Christian marriage same gender? Where???

[Montalban]

Again...you take things out of context. Nice.

You said you NEVER help unless asked.

What other context have you, given there's no other situation left after you use the word NEVER?

 

[Dionysiou]

people, nobody here is out to get anybody or make them out to be a fool. We are simply helping a brother out, thats all.

Yes thats my quote and it was directed at my brother (being you) but then you replied with a general statement of "You are not "helping" anybody" lol im right man, anybody eventhough i understand the context it was being used, it is still a general statement and therefore should have been "You are not "helping" me." That would have made sense.

 

[Montalban]

Well since this is getting ridiculous, I am going to bed! Have a good night! Feel free to type that I am running away from an "argument" that I cannot defend. I'll be back tomorrow.

No need to explain. I'd never do that.

Have a good night.

 

[Dionysiou]

yeh, have a goodnight man, sweetdreams lol

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on
Please keep this thread on topic. Please discuss the issue NOT each OTHER or this thred will close!

Civilized conversation includes respect for each other and no flaming or baiting.

Thank you!

Mod hat off​

 

[Dionysiou]

You heard the lady

 

[Phinehas2]

I cant quite see the point of the thread here. It doesnt have a place in the Christian section except to show that there is no scripture to challenge the scriptural condemnations and exclusions, so showing the Christian position is that same sex relations are error and sin, and on an open forum I cant see why the scriptures can be relevant to non-believers.

 

[Montalban]

The point is Phinehas2 is some Christians feel the need to make their beliefs conform with what is currently popular, rather than based on lasting principles

 

[Phinehas2]

But that according to the Bible is what non-believers do.

 

[KCKID]

The point is Phinehas2 is some Christians feel the need to make their beliefs conform with what is currently popular, rather than based on lasting principles

Beliefs are fluid, Montalban, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Both you and Phinehas and some others on this forum are stagnated in the wrong century and the wrong culture. I personally cannot relate to either one of you. I guess that makes me a bad person and a bad Christian ...?

 

[Montalban]

But that according to the Bible is what non-believers do.

Unfortunately some non-believers wear 'Christian' icons. Still we know the tree by the fruit it bears. And moral relativism is bad fruit.

 

[KCKID]

I cant quite see the point of the thread here. It doesnt have a place in the Christian section except to show that there is no scripture to challenge the scriptural condemnations and exclusions, so showing the Christian position is that same sex relations are error and sin, and on an open forum I cant see why the scriptures can be relevant to non-believers.

You already contributed to the thread, Phinehas, despite your not seeing the point of it. Are you going to respond to the question asked of you by at least three people? It concerns Jesus 'having had a ball' condemning homosexuality.

 

[KCKID]

Unfortunately some non-believers wear 'Christian' icons. Still we know the tree by the fruit it bears. And moral relativism is bad fruit.

The way I see Christianity is quite removed from the way that you see Christianity, Montalban. To me there's quite a difference between 'Christianity' and 'religiosity'. Christianity does not require the need to thump people with the Bible in order for one to demonstrate 'their fruits' ...religiosity does and it's more often than not a self-serving practice.

 

[Montalban]

The way I see Christianity is quite removed from the way that you see Christianity, Montalban. To me there's quite a difference between 'Christianity' and 'religiosity'.

Absolutely. When I ask some on your side of the discussion to place their argument in Christian terms, they can not show from the Bible (or tradition) why they believe what they do.

Christianity does not require the need to thump people with the Bible in order for one to demonstrate 'their fruits' ...religiosity does and it's more often than not a self-serving practice.

I'm not thumping people with the Bible. I've noted I don't accept sola scriptura argument but at least I can couch my beliefs within Christianity, not just my opinion based on feelings.

If you want to show your reasons within Christianity you certainly are most welcome to do so.

I'll accept as argument more sources that the OP; bible, tradition, church fathers.

 

[Psudopod]

The point is Phinehas2 is some Christians feel the need to make their beliefs conform with what is currently popular, rather than based on lasting principles
__________________

How do you know they are basing it on "what is popular" rather than what they feel is right? Christians in the past have used the bible to justify slavery, racism, mysogeny etc. Are Christians who disagree with these things just trying to be popular? Or is it a case that perhaps, as with homosexuality, they cannot justify such things with a loving God?

