Jesus had no choice. In the environment where he lived, had he failed to acknowledge the Pentateuch and state that he didn't come to change even one iota, then he would have much sooner lose his body and become unable to teach anyone and bring his message to the world. Instead he was walking a tight rope which allowed him to teach to the maximum possible extent. This is the compromise he made with the Jewish people among which he taught.

The Levitical laws, including the one against homosexual acts, were given to Jews. Why should anyone who is not a Jew even bother about them while they have no problem eating pork for example? We must remember that the purpose of those laws was to consecrate and forward the Jewish nation through the power of austerity - but is forwarding the Jewish nation any of our current concerns in life today?

So long as we are bound by the sexual urges of our body/minds, this separates us from God. It really doesn't matter whether those urges are directed towards the same gender as our body or towards the opposite gender, either way we cannot hold onto them and reach God at the same time. To reach God, we must be attracted to God alone.

However, the biblical Israelites were not after God, they were after national success and accordingly, the formula for that included encouraging heterosexuality and discouraging homosexuality. Yes, if you are after national success, if you want to make your nation great, then that's [part of] the way to go. Personally, I have no interest in that.

You do not have a dilemma- you have an emotional dependence on religion and your emotional dependence is your problem. Only you can deal with it.

Trying to make people feel sorry for you is manipulative. Many people have learnt to overcome emotional dependence. It is the task for every adult.

This article reminds me of my faith’s dying days. Only I was still homophobic well after losing my faith.

Reconciling modern reality with a book of ancient myths is a never-ending exercise in mental gymnastics for any thinking Christian, not to mention a stressful experience.

The things one puts oneself through when simply tossing the whole lot out, and conceding that it is all rubbish, is excluded as ever being an option…

--

Yuyutsu,

The New Testament condemns homosexuality too. The condemnation of homosexuality is not just enshrined in Levitical law. In fact, the New Testament goes out of its way to include lesbianism too. Like the homophobes on OLO, the Old Testament was only concerned with male homosexuality.

The bbc/abc thought Jimmy Saville was a nice guy. Maybe he was. His choices sexually were not ok. Read Romans 1 and you find why so many support this unsavoury lifestyle. By all means be sympathetic to the person just like you would with adulterers and fornicators. I suspect they to would disqualify themselves from the worship team. Don't apologise for calling sin sin. Just because someone is feels urges towards young boys or animals does not make the urges right. Leave that conclusion to the god deniers.

“Worship team”. Senior minister”. Sounds more like a branch of Bunnings than a church.

But of course, the church was right. The homosexual could attend church, but he not preach or teach. There is nothing unreasonable about that. However, the homosexual seems to have been unhappy with that, and he left – again. So what?

The author doesn't seem to take his religion seriously either, if he choses to be 'emotive' about what Christianity teaches about homosexuality.

I gave away the organised church long ago; and I do not live exactly by the Christian creed, but I do know and respect the church's attitude to homosexuality and perversion, and there is no getting around it. Homosexuality is a sin – end of story. If a deviate cannot attend church, mind his own business and get on with life, that's his problem.

I don't really see any point to this article. It seems that the writer just wanted to ramble on about his own problems with the subject and with his faith.

Church congregations are getting smaller. There is no surprise that there are recruiting drives.

Pareto's 80:20 might have some relevance here. Some churches are failing most while attempting to get publicity by virtue signalling for the few.

Churches could cut straight to the chase and remember the outreach services they could be supplying to, by way of examples,

- the many thousands of isolated elderly who have been abandoned by their own loved ones;

- the plague of parental and grandparental alienation that separates children from other family members; and,

- the number of depressed children and youth who are not attending school and are self-harming and who sorely need someone to visit, display an interest and keep them company for a while without judging, preaching, 'problem-solving' and attempts at conversion.

This article reminds of Latham's well-founded criticism of trendy 'Progressive' Labor that it was all about rhetoric concerning gays, while ignoring the plight of the many thousands of poor and now, “Shorten Labor is only interested in diversity of skin colour, gender and sexuality — Safe Schools BS”.

That is not to say that minorities should not get attention (and there is no chance of that happening), but there is plenty of evidence that the failure of government to plan for all sorts of very serious matters, for example aged care, is being covered up by huge public posturing, bothering and wastage of Parliament's time and taxpayer money on such trivialities as 'gay marriage' .

Many church congregations are the glue of their local communities (like other community service organisations) and they do provide many valued practical services that government is unlikely to ever afford or prove capable of providing well and efficiently. Getting mired in issues complicated by activists such as gay politics is unnecessary, usually only the ridiculous 'Me too' and a recipe for chaos and disintegration.

Ah be the sinners - who equate homosexual urges with certain brands of the priesthood, business.

suddenly gained a moral conscience plantagenet? Oh maybe the evolution fairytale might have some merit.

Aye runny

On the gay (life without women, bliss!) = Catholic priest equation

is it any coincidence that:

"Ultimately, (Oscar) Wilde converted to Catholicism as he lay on his deathbed, therefore dying a Catholic.

Some things Wilde wrote indicate a more nuanced and thoughtful view of religion and society. For example:

"Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions."

AND

"People fashion their God after their own understanding. They make their God first and worship him afterwards."

More at http://hollowverse.com/oscar-wilde/

Cheers

Poida

Dear Phanto,

«You do not have a dilemma- you have an emotional dependence on religion and your emotional dependence is your problem»

The author is crying: "I want to be true to the Bible but not hurt a soul. Can you feel my dilemma?"

Now which of the two do you consider to be religious? the Bible -- or the wish to not hurt a soul?

I say that religion is on the side of wishing to not hurt a soul.
So did Jesus, which infuriated the Jewish establishment.

The Bible on the other hand (and certainly the old testament), is not a religious text - it's the national book of the Jews, it includes their national history and mythology, their national morals and the national laws according to which they should live for the Jewish nation to prosper. This happens to include the form of god which Jews should uniformly worship, not because it spiritually suits each and every Jewish person, but because it benefits the nation the most when all its members worship the same deity. This is not religion!

' On the gay (life without women, bliss!) = Catholic priest equation '

for someone who denies absolutes plantagenet, it is not all that rational to speak of equations. Just try thinking a bit.

Yuyutsu:

Most people do not wish to hurt a soul - there is nothing religious about that.

What this author is trying to do is to prevent hurting himself by avoiding a choice. We all have to make choices according to our values and that is the nature of life.

No one can help him do what only he can do.

Firstly, sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice. It is deeply rooted in the psyche.
Secondly, Christians do not have to be biblicist while taking Scripture seriously. The Spirit has always moved on otherwise we would still be bound by the diary laws of ancient Israel. If you read my last post from the one published today you might understand. Asian Acts10 following the Spirit does new things. Our experience is that sexual orientation is fluid and it is time that the Curch by the grace of God acknowledged that.
Peter Sellick

Dear Phanto,

«Most people do not wish to hurt a soul - there is nothing religious about that.»

I wish that was true.

It is however, realistic and too common as part of the human condition to harbour wishes of injury/death to one or more other souls. Obviously we are civilised enough to not express such wishes openly (except when alcohol looses our tongue).
Also, most people kill animals to eat their flesh.

The wish not to hurt a soul is thus not automatic, it requires conscious effort in opposition to the human/animal nature and such effort when made, brings us closer to God, hence it is religious.

---

Dear Peter,

Yes, sexual orientation is fluid and it is time that the Church by the grace of God acknowledged that.

Nevertheless, the church is not there to support sexuality: while the church should accept all sinners, it should also continue to teach that in order to reach God we must transcend all forms of animal/human instincts, including sexuality, regardless of its orientation.

I'm not an expert on religion and I can see that
the author is very emotional about this issue.
What I do believe though is that one of the basics
of Christianity is that it believes in forgiveness.
Therefore how are mortal men and women to fulfill it?

Banning a person because of their sexual orientation
or discriminating against them I don't think is the
answer. We've all heard the usual arguments - that
God created Adam and Eve. Well he also created
Adam and Steve, and Olive and Eve.

runny

Surely you jest Geezer MATE!

Forget you not, Matthew 19:14, the International Standard Version [1]:

"Jesus [Christ, MATE!], however, said, "Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom from heaven belongs to people like these."

So endeth this lessen, inspired by our admitted Big Man in the Vatican, Prince of the Church, HIS Eminence [no women need apply]...etc

[1] begets http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-14.htm

MATE!

All ye (NSA identified) sinners out there, in OLO land. Feast ye eyes

On his Vatican God-Link, The Young Pope, played heterosexualy by Jude Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Pope .

Worship this Youtube, or forever hold on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6we2blItR4s

" I am a church man and I believe it is a place of healing and real answers."

The author's problem, along with many of his ilk, is that he may be a church man, but is he really a Christian? People don't choose to be homosexual, they are born that way. Get your head out of the Bible and become a human being.

David

' People don't choose to be homosexual, they are born that way. Get your head out of the Bible and become a human being'

the logic

People don't choose to be paedophiles, they are born that way. Get your head out of the Bible and become a human being

runner,

David’s mention of gay people being born that way was a statement of fact, not application of logic.

