Flawed Logic of Gay Christians

MercyBurst · Jul 25, 2008

kiwimac said:
Remember though that the Church allowed slavery,

Remember that the American government allowed slavery -- the same ones that are supposed to "fix" civil rights.

MercyBurst · Jul 25, 2008

xlanna said:
This is making me sick...

This forum is a pretty disgusting place all things considered. Gays come here to partner up with other gays so I hear.

Close 'er down..

EnemyPartyII · Jul 25, 2008

MercyBurst said:
This forum is a pretty disgusting place all things considered. Gays come here to partner up with other gays so I hear.

Close 'er down..

Always a good tactic. When you have no actual reason to condemn something, throw mud.

HaloHope · Jul 25, 2008

MercyBurst said:
This forum is a pretty disgusting place all things considered. Gays come here to partner up with other gays so I hear.

If thats what you "hear" MB it may be a genuinally good idea to get your ears checked.

MercyBurst · Jul 25, 2008

HaloHope said:
If thats what you "hear" MB it may be a genuinally good idea to get your ears checked.

You don't think gays come here to meet other gays. That's pretty naive.

On this forum, a lesbian said she didn't need to go to a bar when she could come to a forum like this to meet her next partner.....

KCKID · Jul 25, 2008

Caylin said:
Don't care!

Now, now ...I'm on your side.

Wiccan_Child · Jul 25, 2008

MercyBurst said:
This forum is a pretty disgusting place all things considered. Gays come here to partner up with other gays so I hear.

The key phrase there being "so I hear". You're basing your condemnations on hearsay and gossip. Thank you for fantastically illustrating an important point.

MercyBurst said:
Close 'er down..

If you don't like it, go away.

xlanna · Jul 25, 2008

KCKID said:
Sorry, xlanna, but you might have warned the forum beforehand that a little lighthearted mirth makes you sick.

Smile a little ...surely it won't register on the Richter Scale!

?

WarriorAngel · Jul 25, 2008

kiwimac said:
Remember though that the Church allowed slavery, the oppression of dissent, tried to stifle science when it disagreed with the aristotaleian or ptolomaic model of the universe and continues to oppress women. Simply because it is old does not make it infallible.

The Church is made up the Pope who oversees the magesterium...who oversees the faith of the laity.

A single opinion regarding science by a Pope, is not the whole Church since it was not based on moral doctrines and teachings.

Secondly, the Church didnt advocate or otherwise decide on slavery.
Slavery was not what we think it was [using the African oppression as a role model] Slavery in the ancient times was a 'trade' by agreement.
No one was sold into slavery.
However; families willingly became enslaved to wealthy men in order for them to 'work' and survive....being given housing and food in exchange.

Take note of the example of the Prodical son to understand what slavery was.
The son used up all his wealth and so being destitute he turned to 'working' for a man who gave him a roof over his head and allowed for him to eat what his pigs ate.

HE did this willingly - AND notice the man finally thot to himself that his father fed his help rather well, so he left - freely - to pursue his homeland.

I think alot of ppl think slavery means bondage or enslavement without choice - but that is not true.

AND who here doesnt think their boss is a slave driver.

Seriously tho, it was the 'blue collar' workers who agreed to having housing and food and in exchange gave their labors for their masters.

I just find it tiresome ppl repeat legends.

BTW - some of the greatest Saints were women, we are NOT oppressed in the Catholic Church.
WE have 'different roles' than men, but from what i can see... Catholic marriages are by far the most equal ...
In fact, the only 'oppression' might seem to be the fact they cannot be priests, which has its reasons. That's not oppression. JUST as men cannot give birth - God assigns us roles.
BUT women in general are highly esteemed in the Catholic Church.

Look at the Hindu women in India - burned alive because the husband wants a divorce.
Or Islamic women being killed thru honor killings.
Or other groups who overdo the scriptures on what was teaching.

Been Catholic ALL my life, and if there are a few things i know - one is the actuality of the Church.
I kindly request that ppl do not denigrate my religion who really are on the outside looking in and do not know how we work or perceive doctrines vs opinions. Thank you all.

xlanna · Jul 25, 2008

KCKID said:
Poly lesbian ...isn't that a sin? Hmmm ...I'm sure it is.

lol...

WarriorAngel · Jul 25, 2008

Caylin said:
The best part is, there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me from being a poly lesbian.

And you dear one, are very correct.
The only thing someone can do is warn you.
Free will makes the human essense...a God given right.
To which no one can change another person, but the person themself.

Zecryphon · Jul 25, 2008

MercyBurst said:
You don't think gays come here to meet other gays. That's pretty naive.

On this forum, a lesbian said she didn't need to go to a bar when she could come to a forum like this to meet her next partner.....

And how is that one lesbian representative of the entire forum? Was she the official spokesperson for the Debates on Homosexuality forum? If this were truly a dating forum then I imagine the posts would read alot differently.

