U.K. plan would allow same-sex unions in church

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by wanderingone

Hmmm.. but it's okay for a government entity to determine what can and can't be done in a house of worship?
​

Didn't say that! I don't care about 90% of the article, just the part about gay mariage...IN A CHURCH!

If they want to. No one is forcing them to.

 

[Psudopod]

Ok studies show they are harmful despite what you think.

Where are these studies then? How do you know what I think about them if you haven't shown them to me?

 

[Phinehas2]

Belk,

Since you claim to have the authority to say what is or is not christian it would seem to tend towards the later, yes?

Oh, and using the naturalistic fallacy impresses no one. Just FYI.

A footballer would be one who plays football rather than one who plays golf but merely calls himself a footballer, right?

How can anyone insult an all knowing, all powerful, perfect being? Some would make their god as small as they are.

Again it depends who you also are talking about. The God whose Biblical testimony refers to His wrath against sin certainly detests it. Not least Romans 1 where people do the kinds of things we are talking about here when they turn from God.

 

[Phinehas2]

David Brider,

What exactly do you mean when you talk about a same sex relationship?

See God’s word for yourself see for example Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, Romans 1. Take Romans 1 for example, men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with other men.

It may well be that the majority of Christians believe as you do.

The majority of Christians believe what the word of God says.

Calling people deluded is hardly a particularly Christian way to have a discussion with your brother in Christ, y'know.

Among the overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide many see the homosexual issue as a significant core departure from the faith once delivered. I am one such Christian. Here is an example from a leading Anglican.. Full text: Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria's speech at Gafcon | World news | guardian.co.uk

We disagree. I'm aware of the arguments in favour of your point of view. I've looked at them. I just don't find them particularly convincing.

Quite way you don’t find it convincing you don’t say, but your view is outside what the overwhelming majority of mainstream Christians worldwide believe.

Okay, well how about this then:

No, how about you recognise what the text says.?

It's in line with your understanding of the word of God. Mine is in line with my understanding of the word of God.

No, my view and that of the overwhelming majority of mainstream Christians is according to what the Bible says holistically, passages within Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Ephesians 5 affirm God’s creation purpose for man and woman to be united, passages within Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and 20, 1 Corinthians 6-7, Romans 1 specifically exclude homosexual relationships.

So far you haven't even shown how the Biblical references you've cited have anything to do with same-sex relationships, so I wouldn't be too quick to ascribe your exegesis to the majority mainstream Christian churches, nor to dismiss my reading of Scripture as "strange ideas".

Again, all you have done is give your baseless opinion. I have provided evidence, the scriptures and which churches uphold the view.

Anatomy, however, doesn't dictate human emotion.

Faith in God does.

If two people fall in love with each other, why do you think their anatomy should dictate whether or not they can get married?

Depends what you mean by ‘fall in love’. God is love, followers of Christ are to love others. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son as an atonement for sin. God has ordained man and woman to be united. What do you mean by ‘fall in love’. I am guessing but if you mean homosexual relationships rather than friendship then that’s quite the opposite of love and God.

 

[Phinehas2]

Psudopod,

Where are these studies then? How do you know what I think about them if you haven't shown them to me?

Well I wasnt the one who first claimed there was no harm. First show us all which studies you trust then I would be happy to show some studies which show there is harm.

 

[David Brider]

David Brider,
See God’s word for yourself see for example Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, Romans 1. Take Romans 1 for example, men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with other men.

So you think a relationship is about committing indecent acts?

David.

 

[David Brider]

No, how about you recognise what the text says.?

I do recognise what the text says. It says that a bunch of men knocked on Lot's door, and demanded to have sex with two of his visitors.

What does that have to do with same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage?

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

David Brider,

So you think a relationship is about committing indecent acts?

No.
But I am not God so it isnt about what I think but what God’s word says.
Take Romans 1 for example, men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with other men.
If there were no sexual interaction the relationship would be a friendship, business partnership or fellowship or something like that.

I do recognise what the text says. It says that a bunch of men knocked on Lot's door, and demanded to have sex with two of his visitors.

No it doesn’t. The Genesis verses says ‘men’ not visitors. We know the visitors were angels appearing as men, the men of Sodom wanted to know carnally who they saw as men.

What does that have to do with same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage?

I pointed you to Romans 1. There is no such thing in God’s eyes as same sex marriage as God created woman to be in union with man (Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, Hebrews 13.

 

[David Brider]

No.

Glad we've got that sorted.

But I am not God so it isnt about what I think but what God’s word says.

Take Romans 1 for example, men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with other men.

But Romans 1 isn't describing same-sex relationships either.

If there were no sexual interaction the relationship would be a friendship, business partnership or fellowship or something like that.

No, a couple can be more than just friends without sexual interaction. When you and your wife started dating, did you start having sex?

No it doesn’t. The Genesis verses says ‘men’ not visitors. We know the visitors were angels appearing as men, the men of Sodom wanted to know carnally who they saw as men.

It still looks nothing like a same-sex relationship or a same-sex marriage. So constantly bringing it up in a discussion about same-sex marriage is pointless.

David.

 

[supersoldier71]

1 Cor 6:9-11
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality."

The verses put forth seem pretty straightforward. Am I missing something? It seems that the reason homosexual behavior gets so much press is that while it is flatly condemned by the Holy Scriptures, some would attempt to legitimize it; we do not do the same with thieves. Our wives certainly wouldn't allow us to legitimize adultery. But some so-called Christians attempt to do so, and in the process, disregard Scriptural guidance, for a man-centered interpretation of what is God's revelation of Himself, His statutes and laws.

 

[Phinehas2]

David Brider,

But Romans 1 isn't describing same-sex relationships either.

Well it is, there are only two sexes in the species, it can only be either same or opposite sex, and men with men instead of women is same sex relations. If we cant establish this basic logic we wont be able to communicate with each other.

No, a couple can be more than just friends without sexual interaction. When you and your wife started dating, did you start having sex?

Not according to God’s word, no greater love than this that a man lay down his life for his friends. Love doesn’t requires sexual activity, sexual activity is not described as love in the Bible except in the context of a man and woman union in marriage.

It still looks nothing like a same-sex relationship or a same-sex marriage. So constantly bringing it up in a discussion about same-sex marriage is pointless.

There is no such thing as same sex marriage in the Bible so it won’t look anything like it.

This is not up for discussion.
All the major Christian churches such as RC, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptists, Evangelican Alliance hold that marriage is for man and woman and homosexual relations are against scripture and are error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/lutheranism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Baptist_churches
http://www.eauk.org/resources/publications/upload/Homosexuality.pdf
http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/communion/ctexts/iss_communion_ctexts_lambeth1-10.asp

You see Omama and the UK Government may well be for allowing same sex partnerships in religious places, but they are actually going against Christianity in doing so.

 

[Phinehas2]

Supersoldier71,
1 Cor 6 is straightforward. Some people seem to have no problem with most verses in the Bible except the ones they don’t like, then mysteriously the words and sentences don’t seem to mean what they usually mean.

 

[David Brider]

1 Cor 6:9-11
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality."

The verses put forth seem pretty straightforward.

Seem. If you take certain modern translations of them at face value. When you actually look into it, as I started doing about ten years ago, you realise that it's not quite that cut and dried. There are various translations of the Greek arsenokoites in that verse, and it's only fairly recently that the word has been translated as "homosexuals" or "those who practice homosexuality". There's no indication that Paul, when he coined the word, had in mind any meaning synonymous with our contemporary understanding of homosexuality, as a sexual orientation. And then there's the problem that translations like the one you've quoted rest on a misunderstanding of what homosexuality is - the translators obviously don't understand what a sexual orientation is, and instead treat homosexuality as something a person does.