<<People don't choose to be paedophiles, they are born that way.>>

Yes, it’s looking like paedophiles are indeed born that way. What’s your point, and what does that have to do with homosexuality?

<<Get your head out of the Bible and become a human being.>>

Well, the Bible does appear to condone sexual abuse towards female children, so long as they’re captured in a time of war (Numbers 31:1-18, Deuteronomy 20:10-14, Judges 21:7-11, Judges 21:20-23) or sold as property by their fathers (Exodus 21:7-10).

' David’s mention of gay people being born that way was a statement of fact, not application of logic.'

say a lie often enough does not make it true AJ

'Yes, it’s looking like paedophiles are indeed born that way.'

really?

does that also apply to men and women who have sex with animals. They are born that way to are they AJ. Romans 1 certainly applies to your total loss of logic.

Right you are, runner.

<<say a lie often enough does not make it true AJ>>

You should remind yourself of that. What, with your slinking off and repeating your discredited claims on other threads 'n' all.

<<really?>>

A lot more research is needed, but there is evidence to suggest this, yes.

<<does that also apply to men and women who have sex with animals. They are born that way [too] are they AJ.>>

I’m not sure. Why do you ask?

And what does it have to do with homosexuality? You still haven’t answered this question from last time.

<<Romans 1 certainly applies to your total loss of logic.>>

You mean my logic with regard to the Bible on child sex abuse? Do you have a different interpretation?

Tell me, how does someone like yourself (who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God) interpret the verses I cited as anything other than the condoning of child sex abuse?

You don't have an answer to that one, do you runner?

Time to slink off to another thread.

One of the things that sticks out with the churches struggles over same sex relationships is that by and large they don't seem to have the same struggles with some other areas that in my view do more harm.

How often do you hear of someone being restricted from a role in a church (or not welcome at all) because of a love of money? The bible is not against money or wealth but it does have some pretty clear cut things to say at times about the love of money. One of the few places where Jesus appears to send someone away was when he told the rich young ruler to go and sell what he had and give it to the poor.

There is a case for those take a literalistic approach to the bible to want to limit the roles of active homosexuals within the church (although it's very nasty when combined with the threats of eternal punishment). There is no place for christain's to attempt to limit the rights of homosexuals in the general community. There is also a credibility gap when christain's appear to selectively ignore some areas of biblical teaching whilst getting all hot and bothered about others.

R0bert

'Tell me, how does someone like yourself (who believes that the Bible is the inenrant word of God) interpret the verses I cited as anything other than the condoning of child sex abuse'

quite easy AJ. I can fully understand how God ordered the elimination of the Midianites who like today's abortionist think nothing of offering baby sacrifices in the name of sexual freedom. Unrepentant god deniers who reject God's mercy through Christ will get what they deserve. Personally I choose mercy and forgiveness. You seem to have chosen deceit and misrepresentation of God.

Your

Oh, I got an answer. Looks like I over-estimated you, runner.

<<quite easy AJ. I can fully understand how God ordered the elimination of the Midianites …>>

So you think child sex abuse is okay in times of war, so long as it’s the good guys doing the raping?

Interesting.

What about when a father sells his daughter then? (Exodus 21:7-10)

<<Unrepentant god deniers who reject God's mercy through Christ will get what they deserve.>>

Hmm, infinite punishment for finite crimes. How fabulously immoral. And, no, there are no “god deniers”, since there is no reliable evidence for a god to be denied. Your belief, no matter how strong, is not evidence of anything.

Your god would know what it would take to convince unbelievers of its existence and yet it chooses to remain in hiding, revealing itself only to the desperate, gullible, and indoctrinated, in the most vague and unconvincing ways.

<<Personally I choose mercy and forgiveness.>>

Well, your god bloody well should have mercy on you and forgive you for being a flawed being since he made you that way to begin with, according to your theology. Mercy and forgiveness are not something you should need to choose. We all need to own our mistakes and take responsibility for them, and gods would be no exception there.

<<You seem to have chosen deceit and misrepresentation of God.>>

Still waiting for an example of deceit and misrepresentation from all those other times you accused me of this. I don’t suppose you could at least point to an instance of deceit or misrepresentation this time around, could you?

No, I didn’t think so.

Still waiting on your explanation of what paedophilia and zoophilia have to do with homosexuality, too, by the way.

' So you think child sex abuse is okay in times of war, so long as it’s the good guys doing the raping?'

so you put your slant on it AJ. To compare God's wisdom, justice and righteousness with yours just shows how arrogant and irrational you are. For someone who boasts in his own intellect you certainly are a master of misrepresention. You obviously have ignored the abhorrent actions of the tribes who God gave Israel the authority to destroy. You know this included child rape, beastiality, child sacrifice and every other abhorrent behaviour many of which you condone.