D.W.Washburn · Jul 25, 2008

WarriorAngel said:
Secondly, the Church didnt advocate or otherwise decide on slavery.
Slavery was not what we think it was [using the African oppression as a role model] Slavery in the ancient times was a 'trade' by agreement.
No one was sold into slavery.
However; families willingly became enslaved to wealthy men in order for them to 'work' and survive....being given housing and food in exchange.

Take note of the example of the Prodical son to understand what slavery was.
The son used up all his wealth and so being destitute he turned to 'working' for a man who gave him a roof over his head and allowed for him to eat what his pigs ate.

HE did this willingly - AND notice the man finally thot to himself that his father fed his help rather well, so he left - freely - to pursue his homeland.

I think alot of ppl think slavery means bondage or enslavement without choice - but that is not true.

I assume that you have written here about slavery as it was practiced in biblical antiquity. If so, you are partially correct, but only partially so.

Bond slavery, as you describe it, was practiced in ancient Israel and in both Jewish and gentile cultures of Jesus' day. A man could sell himself into slavery for a period of service. He could also sell members of his family into slavery. Bond slavery was a contract, and one could not freely walk away from it without penalties.

There's really no indication in the Parable of the Prodigal that he sold himself into slavery. He was probably working as a wage laborer. In that case, he truly was free to walk away.

There were however slaves who were bought and sold as well. Joseph's brothers, for instance, sold him as a slave to Ishmaelite traders (Gen 37.25-28). Beside bond slaves, there were also prisoner slaves taken in warfare. As I understand it, Philemon, under Roman law, had the option of punishing Onesimus harshly, having him branded with hot iron as a runaway or, possibly, exacting his life for theft.

Anyway, the Bible in both testaments approves of slavery, though the Scriptures places certain ethical restrictions on a master's treatment of his slaves. The Church has had to deal with this fact and has now, almost universally, condemned the practice of slavery in any form.

Which may or may not bear on how we read the Scriptures dealing with homosexual behavior.

D.W.Washburn · Jul 25, 2008

xlanna said:
LOL...
I don't know why "Christians" are arguing FOR homosexuality. Like...just get over it...God despises homosexuality. Done deal...

Hi xlanna:

To put a fine point on this, I'm not arguing FOR homosexuality. Homosexuality is a given. A minority of the human population just happens to have same-sex attraction. That's the done deal.

If God so despises homosexuality, why does he make some people gay?

Actually, I don't think that God despises homosexuality, which is just an orientation. I don't think that God despises homosexuals, who are just people with an orientation. I do believe that God wants us to use the gift of our sexuality ethically, responsibly, and in ways that are pleasing to him.

Some here argue that homosexual acts are never ethical, responsible, or pleasing to God. Personally, I believe that the same restrictions should be placed on homosexual acts as on heterosexual acts: that they should be practiced within the context of loving, committed, covenanted relationships of mutual fidelity.

We've been talking about polyamory in this thread, which, frankly, is at the far edges of my comfort zone. But considering the examples of polyamorous relationships in the Bible, I can't condemn.

xlanna said:
LOL...
Some things in the bible are very blunt. This is one of them.

The few passages in the Bible that touch on homosexual behavior are not so "blunt" as all that. Nor is there consensus on the proper use and authority of the Scriptures. I accept that the Bible contains the knowledge necessary for salvation and, as such, it is the source and norm of the Church's doctrine. I don't, however, believe as some do, that the Bible is without error or contradiction. See?

AmericanCatholic · Jul 25, 2008

Remember though that the Church allowed slavery, the oppression of dissent, tried to stifle science when it disagreed with the aristotaleian or ptolomaic model of the universe and continues to oppress women. Simply because it is old does not make it infallible.

The Church has never claimed to be infallible in practice. It readily admits wrong-doing on its part, and the part of its members. It nevertheless claims infallibility as far as faith and morals are concerned (i.e. doctrine). The Church does not claim infallibility on the basis of its age -- it's age is evidence of its infallibility. Catholics fully understand that Christ died for sinners, not the righteous, and that the Church is for sinners, not the righteous. Even the Apostles were rebuked at times by Christ. If the men who personally met Christ were not strong enough in faith to refrain from sin completely, is it reasonable to expect that of everyone else to follow? The Church is a living church, and so it's practices improve with time and experience.

That would hold some weight if Christianity had remained one cohesive church over these past two millennia. But, over time, we have seen schism after schism, sect after sect, form and divide. If God is nudging us in the right direction, why do splinter groups keep forming? Indeed, why not poof the true Bible into our laps?

Not all who say "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Catholic Church has remained for nearly 2,000 years, despite schisms, sects, and "reformations". These things occur for a variety of reasons -- since the 16th century, it has mostly been a consequence of individuals asserting themselves over the Church. The heresies of the early church and the denominationalism of Protestantism are consequences of individuals claiming authority in contradiction to the whole of the Church. Sectionalism is not an argument against Catholicism, it's an argument for it. How can someone claim to be Christian while actively dividing the body of Christ? As for the "true" Bible, it's fully available. It's contents were made clear by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, which reaffirmed the decisions of previous councils as far back as the 5th century.

