Pastor Protection Bill derail

[Starlight]

I find it odd that you would become a Christian knowing ahead of time what Christianity would naturally feel about homosexual marriage and abortion.

I was born into a Christian family, and spent the first 20-something years of my life attending Church every Sunday and was a member of various interdenominational Christian groups. When I prayed for Jesus to come into my heart at the ages of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 etc, I certainly didn't know what Christians generally thought about gay rights and abortion. I understand these are now big issues in the US, but I heard almost nothing at all ever about either issue when growing up in the Church here in New Zealand. Abortion is legal and regulated here, and while there are a few fringe Christian groups that are anti-abortion, that is not a mainstream position, and I don't recall ever hearing it mentioned in Church. I imagine that the topic of homosexuality must have been quite controversial within the church during my childhood, however any mention of homosexuality was presumably hidden from my ears as a child as the topic was deemed "not fit for the ears of children", and again I don't recall hearing it ever mentioned in Church. When the political issue of Civil-Unions for gay people came up, all the Christians who I knew supported it, seeing it as a step towards equality for a minority group who had been suffering prejudice, and saw it as their Christian duty to support the oppressed.

When I first found out due to talking to other Christians on the internet that some Christians in the world thought the bible should be interpreted as anti-gay I was amused by their weird exegesis and discussed the topic with them, because I loved to discuss different interpretations of the bible. When I first found out around age 30 that the majority of Christians thought the bible was anti-gay and that gay people shouldn't be able to marry, I was absolutely furious - I felt tricked as they had never ever told me that this was a widespread teaching of Christianity. I was initially utterly baffled: Wasn't the whole concept of unequal rights for minorities something that got solved over 100 years ago? (In my country at least) It was not something I felt I was able to in any way accept or agree with, just as I would have not been able to accept or agree with if they had sprung on me that Christians were all against black people marrying or against rights for Jews.

[Jesse]

This is really interesting. You're reading him saying one thing, and I'm reading him saying the opposite.

I think he's saying 'I draw my 'politics', my concern for the poor and dispossessed, and larger social issues directly from the Bible. Much of modern Christianity has dismissed or downplayed these concerns, therefore I must follow what I see as Biblically mandated and if that stops me being in the Christian club, so be it.'

I would agree, if that were the concerns he put forth. His main and only concern seems to be homosexuality. He tries to add those other concerns for padding. It's clear he is only interested in some odd homosexual politics. As Christians, we can and should do more to help the poor and the needy. The reason why modern Christianity doesn't is myriad. Cow Poke shows how his congregation is doing exactly the opposite of what Starlight has put forth. Now that Starlight has been shown that Christianity does (and has a long history of doing since it's one of our main tenants) of helping those less fortunate, will he become a Christian again? No. Because it's not about that. This is pure politics. Nothing more.

[Jesse]

I was born into a Christian family, and spent the first 20-something years of my life attending Church every Sunday and was a member of various interdenominational Christian groups. When I prayed for Jesus to come into my heart at the ages of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 etc, I certainly didn't know what Christians generally thought about gay rights and abortion. I understand these are now big issues in the US, but I heard almost nothing at all ever about either issue when growing up in the Church here in New Zealand. Abortion is legal and regulated here, and while there are a few fringe Christian groups that are anti-abortion, that is not a mainstream position, and I don't recall ever hearing it mentioned in Church. I imagine that the topic of homosexuality must have been quite controversial within the church during my childhood, however any mention of homosexuality was presumably hidden from my ears as a child as the topic was deemed "not fit for the ears of children", and again I don't recall hearing it ever mentioned in Church. When the political issue of Civil-Unions for gay people came up, all the Christians who I knew supported it, seeing it as a step towards equality for a minority group who had been suffering prejudice, and saw it as their Christian duty to support the oppressed.

