Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Anchorman]

Another example of the modern trend to "reinterpret" the apostolic teachings to comply with popular opinion.

The teachings of Jesus did not follow popular opinion - they gave us the divine message which leads to eternal salvation.  Ignore it at your peril.

   Had the Saviour wished to play the popular card, there would have been no Saviour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

  Had the Saviour wished to play the popular card, there would have been no Saviour.

You'd have a lot of work to show that there ever was a "saviour" rather than a travelling mystic and street conjuror whose story happened to catch the wind, but in any case isn't the point rather that (according to the AB at least) he'd have played the populist card rather than the popular one? It's as old as the hills - just pick a blameless minority group - gays, Jews, Mexicans, whatever - and convince the mob that they're somehow immoral and therefore inferior, "other". Gays? Boo! Jews? Boo! etc.     

[Outrider]

   Had the Saviour wished to play the popular card, there would have been no Saviour.

Is it that, or is difficult to play the popularity card when you started out picking a favourite tribe and only later decided to try and be there for everyone?

O.

[Anchorman]

Anchs,

You'd have a lot of work to show that there ever was a "saviour" rather than a travelling mystic and street conjuror whose story happened to catch the wind, but in any case isn't the point rather that (according to the AB at least) he'd have played the populist card rather than the popular one? It's as old as the hills - just pick a blameless minority group - gays, Jews, Mexicans, whatever - and convince the mob that they're somehow immoral and therefore inferior, "other". Gays? Boo! Jews? Boo! etc.     

 


I needed a Saviour.
In Him I found all I needed.
I don't need to prove anything to anyone; He has proved Himself to me over four and a half decades.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

I needed a Saviour.
In Him I found all I needed.
I don't need to prove anything to anyone; He has proved Himself to me over four and a half decades.

I'm sure you believe that to be true. If you want to use the claim as a premise for an argument though, then you do need to "prove" (ie justify) it. To get back to the point though, if you think Jesus endorsed denying rights to gay people because of their sexual orientation then that makes him a homophobe, and "yes, but he's Jesus" doesn't change that. Sorry.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the instances where Jesus talks about the point of marriage, nothing in it precludes those benefits being manifest by a gay couple; raising of children, two being better than one because there is mutual support and the like.

There is a specific reference that marriage is expected to be one man and one woman, but there is also the expectation that the woman is subservient to the authority of the man, and that there is no concept of divorce, and yet both of those ideas have been put aside by common-sense over time. Why still cling to the homophobia?

O.
My wife couldn’t even stand me leading in ballroom dancing so submission was a no no at the beginning........for her that is.

No concept of divorce? That wasn’t the case since there were debates described in the New Testament about what to do if non convert spouses wanted to divorce their converted spouses.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anchs,

You'd have a lot of work to show that there ever was a "saviour" rather than a travelling mystic and street conjuror whose story happened to catch the wind, but in any case isn't the point rather that (according to the AB at least) he'd have played the populist card rather than the popular one? It's as old as the hills - just pick a blameless minority group - gays, Jews, Mexicans, whatever - and convince the mob that they're somehow immoral and therefore inferior, "other". Gays? Boo! Jews? Boo! etc.     

And yet your the bloke that wants Jesus at the centre of every marriage.

Come clean Hillside you are just milking gay marriage for all it’s worth to the atheist cause.

You are an equalities man gone over the top at best.

If this were a bus company you would want the woman’s toilet to be filled with urinals.

[Outrider]

My wife couldn’t even stand me leading in ballroom dancing so submission was a no no at the beginning........for her that is.

Good for her, but surely you weren't going to stand for such unBiblical behaviour in your 'holy' matrimony?

No concept of divorce? That wasn’t the case since there were debates described in the New Testament about what to do if non convert spouses wanted to divorce their converted spouses.

If they weren't believers was it 'holy' enough to count?

O.

[Outrider]

I needed a Saviour.
In Him I found all I needed.
I don't need to prove anything to anyone; He has proved Himself to me over four and a half decades.

See, in the best version of this story you'd realise that it was you all along, and all you needed was to believe in yourself, but there's still time...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good for her, but surely you weren't going to stand for such unBiblical behaviour in your 'holy' matrimony?

If they weren't believers was it 'holy' enough to count?

O.

Fucking hell they want to criminalise ballroom dancers now in the name of equality.
I think you guys would prefer people to just stand on their own and jiggle............which rather reflects your input into this forum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See, in the best version of this story you'd realise that it was you all along, and all you needed was to believe in yourself, but there's still time...

O.

Says the man who wants marriages policed to make sure they are sufficiently holy.

I think Anchs probably does love himself as he loves his neighbour and lacks an overinflated reckoning of himself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it that, or is difficult to play the popularity card when you started out picking a favourite tribe and only later decided to try and be there for everyone?

O.

picking out a favourite tribe? Yeh, they’ve had a great time of it haven’t they.

[Anchorman]

See, in the best version of this story you'd realise that it was you all along, and all you needed was to believe in yourself, but there's still time...

O.

 



I tried that.
God had other ideas, though.

[Aruntraveller]

 



I tried that.
God had other ideas, though.

God does have strange ideas.

