Firstly, I am glad the FCC is not recognised by the National Council of Churches. Secondly, I just don’t understand why TOC must keep bringing up this issue about homosexuality. This issue has been discussed to death. There will always be believers and non-believers. Why beat a dead horse? Lastly, I thank our wonderful govenrment for their wise stand on this issue.

Quote:

“Furthermore, the reputation of the FCC as a gay group has rendered the church unable to register as a legitimate organization. To circumvent regulations, the church has registered itself as a company, and worship sessions are considered private gatherings”

My question:

If FCC is a gay group, then does it mean that Reverend Doctor Yap Kim Hao happens to be gay also?

Pardon me for asking. I am curious.

Hi Again??,

I agree with you that homosexuality is being raised again in TOC.

However, issues of support and acceptance, as well as stigmatization and resistance around homosexuality persist, meaning that it continues to divide society.

I’m not sure if this will ever be resolved. Some people are bound to accept and others to reject certain behavior. As a society, I think this is not an issue. The issue is that we need to understand why we reject or accept them, and not just simply accept reasons provided by only one party.

Furthermore, questions of this nature (such as race/ethnicity and relationships among religions) have to be raised again and again as the issues revolving around them may be different from time to time, that the people involved have changed, or both. I believe what’s crucial is the dialogue that surfaces the complex web of causes and consequences. This helps us to build a civil society that so many Singaporeans are building, word by word, conversation by conversation. If we are to become a strong nation, we have to be a mature and informed people who can withstand the stress of open and uncomfortable debate, and gradually building mechanisms of resolving conflicts without violence, in words or in conduct. Agree to disagree; live and let live; set boundaries and common ground for interaction.

Previously, TOC focused on the saga of AWARE. This time, TOC surfaces an alternative Christian voice to the one we saw in mainstream media. Now I know better than to assume Christianity as a monolithic whole. There are not only different, but also opposing factions within the same faith in Singapore about homosexuality.

To me, what’s valuable is that Dr. Yap highlighted the (very) human nature of holy text and ministry – that humans, being the vehicle of transmission and production of such texts, are fallible and bound to generate multiple interpretations and perceptions. Therefore, who is to say the majority’s interpretation, by sheer number, is “right,” or conversely, an alternative interpretation should be unthinkingly assumed to be “wrong”? Next, was there a point in time when Christianity, or in fact any religion or any social movement, is not only small in mass and seen controversial to the society? I believe many know the answers.

These two TOC stories also touch on separate but related aspects of the same topic. This helps us to build a more informed and multi-faceted understanding of issues that are as complex and as emotional as homosexuality.

The crux is not only to arrive at solutions (which our education system taught us well), but also how to come up with thought-provoking and meaningful questions (which our education system don’t prepare us THAT well for work and in life). We also need to revisit those questions that we have taken their answers for granted or even seen too “sacred” to be questioned.

Sincerely,
Eric

The Christian community has every rights to label homosexuality as a sin. Every religion has their own rules and regulations. But they can only control their own followers. Their control should not extend beyond their religion.

I do not understand why some christian discriminate against homosexuality. The Muslims have a rule that say no consumption of pork. Do you see the Muslim community discriminate Bak Kut Teh lovers? Or forbids anyone outside the Muslim community to consume pork?

Do whatever you like. But stay within your community.

Re: “…the reputation of the FCC as a gay group has rendered the church unable to register as a legitimate organization. To circumvent regulations, the church has registered itself as a company, and worship sessions are considered private gatherings.”

There we have it: the PAP government has committed another SERIOUS violation of secularism.

At its very core, the prohibition in a secular state is the prohibition against GOVERNMENT from interpreting doctrine. However, we need to understand the FULL SCOPE of the principles of secularism to understand my statement in a better light:

1. No person on Earth has any *divide authority* because no person on Earth, even a well qualified religious leader, is God; divine authority rests firmly with God. This may seem obvious to most people these days but it was not very easily understood in the days of god-kings who laid claim to acting directly for God on Earth. Still, this first delineation between God and ruler, and God and religious authority becomes important in this particular issue because it seems as if one or both boundaries have been crossed.

2. *secular authorities* are NOT elected/appointed/employed to *interpret the doctrine* of ANY religion, and neither are the overwhelming majorityof them, if not all, qualified to; the interpretation of doctrine is the job of religious authorities ONLY; and

3. *religious authorities* of any one religion are appointed to their postions by their own faith-based communities as the religious authority for their own religion only, and are therefore NOT the religious authority of any other religion; they are not qualified to interpret the doctrine of any other religion. By extension, the religious authorities of any sect or denomination of any one religion, are recognized as qualified and are appointed to interpret the doctrine of their sect or denomination ONLY, and not the doctrine of another sect or denomination.

By refusing to allow FCC to register as an organization in the same way that any other religion, my suspicion is the following:

1. The NCCS needled the government not to grant status to FCC because of their stand on homosexuality; the NCCS has crossed the line and interpreted FCC’s doctrine on behalf of FCC;

2. The government accepted the NCCS’ recommendation, and decided to exercise divine authority by ruling that FCC does not qualify as a denomination/sect/sub-group of Christianity. And this continues even till today after the liar Lee Hsien Loong’s ND Rally speech this year where he claimed that the PAP government has to remain a secular one. (I have evidence of another such violation this year by the PAP government claiming to be secular but ending up playing God instead.)

I’m crying FOUL!

“The story of Sodom now linguistically linked to sodomy was an issue of inhospitality to visiting strangers. It is never an account about same-sex relations. It was as defined in Ezekial 16:47-50 as pride, gluttony, and prosperous ease and refusal to aid the poor and needy. Sodom is a symbol of God’s judgment rather than same-sex relations.”

The 2 references to Sodom above talks about different things, and should not be used to justify acceptance of same-sex relations in Sodom and Gomorrah.

I believe that Jesus took our punishment, guilt and shame, so that we can be free. But we are also called to be holy, whatever our preference.

I am glad they do have a place to worship where they don’t have to feel uncomfortable. Even straight people may have problems fitting in church.

I think that the government may have also restricted the number of churches registered to keep them from growing too much, so some have to register as societies or companies instead.

2) credibility vs celebrity

I reckon FCC to be one that is more open to the LGBT community only because of its rejection of what we treat as conventional bible teachings.

To highlight would be it matters not the sexual orientation of anyone to welcome previous social rejects. I’d agree with Eric above that the article informs of the need to understand that there are various stands even within the same religion, and that we should not be quick to discriminate.

It’s an issue of political correctness. I am all for gay and lebian rights. But to be truthful …

The “Holy Bible” clearly states that homosexuality means DEATH. Unless of course some choose to be blind or perhaps, engage in selective reading.

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for adominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Does the NCCS has any authority in recognising whether a religious organisation belong to Christianity? Last I check, the highest authority for each Christian denomination represented in the NCCS is itself. For example, the NCCS does not replace or complement the Archbishop of the Catholic Church in Singapore. Clearly, the NCCS is an organisation that suppresses religious freedom of LGBTs in Singapore.

The bible discriminates against gays and the churches are merely carrying out what the holy books says … then again some people may choose to inteprete the bible in such a way as a way as to suit them.

If not for Martin Luther there wouldn’t be so many denominations and splinter groups today. So it depends on whether you agree with the split or not.

Btw, for the benefit of those who have been shielded from the truth, Martin Luther wrote a hate-filled book entitled “Jews and their lies.” Google it and be shocked!

Christians should spend more time praying to God and trying to convert others rather than persecuting and denigrating gays.

Why do some Christians see gays as the Other ? This is a waste of their time and energy and simply a projection of their dualistic mind to drive out the Other.

What with population explosion and global warming, humanity already has more important problems for Christians to address and solve.

Armageddon won’t descend unto earth due to gays or Satan, it is already creeping upon humanity because of us humans, you and me.

Visit Free Community Church’s website- http://freecomchurch.org/

Their sermons are available online to listen and make your own judgments

Some videos I found of FCC on Youtube:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMumhnMSrQE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M2knn1yP7c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=330BTtJ_wE8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vjo8uxJlrY

Seems like any other Christian church in Singapore, which just happen to have gay members.

We should “live and let live”, and let them join NCSS, and be part of the body
of Christ, perhaps more queer than others. We can then send all our gay Church members to this church.

12 Solo Bear,

Pro-tolerance isn’t the same as pro-gay.

Many passages in Bible and Koran passes death sentences for many more trivial offences yet many stupid idiotic people consistently “prefers and insists” on cherry picking the focus on homosexuality alone to condemn, becos it’s convenient and empowering to discriminate. Discrimination is fun for wretched low lives because they feel a sense of power to feel holely-er than thou. Age old same ole same ole vice of mankind. Zzz.

It clearly confirms that most are not mature enough to discuss intelligent issues. To these judgemental self deluded self proclaimed “puritans of Satan”, please don’t waste your time trampling on innocent people; better book your one way air con coach to your “heaven”. Pretty sure it’s empty there as no one in their right minds and conscience will wanna spend eternity with a bunch of warped perverts like them.

Again?? on November 14th, 2009 12.32 am

“Lastly, I thank our wonderful govenrment for their wise stand on this issue.”

So do you agree with the government’s stand on the opening of 2 caSINos to encourage gambling. I am all for those who consider homosexuality a sin. Now I just need confirmation on your stand on the caSINos here.

Regards,

Brendan

When you accept and respect others as equal and a loving creation from Our Creator, that’s Acceptance through wisdom and love for all mankind.
When you have to tolerate others who are different, that’s done in resentment to equal co-existence.

The only existing reason why there is discrimination still in the world today is because there exists self “superior” groups who feel they are better than others and refuse to share EQUALITY.
Women, blacks, slaves, untouchables, gays, colored races, handicaps..etc…all have and are experiencing discrimination on a daily basis. Why?
As long as one is not treated and accepted as an EQUAL, it’s pointless to waste time arguing the injustice with brain dead zombies.

Solo Bear. .

Please spare us the theatrics. Even for me, a ‘Pro-Gay’ were also moderated if i my comments step out of line.

So don’t paint the picture that the TOC editors are pro gay and trying to silence the opposition (or specifically you).

Now that’s out of the way, i truly glad TOC is posting this article.
This shows that there are other voice within christianity that do not share the fundamentalists’ view on the matter.

Great work.

With all due respect Reverend Doctor Yap Kim Hao, I believe you take too little of God’s word. Again I make my stand clear that homosexuality is a sin in the bible. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have gay friends or I discriminate them. Likewise, just because I don’t agree with smoking, or smoke myself, it doesn’t mean I don’t have smoker friends.

Dear Rev, go read Lev 20:13 about the sin of homosexuality. There are also other verses about it. Also read 2 Tim 3:16 about the scripture. If you think the scripture is just merely “faithful and inspired men and a few women received what they believed to be revelations which were not literal words but interpretations of their understanding of what God had revealed”, then I feel sad for you and your faith in God.

I’m not here to ‘flame’ you, Rev. But I think you are sorely mistaken.

Cheers,
Kaffein

There is statistical evidence that homosexuals are more successful than the average person.

Homosexuals are visible and prevalent in many of the best learning institute.

I am not surprise if some of TOC staff belongs to that community.

History has shown that nations that endorsed homosexual inevitably brought about their own destruction. The Greek states and renaissance Italy are society ahead of their contemporaries both in wealth and knowledges. They are also extremely decadence and adopted and accomodative attitude towards homosexuality.

Their fall are equally swift. All society that endorse homosexuality are in no match of heterosexual society.

Take look at western Europe, science and technology may have protected them from territorial invasion by a pure puritanical society such as Islam.

However, its a matter of time before the descendent of Muslim migrant take over Europe as they are more fertile.

Put it this way, sexual behavior that are deviant often results to sterilization of community.

Neither I am supportive of puritanical ethnics as it would means we will be ruled by hypocrites just like sultan, sheikhs or mullah elsewhere. They are most likely to preech ignorant, polygamy and plutocracy.

I am a firm believer that humanity in the long run is headed for destruction. There are simply no ways to find a solution to our problems.

“stupid idiotic people consistently “prefers and insists”…” ;)
I rest my case. Here’s more reasons to book your one way ticket to brain dead zombie heaven. Inflight snacks & holey books sold separately.

Considering the New Testament on which Christianity was built also lumps men who sleep with men, ( teh gays) with witches, fornicators and liars to be tossed into the lake of fire, it’s pretty much clear what Christanity has to say about the homos.

But of course, the good doctor Yap would only apply “context” to teh gays. Since child sacrafice was to a pagan god (Molech), would that mean in context sacraficing a kid to Jesus is A-Ok?

That’s exactly the logical conclusion if I were to apply that to other parts of the Bible. No wonder the old heretic has to leave the Methodist church before openly saying what he did.

ROMANS 1

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have never seen any community that has significant homosexual that prosper throughout millenium.

If homsexuality is indeed a more efficient culture, that culture would have been a dominant culture in the world, and stand among the western, confucius, Hindic, Arabic civilization.

I believe such civilization ever exist but it has have been brutally subjugated and melted into one of these big civilization.

Take western Europe, if she does not change its sexual deviant ways, within 5 generation, its going to be all Islam.

And sorry you gays, you are going to be living under sharia laws if you visit Europe.

let the religionists win…whats next? debate about a law banning sex before marriage…and criminal law persecuting adulterers

you know they won’t do that because a whole lot of them would be guilty

“There we have it: the PAP government has committed another SERIOUS violation of secularism.

At its very core, the prohibition in a secular state is the prohibition against GOVERNMENT from interpreting doctrine. However, we need to understand the FULL SCOPE of the principles of secularism to understand my statement in a better light:”

Considering that homosex is STILL illegal, what’s wrong with the Govt not registering a group that encourages it, no matter how tacitly?

Besides, Islam is officially regulated and no one voted for them for being a secular party nor is secularism anywhere written as the guiding principle for the Republic of Singapore.

Maybe you’d prefer France where you can’t wear a burka or tudung in class, (oops!). I’m sure we can find a good Malaysian, South Korean or American to take your place.

“I do not understand why some christian discriminate against homosexuality. The Muslims have a rule that say no consumption of pork. Do you see the Muslim community discriminate Bak Kut Teh lovers? Or forbids anyone outside the Muslim community to consume pork?

Do whatever you like. But stay within your community.
VA:F [1.6.3_896]”

Of course they discriminate if the Bak Ku Teh lover is ALSO Muslim. Since this post is about Gay Christians, your analogy fails.

The article is about homosexuality and the stance of the FCC.

It is not about TOC or why TOC posted this article. It is also not about whether TOC has gay members in its team.

Please keep to the issue and your comments will be allowed. Otherwise, they will be removed.

Thank you.

#29..totally agree but I have already warned that brain dead zombies and idiots do NOT care nor wish to engage reasons for enlightenment. If fundamental purists were to apply equal footing to all sins and death penalties drawn from just the 42 Old testament death penalties (that’s more, but I refrained, lest small minds explode) I’ve listed earlier, not many of the world’s population will be around today. But see how some blatantly choose to ignore logic and INSIST on their views?

The fact that TOC is accused of having gay members or being pro-gay is another way of telling everyone that gay presence/existence cannot possibly lend any credence nor substance to truth. That’s what I meant by not respecting nor treating gays as equal fellow human beings.

To these low lives, the greatest contributions of the greatest man and woman in history will all amount to ZERO if they were exposed as gays. Nothing else matters. Gay means minus all the way. So much for love thy neighbour, let alone love thy (self perceived) “enemies”. All bull.
I’m certain that if Jesus or any of his apostles were alive today and say, proven to be gay, these low lives will go through the usual boring denial, depression, anger and then violence and put a bullet through all the former if they were still alive today; never mind that Jesus is chosen to die for mankind. You see, that’s how perverted discrimination works. There’s no mirror to self judge, just pure blatant evil hate mongering. FYI, the Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. Go figure.

Truly the evil “church & its minions” (not the Bible) discriminates against gays. And so called christians think the Devil is sending them straight to hell. They are doing just fine by themselves. Ha ha.So convenient, just like our administration, no self accountability.

#21 http://vonhayek.blogspot.com/ on November 14th, 2009 8.50 pm

//History has shown that nations that endorsed homosexual inevitably brought about their own destruction. The Greek states and renaissance Italy are society ahead of their contemporaries both in wealth and knowledges. They are also extremely decadence and adopted and accomodative attitude towards homosexuality.//

Exactly how do you prove that the downfall of these great civilization attributed sole on homosexuality, or accommodative attitude towards homosexuality?
Sometimes in making a statement it would be more convincing to back it with facts, qoute from historian, etc.

On the same note on Greek civilization.
Alexander the Great, who is clearly bisexual lead the conquest all the way to the east and the empire to the height of its achievement.

Dont take my word for it, watch the movie or better yet follow the link to on Wiki.

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

Allow me to correct come perceptions here

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for adominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

This passage that deals with the adominable deed here that refers to sexual immorality (ie. of sodomy) Thus it says lies with a male AS with a woman. So basically it would be to condemn all lust and promiscuity that’s incompatible with Christianity. Hence regardless if you are a male sleeping with a woman or another male for that matter. You could even be a woman sleeping with a man or woman with a woman (vice-versa), it is still a sin if it is done in an adulterous or lustful manner.

So basically I don’t see this passage condemning homosexuality per se, but rather the sexual immorality component and this applies to straight people as well.

Care to dissagree??

hi “again??”

in response to your comments made on nov 14th, i’d just like to say: maybe if you could empathise, try standing to understand how it feel to stand on the receiving end of endless discrimination then perhaps you’ll see why homosexuals see the constant need to bring this out for discussion time and again. it’s always easy to brush things off when you happen to fall into the moral majority.

Hi Mun Wai,

You have brought up a very pertinent point.

The issue of empathy and compassion, which is held in high regard across almost every faith and their denominations, are sorely anemic in our dialogue.

Beyond simplistic “right” and “wrong,” there is this chronic lack of consideration of what leads people to behave the way they are in certain contexts. What matters is the product, the ends but not the process, the means.

Following your point, let us imagine an inverted world to the one we live now. In that world, homosexuality is the norm in Singapore. You are encouraged to practice intimacy of that nature. The State arbitrates what kinds of people with specific talents and physical qualities should be bred to keep the economy humming or to maintain “social order.” The State decides that reproduction by artificial dissemination is not only clean, efficient but most importantly, pure. That idea remains unquestioned because people genuinely believe heterosexuality results in unintended pregnancies. Most people agree that such carnal union is not only “messy,” “unclean” but also too closely associated with our baser instincts. That’s not how civilized and people of morals behave.

Then some people come up with the “idea” of heterosexuality. Some believe it’s ingrained in them; they are born to prefer the opposite sex. Some others, through interactions and experimentation, find heterosexuality is what gives them joy and intimacy in social relationships. Imagine how the mainstream or the majority respond to such “abomination” and “disruption of social order?” What if you fall in the minority camp?

What concerns me in both mainstream media and online forums is also a tendency to lapse into narrow interpretation of texts, even lifting them out of the context on some occasions, with scant consideration for what comes before and after a specific quote. The quote doesn’t have to be from religious texts; it can be from passages of influential books or what opinion leaders have said to the media or in other public forums.

I think it helps if we can go beyond what singular lines or passages say, and to reflect on the “spirit” in which they are uttered.

We need to ask critical questions, respectfully of course:
How do they tie with the intent of the author? Can we say that there isn’t contradiction in (1) what someone said across different occasions, or (2) even in the same book? How certain are we that it can even be attributed to one single authorship? Is there a difference when it’s said in different languages? For example, translations and strategic placing of words like “of,” “for” and “from” will significantly change the flavor and the philosophy in texts.

Additionally, who was the original audience it was written for? Ergo, to what extent can we extend it to our context? How long was the period between the utterance by someone and when it became enshrined in text? Which passages or versions were omitted across time? Conversely, what new texts were subsequently added?

The more we reflect, the less likely we develop a fetish with texts and the easier we return to the intent or spirit of the letter than to be caged in by the letters themselves. I strongly believe that great religious leaders and philosophers never intended us to take their words as-is; genuine wisdom and spiritual rupture can only emerge when we sincerely examine texts against our own observations and direct experience, and as a result of that intense reflection, derive our personal meanings of what we consider sacred and moral.

Sincerely,
Eric

After reading all of your comments on this issue,some of you have already stolen my
thunder,so i decided to be tongue-tied on sodomy and sodomite issue.However i
would like to say something about PAP and its liberal politics.
A week ago,our MMLEE says,i quote ‘ S’pore politics will change,but not
because i leave politics.It will happen because of significant change in S’pore’s
economics and social conditions”.Indeed,we have seen many social change after he left his political throne but his kingship and presence is still being felt amongst
his cohorts.Undeniably,PAP is becoming more liberal in its view on social issues,
especially on sexual freedom-sex shops,tolerate foreign prostitutes prying their tricks here,pole dancing with a lot of sexual connotations,closing an eye on sex
party at Sentosa beaches,flourishing gay-spa shops,etc,etc.Why do you think that
the government recently decriminalized sodomy btw.two opposite sex and not
of same-sex?Firstly,they are just testing the water on how much the general
public would react to these liberal social engineerings.In another word,we are
being desensitized by the PAP, one dose at a time.Secondly,Singaporeans in
general are still a conservative bunch including a handful of MPs,and so the PAP
would not want to rock the boat for now.
I urge the LGBT community and those who have the same mindset as
Rev.Yap to be patient.Your time will come and you will have your desire of your
heart fulfilled by the same government whom you accused of being conservative.
Someday you guys may even able to see the biggest and colorful gay pride
parade in Singapore.Sometime ago,this S’pore cabinet minister who is an indian
person said that whenever a policy is made,its decision is not based on
morality but rather what is good for Singapore.Even Mr Ng Eng Heng,during the
AWARE saga said that at this present time,the society is still not ready for teaching liberal sex education.Please take notice of his emphasis on
“This Present Time”.
You may ask me where is my stand on this sodomy issue.I believe
that having sex btw. two person of same sex is unnatural and on the other hand,i
believe whatever you do behind closed doors and in private and consensual is
nobody business.
In closing,i would like to have a word for the religious community who gets so uptight whenever this issue is brought up.My question to them is
where were you when the PAP allowed sex shops,abortion,so called IRs,
decriminalized sodomy act btw.male and female.Or is it homosexuality ,bisexual
lesbianism and transexualism are more immoral than the above mentioned?