I find that a group of people, especially large, international, for-profit organisations, are more fallible than any one man. After all, can any one man falter so hard as a government, or a nation? The mistakes of one man affect only those around him, but the mistakes of Christianity have global repercussions.

I did not claim that the Church is infallible in act. If it were, leaders and councils would be unnecessary because everyone would be a perfect Christian. I'm not about to admit that every Christian is perfect.

AmericanCatholic · Jul 25, 2008

Anyway, back to my original point: the vast majority of claims and counter-claims here operate under the same basic assumptions of Protestantism; that such and such has to be explicitly stated in the Bible, and if you don't believe what's "clearly" stated, then you're "obviously" not a Christian. I think Catholicism has a more reasonable and natural approach to questions regarding homosexuality; and I think Protestantism in general has an unworkable and incomplete understanding of human nature. As a consequence of the false dichotomy created by Protestantism (you're either a perfect Christian or you're not Christian at all), there's division and no room for debate. Just incessant yelling.

MercyBurst · Jul 25, 2008

xlanna said:
LOL...
I don't know why "Christians" are arguing FOR homosexuality. Like...just get over it...God despises homosexuality. Done deal...
I mean...I haven't always been a Christian, and it was EXTREAMLY hard to come to terms with a "loving God" detesting anything...but honestly, people...Some things in the bible are very blunt. This is one of them.

When God says something is an abomination it doesn't make much sense to defend it, does it?

MercyBurst · Jul 25, 2008

KCKID said:
You and others on this forum might be in for a big shock on Judgment Day, MB.

Yeah, like when we find out the Bible is not God's word and there is no heaven after all -- that would be a big shock all right.

The shock for right now, however, is that many 'gays' are presently your absolute equal in God's eyes because of their heart condition ...

When I repented in my heart, I thought that took care of the sin problem according to the Bible. Now he tells me I'm no better off to any other hell bound sinner.... that's comforting to know....

Well so much for Bible authority....

WarriorAngel · Jul 25, 2008

RegularGuy said:
I assume that you have written here about slavery as it was practiced in biblical antiquity. If so, you are partially correct, but only partially so.

Bond slavery, as you describe it, was practiced in ancient Israel and in both Jewish and gentile cultures of Jesus' day. A man could sell himself into slavery for a period of service. He could also sell members of his family into slavery. Bond slavery was a contract, and one could not freely walk away from it without penalties.

There's really no indication in the Parable of the Prodigal that he sold himself into slavery. He was probably working as a wage laborer. In that case, he truly was free to walk away.

There were however slaves who were bought and sold as well. Joseph's brothers, for instance, sold him as a slave to Ishmaelite traders (Gen 37.25-28). Beside bond slaves, there were also prisoner slaves taken in warfare. As I understand it, Philemon, under Roman law, had the option of punishing Onesimus harshly, having him branded with hot iron as a runaway or, possibly, exacting his life for theft.

Anyway, the Bible in both testaments approves of slavery, though the Scriptures places certain ethical restrictions on a master's treatment of his slaves. The Church has had to deal with this fact and has now, almost universally, condemned the practice of slavery in any form.

Which may or may not bear on how we read the Scriptures dealing with homosexual behavior.

Joseph, as i recall, was treated fairly even if imprisoned...and even was raised in his position.
Which shows us that even bond slavery didnt signify loss of human entitlement...nor dignity.

Families did send their children to this lifestyle, but the child was taken care of and could marry and so could their children.

As we see in the NT when the whole households were baptized along with the masters....which included their 'slaves'.
So slavery wasnt like we 'know' of it.

Furthermore, i agree, the Church has since unapproved of any manner of slavery. And during the times that it was cutural and accustomed to, again i agree, the Apostles made sure that slaves were treated well.

As for the prodical son, he had nothing at all... not even a home. Slaves were normally those who were kept.
If he was a hired man, he wouldnt have literally lived with the pigs.

Also, in the times of St Patrick, who was sold into slavery, he also lived with animals. He also escaped. However; his master was also a cruel person, albeit he didnt interfer with St Patrick's life as a shepherd.. or whatever animal he was caring for...the master was pagan and not Catholic.

Which was against Church practice to mistreat anyone who was enslaved.
Noting he wasnt sold into slavery by the Church. Nor did he afterwards as Bishop remove the entitlements of masters with slaves.

So saying Catholics advocated slavery is impractical and unmerited as such.
It was not even admonished by the Apostles...

MercyBurst · Jul 25, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
According to you. Most other Christians would beg to differ.

Historically speaking the church denominations have taken a firm stance against gay sex. Even today, most Christian church denominations do not agree with it.

Churches that have taken a visible pro-gay-sex stance include the ECUSA, Church of Christ, Presby USA, and Evangelical Lutherans -- all of whom are hemorhaging with huge membership losses and financial decline. Go look for yourself.

Flawed Logic of Gay Christians

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Newbie

I close my eyes and see you smile

Newbie

I close my eyes and see you smile

Well-Known Member

The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy

The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy

See name above

See name above

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

I close my eyes and see you smile

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency