Some extreme Christians, of the fundamentalist/Biblical literalist genre, bring the faith into disrepute with their unpleasant behaviour. Their attitude to the faith is most off putting, and is likely to have unbelievers running for the hills rather than wishing to take on board Christianity. I have been particularly disgusted by the nasty bigots who are anti-gay, they are evil, imo. There are many gay Christians in this world, as I have said before even Jesus could have been gay, as he supposedly had a disciple whom he loved. I would love to see the look on their faces if that could be proved to be correct.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bringing Christianity into disrepute!
- Thread starter JJ50
- Start date
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Well perhaps they realise that historically sex was a high heath risk less so in the modern age but still risky. Or unlike you realise loving someone does not mean banging them
So in you opinion the Christians Church should change it's sex in marriage and only for reproduction stance for what good reason
Last edited:
Putting aside the blasphemy of suggesting that God incarnate was susceptible to concupiscence, yet alone to homosexuality, I agree only to a point.
However, in an age of unprecedented access to information, anyone serious about the Christian faith has more than sufficient means to study it. With a mere Google search you can find the writings of the Church Fathers, detailed explanations of the Ecumenical Councils, various catechisms for multiple traditions, apologetic works and so on. To the degree that an unbeliever fails to avail themselves of these resources is the degree they are culpable of unbelief. Someone who rejects the faith on the basis of the bad example of others, or the refusal to accept the moral law (especially in regards to sexual sin) was never serious about the faith to begin with.
However, in an age of unprecedented access to information, anyone serious about the Christian faith has more than sufficient means to study it. With a mere Google search you can find the writings of the Church Fathers, detailed explanations of the Ecumenical Councils, various catechisms for multiple traditions, apologetic works and so on. To the degree that an unbeliever fails to avail themselves of these resources is the degree they are culpable of unbelief. Someone who rejects the faith on the basis of the bad example of others, or the refusal to accept the moral law (especially in regards to sexual sin) was never serious about the faith to begin with.
Last edited:
God is supposed to have got Mary up the duff, they didn't have IVF in those days, so sexual intercourse was the only way it could have happened. There is nothing wrong with being gay so if Jesus had been a gay I hope he had a satisfying sex life.
As long as one is in a consensual adult relationship and not cheating on one's partner there is nothing wrong with having sex, providing one takes sensible precautions, to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, or sexual disease.
Last edited:
If this thread of yours is nothing put a pretense to blaspheme and offend Christians (ironic given the OP) then we have nothing more to discuss.
I don't need liberal pieties explained to me, I am well aware of what they are.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Yep, even with the massive amount of information easily available today. Most non-believers I encounter in this university city have clearly only read atheist propropaganda and visited atheist websites (they will however claim they've read every scripture know)
For example the OP claims Jesus could have been gay, a highly inflammatory statement but claims 'Some extreme Christians, of the fundamentalist/Biblical literalist genre, bring the faith into disrepute with their unpleasant behaviour.'
Only because it is true, like some people on this forum!
This is generally my experience as well.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
God is supposed to have got Mary up the duff, they didn't have IVF in those days, so sexual intercourse was the only way it could have happened. There is nothing wrong with being gay so if Jesus had been a gay I hope he had a satisfying sex life.
Well ain't you an advert for celibacy
Well ain't you an advert for celibacy
RESOLUTION
Active Member
It is interesting how people without understanding of both Christ and Christianity can assume such unrealistic views.
Test everything you believe and ask yourself if what you are reciting to the world is factual and sustainable as a reality.
Let us test a few of your points.:-
Extreme Christians who you claim are fundamentalist/Biblical literalist bring the faith into disrepute by unpleasant behaviour.
Firstly, if a Christian is a literalist they would love God and their neighbours as themselves and would be as Christ. Nothing unpleasant about Christ or his behaviour.
Christianity is not just set of rules and what exactly is there about Christianity would make people head for the hills given Christ is their saviour?
Atheists in the world also believe that being Gay is not natural. But it does not make them bigots or nasty and evil.
You see the things we believe does not make us nasty or evil it is a persons actions. So if they were cruel or nasty to anyone because they are gay then they wrong on so many levels.
The world of Christians has nothing to do with the world around us. Christians are spiritual beings who love God called out of the world to love their neighbours and to act as God has called
them. Till you have been a Christian born of Spirit and Truth you cannot possibly understand the bigger picture of what it is to love and care about the salvation of others.
Jesus could not have been gay,. Had you knew anything about the laws and the purity of the Messiah you would know he would never do anything which God had said was wrong.
What is good for yourself is not necessarily good for another. We have to live as we believe is right without hurting others.
You wish to believe all that is true because it suits your POV, but there is no evidence it is so.
RESOLUTION
Active Member
Really? There is no evidence Christ would not have been gay if he is the Messiah? There is no evidence a true Christian does the two commandments and does as Christ? You have only supposition in your post and no evidence to support. The bible supports my points set before you. Leaves you without any facts.
THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE. In my opinion, it is a book written by humans with no input from any god, and you can't prove otherwise.
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Why do you lie in your profile by calling yourself agnostic?
I am not lying I have said on a number of occasions there is a REMOTE possibility a god could exist, but of course I hope it isn't so.
Lionel Refson
Member
Perhaps the christian right-wingers here should take Jesus's advice in Matthew 18 2:4 and re-read the Bible like little children. Then God will be found . use naivety not intellect!
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Your characterization of sex as "banging" is disturbing. Sexual activity is 100% natural and necessary for the future of the species. What the hell do you think "go forth and multiply" means? It means get out there and have sex, make babies, populate the world through love. It doesn't mean "bang bang bang."
Maybe because sex is amazingly good fun, for an easy starter. Being uptight about sex doesn't make its HUGE presence in our lives "go away." All it does, in my opinion, is lead to mental repression and spreading feelings of guilt over completely natural urges throughout the population. Compounding stress, increasing anxiety over performance and ability to perform and getting to the point of even being able to perform, etc. It also creates an atmosphere of inadequate sexual education, within which curious and experimenting kids may not even understand how to prevent pregnancy if that isn't intended. It does nothing more than try to ignore instincts we are (almost) all born with - which is simply ignorant and represents a naive mountain of denial.
One needs to be adult to question the faith, one should never accept anything without questioning it first, imo
Darkforbid
Well-Known Member
Your characterization of sex as "banging" is disturbing. Sexual activity is 100% natural and necessary for the future of the species. What the hell do you think "go forth and multiply" means? It means get out there and have sex, make babies, populate the world through love. It doesn't mean "bang bang bang."
First marriage for love is a modern invention. Second I used the term bang because the OP equates love with sex it seems you have the same misconceptions
No point answering the rest as you're completely ignoring the health risks associated with sex, now and in Biblical times
First marriage for love is a modern invention. Second I used the term bang because the OP equates love with sex it seems you have the same misconceptions
No point answering the rest as you're completely ignoring the health risks associated with sex, now and in Biblical times