Hi http://vonhayek.blogspot.com/,

While the fall of society is associated with an acceptance of homosexual behavior, I am less confident of attributing the demise of societies simply to that. Cause (A causes B) and correlation (A happens and then B also happens, but not necessarily A brings about B) are not that easily teased out.

As you have pointed out, the increasing decadence of a society plants its seeds of demise, but acts of decadence includes acceptance of undesirable behavior such as chronic gambling, abuse of both moral and formal authority as well as extravagance on pompous monuments. How do they measure, in terms of devastation and travesty, against homosexual acts in bringing a society down? To what extent could and should we brand that a marker of decadence?

I also note your insinuations about Islam. Just as we should not judge Christians by just one extremist denomination, we should be careful to generalize certain Islamic groups to represent the entire faith. As you may be aware, how Christianity is practiced in different parts of the world varies. What Catholics tolerate in U.S. is not going to be completely the same as in the Philippines.

Let’s also remember Judaism, Christianity and Islam shares the same Abrahamic roots, albeit with both similar and distinctive ideals.

Sincerely,
Eric

2) Credibility vs Celebrity on November 14th, 2009 1.38 am Quote:

If FCC is a gay group, then does it mean that Reverend Doctor Yap Kim Hao happens to be gay also?

30) sllim on November 15th, 2009 1.07 am

Stop giving me the Thumbs Up you gays! All you gays think about is sex, sex, sex. And how the Thumbs Up look like an erect penis

It is comments as shown above that make fundamentalists look dumb. If fundamentalists make more intelligent comments, at least the anti-discrimination commentators will respect and disagree with them at the same time.

Prevalent homosexuality is an outward sign of decaying society which is also accompanied which numerous others syndrome of decadence.

A dying society could not just have homosexuality alone, it is also full of other deviant. What I wish to point out is that Singapore may already be on that stage.

A deviant society seems to be powerful. As pointed out, Alexander who is bisexual managed to conquer all the way from Balkans to Punjab. But its demise is equally fast.

Alexander empire fell apart immediately after his death, and soon, Greece is absorb into Roman, Islamic Turk. To this day it remain some of the poorest and least advance civilization in Europe. She used to be the most advance in the world.

Europe and US eschew such faith for time being. Science and technology for time being has prevented these society from immediate territorial onslaught by a paternistic society.

However, demographic time bomb in Europe is running out fast. In 5-10 generation, Islam is going to win the demographic war. And those gays and lesbian there is going to be under Sharia and Mullah.

I do not think homosexuality alone has much to do with this. Homosexuality is a sign of broader social decay.

By ‘the church’, i assume it means the People of the church or the believers?

This i agree.

Systems can be pure and good. Not necessarily the People.

One can say the system provides for this and that.
But in reality, what a system provision for does not need to mean what is practised.

Many examples exist, not just for religions.

Humans, the sinners, really.

Hi 34) Eric

We can generally conclude that many Muslim is uncomfortable about homosexuality as a society syndrome, but personally individual Muslim may be compassionate to homosexual individual.

Evidence is that in Muslim countries, Islamic party on the ticket of sharia, anti indecency went on to win big votes. We just need to see PAS in Malaysia (so call moderate multi-racial country) and voting pattern in Aceh. Also how Iraqi rejected secular party but elect the Dawa and SCIR.

All these Islamist party has implemented moral police system without alienating their support base. I believe this is self evidence enough to generalise that Islamic society is against sexual vices.

Statistical, there is a high correlation between fertility rate and sexual moralism.

Saudi Fertility 3.83
Kuwait Fertility 2.76
Israel Fertility 2.75
Qatar Fertility 2.45
UAQ Fertility 2.44
Turkey Fertility 2.21

While many oil state live under hugh social welfare, this is not the case for Israeli, Saudi and Turkey. Israeli has shown that morality in fact did influence the fertility rate.

As I have said, homosexuality is not the only culprit. It is part of symtoms that Singapore is on the way down.

It is evidence that if there are not PRCs FT, very soon the Muslim will gain demographic edges due to high fertility.

The Bible tells clearly that our body is the temple of God. If we are to be God, followers, we must present our bodies holy and acceptable to the Almighty!
Perhaps Dr. Yap would like to re-read his Bible again.

(28

“The fact that TOC is accused of having gay members or being pro-gay is another way of telling everyone that gay presence/existence cannot possibly lend any credence nor substance to truth. That’s what I meant by not respecting nor treating gays as equal fellow human beings.

What exactly did this sentence mean again? How did you manage to link the first half with the statement at the end.

“To these low lives, the greatest contributions of the greatest man and woman in history will all amount to ZERO if they were exposed as gays. Nothing else matters. Gay means minus all the way. So much for love thy neighbour, let alone love thy (self perceived) “enemies”. All bull.
I’m certain that if Jesus or any of his apostles were alive today and say, proven to be gay, these low lives will go through the usual boring denial, depression, anger and then violence and put a bullet through all the former if they were still alive today; never mind that Jesus is chosen to die for mankind. You see, that’s how perverted discrimination works. There’s no mirror to self judge, just pure blatant evil hate mongering. FYI, the Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. Go figure.

Truly the evil “church & its minions” (not the Bible) discriminates against gays. And so called christians think the Devil is sending them straight to hell. They are doing just fine by themselves. Ha ha.So convenient, just like our administration, no self accountability.

Not really. IBM helped facilitate the Holocaust and Siemens made the drugs for the gas chambers. No one is denying their contribution to the world however. The gays are depraved, but that doesn’t mean I cannot enjoy their work.

Among the Twelve, not one of them were flawless. Matthew was a quisling tax collector, Peter a blowhard braggart who turned tail and fled. Them being gay would just be another sin. It was their faith that mattered in the end, not their blamelessness re sin since they decidely were very sinful.

30)

I disagree.

The verse states clearly that any man who sleeps with another man as with a woman, ie having sex with him shall be put to death.

Since you interpret it to be a injunction against sodomy, then doing it missionary position ought to be a-ok then. But since men lack the needed body parts, male to male sex would by default result in death penalty.

You’re right to say that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality as an attitude, it does however condemn homsexual SEX. Basically a homosexual isn’t sinning as long as he isn’t doing sex or thinking of doing sex with someone from the own gender.

Being tempted to sin isn’t sin. Sinning however is. This applies also to homosex.

Can someone define the term “Church”, please?

Is it the physical building called “church”?

Is it the congregation or group of people within a certain denomination?

Is it the body of Christ or the Spirit of God, which is in the heart of each and every believer?

Or what?

If this term is not properly and correctly defined, you can argue until the cows come home, and nobody will be any better.

We need a common framework, understanding and agreement on the key terms of reference before the debate can proceed. Otherwise, the whole debate will be just a waste of time.

# 36 http://vonhayek.blogspot.com..

//Prevalent homosexuality is an outward sign of decaying society which is also accompanied which numerous others syndrome of decadence.//

Really, again this is based on what observation or concrete proof in history?

Lets take a look at all the civilization that has decayed over history. Egyptian, Ming Dynasty? Ottoman empire? Their decay cannot be also attributed to homosexuality?

You are right to say Alexander the Great’s empire decay AFTER his death.

The reality is empire do fall apart, not because of homosexuals. But because they remain stagnant and unable to keep up with the world. Therefore one empire almost always replaces the other.

Sigh .

Hi everyone,

If you don’t want your comment to be moderated, please comment sensibly – no denigration of the author, the interviewee, fellow commentators and anyone in general. Also, please refrain from actually posting religious texts.

Cheers
Donald
Current Affairs Editor

Re 45) Kezu

A dying society has many syndrome and homosexuality may or may not be one of the factor.

We can never attribute homosexuality as a deterministic factor of a fall of civilization but very often, a dying civilization manifest sexual deviant.

I never mean Alexander empire fall apart due to homosexuality but it is more due to the emasculation of Greek. The Greek then indulge in all sorts of deviant and including homosexuality. But homosexuality alone is not enough to bring it down.

The reality is all sexual deviant society are never able to withstand the onslaught of a puritanical society. Just like the Greek succumb to Rome, later the Rome decay and succumb to Germans.

Are you able to cite example of civilization that has prevalent gays, group sex prosper and standing among the great civlization of today like Chinese, Western, Arabic, Hindic. All great civilization enforce puritanical culture on plebian (not on elites).

You can never find one. Because these civilization will be longed subjugated. Drawing on Darwin theory, a puritanical civilization is a much efficient civilization.

I also wish to highlight that I am no fan of puritanism,

The sultan and sheikhs on one hand hire religion police and on the other hand screwed plenty of woman. Mullah preach bigotry and threaten death to those sceptics.

If we want morality, then we will have all the worst hypocrites as our leaders.

I really hope sexual emanicipation will work. Who do want a paradise where sex is as easily obtainly as water to whoever wants it. I think such is really a paradise.

Unfortunately, the world do not work in such way. Sexual emanicipation is a precursor to our eventual downfall. On the other hand, morality is a tool for hypocrites to oppress.

I am pessimistic about the future of the world.

#47 http://vonhayek.blogspot,com

Sigh, i truly hope that you would have grasp the lesson from the downfall of ancient civilizations by now.

If you look back at most of all the recorded civilization, you will find the common factor that would attributed much more so to its decay and demise.
Its stagnation and pride that leads to decadence.
At the height of all its achievement it refuse to improve and grow.
To a point it overtaken by its neighbour and eventually succumbed to them.

For example, like you said Roman is overtaken by German, (which the Roman thought of as barbarian to be begin with) .

Humankinds greatest strength is in its ability to learn and adapt. Thus the true progress comes only with change. This lesson is not just applicable to civilization, but also to other aspect of our society, goverments and organized religions included i believe.

The megachurch in SG for example, which already embraced the modern technology to reach out to its congregation and so on. Judging by its ‘material’ accomplishment alone, it seems like a success.

Finally judging TOC article above, that wind of change has come to the doorstep of Christianity in regards to issue of homosexuality.
Just to add, what was describe above is not an unique case. Christianity itself is divded on the issue internationally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

//You can never find one. Because these civilization will be longed subjugated. Drawing on Darwin theory, a puritanical civilization is a much efficient civilization. //

Hmmm, this i find truly bizarre and confusing. Christianity that originated within the Roman empire and later adopted as state religion. Does that make the Roman a puritanical civilization? or ? ….. please clarify.

It is no wonder why the pastor is being hailed in the manner described by the writer. He is but another wolf in sheep clothing. It does not take a theologian to see through the stupidity of such comments.

The Church takes its bearings from the Bible, and the Bible tells us, right at the beginning, why God created man. He then found that man was lonely, and, it was then He created woman – for the man. If He had wanted the man to have a male partner, He would have created another man and both can then be as gay as they wanted to be.

All said, this is another TOC article fit for the waste bin. Well, that’s my honest opinion.

Vonhayek,

I see what you are doing with “statistics”. Nice. *Wink* Too bad kezu #46 pointed it out and persecuted you :(

And I love how you rant against sexual morality policing, then quickly change scope without being paiseh, and associating gays with words like “deviant”, “decay” and “decadence”. Very nice. *wink wink*

Sorry solobear I have to join vonhayek. He also hate gays but he hates them with deviant statistics. (Also, unlike you, he hates Muslims instead of Christians.)

I thought people usually accused organizations and forums
of being pro-gay simply because they do not share their own insidious
anti-gay aggenda. Rome fell due to moral decadence after Chrisitans took over in 313AD and Christianised the state. A mix of the religious and the secular did not help. We should be mindful of the absolutes in religion versus the pragmatic decisions of running a nation.

From its web site and the sermons posted, FCC appears to be just like any other church apart from the fact where people are accepted irrespective of their sexual orientation which I believe is innate just like the ethnic background of each person. It does not make a person a greater or lesser sinner.

Perhaps the bible was written about straight people, for straight people, and we should not blame gays for the same sex acts of straight people who because their religious faith of worshipping fertility gods demands so. We must look at the cultural and religious context to determine the meaning, which would otherwise make the bible meaningless because it was spoken to a people from another age and context and not to be taken as prescribed wholesale directly to us.

Donaldson, if you believe in free speech, you would allow me the right to reply.

This is my last post in this thread here. Don’t want to be a nuisance to you if you find me an irritant.

http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/11/toc-pap-of-new-media.html

#45 http://vonhayek.blogspot.com/

Hmmm, honestly i am struggling with your concept of Puritanical culture.

I must say i have to research enough to find a definition that come close.
Whether you meant by puritan religion civilization, ie Ottoman Empire (Islamic based) and Roman (christianity based).
I truly hope this is what you meant although it has mutiple level of conflict with your other statements.

However, here is what i have also found on Puritan.

//Currently, the designation “Puritan” is often expanded to mean any very conservative Protestant, or even more broadly, to evangelicals. Thus, scholars commonly use the term Presisianist in regard to the historical groups of England and New England.//

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

If that were the case, it is sad cause it would have make sense on
#49 sllim comments.

Some religious fan please clarify,
what is meant by ‘the Church’?

Is the Church a Building, non living thingie?

Is the Church a group of sinners?

what is the Church?

English is funny, can have so meaning wan. keep us guessing.
This flexibility allows for people to use it in debates and rebuttals.

so unclear wanz neh.

Hong GL

Hope this answer your question.

Many believe that the Church, as described in the Bible, has a twofold character that can be described as the visible and invisible church.

In this view, the Church invisible consists of all those from every time and place who are vitally united to Christ through regeneration and salvation and who will be eternally united to Jesus Christ in eternal life. The universal, invisible church refers to the “invisible” body of the elect who are known only to God, and contrasts with the “visible church”—that is, the institutional body on earth which preaches the gospel and administers the sacraments. Every member of the invisible church is considered saved, while the visible church contains some individuals who are saved and others who are unsaved.

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

Hi Kezu,

Thanks for sharing the info. Its enlightening. :)

However, were any claims in the literature FACTS , ie, Evidence to proof beyond reasonable doubt that the claims are FACTUAL , as in the TRUTH, the WHOLE Truth and Nothing but the TRUTH?

But who determines what is the TRUTH?

Solo Bear: #54

In your blog, Socrates_Reincarnate aptly replied to your broadcast of no free speech:

“Well they can equally argue that free speech can be abused to make hate speech. Then, should free speech be accorded to those who make hate speeches?”
————-

Clearly from the way you manipulate, rant and flame here and there, it’s clear that you are not appreciating free speech. Reading your posts is like swallowing a piece of burning charcoal.

There are many (eg, sllim, vonhayek) who fan hate mongering here. Not difficult to suss them from their insistence to persecute other fellow human beings regardless of facts or call for goodwill. Some choose to be wayward evil. Plain & simple. Boring.

With the Sun at galactic alignment in 2012, karma ripening will be hastened. Imagine all those who persecute others in the name of their gods see themselves receiving their own soon enough.
Truly amazing world we live in. Chocolate Charcoal anyone? ;)

” Rome fell due to moral decadence after Chrisitans took over in 313AD and Christianised the state. A mix of the religious and the secular did not help. We should be mindful of the absolutes in religion versus the pragmatic decisions of running a nation.

From its web site and the sermons posted, FCC appears to be just like any other church apart from the fact where people are accepted irrespective of their sexual orientation which I believe is innate just like the ethnic background of each person. It does not make a person a greater or lesser sinner.

Actually, Rome was pretty morally corrupt and decadent long before Christanity became the state religion. A lot of the excesses you’d find abhorrent, (keeping boys as sex slaves, exposure of unwanted babies, gladiator games) were banned during the Christian takeover. The split in the Roman Empire was in any case inevitale since the state itself had collasped. Christianity and the church was pretty much the whole reason Europe maintained enough of a cultural level to regain much lost technology and knowledge later during the Crusades.

The FCC would be pretty much any other church, except no other church makes so much a focus on how the Bible never says gay sex per se isn’t a sin when it pretty much does.

Very clearly. In both New and Old Testaments. Your old canard of it being directed at hetrosexuals who worship fertility gods would fall apart especially when you realise the New Testament injunctions were directed at new converts and there was already a blanket ban on worshipping other gods anyway, rendering a special mention of homo sex redundant.

“Perhaps the bible was written about straight people, for straight people, and we should not blame gays for the same sex acts of straight people who because their religious faith of worshipping fertility gods demands so. We must look at the cultural and religious context to determine the meaning, which would otherwise make the bible meaningless because it was spoken to a people from another age and context and not to be taken as prescribed wholesale directly to us.

Agree with you when referring to the books of the Old Testament. Considering however the same injunctions exist in the Pauline Epistles which are pretty much an instruction manual on churches and Christianity as it is, applying those injunctions quite literally where possible and pratical would make complete sense especially if you are claiming to be Christian.

Not saying gay sex is ok when the Epistles explicitly says they aren’t fall into this catergory.

Given the facts, Hate mongering is not right but unnecessary moderation by TOC is equally wrong too. :)

TOC, you should be shoring up fans, not alienating them with whimsical moderation. Weed out hate mongering but not free speech and offer reply to inquiries to why moderation is applied when it is clearly not required.
Be big enough to accept constructive criticisms or be what Solo Bear says, another PAP media owned bully. :)

This is going to be my last post. I am no fan of homosexuality.

Neither am I a hate monger of gays or Islam. All these pro gay post has be rather irrational in giving me names and are quite censurous in trying to play with individual lexicon.

I just wish to point out that till now, all sexually deviant society has been subjugated by a more puritanical ones. (Pls cite to give contradiction). I am equally no fan of puritanical society. (Greece succumb to Rome, Byzantine to Ottoman)

Endorsement of homosexuality do not even exist in pockets of isolated communities (we can still find polyamoury in such isolated group) clearly manifest that homosexuality is a loser in civilization competition. (But I believe homosexual individuals may have higher than average IQ)

Currently countries with lose sexual moral suffered high infertility. Sooner or later Islam which is strongly puritanical is going to win the demographic race,

You gays may win the debate but I am sorry, 500 years later, your tribe will be under the sharia. Unless Islam is going to moderate itself later, by then sodomy may be a crime liable for capital punishment. (go see what Taliban are doing)

GGLiang #55

I didnt write that fact, it was on wiki as part of the research out of curiousity to your question.

Apparently it is accordng to the Bible, therefore will HAVE to be true.

As for absolute truth, i am afraid no one can truly answer that. But with scientific knowledge and logical thinking. Perhaps we might get there someday.

#61 /vonhayek.blogspot.com

//I just wish to point out that till now, all sexually deviant society has been subjugated by a more puritanical ones. (Pls cite to give contradiction). I am equally no fan of puritanical society. (Greece succumb to Rome, Byzantine to Ottoman)//

Again this is based on what fact?
Greece succumded to the ’sexually deviant’ Roman (when christianity has not yet come to the picture). Byzantine, i am assuming you are refering to the Eastern Roman Empire during Constantine period is puritanical since it christian based.

So your example is basically a sexual deviant society succumbed to another sexual deviant society, and puritanical one succumb to likewise another puritanical one?

//Endorsement of homosexuality do not even exist in pockets of isolated communities (we can still find polyamoury in such isolated group) clearly manifest that homosexuality is a loser in civilization competition. (But I believe homosexual individuals may have higher than average IQ)//

You might want to examine history of GLBT more closely before making that statement. or simply refer to the link here

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

//Currently countries with lose sexual moral suffered high infertility. Sooner or later Islam which is strongly puritanical is going to win the demographic race,
You gays may win the debate but I am sorry, 500 years later, your tribe will be under the sharia. Unless Islam is going to moderate itself later, by then sodomy may be a crime liable for capital punishment. (go see what Taliban are doing) //

Now, i am truly offended. You see the world belonging to 2 faction. Divided between Islamic country and Christian country.
If dont cant even see what’s wrong with your view, …. bah cant even comment anymore.

i hope i dont get moderated.

Gays need to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13), as well as children that disobey their parents (Leviticus 20:9). No eating seafood (Leviticus 11:10) or pork (Leviticus 11:7), or even planting two types of crops in one field (Leviticus 19:19). You should own slaves (Leviticus 25:44-45) and keep beards (Leviticus 19:27), though. As you can see, our world is becoming corrupted and moving away from God’s Laws. If we enforce these rules and make us a godfearing nation, tsunamis and earthquakes will stop happening, because God will halt plate tectonics.

Vonhayek

Since its your last post, let me rebutt one more of your broadstroke statement without concrete proof.

//You can never find one. Because these civilization will be longed subjugated. Drawing on Darwin theory, a puritanical civilization is a much efficient civilization.//

So is China a purtanical civilization?

Sigh …

IMHO, an enlightened Christian is hard to find.
But after reading this remarkable interview of this great man, Reverend Doctor Yip Kim Hao of the FCC, i must say my respect for Christianity has gone up a few notches.
How i wish all Christians will like Dr Yip, a truly enlightened person if there is any, a real ‘polished-diamond’ in the Christian community here.

By the way, how come no comments from Arix huh?
Is he hibernating in the UK winter?
Hello Arix, if you are awake, i am really interested in your opinion of this interview by Dr Yip. Hope to hear from you soon.

TOC, will you for heaven’s sake stop focusing on gays. Once a month is considered too much. No wonder why you are not rankings are dropping. Don’t you have better issues to talk about??? Why can’t you be like TR focus on more presing issues like caSINo, elections, minibonds. Go help mirror other sites are better.

Mr Donaldson, please also respect oyour viewers preferences that not everybody like to keep reading the gay times, please don’t be their mouthpiece.

vonhayek, leaving so soon?

I was loving how you portray gays as bow-legged WMDs, so I checked out your blog. Some constructive criticism okay? You mask the fact that you are Christian very well here, but it is too obvious on your blog. Calling it “Liberty” is clever packaging, but I am not sure if you are going for humour.

Brendan #68,

Yea man, I also hate it when TOC publishes pornography. But I tell you hor sometimes I actually feel bad for hating gays. Yucks! You know how I cure that? I quickly flip through the thinktank, find the verses, read it aloud, put it under my pillow and start talking to myself.

I feel great when I wake up, that is, until the next time TOC publishes pornography. Then I feel yucky again and have to do the cure again. So leceh, might as well ban TOC from publishing pornography and making me feel like a bad human being.

It is good that Rev Yap explores our Christian Faith and gives us reasonable doubt that our interpretations may be wrong.

We blame the fall of nations on gays having crossed the “line ordained by God”. Is this plausible? Rome had 150 years of Christian rule from 313AD to 450AD before it fell. So we can’t say that Rome fell because of moral decadence unless the new Christian rulers were no better even after 150 years of ruling. When Paul referred to Romans, he was actually talking about the Jewish Judaist in Rome and their ancestors and criticising them by saying that even though they were so law minded, it did not change their outward behaviour and reminded them that their ancestors worshipped idols even to the extent of the straight men having sex with each other. Paul in the NT was referring to their Jewish ancestors of the OT. It was a very nasty comment by Paul to criticise their ancestors! no wonder they wanted him dead.

When the NT talks about new converts – their churches were Jewish churches, and the first converts were mainly Jews and gentile God fearers who believed in the Jewish God. And Paul was stuggling against the legalistic Jews who insisted on the Law instead of Grace and they were expelling Paul out of the cities (and so bitchy gay men were not chasing Paul away). The Pauline Epistle had nothing to do with homosexuality – it was a long discourse between Grace and Law. For example in Corinth, the translation to English of “Malakos” and “Arsenokoites” as gays were misquoted because the translators did not know the English meaning as the term was not used anywhere in other known ancient literature as reference. The translators inserted their own prejudice and interpretation into the bible as a “best fit”. Homosexuality was not the problem. It’s just like saying all the prostitutes in Geylang and all the men visiting it were gays? The problem and the issue in the OT and NT bible has always been about heterosexual sex, the problem of temple prostitutes and the worship of female sex goddess in Asia Minor cities. There is nothing new under the sun… look at Geylang, look at the many non Christian temples…. and we Christians have the sense to say that gays are causing the nation to cross the line ordained by God.

The early Christians had their hands full with the Romans and their gods, the worship of the female goddess, the harassement by the Jewish legalist who were persecuting Christians, and the first Christians themselves who had problems believing that grace was sufficient because of their Jewish heritage …. and they even expelled the Christians out from Jerusalem, they had racial and cultural conflicts as well … but their passion and heart was for the Gospel message of the risen Lord. Two thousand years later, we thought that homosexuality was a major issue for them ….. . we would not think they had time to bother about gays being < 5% of the population when their faith was in danger of being critically compromised.

To quote the English NT Epistles without looking at the validity of the doubtful word translation from Greek/Heb to English and their context and meaning, and then make it a major dogma, is not having an insightful Christ like spirit and not giving reasonable doubt that our judgement may be erroneous especially when condeming an enitre group of people. Is mainstream Christianity 100% certain of their interpretation against gays? and be willing to accept the moral and spiritual consequences of being wrong?

And that is the doubt and prick of conscience that Rev Yap is causing the Methodist Church, and no one likes their Christian theology being deconstructed. If their absolute interpretation about gays was wrong which have been made such a central issue, what other parts of our absolute Christian theology may be wrong? The mainstream church wants to shut out Rev Yap and FCC because they are asking too many questions and it be better not to enquire any further lest we know the truth and it impacts our Christian Faith.

http://www.psa91.com/clobber3.htm
http://www.psa91.com/clobber56.htm

Very wisely pointed out Gentle Lamb. Like I posted before, the problem is fundies and those who insist on persecuting another innocent human being, don’t want or care about TRUTHS. Being able to put down another is empowering for them and not many human beings have evolved enough to self reflect their dysfunctional ways without feeling insecure.

Like the late MJ (bless his soul) says, Look at the Man in the mirror and make that change. Given the way some here still thinks…slowly wait. :P

Gentle Lamb.

You have enlightened me, an ex-christian to wanting to learn more.
There are hope after all for Christianity.

Peace.

@60) nonsense on November 15th, 2009 9.16 pm & Solo Bear,

Fully agree. The editor has to be extra careful here. He is been seen more and more as one who cannot tolerate views that are opposed to his.

While waiting for my response to this article to be published, I thought that I would make a few comments…

Anti-discrimination (#4),

That is because the eating of pork is a ritual restriction, which theoretically can be changed if a senior Muslim cleric decided so (I am ignoring the complex process of actually implementing a change in the policy towards eating pork).

Whereas, homosexuality is a moral issue, and moral issues are stressed on more strongly in any religion than are issues of ritual observance. Christians’ discrimination of gays are merely because they haven’t managed – and some of them are unwilling – to find the proper approach to homosexuality that allows them to deal with the issue in a holistic manner.

(Needless to say, Rev Yap is not dealing with the issue in a holistic manner, in the Christian sense.)

Robox (#5),

If FCC was not recognized as an organization, it would be in the same state as Jehovah’s Witnesses or Falungong, which it clearly isn’t. So in this case criticizing the government is totally irrelevant.

The National Council of Churches is a religious organization, not a political organization, and certainly not a government ministry. It has the right, as a private body, to decide on its own constitution and criteria for membership.

English Writer (#11),

Christianity is not only about “praying to God”, although that is what some secularists/Atheists reduce it to. Christianity is about living a life in the Image of Christ, and the Image of God.

As I said to Anti-discrimination above, I agree strongly that many Christians fail to live up to the ideal, which results in the physical and legal persecution of homosexuals. I don’t agree with all of the Church’s – Catholic or NCC – policies towards homosexuals, and I think that they should rightly be regarded as a work-in-progress (where I suppose Dr Thio will disagree with me). On the other hand, I do agree with their moral stance, although in a slightly different formulation.

The Feminist and Racial Minorities movements were able to get mass support because they could get the support of men and people from the majority race. And they could get it because there was nothing beyond their oppression that they were fighting against.

The main issue with the LGBT movement is that it doesn’t get mass support from heterosexuals, because of a “natural aversion” to homosexuality present in everybody. This “natural aversion” is also why LGBTs have to go through a “coming out” process that other minorities do not. So the history of the gay rights movement is the history of political arm-twisting and repression of thought.

An example of this is the ongoing case (now) between the Lancaster University Christian Union (CU) and the Lancaster Stonewall Chapter. Stonewall – in its characteristic fashion – accuses the CU of being “homophobic” for releasing a public statement containing the long-held Christian view against homosexuality. CU is accused of flouting the Equality Bill which was approved in 2003.

Sigh … so far it seems that the LGBT movement has only been creating more and more social division.

The main issue with the LGBT movement is that it doesn’t get mass support from heterosexuals, because of a “natural aversion” to homosexuality present in everybody. This “natural aversion” is also why LGBTs have to go through a “coming out” process that other minorities do not. So the history of the gay rights movement is the history of political arm-twisting and repression of thought.

Just because you are intolerant doesn’t mean that there’s a natural aversion in everyone else.

Sigh … so far it seems that the LGBT movement has only been creating more and more social division.

It’s Bible-thumping people and bigots who create this social division by denying people space and rights within society.

Kezu (#29),

I always have reservations when people – particularly members of the LGBT movement – start labelling random historical figures as gay. Alexander the Great’s sexuality is disputed among scholars, and even Wikipedia mentions that. Besides, Alexander the Great is not really a paragon of moral virtue, so his example doesn’t lead to any additional moral credibility given to homosexuality.

Arix (@UK) on November 16th, 2009 9.23 am:

Re: “If FCC was not recognized as an organization, it would be in the same state as Jehovah’s Witnesses or Falungong, which it clearly isn’t.”

I don’t know the legal statuses of either the Jehovah’s witness nor the Falungong, so I cannot comment further on that, but when you say, “So in this case criticizing the government is totally irrelevant”, I would dispute you outright.

Who is responsible for according legal status to a denomnation of Christianity if not the Registry of Societies, most likely directed by the Executive?

And what empowers a secular government to decide against the granting of “religious organization” status to FCC? Have they agreed with NCCS’ doctrinal interpretation of homosexuality as a ’sin’ when they did that?

Re: “The National Council of Churches is a religious organization, not a political organization, and certainly not a government ministry. It has the right, as a private body, to decide on its own constitution and criteria for membership.”

I don’t know why you would exempt the NCCS as a political organization; it is clearly one to me, even if that is not it’s legal status. Yes, it can decide anything it wants, but frankly I don’t know why FCC would want to have any proximity with yet another of Singapore’s toxic centres. The Catholic Church can go its own way and so should the FCC.

But if that is the only way for legal recognition for the FCC, then it is right to examine both NCCS’ and the government’s role in FCC being relegated to the status of a private company.

I also want to point out the BS in these statements:

1. The Feminist and Racial Minorities movements were able to get mass support because they could get the support of men and people from the majority race. And they could get it because there was nothing beyond their oppression that they were fighting against. [Robox: Oh pray, what else ‘beyond their oppression’ are LGBTs seeking? Total world domination? Are you sure you are not confusing this covert Christian ambition with our cause?

2. The main issue with the LGBT movement is that it doesn’t get mass support from heterosexuals…

Seth (#75),

1) Are you sure? So then, I suppose 80% of the world is “homophobic”?

2) Yahh, you say that, but then the LGBT Lobby is busy trying to achieve exactly “the denial of space and rights” for religious groups. Your comment is really a conversation-stopper.

GentleLamb (#70),

1) Actually, there is a famous (secular) history book whose thesis is that the Fall of the Roman Empire was due to loss of civic virtue.

2) The translators of the Bible did not translate each book in isolation. They did much cross-referencing to understand the meaning of each word as they could. So I don’t think you or Rev Yap should be too hasty to dismiss the translation.

3) They didn’t bother about gays being <5% of the population because they didn't believe GLBTs existed! The existence of homosexuality as an objective trait was only crystallized in the 19th Century. The natural response in the early period would have been to condemn homosexual behaviour.

4) The teaching against homosexuality is a Moral Teaching, not a Dogma of Faith. Don't confuse the two. A "Christ-like" spirit also doesn't mean the endorsement of anything described by Scripture and Tradition as sin.

The worst sin in the bible is pervasion. If you understand the word Pervert. God clearly forbids the wearing of women clothes by man and men clothes by women. People with sickness in the mind, do it not because they are real gays or lesbians, but becos they truly enjoyed the experience.

If the love of God had touched you, why sin by being gay? Why encourage it? You dont encourage pervasion in the bible, Mr Pastor. You must tell them honestly, it is wrong, you need treatment. Be Holy, be morally correct and teach others that it is wrong, like: I was gay once but i have gone straight, it all thanks to Christ etc.

We dont hate Gays but the Church must not be led by false doctrines. You dont tell Gays that look ok, your sins are forgiven by Christ, God is love. Dont let ppl control by mind demons. Let them control their hearts.

The reason why animals can only breed once a year in a self control manner, is becos they have a rule to follow in nature. Man have no such restraining rules , that is why all the more, we need to curb our excesses.

Thanks TOC for this eye-opening feature.

I’m not gay but I believe that we do not have the right to judge anyone, including gays or homosexuals for everyone has the inherent right to live the kind of life they want, so long as it does not hurt others around them.

So long as they are faithful to their own partners and do not go around and engage in polygamous relations and/or irresponsible sexual behaviours, there is no need to discriminate against them, is there?

What makes them worse than heterosexuals who engage in polygamous or sexual relations with other ppl while being married/attached or paedophiles?

The bible is afterall written by man and therefore, may be misinterpreted or miscommunicated in the process and cannot be treated as a direct translation of God’s spoken words. If eveyone is supposedly created by God, thus should’nt we all deserve an equal chance to be loved and accepted as well?

#76 Arix (@UK) on November 16th, 2009 10.43 am Kezu (#29),

//I always have reservations when people – particularly members of the LGBT movement – start labelling random historical figures as gay. Alexander the Great’s sexuality is disputed among scholars, and even Wikipedia mentions that. Besides, Alexander the Great is not really a paragon of moral virtue, so his example doesn’t lead to any additional moral credibility given to homosexuality. //

Oh my, Arix you are making comment out of context.
Our friend Vonyek stated homosexuality is the downfall of ancient civlization (or in the instance of discussion, Greek civilization).
My point is to that is even great general like Alexander the Great (with his accomplishments in that area, not his moral virtue) could have been a bisexual.
So moral virtue is not relelvant here, and was never intended to be.

And info, GLBT do not celebrate Alexander the Great as role model. Heck you cant even see him on pride parade.

Ellen degeneres or Whitney Houston, now those are role models.

#79 Oh Holy on November 16th, 2009 11.07 am

//The worst sin in the bible is pervasion.//

So from the rest of your statement pervasion = homosexuality?
If so why isnt it on the list of 7 Deadly Cardinal Mortal Sins?
And on the top of that list, is Pride, thinking oneself is above and better than others falls into this catergory, no?

//If the love of God had touched you, why sin by being gay? Why encourage it? You dont encourage pervasion in the bible, Mr Pastor. You must tell them honestly, it is wrong, you need treatment. Be Holy, be morally correct and teach others that it is wrong, like: I was gay once but i have gone straight, it all thanks to Christ etc.//

Seriously i think in terms of treatment, you need some more than Mr Pastor.

//The reason why animals can only breed once a year in a self control manner, is becos they have a rule to follow in nature. Man have no such restraining rules , that is why all the more, we need to curb our excesses. //

Goodness, if that were the case. The eggs you had for breakfast is seasonal then?

Kezu, u dont read the bible at all.

Then you mean to say, bestiary is not even a sin then.

You just want to promote gay rights.

48) gemami on November 15th, 2009 4.26 pm
…and the Bible tells us, right at the beginning, why God created man. He then found that man was lonely, and, it was then He created woman – for the man. If He had wanted the man to have a male partner, He would have created another man and both can then be as gay as they wanted to be.

???
using your ‘logic’

1. we would have inferred that since God created only 1 of each (man and woman), humans were meant to pursue incestuous relationships.

2. since he created man first, God is probably against gender equality.

Else, He would have created ten of thousands (or whatever number needed to ensure genetic diversity) of both man and woman simultaneously.

61) http://vonhayek.blogspot.com/ on November 15th, 2009 9.46 pm
I just wish to point out that till now, all sexually deviant society has been subjugated by a more puritanical ones. (Pls cite to give contradiction)

I wonder if US (relatively more sexual deviant society) led invasion of Afghanistan (Taliban is puritanical, no?) counts?

#83 Oh Holy on November 16th, 2009 3.18 pm Kezu,

//u dont read the bible at all.//

Hmm. I do read the bible. Its digitized version on my Itouch.
Wonder of technology.

//Then you mean to say, bestiary is not even a sin then.//

Hahah. I say no such thing.
You are the one proposing homosexuality = pervasion = sin.
But what i am trying to say is its not even a major sin.
(there are 7 more deadlier ones ahead of it) and to expose the hypocrisy of some,
Why arent anything done about them? Where’s the massive scale persecution and discrimination? Of the prideful, the lustful and the list go on.

Is it perhaps those 7 deadly sins are more likely to be committed by everyone?
The accuser included. *raise eyebrows*

//You just want to promote gay rights.//

Gay rights which would grant them equal rights in the society then its YES.

*sigh*

Do unto others as we would they to us. Using that maxim, we should accept and respect homosexuals as they are — our fellow human beings.
The Church, in its desire to propagate its numbers, would certainly frown on homosexuality, as such activities would eventually result in a decimation of the flock.
Hence, the taboos on birth control too,which would also result in fewer births and contributing to a decline in numbers of the flock.
Rev Doctor Yap, by all accounts, projects a personality of being humane, above all things. Yet, one would surmise that his flock would swell by the admission of homosexuals, hitherto barred from various other religious communities.
So, he would me making an astute move to grow his congregation. But in the process, he would also be extending a loving hand to all God’s creatures, heterosexual, gay and what have you.

85) lobo76 on November 16th, 2009 3.25 pm

////I wonder if US (relatively more sexual deviant society) led invasion of Afghanistan (Taliban is puritanical, no?) counts? ////

US, cannot count lar. Its christian based so its must be puritanical.

I am still waiting for his answer on China though.
Or we waiting for it to be subjugated by puritanical country before replying?

Oh dear !! Oh Holy,

The greatest sin in the Bible is to separate oneself from God.

I have been reading this blog with a fair amount of optimism. The vast majority of comments are logical, informed and compassionate. There are just a few things I would like to say.

Firstly in regards to rules… there were many in the Hebrew text and this, Singapore, is certainly a society which has a great respect and tolerance for rules. However, begging the editors tolerance, Jesus made it very clear in Matthew that there were only two that mattered. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, and Love your neighbour as you love yourself. that is it.. Not so hard I would have thought. No room for intolerance, rejection and exclusion . Christianity at its purest. Love for all of God’s created people.

Secondly, as far as translations go, You would be well aware that the discovery of the library at Qu’ran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) has had a profound and energisisng effect on the translations of the Sacred Texts, as these showed that many of our assumptions about how the language had developed were incorrect and invalid. Likewise, as we as a people become more knowledgeable and use more of the mental capacities that we were gifted with, we become the recipients of continuing revelation. We understand more as we grow and learn I know the readers here will understand this. As a nation Singapore is very proud of its academic rigour. I must assume that Christians use the same rigour in studying their Sacred Text as they do in their secular education. I certainly know that Rev Dr Yap has.

There was a time not so long ago when the majority of people in the first world believed that slavery was moral and just. That it was acceptable to treat another human being as a lesser being to be derided, scorned and traded. Had William Wilberforce not continued relentlessly to battle against the prevailing ideology this grievous and inhumane practice would have continued for much longer. As long as good people are silent in the face of discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation and suffering then these things will continue. Thank God, and I do, that we have a man of Rev Dr Yap’s stature who is prepared to say NO !!!!! to injustice..Not only in regards to the GLBT community, but in regards to migrant workers and victims of many kinds.

I am so very grateful for the CHURCH , that calls itself FCC. Peter, ( petros – Greek for rock !!) was the rock upon which the church was built. A person, not a building… It was this church that I discovered when. as a straight, western woman, I was despairing of finding a church in Singapore in which I could feel truly welcome and at home. From the moment I walked through the door the very first time I was welcomed and included and accepted. Getting the opportunitty to get to know Rev.Dr. Yap has been a great honour and privilege for me and something that I will treasure as I head back to my own country. Anyone who questions Rev Yap’s knowledge of the bible or his faith and commitment to his God, need only read through his book. A more Godly man you could not hope to meet. Singapore Christians should honour and revere this man..

Anyway, enough from me. Thank you to those who have responded openly and objectively to this discussion and who dream of a world where injustice is the main thing we refuse to tolerate. To the others, i urge you only to remember.. ‘judge ye not, lest….’

Skimmed through massive commentblock, just random responses to things that caught my eye:

1) I don’t think it’s possible for a bestiary to be a sin. That would be silly. Bestiality, perhaps.

2) The Seven Deadly Sins aren’t exactly canon, and get revised every now and then.

#74 Arix (@UK) on November 16th, 2009 9.23 am

///Anti-discrimination (#4),

That is because the eating of pork is a ritual restriction, which theoretically can be changed if a senior Muslim cleric decided so (I am ignoring the complex process of actually implementing a change in the policy towards eating pork).///

Huh? Is it possible?
Was doing some research, and it says ‘Consumption of pork and products made from pork is strictly forbidden in Islam’.
And was stated in Qu-ran that flesh of swine is in the same catergory as dead meat and blood. (just qouting from website).

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

Apparently can be consume in forced necessity, but a policy change by senior cleric can make it permissible??

Budamaxx #67,

I don’t understand how you started with looking for enlightened Christians, and ended up asking for Arix.

Are you trying to be sarcastic?

(89) Carolyn /// …there are only two that mattered. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, and Love your neighbour as you love yourself. that is it ///

Hi Carolyn, thanks for a wonderfully written piece.

Just to add my 2-cents worth.
Just as Socrates’s guiding rule “KNOW THYSELF” has been considered the best advice ever given to man, Jesus’s teaching ( or for that matter we can include Buddha’s teaching too) also can be summed-up in two words “know thyself”

Knowledge of oneself is the only REAL knowledge, for as one understands oneslf, only then may one truly understand another.

Within each of us, all is contained.
Without the realisation of this fact, the mysteries of religion will remain incomprehensible.

(92) sllim /// I dont understand how you started looking for enlightened Christians, and ended up asking for Arix .Are you trying to be sarcastic?///

Hi sllim
I am definitely not being sarcastic, in fact i hope the sarcasm is not coming from your direction. Where ‘enlightenment’ is concerned, i consider many people who post on TOC ( and i would include Arix among them) as pretty enlightened people, even though, they might have differing views.

Lets not forget that all of us, in varying degrees are attached to certain views, and these views can change as we grow. Finally as Carolyn said above , remember …’judge ye not, lest…’

*Carolyn
I agree with everything that you said in your post. I find many across religions willing to condemn and cast out those that are not like them, who o follow their faith or share their same beliefs. If only there was more empathy, love and consideration for others – we would certainly be a far better place.

I can only said to those who are determined to discriminate and condemn – time will tell. Look around the wold and you will see that change is happening. Not only in europe but also in the US and Asia do we see the movement towards more acceptance and tolerance. If this means the end of the world in your eyes, then i would rather perish in such a world than in one filled with hate and anger.

Budamaxx #95,

“i consider many people who post on TOC ( and i would include Arix among them) as pretty enlightened people”

Considering Arix “pretty enlightened people” is a gay slur on his immaculate orientation. I take offence on his behalf.

“all of us, in varying degrees are attached to certain views, and these views can change as we grow.”

I am not attached to my views, I enshrine them.

Carolyn,

“Jesus made it very clear in Matthew that there were only two that mattered. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, and Love your neighbour as you love yourself. that is it.. Not so hard I would have thought. No room for intolerance, rejection and exclusion . Christianity at its purest. Love for all of God’s created people.”

Beautifully put. And indeed, it is really that simple. ;)

Carolyn

Your piece touched me.
It brings understanding to why the religious fanactics do what they do.
To maintain a status quo that benefit themselves at the expense of all others.

But the oppressed need not follow their footstep.
Compassion to all is the lesson here.

Well done.

(95) sllim /// I am not attached to my views, I enshrine them ///

Hi sllim
Where your views are concerned, i hope you are not going to tell next that you are going to preserve and embalm them, and after that maybe sanctify and revere them.

Attachment to views is a serious fetter, and the authority on this is none other than the Buddha himself.

88) Kezu on November 16th, 2009 4.25 pm
US, cannot count lar. Its christian based so its must be puritanical.

haha … you just showed the shallowness of your thinking.

70)

That’s a lot of words recycled from elsewhere. I noticed you openly skipped mentioning that the English Translation of the Epistles openly condemned those who engage in gay sex as being damned like liars, witches and thieves.

If the English Translation is unreliable, perhaps you can find a historical Greek or Hebrew Pauline influenced church who regarded gay sex as sin only in relation to pagan god worship?

Since you are discussing if the Epistles also condemned gay sex per se and a literal reading of a letter certainly does with no known translation contradicting it, how could we blindly accept your theory it was a mistranslation and misinterpretion of our part when other translators in other languages even before the English language was born never came to the same conclusion as you did vis a vis homosexuality in the Epistles?

A Christ like spirit certainly doesn’t condone sin or wrongdoing. All those who met Jesus were never told that their sins didn’t matter. He didn;t shy away from the fifth divorced Samaritan woman nor did he say the adultress about to be stoned was blameless. He forgave her and that was because she had done something that needs to be forgiven. Only that Jesus can redeem even those previously dammned.

Gays can be in paradise, but like the brigand on the cross, it certainly isn’t due to their own virtue but the blood of Christ which covers and redeems even the sin of homo sex.

Let me return the question. Are you prepared for the consequences if your interpretation is wrong? That you’d condemn yourself and your followers to sin by saying that it is not sin?

#lobo76.

Hmmmm i am offended.

Kindly explain the Bush Administration in the last 8 years.

Essentially Right wing Christian country!

Thank goodness for Obama!

budamaxx,

“Where your views are concerned, i hope you are not going to tell next that you are going to preserve and embalm them, and after that maybe sanctify and revere them. Attachment to views is a serious fetter, and the authority on this is none other than the Buddha himself.”

Good example of enshrining your views!

#96,
“Beautifully put. And indeed, it is really that simple”

Does this mean Andrew is a Christian?

Carolyn and Andrew,

Love does not involve condoning sin, just as a mother’s love of her child does not mean that she allows the child to play with fire. In fact, if the mother allowed the child to play with fire, then that would be neglect rather than love. The “conservative” churches – including the Catholic Church – take that view. The liberal churches – so far the gay churches and the pro-choice churches – miss out on this point. Blind inclusiveness is not love.

It is true that Jesus interacts with several of the outcasts in society: tax-collectors, prostitutes etc. But there is no instance in any of His interactions that He condones any of their actions. For instance, when he interacts with the Samaritan woman at the well, he makes a critical observation about her state as an prostitute.

No matter how much atheists jeer at the principle, “Love the Sinner, hate the Sin” is still a core part of Christian doctrine, and if Rev Yap is intent on rejecting that, then in terms of doctrine the National Council of Churches has its right to reject FCC as a member of their communion. I have no comment on the Registry of Societies’ classification of FCC; but it is likely to be the same as that concerning the secular PLU. After all, our government is the government that arrested (Christian/Catholic) migrant worker activists and charged them with being “Marxist Conspirators”.

Buda,

Thanks as always for supporting me. It makes my participation in this forum somewhat easier to bear. Whatever your religion or philosophy, may you find peace in it.

And sliim,

you must be the sarcastic one, since your first few posts sounded very pro-conservative.

Carolyn (#89),

1) I agree. Which is why I think that Christians need to change their approach to sin and homosexuality. (And before you attack me sliim, I believe in the changing of approach, not the changing of stance.)

2) Simple does not always mean easy. Love of God is not simply feeling a touchy-feely connection with God. It means adhering to God’s Will in your life as well. If Rev Yap does not communicate that point properly, than he breaching 2000 years of Church Tradition. The Church did not have several ecumenical councils for fun, you know.

The story of Sodom does not condemn same-sex relations, but neither does it approve of it. Sodom and Gomorrah is a useless example to prove either side’s case.

On the other hand, there is a chicken-and-egg question over St Paul’s admonition. So yes, he may be directly attacking temple prostitution. But in a way, the structure of his argument could be interpreted as:

A is wrong. How do we know A is wrong? Because one of the fruits of A is B, and B is against the order as specified by God.

In this argument structure, both A (temple prostitution/idolatry) and B (homosexual relations) are condemned as wrong separately and together. it is not just B in the context of A that is decried as wrong.

3) Yes, Rev Yap, considering his training, should have exercised Academic Rigour in his study of the Bible. But apparently, in order to align the Bible with the gay agenda, he hasn’t. Rev Yap is guilty of eisogesis – inserting additional meaning into biblical verses – and incomplete exegesis of the Bible.

4) And guess what? Wilberforce was Christian!

5) Rev Yap is mixing up injustice with truth. Yes, he criticises genuine injustice. But that doesn’t need to be done through insulting key doctrines of his faith.

6) In grave irony, FCC isn’t part of the Roman Catholic Church, whose Pope is the direct successor of Saint Peter. Plus, there is no evidence anywhere that Peter condoned homosexuality; in fact, he condemns it in one of his letters not published in the main canon of the Bible.

1) Are you sure? So then, I suppose 80% of the world is “homophobic”?

Oh and you are so sure that 80% of the world are against homosexuality?

If so then yes, 80% of the world are homophobic. I suppose you also deem racism acceptable if the receiving party is a minority group.

2) Yahh, you say that, but then the LGBT Lobby is busy trying to achieve exactly “the denial of space and rights” for religious groups. Your comment is really a conversation-stopper.

If there’s anything to defy logic and stops rational conversation, it’s a belief in a perfect being that created imperfect humans and blames them for it – but never mind that. No lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered person is calling for religion to be made illegal.

By perpetuating homophobia, the religious lobby, on the other hand, is the reason why school boys are laughed at for being queer, why there’s a high rate of suicide amongst gay youths, why perfectly well-adjusted individuals are labelled as deviants and denied rights.

No one, gay or otherwise, is calling for religion or religious practices to be banned here. The religious lobby is actively trying to keep sexual intercourse between two individuals illegal. Who is denying whose rights and space?

If you don’t believe in gay sex, don’t participate in gay sex.

If you don’t believe in gay sex, don’t participate in gay sex.

Are the rights and space of Muslims infringed upon by non-Muslims eating pork?

Seth (#106),

1) I am sure that 80% of the world feels some sort of unease about homosexuality, including LGBTs who haven’t “come out” to themselves yet.

2) That is a distortion of Christian belief and you know it. To put it in your terms, Christians believed in a Perfect Being – the Principle of Existence Itself – that created perfect humans. The perfectness of the humans was ruined by an imperfect being.

You are right: nobody in the GLBT lobby is explicitly calling for religion to be made illegal. Well, at least not formally through the LGBT Organizations. But they are calling for a gag on religious views in public, and that is almost identical to an outright ban on freedom of expression for religion. Maybe PLU is not doing that, because it has insufficient political power to do so, but its counterparts in other countries, for instance Stonewall and GALHA (Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association) in the UK are calling for legislation in exactly that area.

3) This is nothing more than an Ad hominem, and deep down in your heart you know that. The religious lobby takes a principled stand towards homosexuality, which does not include tolerating any form of bullying. It is also highly irresponsible to blame the “religious lobby” (and kindly define that please) for instigating gay suicides. Suicides are depressing events, to be sure, but there are so many factors that could cause suicides besides the religious lobby’s public pronouncements. It is unfair to single out religious institutions as the sole cause of blame. And perhaps gay youth commit suicide because some of them do feel that there is something innately wrong in themselves, but they are blocked from seeking help because of leftist insistence that homosexuality is “normal”.

4) I think you have your answer: The LGBT Lobby.

They are rough-arming their way into governments by ordering the punishment of all who dissent from their orthodoxy, which usually means the religious, since the Agnostics are generally apathetic and the Atheists – after being stirred up by Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens – are now stridently anti-religious.

In the name of promoting social unity, they are promoting social exclusion.

Recently, in the UK, a retiree with Asperger’s Syndrome – a form of autism – was beaten up by a gang of thugs for holding up a banner promoting the traditional Christian view on homosexuality. He was pinned to the ground and seriously wounded. Neighbours who witnessed the incident called the local police. To add insult to injury, the poor old man was arrested for “inciting hatred and violence” and dragged to the police station. (And this in UK, not North Korea!)

He was convicted of breaking the Equalities Bill, which forbids people from expressing anything “offensive” to a LGBT. Strangely enough, the same Equalities Bill permits “offensive” things to be said about religion. So is it really equality? You judge.

Dear everyone,

Please keep your comments to within 500 words. That means, 500 words or less.

This will be strictly enforced. We reserve the right to remove any comments which exceed 500 words.

And the thing I find most laughable is that nobody can even agree on a single version of the Bible, and the very fact that what it has to say about homosexuality is debatable within the community itself.

Yet there are people who confidently assert that their version is the truth and everyone has to abide by their beliefs. Hey, why don’t we ban shellfish, make adultery criminal offence and outlaw divorce? The Bible said so.

101) Kezu on November 16th, 2009 10.22 pm
Kindly explain the Bush Administration in the last 8 years.

ah… a true blue Singaporean, where the govt = the country. hahaha

you also failed to account for the fact that even the sexually deviant may have lost someone dear during the 9/11 attacks. What has being puritanical got to do with anything?

#104 Arix (@UK) on November 17th, 2009 1.43 am Carolyn and Andrew,

///Love does not involve condoning sin, just as a mother’s love of her child does not mean that she allows the child to play with fire. In fact, if the mother allowed the child to play with fire, then that would be neglect rather than love. The “conservative” churches – including the Catholic Church – take that view. The liberal churches – so far the gay churches and the pro-choice churches – miss out on this point. Blind inclusiveness is not love.///

I am quite confused with that metaphor. Using mother love?
In order for this to work, you have to assume the Fire is the same for both Liberal and Conservative Christian. Which it is not!
The Liberals no longer believe homosexuality is a sin, only the Conservative does and actively advocate persecution and criminalization.

So lets play along the mother’s love metaphor separately.

Conservative mother, believe fire is bad and would rather kick the child out of the house or lock them away in jail than let them play with fire.
Liberal mother, on the other hand do not see homosexuality as fire, but rather like genetic trait. She loves her child regardless if the hair is blond or brunette.

What is not said here is from the same Bible, Love manifested very differently.
Judging by what we see in their approach so far, its obvious Conservatives approach to love is ‘Persecute first’.

Thank goodness that’s not the only brand of Christianity. There are still those that believe in ‘Love First’.

Like Sloo, i rather perish alongside with the world that believe in ‘Love First , than survive in the world that believe in ‘Persecute First’.

///112) lobo76 on November 17th, 2009 11.58 am

you also failed to account for the fact that even the sexually deviant may have lost someone dear during the 9/11 attacks. What has being puritanical got to do with anything///

LOL. I believe the question is about which catergory US falls into, sexually deviant or puritanical. You believe the former and i say the later.

Christianity has been so intergral in US politics, even more so under Bush Administration (which some link him to Christian Right group).
So what i am trying to say is, even though as you rightly pointed out US’s sexual deviancy, its still based on religion hence Puritanical.

Sept 9/11? What does that have to do with anything?

What you should ask is the IraQ war, where the puritanical US under Bush Administration lead a Crusade to conquer an Oily Land that was never theirs at any time.

and ‘OOps i didnt find any weapon of mass destruction which is the reason we invade’ does nothing to for the suffering of the innocent that caught up in this crossfire.

108) Arix (@UK) on November 17th, 2009 8.14 am
1) I am sure that 80% of the world feels some sort of unease about homosexuality, including LGBTs who haven’t “come out” to themselves yet.

you have not answered Seth’s point which I summarized as “majority, so what?”.

But they are calling for a gag on religious views in public, and that is almost identical to an outright ban on freedom of expression for religion.

you seem to imply that anti-homo is the core of the said religion… lol

anyway, the comparison with Islam and pork can be used. They are ‘happy’ to put the restriction only on their own community, hence no one is looking to put a ‘gag’ on them. For someone to want to ‘gag’ a religion, do you suppose it is because it is the religion which are intruding into other people’s space in the first place?

And perhaps gay youth commit suicide because some of them do feel that there is something innately wrong in themselves, but they are blocked from seeking help because of leftist insistence that homosexuality is “normal”.

Frankly, I think MANY of what we think ‘innately’ is really a result of external influences. With 80% thinking (the figure you quoted) as they do, I don’t see how the leftists’ insistence would actually block anything.

They are rough-arming their way into governments by ordering the punishment of all who dissent from their orthodoxy, which usually means the religious…

So you conceit that the ‘religious’ are the ones who make the first intrusion into another’s space?

Arix #106,

“And sliim, you must be the sarcastic one, since your first few posts sounded very pro-conservative.”

You must be referring to the post where I said, “Stop giving me the Thumbs Up you gays! All you gays think about is sex, sex, sex. And how the Thumbs Up look like an erect penis”

I admit to being pro-conservative, you converted me. (It’s Roman Catholicism, right?) But I don’t admit to sarcasm. Pro-conservatives are beyond sarcasm or parody. Thanks to our halos; insults just slide off our faces.

Arix #110,

“I am sure that 80% of the world feels some sort of unease about homosexuality, including LGBTs who haven’t “come out” to themselves yet.”

My pro-conservative advice: assert it twice, it becomes 160%.

“Strangely enough, the same Equalities Bill permits “offensive” things to be said about religion. So is it really equality? You judge.”

God forbid, if I were liberal, I will allow both sides to have their say. But thankfully, I am Pro-conservative, so only people who agree with me deserve equality (with me).

114) Kezu on November 17th, 2009 12.16 pm
LOL. I believe the question is about which catergory US falls into, sexually deviant or puritanical. You believe the former and i say the later.

The definition of ‘puritanical’ on dictionary is: very strict in moral or religious matters, often excessively so; rigidly austere.

Now, I would certainly say the Taliban to be so. And they FORCE their Country to be so. On the other hand, the US govt may be religious to some extent, but it’s not enough to be call puritanical. And putting the govt aside, the Country is certainly not so, with about 5 states being sexually deviant.

Sept 9/11? What does that have to do with anything?
the ‘anything’ would include both the Afghanistan and Iraq war. It is the one event that made the American public so supportive of conflict (at that time).

#108 Arix (@UK on November 17th, 2009 8.14 am

////Recently, in the UK, a retiree with Asperger’s Syndrome – a form of autism – was beaten up by a gang of thugs for holding up a banner promoting the traditional Christian view on homosexuality. He was pinned to the ground and seriously wounded. Neighbours who witnessed the incident called the local police. To add insult to injury, the poor old man was arrested for “inciting hatred and violence” and dragged to the police station. (And this in UK, not North Korea!)

He was convicted of breaking the Equalities Bill, which forbids people from expressing anything “offensive” to a LGBT. Strangely enough, the same Equalities Bill permits “offensive” things to be said about religion. So is it really equality? You judge. ////

Arix, wow selective journalism at its best.

First of all Equalities Bill in UK dont just ‘forbid people from anything offensive to GLBT’. Its a Bill that ensure fairness and protect individual from discrimination due to Gender, Age, Disability, Etnic Minorities, different Religion & Belief and Sexual Orientation.
Dont take my word from it, see the link below.

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx

As for your case study above please provide a link so that we would have clearer picture before we can comment. What was said in the Banner? report from police? and many other important information are lacking before we can come to a conclusion.

ps: we dont judge, its God job.

#117 lobo76 on November 17th, 2009 1.38 pm

///US govt may be religious to some extent, but it’s not enough to be call puritanical. And putting the govt aside, the Country is certainly not so, with about 5 states being sexually deviant. ///

Hmmmm the reason there are sexually deviant states because its as puritanical as any Democratic Country can be.

Afgan is Islamic Republic and Iraq before invasion is under dictatorship. See the difference?

It is true that some passages within some documents within the bible has very negative things to say about gay sex (happy sex).

But writers of those documents were conditioned by their culture and context, and they were imperfect human beings who were capable of having mistaken views.

A careful hermeneutics (exegesis is not enough) do point to the fact that there is no clear evidence that God is against gay sex.

Without clear evidence on what God thinks, the wise approach is to choose the path of minimum suffering, which means that churches should respect the freedom of space for gays and lesbians to love one another, just as churches would want others to give Christians the freedom of space to live out their values in their own lives (i.e. should not try to lobby for the law to criminalise gay sex – the churches sin when they do that for they failed to “treat others as they would want others to treat them) .

For the record, Jesus actually spent a lot of time with prostitutes and tax collectors – the lowest of the low in society. If he were alive in the modern Singapore context, we would be looking at a guy who goes around the Geylang area helping the crowd down there find peace with God.

If you read the Gospel, Jesus was never one with the well to do and the powerful. In fact he spent the better part of his Ministry at loggerheads with them.

Hence, if you look at things this way, Jesus would probably have no issues with homosexuals. If anything, he’d take issue with the rich and powerful who have an agenda against that particular community.

Incidentally, while St Paul (Who wrote most of the New Testament) was very “Anti-Gay,” Jesus himself never mentions anything about the subject. It’s hard to claim that you know he’s against them when he never actually said he was.

Arix (@UK) on November 17th, 2009 1.43 am:

Re: “No matter how much atheists jeer at the principle, “Love the Sinner, hate the Sin” is still a core part of Christian doctrine…”

Would be a great doctrine if it were backed with appropriate actions.

The real issue here is division of view within Christianity itself.
The struggle between the Liberals and Conservatives which is happening again since Martin Luther days.

Issue of homosexuality and conflict with other religions (Islam/Alteist) are nothing more than bogeymen/strawmen that was created divert real attention.

“Love the Sinner, hate the Sin” you say. What the world see is ‘The End Justify the Means’.

Just an example, if Pro-Family / Pro-Creation is such an important issue. Shouldnt the needless war that create countless widows & orphans be on top of the list of priority?

This is not the middle ages where information can be regulated.
You may be able to rewrite history, but in this time and age the Truth will always be Out There.

Tang Li

Fully agreed. All need to know the Bible we know today is compiled a century later after Jesus.

Just imagine the World today if Jesus had an opportunity to vet the content of that bible.

Robox.

Slim is playing at being coyingly sarcastic.

Robox #123,

“Why would ANYONE want an equality with YOU when an equality with you can only mean a step several steps down from being human?”

Not true. My research (Arix and private revelation) shows that everyone wants to be like me.

“Do you think that your religion might have given you a false sense of superiority?”

What do you mean by “might”?!

“I see nothing in you – absolutely NOTHING – that is either worthy of emulating or aspiring to.”

For one thing, there’s heaven. And everyone (80%) knows gays have height phobia: They spend too much time on their knees.

I also spend a lot of time on my knees, but I don’t gratify mortals. That’s the difference.

Arix,

What is the correct definition of “morality” since u have been repeating that homosexuality is a moral issue?

What differentiates between a “moral” issue and a non-moral issue?

I think a few readers failed to catch the jokes of SLLIM.

Read his post from another perspective and you may then realise he was all the while making fun of those religious conservatives!!!!!

119) Kezu on November 17th, 2009 2.04 pm
Hmmmm the reason there are sexually deviant states because its as puritanical as any Democratic Country can be.

which is to say that it is not lor.

Afgan is Islamic Republic and Iraq before invasion is under dictatorship. See the difference?

not really. All you did was proved that only oppressive regimes can be (really) puritanical.

The genre of sllim’s posts belongs to the category of parody!

129) lobo76 on November 17th, 2009 3.26 pm

which is to say that it is not lor.

Hmmm all i trying to say US is as close to a Modern Puritanical Christian Democratic Country as we can get these day.

The closest would be what…. The Vatican?

Ireland too perhaps? But i think they also have sexual deviant there hor . . .

The central question is whether homosexuality as a sexual orietation and opposed to any act of sexual violence or as an act of worshiping the idols is a “sin”. Simply associating known sins that causes harm as equivalent to homosexuality is not insightful and implies a deliberate bias. I don’t think the bible asked the question in the first place. The clobber verses used against gays are very subjective, It is Christians who tries to add meaning to the bible – which is a sin.

Should the rights of gays be subjected to the will of the majority as implied by some Christians. If so, Christians in Singapore have little right to protest when Christians were prosecuted in Orissa, India. Isin’t it the will of the majority? Our rights are interlinked. Today, maybe gays. Tommorow, might be you? And extremist religions are so fervant in their thinking that there is no point in arguing because everything is said to be god ordained and absolute,

It is better to love rather than to have a spirit of judgement, and if we err, do it in showing too much grace, love, and compassion, rather than showing hate, prejudice and judgement. For all of us are subject to the High Courts of Judgement seat one day? and we would have difficulty answering if Jesus asked us “when did I ask you to go after gays ?”, What did Jesus do? He said nothing, and so we should keep quiet as well unless we are more righteous than Jesus.

Grace

Well said.

I think Jesus also never say to go and persecute anyone.

This is what Mahatma Gandhi said about us Christians:

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Gandhi’s words says a lot.

“Jesus made it very clear in Matthew that there were only two that mattered. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, and Love your neighbour as you love yourself. that is it.. Not so hard I would have thought. No room for intolerance, rejection and exclusion . Christianity at its purest. Love for all of God’s created people.”

Thank you Carolyn for reminding us that there are only two commandments which matters.

128) Kezu on November 17th, 2009 3.42 pm
Hmmm all i trying to say US is as close to a Modern Puritanical Christian Democratic Country as we can get these day.

Would it be correct to say that, in reality, a puritanical democratic society is an oxymoron?

@ 131) Jay on November 17th, 2009 5.03 pm

Wow! Never knew he’d made that comment. Very astute!

134) lobo76 on November 17th, 2009 6.15 pm

Would it be correct to say that, in reality, a puritanical democratic society is an oxymoron?

I have to admit you got a point there.

However, puritanical idealistic society do exist, but can it be truly puritanical country?

It depends on enforcement of transgressor.
(This is where Iraq and Taliban control Afgan succeed)

29) Grace on November 17th, 2009 4.02 pm

And extremist religions are so fervant in their thinking that there is no point in arguing because everything is said to be god ordained and absolute,

You are right on saying no point in arguing with the religious fanactics.

But what we can do on forum like this, is to expose their misinformation and half-truth whenever possible.

Most importantly like what Gentle Lamb, Carolyn and others have shown is to counter them with meaning of love and compassion, esp when logic failed.

Not to their benefits since its impossible to change their perception no matter how hard we try. But for others that might chance upon this and have an balanced view.

That’s why there is a saying that goes “Heaven would be a boring place, because all the interesting people would be in Hell.”

Many fascinating people who give our lives a touch of fun and vibrancy are gay, much more than you think so. In fact, even in the economy, the “pink” dollar (money from homosexuals) is a strong economic agent, and I would like to see any Christian/Muslim/Jew/Satanic/Druid/Scientologist/Raelian/ discriminate against them when the very money in their wallets probably came from them somewhere along the higher rungs of the income ladder.

Whoever suggested that the “proliferation” of homosexuality would be the downfall of us all due to the sterilization of society certainly has not looked around him/her and realise that MOST OF HUMANITY IS NOT HOMOSEXUAL. Yes, homosexuals may be rather paramount in today’s modern societies around the world, but that still does not mean that they are the majority. They are still the minority, and the fact that they are homosexual does not mean that it is a “hereditary disease” that can be passed down from generation to generation.

Let us look at it as a mathematical problem:

Say there are 1000,000 people in this world, 200 are gays, 999,800 are straight. Assuming that the 200 gays die off or whatever, the 999,800 straight people procreate amongst one another (1 male to 1 female, no adultery and polygamy or whatsoever), there would be 499,900 males mating with 499,900 females. Say each pair produces 2 children, that would be another 999,800 human beings to add to the lot. That brings the total number of straight human beings to 1999,600.

Let’s say (200/1000,000 * 100%)%=0.02% of this new number of 999,800 children are/would turn gay too, that would be 199.96 potential gay people. The cycle than continues on and on, with an abundance of straight people to continue humanity’s existence, and with the number of potentially gay people decreasing with each generation, assuming that existing straight people do not turn gay of course. There you have it, apocalyptical worries related to infertility/sterilization put to rest.

There has always been a general trend of homosexuals making up the MINORITY of humanity, not the MAJORITY. Even members of the minority have the fundamental human rights to believe in what they believe in, whether selective reading or not. Whoever said that one’s opinion of what the Bible or any other holy text says, is the universal Truth? Who ever takes the Bible or any other holy text regarding this issue literally, ought to be ashamed of their own self-conceived, false, and arrogant view of others being less holier than themselves.

(102) sllim /// Good example of enshrining your views ///

Hi sllim,
Sorry, i think its my mistake for not making clear by what is meant by “attachment to views”, but let me explain by quoting an example from history.

For thousands of years, mankind had the view that the earth is flat (meaning, everyone was attached to this view)
Then, along came someone who came to find out that the truth is that the earth is round.
What was the reaction of those who were atttached to the former view?
They wanted to kill (burn alive) the guy who came up with the truth–that the world is not flat, but round.

Thats why it is said that “attachment to views is a major fetter”

Although the point i bring up might sound like a minor technicality, in this great debate that is going on, on this thread, but i assure you that this is not true, i.e, attachment to views has major implications and bearing on one’s life.

143) JayF on November 17th, 2009 9.25 pm

Jesus didn’t have to say anything about homo sex being wrong anymore than he had to say he was a man. Some things are just too obvious.

That’s the thing you see. Jesus never get to comment on the bible we have today.
Did he then?

Road to hell, good intentions, blah blah blah. I don’t have to continue the sentence do I?

LOL, i rather be in that hell than in heaven that promote hate and anger.

And I feel that Im speaking AT Pol Pot and the Red Guard at times. So ever fervent in wishing all religion would either disappear or censor themselves to banal platitudes.

That’s something you blamed the altheist for. Now you turning around to blame that on the gay as well? Nice.

JayF is woefully ignorant about gay sex, something he wants to keep banned. Need I point out the obvious that some forms of sex are practicable in both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse?

JayF #146,

“Homosexuality itself, the inclination to have sex with someone of their own gender isn’t condemned. The act of sex with someone of their own gender IS. I have an inclination to run a jaywalker down but it isn’t a sin till I actually think about doing it and hit the pedal.”

Pro-Conservative question: What if I am not inclined to condemn homosexuality? But condemn them anyway? Am I still virtuous?

“It is only subjective in the sense that the verses were written by someone who is obviously not totally objective.”

Pro-Conservative advice: The sentence needs to be much, much, much longer. “only subjective” and “not totally objective” are too close together; somebody might notice the absence of content.

“Jesus didn’t have to say anything about homo sex being wrong anymore than he had to say he was a man. Some things are just too obvious.”

Pro-Conservative admonition: If it’s just too obvious, please don’t invoke “Jesus” in vain. He is the Premise, the Logic, and the Conclusion.

Allow me to reword your argument for sanctimony. Reconstruct your hymen, if you will.

Your new argument: “Jesus”

Usage: “You are wrong, Jesus” or “Jesus, you are wrong.”

143) JayF on November 17th, 2009 9.25 pm

Also, refer to the parts of the Bible that do condemn gays. Please note Jesus never did say any part of the Bible as being wrong and Paul always backed his writings with reference to what was considered scripture.
Jesus didn’t have to say anything about homo sex being wrong anymore than he had to say he was a man. Some things are just too obvious.

The thing is even the church recognize the errors in the scripture, and admit to it.

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture….
– Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) – November 4, 1992

So is it so hard to conceive that the facts against homoseuxality could have been misinterpreted when we read the bible literary?

Sigh, JayF see now I got moderated thanks to you. Unlike some i dont have conspiracy theory against TOC to fall back on.

Oh Holy !!! Only 4 verses from the whole of the sacred text… And if you put those up against the hundreds and hundreds that speak about love and grace and forgiveness, then I think we need to accept that God is more concerned with other stuff.

However.. If you do want to look at these particular ones then there are still some problems.

The Leviticus passages are quite clear. And one could take them seriously if it was not for the fact that Leviticus also tells me that I am allowed to own slaves and that if I need to I could sell my daughter into slavery. It also tells me that I am going to go to hell for eating shellfish.. This is a problem for me cause I just love prawns.

The Romans passage is very interesting because the condemnation comes at the end of a long speech about what happened to a group of people who ‘did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.’ However, When we talk about FCC, which is where this whole thread began, we are not talking about people like this at all. We are talking about a group of people who love and glorify God. Who are thankful for God’s love and grace and forgiveness. So the Roman’s passage is not about homosexuality as such, it is about separation from the will of God!!!

And of course the last passage, from Corinthians is the best !!!! Because it is totally inclusive…. As far as it is concerned we are all doomed… No one who has ever had sex of any kind, cheated on their partners or their God, been raped or abused !! (these people are seen as adulterers in some cultures!!) told a lie, had a few too many drinks, pinched their sisters earrings, coveted a new handbag or car, or put any of their own desires before their desire for pleasing God, is excused…. Have to Love Paul’s inclusiveness !!!

There but for the Grace of God,…..

And of course the most famous of his letters to the Corinthians is the one about Love !!!! Takes me right back to the 2 commandments of Jesus.. Love God, Love everybody else… God will take care of the judgment, but even then I think the rigid and fundamental will be disappointed with how gracious our God truly is…

145) Oh Holy on November 18th, 2009 11.13 am

Since we are in biblical quoting mood. Here some for the thought.

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

They also point out that in Romans 2, Paul says that God will reward those who follow the law (as opposed to antinomianism) and then goes on to say that no one follows the law perfectly (see also Sermon on the Mount: Interpretation). Romans 2:21–25:

hmm.. waiting for moderator to remove those quotes as per their operating policy. =D

The thing is… I didn’t pick up anything on lesbian. So we can’t say Bible is against homo. At best, it is against gay only?

What is God’s love?

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

God stated very clearly that it was an act of abomination and must be purged. Jesus comes not to Judge us, because the time of Judgement is not yet here. He comes to save us, to warn us.

We knows the transgressions, we know the laws, and now we know the Grace of Jesus, can we continue to justify our Transgression against God?

Because we know God’s love, we must not live in the lust, especially not abomination for that is on our own blood. It would only cause harm to self and others.

Quite obvious, secular society welcomes everybody more than those so called religious/fringe group.

By the way, is there GOD? – coming from a Atheist perspective.

Re Holy

Uselss talking Bible to those weak minds that cannot control their sexual perversion and nuts pastor .

They will say “tolerance, love”….etc. Actually they perceive themselve to have greater faith than moralist because their crazy brain thinks that however dirty after fiddling or licking, Jesus will clense them clean again.

See they even have more faith than Apostle Paul who seems not that confident about his own salvation that he must act straight.

I believe their they must be send to Afghan and extend their tolerance to Taliban. Before being send to stoning squad, maybe they should give those Taliban a few blow job, to show love and tolerance.

And probably according to these crackpot logic, serial murderer is the most faith person so far they can remain confident that Jesus will purify them forever. And those victim whatsoever must forgive 70×7 times.

Next these pervert mind may say God kills people in Sodom as well, murderer is just emulating God….etc

The post from UZEK is full of hatred. If this person is Christian then I do know who is Christian anymore.

147) DoneFor on November 18th, 2009 12.46 pm
By the way, is there GOD? – coming from a Atheist perspective.

Off topic …. because the thread is not about whether the religion is ‘real’, but if the religion is based on a book, then are people interpreting the book correctly.

Since it is not ‘real’ (as in no experiments to prove anything can be done), kind of hard to argue… there is simply no common platform to base arguments from. Everyone and anyone can simply interpret to their whim and say they are correct. There is simply no way to prove one way or the other.

p.s to answer you:
from a (different) Atheist/Agnostic perspective… Yes, but it is a man made construct. One created out of Fear (of death, insignificance, lack of purpose, etc), Ignorance (to fill in for anything that Man has no knowledge of; i.e God of gap) and maybe Hope (that people will love each other, etc)

153) Des on November 18th, 2009 1.41 pm

In other words, one can be considered ‘Christian’ by the FCC even if one deliberately subverts the faith as defined in the Historic Creeds. The FCC cannot stamp its feet loudly and shout ‘BUT WE”RE CHRISTIAN!!!1!!’ when they make this their Faith Statement. That’s called good ol’ fashioned Heresy.

Ah Heresy.
Didnt the Pope John Paul 2 apology included ‘The Church Hierarchy’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation and to Galileo?’

Were they not branded as ‘good old fashioned’ Heretic too at that time?
And look at where they are now?

Galileo in our history books and Protestant a part of Christianity.

Are you so infallible to judge so harshly, and to carry out that judgement as well?

*The Pope and Catholic Church didnt think so, but you do?*

Sigh .

154) Jay on November 18th, 2009 1.48 pm

The post from UZEK is full of hatred. If this person is Christian then I do know who is Christian anymore.

Jay, i would rather they dont get moderated.

Its clearly a true reflection on their so called ‘justification’.

And for the record, they are what called the Christian Right movement, or broadly lumped together with Christian Conservatives.

Dear Kezu

Wow…

You seem to be suggesting that because I used the word ‘Heresy’, I automatically agree with burnings and religious wars. I do not, so please do not assume this. I do not even attempt to justify these from a Christian perspective. The Church and Christians in general have no authority from Jesus to kill people. They never have, and they were wrong to do so. The worst thing a church can do is to show such a person the door until such a time as they repent.

However, my point still stands. You cannot tamper with the foundations of Christianity and still call yourself a Christian, and I know that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church would certainly agree with that.

You say:

“Are you so infallible to judge so harshly, and to carry out that judgement as well?”

I am not infallible, nor do I even claim to be, and I hope you know by what I have just written I am not standing by with a burning torch in my hand. Dr Yap’s views are to be countered with words. He is most certainly in the wrong on this, but if you are not a Christian, I would not expect you to get that. Yes, we Christians believe that God has spoken on this issue – and firmly, so it is more than just our personal judgement here. If you don’t believe that, fine. That’s your problem. However, please don’t expect us to sit back while this kind of nonsense invades the Church.

Kezu is quite right on 149) Kezu.

I also wish to apologise for my harsh comment. And although I am a Christian, I have no high opinion of many Singaporean Chrisitian.

Many mass atrocities are commited by Chrisitian. All tyrants are mostly straight polygamist and (some bisexual)., non of them fully homosexual

Jesus is accomodative to vamp and sinners. In New Testament, the one receiving the most disproval are false prophets (Yap may be a candidate) and hypocrites.

I do not support gay is no-sin doctrine, neither did I like those who persecute homosexual. I think church should love gays but must also make it clear that it is definitely something that displease Lord.

156) Des on November 18th, 2009 3.01 pm Dear Kezu

However, my point still stands. You cannot tamper with the foundations of Christianity and still call yourself a Christian, and I know that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church would certainly agree with that.

Ah, that the thing you see.
When you see the word heresy and coupled with the apology from Pope on persecution. You thinking burning stakes and wars.

Then again if you read my post in totality, you should have known that’s not my point at all.

The point i am trying to make on the so called unshakeble foundation of Your brand of Christianity is this.

What you called HERESY today, may not to be so in future as we discover more and more about the world and our past civilization.

Dont take my word for it.
It is so in the case of Galileo (remember flat as pancake Earth?), and If such were the not the case then Protestant should not be part of Christianity as well.

156) Des on November 18th, 2009 3.01 pm

I am not infallible, nor do I even claim to be, and I hope you know by what I have just written I am not standing by with a burning torch in my hand. Dr Yap’s views are to be countered with words. He is most certainly in the wrong on this, but if you are not a Christian, I would not expect you to get that. Yes, we Christians believe that God has spoken on this issue – and firmly, so it is more than just our personal judgement here. If you don’t believe that, fine. That’s your problem. However, please don’t expect us to sit back while this kind of nonsense invades the Church.

I see now what’s the problem is.
You cannot accept the fact that Rev Dr Yap has such belief and can still be a Christian. At best, a Herectic.
And one can only come to this conclusion when one share the same particular view with you? If one does not share that revelation with you and your kind, its nothing more than nonsense thats invading the Church?

To me this is clear as day and night.
You cannot or refused to acknowledge that there are more Liberal or Moderate Christians in The Church.
And everything or anyone that’s not with you is either nonsense or heresy.

You are fine in attacking Dr Rev Yap’s christianity because your brand of christianity rooted its unshaken foundation in a literal translated inerrrant Bible, and his is not?

Finally when you use the term ‘We, Christian’ tell me does it include Rev Dr Yap in that context??

Re 154) Kezu

I almost support Kezu fully. Example Singapore, Christian here have given us more injury than gay.

Most of our Ministers and Judges are Christian. Look at the defamation suit our judges awarded to LKY, they are here to show most Christian are hypocrites.

They are the one who have poison people’s mind.

Kezu is not wrong of puritans. Those so call puritans be it Talibans, Al Qaeda, or hypocrite moralist like Mao and Stalin, they are really the most evil.

Gays never have so much blood in their hand.

And what about the scantily dress female ex clerics of City harvest turned Singer.

Wake up my Christian brothers, we are really lack of a role model and martyr. We are full of hypocrite and bullshit clerics.

Uzek

Ah either you are playing parody game as sslim or had a change of mindset immediately?

But regardless, nicely done though on the reverse anagram on my nick.

Dear Kezu,

Yes – I do see your point. I’m afraid that it took me a long time to write my initial thoughts out and so I missed what you had originally written.

The argument from progression cuts both ways, though. As we progress through history, who knows what is round the corner? It is presumptuous to suggest that all the churches will abandon faithful confession of the Creeds and the realities that they speak of, and current scholarship concerning same-sex relationships is very much towards the ‘conservative’ view.

Same-sex relationships were common in the Greco-Roman world where the Christian message first went out. It will not surprise me if it happens again and gay relationships become normalised in society in general. It doesn’t scare me. it shouldn’t scare any Christian. I am also not for criminalising gay sex, by the way, especially as the government seem to think that straights can indulge in sexual acts that are more commonly associated with gay men. Why one and not the other is a good question, is it not?

Galileo did not believe in a flat earth, and neither did the scholars of the day. If you are concerned that the church ‘got it wrong’, well, Thomas Aquinas was correct to warn the Church hundreds of years before Galileo that they should not pin their reading of scripture to any particular cosmology – and he proved to be right in this case. As Galileo himself once said ‘The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, and not how the Heavens go’.

Des

However, my point still stands. You cannot tamper with the foundations of Christianity and still call yourself a Christian, and I know that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church would certainly agree with that.

Now that we are in more agreeable mood. Lets clarify further on issue that would tamper the very foundations of Christianity?

To quote the word of Carolyn.
“Jesus made it very clear in Matthew that there were only two that mattered. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, and Love your neighbour as you love yourself. that is it.. Not so hard I would have thought. No room for intolerance, rejection and exclusion . Christianity at its purest. Love for all of God’s created people.”

I would think violating those 2 fundamental rule would have shaken that foundation to its core. Would it not?

Jesus is God himself if you do not know.

God himself have spoken that he adhor homosexuality.

LEVITICUS 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

LEVITICUS 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death.. Their blood shall be upon them.”

If you believe in Jesus, you all also know that many will claim to know Jesus but many will be rejected.

What is God’s love?

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Prostitutues, Tax collectors are not put to the death. For though they have sinned, they have incurred the wrath of God and the transgression that led to death. Have you asked why homosexuality must be put to the death and why the Blood is on ‘Their Heads’?

Was Jesus not angry when the people uses his father temple as a market? Was he not zealous of God?

Jesus is zealous of God and his commandents! But he is not here to condemn, he comes to warn us and also to save us. The time of judgement is another day.

Oh Stuff It Already.

160) Uzek on November 18th, 2009 4.38 pm Re 154) Kezu

I almost support Kezu fully. Example Singapore, Christian here have given us more injury than gay.

Hahaha i am not sure i want your support, fully or not. But flattery will get you almost everywhere.

Most of our Ministers and Judges are Christian. Look at the defamation suit our judges awarded to LKY, they are here to show most Christian are hypocrites.

They are the one who have poison people’s mind.

Interesting, unfortunately i cant comment on that. I simply do not know which ones of them are Christians and which ones are not.
And you see, judging . . . hmmm.

Kezu is not wrong of puritans. Those so call puritans be it Talibans, Al Qaeda, or hypocrite moralist like Mao and Stalin, they are really the most evil.

Really now?

Gays never have so much blood in their hand.

Of course they do, their own (as victim of hate crimes usually do)

And what about the scantily dress female ex clerics of City harvest turned Singer.

Hey that’s my favourite church, … well architecturally. But be nice.

Wake up my Christian brothers, we are really lack of a role model and martyr. We are full of hypocrite and bullshit clerics.

Ah i think you are doing just fine.

Budamaxx #140,

Only weaklings are attached to their views. And only honest weaklings (weakest of the lot) such as yourself admit to it. I am waaaay too strong for that. (And besides, I can’t change my views even if I wanted to; I’ve enshrined them, remember?)

Scroll the page and imagine me sweeping my holy arm across your monitor. My prayer muscles will illuminate scripture after scripture after scripture. Who needs mere attachment?

162) Des on November 18th, 2009 5.08 pm Dear Kezu,

The argument from progression cuts both ways, though. As we progress through history, who knows what is round the corner? It is presumptuous to suggest that all the churches will abandon faithful confession of the Creeds and the realities that they speak of, and current scholarship concerning same-sex relationships is very much towards the ‘conservative’ view.

Well, that’s the problem you see.
It is presumptuous to assume otherwise either.
But would you rather err in Compassion or err in Persecution?

Sometimes what we think does not matter as much as what we actually do.

Dear Kezu –

I have only just noticed your comment #155 – it must have been posted while I was replying. I am not a quick thinker, and so I ask your patience.

You said:

To quote the word of Carolyn.
“Jesus made it very clear in Matthew that there were only two that mattered. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, and Love your neighbour as you love yourself. that is it.. Not so hard I would have thought. No room for intolerance, rejection and exclusion . Christianity at its purest. Love for all of God’s created people.”

I would think violating those 2 fundamental rule would have shaken that foundation to its core. Would it not?

My answer is Yes. However, we need to have a definition of ‘love’ in order to confirm whether I have shaken the foundation. The best definition of love from a Christian perspective that I have come across is something like this:

‘unconditional regard for a person that prompts and shapes behaviours in order to help that person to become what God desires’.

I got that from a book called the Jesus Creed, by Scot McKnight, who is an American scholar. The key bit is ‘to help that person become what God desires’. Now as I’ve already said, God has spoken on this issue, and so to ‘love’ someone cannot mean that as a Christian all of ones behaviours are considered by default OK and to be celebrated in the Church. A Christian who has same-sex attractions (please note, I am not here talking about those outside the Church), is to submit to the scriptural admonitions to avoid same-sex sexual behaviour, and live a chaste life, whether one is ultimately ‘healed’ in this life or not. The goal is holiness – Christ-likeness – not ‘Straightness’, though for some that may come to some degree.

That will mean deep love and support within the Christian Community for those who struggle with this issue, and seek to live lives in conformity to Jesus, and I will be the first to acknowledge that we’re not very good at that. Some of it has to do with ‘fear of the Other’, but if Jesus’ disciple John is right, then ‘perfect love casts out fear’, and I hope that Churches of whatever stripe can do a better job. However, it also means confronting those who believe that there is nothing wrong with same-sex sexual behaviour. If those who go on living like this do not inherit eternal life (as we’ve confessed for the past 2000 years), then to say that one should indulge such desires is perhaps the most ‘unloving’ thing a person can say. It’s like telling an alcoholic to ignore the medical consequences and ‘go on, have a drink – you know you enjoy it!’.

And I am concerned that this is precisely what Dr. Yap is advocating. Whether he is not a Christian is not for me to say – as I said before in an earlier post, I am not infallible, and I can’t look into his heart. However, he advises a church which openly allows questioning of key Christian Doctrine (as I pointed out from their Faith Statement – which is what I described as heretical, not Dr. Yap). He may not be a heretic, but he appears to be – as we would say in modern terms – an ‘enabler’. At best he is a very confused Christian.

Finally Kezu – I want to add that I am sorry if I have come across as overly strident. We are all heroes behind our keyboards, and personally I would rather discuss this over a beer or a coffee – and now I have somewhere to go. I look forward to your reply.

Des.

Why, after so many years, hasn’t someone flew/teleported down to give us a newer version of the bible? One that keeps up with the times? Like maybe, one that allows us to eat shrimp and pork? Because bak kua and cereal prawns taste darn good!

Oh and anyway, somewhere in the bible allows me to rape any girl that I like. She’ll then have to marry me and can never divorce me forever, on the account that I have to pay her dad “fifty shekels of silver”. How much would that be in modern times? Like US$50?

The people (like 40 or so of them) who compiled the Bible just had to conveniently die and then take no responsibility of any sort. Not even an afterword or something. Dammit la.

#160, #145, “Oh Holy…. 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”

If you look further to 1 John 5:5,6, one would would realise that these commandments are centered upon understanding of the nature and standing of Christ … and it is not the 10 commandments nor the the Jewish laws in Lev used to condemn gays. Otherwise, why need Jesus? The Pharisees were doing a good job in insisiting on the laws to be followed strictly. We seem to have many of their descendents in this discussion today. You might just end up crucifying the innocent person as they did in the bible.

# Arix 105 – “6) In grave irony, FCC isn’t part of the Roman Catholic Church, whose Pope is the direct successor of Saint Peter. Plus, there is no evidence anywhere that Peter condoned homosexuality; in fact, he condemns it in one of his letters not published in the main canon of the Bible”

Yes, I believe FCC is not Catholic as they do not worship the pope.
Pope is Pontifex Maximus, the high priest between god and man, ie god himself. We are to pray to god, through the Pope and Mary, the co-redeemer. Sounds like pagan ancient worship of the sun goddess in Rome. That is why the Pope can apparently forgive sins. I thought only God can?

Jesus did not have any children, and they said Peter was the first Pope about 400 later to claim legitimacy. Anyway, it was Paul who went Rome, not Peter. He did not mention homosexuality, in clear contrast to his clear condemnation against heterosexuality in the idol worship of temple prostitutes. Shoud we then ban sex? if the action by itself is sin.

Perhaps Paul was Gay, he ask people not to get married, was not married himself and he can’t stand women especially those who bitch too much in church and in parliament! Oops, women can’t even vote in those days and must have their faces covered.

Des

I was confronted with a choice, not fundamental one but still an interesting one.
Between replying to your comment or JayF.

To be honest, a rebuttal to the later is nothing that has not been said before.
But to yours i am intrigued.

When you called for the definition of ‘Love’ let me ask a question.

Help us understand what ‘God desires’.
Who can say we truly understand what God’s desire?

The reason Carolyn’s message is so impactful is because it directly speaks from Jesus. Love God and Love thy Neighbour. Not so difficult and Exactly what this world now needed the most.

The thing you see, which i have teeeny problem with your comment is to liken the homosexuality to alcohol addiction. Implying its curable.

Before, I would have agreed wholeheartedly, as i came from very devouted methodist family. To be honest, we have a tradition of blaming the roman catholics (idol worshiper) from where i came from for almost anything.

But in my adult life, i realize this is a very serious side effect from blind faith.

Blind faith, as we do what we are told. Conform even when we feel uncomfortable. There’s simply no room for negotiation. To a point I always thought Roman Catholic is a different religion altogether.

That’s why i applaud Rev Dr Yap and this article.
Reality is Christianity is not a cohesive whole.
Different in more ways than we can count.
But fundamental similarity is still those 2 rules from Jesus.

I would not so hastily call someone heretic when what he is say brings hope.

*sorry might not be coherent, started on the beer bit earlier*

#172) OhMyGoodnessGraciousMe on November 18th, 2009 9.47 pm

Its called divine intervention, not McDelivery. Ahem.

Kezu (#141),

The Galileo Controversy has been referred to so many times it has become somewhat stale. The real historical truth is: The Magisterium/Church/Pope never condemned Galileo’s scientific teachings as heresy, even though he was uncomfortable with it.

In fact, Galileo was permitted to teach his theory publicly for three months under Church-sponsored sessions (and people say that the Church is against science!!), although he was advised repeatedly to state that his theory was just a theory. But no legal punishment was enacted against him based on that.

What was condemned as heresy was Galileo’s assertion that his new scientific doctrine could undermine Divine Revelation and the Authority of the Magisterium in interpreting Scripture.

And even so, his punishment meted by the Church was nothing more than house arrest that Aung San Suu Kyi would find enviable today. A visitor to Galileo’s house wrote in his personal journal that Galileo was probably the best-cared-for prisoner in all of Europe.

Catholic.org has the full article on this.

There were, however, less senior members of the clerical hierarchy who misinterpreted the Pope’s condemnation of heresy. So, John Paul II apologized for these people. In his speech, the Pope did not admit to errors in Scripture; he admitted to errors in the INTERPRETATION of Scripture, which is very different.

The difference between homosexuality and astronomy is that there are verses – and cultures – that explicitly condemn at least MSM (In a patriarchal culture, WSW would be automatically regarded as fornication); whereas the Bible, not intended as a scientific document, does not make any pronouncements on astronomy.

Arix, Arix Arix.

I am glad Galileo did not suffer overmuch in ‘house arrest’

Heaven forbid enough suffering has occurred in this world already, day in and day out.

But then again, the question of literal interpretation of Sin of homosexuality is not that much different than say, when Galileo begged the Christian Church to take the stand of St Augustine of Hippo, not to take the every passage literary.

The rest of MSM and WSW is too cheem for me tonight. Someone else can take on this, i hope.

Cheers

Carolyn (#142),

3) It is sometimes strange that Progressives like yourself and Dr Yap claim to be able to interpret the Bible in its proper context, and yet, expose your grave ignorance of cultural contexts. Yes, Leviticus endorses slavery, but the slavery which it endorses is not the Racial Slavery that began in the Spanish Canary Islands in 1404, and the kind of slavery we think of when we mention the term.

Old-testament slavery is just-title slavery, also called debt slavery or indentured labour. It is when an individual agrees to work for another in order to pay off his or her debt. It is more or less an informal employment contract, except that the scope of work is not defined.

Yet, even though Leviticus endorses such slavery, it places a number of restrictions on what the employer/slave-owner is permitted to do to the slave, which almost makes Leviticus the first book in history to talk about Workers’ Rights. Leviticus does that to curb abuses among slave-owners.

For the issue of Racial Slavery, the first historical condemnation is St Thomas Aquinas during the Crusades. The first formal condemnation by the Church Hierarchy is a Papal Bull issued in 1435 that condemns the “unheard of till [then]” institution of slavery and the slave trade by the Spanish colonialists of the Canary Islands. So whoever made the claim that the Church supported slavery needs to relook their historical documentation.

4) Glorifying God doesn’t simply mean verbally acknowledging His love and grace, but also putting Him in the prime position of your life by following His Law.

5) Well, that sounds harsh, but you cannot just ignore it because you don’t like it.

7) And what does Loving God imply? Perhaps the Protestants here might want to help me out with finding the correct verse, but there is a verse in the Bible that argues that Loving God includes following God’s Law.

Bravo! JayF

Your knockdown argument had me leaking–tears of blood, or milk (whichever miracle you are comfortable with)

Might I venture, your very presence refutes Evolution, the devilcraft of filthy atheists and gays. Let’s have your face in Biology textbooks. It will take up an entire page, leaving some space beneath it for your inspired argument: “Filthy”

In fact, I think your argument is succinct enough to be a pop-up:

Foreword

[BAM!] JayF

[BAM!] FILTHY

Kezu (#172),

It might help you to understand the Church’s position on homosexuality better if you google “Theology of the Body”. I admit, even I had personal issues with the Church’s views of same-sex marriage – and I am a God-fearing Catholic – until I read an excellent book on the Theology of the Body, and read the first part of the lecture series available on the Vatican Website.

It is a little theoretical, but it gives a good explanation. (And no, just because this Theology is a lecture by the Pope, it doesn’t mean it is infallible.)

Arix

You see i never have any issue with your argument.

Be it the stand of Church to Homosexuality.

But this i gotta say on behalf of all Gay men out there.

If the leviticus is to be strictly adhered to, what the heck am I gonna do with the rest of my wardrobe? *prohibition of cloth in 2 different type of treads*

And just for the record, I am NOT going to go to work as Ugly Betty by wearing a Poncho!

Can you?

Arix, being a Roman Catholic, should get his own church to accept, admit and make reparations, seek forgiveness and mercy from those thousands of children (now adults) who were sexually abused by Catholic priests, before he opens his mouth to condemn others and preach from his high horse.

Do that and we may listen to what you say.

So far, the Roman Catholic Church and its Pope have not even apologised for the years, decades, of abhorrent and horrendous sexual abuse by its priests on vulnerable children throughout the entire world – from Europe to South America to the States.

In fact, when the church found out about them, it covered up the entire thing for years. Bishops, Archbishops, priests and even the Pope were complicit in the abuse.

And we have Arix here preaching about morality? About the Bible?

There’s a word to describe people like that. It has 9 letters, starts with “H” and ends with “e”.

DoneFor (#146) and Lobo (#149),

God Necessarily Exists, which is a symbol for the notion that God exists both in reality and imagination, that God both exists and does not exist, and neither as well. “God exists” is the popular theist way of compressing that concept.

Christianity is not a Religion of the Book, not according to orthodox (Orthodox and Catholic) Christian teaching anyway. The idea that Christianity is a Religion of the Book comes from Martin Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Christianity is instead a religion centred around the person, and not just the teachings, of Jesus Christ. The New Testament is the record of Christ and his followers, and the Old Testament is regarded from early Christianity as some sort of historical background to Christ.

Rightfully speaking, the Bible is a guide for how to follow Christ, and thus how to follow God.

God is the Principle of Existence, which divides what is existent from what is non-existent. Think of God as a file divider. Is a file divider part of what comes before it, what comes after it, or both or neither?

Slim

Harrro, no biology. You are very salah liao.

For those who’re unaware:

“Moving from one parish to another in Northern California during the 1970s, Father Oliver O’Grady quickly won each congregation’s trust and respect. Unbeknownst to them, O’Grady was a dangerously active pedophile that Church hierarchy, aware of his predilection, had harbored for over 30 years, allowing him to abuse countless children. Juxtaposing an extended, deeply unsettling interview with O’Grady himself with the tragic stories of his victims, filmmaker Amy Berg bravely exposes the deep corruption of the Catholic Church and the troubled mind of the man they sheltered.”

Here’s the documentary of Catholic priests who sexually abused children.

Deliver us from evil

Father O’reilly now lives in a little corner in Ireland, a free man. His daily expenses are believed to be taken care of by the Catholic Church.

God disaprove homosexuality according to Bible. That is beyond doubt.

However, how much responsibilities God delegate to man in dealing with homosexuality is up to debate, since it is an consensual act.

In the Israelite Era, certainly the man are able to intervene harshly on behalf of Lord, but whether is it the same now is questionable.

But that does not mean a mad cleric can go up preaching accomodation for gay as if everyone else is homophobic or intolerance.

I think its best this Yap guy stop his megaphone.

Sorry. I mean “Father O’Grady now lives in Ireland….”

Kezu (#175),

I need to clarify a term. When the Church – at least the Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran and High Anglican – talk about the “literal” meaning of the Bible, we don’t mean literal as in surface meaning; we mean literal in the sense of what the author in that particular context wished to convey. So following the “literal” meaning of the Bible does not necessarily mean following it word-by-word, because certain policies were designed for certain eras. But again, policies do not equate attitudes.

In that particular case of two threads, there are two possible reasons:-

(1) There is some natural reason for the prohibition; perhaps, in those days, without velcro or zips to hold the pieces of cloth together, they might snap more easily and violate modesty. You know, something like pants splitting.

(2) Wearing more than two colours is associated with the Pagan nations which the Jews were instructed to dissociate, on account of their Paganism. (The irony was that the Jews ended up misinterpreting it as dissociating on account of Race, which is where Judaizers versus St Paul comes in in the New Testament.)

Sheep and Wolves (#176),

To put things in perspective, the “thousands” of children were molested by less than 100 priests out of hundreds of thousands. And these priests were disciplined by the Catholic Church.

And yes, I know that you are using the word “Hypocrite”. But note, I myself have nothing whatsoever to do with the molestation of anybody, so if I state Church teaching, I am not being hypocritical. Plus, Jesus himself condemned the Pharisees for hypocrisy, but he didn’t deny the truth of their teachings.

Hypocrisy and Lying are two different things; make no mistake, lest you fall into Ad Hominem.

“Shocking documentaries about paedophile priests led to probes”

THE controversy raging over the Church’s handling of child sex abuse allegations has its roots in three powerful television documentaries broadcast more than a decade ago.

‘Dear Daughter’, ‘Sex in a Cold Climate’ and ‘States of Fear’ caused huge public outrage in the early 1990s at the scale of cover-ups of child clerical abuse by bishops and religious superiors.

The storm of public indignation at ‘the sins of the Fathers and the Sisters’ perpetrated behind the closed doors of parish houses, monasteries, seminaries and industrial schools led to the announcement in 1995 by the Government of its intention to set up a Commission of Inquiry.

Meanwhile, priest paedophiles such as the notorious Brendan Smyth, Sean Fortune and Ivan Payne became household names through newspaper coverage of their court trials and ensuing imprisonment.

In 2002, Brendan Comiskey resigned as Bishop of Ferns after admitting he had failed to deal adequately with priest rapists such as Fortune.

Arix

You see, i like your arguments.

If they just wear a poncho with stone tied to the edges. That would have solve all the problem with modesty.

But the problem is not all these arent they?

The problem is even the most staunched Christian no longer abide by the rule and mandate handed down by the OT.

Where does that leave us?

Re Sheep and wolves

You news is no news. I have longed disillusion with church institution.

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

The church has been getting sexual gratification from many of the innocent victims more than thousand year before you and I were born.

But that does not mean it do not have outstanding individuals. The world is an interwind between good and evil, that is not easily distinguisable.

We are in a material world ruled by Satan,

The way to Lord Jesus is fraught with pain and danger. There is high chance where anyone might just trip and went down a path of no return.

To all homosexual, I hope God bless you.

If the above video link fails, you can watch Deliver Us From Evil here as well:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/deliver-us-from-evil/

Uzek

stop focusing on Sheep and Wolves and what about my rebuttal to your comments?

Dont stop.

I am talking about the church authorities, the very top people in the church, like the Pope, who preaches about morality, about forgivenes, about mercy, about LOVE.

Yet, where are all these in the case of rapist priests and paedophile priests?

And I am talking about people like Arix who’re so “concerned” about a group of people but does nothing about the horrendous actions of his own Catholic priests.

Hiding behind “there are some good priests as well” does not cut it. And whether there are good priests or not is not the point.

The point is DON’T BE A HYPOCRITE.

As Jesus said:

Why do you not take the lof out of your own eyes?

Those who are without sin, let them cast the first stone.

Has Arix gone to his own Church and cried “MORALITY!” about the paedophile priests?

Has Arix gone to his Church and cried “SIN” about the rapist priests?

Has Arix made any attempts or written to his Pope about helping the victims?

Has Arix gone to his Church and rally his church mates in condemning these priests?

What has Arix done? He is more interested in condemning homosexuals who live their lives in silence than rapist and paedophile priests who abuse children by the thousands over decades and Arix’s church covering it all up.

Until someone shouts WOLVE!!

S+W

You raised an interesting point.

When too much authority of God is placed in the hand of man, those things do happened.

*Who is watching the watcher?* is the question that’s begging to be asked.
Opps you have asked already.

Then the question is who will answer for the suffering that follows?

Arix says:

“To put things in perspective, the “thousands” of children were molested by less than 100 priests out of hundreds of thousands. And these priests were disciplined by the Catholic Church.”

I think Arix had better go do his research before he spouts lies, which is a sin in his Catholic faith.

Less than 100 priests? Are you sure? God-damned sure?

Disciplined by the Church? As in the church paying for the daily expenses of Father O’Grady, one of the worst rapist priests??

This is totally laughable. Not surprising, coming from a hypocrite.

Re Sheep and wolves

Pope Benedict has to cover those pervert unless he wants to ruin the vatican instituion as a credible vehicle for. reaching out to Christian

The good certainly outweight the bad.

When vatican as outgrows too big for its own good, its not easy to police. In going to church, many of us are not unlike gambling or finding a mate.

Though probability of meeting a pervert there is much less than going to Zouk.

But I think Pope Benedict is a good man, It is a sad really a sad thing. I believe he has no way to control his man. People now are much different from the past.

If there is ever a homosexual church, Buddhist instituion that grows big, I believe such will definitely happen.

Unless the instituion choose to legalise polygamy which is what Islam is doing. In Islam, “Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad”

Even man sin. The world is full of pain.

Did Arix watch the documentary?

Or does Arix find it too unbearable to watch?

Does Arix prefer to condemn others?

It is appalling that Arix would say “children were molested by less than 100 priests out of hundreds of thousands.” So that makes it “not so bad” I guess for a “god-fearing Catholic”, as Arix describes himself.

Yes. This is what I mean by hypocrisy.

What if Arix’s children were one of those “less than 100″ children who were raped? Would Arix dismiss it as, “Oh, my daughter was just one of only 100 raped. So, it’s ok.”

I would use an expletive here if it was permitted.

Arix,

You see there’s where we have a slight problem.

When Galileo ask for non literal interpretation of the bible in regards to cosmology.
Did he get the same treatment?

Why dont we just admit that the OT has too many rules and restriction that has Judaism and Jewish tradition in ITS cultural and geographical context that can no longer be relevant in our time?

Lets focus on the Gospel in NT and words supposedly from Jesus Christ the Lord to steer our lives?

Sigh.

Uzek

Now i am totally ashamed that you and I shared the same nick, reverse or not.

Inciting ‘the phrase’ is totally unacceptable!.

Sigh

Uzek,

God is bigger than the church, a man-made institution. Your excuse for the Pope’s inactions tells me how little faith the Pope – and the Church – have in God in taking care of his church if it should crumble.

Here is again another question: Does the church really trust and have faith in their God in taking care of it?

Looks like love is already out the window. Next would be faith.

Re Sheep and wolves

Vatican is already been long rotten but it does have many extraordinary people. There is no way to police a spawning organization like vatican.

That does not mean that all Christian is like Yap or those pedophille priest.

Whether you like it or not, the world and the natural order will goes as God’s command. And God certainly disapprove homosexuality.

Do it for your own pleasure, and pray that you guys escape divine intervention.

Below is a link to Newton’s end world calculation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies

I believe the resurrection of State of Israel and Hebrew language has manifested that Lord’s will shall be.

The orderly movement of celestial bodies all indicates the existence of God.

Good luck, and hope God bless you.

180) Uzek on November 18th, 2009 10.49 pm
God disaprove homosexuality according to Bible. That is beyond doubt.

really? though I may tempting moderation from TOC, please state a passage when woman-woman relationship is mentioned. The two passage brought up by [160) Oh Holy on November 18th, 2009 5.59 pm] , LEVITICUS 18:22 and LEVITICUS 20:13 seem to be against gay ONLY.

Is it homosexuality, or just gay? If the latter, when only gay?

Incidentally, as brought up by Kezu, if this two passages are relevant, why about the one about shellfish and clothes of two types?

lobo76

Allow me to hazard a guess.

The reason *probably* is back in those days women are not consider an equal of men.

So technically what they do with each other don’t matter.

Being ‘property’ means sex is not an option. Its obligation.

Story of Lot’s daughters, …. need i say more?

So the moral of the story is this, when you have no right, what you do don’t matter.

177) Arix @UK on November 18th, 2009 10.37 pm
Rightfully speaking, the Bible is a guide for how to follow Christ, and thus how to follow God.

Therein lies the problem. For this, I would like to quote from a STAR WARS novel. hehehe… where one of the characters say, “Everything I say is a lie”.

Essentially, what the character is trying to say, everything he SAYS is necessarily limited by language which cannot convey ALL that he wish to say. i.e lying by omission. The very same limitation that is suffered by the Bible.

Maybe the people who wrote the Bible did correctly interpret the ‘religion’… but can human language convey it? If you are depending on the Bible as a guide, then I would say you are living a lie. Since Christianity is about a personal relationship with God, then just have the relationship. Listen to what your God is telling you (if you really can hear it) and not through a book written by others.

199) Kezu on November 18th, 2009 11.51 pm
The reason *probably* is back in those days women are not consider an equal of men.

yep… if so, another point will be about gender equality. if we (i really mean ‘they’) follow the Bible when woman don’t matter… and we allow them to ‘matter’ now, are they still following the Bible?

Re Sheep and wolves

Those pedophille clerics are just small fly compared to damages done by Luther (But Luther is great man as well). Even the fathers of protestants are hands full of blood.

Jean Calvin ordered the death of Miguel Servetus just because he is not able to agree 3 =1 or 1=3.

And below excerpts (the content is much much more vulgar than below) is what Martin Luther wrote about jews in his “Von den Juden und Ihre Lugen” (of the jews and their lies)

das man jre Synagoga oder Schule mit feur anstecke. ( their synagogue or school with fire set)
man ihre Häuser desgleichen zerbreche und zerstöre. ( their house as well as burn and destroy)
müssen wir sie wie die tollen Hunde ausjagen… (must the mad dog [Jews] drive out )

Luther is clearly the ideological father of Hitler.

And Christians nowadays simply are not aware of what their fathers are doing because no church wants to talk about it. And I realise many Christian are not able pose a credible intellectual response to Kezu.

But that does not make a Christian cease to be a Christian. My stand is everyone is sinner. But homosexually is certainly in very great disapproval by lord. And there is no way a orthodox church can openly preach Gay is ok!!!

It is not,

Lobo76

‘They’ still dont believe women matters.

The issue of equality is always interlinked.

In UK, as Arix pointed out. Where Equality bill seek to protect against discrimination against gender, sexual orientation and so on is still necessary.

All to note, UK has abolish the laws against GLBT way ahead of her colonies.
SG need not take precedent from India, but look at the where Section 337A originated from and learn from it.

Sigh, i dont despise religion, just hypocrisy of men and what they do in the name of religion.

Keze #181,

You foolish foolish disbeliever of the file divider. Just ask Arix, the leg/end, what his Bio text taught him about gays. If you like his arguments, you will love, no, worship what turns up in a search.

I learnt EVERYTHING I need to know about apologetics from him. You will be wise to do the same. Too bad you are foolish.

sslim

admonition taken.

I begged your forgiveness in my ignorance.

have you met my double? Uzek? nice chap. you will like him/her/it ….

Sheep and Wolves,

I have one thing to say to you: you have been watching too many conspiracy theory movies.

There is also another issue with disciplining the errant priests. Again, the Church is in a Catch-22. If it chooses to discipline the priests, some crackpot atheist like Christopher Hitchens will pop up and make some garrulous analogy with the Inquisition and try to prove what a hypocrite the Church was: It preaches mercy and compassion, but not to its own people.

The USCCB also released a public statement saying that an excessive focus on this one issue would create an unnecessary obsession with it, and the greater the obsession, the more truth is going to be bent by sensationalists in the media, as it already has, judging from the response of people like you.

A documentary is not always an unbiased, objective piece of work that covers all perspectives. The best example of that would be Michael Moore’s documentaries.

Uzek (#192),

Actually, there is some debate in Islam as to whether Polygamy was permitted circumstantially or universally.

Lobo76 (#98),

Ancient Israel ran on a patriarchal system, and a patriarchal system was very controlling of women, so they would not have permitted Lesbian sex by default, i.e. no WSW. God only commands what needs to be commanded; nothing more, nothing less.

Lobo76 (#200),

Actually, your reasoning is why I call the Bible “a guide”, not a “handbook”. But the Bible is Divinely-Inspired, which means that it cannot err in terms of meaning. Because it is filtered through the human mind, the expression of that meaning is limited by the limits of human language.

But language – spoken and written – is not the only means of human understanding. We also have emotion, the ability to “sense” wholes. The expression of Divine Inspired meaning is thus fully achieved through both language and emotion, both reason and faith.

Since the Bible is Divinely-Inspired, its ultimate Author is God.

I have faith you are wrong.

204) sllim on November 19th, 2009 12.23 am
I learnt EVERYTHING I need to know about apologetics from him (Arix). You will be wise to do the same. Too bad you are foolish.

Would the following qualify as an example? =)

206) Arix @UK on November 19th, 2009 4.17 am
… the Church is in a Catch-22. If it chooses to discipline the priests, some crackpot atheist like Christopher Hitchens will pop up and make some garrulous analogy with the Inquisition and try to prove what a hypocrite the Church was: It preaches mercy and compassion, but not to its own people.

As far as I know, such sex crimes do not warrant the death penalty. Not sure why the Inquisition is brought up (where the penalty is usually death iirc)…

Furthermore, my impression is that the Inquisition is notorious for its overzealousness, so how does allow the full weight of the law to fall onto its priests compare to the Inquisition’s practices?

210 Arix @UK on November 19th, 2009 4.17 am Sheep and Wolves,

The USCCB also released a public statement saying that an excessive focus on this one issue would create an unnecessary obsession with it, and the greater the obsession, the more truth is going to be bent by sensationalists in the media, as it already has, judging from the response of people like you.

Same could have been said about the issue of homosexuality. But that floodgate is allowed to be opened. Actively persued by the Christian Right as a rallying slogan across US.

That’s why when label of hypocrite is often associated with christian.

Ancient Israel ran on a patriarchal system, and a patriarchal system was very controlling of women, so they would not have permitted Lesbian sex by default, i.e. no WSW. God only commands what needs to be commanded; nothing more, nothing less.

So this is no different than the arguement that JayF made.
‘Because its Obviously wrong, just like having to say Jesus is a man’ kind of arguement. Very nice.

186) Arix @UK on November 18th, 2009 10.52 pm Kezu (#175),

I need to clarify a term. When the Church – at least the Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran and High Anglican – talk about the “literal” meaning of the Bible, we don’t mean literal as in surface meaning; we mean literal in the sense of what the author in that particular context wished to convey. So following the “literal” meaning of the Bible does not necessarily mean following it word-by-word, because certain policies were designed for certain eras. But again, policies do not equate attitudes.

You see, now i am having a teeny problem with your overall arguement.

If I may, when it comes to issues say shellfish / or 2 treads.
Bible need to be look at in accordance to context, but not literarly.

But when it comes to homosexuality, this we are to read literarly.

This duplicity is nice in business world. But you see, it errodes credibility.

There was a term for it, isnt it? wat is it it, S+W ?

My oh my. Arix sure is converting me to his Catholic faith.

When shown a documentary, which is widely praised, Arix accuses me of “watching too many conspiracy theory movie”, even though the documentary mostly has the rapist priest speaking from his own mouth. I am nnow sure Arix didn’t watch the documentary. I understand as it exposes the hypocrisy of his faith and his Church and his Pope.

Arix then goes on and say, effectively, that because some – whom he called “atheist crackpots” – “like Christopher Hitchens will pop up and make some garrulous analogy”.

And so, according to Arix, if there is potential for “crackpots” to surface, the Church should not do the decent thing. NEVERMIND THE THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN WHO WERE RAPED AND HAD THEIR LIVES DESTROYED BY THE CHURCH AND ITS PRIESTS!

Wonderful, Arix. Wonderful. You are more concerned about the rapists than their victims. Excellent display of mercy and love.

Arix then says that “an unnecessary obsession with” the crimes of the priests would result in “sensationalists in the media.”

My oh my. Here again, Arix displays his nonchalance about the children who had to go through terror and the horror OF BEING RAPED REGULARLY! Arix is saying, “Pls don’t be obsessed just because some children were raped by priests”!!

You know what, Arix, I am obsessed. Yes, and I do not apologise for it. Because of people like you who preach mercy and forgiveness and love through one side of your mouth, while displaying hypocrisy and insensitivity through the other.

I think we have enough insight to the mind of “god-fearing” Arix.

Perhaps he fears his god so much that he would, effectively, dismiss even the rape of children.

To Arix, it seems to be: “Protect the church at all cost”.

Sad. Really sad how blind faith can make one so pathetic.

Arix’s philosophy:

If there is potential for the Church to be castigated and if there are going to be potential “sensationalists in the media”, lets keep mum, lets not apologise, lets not bother to tell the complete truth. The priests and the church are more important than the victims of rape, abuse, terror.

Well done, Arix. You really have out-done yourself this time.

210) Kezu on November 19th, 2009 11.18 am
This duplicity is nice in business world…

Not really… unless the ‘deal’ is one off. If you are looking for repeat business, this is certainly not ‘nice’. =)

Frankly, most of the time, this kind of duplicity works only in matters of faith. You see, Faith covers up the duplicity quite nicely.

217) lobo76 on November 19th, 2009 12.16 pm 210) Kezu on November 19th, 2009 11.18 am
This duplicity is nice in business world…

Frankly, most of the time, this kind of duplicity works only in matters of faith. You see, Faith covers up the duplicity quite nicely.

Ah, couldnt agree more. Usually its the tactic of ‘Fly by Night business’.
Wonder if we can apply this tactic in faith?

S+W,

What Arix is aptly shown is ‘The End Justify the Means’.
Human lives and suffering dont matter in the process.

I begged the question, is church attitude to human life so blaise?

Lobo #211,

Very few utterances from Arix wouldn’t qualify as apologetics :) I have a library of his material as homage. I set it to scroll automatically, shut my eyes and spit, and without fail it hits an apologetic.

Kezu,

I am so glad you used “duplicity” on Arix. I was once there on that very spot on the road to Damascus, I used the very same term. Now I realise I was totally wrong. So will you.

219) sllim on November 19th, 2009 12.37 pm Lobo #211,

I am so glad you used “duplicity” on Arix. I was once there on that very spot on the road to Damascus, I used the very same term. Now I realise I was totally wrong. So will you.

Hahaha slim.

You see, duplicity is like the ‘Act of Cheating’ (meaning not implied)
Some wise woman once said ‘The act of cheating is defined ONLY by the act of getting caught’

Very effective strategy dont you think, and can be applied to almost everything.

Then again, if that doesnt work,
Persuade, cajole, convince, badger and torture the masses to see your point of view. Again, to qoute another wise woman ‘General Perception is the Reality’.

This strategy always work, cause who’s to say their reality need to include other people?’

LoL

There appears to be a presumption that same sex action is sinful by the majority of Christinas such as NCCS rather than a conclusion from the bible. We read the bible to cherry pick verses to support of our preconceived arguments and then say it is “blibical”. This is particularly risky when the bible is a narrative of long ago historical events rather than a list of prescriptive do and don’ts directly from God to us in the 20th century. The bible may/does not speak by itself.

Traditionally, there has been a strong focus on sin and the Law especially when it relates to others. A majority of Christians have strong views against Homosexuality because they deemed it to be a sin against the Mosaic law (Lev 18:22) even when we do not follow these archaic laws such as not eating unclean foods (Lev 11:4) nor do we apply the correct context of idol worship of fertility gods where straight men had sex with both man and women as part of their worship of these gods. The core of these laws, the Ten Commandments (Exo 20:3-7) also fail to mention Homosexuality contrary to our preoccupation because these laws talk about idol worship and not same sex orientation which we have spin it to be. We have often misuse the bible to impose our own definition of sin or interpret out of the context to suit our agenda. The harm caused by conservative Christians in the name of religion has been so great and against the Golden rule (Mat 12:30-31) that some have redefined sin as an action that causes harm to ourselves, to others, or to creation. There is a call to live a life with humility understanding that we are sinners, one way or another. These should set the boundaries of our faith walk lest we err in our interpretation of the bible of God’s will.

if we had been wrong on saying same sex relationships is OK, we are guilty of giving too much love, grace and compassion. Let us be judged thus for we are only a very small minority opinion coming against the very vast majority of Christians. If we had been wrong on saying same sex relationships by itself is sin, and insists that gays should be put in prison, and same sex marriage banned, then ‘God save us”, for do not think that we or you could easily escape from judgement,

Judging by the responses by conservative Christians against Rev Dr Yap and FCC Singapore, may God have mercy on us. I wish them best of God’s grace in this very long and lonely journey being pelted by stones on all sides – to have faith and to remain steadfast in the bringing God’s Word of Grace to the GLBT population. Of course, their message is not heard also in the GLBT community, so vary of the persecution, hate and hypocrisy shown by Christians in the name of Christ, who will stay afar of from any church, even one that says they are inclusive and do not judge them by their sexual orientation.

Des

I am glad there are voices of reason from the conservatives, instead of the usual bible thumping hate mongering that was almost too common these day.

Des

In your hidden post, you mentioned the sin of homosexuality is true because of its mention in OT and re-stated in NT. Thus making it irefutable.

In the Book of Proverbs, it is stated that “the Lord” specifically regards “six things the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth.” namely[2]:

Haughty eyes
A lying tongue
Hands that shed innocent blood
A heart that devises wicked plots
Feet that are swift to run into mischief
A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
Him that soweth discord among brethren

This give rise to the 7 deadly sins that we have today.

In almost every list Pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris, is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and indeed the ultimate source from which the others arise

Bear in mind that many of lessons of Jesus Gospel is pertaining to this, (where not even his own disciples are spared from).

My question is this, why is it we are so quick to condemn and advocate persecution of ‘Sin of Homosexuality’ instead of Pride?

Could it be, if and when the Church does go after the sinner of Pride, the stone throwers will find equal or more stones aimed back at themselves?

In the face of this, how can we still continue to allow discriminations and intolerance to continue?

The rift between Conservatives and Liberals has been widening for sometimes.
What is sad is that the stand on homosexuality is not even the real issue that cause the divide.

I do hope christianity has learn to resolve this issue this time round with compassion instead of with blood.

Step off the religious high-horse. Here’s one article that situates the present culture wars within America where religious fundamentalists export their agendas to other cultures to implicate them into their ideological war. Who pays the price?

Executive Summary:
http://www.publiceye.org/ark/africa-report/pdf/full-executive-summery.pdf

Research Paper:
http://www.publiceye.org/ark/africa-report/pdf/africa-full-report.pdf

Abstract: Sexual minorities in Africa have become collateral damage to our domestic conflicts and culture wars as U.S. conservative evangelicals and those opposing gay pastors and bishops within mainline Protestant denominations woo Africans in their American fight, a groundbreaking investigation by Political Research Associates (PRA) discovered.

Dear Kezu,

You said:

“In your hidden post, you mentioned the sin of homosexuality is true because of its mention in OT and re-stated in NT. Thus making it irefutable.”

Ah – perhaps I need to make it a bit clearer. The Levitical prohibition on same-sex sexual behaviour is taken over into the New Testament both explicitly and implicitly.

Explicitly, homosexual sex is described by Paul as a vice of the Gentiles (Romans 1), a breaking of the Jewish law (1 Timothy 1) and a sin that will keep you from inheriting the future Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6). The word used is ‘arsenokoites’ – a word that essentially means ‘men who take men to bed’, that Paul made up as a direct transliteration of the Leviticus 18 prohibition. It is a blanket prohibition on all same-sex sexual activity, and not specific acts as detailed by other, more specific Greek words. For lesbianism, see Romans 1.

Implicitly, it is carried over into the New Testament as part of a category of sins described as ’sexual immorality’ (porniea in Greek), which was a word that 1st Century Jews used to describe the catalogue of sexual sins in Leviticus 18 (adultery, incest, same-sex sex, and bestiality), as well as general sex outside marriage. Sometimes they are expanded on (as in 1 Corinthians 5-6) and sometimes the one word stands for all. Both Jesus and Paul denounced sexual immorality.

This is why I believe that it is irrefutable. It is not a ‘blind faith’ thing at all. I think that the evidence is overwhelming. Even nonChristian Lesbian and Gay scholars will agree that the New Testament gives blanket prohibitions. That is why liberal theology is simply wrong on this issue. Robert Gagnon is the expert on this – check him out online.

As for the issue of women and slavery, they are bad analogies. Women and slaves were treated as spiritual equals with men in Christ in the New Testament (the issue of roles can be debated) . No-one is commanded to own slaves in the Bible at all, and there appears to be a trajectory towards the liberation of slaves in Paul’s Letters (‘If you can obtain your freedom, do so’, says Paul in 1 Corinthians 7′). There is no such trajectory for same-sex sexual behaviour.

You do raise an excellent point with the issue of Pride. Pride is primarily a spiritual sin, like lust, and greed and anger and the other so-called ‘deadly sins’, which do not always have an outward, physical manifestation, or if it does, it may not always be traced back to Pride. However, as much as I am aware, pride is often tackled from many pulpits, because it is the root of many other sins.

If you take a look at the New Testament, particularly Paul’s Letters, where lists of vices to be shunned are detailed – the most common behavioural sins that are called out are either sexual sins or sins of the tongue, because they directly affect the health and well-being of the Christian Community.

As for why homosexual sex is singled out, rather than say Pride, I would say that no-one is calling for Pride to be re-labeled as ‘good’, and to be celebrated in Church. It is the issue of the day – and may be for some time.

“The rift between Conservatives and Liberals has been widening for sometimes.
What is sad is that the stand on homosexuality is not even the real issue that cause the divide.”

Yes – I completely agree. It saddens me somewhat.

225 Des on November 19th, 2009 6.12 pm

You see, there are others more well verse in refuting that than me.

See Gentle Lamb’s post in #70, and follow the link too. (I did and read every articles there and enlightened)

http://www.psa91.com/clobber3.htm
http://www.psa91.com/clobber56.htm

As for the issue of women and slavery, they are bad analogies. Women and slaves were treated as spiritual equals with men in Christ in the New Testament (the issue of roles can be debated) . . . . . .

You see, I prefer to come to conclusion on someone’s virtue Not based on what they claimed, but by what they did.
A likewise stand I take, when looking at Christianity.

Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he said ‘sorry’ to Jews, Galileo, women, victims of the Inquisition, Muslims slaughtered by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church through the years
Also 100 other apologies to conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church, Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade, Church Hierarchy’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation, injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women and others
Let me rephrase your argument on sin of pride vs homosexuality.

Sin of pride, is spiritual, cannot manifested physically but agreed to be roots of many other sins therefore (harmful)
Solution : tackled from pulpits. (I assume preaching)

Sin of homosexuality : manifested physically, harmful? (even between 2 consenting adult and even Non Christians?)
Solution: need I list down the actions Churches has put in motion locally and globally?

As for why homosexual sex is singled out, rather than say Pride, I would say that no-one is calling for Pride to be re-labeled as ‘good’, and to be celebrated in Church. It is the issue of the day – and may be for some time.

Ah, there you see. After 2000 years of tradition the church has yet to found a solution?
Or the same solution that’s imposed on sin of homosexual perhaps too harsh to be imposed on oneself?

Yes – I completely agree. It saddens me somewhat.

Perhaps the only way to heal this is to be from another Christian?
To me Rev Dr Yap is doing exactly that despite being branded herectic by you.

223) maytaglady on November 19th, 2009 5.00 pm

“Step off the religious high-horse. Here’s one article that situates the present culture wars within America where religious fundamentalists export their agendas to other cultures to implicate them into their ideological war. Who pays the price?”

Well maytaglady, if you will step off your equally impressive steed and condemn the actions of sexual libertarians in the American church for their role in this mess, you can meet me in the middle. I deplore some of the things my side is doing. Can you bring yourself to denounce the other side?

Des

Just one last question in your opinion.