When I first found out due to talking to other Christians on the internet that some Christians in the world thought the bible should be interpreted as anti-gay I was amused by their weird exegesis and discussed the topic with them, because I loved to discuss different interpretations of the bible. When I first found out around age 30 that the majority of Christians thought the bible was anti-gay and that gay people shouldn't be able to marry, I was absolutely furious - I felt tricked as they had never ever told me that this was a widespread teaching of Christianity. I was initially utterly baffled: Wasn't the whole concept of unequal rights for minorities something that got solved over 100 years ago? (In my country at least) It was not something I felt I was able to in any way accept or agree with, just as I would have not been able to accept or agree with if they had sprung on me that Christians were all against black people marrying or against rights for Jews.

So because this wasn't discussed in your family church in New Zealand, there is no basis for it anywhere else? You never bothered to learn church history to know why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage and abortion? You claim to be very well read in the history of sexuality across the globe, but never put that same effort into understanding why the Church believes the way it does? You think I am dumb enough to believe that?

[Starlight]

I would agree, if that were the concerns he put forth. His main and only concern seems to be homosexuality. He tries to add those other concerns for padding.

I have argued on this site as much about poverty and taxation and healthcare as much as I have about homosexuality. At least on discussions of poverty we can get as far as agreeing on the first sentence where we can agree that the concept of poverty getting reduced is a good thing, but when we hit the second sentence and CP or LPOT start advocating reductions in government programs that help the poor I tend to... Whereas on the topic of homosexuality we don't even reach agreement on the first sentence.

As Christians, we can and should do more to help the poor and the needy.

Agreed. We've got that agreement happening on the first sentence. Cool.

The reason why modern Christianity doesn't is myriad.

Aaaaand, there goes the second sentence.

Cow Poke shows how his congregation is doing exactly the opposite of what Starlight has put forth.

It's great CP's congregation has so many programs going. The final church I attended had a dozen or so such programs running also - that was a significant factor in why I attended it, as it was doing a great deal more to help the community than almost any other church in the city.

Now that Starlight has been shown that Christianity does (and has a long history of doing since it's one of our main tenants) of helping those less fortunate, will he become a Christian again?

Your implication that CP's post massively enlightened me on the nature of Christianity is somewhat amusing.

This is pure politics.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that.

[Starlight]

You never bothered to learn church history to know why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage and abortion?

I was quite interested in church history and read a lot of it. Can't say I noticed them ever mention homosexual marriage. I do recall them very occasionally mentioning abortion. More than anything else what I remember from reading early Christian writings that mentioned marriage, was amusement at the number of them that idealized remaining virgins for as long as possible within (heterosexual) marriage. I recall thinking that was quite amusing, and thus that some Christians in history had been a bit weird.

You claim to be very well read in the history of sexuality across the globe,

That's a very recent interest, inspired by the political arguments over same-sex marriage.

but never put that same effort into understanding why the Church believes the way it does?

Oh, I was absolutely fascinated by why the Church believes the way it does on a number of theological issues, and I read a lot about them. I don't recall any of the early church fathers mentioning the subject of same-sex marriage much, if at all, in anything I ever read.

Since no modern Christian has ever made to me any even-half-coherent argument against same-sex marriage, I sincerely doubt that any few-and-far-between historical Christian mentions of the topic contain any significant amounts of wisdom.

[Jesse]

I have argued on this site as much about poverty and taxation and healthcare as much as I have about homosexuality. At least on discussions of poverty we can get as far as agreeing on the first sentence where we can agree that the concept of poverty getting reduced is a good thing, but when we hit the second sentence and CP or LPOT start advocating reductions in government programs that help the poor I tend to... Whereas on the topic of homosexuality we don't even reach agreement on the first sentence.

I have only seen you make a big deal of same-sex marriage. If you have stated anything else, it was in passing. I will concede that I haven't read every one of your posts.

Your implication that CP's post massively enlightened me on the nature of Christianity is somewhat amusing.

No. What should be found amusing is that you think Christian charity is somehow not the norm. It's also amusing that you seem to know very little of what Christianity entails where societal obligations are concerned.

I was quite interested in church history and read a lot of it. Can't say I noticed them ever mention homosexual marriage. I do recall them very occasionally mentioning abortion. More than anything else what I remember from reading early Christian writings that mentioned marriage, was amusement at the number of them that idealized remaining virgins for as long as possible within (heterosexual) marriage. I recall thinking that was quite amusing, and thus that some Christians in history had been a bit weird.

I believe you are feigning ignorance here. You know full well why the early church would have no position on same-sex marriage. You also know what the Church says about homosexuality. Please try not to pretend you don't know what this would mean by extension.

Since no modern Christian has ever made to me any even-half-coherent argument against same-sex marriage, I sincerely doubt that any few-and-far-between historical Christian mentions of the topic contain any significant amounts of wisdom.

Of course you would think that. It would be a waste of anyone's time to try to give you an argument against same-sex marriage. Your mind is already made up so no argument would ever be good enough.

[Starlight]

I have only seen you make a big deal of same-sex marriage. If you have stated anything else, it was in passing. I will concede that I haven't read every one of your posts.

I went about 20 pages with Seer on the definition of morality over in apologetics. The only thread I've started here was on healthcare.

Anyway, you said "You never bothered to learn church history to know why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage and abortion?" I'm saying that I've read a fair bit of church history and I don't know what point you are trying to make here. So please enlighten me. Why do you say Christians would be naturally against homosexual marriage and abortion? What have I missed that leads to those viewpoints?

It would be a waste of anyone's time to try to give you an argument against same-sex marriage.

Uh right, yup, you've got a 100% totally compelling and bulletproof argument, which you simply choose not to share. I'm reminded of the political comedy sketch where the politician has in his bag a solution for all the country's financial woes, but he can't tell anyone about it until after they've voted him in.

[lilpixieofterror]

I have argued on this site as much about poverty and taxation and healthcare as much as I have about homosexuality. At least on discussions of poverty we can get as far as agreeing on the first sentence where we can agree that the concept of poverty getting reduced is a good thing, but when we hit the second sentence and CP or LPOT start advocating reductions in government programs that help the poor I tend to... Whereas on the topic of homosexuality we don't even reach agreement on the first sentence.

Strawman alart! That is (at best) an extreme exaggeration and (at worst) a flat out lie dimbulb that you make up because you can't refute what others actually say. See sweety, what I actually say (and you ignore it because you can't refute it) is that people need to ultimately stand up on their own and as long as the government keeps giving them all this support; why should they do it? Programs that help people need to have a goal of that they don't always need their help (something you fail to report on your opposition because your goal is to make us look like uncaring monsters because you can't refute what we actually say). Likewise, your views on government have been refuted and you again make up things about your opposition. You said yourself that whenever the government is short on funds, it should just raise the taxes. Yet, you keep ignoring your own logic which leads to why doesn't the government just tax you 100%, take all of your money, and just gives you what it thinks you need? Oh yeah, this has been tried before and has lead to horrible human rights abuses. Yet, you ignore the logic of your own arguments and keep advocating from your dreams of utopia; while ignoring that your very same dreams have already been tried and ended in the deaths of millions. Bottom line; when are taxes too high? When should the government stop helping somebody? What point is the government too big? All points you keep ignoring because you can't answer it and prefer to call your opposition a bunch of names because you can't refute what they actually say. Thus why I treat you with the disrespect you deserve. I don't put all my faith into the government like you seem to; a concept you can't refute, so you make up things about your opposition (that even border on flat out lies).

[lilpixieofterror]

I went about 20 pages with Seer on the definition of morality over in apologetics. The only thread I've started here was on healthcare.

Anyway, you said "You never bothered to learn church history to know why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage and abortion?" I'm saying that I've read a fair bit of church history and I don't know what point you are trying to make here. So please enlighten me. Why do you say Christians would be naturally against homosexual marriage and abortion? What have I missed that leads to those viewpoints?

Christians should be against murdering the unborn for convenience; imagine that.

