West Oz's Bear Club
AU/NZ CyBear Club
The place for bear data
Oz.Org IRC chat channel
|
|
Management in One
Quick Messager
Excellent humour
Good font source
XiRCON IRC Client
The official link button
The Gay Christian Debate...
Editor's note: Here is the reply after Gareth replied to the writer... it is quite amazing in it's . Gareth did not reply to this as he felt that there was no point in talking to someone with a closed mind, where as God needs us to have open minds - just to be able to have faith in Him takes an open mind.
Dear Gareth,
I hope you have a copy of your e-mail. I would like to refer in a very brief way to some of the passages of your text. Let the Holy Scripture give the answer for them.
You are inviting me to "continue the discussion if you are prepared to discuss with an open heart" and then you state "I have forwarded a copy to my solicitors". Is this precisely what "Christians" should do? (1Cor 5.1-6).
Editors note: this was done as it was pointed out to Gareth that the comments coming from Australia were defamatory. He never actually sent them to the solicitors, it was interesting to see the response that the idea got! As we knew would happen, scripture was quoted in response...
> I don’t think that anyone who knows me in Kalgoorlie could ever state that I have shown the slightest sign of demon-possession…<
-Well, I did not expect to see you walking around Kalgoorlie as a savage with saliva coming out of your mouth. In many places the Bible describes the devil as a very smart, intelligent, gentle but cunning creature that often comes in a skin of a ship. And these are the most dangerous.
> No one who is possessed by a demon can say "Jesus is Lord…"<
-"You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble." (James 2.19).
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’" (Matthew 7.21-23).
> …some churches … ask me time and again to minister at their services…
– this is amazing. <Writer's husband> sensed that straight away that Adrian must have been under the influence of a religious minister…
> Thank you for not quoting from Leviticus and using the words of the now-defunct Law<
– "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5.17-18).
> Paul also wrote very strongly against marriage...<
Where abouts? Maybe in 1Cor 7.1-11; or Ephesians 5.21-33; or Col 3.18-21. In the last two places St Paul speaks about the life of a Christian family. You don’t like that sort of "indoctrination … happy families with mother, father and 2.4 children", no. I wonder whether St Paul meant what he meant or we should ask those who more than 1900 years later dare to say what he really meant and what he did not mean. It must be quite inconvenient text for you…
How about our Lord whom you so boastfully profess. In Matthew 19.1-12 He speaks about sacredness of marriage. He refers to the book of Genesis (‘now-defunct law’): "Have you not read that from the beginning the creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
Jesus honoured a young couple’s wedding at Cana in Galilee with His presence (Jn 2.1n)
You despise that sort of "indoctrination" and then you say "I will live for HIM", "I gave my life to Christ". Am I missing something…? Just in case I include the Greek version of verse 5
‘Eneka toutu kataleiyei anq rwpoV tov patera kai mhtera kai kollhq hsetai th gunaiki autou, kai esontai oi duo eiV sarka mian.’
This is from ‘The Greek New Testament’ Edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren. No matter what translation you apply, anq rwpoV (anthropos) means (acc. To the Greek-English dictionary) man, human being, husband, son, in pl. people, mankind, humanity. And ginh, (gine) means woman, wife.
> The term" homosexuals" in Paul’s letters refers to homosexual offenders - or male prostitutes…
That is a very handy interpretation, is it not? I suppose, we should say that Paul did not mean what he meant and you know better what he really meant. St Paul uses two significant words in 1Cor 6.9: malakoi (malakoi) which means soft, fancy, homosexual perverts; and arsenokoitai - (arsenokoitai) male sexual perverts.
> His (Jesus’) attitude was of love and acceptance…<T
That is almost true - with one "small" exception you managed to skip over. Jesus accepted a person but did not accept his/her sins. Whenever sinners came to Jesus, he accepted them, offered redeeming forgiveness but gave some conditions: "As for you, your sins are forgiven" (Lk 5.20). "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more." (John 8.11). "Look, you are well; do not sin any more, so that nothing worse may happen to you." (J 5.14) Others, like Zacchaeus the Tax Collector, after Jesus’ visit in their homes decided to change entirely their lives (Lk 19.1-10).
> I…suffered the pain…<
Well, I do feel sorry for you. In a way. I will not develop on this since you will read that as offensive. (Communist also claimed that they suffered persecution and they have their own martyrs… Even Hitler felt rejected and not understood in last days before he took his life. (No personal reference, God forbid!)).
> … as a gay man, I have been used mightily by God…<
Yes, I read about many others who used to even name themselves as God’s messengers and in the name of God did terrible things, spreading around spiritual destruction and confusion. Only after some time and many human sacrifices, people realised that it was not the case.