In addition to which, this discussion is about same sex relationships and same sex marriage. Two people in a same sex relationship are not necessarily homosexual, in the same way that two people in an opposite sex relationship are not necessarily heterosexual - one or both may be bisexual. So it's not about sexual orientation.

Am I missing something? It seems that the reason homosexual behavior gets so much press is that while it is flatly condemned by the Holy Scriptures...

Define "homosexual behaviour". There are a few verses in the Bible that appear to condemn same-sex sexual intercourse (although deeper study of most of the verses in question shows that actually it's nowhere near as cut and dried as that); but there's way more to homosexual behaviour than having sex, in the same way that there's way more to heterosexual behaviour than having sex. And not every homosexual is sexually active, just as not every heterosexual is sexually active.

But some so-called Christians attempt to do so, and in the process, disregard Scriptural guidance, for a man-centered interpretation of what is God's revelation of Himself, His statutes and laws.

Is it man-centred to actually study the meanings of the words used in the Bible, and the English words used to translate those words, in an attempt at greater clarity and accuracy?

David.

 

[David Brider]

David Brider,

Well it is, there are only two sexes in the species, it can only be either same or opposite sex, and men with men instead of women is same sex relations. If we cant establish this basic logic we wont be able to communicate with each other.

Romans 1 isn't about relationships. At least not as in couples. So trying to use it as a commentary on same-sex relationships is flawed.

Not according to God’s word, no greater love than this that a man lay down his life for his friends. Love doesn’t requires sexual activity, sexual activity is not described as love in the Bible except in the context of a man and woman union in marriage.

You appear to be going off at quite a tangent here, so just to get back on topic...

Two people in a relationship can be more than friends (e.g., dating, boyfriend/girlfriend, engaged, even married), without sexual interaction. Do you agree with that? Or do you see relationships between two people as either friendship or sexually active with no middle ground?

There is no such thing as same sex marriage in the Bible so it won’t look anything like it.

There's same-sex marriage in real life. The account of what happened at Sodom looks nothing like same-sex marriage.

David.

 

[supersoldier71]

Seem. If you take certain modern translations of them at face value. When you actually look into it, as I started doing about ten years ago, you realise that it's not quite that cut and dried. There are various translations of the Greek arsenokoites in that verse, and it's only fairly recently that the word has been translated as "homosexuals" or "those who practice homosexuality". There's no indication that Paul, when he coined the word, had in mind any meaning synonymous with our contemporary understanding of homosexuality, as a sexual orientation. And then there's the problem that translations like the one you've quoted rest on a misunderstanding of what homosexuality is - the translators obviously don't understand what a sexual orientation is, and instead treat homosexuality as something a person does.

In addition to which, this discussion is about same sex relationships and same sex marriage. Two people in a same sex relationship are not necessarily homosexual, in the same way that two people in an opposite sex relationship are not necessarily heterosexual - one or both may be bisexual. So it's not about sexual orientation.



Define "homosexual behaviour". There are a few verses in the Bible that appear to condemn same-sex sexual intercourse (although deeper study of most of the verses in question shows that actually it's nowhere near as cut and dried as that); but there's way more to homosexual behaviour than having sex, in the same way that there's way more to heterosexual behaviour than having sex. And not every homosexual is sexually active, just as not every heterosexual is sexually active.



Is it man-centred to actually study the meanings of the words used in the Bible, and the English words used to translate those words, in an attempt at greater clarity and accuracy?

David.

Man-centered: the idea that somehow the Gospel is supposed to validate sin.

 

[David Brider]

Man-centered: the idea that somehow the Gospel is supposed to validate sin.

But who said the gospel is supposed to validate sin? Certainly not me.

David.

 

[supersoldier71]

Those believe that most English translations are wrong, and that the numerous verses condemning homosexual acts have been mistranslated.