For a God that you deny you do wonderfully well at misrepesenting.

Even someone as dishonest as yourself knows that the ancient world was engrossed in slavery and barbarity. Exodus 21 addresses a more humane approach of slavery than what was being practiced. You also ignore deliberately or through ignorance that it was Christ and His teachings that brought more freedom from slavery than ever other worldview. Thanks to the corruption of man's heart we have more slavery today and trafficking than ever before.

'Still waiting on your explanation of what paedophilia and zoophilia have to do with homosexuality, too, by the way.'

The facts are simple AJ. You are unqualified, incapable and incompetent to decide what is good and evil. God is fully qualified. Truth is not disqualified by your atrocious denials.

Oh, that’s not my slant, runner.

<<so you put your slant on it AJ. To compare God's wisdom, justice and righteousness with yours…>>

I’m just going by what the Bible says. I asked you (in not so many words) how you would interpret the taking of young virgin girls and slaying everyone else, and your response implied that you agreed with my interpretation and were okay with it in certain circumstances.

<<For someone who boasts in his own intellect you certainly are a master of misrepresention.>>

Now, when have I done either of those? And how does the latter contradict the former?

<<You obviously have ignored the abhorrent actions of the tribes who God gave Israel the authority to destroy. You know this included child rape …>>

So two wrongs make a right then, do they? You think it was okay for the Israelites to capture and rape the female children because the Midianites were raping children?

Wow.

<<For a God that you deny you do wonderfully well at misrepesenting.>>

So, what’s your interpretation of that scenario then?

<<Even someone as dishonest as yourself knows that the ancient world was engrossed in slavery and barbarity.>>

Firstly, you haven’t demonstrated that I’ve been dishonest about anything. Secondly, your god allowed the Israelites to capture and rape the female children. The fact that people were barbaric in those times is irrelevant. Unless, of course, you believe your god was incapable of telling people back then that child rape is wrong?

<<Exodus 21 addresses a more humane approach of slavery than what was being practiced.>>

Oh? A more humane approach to sex slavery for young girls? How gracious of thy Lord!

Again, your god couldn’t just tell them it was wrong? Why not?

<<You also ignore deliberately or through ignorance that it was Christ and His teachings that brought more freedom from slavery than ever other worldview.>>

More? What is your evidence for this?

You side-stepped my question about how paedophilia and zoophilia are related to homosexuality, by the way.

Still waiting for an answer there.

' You side-stepped my question about how paedophilia and zoophilia are related to homosexuality, by the way.'

no side step AJ. These are obvious perversions on the way we were designed. As I stated your view that perversion is ok does not change the truth which you obviously reject. It is really amazing that you even call rape wrong. You seem to find a very selective moral conscience. Again the arrogance of you determining what you see as right and wrong amazes me. For someone who totally misrepresents the God of the bible, spreads the evolution fairytale you want me to accept that somehow your version of morality is correct. You are deluded hiding behind pseudo science at best. As I said before you and your high priests of repeating a lie often enough does not make it true.

When it comes to homosexuality, runner, that’s debatable.

<<These are obvious perversions on the way we were designed.>>

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=the+evolution+of+homosexuality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=&oq=the+evolution+of+homose

Either way, your reasoning is a fallacious appeal to nature, and your equating of homosexuality with paedophilia and zoophilia is a fallacious appeal to emotion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion#Disgust

Homosexual acts occur between consenting adults of the same species and so it is a false analogy to compare it to paedophilia or zoophilia.

<<As I stated your view that perversion is ok does not change the truth which you obviously reject.>>

Your “truth” is what I was trying to get to. I can see now that it was fallacious, unsurprisingly. But thanks for getting there in the end.

<<It is really amazing that you even call rape wrong.>>

At least I believe it’s wrong in all circumstances. A fat lot of good your religious morality has done for you.

<<You seem to [have] a very selective moral conscience.>>

Really?! I’m not the one who thinks child sex abuse is okay in certain circumstances just because a god says it's okay.

<<Again the arrogance of you determining what you see as right and wrong amazes me.>>

Why is that? Because I use reason rather than an edict attributed to some other being? Clearly my method is superior to yours. My method requires thought and effort. Your method is thoughtless and lazy.

<<… you want me to accept that somehow your version of morality is correct.>>

I would prefer that you thought that child sex abuse was wrong in all circumstances, yes.

But thanks for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate how religion can poison people's minds.