 

[Phinehas2]

Psudopod,
Christians dont base their views on what they feel is right but on the revealtion of God according to His word and by His Spirit. Subsequently the debate reduces to the nature of Christianity despite the thread asking for scriptures.

 

[Phinehas2]

KCKID,

The way I see Christianity is quite removed from the way that you see Christianity,

Obviously, yet I don’t believe views rooted in what people feel as opposed to God’s word is in fact Christianity at all.

Christianity does not require the need to thump people with the Bible in order for one to demonstrate 'their fruits' ...religiosity does and it's more often than not a self-serving practice.

True but the Christian knows their identity in Christ means there is no condemnation, Jesus came to save the world not to condemn it. Based on this the only people who could feel thumped would be non-believers, the same NT teaches believers to lead people to Christ so that Christ can do the work in their hearts and minds.

Let me remind you
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

What is contrary to the Spirit? let me remind you
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Same adultery and homosexual offending referred to in 1 Cor 6.

The law is summed up by love God and love your neighbour as yourself, but Christians seek to live by the Spirt.

 

[KCKID]

Absolutely. When I ask some on your side of the discussion to place their argument in Christian terms, they can not show from the Bible (or tradition) why they believe what they do.

Why this obsession for using the Bible as a 'how to' manual? It surely was never intended to be used in this manner and never intended to be used in a manner that diminishes the human-ness of another person. And, that is precisely what you and others are doing.

I'm not thumping people with the Bible. I've noted I don't accept sola scriptura argument but at least I can couch my beliefs within Christianity, not just my opinion based on feelings.

Any number of us who don't agree with you can say the same thing. I believe that your interpretations of the scriptures that you use to 'couch your beliefs' are incorrect. I'm not basing my acceptance of committed homosexual relationships on mere feelings. I simply do not believe that Jesus would object to these relationships based on my reading of the gospels. It really must irk you to have to acknowledge that Jesus never as much as hinted His disapproval for homosexuality.

If you want to show your reasons within Christianity you certainly are most welcome to do so.

I've given my reasons but I'll add one more. That is, one's God-given free will to find a partner of their choice with whom to make a committed relationship ...or not, of course. The Bible, the Church fathers, etc. have no say in how one exercises their free will. As soon as they do one's free will has been violated.

*sigh* ...Please don't bring up dead people, children, animals, or inanimate objects . . .

 

[Montalban]

Why this obsession for using the Bible as a 'how to' manual? It surely was never intended to be used in this manner and never intended to be used in a manner that diminishes the human-ness of another person. And, that is precisely what you and others are doing.

You would be well advised to read what I write and reply to that, rather than make things up. I stated I'd accept an argument from tradition. I've stated I'm not a sola scriptura Christian. I've stated it again now so you can be in no doubt.

Any number of us who don't agree with you can say the same thing. I believe that your interpretations of the scriptures that you use to 'couch your beliefs' are incorrect.

So I gahter. Why you do is what I ask.

I'm not basing my acceptance of committed homosexual relationships on mere feelings. I simply do not believe that Jesus would object to these relationships based on my reading of the gospels. It really must irk you to have to acknowledge that Jesus never as much as hinted His disapproval for homosexuality.

Who's now obsessed with the Bible! You don't want to argue from it, now you do!
Which bit of Jesus talking of a man and woman means he meant something totally different?

I've given my reasons but I'll add one more. That is, one's God-given free will to find a partner of their choice with whom to make a committed relationship ...or not, of course. The Bible, the Church fathers, etc. have no say in how one exercises their free will. As soon as they do one's free will has been violated.

You argue against yourself because you believe that your reading of the Bible actually allows you this free-will

Please don't bring up dead people, children, animals, or inanimate objects . . .

Why not? Why do you accept one sinful union and not another? You said one could have a 'free-will', well animals don't have a 'will' so it shouldn't matter what you do with one (they aren't consulted when we eat them or keep them as pets) so their 'consent' doesn't come up as an issue.

 

[Psudopod]

Psudopod,
Christians dont base their views on what they feel is right but on the revealtion of God according to His word and by His Spirit. Subsequently the debate reduces to the nature of Christianity despite the thread asking for scriptures.

And what if they feel revealation from God has led them to these views? Scripture doesn't say everything, you need to consider both what is written in the bible, what is written in the world around us, and weigh them both up.