Which is greater, Sin of the Flesh of Sin of the Spirit?

*sigh*

Dear Kezu

Yes – I read Gentle Lamb’s post when it was first posted, and the articles he/she added.

There are several problems:

1 – Romans 1:26-27 is taken by most commentators to be referring to Gentiles – not Jews. Paul is behaving as a typical Jewish rhetorician and denounces the major sins of the non-Jewish world – including same-sex sexual behaviour. He only gets to the Jews and their bad Law-keeping in Chapter 2. There is no way this passage can possibly refer to ’straight men’ being bored with women. Now I suppose straight men can have sex with anything they want to, given the chandce and need, but all of the Old Testament references to Baal-worshipping orgies either make no reference to same-sex sex or are described in heterosexual terms. And the summit point is this: straight men do not ‘burn with lust for one another’ (1:27). To suggest that it is talking about straight men is laughable. There may be many interpretations, but some are good and some are bad. The ‘clobber passage’ one is bad.

2. As for the 1 Corinthians 6:9 passage – it can be shown quite convincingly that ‘malakos’ and ‘arseonkoites’ refer to the active and passive partners in male-male sex from Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, and no amount of crying ‘homophobia’ will make it otherwise.

May I encourage you to check out the following PDF:

http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf

Warning: it’s 112 pages long, but very detailed.

Once again, we are all encouraged to deal with our own sins. As I have said before the only justifiable position of the church to an unrepentant sexual sinner is to show them the door until such a time as they repent (1 Cor. 5). I am well aware of what some churches have done and condemn it too.

Des

I am well aware of what some churches have done and condemn it too.</i?

But is this the best one can do or sufficient enough to stop the intolerance and injustice from a position within?

In response to #225, Des

In the Sept issue 2006 of the Trinitarian by the Trinity Church in Singapore, in the article by Rev Gerald Tan, on exposing the works of the enemy in sensual world, he said that

” Asherah is the female counterpart of Baal. Asherah is a false goddess and the worship of Asherah usually involves an Asherah pole, which has an extremely sexual slant to it. Asherah worshippers were also known as ’sodomists’. In our day, this is known as homosexuality”

One of the greatest weapons of the enemy is to twist the truth and sometimes even in church teachings. The worship of Asherah did exist and was very common. It was a goddess where men would have sex with temple prostitutes and that not being enough, it extreme passion even men would have sex with men. These were straight men who were going against their nature to have sex with men. However, the worship was primarily a sex orgies between men and women. It was the goddess they are worshiping and not a naked male idol and so no gays would likely be involved. Its only straight men who would likely indulged. If we interpret the same manner as the extremist Christians, ie based on the action only, then the sin would be heterosexuality. Instead, the Pastor conveniently compared this to to Homosexuality, which in our day defined as loving and committed relationships betwen men. So something vulgar and sex orgies primarily beween men and women in a hetosexual hedonism in idol worship is blamed upon loving gay couples 4000 years later which has nothing to do with them. The Pastor was correct concerning Asherah and incorrect when comparing this to modern day Homosexuality. He was not careful enough to understand that the works of the enemy is deception, and one can be deceived only by half truths.

The Holman dictionary calls Asherah was the fertility goddess of the Phoenicians and Canaanites. She was called “Lady Asherah of the Sea.” It was a naked woman and not a man. It was straight men was was worshipping this idol just like straight men worshiped and have sex with Aprohdite in the city of Corinth. The female naked idol would naturally not find fancy with gay man. However, even a very quick sanity check of any person of sound mind, would know that Gays are only 5 to 10% of the population, and even if legalized would never be pervasive as spreading to the moral heartlands and so enticing the entire nation to same sex sexual orgies. God did not judge Israel because 5% of the population engage in this idol worship (if at all the Pastor’s sermon was correct). He judged because the entire nation become intertwined into it and not just a few percentage. Calling it as Homosexuality and blamming gays is an obvious distortion of the facts. On the contrary, if it were straight men, we could easily have understood the meaning by observing Geylang where prostitutes will lined her streets. The symptom of religious extreminism is that we seldom see our own sins, and use the weak and defenceless and those who can’t answer back as scapegoats. Because the real issue are too challenging to resolve and we rather believe in a half truth.

Sheep in wolves clothing

It is an amazing thing to observe how Christians and Catholics, such as Arix here, have no hesitation in condemning others for what they perceive as moral deviancies, while at the same time ignore, dismiss and even ridicule others who point out the crimes of the Church.

History has proved that the Church, despite its good works, is in no moral position to dictate morality. We can cite the Dark Ages, or the Church’s attitude towards Jews in the Second World War. But we shall not.

We shall only cite the most recent atrocities committed by the Catholic Church and its priests, it’s bishops and its archbishops.

Yet when we, observe how Catholics like Arix first dismiss these, then ridicule these, and most important of all, ignore totally and not even mentioning or displaying any contrition for the suffering the many victims endured and carry with them even until today.

Arix has made no mention at all about the victims. In fact, he seem dismissive of them and their suffering. Arix is afraid that if the “truth” comes out, “sensationalists in the media” would have a field day.

In short, Arix’s concern is about the Church’s image.

Arix is more concerned about PR.

Yet, Arix takes it upon himself to condemn a whole group of people – namely, homosexual people. And he does so quoting chapter and verse of his Bible.

Why does Arix not quote chapter and verse of the same Bible to his church which condoned the abuse of so many many children?

It is such blatant hypocrisy, which Arix has clearly displayed, which makes me want to puke each time I see and hear someone like Arix suits himself up and takes the moral high ground.

It makes me puke.

Lobo76 (#208),

Neither do I, but the Inquisition tends to be the standard by which Atheists judge the Church. I am not an Atheist, so why don’t you ask them?

Kezu (#209),

Sorry, please clarify what you mean here.

Kezu (#210),

I will fairly admit that the Church is partially responsible for itself being misunderstood. Catholics – and the rest who broke off from Catholicism some time in history – explain their doctrine using Hellenistic forms that are not understood by people today, except the very few who study Greek Classics. So whenever the Church makes use of a term, we must stop and pause to see if the Hellenistic approach to that term is similar to our modern approach. Which, of course, the Atheists are not doing.

In this case, the Church – and most of the orthodox Protestant denominations – distinguishes between the “literalist” meaning and the “literal” meaning of the Bible. Sometimes, both coincide; many times they do not. The “literalist” diverges from the “literal”.

In the case of shellfish and clothing, as I explained, the “literal” intention is to give the Jews a distinct identity; at the time of Moses Jewish culture was not sufficiently advanced to understand the distinction of identity philosophically. But in Jesus’ time, the influence of the Romans and the Greeks and Persians before them, as well as the maturation of Jewish society itself, would enable people to at least be able to do bare-bones philosophy. These practices were reflective of a deeper purpose, and as long as the deeper purpose is maintained, the details of the practices can be adjusted for each age and culture.

In the case of homosexuality, the “literal” intention is to condemn homosexuality as a deviation from the moral ideal, and thus homosexual acts as immoral actions. It is already expressing the deep purpose itself, and therefore brooks no attempt at change. (How the Church should seek to reconcile homosexuals is another matter altogether.) The “literalist” coincides with the “literal” because homosexuality is an abstract concept.

I am not being duplicitous; I am being consistent and honest. This is the standard principle of Biblical Exegesis, applied consistently to all parts of the Bible.

Arix says: “I am not being duplicitous; I am being consistent and honest.”

Do that with regards to the abuse and rape committed by your priests and church and we may believe you.

Sheep and Wolves (#211),

2) Sure, the Documentary is widely-praised, by whom and for what? I could praise it – as I think I would – for good graphics and plotline, and excellent engagement with the subject. But that doesn’t mean I have to consent that the documentary is fully 100% factual.

4) “thousands” is an estimation. Nobody has actually proven a concrete figure. All the people quoted in the documentary claim to “I agree that there will be more …” or “I am sure that there are …” or “certainly there must be” but none of these are empirically credible statements. Perhaps I didn’t watch your exact documentary, but I watched a similar one on the BBC.

5-7) You are fitting words into my mouth. Neither I nor the Pope endorsed any of the child molesters, and the Church did hand many over to the local police, contrary to what some leading Atheist “thinkers” claim.

I do not support the rapists or the molesters (and most were just molesters actually) who were priests, or who were Church officials, and certainly I concur that a harsher line should have been taken by the Vatican.

Conversely, one must also see it from the Vatican’s viewpoint. Firstly, there is a worldwide shortage of priests; if the Vatican were to de-frock all the clergy who participated in the scandal, it would stretch the shortage of priests even further, and although Atheists might hail it as their victory, the Papacy obviously thinks otherwise.

Secondly, a one-hour or two-hour documentary does not interview everybody. The way such documentaries paint the scandal is as if every single priest and every single bishop is involved in child abuse, which is clearly sensationalist, and is only becoming acceptable because of the decline in people’s respect for the Church. It is as one bishop said, “It doesn’t matter how many hospitals the Church builds in Mongolia or how many schools the Church sets up in Brazil. The moment a single priest molests a single child, the Church is suddenly the Big Satan, and all its contributions to human welfare are forgotten in a blink of an eye.

My – and the Pope’s Message is: “Yes, demand that Justice be done, but do not let the sins of a few cast a shadow of the good done by many.”

That’s very different from the allegation of “cover-up” conspiracy you are alleging.

As an addendum to the previous post:

If a physics teacher took drugs, molested his students, smoked and took porn videos during lesson time, does that mean that his students should ignore everything he teaches them about physics?

Some food for thought.

The more Arix speaks, the more hypocrisy comes out from him. I would now add two words to the word hypocrisy – unbelievable and shocking. Unbelievable hypocrisy. Shocking hypocrisy.

Arix says: “I do not support the rapists or the molesters (and most were just molesters actually) who were priests…”

The key word here is: “just”.

“Just molesters”, Arix says. Just.

Shocking, especially when it comes from a self-procliaimed “god-fearing Catholic”.

Obviously, Arix has no clue about how it feels to be molested. But of course, he pretends to know.

The Arix goes on and say the documentary is just a one-hour or two-hour documentary. Perhaps Arix needs a 10-hour documentary? Amazing how blind faith makes one really truly blind.

Arix says he perhaps didn’t watch the documentary. How does one “perhaps didn’t watch the documentary”??? You either did or did not. Then Arix goes on, presuming that he did not watch the documentary, to dismiss the people quoted in the documentary!

Amazing. Laughably amazing.

He did not watch the documentary. But he dismissed the people quoted in the documentary.

And why does Arix not watch the documentary? Only his god knows. I am sure if it was a documentary portraying homosexuals negatively, Arix would be lapping it up, even quoting from it, defending it.

Arix then defends his church and his pope: “…the Church did hand many over to the local police.”

Does Arix provide any proof? No. It’s his words. Only. But the important question is: How many is “many”?

And then Arix makes the most vile of the vilest remarks:

“there is a worldwide shortage of priests; if the Vatican were to de-frock all the clergy who participated in the scandal, it would stretch the shortage of priests even further”

I am speechless. Totally speechless.

Arix is saying his church will keep these rapist priests because of shortages of priests which his church is facing.

This is why Arix’s hypocrisy makes me puke.

As an addendum to the previous post:

If a priest forces a child of 5 or 6 or 7-years old to perform oral sex on him, molested the child, forced the child to have sex with him during cathechism time, all the time telling the child that this is love, does that mean that the child should ignore everything he teaches them about love?

Absolutely.

Some food for thought.

And so, we can be clear that:

1. Arix did not watch the documentary but condemns it anyway.

2. Arix is more concerned about his church’s public image than the victims who suffered at the hands of his priests.

3. Arix is more concerned about the shortages of priests in his church than the lifetime sufferings inflicted in the victims by the priests.

ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING.

Arix

Kezu (#209),
Sorry, please clarify what you mean here.

not sure which post is this. please drop a specific line next time.
The current #209 is my reply to sllim.

I will fairly admit that the Church is partially responsible for itself being misunderstood. Catholics – and the rest who broke off from Catholicism some time in history – explain their doctrine using Hellenistic forms that are not understood by people today, except the very few who study Greek Classics. So whenever the Church makes use of a term, we must stop and pause to see if the Hellenistic approach to that term is similar to our modern approach. Which, of course, the Atheists are not doing.

You see, that where a lot of people has bones to pick with you and your Bible.
The bible you are quoting from now are in English (which i presume the language you too are using)
If there were concerns of ‘Lost in Translation’ from Hellenistic, then safeguards and precautions should have been put in place? You mean even after 2000 years, nobody thought of such thing?

The issue is not about should or not, its all about whether there’s any Need or not?

But now that translated version from Hellenistic to English (may not be fully accurate reflection of exact meaning as indicated by you) is now being translated further to … how many languages now? *lost count*

And you say what Altheists are not doing?
I would say most of Bible thumping readers are also not doing too!.
How many are taking up Hebrew/Ancient Greeks just to pore through the scrolls in Vatican to gain the actual meaning of scriptures that made up the Bible now?

What most of them do is just regurgitate what being preached from the pulpit every Sunday. Coming from the same English bible that you and I are reading
(which you indicated may not translated accurately from Hellenistic language)

If you ask most of them, they probably think the Bible dropped from heaven and came straight from God in English.

Your post is so lengthy, i need to split up the reply.

Are you sure you are not adopting one of my favorite strategies?
‘If you cannot convince, confuse them’ .

233) Arix (@UK) on November 19th, 2009 11.53 pm

In the case of shellfish and clothing, as I explained, the “literal” intention is to give the Jews a distinct identity; at the time of Moses Jewish culture was not sufficiently advanced to understand the distinction of identity philosophically. But in Jesus’ time, the influence of the Romans and the Greeks and Persians before them, as well as the maturation of Jewish society itself, would enable people to at least be able to do bare-bones philosophy. These practices were reflective of a deeper purpose, and as long as the deeper purpose is maintained, the details of the practices can be adjusted for each age and culture.

Arix, i must admit i am impressed. Philosophers the likes of Plato, Socrates and many, many others are unable to impart bare-bones philosophy to the Romans?
Who in turn established Christianity as state religion for 150 years?

Honestly I can believe the true meaning of the Bible is not wrong,
But i cannot accept that there are no errors/misinterpretation/inaccuracy when written down by human hands across different languages that not many can still read let alone master.

Despite all the modern discovery and so on, the bible has yet to be revised, has it now?
(if so i did not remember reading about non-pancake earth and heliocentrism?)
Has it’s contradicting verses in the Bible been updated? or more important question is will it?

Perhaps only then can we Truly talk about shellfish and 2 treads, and it’s deeper purposes.

Kezu (#237),

Look carefully at your quote again. You are totally off-tangent.

What I meant is Moses lived 1000 years before Plato and Socrates and Aristotle, and Jewish Society – with the Ten Commandments and Leviticus – were founded at that time, when as illiterate slaves coming out of Egypt, they had no knowledge whatsoever of any form of philosophical understanding. So the Shellfish and the Two threads are substitutes for the philosophy they embody.

But by the time of Jesus, all these philosophies, plus those of the Greek, Roman and Persian empires, had influenced the Jews, so they had new material they could use which they did not have previously 1000 years ago. Thus, Christ and Paul appeal to this better sense of philosophy and moral understanding; thus the Shellfish and the Two Threads are no longer necessary.

You somehow read exactly the opposite meaning!

Kezu (#236),

1) “”"Same could have been said about the issue of homosexuality. But that floodgate is allowed to be opened. Actively persued by the Christian Right as a rallying slogan across US.”"” Please clarify “floodgate”.

2) That quote is not talking about the Bible; it is talking about the doctrinal definitions that Christians teach based of from Scripture and Tradition. For instance, those found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is, not the text of the Bible that is in Hellenistic Terms, but the explanations of the Text formulated at the Church Councils that are in Hellenistic Terms.

4) The actual issue is that these definitions – not biblical verses – were trans-literated, not translated.

5) I agree, with an addition: Neither are the all-embracing Liberals like Rev Yap doing so.

8) No, I am not. If you feel confused, read through again. If you still feel confused, ask me to clarify.

Sheep and Wolves (#233),

If you continue like this, I will report you to the editor for hurling emotional invective at me that does not add to the discussion. For the moment, I will be polite to you.

3) It is objective quantitatively. In terms of psychological impact, molesters are less severe than rapists. You can of course, provide me evidence to prove the converse. I am not off that.

Morally, I am not endorsing Molesters any more than I am endorsing Rapists.

7) Even a 10-hour documentary would be insufficient. I wonder how long it takes to interview 1 billion people (the population of the Global Church)?

8) In case you didn’t notice, I mentioned that I have watched a documentary on BBC about this issue. I didn’t go to the link you posted, so I am unsure if the documentary I watched is the same as the documentary I linked to.

Plus, do not make false accusations. I did not dismiss any of the people quoted in the documentary. I am sure that they are not telling any lies whatsoever, and expressing sincere heartfelt opinions. But then they are not statisticians so they have no idea what the actual numbers are.

9) Now you are being a hypocrite! Who do you think you are to presume to know what I would do in response to such a documentary? FYI, what you say of me constitutes an unqualified personal insult, and you should apologize immediately.

10) Well, you can go and check on the USCCB website.

11-) I am just trying to show you the Church’s Catch-22. In fact, your entire post exemplifies perfectly my point that Atheists will pick on anything to attack the Church with, without bothering to empathise with the Church.

So I guess, at the end of the day, you are still the real hypocrite.

Dear Kezu

Sins of the spirit are clearly the most important – but we do not neglect those while also dealing with the sins of the flesh.

Gentle Lamb (#230)

You misunderstand my point.

I am well aware what happened in the case of Baal and Asherah worship during Old Testament times, and the Aphrodite worship that was part of Corinthian life in the time of Paul.

My point was that you cannot derive that from the Romans 1 text.

The Romans 1 text is Paul’s description, as a Christian Jew who has the both the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus as his background, describing the world’s fall into idolatry and sin as a result of the general rejection by mankind of God as God. As a result of this, God gives mankind over to his desires, and so the world is full of those who sin in body (1:24-26) and mind (1:28-31).

And the key word is desires. A desire is something that is already there inside. It is not necessarily chosen by the person. In this case, we learn that men, burning with lust for other men, abandon ‘natural’ relations with women and commit indecent acts with one another.

As I said to Kezu in my summary of that argument – straight men do not ‘burn with lust for one another’. To make the passage say that is distorting it beyond recognition. You may as well say that ‘down’ is ‘up’. Straight men may have sex with men – I grant you that not only is that possible, but it has been done historically and currently, as we both agree on, but they do not do so out of ‘lust for one another’. Something else is clearly going on here. The passage describes men (and women) who want to have sex with one another because they feel like it and are attracted to one another. ‘Burning with lust’ may be strong language, but it essentially describes those who have same-sex sexual desires, which now take over, even with the clear background of the two-sex division of humanity that is God’s intention for sex (which is the issue of ‘natural’ – the God-ordained purpose which bodies are for, not what people ‘feel like doing’).

Paul’s concern is not that every man is doing this – but that it even exists. Yes, I know that gays are only a small proportion of society, but that is not the point. Look at the list of sins in Romans 1:28-31 – the point is not that all of humanity is doing them all the time, but that they are there at all. It is a consequence of a world that has rejected God. It is a consequence of the Fall.

Of course, Paul goes on to describe how the Jews break the Law (chapter 2) and how the whole of humanity is under sin (chapter 3:1-20) before bringing in the good news of righteousness by faith in Christ (3:21-4:25). Yes, we all, homosexual and heterosexual are saved by faith in Christ, but this must be accompanied by identifying with Christ (Romans 6) and putting actual sins to death by the Spirit (Romans 8) for the ultimate attainment of eternal life. Eternal life is both now and not yet, and we are preserved in faith by the Gospel as we both believe its promises and heed its warnings.

Gentle Lamb – I am guessing that by your name you identify as a Christian. I do not want to take that away from you, but one simply cannot twist the scriptures like this. It is a very strained interpretation, and should be recognised as such. It seems that it is an attempt to get away from the obvious conclusion – that Paul condemns same-sex sexual behaviour as being part of man’s fall away from God and his purposes. He also makes the point, ignored by many Evangelicals, that it is not entirely chosen – that same-sex desires are pre-existing before it is acted on in conscious choice. I can understand those who simply ignore the passage out of rejection of God and Christianity, but we Christians are called to be better than that, right?

In fact, your entire post exemplifies perfectly my point that Atheists will pick on anything to attack the Church with, without bothering to empathise with the Church.

People like Arix will pick on anything to attack homosexuality, while remaining hypocritical on what in the Bible should be followed or not.

When asked about things that are equally condemned by the Bible as homosexuality, such as shellfish or divorce, they start to give excuses. How convenient, interpreting the book as it long as the interpretation suits their convenience and agendas.

When asked about molest and rape of young children, it seems like Arix is more concerned about outlawing consensual loving relationships between men. I mean, it’s just molest, but gay sex between two consenting adults? NO WAY!

In fact, your entire post exemplifies perfectly my point that Atheists will pick on anything to attack the Church with, without bothering to empathise with the Church.

People like Arix will pick on anything to attack homosexuality, while remaining hypocritical on what in the Bible should be followed or not.

When asked about things that are equally condemned by the Bible as homosexuality, such as shellfish or divorce, they start to give excuses. How convenient, interpreting the book as it long as the interpretation suits their convenience and agendas.

When asked about molest and rape of young children, it seems like Arix is more concerned about outlawing consensual loving relationships between men. I mean, it’s just molest, but gay sex between two consenting adults? NO WAY!