'But thanks for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate how religion can poison people's minds.'

well AJ thanks for demonstrating how bereft those who claim no religion can end up with poisoned minds. No wonder we have so much child abuse, suicide, perversion and hate with dogmas like yours. Thankfully just like the mockers in Noahs day and Sodom and Gommorah we know who wins out and its not the god deniers. I sincerly hope you come to reason before that.

Just how exactly has my mind been poisoned, runner?

<<well AJ thanks for demonstrating how bereft those who claim no religion can end up with poisoned minds.>>

I’m not the one who thinks child sex abuse is acceptable in certain situations.

My secular, reason-based system of morality enables me to determine that child sex abuse is always wrong. Your rigid religious system of morality forces you to believe, against your own better judgement, that immoral acts are acceptable when a god says they’re acceptable simply because that god said it.

Thank you for this discussion, runner. The next time you fire off one of your offensive assertions about the supposed moral depravity of those who don’t share your religious beliefs, I’ll know where to link back to.

'My secular, reason-based system of morality enables me to determine that child sex abuse is always wrong. '

Your secular 'reason'based morality is putried AJ.

what don't you understand about Jesus statement that a person is better to kill themselves than to cause little ones to sin. Or as usual you misrepresent the GOd you hate because He is infinitely more intelligent than you.

Why’s that, runner? You’re a bit low on detail there.

<<Your secular 'reason'based morality is putried AJ.>>

I’m not the one who’s forced to believe that child sex abuse is okay in certain situations. Remember?

<<what don't you understand about Jesus statement that a person is better to kill themselves than to cause little ones to sin.>>

Nothing that I’m aware of. Why’s that? You’re not actually suggesting that children who are victims of sexual abuse are sinning while the abuse is occurring, are you? If it’s because they’re not married to their abuser, then the Old Testament has a remedy for that in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

But what Jesus said has nothing to do with what Yahweh commanded before he was around. The point is that, according to your theology, it was once right to rape young girls because your god said it was right. Even you have had to all but concede that.

Or are you suggesting that your god was wrong? It would at least get you out of this pickle you're in.

<<Or as usual you misrepresent the GOd you hate …>>

Firstly, you are yet to point to any instances of me misrepresenting your literalist god. Secondly, it’s not possible to hate a god that one does not believe exists.

<<… because He is infinitely more intelligent than you.>>

Perhaps he is.

However, he’s certainly not more moral than me. I mean, the god you believe in lets people sexually abuse children and only punishes them when they're done. I, on the other hand, would stop a person from sexually abusing a child if I could.

That’s the difference between me and your God.

hilarous AJ how you stand yourself in judgement of the God that you deny. You create your filfthy little narrative of child abuse among the Jews when you fully know that marriage was common throughout the world for 12 and 13 year olds. You support murder of the unborn in the womb, are silent about old uncles taking young girls as brides in many cultures including aboriginal culture and see yourself more moral your Creator. You are totally irrational and delusional.Mind you many much smarter than you have gone that way after denying their Maker.

Yes, runner. Why, I’m sure you’re just laughing your head off there.

<<hilarous AJ how you stand yourself in judgement of the God that you deny.>>

You’re damn right I do. Especially now that I’ve demonstrated my moral superiority over your god.

<<You create your filfthy little narrative of child abuse among the Jews when you fully know that marriage was common throughout the world for 12 and 13 year olds.>>

Oh, so that’s it now, is it runner? It was all okay because they were marrying the children they were capturing, enslaving, and raping? This still doesn’t explain why your god thought it was okay.

<<You support murder of the unborn in the womb …>>

No, I simply value a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and understand that the consequences of forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to full term has far worse consequences than allowing abortions.

This is the Tu quoque fallacy, too, by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

<<… [you] are silent about old uncles taking young girls as brides in many cultures including aboriginal culture …>>

No, we just weren’t talking about child brides. That’s all. Child brides are a red herring you introduced just now. You don’t get to throw a red herring in and then turn it around on me by pretending that I’ve been purposefully and hypocritically quite about it.

Besides, we’re not talking about the people who do those awful things, we’re talking about your god who permits and even commands them.

<<You are totally irrational and delusional.>>

Well, that is the pot calling the silverware black. You are yet to demonstrate this.

<<Mind you many much smarter than you have gone that way after denying their Maker.>>

What? Become irrational and delusional? I’m sure they have.

AJ, you are wasting your time trying to carry out a reasoned argument with Runner. Religious belief is not within the purview of reason. You and I may have reached certain conclusions concerning God, based on our ability to reason, but Runner's brain has been wire differently and he has no ability to reason because his brain has been washed clean by some malevolent clerics. No matter really. At the end of our days we will all end up in the same place, just dead.

David