And indeed, it is only the acts that are sinful. One may be genetically predisposed to drug addiction or violence or serial philandering: it's the action that makes it a sin. And it calls the Word of God a lie when we assume that God will not equip us with everything good for doing His will, which is what "liberal" theologians do when they say that since God made you a certain way, then it must be okay.

And furthermore, it defies logic that the God who spoke the universe and everything that has been made or will be made, into existence, the God who sent His only begotten Son to die for my sins, because He loved me, but hated my sins....but He chooses NOT to give me a decent translation of His word and the discernment to understand it? Gnostics believe thusly, not true believers.

Good day and God bless.

 

[Phinehas2]

David Brider,

Romans 1 isn't about relationships. At least not as in couples.

Yes it is.
relationship - definition of relationship by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Romans 1 speaks for itself, as does the rest of the Bible, and this is what the Christian church holds to.

You appear to be going off at quite a tangent here, so just to get back on topic...

You mentioned love, are you clear now on what that means, that according to God’s word love doesn’t requires sexual activity, sexual activity is not described as love in the Bible except in the context of a man and woman union in marriage? .

Two people in a relationship can be more than friends (e.g., dating, boyfriend/girlfriend, engaged, even married), without sexual interaction.

Depends what you mean by relationship. In God’s Biblical testimony sexual activity is only countenanced within a marriage which the Christian churches uphold as the faith once delivered.

There's same-sex marriage in real life.

in human reasoning yes, but not in God’s purposes, God detests what some humans call same sex marriage.

The account of what happened at Sodom looks nothing like same-sex marriage.

God’s word describes sex as being appropriate for faithful man woman marriage only, same sex acts and intended acts such as at Sodom are described as wicked.

 

[Phinehas2]

Great post from supersoldier71

One may be genetically predisposed to drug addiction or violence or serial philandering: it's the action that makes it a sin.

This is true, and in addition there isn’t even any consensus of scientific proof of genetic predisposition for sexual orientation.

And it calls the Word of God a lie when we assume that God will not equip us with everything good for doing His will, which is what "liberal" theologians do when they say that since God made you a certain way, then it must be okay.

It does indeed call God ‘s word a lie by trusting in ones feelings rather than God’s word as the truth.
2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
So we give the scriptures for God’s creation purpose in creating man and woman to be united, and the error of same sex sexual relations.

And furthermore, it defies logic that the God who spoke the universe and everything that has been made or will be made, into existence, the God who sent His only begotten Son to die for my sins, because He loved me, but hated my sins....but He chooses NOT to give me a decent translation of His word and the discernment to understand it? Gnostics believe thusly, not true believers.

Exactly. Few if any characters who did what God wanted in the Bible went by their feelings, but rather by what God said. Faith is not about trusting our own feelings, but trusting God and His word.

 

[Psudopod]

Those believe that most English translations are wrong, and that the numerous verses condemning homosexual acts have been mistranslated.

There's good reason to believe that if you look at orginal language. See David's discussion on asenokoites for example.

And indeed, it is only the acts that are sinful. One may be genetically predisposed to drug addiction or violence or serial philandering: it's the action that makes it a sin. And it calls the Word of God a lie when we assume that God will not equip us with everything good for doing His will, which is what "liberal" theologians do when they say that since God made you a certain way, then it must be okay.

What if the acts that are sinful are not the ones you are focusing on though? For example Romans 1 seems to be descibing a pagan act, which involves sex with the same gender. What's most likely to anger God? The sex acts specifcally, or the pagan worship?

And furthermore, it defies logic that the God who spoke the universe and everything that has been made or will be made, into existence, the God who sent His only begotten Son to die for my sins, because He loved me, but hated my sins....but He chooses NOT to give me a decent translation of His word and the discernment to understand it? Gnostics believe thusly, not true believers.

So why are there so many different translations? If homosexual is the right translation, why did it take until 1967 (I believe) for it to be used?

[/quote]