- This topic has 206 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
No, it is the word of Paul, in one of his letters.
I quoted from the teachings of Jesus, upon which Christianity is based. Odd that you choose to ignore the words of the man who, presumably you believe to be the son of God.
Some quotes from Timeform’s "Chasers and Hurdlers" (as Steve put it)
davidbrady
the really curious thing though, is that while your link mocks the book of Leviticus, yet the pro-gays behind the Civil Partnership Act have faithfully stayed with  Leviticus 18 in repeating its prohibited degrees of consanguinity for a "gay marriage".
Assuming its accepted that there’s no danger of gays procreating with each other, incestuously or otherwise, its interesting that nonetheless they feel the need to claim the respectability of such rules.
with no shortage of gays attracted to the Christian church, it does raise the question whether in the main they in fact feel themselves to be lost souls?
best regards
wit<br>
Still none of the christians have been willing to enlighten me to whether their religion frowns on me playing the back 9 with a lady friend…..
If Christianity has taught me one thing through how to live my life, it must be "love thy neighbour as thyself"
The Bible as you know contradicts itself in several places. The main one that springs to mind is "an eye for an eye" which contrasts to "turn the other cheek"
There is a world of difference between Christianity and Fundamental Christianity. Do you think George Bush is a good human being merely because he follows God’s law/word. (The same applies to ordinary Muslims and Fundamental Muslims)
Are all men of the cloth holier than me purely because they worship their God regularly. Even the ones who abused children for years or those who act as terrorists in the name of their Religion?
Which is the lesser sin. To be a homosexual or to kill a homosexual.
To be a true Christian (even human being) involves tolerance. Lack of tolerance for others is THE biggest reason why the world is not a safe place today. We have the leader of the "free" world starting a war basically due to his belief that "his" Christian God is better than "their" Muslim God.
So I’m sorry if you feel I’m taking the p**s
out of "YOU" Christians.Yes. Racism and hatred is the way forward. Fair play to you Peaty Sandy. You’ve opened my eyes.
It could be argued that Britain struck first by assisting USA in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Peaty Sandy
I’m not sure what sort of a Christian you are, or indeed if you are at all. But having quoted from Paul repeatedly, you have nothing at all to say about the words of Jesus, specifically regarding judging of others.
I suppose I should stand back and let them bomb the living daylights out of us then
Actually, if you are Christian, yes you should. Jesus specifically corrected the Old Testament teaching on ‘an eye for an eye’ and made it very clear that we should turn the other cheek. It is a very tough instruction, something most of us would find hard to do. But it is the teaching of Jesus. I see little inclination to turn the other cheek in your posts.
The reason why this is relevant is that you were attempting to suggest that Christianity condemns homosexuality and to be a Christian you had to share that view. This opened up the debate to include what it is to be a Christian and I and a number of others were interested in what form of Christianity it was that you were espousing
Don’t be angry with me, Peaty Sandy, those were the words of Jesus. If you don’t like them, I suggest you reasses your apparent religious convictions.
And with each post you further demonstrate that you are no Christian at all.
Interesting to learn that you wish to see Grasshopper’s brother and my wife exterminated. With regards to your earlier comment about WW2, I would suggest that there were plenty of people with your sort of ideas around, but we hung most of them at Nuremburg.
We’d all be talking German otherwise.
Even if the Germans had won the war, we wouldn’t be speaking German, we’d be speaking English.
we hung most of them at Nuremburg.
How come no-one says "hanged" anymore? I keep seeing/hearing "hung" used instead.
Steve
You may be right on that grammatical point Steve. I will have to look it up.
It’s not just you, it’s everywhere.
Approx the last 20 times I think I should have seen the word "hanged", "hung" was there instead.
Another one is "an historic event" when did it change to "an"?
I just looked up the Dr Grammar website and it says:
"The traditional rule is that if the h- is sounded, a is the proper form. Most people following that rule would say a historian and a historic–e.g.:’Democrat Bill Clinton appears within reach of capturing the White House in Tuesday’s election, but Republicans hope that late momentum, can enable President Bush to win a historic upset’ (Dallas Morning News). "
And quotes Mark Twain: ‘Correct writers of the American language do not put an before those words’.
Tell that to the BBC news….
Steve
‘An historic event’ only works if you’re a cockney.
There also seems to be a plague of apostrophes at the moment.
Yeah! Says the queen of spelling corrections.
an istorik event appens in cockney land most days.
Petty. Very petty analandy.
Anybody order a Twister. (aka gh.)<br> You seem to grasp on the name calling thing, as would most kids. Your probably not an insecure adopted child, but you still bit on the subject, as did Steve. Kids will seise any chance to mock. They can be so nasty.
On the Scriptural side of things, this quite detailed exposition by a Jesuit (it was written a while before the internet so ignore the url)
http://www.womenpriests.org/gender/mcneil.asp
concludes that what the Bible opposes is the anal sex act (whether between homs or hets) –  arsenokoitai in New Testament Greek – but that (being pre-Freud) it says nothing about homosexuality in the sense of an inversion:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>….strictly speaking neither the Bible nor Christian tradition knew anything of homosexuality as such; both were concerned solely with the commission of homosexual acts. Homosexuality is not, as commonly supposed, a kind of conduct, but a psychological condition. It is important to understand that the genuine homosexual condition – or inversion, as it is often termed – is something for which the subject can in no way be held responsible.  In itself it is morally neutral. Like the condition of heterosexuality, however, it tends to find expression in specific sexual acts; and such acts are subject to moral judgment.
We must distinguish, then, between the invert and the pervert. The pervert is not a genuine homosexual; rather, he is a heterosexual who engages in homosexual practices, or a homosexual who engages in heterosexual practices. This distinction between the condition of inversion and the behavior of perversion is indispensable for a correct interpretation of biblical and traditional sources.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not sure this liberal view would necessarily be accepted by the Pope though –  or indeed by the African side of the current threatened schism in the Anglican communion on the matter (don’t know if the new Archbishop of York has expressed a view).
any way up, stevedvg, no positives for the back nine with a lady.
best regards
wit
The world’s most virulent disease is that possessed by homophobes.
Few on here with it, by the looks of things,<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.