>My ministry is based on Ezekiel 34…
I thought that this was "now-defunct"… we were not supposed to "pick and mix". If Leviticus is "now-defunct" why is Ezekiel actual?
>…to be a good shepherd, to seek the lost…".
According to you I am "un-Christian", lost (?) Lets take her to the lawyer… ha?
> This is especially true of many women who could talk to me knowing I was "safe" and not likely to try anything.
- This is a very interesting concept…
> If you walk down the Hannans St with Stan… you are proclaiming to the world "I am a heterosexual woman…
If this is the way you look on all families walking on streets it does not surprise me the way you are interpreting the Bible. As you probably noticed we do not dress using models of male or female genitals, breasts, clothes of other people vocations or professions like nuns, priests, the pope, etc). And what do you want to "demonstrate" by doing this?
>… and this is what I have produced.
You are lucky that your father was not a gay or mother lesbian. Otherwise you would not exist. There would be no one to "produce" you. Nobody invented and never will a production line to make babies. Whether you like it or not God decided that human life begins in "intima comunitatis vitae et amoris coniugalis" via common love of a husband and a wife. And you will never change that. On the other hand - just take hypothetical assumption: what if 100% of population decided to be either gays or lesbians. Where would we end up? Does not God tell us something by the simple fact that in the world there are always more or less the same number of girls and boys born. Never had been a proportion like 90% to 10 %…
>Created by a loving God in His image. Their crime? Being different.
Those who represent sexual inclinations towards children or animals can also claim that they are different. There is nothing explicit in the Bible against them apart from Jesus’ warning not to scandalise "one of these little ones who believe in me" (Lk 10.1-2; Mk 9.42; Mt 18.6). And even this we can easily explain that Jesus’ surely meant something else… They are different but with the difference they imposed on themselves, not God. Can paedophiles or zoophiles claim that they are created in God’s image? If not, why not?
>Gays such as: …", "…myriad…", "…thousands…", "…and many, many more…
And what does it prove? Please do not exaggerate with gays contribution to the mankind. That is a very boring preacher’s trick, using distorted statistics, to overwhelm the audience and to quickly and cheaply "prove" the point. I would be very careful in using numbers. As you well know, Hitler, Stalin, some religious maniacs in North America also had many followers and "true believers". Among them - great musicians, developers, doctors, authors, nurses, scientists, etc. Did not London suffer from V1 or V2 that were invented by the Nazi scientists?
>… their achievements, accomplishments and the benefits…
You forgot to add that many - if not majority of them died because of AIDS…
>Alan Turing…<
I know many other "fathers" of modern computing like Dr. Atanasoff, and they were not gays…
>She (your mother) may not fully understand my sexuality, but as a mother she loves me…
What do you know about mother’s or father’s natural feelings? Will you be able to be in her or your father’s shoes and go through what they were or are going through presently?
>You will knock…
This was my loose quotation from Mt 25.1-13 - "while they (foolish virgins) went off to buy it (oil), the bridegroom came and those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him. Then the door was locked. Afterwards the other virgins came and said, ‘Lord, Lord open the door for us!’". I just used my imagination that those foolish virgins must have knocked on the door in order to get in. The door was not opened and they did not get in. I did not distort the meaning of this passage. My "verse" is totally agreeable with the whole context, is it not? Sorry for the inconvenience…
>…Revelation 22.18 – where God states that anyone who adds to his word will have all the plagues added to him.
Well, I will answer to this with the following verse of 22.19: "… and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book."
That is it. Somebody said that evil prevails when good men do nothing. I think I did my bit not to make this proverb true. I did it because of Adrian whom I "knew"… and who once offered me a very nice book about marriage - heterosexual of course… I just could not hide my disappointment. I could not believe that he changed his views so drastically. That is all.
In your e-mail you enumerate what God has done for you: "God has brought people to me…", "…God uses me…". Following that reasoning lets say that God "arranged" so I sent my e-mail to you. At the end I discovered your homepage by pure chance. And if we believe in God’s providence – there are no pure or blind chances. There is always a reason for something. How about that – instead of sending my e-mail to your lawyers or advisers - can you look at it as on God’s message to you and contemplate on it?
Otherwise I would not see any sense in continuing this "discussion" since you are using the Bible in a way so it justifies your style of life. In such a case, please, do not send any of your replies. They will be trashed without reading as soon as they arrive. I am afraid that the Bible was not written for that purpose you are using it. Old Romans used to name this: apologia pro vitae sue. That is what you are doing. Should not it be vice-versa?
With due respect and prayer,
<Name Witheld>
©
Copyright 2000 Adrian Gould, All rights reserved. All copyrights acknowledged
to their respective owners. Please contact author for permission to use
content.