I'll create people in my own image but I'll set some of them up for discrimination and prejudice.

Clever deity.

[Robbie]

Anchs,

I'm sure you believe that to be true. If you want to use the claim as a premise for an argument though, then you do need to "prove" (ie justify) it. To get back to the point though, if you think Jesus endorsed denying rights to gay people because of their sexual orientation then that makes him a homophobe, and "yes, but he's Jesus" doesn't change that. Sorry.

I don't believe Jesus did endorse denying rights to gay people on the basis of their sexual orientation. How could he? He was fully human and he loved people, all he asked was that we love one another. In other words, treat others as you would like to be treated.

Some of his followers did endorse denying rights to gay people and the Jews of his time had rigid rules about sexual behaviour. But that was not Jesus who demonstrated on more than one occasion that observing the spirit of the law rather than the letter was the way to go. He abhorred self righteous dogmatists, though he understood them and no doubt loved, without liking, them.

[Anchorman]

God does have strange ideas.

I'll create people in my own image but I'll set some of them up for discrimination and prejudice.

Clever deity.

     

'the image of God' can be misinterpreted.
I have blind and disabled Christian friends who were disabled from birth.
Is that discriminatory as werll?

[ProfessorDavey]

'the image of God' can be misinterpreted.
I have blind and disabled Christian friends who were disabled from birth.
Is that discriminatory as werll?

Of course it is if you discriminate against them (or your church does) on the basis of their disability.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

And yet your the bloke that wants Jesus at the centre of every marriage.

Stop lying. What I “want” is rights and services offered equally, not withheld of the ground of sexual orientation. What those rights and services happen to be is neither here nor there.

Come clean Hillside you are just milking gay marriage for all it’s worth to the atheist cause.

Stop lying. This has nothing to do with atheism – just with thinking the homophobia you espouse is morally indefensible.

You are an equalities man gone over the top at best.

Either you have equality or you haven’t – there is no “over the top” option.

If this were a bus company you would want the woman’s toilet to be filled with urinals.

This isn’t just stupid, it’s incoherent. If your church ran a bus company I would want it to offer its services equally. For some reason though you don’t think the same principle should apply to church matters. That makes you and your church homophobic.

Deal with it.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

'the image of God' can be misinterpreted.
I have blind and disabled Christian friends who were disabled from birth.
Is that discriminatory as werll?

Very. Don't you think so too?

[Anchorman]

Of course it is if you discriminate against them (or your church does) on the basis of their disability.

Ah.
But no church can accommodate every disability.
There are buildings I simply cannot enter, because the light quality actually hurts my eyes.
Is that the designer's fault when, in the fifteenth century, he did not take this into account?
If the theology of a church is offensive to someone, then that someone might want to found another one based, not on the Christian Scripture, but on whatever the current societal trend is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Ah.
But no church can accommodate every disability.
There are buildings I simply cannot enter, because the light quality actually hurts my eyes.
Is that the designer's fault when, in the fifteenth century, he did not take this into account?

You’re conflating practical access issues with policy here. Your church is fully geared up for conducting marriage services – it’s policy though is to deny them to people with the wrong sexual orientation. That’s a choice; your light issue isn’t.

If the theology of a church is offensive to someone, then that someone might want to found another one based, not on the Christian Scripture, but on whatever the current societal trend is.

   

If the policy of the racist bus company is offensive to someone, then that someone might want to find another one based, not on the bus company’s racist policy, but on whatever the current societal trend is.

Are you cool with that?

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah.
But no church can accommodate every disability.
There are buildings I simply cannot enter, because the light quality actually hurts my eyes.
Is that the designer's fault when, in the fifteenth century, he did not take this into account?
If the theology of a church is offensive to someone, then that someone might want to found another one based, not on the Christian Scripture, but on whatever the current societal trend is.

By law you are required to make reasonable adjustments, if you do that then you aren't discriminating. If you fail to do that then you are discriminating.

So the equivalent of the approach of most churches to gay people would be a situation where a church could easily make an adjustment to accommodate a person with a disability but refuses to do so. Indeed in the case of marriage no adjustment would be necessary - the equivalent would be refusing to marry people with disabilities when they could easily do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Stop lying. What I “want” is rights and services offered equally, not withheld of the ground of sexual orientation. What those rights and services happen to be is neither here nor there.

Stop lying. This has nothing to do with atheism – just with thinking the homophobia you espouse is morally indefensible.

Either you have equality or you haven’t – there is no “over the top” option.

This isn’t just stupid, it’s incoherent. If your church ran a bus company I would want it to offer its services equally. For some reason though you don’t think the same principle should apply to church matters. That makes you and your church homophobic.

Deal with it.   

That’s all very well Hillside but how is the installation of the Tampon machines in the Bus station gents toilets getting on?

[Roses]

Christian homophobes use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness, yet turn a blind eye to the  Biblical characters who cheated on their wives. That might explain the number of oh so holy on Sunday Christians I have come across who have cheated on their wives!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christian homophobes use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness, yet turn a blind eye to the  Biblical characters who cheated on their wives. That might explain the number of oh so holy on Sunday Christians I have come across who have cheated on their wives!

How do you account for the number of non Christian men who cheat on their wives and husbands?