[Jesse]

Anyway, you said "You never bothered to learn church history to know why Christians would naturally be against homosexual marriage and abortion?" I'm saying that I've read a fair bit of church history and I don't know what point you are trying to make here. So please enlighten me. Why do you say Christians would be naturally against homosexual marriage and abortion? What have I missed that leads to those viewpoints?

Are you being serious? So you are saying that in your "reading" of church history, you never read the thoughts of the early church fathers on the subject of abortion and homosexuality? I find this hard to believe considering it isn't hard to come across. If you truly haven't read them, then it would be consistent with you showing a lack of knowledge/care in other areas of history. This wouldn't be shocking.

Uh right, yup, you've got a 100% totally compelling and bulletproof argument, which you simply choose not to share. I'm reminded of the political comedy sketch where the politician has in his bag a solution for all the country's financial woes, but he can't tell anyone about it until after they've voted him in.

Nowhere did I say I had a 100% bulletproof argument on anything nor did I imply such a thing. If I did, I certainly wouldn't waste it on someone who is incapable of understanding it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Are you being serious? So you are saying that in your "reading" of church history, you never read the thoughts of the early church fathers on the subject of abortion and homosexuality? I find this hard to believe considering it isn't hard to come across. If you truly haven't read them, then it would be consistent with you showing a lack of knowledge/care in other areas of history. This wouldn't be shocking.

To be fair, abortion hasn't really become practical until pretty recent times, so the church fathers wouldn't have much to say about something that wouldn't exist for 1,800+ years. They did have Infanticide though and we know their thoughts on it that it was quite immoral and a horrible thing to do. If killing your born children, for convenience (or due to some sort of disability) was immoral; why is killing them before they are born any different? The church's view on homosexuality has been that it is a sin to take part in (and it has only be in very recent times that some try to say it isn't). The fact he tries to portray himself as some sort of knower of these things, yet shows zero understanding on Christian theology for the past 2,000 years does put his claims to know anything about church history, in serious doubt.

[Starlight]

Are you being serious? So you are saying that in your "reading" of church history, you never read the thoughts of the early church fathers on the subject of abortion and homosexuality? I find this hard to believe considering it isn't hard to come across.

The early church fathers don't mention the issue of homosexuality very much. Clearly I missed whatever wisdom you think they have to share on the subject. Please enlighten me.

[Jesse]

To be fair, abortion hasn't really become practical until pretty recent times, so the church fathers wouldn't have much to say about something that wouldn't exist for 1,800+ years. They did have Infanticide though and we know their thoughts on it that it was quite immoral and a horrible thing to do.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you here LittlePixieofTerror. Here is a small sample:

Source: Didache

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Tertullian

But to us, to whom homicide has been once for all forbidden, it is not permitted to break up even what has been conceived in the womb, while as yet the blood is being drawn (from the parent body) for a human life. Prevention of birth is premature murder, and it makes no difference whether it is a life already born that one snatches away, or a life in the act of being born that one destroys; that which is to be a human-being is also human; the whole fruit is already actually present in the seed.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Jerome

Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.

© Copyright Original Source

Abortion was well known to the early church fathers and in ancient times as a whole. Not just infanticide.

[lilpixieofterror]

I will have to respectfully disagree with you here LittlePixieofTerror. Here is a small sample:

Source: Didache

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Tertullian

But to us, to whom homicide has been once for all forbidden, it is not permitted to break up even what has been conceived in the womb, while as yet the blood is being drawn (from the parent body) for a human life. Prevention of birth is premature murder, and it makes no difference whether it is a life already born that one snatches away, or a life in the act of being born that one destroys; that which is to be a human-being is also human; the whole fruit is already actually present in the seed.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Jerome

Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder.

© Copyright Original Source

Abortion was well known to the early church fathers and in ancient times as a whole. Not just infanticide.

Thanks for the quotes.

[lilpixieofterror]

This isn't surprising as I said. Since you have a habit of not actually doing any real research.

Come on, he read an article on Wiki and on a news web site once. That is 'real research'.