who does not remain celibate is not following the teachings of Christ.

Christ exhorted all to love one another, unconditionally.

I beg to differ. I stated 'homosexuality' not homosexauls. That is 'the act', not the person. There is a Christian precept of loving one another. However it is not Christian to ignore sin. "Sexual orientation" that becomes manifested in an act that is sinful is the concern of Christians.

However in this regards people who are prone to a particular sin are in need of extra help

I believe that my response is germane to the question unless, of course, you advocate loving the sinner and ignoring the sin.

Please clarify.

 

[Montalban]

I believe that my response is germane to the question unless, of course, you advocate loving the sinner and ignoring the sin.

Please clarify.

I do believe in love the sinner, hate the sin.

 

[Fu_chick]

The real problem for Christians who are attempting to be modern liberals is that we have to ignore the proscriptions in our faith against homosexuality.

It's not a matter that some people believe that if it 'feels good' it's okay (this is an invalid argument anyway).

Clearly through Old and New Testamant teaching, and through 2,000 years of tradition homosexuality is seen as a sin.

A clash of beliefs (liberal -v- christian) is always on the cards in such matters.

I think that Christians (and I am one) should be concentrating on themselves and their own sins rather than worrying about the issues of others. Should gay marriages be recognized by Christian Churches? No, but it ends there. Christ teaches us to be tolerant and to not judge others, so why do these teachings go out the window when it comes to modern day issues? If you are against gay marriage, great, don't get one. Beyond that you should be asking yourself, "Am I in a position to be casting stones?"

 

[shuamort]

I think that Christians (and I am one) should be concentrating on themselves and their own sins rather than worrying about the issues of others. Should gay marriages be recognized by Christian Churches? No, but it ends there.

What about Christian churches that want to recognize gay marriages?

 

[Fu_chick]

What about Christian churches that want to recognize gay marriages?

IMHO they need to go back and read their Bibles. Christ clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Obviously outside churches outside the denomination in question can't do much about it other than let other Christians know and voice their objections. You couldn't proclaim a church non-Christian just for allowing gay marriages to be recognized though.

 

[shuamort]

Christ clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Well, he talks about marriage between a man and a woman, but he didn't defined it or restrict it as such.

 

[Fu_chick]

I thought He did--hang on. I'll look it up...

 

[Fu_chick]

I believe this is it.

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

 

[shuamort]

I believe this is it.

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

It still doesn't restrict marriage to a man and a woman. In fact, there's an Alabama State Rep that'll pony up $5K for anyone that can prove that the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

Alabama State Representative Alvin Holmes is offering $5,000 to anyone who can show him in the Bible where it states that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The offer comes in response to the state legislature’s consideration of a ban on homosexual marriage

 

[Fu_chick]

I don't care what Alvin Holmes says, I interprete that passage to be a defineition of marriage.

 

[shuamort]

I don't care what Alvin Holmes says, I interprete that passage to be a defineition of marriage.

You could or could not care. The wager is out there though and if you're above collecting $5000.00, you're a much better person than I. Of course, I also agree that the bible doesn't denote that marriage is solely between a man and a woman either.

 

[Fantasea]

What about Christian churches that want to recognize gay marriages?

Any church can place the word Christian in its title. Christian, of course, means "follower of Christ". However, many churches are not Christian in the sense that they do not follow Christ, but are organized along democratic lines; meaning that doctrine is what the majority of the congregation votes it to be and is subject to change whenever the majority of the congregation votes to change it.

The clergy in these churches depend upon the congregation for their stipend and serve at the pleasure of the congregation, much the same as do employees of a business.

When one is discussing a Christian Church, one should first determine whether the doctrine of the church being discussed follows the teachings of Christ, or the wishes of the majority of the congregation.

 

[shuamort]

When one is discussing a Christian Church, one should first determine whether the doctrine of the church being discussed follows the teachings of Christ, or the wishes of the majority of the congregation.

ANd how did the catholic church decide which books belonged in the bible and which didn't?

 

[akyron]

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

It still doesn't restrict marriage to a man and a woman. In fact, there's an Alabama State Rep that'll pony up $5K for anyone that can prove that the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife--

Are we defining gay marriage as man and wife but not man and woman?
So we have Larry the Groom/Husband and Larry the bride/wife?


wife ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wf)
n. pl. wives (wvz)
A woman joined to a man in marriage; a female spouse.


The definitions appear to lead back to man and woman in a marriage.

 

[shuamort]

The definitions appear to lead back to man and woman in a marriage.

Yes, but as the wager goes, it doesn't limit or restrict it. No $5k for you.

 

[akyron]

Yes, but as the wager goes, it doesn't limit or restrict it. No $5k for you.

So we are looking in the bible for something that says for one man to not marry another man?

 

[shuamort]

So we are looking in the bible for something that says for one man to not marry another man?

You're looking in the bible for it to say that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

 

[akyron]

You're looking in the bible for it to say that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

I guess with that logic dogs and giraffes make good wives to man as well.

 

[ShamMol]

I guess with that logic dogs and giraffes make good wives to man as well.

No, you don't get it. What he is saying is you are only seeing what you want to see and don't think it is appropriate to go and look for anything that could possibly contradict the views you hold now. Basically, he is calling you complacent, you gonna take that? :lol: